Language Issues

Volume 25 Number 1 Summer 2014

Contents
3 Editorial Voices from the classroom
Jo-Ann Delaney and Sally Bird 44 Cultural differences in the language classroom
Lesya N. Bobkova
NATECLA Conference Keynote
47 Twenty students, one classroom: formulating learning
4 Developing classroom interactional competence
objectives and strategies for students with diverse
Professor Steve Walsh
language learning needs
Peer reviewed articles Katya Kitchingman
9 Making observation feedback effective Research tasters
Sarah Boodt
54 In the shadows of language: a process of othering
16 ESOL for social justice? The opportunities and limitations
Kirandeep Kaur
within mainstream provision
57 Ears to authentic materials using authentic listening
Jill Court
materials in the classroom
23 The volunteer ethos and utopian impulse in the
Jennifer Pang
ESOLclassroom
Julia Podziewska Reviews
59 New language, new literacy: teaching literacy to English
Articles
language learners, Jill Sinclair Bell
29 Web-based technologies and beginner ESOL learners:
Reviewed by Allegra Carlton
an exploration of learner and tutor attitudes and
62 Innovations in English language teaching for migrants
experiences
and refugees, edited by David Mallows
Katharine Stapleford
Reviewed by Jo-Ann Delaney
35 Part 1 summary of Own-language use in ELT: exploring global
64 Current developments in English for work and the
practices and attitudes by Graham Hall and Guy Cook
workplace: approaches, curricula and materials,
Naeema Hann
edited by: Mark Krzanowski
Reviewed by Alexander Braddell
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 2

Language Issues is published by NATECLA Advisory Board

National Association for Teaching English and other Elsa Auerbach
Community Languages to Adults University of Massachusetts Boston
www.natecla.org.uk Mike Baynham
http://www.natecla.org.uk/content/483/ University of Leeds
Language-Issues-The-journal-of-NATECLA Ron Carter
University of Nottingham
Jane Arstall Dr Balasubramanyam Chandramohan
NATECLA National Centre University of Bedfordshire
South and City College Birmingham Guy Cook
Hall Green Campus Kings College, London
Cole Bank Road David Crystal
Birmingham b28 8es University of Wales, Bangor
info@natecla.org.uk Pamela Frame
Institute of Education University of London
ISSN 0263-5833 Jennifer Jenkins
University of Southampton
Copyright remains with the author. No fees paid. Braj Kachru
Guidelines for authors can be found at: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
http://www.natecla.org.uk/uploads/media/208/3041.pdf Robert Leach
ESOL consultant
Design and production: Waysgoose, Southampton Maria Isabel Maldonado-Garcia
Institute of Languages, University of the Punjab
Our thanks to MWL for all their work for the
Kimerly Miller
journalprinting - excellent job
Minnesota Advocates for Immersion Network, USA
Barry OSullivan
Advertising
Roehampton University
Cover full page 250 Mario Rinvolucri
Inside full page 200 Pilgrims Language Courses
Inside half page 150 Celia Roberts
Contact Jane Arstall at Kings College, London
info@natecla.org.uk Sheila Rosenberg
Independent ESOL writer/researcher
Editors Philida Schellekens
Jo-Ann Delaney and Sally Bird ESOL Consultant
James Simpson
Editorial Board University of Leeds
Rakesh Bhanot Tove Skutnabb-Kangas
Ann Cowie bo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland
Naeema Hann Helen Sunderland
Alison Schwetlick ESOL Consultant
Arturo Tosi
Royal Holloway, University of London
Mahendra K Verma
University of York
Catherine Wallace
Institute of Education University of London
Bencie Woll
University College London
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 3
Editorial
This edition of Language Issues is the first to reach you in
electronic format. As we outlined in the last editorial, we hope
that the new format will increase the accessibility and reach,
ensuring a growth in our readership and a strong future for the
journal. Limited paper copies will be available at the NATECLA
conference. We hope you will enjoy reading the journal in its
new format.
To whet your appetite for the upcoming conference, our
first piece is a summary of last years keynote speech: E is
for Englishes. In it Professor Steve Walsh highlights the role
of classroom interactional competence (CIC) and how it
creates learning spaces and opportunities in a multilingual
classroom, where it allows a focus on communication rather
thancorrection.
Our peer reviewed articles include a focus on teacher education
for ESOL. Sarah Boodt considers approaches to giving feedback
on ESOL teaching used on the CELTA (Certificate in Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages) course in Making
observation feedback effective. Through an analysis of views on
effective feedback she draws some conclusions that would be
relevant to ESOL teacher educators. For those familiar with the
CELTA course format there are some interesting suggestions
drawn from both trainer and trainee that would help structure
and run teaching practice feedback sessions.
The theme of social justice is raised in the peer reviewed
articles by Jill Court and Julia Podziewska. In ESOL for social
justice?, Jill Court looks at the way mainstream ESOL provision
is organised and funded and questions the extent to which
language classes can actually contribute to social justice for
adult migrants. She argues that the different policy agendas
influencing the content of provision limits the contribution
made to the achievement of true equality.
Julia Podziewska continues the theme by looking at the impact
of voluntary ESOL teachers. In The volunteer ethos and utopian
impulse in the ESOL classroom she provides a comprehensive
overview of the strong historical trend of volunteering in the
ESOL teaching profession. She then situates this tradition
within current debates about the professionalization of
the workforce and draws out some interesting points for
consideration for all ESOL teachers.
Drawing on her experience of teaching Russian to Chinese
learners, Lesya Bobkova discusses the interplay between
language teaching as a transfer of knowledge and skills and the
way in which learners personal and social cultures play a role.
Her experiences will no doubt reflect those of ESOL teachers
working with different nationality groups.
The place for the development of digital literacy with beginner
ESOL students is the theme of Katharine Staplefords article
Web-based technologies and beginner ESOL learners. In it she
challenges the assumption that beginner learners are too
concerned with the development of their language to use
digital tools effectively. The findings of her study suggest that
the use of technology with beginners not only enhances their
language learning but can give them an additional life skill.
Katy Kitchingmans article Twenty students, one classroom is
also a study of classroom practice, this time into the diagnostic
assessment practices she has experienced. She follows two
students through their assessment and the design of learning
outcomes and teaching and learning strategies for them. The
article raises a number of issues about the effectiveness of our
assessment practices, but also illustrates the skilful way that
teachers work with the outcomes of assessment to provide
tailored learning opportunities.
We are very pleased to have the opportunity to publish
extracts from the study undertaken by Graham Hall and Guy
Cook on Own-language use and ELT originally published as a
British Council research paper. In this edition, Naeema Hann
introduces the study, provides a summary of the literature
review, gives us an overview of the methodology and presents
some of the key findings. Part 2 will feature in the next edition,
where Naeema will present the remaining findings and some
of the conclusions. We would like to thank the British Council
and the authors for allowing us to publish extracts from this
interesting review.
In this edition we have started a new section entitled Research
Tasters. In this section we would like to include short pieces
from those engaged in a research project who would like to
introduce the broad themes of their research rather than
detailed findings. For our first research tasters, two authors
have contributed pieces on topics that will feature in our next
edition as full articles. Kirandeep Kaur considers how English
may act as a communication tool but also play a role in social
inequality in his summary In the shadows of language: a process
of othering. Jenny Pang introduces her research into using
authentic listening materials in Ears to authentic materials. We
hope that this new section will encourage those engaged in
research, but perhaps not yet ready to publish, to share their
insights into new themes in the field of ESOL.
We hope you find the new format accessible. We will continue
to work on making the journal as widely available as possible
to individuals and institutions. We would welcome any
feedback you may have on the electronic version through the
NATECLAoffice.
Sally Bird and Jo-Ann Delaney
Co-editors
info@natecla.org.uk
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 n at e c l a c o n f e r e n c e k e y n o t e 4
Developing classroom
interactionalcompetence
Steve Walsh
Professor Steve Walsh, Newcastle University, was the keynote
speaker at the 2013 NATECLA national conference. This
article reflects the content of his speech.
Abstract
In this article, I present an overview of Classroom
Interactional Competence (CIC) (Walsh 2013) and consider
how it can be characterized in different contexts. Classroom
Interactional Competence (CIC) is defined as, Teachers and
learners ability to use interaction as a tool for mediating
and assisting learning (Walsh 2013, p67). It puts interaction
firmly at the centre of teaching and learning and argues
that by improving their CIC, teachers will immediately
improve learning and opportunities for learning. My aim
is to show how teacher development might benefit from an
understanding of CIC and have a positive impact on learn-
ing, especially where learning is regarded as a social activity
which is strongly influenced by involvement, engagement
and participation; where learning is regarded as doing
rather than having (cf Sfard 1999; Larsen-Freeman2010).
Interactional competence
Before considering CIC in some detail, this section considers
some of the work which has been completed on interactional
competence, a term first coined by Kramsch (1986, p370):
I propose () a push for interactional competence to
give our students a truly emancipating, rather than
compensating foreign language education.
Kramschs main argument is that the focus of language
education should be directed towards helping learners to
use their existing skills and knowledge to interact by making
the focus of attention interactional competence. More than
twenty years ago, then, Kramsch was arguing that a focus on
interactional competence would allow teachers to concentrate
more on the ability of learners to communicate intended
meaning and to establish joint understandings. Essentially,
interactional competence is concerned with what goes on
between interactants and how that communication is managed.
More recent studies of interactional competence have looked
at the ways in which learners use a range of resources to
interact proficiently and participate competently in different
L2 encounters. In one of the most comprehensive and
convincing accounts of interactional competence, Kelly Hall et
al (2011) start from the position that learners, rather than being
deficient, have a range of interactional competencies which
need to be described and understood. Other studies have
considered phenomena such as the influence of task-type on
learners use of interactional resources (Mori 2002), features
of participant frameworks between speakers of English and
German (Kasper 2004), and the interactional resources used
by teachers to create learning opportunities (e.g. Hellermann
2008, Koshik, 2002, Walsh 2002).
All of these studies share common perspectives on IC.
For example, they emphasize the fact that interactional
competence is context specific and concerned with the
ways in which interactants construct meanings together.
They acknowledge, for example, that different interactional
resources are needed in a context where the emphasis is on
a transaction, such as ordering a coffee, to those required
to participate in a multi-party conversation. Clearly, in the
first context, a basic knowledge of English will allow you to
order a coffee with minimal interactional competence. In the
second, however, and in most classroom contexts, much more
sophisticated interactional resources will be required if you
are to successfully compete for the floor, gain and pass turns,
attend to what the speaker has said, interrupt, clarify and so
on. We can see, from these two examples, that interactional
competence is highly context specific and related very closely
to speaker intent and to audience.
At the time of writing, important studies are underway
which will contribute to our understanding of interactional
competence, both in an educational setting and in more
everyday contexts. One such project, English Profile, led by
Cambridge University Press, working with a number of partner
institutions (http://www.englishprofile.org ), recognizes that
there is much work to be done in terms of characterizing
interactional competence as the fifth skill (in addition to
speaking, listening, reading and writing). It is almost certain
that the results of this and related research projects will have
enormous implications for language teaching, language testing
and materials design. There is certainly likely to be, at the very
least, a shift in emphasis towards language as interaction, as a
means for communication, rather than an academic discipline.
Interactional competence is very likely to become the main
enterprise of future English language teaching.
Classroom interactional competence
Turning now to a conceptualisation of classroom interactional
competence (CIC), the starting point is to acknowledge
the centrality of interaction to teaching and learning. As in
any institutional setting, the core business (here, learning a
language) is accomplished through interaction; some would
even go as far as to say that the interaction which takes place
IS the learning. CIC focuses on the ways in which teachers
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 n at e c l a c o n f e r e n c e k e y n o t e 5
and learners interactional decisions and subsequent actions
enhance learning and learning opportunity. In the discussion
which follows, I present an initial conceptualisation of CIC
and consider how this might be used to promote teacher
development.
While it is true to say that CIC is highly context specific, not
only to a particular class, but to a specific moment in the
discourse, there are a number of features of CIC which are
common to all contexts. First, teachers may demonstrate CIC
through their ability to use language which is both convergent
to the pedagogic goal of the moment and which is appropriate
to the learners. Language use and pedagogic goals must work
together. This position assumes that pedagogic goals and the
Extract 1
1. T: what was the funniest thing that happened to you at
school (1) Tang?
2. S1: funniest thing?
3. T: the funniest
4. S1: the funniest thing I think out of school was go to
picnic
5. T: go on a picnic? So what happened what made it
funny?
6. S1: go to picnic we made playing or talking with the
teacher more closely because in the school we have a
line you know he the teacher and me the student=
7. T: =so you say there was a gap or a wall between the
teacher and the students so when you=
8. S1: if you go out of the school you went together with
more (gestures closer with hands)=
9. T: =so you had a closer relationship [outside the school]
10. L1: [yeah yeah]
A cursory analysis of this extract reveals, I believe, the extent
to which this teachers pedagogic goals and the language used
to achieve them are aligned, or working together. Essentially,
his comments indicate quite clearly why certain interactional
decisions were taken. For example, in the classroom interaction,
we see evidence of the teacher constantly seeking clarification,
affirming and re-affirming and helping the learner to articulate
a full response (in 5, 7 and 9). Each of these responses is
designed, according to the teacher to get it flowing and to
reinterpret for the benefit of the class. Not only is he helping
the learner to articulate his ideas more clearly, he is helping the
rest of the class to understand what is being said. It is apparent
that not only are his pedagogic goals and the language used to
achieve them at one, but also that this teacher knows why he
has made certain interactive decisions. He is able to articulate
quite clearly the interactive decisions taken with this group of
learners, a key element of CIC.
Turning now to a second feature of CIC, and one which, I
believe, is common to all language teaching contexts, is the
extent to which it facilitates interactional space; learners need
space for learning to participate in the discourse, to contribute
to class conversations and to receive feedback on their
contributions. In short, CIC creates space for learning (Walsh
language used to achieve them are inextricably intertwined
and constantly being re-adjusted (see, Walsh 2003; Seedhouse
2004). Any evidence of CIC must therefore demonstrate that
interlocutors are using discourse which is both appropriate to
specific pedagogic goals and to the agenda of the moment.
To demonstrate this alignment between pedagogic goal and
language use, consider extract 1 below. The data presented
here were collected using a stimulated recall methodology:
essentially, on the left we see the actual classroom interaction
and on the right we have the teachers commentary on his
teaching. The class is of intermediate ability and the students,
all adults, are recalling amusing experiences from their school
days.
Basically hes explaining that on a picnic there wasnt this gap
that there is in a classroom psychological gap thats what
Im drawing out of him. Theres a lot of scaffolding being done
by me in this monitoring, besides it being managerial, theres
a lot of scaffolding because I want to get it flowing, I want
to encourage them, keep it moving as it were. Im clarifying
to the class what hes saying because I know in an extended
turn a broken turn and its not exactly fluent and its not
articulate I try to re-interpret for the benefit of the class so
that theyre all coming with me at the same time and they all
understand the point being made by him
and Li 2012). There are a number of ways in which space for
learning can be maximised. These include increased wait-time,
by resisting the temptation to fill silence (by reducing teacher
echo), by promoting extended learner turns and by allowing
planning time. By affording learners space, they are better
able to contribute to the process of co-constructing meanings
something which lies at the very heart of learning through
interaction.
Creating space for learning may entail a re-thinking of the role
of the teacher so that interaction is more carefully understood,
and so that the teacher plays a more central role in shaping
learner contributions. Shaping involves taking a learner
response and doing something with it rather than simply
accepting it. For example, a response may be paraphrased,
using slightly different vocabulary or grammatical structures; it
may be summarised or extended in some way; a response may
require scaffolding so that learners are assisted in saying what
they really mean; it may be recast (cf Lyster 1999): handed
back to the learner but with some small changes included.
By shaping learner contributions and by helping learners to
really articulate what they mean, teachers are performing a
more central role in the interaction, while, at the same time,
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 n at e c l a c o n f e r e n c e k e y n o t e 6
maintaining a student-centred, decentralised approach to
teaching.
What is evident from the discussion here is that feedback is
one of the most important interactional practices a teacher can
master since it has the greatest potential to influence learning.
The ways in which teachers acknowledge a contribution,
evaluate it and make modifications is a skill which requires
detailed understanding and practice. All too often, when we
look at recordings of teachers, the feedback offered tends to
be evaluative, normally comprising a brief comment such
as thanks, right, excellent, and so on. While this kind of 27 LL: =yes (laughter)
feedback does have its place, more subtle types of shaping
are necessary, I suggest, if we are to really help learners
communicate their intended meaning. Excessive use of
acknowledgement tokens (typically discourse markers such
as right, ok, great, excellent, etc.) may actually close down an
interaction and signal the end of an exchange.
Looking at the notion of shaping in some data now, consider
extract 2 below, in which the teacher is working with a group
of upper-intermediate learners, studying at a private language
school in the UK and preparing to do a listening comprehension
about places of interest. There are a number of features in
the extract which show evidence of CIC, especially this
teachers ability to manage feedback in a more open and more
effectiveway.
Extract 2
1 T: okay, have you have you ever visited any places
outside London?=
2 L1: =me I stay in (.) Portsmouth and er in Bournemouth
3 T: [whereve you been?
4 L1: [in the south
5 T: [down (.) here? (pointing to map)
6 L1: yeah yeah
7 T: why?
8 L1: er my girlfriend live here and (.) I like this student
9 place and all the peoples young and a lot (.) er go
out
10 in the (.) evening its very [good
11 T: [right
12 T: anybody else? (4) Have you been anywhere Tury?
13 L2: Yes I have been in er (.) Edinbourg
((mispronounced)),
14 (())=
15 T: =so here here ((pointing to map))=
16 L2: =yes er Oxford (.) Brighton (.) many places (())=
17 T: =and which was your favourite?=
18 L2: =my favourite is London
19 T: (.) why?
20 L2: because its a big city you can find what what you
[want
20 L2: because its a big city you can find what what you
[want
21 T:
[mmhh
22 L2: and do you can go to the theatres (1) its a very (.)
23 cosmopolitan [city
24 L: [yes
25 L2: I like it very much=
26 T: =do you all (.) agree=
28 T: ((3)) laughter)
29 T: has anybody else been to another place outside
London?
30 L: no not outside inside
31 T: (.)mm? Martin? Anywhere?
32 L3: =no nowhere=
33 T: =would you like to go (.) [anywhere?
34 L3: [yes yes
35 T: [where?
36 L3: well Portsmouth I think its very (.) great=
37 T: =((laughter)) cos of the students [yes (.) yes
38 LL: [yes yes
39 L3: and there are sea too
40 T: Pedro?
41 L4: its a (.) young (.) place
42 T: mm anywhere else? (3) no well Im going to talk to
43 you and give you some recommendations about
where you
44 can go in (.) England (.) yeah
(Carr 2006) DVD 12 task-based learning)
From our knowledge of classrooms and from previous
experience, we can ascertain that the teachers main concern
here is to elicit from the students which places of interest they
have already visited during their stay in the UK. As a micro-
context, the pedagogic goal is to establish a context using
students personal experiences and the main interactional
feature is the use of referential (or genuine) questions. One of
the most striking features is the lack of repair, despite the large
number of errors throughout the extract (see, for example,
lines 2, 8, 13, 36, 39), the teacher chooses to ignore them
because error correction is not conducive to allowing learners
to have space to express themselves.
Second, the questions she asks are often followed with
expansions such as why? (see for example, 7, 19) which
result in correspondingly longer turns by learners (in 8, and
20). Again, I would suggest that both the teachers questioning
strategy and the longer learner turns are evidence of CIC since
they facilitate opportunities for both engaged interaction and
learning opportunity. Third, we note that there are several
attempts to open the space and allow for wider participation
of other learners. This occurs, for example, in 12 (anybody else
plus a 4-second pause), in 26 (do you all agree?), in 42 (anywhere
else plus a 3-second pause). On each of these occasions,
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 n at e c l a c o n f e r e n c e k e y n o t e 7
the teacher is attempting to include other students in the
interaction in a bid to elicit additional contributions. Again, her
use of language and pedagogic goals are convergent, ensuring
that learning opportunities are maximised.
Other features which show evidence of CIC include:
The use of extended wait time, pauses of several seconds
(in 12 and 42) which allow learners time to think, formulate
and give a response.
The use of requests for clarification (in 3, 5, 15) which serve
to ensure that understandings have been reached.
Minimal response tokens which tell the other speaker that
understandings have been reached without interrupting
the flow of the interaction (see, for example, 11 (right),
21(mmhh).
Classroom interactional competence
and teacher development
The broad aim of this section is to suggest ways in which
teachers might use the notion of CIC in their own professional
development through the use of appropriate tools and a
more sophisticated use of terminology (or metalanguage).
The discussion which follows outlines a number of ways in
which teachers can develop CIC by incorporating data-led
adjustments to professional practice.
Untranscribed lesson recordings
One of the most daunting features of research on classroom
interaction is that of transcription. It is perhaps one of the
main reasons why second language teachers do not engage
in professional development activities which are based on
recordings and transcripts of their teaching. Here, I argue that
much can be achieved without transcribing, and that there is
considerable merit in using untranscribed audio- or video-
recordings. Rather than transcribe, then, I am proposing that
teachers should be given some kind of a tool or framework
which helps them to focus on particular aspects of their
teaching. The SETT framework (Self Evaluation of Teacher
Talk, Walsh 2006) is one such instrument which falls under
the ad hoc self-observation scheme advocated by researchers
like Wallace (1998). It allows self-observation and analysis, but
avoids wholesale transcription.
The principal advantages of using untranscribed recordings
are summarised below:
Short extracts from a recording permit extended discussion
during reflective feedback interviews; longer stretches of
discourse become more difficult to analyse, since underlying
patterns are lost in the discourse.
A 15-minute lesson extract can be analysed in 4550 minutes
when only one or two features are being investigated. A full
transcript of a whole lesson might take 45 hours.
Because the process is repeated, a wider range of lesson-
types can be analyzed over a relatively short period of time.
The perspective is that of the teacher rather than an outside
researcher; understanding of the interaction is derived from
the inside, allowing smaller amounts of data to be utilised.
Snapshot lesson extracts
Again, much can be learnt from what I am calling snapshot
recordings, lasting 1015 minutes and taken from different
stages of a series of lessons. Arguably, there is more to be
gained from repeated analysis of partial lessons than one
analysis of a single lesson, particularly if recordings are taken
from different classes and at different times in a lesson.
A fine-grained treatment of a relatively small amount of
data, following a specific procedure which is repeated, is
more likely to foster awareness than more complex analyses
of longer transcripts. The advantage of lesson clips is that
a variety of contexts is encountered, permitting comparison
of the interactional organisation of different classes: levels,
nationalities, class composition, lesson types, teaching aims
can be contrasted and recurrent patterns identified. In addition,
teachers are free to select which part of a lesson to use.
Stimulated recall procedures
As a procedure for second language teacher development, this
has much to commend it, offering, as it does, the potential for
interaction and interactive decision-making to be compared
simultaneously (See extract 1 for an example). The voices and
actions of teachers can consequently be analysed side by side,
offering a multi-layered, fine-grained and insider perspective
of any teaching encounter. In its most straightforward form,
stimulated recall involves making a recording, analysing it and
then commenting on particular issues as they arise, usually
with another colleague or trusted critical friend (for a full
account see Lyle, 2003). Although the procedure was originally
intended to help participants recall and explain past actions, it
is a very useful means of accessing the complex practices and
procedures which make up teaching. It provides a springboard
for discussion and supplies the evidence needed to make
informed judgements.
The main advantages of stimulated recall are:
It offers scope for clarification and question and comment
generation on classroom interaction as it unfolds.
Misunderstandings can be eradicated, ensuring that a
common perspective on the discourse is attained.
The commentary and accompanying interaction are
extremely transparent. There is considerable richness in
the presentation of the data, including the potential for
checking and cross-checking of reality.
There is considerable scope for raising awareness since
fine-grained analysis of the interaction is possible and there
is the potential for repeated playback and reviewing.
Conclusion
In this article, I have presented and characterized the construct
classroom interactional competence. Placing interaction at
the centre of learning, I have argued that in order to enhance
learning and learning opportunity, teachers should begin
by developing their own interactional competence. While I
suggest that classroom interactional competence is highly
context specific (both in the general social/geographic sense
and in the more specific sense of context of the moment),
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 n at e c l a c o n f e r e n c e k e y n o t e 8

there are certain features of CIC which can be encouraged Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the
and promoted in any setting. By adopting specific interactional Second Language Classroom: a conversational analysis
strategies, CIC can be greatly enhanced. These strategies perspective, Oxford: Blackwell.
include the need for teachers to create space for learning, the Sfard, A. (1997) On two metaphors for learning and the
importance of jointly created understandings, the value of dangers of choosing just one, Educational Researcher, 27:
shaping learner contributions, the need to engage and involve 413.
learners in dialogue, and so on.
Wallace, M. (1998) Action Research for Language Teachers,
Clearly, it is important for teachers to decide for themselves Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
how to improve their CIC. What I have attempted to do in this
Walsh, S. (2002) Construction or obstruction: teacher talk
article is to offer some thoughts on the various elements which
and learner involvement in the EFL classroom, Language
make up CIC and suggested how teachers might enhance their
Teaching Research, 6: 323.
own understandings. Like all professional development, there
is no one right way to improve. However, understanding a Walsh, S. (2003) Developing interactional awareness in
specific context and developing skills appropriate to that the second language classroom, Language Awareness,
context are central to any endeavour towards becoming a 12:124142.
better teacher. Developing an understanding of classroom Walsh, S. (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse, London:
interaction and improving the way that interaction is managed Routledge.
are, I suggest, central to improving teaching.
Walsh S. (2011) Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in
Action. London: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2013) Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development.
References Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Carr, D. (ed.) (2006) Teacher Training DVD Series (Set of 15 Walsh, S. and Li, L. (2012) Conversations as space for
DVDs). London: International House. learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (in press).
Hellermann, J. (2008) Social Actions for Classroom Language
Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Steve Walsh is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the School
Kasper, G. (2004) Participant orientations in German of Education, Communication and Language Sciences
conversations-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, at Newcastle University. He is committed to teacher
Vol. 88: 551567. education, especially second language teacher education,
and enjoys working with teachers to develop a closer
Kelly Hall, J., Hellermann, J., and Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.)
understanding of teaching and learning in all contexts.
(2011), The Development of Interactional Competence. Bristol,
His research interests include all aspects of classroom
UK: Multilingual Matters.
discourse, especially the relationship between talk and
Koshik, I., 2002. Designedly incomplete utterances: learning. In addition to describing the interaction which
Apedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in takes place in a range of contexts, he is interested in
error correction sequences. Research on language and social developing interactional awareness among both teachers
interaction 35: 277309. and learners.
Kramsch, C. 1986. From Language Proficiency to Email: steve.walsh@newcastle.ac.uk
Interactional Competence. The Modern Language Journal,
70(4): 366372.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010) Having and doing: learning from
a complexity theory perspective. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh,
C. Jenks (eds.) Reconceptualising learning in applied linguistics.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lyle, J. (2003) Stimulated recall: a report on its use in
naturalistic research, British Educational Research Journal,
29: 861878.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, Repetition and Ambiguity in L2
Classroom Discourse.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 5181.
Mori, J. (2004) Pursuit of understanding: Conversation
analytic account of a small-group activity in a Japanese
language classroom. In R. Gardner and J. Wagner (eds.),
Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum,
157177.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 9
Making observation
feedbackeffective
Sarah Boodt
Abstract
This study was conducted in 2013 as part of an MA disser-
tation. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
impact of trainer behaviour during verbal feedback on
observed teaching practice (TP) of ESOL trainee teachers.
Findings from the study were used to identify a typology
of trainer behaviours which were found to make this
feedback effective. These include verbal and non-verbal
communication and how trainers structured the feed-
back process. Although the context was the Certificate in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (CELTA),
since TP is a key element of most Initial Teacher Training
(ITT) programmes, findings from this study may also have
relevance in the wider context of generic ITT courses where
trainees need to demonstrate both practical skills and the-
oretical knowledge. Although TP involves the assessment
of trainees practical teaching skills, and trainees must
pass this component to be awarded the certificate, for the
trainers and trainees in the study the process of TP and
subsequent feedback was considered to be an invaluable
developmental tool. Consequently, this study may also
have useful implications for classroom observations in
Lifelong Learning, where the developmental potential
of observations is increasingly being undermined by
the requirements of performance management systems
(OLeary, 2014).
The teacher training context
CELTA is an internationally recognised initial qualification
to teach English language. Trainees learn the theoretical
principles of effective teaching, and gain a range of practical
skills for teaching English to adult learners through hands-on
teaching experience. Courses comprise a minimum of 120
guided learning hours and can be part-time over several
months, or full-time completed within four weeks. Assessment
includes written assignments, and a total of six hours TP
at two different student levels. Trainees are separated into
TP groups, and share the lesson for TP with other trainees,
teaching between 20 minutes and one hour, depending on the
stage of the course. TP times are rigorously adhered to, and
trainees rarely have an opportunity to re-teach unsuccessful,
or below standard lessons. The pressure on trainees in the TP
element therefore is intense (Copland, 2010:467).
During TP trainees are expected to apply theoretical knowledge
gained on the course, and trainers assess how effectively they
achieve this, providing developmental feedback afterwards.
TP feedback has several purposes: to help trainee teachers
develop their teaching skills, build confidence, highlight areas
for development, and motivate and encourage them to take
responsibility for their own learning (Nicol, & Macfarlane-
Dick, 2006). Feedback is conducted in TP groups, and takes
the form of a discussion with the trainer, lasting approximately
one hour. Trainees reflect on their own teaching, which is also
evaluated by the tutor and by peers acting as critical friends
supporting each other to improve their teaching (Randall with
Thornton, 2001). CELTA trainers, therefore, need to facilitate
the development of trainees critical evaluative skills and teach
them the value of reflective practice so that they become
autonomous, reflective practitioners in their own right.
Many trainees report that they find the process of peer
feedback invaluable, though some lack confidence in their
ability to critique others teaching and for them it can be a
source of anxiety. Copland (2010: 467) notes the challenge that
this can present for new teachers, who need to simultaneously
develop a range of skills as they learn what is required
during TP: how to observe, record and evaluate their peers
teaching; provide appropriate, constructive feedback; and
develop increased self-awareness to critically evaluate their
own teaching. CELTA trainers must manage the anxieties
and tensions that subsequently arise for trainees, but also
reconcile their role as assessors, ensuring that Cambridge
criteria for practical teaching skills are met, whilst providing
developmental feedback to promote learning.
Background research
Existing literature (Casey, Derrick, Duncan and Mallows 2007)
on the practical element of ITT programmes notes that the
ways in which initial teacher trainers manage this element of
these programmes can have a major impact on the trainee
teachers experience and that constructive feedback on TP
observations is an essential part of teacher training (ibid: 25).
Most studies about feedback to improve teaching, termed as
developmental feedback, focus on the kind of information
that trainee teachers receive, rather than the process by which
this information is conveyed, with little analysis of the way
in which the trainee receives this information (Brinko, 1993;
Randall with Thornton, 2001). This study attempts to bridge
that gap.
Feedback is information supplied to trainees concerning some
aspect of their performance on a task, by a peer or a tutor, with a
view to enhancing practice (Brandt, 2008:39). It can be deemed
to be effective if it leads to progress and success on the course,
as measured by trainees ability to meet the competency
descriptors set by Cambridge ESOL.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 10
During TP the CELTA trainers role is to assess trainees
teaching and learning by making judgements against the
competency descriptors, and also provide developmental
feedback to help trainees meet those criteria. Trainees need and
want immediate feedback on failing lessons so that they have
adequate time to demonstrate improvement (Brandt, 2006).
The need to maintain a supportive and valuing atmosphere
whilst simultaneously raising critical comments about a lesson
creates a tension for both trainers and trainees alike (Wallace,
1995). Givers and receivers of feedback have very different
roles and attitudes towards the feedback process, and these
may change over the duration of the course. What trainers
consider to be their primary role may impact on the way they
give verbal feedback, and potentially on trainee attitudes to TP.
Trainees who equate TP with assessment may experience
anxiety, coupled with fear of being judged and criticised. This
presents a further complication for the trainers, since if those
in receipt of feedback are in a state of anxiety, they may be
unwilling or unable to effectively process it. As a consequence,
the impact of this invaluable developmental tool is significantly
diminished. How trainers reconcile the need to assess with the
developmental element of their role is a focus of this study.
Brinko (1993) identified a number of conditions for effective
feedback, some of which relate to trainer behaviour. Feedback
which promotes an incremental approach to intelligence,
where negative performance is attributed to use of the wrong
strategy or insufficient effort, is more effective than that which
implies a fixed personality trait (Dweck, 2011:114). Negative
feedback information is deemed to be more constructive and
less likely to produce a defensive reaction if it is delivered
from the trainers perspective e.g. I wasnt sure I understood practices. For example, a trainees knowledge of classrooms
rather than as a description of what the trainee did wrong
(Brinko, 1993: 586). Conversely, positive feedback is more
powerful when personalised i.e. you did (ibid, 1993:586).
Feedback should take into account the trainees experience
and developmental stage, and contain relevant, meaningful,
concrete information and irrefutable evidence (ibid). For
CELTA, this could involve making explicit reference to the
competency descriptors. Finally, feedback should be a two-way
process which involves and engages the trainee in a setting that
is psychologically safe, which may be particularly important
when giving negative feedback.
Mortiboys (2012) argues for an emotionally intelligent
approach to teaching, seeing it as crucial to the value of a
teachers knowledge of their subject, and their learning and
teaching methods:
The teacher who pays attention to the emotional
dimension of the classroom experience is more likely to
develop a state in their learners which is conducive to
learning.
(Mortiboys, 2012:4)
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a form of social intelligence that
involves the ability to monitor your own and others feelings
and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this
information to guide your own thinking and action (Salovey
and Mayer, 1997). Majors and Fung (2011:3) use the term
emotional literacy to describe the learned and conscious
application of EI, as evidenced by knowing what to say, how
to say it and when to say something. If teachers (and therefore
teacher trainers) are to motivate, inspire and communicate
effectively with their learners, then the affective dimension,
which relates to emotions, values and attitudes, cannot be
ignored.
Hayes (2003) highlights the impact of emotions on trainee
teachers ability to function effectively. He found that the range
of conflicting emotions trainee teachers experienced could
act as a motivator, but also create a psychological barrier. If
we agree with Plato that all learning has an emotional base,
then it follows that emotions merit a significant place in teacher
training (Hayes, 2003), since teachers have a significant role
in shaping those emotions (Mortiboys, 2012). Teacher trainers
therefore, need to create an environment where trainees feel
safe in the knowledge that they can count on course tutors
to help them succeed, so that they see a difficult task as a
welcome challenge, rather than a source of stress (Weare,
2004).
Perhaps one of the most useful functions of the trainer might
be to use observation tasks and subsequent feedback on them
to help trainees see beyond themselves and how well they
perform their role as teachers, to a focus on the impact of what
they do on their students. For many trainees this presents a
significant challenge, as for them, learning is about learning to
teach. Lidstone and Hollingsworth (1983) suggest that this may
be a staged process in which new teachers focus on only a few
skills or concepts at a time until these have been routinised,
and no longer require conscious thought, freeing up cognitive
space to focus on more advanced concepts and pedagogical
progresses from an initial focus of attention on their role in
classroom management and organisation, to learning activities,
and finally to what students are learning from the activities.
According to constructivist theory, learning is an active process
in which learners construct their own knowledge, using their
existing structure of knowledge, concepts, skills and attitudes.
Learning takes place when a learners understanding is
challenged, causing them to select information and create new
hypotheses, and understanding. On CELTA programmes, this
would relate to trainees previously constructed beliefs about
what teachers do and how people learn, and the cognitive
dissonance that is generated when those beliefs are challenged
(Hollingsworth, 1989) during TP and the ensuing group
feedback discussion. Trainers giving developmental feedback
may use Socratic questioning techniques to scaffold trainees
thought processes, gradually moving them to more complex
levels of thinking, and developing their understanding of
increasingly complex concepts. This helps trainees take
ownership of their feedback, and promotes the development
of an inner dialogue which can then be used as a model for
later internal dialogue (Randall with Thornton, 2001) and
reflection.
Schn (1987) identifies two types of reflection that the
reflective practitioner engages in: reflection-in-action, which
is a professionals ability to think on their feet using their
experiences, feelings and understanding of theory to develop
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 11
new knowledge to inform their actions as a situation unfolds;
and reflection-on-action, which is conducted after the event,
perhaps through discussions with colleagues, to analyse what
was happening and why they behaved as they did. Through
this process of reflection the practitioner acquires a repertoire
of ideas, examples and actions that they can draw on in future
situations, to help them formulate theories and responses that
fit the new situation. A fully reflective teacher is able to use
this process of continuous reflection and analysis to develop
their professional autonomy and their practice, since the
process of reflection is itself an instrument of change (Thornbury,
1991: 146). This implies that teacher trainers should also
foster the development of trainees critical evaluative skills
and teach them the value of reflective practice so that they
become autonomous, reflective practitioners in their own right.
Managed effectively, the collaborative model of TP offered by
CELTA is an ideal forum in which to develop these skills.
Aims and research questions
The research question to be answered in this study is:
Which trainer behaviours during verbal TP feedback
effectively promote CELTA trainees development as
teachers?
Methodology
The central purpose of this enquiry was to establish a typology
of trainer behaviours to promote effective verbal feedback on
TP. A case study involving qualitative methods of enquiry
was used, so that data could be interpreted and themes could
emerge. The sample comprised five experienced CELTA
trainers from three different centres, and a focus group of three
trainees from one of these centres.
Data collection
Data was collected using the following research tools:
Semi-structured interviews with CELTA teacher trainers to
identify what they perceive to be helpful behaviours
Semi-structured interview with a focus group of CELTA
trainees to identify their perceptions of the impact of trainer
behaviour on their learning
Videoed observation of a CELTA trainer during TP feedback
to one group of trainees to provide triangulation of findings
from the interviews.
The methodology included two phases over a four month
period.
In the first phase interviews were conducted with CELTA
trainers and data from these interviews were analysed in order
to establish common behaviours employed by trainers and
generate the typology. In phase two a focus group of trainees
was interviewed to test the typology against the groups
experience of TP feedback.
The final TP feedback session was filmed so that actual
trainer behaviours could be analysed and compared with
data gathered from trainer and trainee interviews, producing
methodological triangulation.
Findings
The findings in relation to the questions given to trainers and
trainees are now considered.
Analysis of teacher trainer interviews
Question 1: What do you consider your primary role to be
when giving TP feedback?
developing trainees skills and understanding of teaching?
or assessing their performance?
Trainers were emphatic that their primary role during feedback
was developmental, but at the same time recognised the need
to assess within that developmental role. However, when giving
feedback they made allowances for individual differences
between trainees and their stage of development. It would
appear that for stronger trainees nearing the end of the course,
the focus shifted slightly towards assessment, possibly to justify
awarding a higher grade:
Its a delicate balance between the two, and it may
depend on the trainee of course, at a given time;
To develop them, absolutely! But we have to grade it at
the end.
Question 2: Do you use a set of teacher competency
descriptors e.g. the CELTA checklist when giving feedback
on TP?
All five trainers said they complied with the criteria on the
CELTA checklist and were very familiar with it, but didnt
directly use it to mark off competencies during TP feedback,
as such overt use of the criteria would be restrictive and false:
The goal posts are always moving and Im not going to be
tied down to that particular set of criteria.
All trainers however, said they referred directly to the criteria
in tutorials, using them to support general feedback on trainee
progress. This would also ensure the validity of the assessment.
Question 3: How do you give negative feedback?
The need to take into account the trainees feelings was very
prominent in trainer responses, with four out of five trainers
saying they would take the trainee aside to tell them that their
lesson was below standard in order to avoid embarrassment.
Two trainers said they referred explicitly to the Cambridge
criteria when giving feedback on a below standard lesson
because they felt this externalised it and helped protect the
trainer/trainee relationship which was considered to be key for
the trainees development:
it takes the edge off being so judgemental.
All trainers stated that they would only tell a trainee that
their lesson had been below standard after giving feedback,
as knowing beforehand might distract them and inhibit their
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 12
ability to listen to feedback. They also all reported that they
were careful to first identify the strengths of a lesson before
discussing weaknesses, though they didnt consciously use a
feedback sandwich (positive, negative, and positive).
Question 4: What behaviours do you consciously employ
when giving feedback?
All trainers said they tried to be supportive and encouraging,
though felt they didnt consciously employ set strategies or
behaviours unless they had a particularly challenging trainee.
There could be several reasons for this, including ensuring
there was no foundation for potential complaints, or perhaps a
high level of emotional literacy in CELTA trainers.
The behaviours included both verbal communication, such as
making particularly encouraging remarks;
e.g. I found myself being extra, extra, extra nice and, like,
bending over backwards to help him
and non-verbal communication e.g. smiling. Although
trainers did not comment specifically on their non-verbal
communication, trainees noted that their trainers smiled a
lot and used soft intonation (trainee interview). This was also
evident in the observed feedback session.
It was felt that being supportive and encouraging needed to be
coupled with being direct and honest i.e. not beating round the
bush. Trainers valued the emotional experience of the trainees,
encouraging them to use their emotions both when teaching
and to inform reflection on their teaching:
How do you feel it went today?; How did it feel when you
praised the students?
(Observed feedback session).
Trainees were also encouraged to use an emotionally
intelligent approach for their future practice:
So, remember what that feels like so you can use it in your
future teaching.
Question 5: What strategies, if any, do you employ
during peer feedback?
In response to this question trainers discussed how they
structured TP feedback. A variety of feedback formats were
identified including: asking trainees to give feedback to the
trainee in front of the trainer; asking trainees to feed back to
each other in small groups or pairs, and then nominating a
spokesperson to summarise feedback to the rest of the group,
followed by trainer input; setting trainees specific observation
tasks to feed back on (although this tended to be in the
initial stages of the course); identifying a common theme for
feedback; and trainer-led feedback, although this was more
often a feature of the later stages of the course, when trainees
were under more pressure and just wanted to be told what
to do to pass. This suggests that trainers may become more
aware of the assessor element of their role in the later stages
of the course. Interestingly, the rationale for a more trainer-led
approach was to meet the needs of weak trainees, suggesting
a supportive focus to feedback and indicating the ability of
trainers to empathise with their trainees:
There are some struggling, needy trainees that tend to
hang on to the every word of the trainer, theyll pay lip
service to getting feedback from their peers, cos, really, all
they want to hear is their trainer.
Trainers also stressed the need for feedback to be very specific.
They commented on the importance of teaching trainees to
give balanced, constructive feedback, supported by evidence
from TP, and to help them develop their reflective and
analytical skills through TP feedback. One trainer saw this as a
specific aim of the course.
Another trainer overtly gave feedback to trainees on their
feedback in order to encourage reflective practice:
I give feedback on their feedback, just to give them status.
Analysis of trainee responses
Only three trainees agreed to be interviewed from the cohort,
and so whilst their responses provide an insight into the impact
of trainer behaviours, they cannot be said to be representative
of the whole group which consisted of ten trainees. Trainees
were asked five key questions and those interviewed placed
very high value on TP feedback. One trainee referred to it as
amazingly important.
Question 1: Do you consider the main purpose of TP to be
assessment or development?
Although all trainees were aware that they were being
assessed, they equated TP with development, stating that
they felt very secure and confident to experiment with new
ideas and approaches and to put into practice things they
had learnt during input sessions. The trainees were given TP
points which identified the learning outcomes of their lesson
with suggestions for approach, but were free to use a different
methodology if they wanted to. They commented that as a
result they felt empowered to try new approaches and make
their own decisions about their teaching, taking ownership of
their development:
You could customise (the lesson) essentially, which I think
helps you understand what kind of teacher you are as well.
Trainees felt very secure to make mistakes, and valued them
as opportunities to learn, demonstrating a mastery response to
challenge (Dweck, 2011).
Question 2: How did you feel about feeding back to
your peers and evaluating your own teaching during TP
feedback? How did the trainer help with this?
Trainees reported that initially they had found it very difficult
to feed back to their peers, particularly when trying to strike
a balance between positive and negative feedback when
they had not yet developed their personal awareness of what
constituted good teaching. They found the feedback form
very useful for structuring their feedback, and giving them a
focus while observing. It also helped them provide balanced
feedback, gave them permission to critique their peers, and set
the expectation that feedback was intended to promote their
development, and not to put someone down.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 13
The trainees also commented that from the very beginning
of the course the trainers had established an environment in
which it was all right to make mistakes. The trainers modelling
of excellent practice when giving feedback provided an
example that the trainees followed, which they claimed made
it easier for them to give and receive negative feedback.
Question 3: Was there a set format for TP feedback?
Trainees had experienced a range of formats for TP (see
analysis of trainer interviews, question 5). Their preferred
model was when a non-teaching trainee was paired with a
teaching trainee and given responsibility for leading peer
feedback to their partner. A structured feedback sheet
identifying positive points, areas for development, and general
comments on the lesson overall was found to be particularly
useful for providing trainees with a focus for peer feedback.
When identifying areas for development, trainees reported
that their trainers used issues from TP to discuss alternative
approaches. This was achieved through scaffolded questions
to prompt reflection and guide trainees to think for themselves:
e.g. What do you think about? What about? Why do
you think happened? How could you do differently?
Trainees appreciated the fact that the trainers gave very direct
feedback, as it meant they knew exactly what they had done
well and which specific areas they needed to improve on.
Sometimes, however, particularly in the early stages of the
course, the trainers used a more indirect approach, where they
asked the trainees as a group what they thought of a particular
approach without attributing it to the trainee who used it,
followed by feedback to individual trainees:
e.g. What do you think of doing it that way?
Do you think its right?
Trainees said this helped them recognise and focus on their
mistake, without feeling singled out or embarrassed by it.
They felt this gave them time to reflect and made them more
receptive to the individual feedback that followed.
Trainees liked the fact that their trainers supported them to
draw their own conclusions, but would also suggest alternative
approaches if required. Trainers were only prescriptive when
trainees repeated the same mistake over several TPs e.g. too
much teacher talking time. However, this was not stated in
terms of failing TP, but rather as an error that was hindering
the trainees development as a teacher.
Question 4: What was the most useful aspect of
trainerfeedback?
Trainees found it very beneficial to spend time in small groups
away from the trainer to self-evaluate and peer assess each
other, which one trainee referred to as talking to someone as
opposed to being talked to.
They also valued being asked to give their own opinion of TP
before hearing the trainers views, and felt that the trainers
use of questioning made them think for themselves and take
ownership of the feedback. One trainee described this as
always being involved with my story, never being a passive listener.
Question 5: Did you learn any skills other than practical
teaching skills from TP?
The trainees all agreed that they had learnt a lot more than just
teaching skills from TP. Chung (2002) suggests that high quality
feedback develops a teachers capacity to evaluate and improve
their practice, and all three trainees were emphatic that they
had become more self-aware about how they used language,
how they performed the teacher role, and their potential as a
teacher. They attributed this mainly to the time they spent in
small groups participating in self and peer assessment, before
coming together as a single group with the trainer. Initially the
trainer would sometimes interrupt, directing them to specific
issues to structure their feedback, but as they developed
their knowledge of teaching and learning this happened less
frequently.
Table summary of findings
Data from trainer and trainee interviews and the observed TP
session can be categorised according to strategies, including
verbal and non-verbal communication, and how trainers
structured TP feedback (see table on next page). I have also
included trainer and trainee views as to whether the primary
purpose of TP is developmental or for assessment as I believe
this has a significant impact on how feedback is given and
received.
The typology generated from this study indicates a strong
emphasis on TP as a developmental process that should
take place within a positive, supportive environment. Verbal
and non-verbal communication was used to encourage
trainees and build their confidence, and negative feedback
was delivered objectively, with reference to the CELTA
competency descriptors so that it was externalised and
potentially more readily received. There was a strong focus on
the affective dimension and the data suggest that the trainers
used an emotionally literate approach when giving feedback.
Trainees were encouraged to use their emotions to inform
their reflections, and a psychologically safe environment was
created by first of all noting the strengths of TP and celebrating
progress made. This is likely to promote high levels of trainee
engagement in critical discussion, and is particularly important
when giving negative feedback. It may also develop trainees
use of emotional intelligence in their own teaching.
Questions were very effective in stimulating dialogue and
collaborative reflection on individual TP; a distinctive
characteristic of the CELTA model for TP. This was supported
through the allocation of roles to trainees, use of prompt
sheets to guide their reflections and physical classroom layout.
As a result trainees were empowered to take ownership of
their learning, and an expectation was set that they would
do so, developing their autonomy as teachers. Question
tags promoted active listening during trainer feedback and
prompted trainees to consciously acknowledge strengths from
lessons, which is important for developing self-esteem.
It was interesting to note how classroom layout was used to
signal different stages of feedback. Tables were arranged to
facilitate small group discussion during peer feedback, which
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 14

Table summary of findings

Typology Trainer Trainee Video of
Interview Interview feedback
session

Primary purpose of TP: developmental

Strategies: verbal communication

Trainer provides very positive verbal communication:

e.g. Right, two really good lessons. A really good way to finish the course; so today
it all came together;
when trainees have finished giving feedback e.g. excellent;
so what a transformation, well done!

Trainer highlights positive points e.g. so what things did we liketoday?

Very specific trainer feedback; states what has been done well and why its
good with specific examples from TP so what was very strong in Xs lesson today
was encourages trainees to be equally specific in their own feedback, giving
examples to support their observations.

Supportive and encouraging during peer feedback e.g. laughs with trainees,
makes odd comment in response to trainees when theyre laughing. Contributes
to collaborative, positive atmosphere TPfeedback clearly enjoyable experience.

Trainer encourages trainees to talk about their feelings:

so how did it feel when you were praising the Students?

Trainer emphasises relevance of feedback for trainees future practice: so,

remember what that feels like so you can use it in your future teaching.

Trainer is very patient; gives instruction and waits. Doesnt repeat instruction
verbally, but may gesture e.g. to come to front table.

Trainer uses Q tags to engage trainees and acknowledge their agreement when
hes made a positive observation e.g.
its good, isnt it?

Strategies: non-verbal communication

Trainer indicates listening by smiling, inclining head and nodding.

Trainer remains unobtrusive during peer feedback; hands clasped in lap, little
movement except to check own notes.

Trainer has open body language gestures, eye contact, nodding agreement.
Trainer uses soft intonation.
Structure of TP

Prompt sheets to structure peer feedback.

Trainees invited to give feedback first, followed by trainer input. Emphasised by
room layout trainees at other end of room on 2 separate tables, then invited to
all sit at front during whole group feedback.

Finishes on positive point: Excellent, well done, some really good teaching.
Uses Cambridge competency descriptors in CELTA 5 booklet to externalise points None of
for below standard TP. interviewed
candidates had
received below
standard
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 15
was the initial stage of the process. The trainer sat apart but
indicated he was listening using non-verbal communication.
The trainees seemed to use this for occasional reassurance.
Trainees then moved to the front of the room which had been
set up to enable the whole group to sit together with the trainer
for the final stage. Trainees were clearly familiar with this
practice and took an active role in arranging tables.
A key feature of the feedback was that it was very specific and
supported by evidence from the observed lesson. This was
apparent in peer and trainer feedback. Trainees, therefore,
were not only learning practical teaching skills, but also
valuable lessons about how to give effective feedback.
Conclusion
Due to the small size of this study the findings cannot be said
to be generalisable. However, they do suggest that there are
certain behaviours that CELTA trainees find effective when
receiving feedback on their teaching practice, and many of
these behaviours may be usefully transferred to the context of
generic ITT programmes and also classroom observations of
qualified teachers.
The trainees appeared to be confident, highly motivated
and enthusiastic, and whether there is a correlation between
increased trainee confidence and the emotional literacy of the
trainers is a question that merits further study. Additionally,
it would be interesting to investigate whether an emotionally
literate approach by trainers promotes greater use of emotional
literacy by their trainees in their own teaching. This could be
further extended to explore whether their students in turn,
develop their own emotional intelligence.
The study also shows that it is possible for trainers to
manage the TP feedback process to combine assessment
with development. The collaborative feedback discussion
provides trainees with opportunities to gain a range of skills
and knowledge and to develop as autonomous, reflective
practitioners. Trainees receive feedback from multiple
perspectives, learn how to give and receive feedback, and
perhaps most importantly, learn that mistakes are an essential
part of the learning process. Whilst it may not be possible
to transfer the CELTA model of TP to generic ITT courses
or management observations, there may be elements of the
feedback process, and in particular trainer behaviours, which
could be usefully transferred, to the benefit of trainee and
qualified teachers, and organisations as a whole.
References
Brandt, C. (2006) Allowing for practice: a critical issue in
TESOL teacher preparation ELT Journal Vol. 60/4
Brandt, C. (2008) Integrating feedback and reflection in
teacher preparation ELT Journal Vol. 62/1
Brinko, T. (1993) The practice of giving feedback to improve
teaching: what is effective? Journal of Higher Education 64/5:
57593
Casey, H., Derrick, J., Duncan, S., Mallows, D. (2007) Getting
the practical teaching element right: A guide for literacy, numeracy
and ESOL teacher educators NRDC
Copland, F (2010) Causes of tension in post-observation
feedback in pre-service teacher training: an alternative view
Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 466472
Dweck, C. (2011) Self-theories, their roles in motivation,
personality, and development Psychology Press
Hayes, D. (2003) Emotional preparation for teaching: a case
study about trainee teachers in England Teacher Development,
7 (2), 2003, 153172
Hollingsworth, S. (1989) Prior beliefs and cognitive change in
learning to teach American Educational Research Journal 26(2),
160-189
Lidstone, M. & Hollingsworth, S. (1992) A longitudinal study
of cognitive change in beginning teachers: two patterns of
learning to teach Teacher Education Quarterly, pp 3957
Majors, R. & Fung, S. (2011) The Applied Centre for
Emotional Literacy, Leadership & Research (ACELLR),
Cityof Wolverhampton College
Mortiboys, A. (2012) Teaching with emotional intelligence: a step
by step guide for higher and further education professionals (2nd
Edition), Routledge
OLeary, M. (2014) Classroom Observation: a guide to the
effective observation of teaching and learning Routledge,
London & New York
Randall, M. with Thornton, B. (2001) Advising and Supporting
Teachers Cambridge Teacher Training and Development
Salovey, P. & Mayer, (1997) Emotional Intelligence and
emotional development Basic Books
Wallace, M. (1991) Training foreign language teachers: A
reflective approach Cambridge University Press
Weare, K. (2004) Developing the emotionally literate school
Sagepublications Inc.
Sarah Boodt is an initial teacher educator at Hadlow
College, where she coordinates the Diploma in Education
and Training programme with Canterbury Christchurch
University. She has worked in initial teacher education for
10 years. She is also a registered CELTA trainer and taught
EFL and ESOL for 20 years before moving into teacher
training.
Email: sarah.boodt@hadlow.ac.uk,
s.boodt@btopenworld.com
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 16
ESOL for social justice?
The opportunities and limitations
within mainstream provision
Jill Court
Abstract
Adult migrants often experience disadvantage and mar-
ginalisation in their host country and attending language
classes is often seen as a way to improve a migrants situa-
tion. This article draws on concepts devised by social justice
theorists to explore the extent to which mainstream ESOL
provision in England and Wales can achieve social justice
for adult migrants. It examines the ways in which ESOL pro-
vision can improve the position of migrants but highlights
how the nature of funding and the government agendas
surrounding ESOL provision influence classroom content,
and can impede the achievement of true equality for
migrants. It concludes that although there is scope within
mainstream ESOL for students and practitioners to resist
these agendas, the potential for social justice for migrants
to be achieved via language provision is severely curtailed
by the human capital approach to ESOL policy taken by the
current government administration.
Introduction
As a teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(ESOL) to adult migrants, I have seen many changes to
provision since I started teaching in classrooms in 2000. Like
many other ESOL teachers I am not just concerned with the
language needs of my learners, but with how what I teach
in the classroom can help the students lives outside the
classroom. However, with changes in government policy and
cuts in funding for ESOL in the last few years, it is becoming
ever more challenging to address what the students may really
need in their outside lives. In addition, these changes have
often resulted in circumstances that appear to be at odds with
the aim of meeting learners needs and improving their lives. In
order to examine this issue, I will attempt to apply a framework
of social justice theories to the situation of ESOL learners and
provision, and use it to explore how effective ESOL provision
is in providing social justice for migrants.
Social justice theories
Tikly and Barrett discuss social justice in terms of childrens
education and global development; they outline Amartya Sens
(1999, 2009; in Tikly and Barrett 2011) capabilities approach
to development: capabilities are the opportunities that
individuals have to realise different functionings that they may
have reason to value (Tikly and Barrett 2011:7). Walker (2004)
clarifies the difference between capabilities and functionings
as the difference between the opportunity to achieve and the
actual achievement (Walker 2004:2). For example, being able
to speak a language could be seen as a capability, but using
that language to benefit oneself would be a functioning. The
characteristics of a capability are determined by the values and
needs of the individual and /or their community. The notion of
agency freedom is integral to Sens capabilities approach; this
is an individuals freedom to pursue and achieve goals that they
value. (Tikly and Barrett 2011, Walker 2004).
Regarding education, Unterhalter, Vaughan and Walker (2007)
stress that focussing on capabilities would require examining
whether individuals or groups have been able to exercise real
and informed choice in their educational outcomes. They stress
that we cannot merely focus on opportunities and resources
available to a group, but need to evaluate the potential for each
individual to achieve the outcomes; in other words whether
learners are able to convert resources into capabilities, and
thereafter potentially into functionings (Unterhalter, Vaughan
and Walker 2007:2). Therefore in evaluating education we
should consider how it meets the needs and values of each
person.
Consequently the capabilities approach to education
challenges the human capital approach, which judges the
effectiveness of education on how well it serves the needs of
the labour force and increases a persons employability and
productivity. The capabilities approach also extends the human
rights approach to education by looking not just at rights but
how to ensure people have the capability to properly exercise
those rights (Tikly and Barrett 2011; Walker 2004). Thus it is
necessary not just to ensure a persons right to an education,
but to consider how well that education facilitates that persons
desired capabilities and functionings.
Tikly and Barrett draw on Frasers work to describe how
institutionalised obstacles (such as economic structures
and dominant discourses) have to be overcome in order to
achieve Frasers three dimensions of social justice (Fraser
2008: cited in Tikly and Barret 2011). These are: redistribution
of resources to enable learners to become economically
productive, healthy, secure and active citizens (Tikly and
Barrett 2011:6); recognition, which involves first identifying
and then acknowledging the claims of historically marginalised
groups (Ibid:6) and participation the right to a voice in
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 17
debates and decision making. Paying attention to these three
issues is necessary to facilitate capabilities. With regard
to migrants, they may have rights to access and participate
in aspects of society, but they may not have the capabilities
to function within these. This article will explore how far
ESOL classes can go towards developing the capabilities of
individuals.
Migrants and English language
Where I use the terms migrants and ESOL learners it must
be remembered that many migrants are proficient in English
either as a native or second language, and equally many ESOL
learners may not see themselves as migrants. As Ward (2008)
points out, there is a lack of data on the language needs of
migrants, however, in the 2011 Census 1.6% of the UK
population reported either that they cannot speak English
well or cannot speak English (Office for National Statistics
2013). ESOL learners are from diverse backgrounds and
therefore have diverse needs (Williamson 2011). Those from
settled communities include long settled migrants, recent
arrivals and refugees. Pakistani and Bangladeshi people often
have low levels of English and this affects their employment
prospects. Gender is an issue in this group as there are lower
levels of English fluency amongst Pakistani and Bangladeshi
women (Tackey et al 2006). This is partly due to cultural factors
such as lack of independence and lack of family support in
learning English, and the culturally defined role of women as
carers of children inside the home. These are reinforced by
structural factors, such as a shortage of accessible provision
and childcare.
People with refugee status and asylum seekers waiting for a
decision on their claim are another significant group. These
people will come from a variety of different backgrounds but
are likely to have had traumatic experiences and often arrive
in the UK without money, belongings or documents and may
have no family or support networks within the UK. The refugee
dispersal policy, introduced in 1999 by the Labour government
has meant that asylum seekers often end up in areas with little
appropriate support or services. Refugees often experience
poverty and many are not allowed to work; those that can
work are more likely to be unemployed (Bloch 2004). All these
factors mean that these groups are vulnerable to issues such
as low self-esteem, trauma and poor mental health. Dumper
(2002) describes how female refugees and asylum seekers are
often further disadvantaged; she cites evidence that they are
often isolated, especially if they are lone parents, have less
access to support and a third have suffered verbal or physical
abuse leading to a tendency to stay inside their homes.
Migrant workers are another diverse group which includes
those from outside and inside the EU, undertaking a range of
occupations from unskilled to professional. They are more
likely to be in low skilled, low paid work with less job security
and are vulnerable to poor working conditions. (Ward 2007:26).
Low levels of English make it difficult for these groups to
overcome these conditions, and their working patterns may
be a barrier to attending classes. Ward points out that these
categorisations of migrants are problematic as a persons
identity may be different from their legal status, for example
when does a refugee stop being a refugee? (Ward 2007:17);
many EU migrant workers actually have a long term desire
to settle in the UK, and what is the identity of a Somali who
sought asylum in the Netherlands, now holds a Dutch passport
and has come to the UK as an EU member?
With all groups of migrants, language is not the only cause
of inequalities, but there are many reasons why a migrant
may want to learn English. It may be as a means to obtain
work or get a better job. Migrants are more likely to earn less
than average, and have higher rates of unemployment than
the general population (Vertovec 2006). Those proficient in
English have a 20% higher chance of being employed, and are
likely to receive approximately 20% higher earnings, compared
to migrants with low levels of English (Dustmann and Fabbri
2003). The latter are generally in low paid unskilled jobs with
little progression; often in roles which do not reflect their
previous experience, education, skills or personal qualities
(Williamson 2011). Some groups are more disadvantaged
than others; for example Polish workers are more likely to be
employed, although they may still be in unskilled roles. Less
than 50% of working age adults of Pakistani and Bangladeshi
origin, and 12.2% of Somalis are in work (Ward 2007:11).
Women have a generally lower employment rate than men,
especially Pakistani and Bangladeshi women (Tackey et
al 2006). Finding and progressing in work can facilitate
successful settlement in a country, as it can provide financial
independence, improved self-esteem and opportunities to
socialise and improve English language skills (Ward 2007:10).
Apart from employment purposes, speaking English can help
migrants with their daily lives; students say they need it for
helping their children with their schoolwork, talking to teachers
at school, dealing with health services, talking to English
people, reading bills and letters, or for further studies. Cooke
and Simpson (2009) describe how ESOL learners value ESOL
classes as a space for learning and practising English and also
often as a source of stability and security that is often missing
from migrants lives (Cooke and Simpson 2009:19).
Background to ESOL provision
The following applies to adult ESOL in England and Wales
where ESOL provision relies on government funding and
has experienced many changes since I started teaching in
classrooms in 2000. In 2001 ESOL became included in the
new government Skills for Life strategy which was set up
in 2000 to improve adult literacy and numeracy in England
and Wales. This led to increased funding and regulation of
provision, including the introduction of the Adult ESOL Core
Curriculum (DfES 2001), the publication of national Skills for
Life learner materials and the development of specialised,
mandatory ESOL teacher training and qualifications. In 2005
the government introduced new language and knowledge of
the UK requirements for migrants applying for naturalisation.
These took the form of the Life in the UK Test, or for those with
lower language skills, completion of a nationally accredited
ESOL qualification and attendance of ESOL classes that
cover citizenship topics. (Taylor 2007). In 2006 automatic fee
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 18
remission for ESOL for those not on means tested benefits was
withdrawn, and asylum seekers in the country for less than 6
months lost the right to free ESOL (Hamilton and Hillier 2009).
In November 2010, the Government announced cuts to ESOL
funding which included the reduction in the proportion of the
course cost met by the government, and restrictions in fee
remission for many ESOL students. This means that free ESOL
is only available to those on active benefits (Job Seekers
Allowance or Employment Support Allowance) and to those
on inactive benefits (e.g. Housing Benefit, Income Support,
Working Tax Credit and Asylum Support) who can declare
that they are studying ESOL in order to gain skills to find a job
(Greater London Authority 2012). Everyone else has to pay
course fees, even if working part time and /or on a low income.
These funding cuts also meant that child care provision was
withdrawn in many ESOL settings. Policy and funding now
prioritises helping people off benefits and into employment
(Simpson and Hepworth 2010, Department for Business
Innovation and Skills 2010). The Skills for Life programme has
now ended, and in 2012 the government announced further
changes to ESOL policy and funding. At the time of writing the
implications of these changes for ESOL provision are unclear,
but the likelihood is that further funding cuts are on their way.
ESOL and social justice
When discussing social justice and ESOL, Ward describes
social justice as the drive to combat social exclusion (Ward
2007:12). She points out that social exclusion is the result of
many factors relating to inequalities; therefore lack of skill in
English is generally only one of the causes. However, although
improving language skills is generally not the only solution to
exclusion, it can play a significant part. Given the current social
and political context, to what extent can ESOL help to redress
the inequalities experienced by these groups? I will discuss
the possibilities and limitations of ESOL learning in regard to
Frasers three dimensions of social justice.
Redistribution
Regarding ESOL learners and migrants, redistribution could
mean improving their economic situation, supporting their
childrens education and accessing health services. However,
the governments neo-liberal agenda which links ESOL
provision with labour force requirements limits ESOLs
potential for redistribution. An important factor in whether
ESOL can contribute to redistribution and social justice is
access to appropriate English language classes. One of the
major problems surrounds eligibility for government funding
towards the cost of course fees. Many people now have to pay
for classes and most of these simply cannot afford to access
ESOL provision. These include full time carers, people on
low wages, and newly arrived asylum seekers who generally
do not have permission to work which can create a situation
of boredom and isolation. Although jobseekers are entitled
to free provision, pressure to take work means that many
migrants then abandon their studies for low-waged, low skilled
employment below their potential (Ward 2007). Spouses of
settled community residents are excluded from government
funded provision for the first 3 years of residence or 1 year
if they are married to an EEA national (GLA 2012:11). These
spouses are more likely to be women, and as Ward (2007)
points out, those who need to learn English are disqualified
from free ESOL provision at a time when they need support to
settle, which can exacerbate isolation and marginalisation for
these women.
Women can face other barriers to accessing ESOL provision.
Childcare is an important factor affecting access to ESOL
provision. Reduction in funding has meant the loss of many
on-site crches and nurseries, and less money available in the
forms of hardship funds for childcare. This is more likely to
affect women who often have primary childcare responsibilities.
Dumper found that 50% of refugee women could not access
classes due to lack of childcare facilities (Dumper 2002:1).
Even for those whose children are at nursery or school, they
can only access ESOL classes if the timetabling is compatible.
In some cultures women are expected to prioritise their
responsibilities in the home, therefore community or home
based provision is needed for these women (Ward 2007:19),
but this is expensive, and if they are not looking for work, they
are not a funding priority. Furthermore, since I started teaching
in 2000, I have seen community provision significantly reduced
in my city and I have also seen many women give up ESOL
classes due to drastically reduced availability of childcare at
these venues.
Low levels of literacy and education in the first language often
affects progress in the ESOL context, where a great many
learners have had limited or no formal education in their
country of origin and therefore lack literacy and study skills.
These learners are often women, and/or often from developing
countries. They generally make slower progress as they have to
acquire the cultural capital of the classroom at the same time
as learning a language (Curry 2008). As practitioners, ESOL
teachers are very aware of this and take this into account when
teaching and planning. However, the nature of ESOL provision
means that these learners are often in classes with those with
a much higher level of education, and this makes it difficult
for the teachers to meet their needs effectively. Furthermore,
cuts in funding have meant that class sizes are getting bigger,
making it even harder to support those who need more
support within a class. Thus the potential for ESOL to achieve
redistribution for migrants in general; and marginalised groups
such as women, those on low incomes, those without a formal
education, and those from developing countries in particular,
is compromised by the neo-liberal agenda surrounding ESOL
policy.
Recognition
Recognition, in regards to ESOL learners and migrants, would
include the recognition of the right to learn English and be
economically mobile (not just to obtain, and function in
low-skilled jobs), the right to maintain their cultural identity
and language, and the right to have racist and xenophobic
assumptions about migrants and ESOL learners challenged.
The last decade has seen a shift away from public discourses
of multiculturalism to those of integration and assimilation
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 19
(Zetter et al 2006:3). Cooke and Simpson (2009) describe
how a pervasive anti-migrant and xenophobic discourse
around immigration in the popular media means that ESOL
students, as migrants to the UK, are positioned in public and
everyday discourse as being of a lower status than the local-
born population (Cooke and Simpson 2009:20). Public debates
about immigration are often couched in terminology which
demonises those who cannot speak English (Cameron 2013). In
addition to their inferior positioning, they do not have a voice;
they are inaudible. Audibility is not simply related to language
ability, but also to the social and cultural capital (resources,
knowledge, education and status) necessary to operate in a
society on an equal footing (Cooke and Simpson 2009). In
addition, ESOLs dependence on government funding and
policy which currently prioritises the agendas of employability
and citizenship, means that students are offered limited and
deficit subject positions (identities): primarily as immigrants,
skills trainees, and prospective employees in low-paid work
(Simpson and Gresswell 2012:1).
Apart from the ideological implications, linking ESOL with
employability also affects what is being taught, and how far
teachers can tailor their courses to the needs of their learners.
Although there is a genuine need for many ESOL learners to
improve their English for employment purposes, many have
other needs as well or instead. Also, the intent of this policy
focus on employability is to move unemployed migrants
into any work, (which is likely to be low paid and low status)
after which they then become ineligible for free ESOL. Lack
of sufficient income to pay class fees means many people
often cannot improve their language skills further which
makes it difficult then to progress further in the job market,
regardless of level of previous education or experience. This
narrow emphasis restricts learners agency freedom and thus
their capability to participate in the world of work in a way
meaningful to them.
The increasing emphasis on accreditation and employability
in ESOL can exclude learners who have skills and aspirations
unrelated to exams or work (Kliffen 2012). For example, there
are many women with low English skills whose main priority
is the education of their family and not themselves. Kliffen
describes her class for parents in a primary school supported
by a sympathetic head teacher, where there was no pressure to
meet enrolment or achievement targets. This meant that as a
teacher, Kliffen was free to respond to the needs of her learners,
which were mainly to develop confidence in their English skills
and to be able to support their childrens schooling. In my
experience, classes like this are increasingly rare; when I taught
a class for parents in a school, the course was only funded for
10 weeks, and funding dictates meant the aims and content had
to be devised before I had even met the students. Marginalised
groups like these women are therefore increasingly unlikely to
have their needs met, and thus are less likely to be able to fulfil
their capability to function in UK society.
The other strong influence on the content of ESOL classes
is the government agenda surrounding citizenship and
integration. In order to gain citizenship, migrants have to take
the Life in the UK test, but prior to 2013, if their language level
was too low they had the alternative of attending ESOL classes
where citizenship materials were used. This has meant that
many ESOL classes now contain citizenship elements (as
for example, in the college where I teach). Although many
students in a class will be applying for citizenship, many will
not be, or will already have it, and yet all will have to cover
these citizenship topics. Teaching these subjects within the
language classroom can further serve to remind learners
of their status as immigrants who need to learn about and
conform to British society (Cooke and Simpson 2009).
As the nature of classes is increasingly dictated by funding
requirements, teachers are continually forced to juggle the
diverse learning needs of the students with curriculum
demands determined by these political agendas. Fortunately,
in my experience ESOL teachers recognise the importance of
ensuring their lessons and materials are relevant to learners
lives. In addition there are many examples of innovative
teaching and learning projects which can offer learners the
chance to explore their situations, for example Simpson
and Gresswell describe a music video made by young ESOL
learners in which they sing about their experiences and which
contains the repeated line immigrant isnt my identity
(Simpson and Gresswell, 2012). Similarly, Reflect for ESOL is a
teaching resource which was developed by adapting literacy
learning methods based on Freires critical pedagogy for
use in the mainstream ESOL classroom. In Reflect for ESOL,
language is learnt through students (known as participants)
reflecting on and analysing their own needs and experiences
(Moon and Sunderland 2008).
Despite the professionalism and innovation of many ESOL
teachers, I would contend that the pressure to adhere to
curricula determined by the neo-liberal agenda and discourse is
making it harder to address what students really want or need.
Not only then, does government discourse and policy place
limitations on the relevance of the content of ESOL courses,
it can also serve to re-enforce negative identities of groups of
migrants, and further negate their claims for recognition.
Participation
In relation to ESOL students, participation means the
acquisition of language skills, and the knowledge of institutions
and systems, in order to participate in them in a meaningful
way, for example schools, community or neighbourhood
groups, or local or national politics. Provided the barriers
to learning are removed, ESOL classes can enable greater
participation by facilitating the gaining of language and social
knowledge necessary to access services and giving learners
a voice, for example at school meetings or interacting with
utilities companies. It can enable marginalised groups, such
as women who would otherwise be at home, to have a space
where they can meet, share experiences and practise language
to help them to participate independently in society.
Whilst there is a negative side of associating citizenship with
ESOL, there are positives too. Many migrants want or need
citizenship status, and the ESOL and Citizenship classes have
helped them to achieve this without the higher literacy levels
that the Life in the UK test requires (provided they can access a
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 20
class). However, the new citizenship requirements introduced
in 2013 demand that all applicants pass the Life in the UK Test
(Home Office 2013), so it will be interesting to see if this affects
the curriculum of mainstream ESOL classes. This, combined
with the higher language requirement which has also been
introduced will make attaining citizenship much more difficult
for those who struggle to progress in language learning, either
through lack of education in their mother tongue, or inability
to access adequate provision. The potential for ESOL classes
to facilitate participation for these groups will thus be further
restricted.
Taylor (2007) argues that covering the citizenship topics
helps learners acquire knowledge of mechanisms such
as parliament and the electoral system, which potentially
encourage participation (for example, one activity within this
topic is writing to your MP). Topics such as human rights
and volunteering can elicit useful language for learners to talk
about a range of experiences. I would add to this that if the
topics are engaged with critically, taking into account learners
previous experiences as citizens of their home countries,
it could enable them to be active citizens, participating in
society, rather than passive citizens. Examples of how ESOL
can encourage active participation include the Reflect for ESOL
project, which encourages the participants to identify actions
for improving their situations; and also the Action for ESOL
campaigns against funding cuts which saw students writing
letters to, and meeting local MPs, and travelling to London
to lobby parliament. However the extent to which ESOL can
facilitate participation is contingent on access to classes and
recognition of the true needs of the learners.
Conclusion
The neo-liberal agenda influencing ESOL classes limits
migrants ability to exercise their agency freedom to pursue
outcomes that they value, however there is some scope inside
and outside classrooms for learners and teachers to convert
opportunity into valued capabilities with which migrants can
function within systems such as community groups, schools or
the workplace. Regarding Frasers three dimensions of social
justice, ESOL can be a means of redistribution as it can help
some migrants to find work or progress in the job market,
however, many are not even able to access provision and
therefore do not have this opportunity. Where the opportunity
exists, a learners ability to convert this into a capability (a
desired level of English for example) can be restricted by
factors such as low literacy or inappropriate curricula. Although
the formal structures of ESOL may fail to challenge the
negative views of migrants, there is scope within classrooms
for learners and teachers to challenge these by exploring
issues meaningful to learners and thus begin the process of
recognition that the rights of ESOL learners and migrants are
not subordinate. ESOL can facilitate participation in society
in many ways, but again, learners need first the opportunity
of a class and then the ability to convert this into a capability
such as community involvement. Consequently, given the
right circumstances, ESOL does have the potential to enable
learners to develop the capabilities to function as socially
mobile, equal, and valued members of society. However, some
groups, such as asylum seekers, some women, and those with
low literacy levels are less likely to be able to develop these
capabilities. Furthermore, ESOLs potential for social justice
through redistribution, recognition and participation for adult
migrants has limitations due to the human capital approach
to ESOL policy which the current government administration
takes, and thus the institutionalised obstacles of the economic
structure and immigration discourses in the UK are unlikely to
be overcome any time soon.
References
Bloch, A. (2004) Labour Market Participation and Conditions
of Employment: A Comparison of Minority Ethnic Groups
and Refugees in Britain, Sociological Research Online,
vol.9,no.2.
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/bloch.html
Cameron, D. (2013) Language, Lies and Statistics
http://www.languageonthemove.com/language-migration-
social-justice/language-lies-and-statistics [accessed 26 March
2013]
Cooke, M. and Simpson, J. (2009) Challenging agendas in
ESOL: Skills, employability and social cohesion Language
Issues 20 (1):1930
Curry, M.J. (2008) A Head Start and a Credit: analyzing
cultural capital in the basic writing/ESOL classroom.
In Albright, J. Luke, A. Eds. Pierre Bourdieu and Literacy
Education. New York: Routledge
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010) Skills
for Sustainable Growth Strategy Document. London: DBIS
Department for Education and Skills (2001) Adult ESOL Core
Curriculum. London: DfES
Dumper, H. (2002) Is it safe here? Refugee womens experiences in
the UK, London: Refugee Action
http://www.refugeeaction.org.uk/assets/0000/5475/
Is_It_Safe_Here_Report_2002_Refugee_Action.pdf
[Accessed 18.6.13]
Dustmann, C., and Fabbri, F., (2003) Language proficiency
and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK.
TheEconomic Journal, 113 (July): 695717
Greater London Authority (2012) English Language for All.
London: GLA
Hamilton, M. and Hillier, Y. (2009) ESOL Policy and Change,
Language Issues 20 (1): 418
Home Office (2013) Tougher language requirements announced
for British citizenship https://www.gov.uk/government/
news/tougher-language-requirements-announced-for-british-
citizenship [Accessed 20.6.13]
Kliffen, E. (2012) Teaching them what they ask for: the value
of non-accredited ESOL provision outside the Skills for Life
(SfL) strategy. Language Issues 23 (2): 7581
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 21

Moon, P. and Sunderland, H. (2008) Reflect for ESOL Acknowledgement

Evaluation: final report. London: LLU Many thanks to the staff at the University of Bristol and in
Office for National Statistics (2013) 2011 Census Analysis, particular Professor Leon Tikly for his support.
Language in England and Wales
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-
Jill Court is an ESOL lecturer at City of Bristol College and
analysis/language-in-england-and-wales-2011/index.html
has also taught in various community settings in Bristol.
[accessed 21 March 2013]
She is currently working towards a Masters in Education at
Simpson, J. and Hepworth, M. (2010) Identities Online: the University of Bristol.
Multilingual language learners textual identities in and out of
Email: jc12366@my.bristol.ac.uk
class. University of Leeds
Simpson, J. and Gresswell, R. (2012) ESOL learners online:
New media as a site of identity negotiation in M. Hamilton,
L.Tett and J. Crowther (eds.) Powerful Literacies (second
edition). Leicester: NIACE
Taylor, C. (2007) ESOL and Citizenship: A Teachers Guide.
Leicester: NIACE
Tackey N.D., Casebourne, J., Aston, J., Ritchie, H., Sinclair
A., Tyers, C., Hurstfield,J., Willison, R., and Page, R., (2006)
Barriers to employment for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in
Britain. DWP Research Report DWPRR 360. London: DWP
available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20130128102031/http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/
asd5/report_abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_360.asp
[accessed 20 June 2013]
Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. (2011) Social justice, capabilities
and the quality of education in low income countries,
International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1): 314
Unterhalter, E., Vaughan, R. and Walker, M., (2007)
The capability approach and education http://www.
nottingham.ac.uk/educationresearchprojects/documents/
developmentdiscourses/rpg2008walkermclean9.pdf
[Accessed 13 March 2013]
Vertovec, S. (2006).The Emergence of super-diversity in Britain,
Working Paper No25. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre on
Migration, Policy and Society.
Walker, M. (2004). Human capabilities, education and doing
the public good: towards a capability-based theory of social
justice in education, In Australian Association for Research in
Education Doing the public good: Positioning education research,
Melbourne, Australia 29 November 2December 2004.
http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/wal04164.pdf [Accessed on
14 March 2013]
Ward, J. (2007) ESOL: The Context for the UK today. Leicester:
NIACE
Ward, J. (2008) ESOL: The Context and Issues. Leicester:
NIACE
Williamson, E. (2011) Skills on the Agenda: reconfiguring
the ESOL classroom as a communicative democratic space
Language Issues 22:1 pp2036
Zetter, R., Griffiths, D., Sigona, N., Pasha, T., and Beynon., R,
(2006) Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: What are
the links? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 22

Low-Educated adult Second

Language and Literacy Acquisition
Conference on Research, Practice, Policy,
ICTand Multimedia for LESLLA learners
10th LESLLA conference
2830 August 2014
Radboud University
Nijmegen
Netherlands

Plenary speakers
Falk Huettig:
How literacy acquisition affects
theilliterate mind
James Simpson:
Adult language education and migration:
Challenging agenda in policy and practice
Inge Schuurmans and Frieke van Zundert:
Learning Dutch: It takes two to tango
Roeland van Hout, Jeanne Kurvers,
Inekevan de Craats:
A decade of LESLLA: Footprints for
thefuture

Plenary workshop
The team of the Digital Literacy Instructor

For more information and registration http://leslla2014.org

For questions mail@leslla2014.org
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 23
The volunteer ethos and utopian
impulse in the ESOL classroom
Julia Podziewska
Abstract
A growing demand for ESOL provision has prompted his-
torical enquiry into the emergence of ESOL. This research
reveals that the motor generating this field of adult
education is, broadly speaking, to be located in a network
of community and volunteer based projects set up in the
1970s in response to Commonwealth immigration into
the UK. The efficacy of such community based provision
has been recognised in and championed by reports
published by the government sponsored research council
NRDC, as well as Ofsted, NIACE and the IfL. The ESOL organ-
isational format of swift responsiveness to an increasingly
transnational world at the local level, together with its
respectful learner-centred philosophy of the classroom
signalled a prefigurative model that moved beyond the
paternalism of the post-war welfare-state and seemed to
herald further emancipatory victory. However, in the inter-
vening years, the main road to freedom has been trodden
by those advocating the free market and free trade. The
impact of this encroaching marketisation on ESOL has
been summarily expressed in a manner that will ring true
to many involved in ESOL teaching: provision is tailored to
maximize funding even if it is not in the best interests of
the students (Vargas in, 2009: 473).
This paper argues that things can be otherwise. It does so
by returning to what is often seen as ESOLs weak spot the
voluntary profile of its inaugural workforce, which has been
linked to the low pay and poor conditions persisting in this
sector. Opening with an explanation of the term voluntary
ethos, followed by a brief history of English teaching to
new arrivals, it then attempts to conceptualises the volun-
tary ethos in terms of mutually emancipatory aspiration.
Next, it outlines present-day conditions of employment:
the setting from within which an alternative future will
be imagined. It then frames the voluntary ethos in terms
of Jrgen Habermass concept of the public sphere and as intrinsically motivated, focusing on rewards that are less
relates it to Edward Saids notion of the amateur; and
subsequently concludes with suggestions for action. The
weak spot thereby appears as a fulcrum from which ESOL
teachers can apply the lever to their advantage and that of
their students.
Context
This enquiry uses the term voluntary ethos in preference to
volunteer because it concerns todays paid ESOL tutors and
their students and analyses their situation in relation to the
unpaid tutors with whom ESOL began, who have always been
involved and who are reappearing as the present administration
narrows paid provision. The notion of ethos is employed for
its etymological evocation of character, custom and place; it
alludes to all those nuanced classroom relations and exchanges
alien to the technological-reductionalist quantifying systems
imported from the world of business to monitor and measure
classroom output and achievement. ESOL tutors often seem to
elude standardised contractual identity. Research shows that
they commonly go the extra mile, and a considerable distance
more: ESOL professionals are also juggling roles as teachers,
advice workers, counsellors, therapists and cultural brokers
(Baynham et al., 2007: 55). Essentially, paid ESOL tutors often
practice, sometimes willingly, sometimes unwillingly and
are often viewed as volunteers. Although this appears more
prevalent in community settings which target both difficult-
to-access and funding-ineligible learners, those working
in the more formalised setting of FE colleges also speak of
supporting students beyond the lesson plan.
Peer-reviewed research into post-compulsory education
points out the ubiquity of unpaid, voluntary work, alongside
the more regular low-paid work undertaken by ESOL tutors.
The NIACE report More than a Language comments on the
frequency with which ESOL tutors, in both FE and community
settings, respond to the often difficult personal circumstances
of ESOL learners [] with great dedication and skills, even
though it is beyond their responsibilities. (2006: 6). Another
study, looking into the working practice of part-time staff,
noted that amounts of underground working occurred
whereby tutors routinely engaged in working well beyond
their job descriptions (Jameson and Hillier, 2008: 42), and that
part-time staff undertook goodworks for relatively low wages
(ibid: 46). This is confirmed elsewhere: [the] support role,
often outside the classroom [] is usually time consuming,
unrecognised, and unpaid. (Ward, 2007: 21). Such behaviour
is not confined to the UK. US research sees ESL employees
tangible than financial compensation or professional status
and recognition: social service, creativity, connectedness to
others, and a sense of accomplishment. (Florez, 1997, qtd.
in Sun. 2010). Locating the emergence of this voluntary trend
will inform the development of strategy that ensures that the
decision to support students in a non-remunerated manner can
be harnessed to empower teachers and students, rather than to
enable employers to further erode tutors pay and conditions
of work and the service they provide learners. But why is this
voluntary ethos a feature of ESOL in particular?
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 24
History
ESOL classrooms are distinctive because, as policy documents
recognise, they are uniquely marked by a potentially fragile
classroom ecology, where so many vulnerable people are
gathered together, people who have complex and often
difficult lives frequently compounded by the stresses of being
asylum seekers, living in fear, uncertainty and recent trauma
(Baynham et al., 2007: 68 and 64). From the inception of ESOL
until today, classes often, and sometimes wholly, contain
those forced to migrate by war, persecution or destitution,
in the early days mostly people displaced from the British
Commonwealth and today from Eastern Europe. Certainly,
taken in isolation, no student profile can account for why an
educational field might be infused with a particular ethos,
but it can contribute to understanding. Nor in the case under
discussion can this ethos be accounted for in terms of long
standing traditional practice. Historical research points to
earlier waves of immigrants, even more vulnerably placed
and without access to welfare provision, receiving professional
rather than volunteer language teaching. In the late nineteenth-
century, trained teachers employed by municipal authorities
gave English tuition to those arriving from the shtetls of the
Russian Empire; likewise, the British Council was given the
task of organising language teaching for the 200,000 arrivals
affected by the Polish Resettlement Act of 1947. In neither
instance is significant volunteer activity recorded (Rosenberg,
2008).
The emergence of state organised and/or state funded
voluntary provision is a more recent phenomenon. Accordingly,
the voluntary ethos appears to be generated by elements in
the socio-historical formation beyond simply that of sympathy
for disadvantaged new arrivals. Justin Davis Smith argues that
a broad revitalisation of the British mutual-aid and self-help
traditions took place from the 1960s onwards, as a backlash, or
at least wash-back, to the perceived inadequacies in welfare
provision of the post-war settlement (Smith, 1995: 2). Hamilton
and Hillier place ESOL within this context, identifying it as a
field of policy and practice rather than, as some teachers and
linguists have been wont to do, conceiving of it in linguistic
and /or pedagogical terms. (2007: 1). Using an analytical
model that enables the identification of complex and messy
social networks, dynamics and relationships, rather than the
simple binaries of state and recipient, voluntary and paid work
and so on, these authors show voluntary work to have been
constitutive of ESOL in the 1960s and 1970s, even though it
was a response to the very first wave of immigration to attract
specific ESOL provision, namely Section 11 funding, from the
Home Office (ibid.: 2 and 9). This confluence of grassroots
social action and the government department responsible for
security, law and order and immigration signals the liminal
quality of volunteering, its capacity to operate to conserve
the status quo and perpetuate social injustice as much as to
propel transformation to a more equitable distribution of
resources and power. An examination of a more historically
specific and critically analytic notion of volunteerism will aid
the categorisation of volunteering with ESOL provision.
Charity or mutual aid
Documenting the history of the charity and voluntary sectors,
Justin Davis Smith argues that, in the UK, volunteerism has
always consisted of two streams, namely philanthropy and
mutual aid, the former characterised by time and/or resources
given for free; and the latter by collectivity and two-way support
(1995). This dual model illuminates the wave of volunteerism
that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, its impact on ESOL and
on the native-speaker adult Literacy Campaign of the period
(Hillier, 2006). The motivation impelling volunteers to support
the literacy campaign is documented as mostly philanthropic.
Hillier records that volunteers came forwards in droves from
fashionable middle class areas, but the learners were mainly
(though not exclusively) to be found elsewhere. She quotes one
organiser recalling that: There was a lot of blue rinse wanting
to do volunteering I think there were quite a lot of bored
housewives. (2006: 6669). By contrast, Hamilton and Hillier
note that the sentiment behind offers to help immigrants with
ESOL was more that of mutual aid. They regard it as demand-
led rather than imposed from above, and record that those
interviewed recalled how provision in the late 1960s and 1970s
was largely developed by local practitioner activists, frequently
in peoples homes or in local adult community settings. (2007:
3). This is not to say that the literacy campaign was bereft of
impulse for broader social amelioration; blindspots, naiveties
and vulnerabilities can be discerned in the emancipatory
impulses of the ESOL campaign.
Hillier reminds us of the landscape of pre-Thatcher England
in general with her own words: the 1970s were an era of
social action aimed at achieving social justice (2006: 70), and
a quote from one of her interviewees: We all had a bit of
passion for the work, so there was a political dimension to
it. (ibid: 70). This 1970s activism took many forms: workers
in heavy industry and the public sector fought pay cuts;
Irish Republicans challenged British domination; women
increasingly questioned and challenged their subordination a
strike by Ford machinists won the right to equal pay for equal
work (1970), activism led to the right to obtain contraception
from the NHS and the setting up of the Equal Opportunities
Commission to oversee the Sex Discrimination Act in 1974.
The institution, shortly after, of the Race Relations Commission
(1977), charged with overseeing the Race Relations Act (1976),
hints at a broad emancipatory impulse during this period. More
immediately related to ESOL, 1971 saw the arrival of 27,000
Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin, fast on the heels of the
5,000 Kenyan Asians who had come in 1968. The appearance
of these Commonwealth British citizens, expelled from
former colonies prioritising their own nationals, confronted
settled residents with Britains history of colonial domination.
A two-year long strike (197678) at the Grunwick film-
processing laboratories in North London shattered prevailing
preconceptions of South-East Asian working-class women as
silent, docile and submissive.
Though the spirit of cooperation rather than charitable
impulse appears to have motivated early ESOL volunteers, it
still remains difficult to conceive of this in terms of mutual aid
because of the different market positions and cultural assets
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 25
held by the teachers and their students respectively. However,
it is rendered possible if we consider the mutual aid of the
1970s to have been generated by an identification of the Other
involving recognition of a parallel emancipatory impulse:
identity politics. The period in which ESOL emerged was one
in which the politics of redistributive justice or class was being
overtaken by the politics of identity affiliation. Accordingly,
activists against oppression, whether that took the form of
challenging gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality or any
other inequality, sometimes including class and the distribution
of resources, at times formed alliances to challenge various
and generalised subordination. ESOL can thus be envisaged
as a space in which women allied themselves with the
displaced from the colonies: initial provision was mostly set
up in community settings, staffed by women and involved
women learners. (Empirical corroboration of this may be
found in the data sets and documentary archives collated by
Hamilton, Hillier and Parsons, held at Lancaster University
and collated by as part of their ESRC-funded Changing Faces
project as interviewed participants in non-institutionalised
policy activism). As most ESOL teachers are now in paid
employment, todays point of mutual recognition needs be
sought elsewhere: in workplace conditions.
Conditions of employment
Amidst constant policy shifts, funding stream adjustments,
new nomenclature, and a culture of sub-contracting, reliable
comparative data relating to pay and conditions is hard to
find. There are no data sets of national employment statistics
that distinguish ESOL tutors from others teaching functional
skills, or FE teachers more generally. Evidence of poor reward
appears in a variety of forms, including research: There are
not enough trained and qualified teachers. Potential [ESOL]
recruits such as new graduates and EFL teachers [] are
deterred by pay, conditions of employment and lack of career
structure. (Ward: 2006). Current rates of pay for individual
posts can be found using internet searches. West Sussex
County Council is advertising for ESOL tutors, qualified with
SfL level 5 subject specialism, as part of the family learning
team, at: 21.64 per hour to include preparation time and
travelling. The specialist recruitment agencies such as Morgan
Hunt and Protocol, which have emerged in response to public
education spending cuts, offer pay ranging from 16.0021.00
and 17.7030.00 per hour respectively. Other agencies offer
similar rates. As hourly rates frequently include preparation
and travel time, these are not competitive rates of pay (and
they compare poorly with the 12.76 per hour I was receiving
in 2010 from a local authority for a package of an hours
contact with an hours preparation).
Remuneration is not the only issue; there is the matter of job
security, too. A full-time, permanent post in ESOL employment
is rare in both community and college settings. Underlying this
is the ever-changing government funding policy which leaves
employers in fear of redundancy pay-outs; hence the use of
agencies, zero and temporary contracts. US research into
international ESOL employment conditions likewise shows
that worldwide full-time positions are scare and the majority
of teachers work part-time, most programmes employing 80%
part-time workers (Sun, 2010: 145 and 146 ). Advertisements
that offer tutors sessional, temporary and part-time work often
claim that these may lead to permanent, full-time work in
colleges. The likelihood of this occurring may be gauged from
the website of one of the UKs leading FE education recruiting
bodies, Protocol, which says something very different when
addressing employers. Its headline banner offers The Benefits
of Flexibility that enables you to take little or no financial risk
and can also help you balance your budget [ p]aying only for
the hours delivered [with r]isk free capacity management.
Flexibility is the watchword in a world governed by responses
to stock market fluctuations.
Hamilton and Hillier directly connect these largely part-time,
marginal posts with the fact that ESOL provision was originally
staffed by volunteers (2007: 2). When ESOL was introduced,
flexibility was demanded by its teachers rather than imposed
on them. As volunteers, those offering support would not have
wanted or been able to devote a full-working week to teaching.
This may explain a history of the low level of unionisation and
demand for job security among a social group who otherwise,
due in large part to their contact with ESOL students, show
a relatively high level of awareness and concern with social
justice. Research shows that fewer than 50 per cent are in full
time permanent posts (Baynham et al., 2007:35); and that in
Adult and Community Learning, this figure drops to 10 per cent
(Ofsted, 2008: 28). Once the flexible, part-time model became
established, ESOL teaching would have been targeted as a
suitable activity for women with children, women who couldnt
work full time, who didnt want to or didnt need to. However,
as the economy changed, and an increasing proportion of
women entered paid employment, and as the 1992 Further
and Higher Education Act shifted ESOL provision away from
its community base into colleges, with their contract culture
and quality control audits, fewer ESOL teachers felt satisfied
with the flexible arrangements offered them (Hamilton, n.d:
7) Tables were turned and flexibility was felt as casualisation.
Nowadays casualisation is generating anxiety.
Recent UK data findings show widespread cultures of fear
with a consequent feeling of disempowerment among
younger trainee Skills for Life [including ESOL] teachers, which
was linked to a career that was likely to involve fragmentary,
part-time work spread across multiple sites and drawing on
previous careers as a safety net (OLeary and Smith, 2012).
This echoes a study of international ESOL trainees and
tutors views about their conditions of employment, which
reveal deep rooted anxiety and dissatisfaction: Our students
and our teachers are often treated like second class citizens;
Part-time ES[O]L instruction offers [] no respect as a
professional at this institution one study documents (Sun,
2010). Such conditions apply to those employed in colleges as
much as those employed in community settings. Along with
job insecurity and low rates of pay, opportunity for continuous
professional development is scarce and the status of ESOL
teaching low (Sun, 2010; OLeary and Smith, 2012). All these
seem to have grown worse as adult education provision, and
staff contracts, previously overseen and administered by local
government controlled further education colleges and adult
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 26
and community learning units have been devolved to the
private sector and community organisations.
As levels of ESOL pay and conditions for teachers deteriorate
it may still be presumed that in the great majority of cases the
income and assets of tutors are greater than those they teach.
Time and again, ESOL learners are identified as belonging
to low-income social groups (Cuban, 2010; DIUS, 2009).
Although the situation of ESOL teachers is more advantageous
than that of their students, it compares unfavourably to their
peers in the education sector. Hence both teacher and students
stand on low rungs of their respective peer status ladders.
Nevertheless, despite an acute awareness of a difference in
cultural and material assets, teachers have reason to identify
with their students economic and other related insecurities.
As neoliberal policy impacts on an increasingly larger section
of those reliant on paid labour, and in its absence, welfare
benefits, new common ground can be found within the ESOL
classroom: vulnerability in the face of neoliberal state-enabled
marketisation. Post-colonial, post-industrial neoliberal
finance programmes such as the GATS agreement (1995)
and the programmes known as the Washington Consensus
(1989), globally liberalising and marketising, reducing public
welfare, privatising public assets, cutting taxes for the rich and
deregulating labour, generate insecurity for both teachers and
students: this is our common ground. How we conceptualise
the ESOL classroom to augment the chances of this being
recognised is suggested by a key analytical framework from
critical theory.
The public sphere, commerce and
thestate
Jrgen Habermass notion of the public sphere allows us to see
how an affiliation between ESOL teachers and ESOL learners
could come about, to deepen our understanding of the utopian,
emancipatory elements of the voluntary ethos imbuing ESOL,
and to recognise that both paid and unpaid support offered
by tutors to students might more usefully be linked to mutual
aid than philanthropy. Habermas, it will be recalled, identified
the public sphere with freedom to engage in rational critical
debate in contrast to the private sphere which he associates
with motivation for commercial gain and the sphere of public
authority which was linked to state coercion. ESOL, viewed
through the prism of Habermassian critical theory, plays a role
in all three spheres.
As regards the private sphere, ESOL is imbued with the
language of commodification: courses are delivered and
eligibility for free ESOL classes depends on demonstrating
that the learner intends to become a wage labourer, that is, is
in receipt of an actively seeking work benefit. ESOL relates
to the sphere of public authority in its connections with the
Home Office. When the above-mentioned Section 11 funding
(19661999) was transferred to the Department for Education
and Employment, an alliance between ESOL and the Home
Office remained, e.g. ESOL and its related citizenship exams
count as criteria for citizenship. ESOL tutors are subordinately
positioned in these two spheres. They have a weak market
position and little influence vis--vis state policy, nevertheless
they are pressurised by the task-focused, performative, audit-
trail demands of management (Ball, 2003) to treat language
as a commodity, to tailor teaching to maximize funding and
collect fees, and to support the implementation of state
immigration and border control by filtering eligible students
and tracking and monitoring student pathways. It thus comes
as no surprise that [f]eelings of relative powerlessness and
low morale are reported to be characteristic of part-time FE
employees (Jameson and Hillier, 2008: 42); and it is possible
that pressure from line-managers in respect of performance
indicators and measuring outcomes leaves the teacher
questioning like the interviewee quoted in the Guardian: What
happened to my creativity? What happened to my professional
integrity? What happened to the fun in teaching and learning?
What Happened? (Ball 2003: 216). Further, it is also possible
to work against the grain and to establish a classroom where
talk is work (Baynham and Roberts, 2006), where there is
dialogue between students and between teachers and students,
a scenario in an effective language classroom that evokes
the public sphere.
The institution of such a classroom does not mean overturning
the money-lenders tables in the temple. Indeed, the money-
lenders can come and observe, for this type of classroom
practice is valorised by subject specialist researchers who are
very positive about group learning, [and] the opportunities to
talk in English that this offers, and the social communal nature
of ESOL classrooms(Baynham et al., 2007: 64). Scholarship
shows that This strong social function of group classes is
recognised as a crucial element in helping relative newcomers
to belong, whereas focus on individual learning and ILPs
can be at the expense of group progress and classroom talk.
(NRDC, 2007: 64 and 70). Socio-interactive practices, that
is, classroom procedure embedded in real life practice and
procedures rather than abstract, school-room behaviour is
especially valuable for those with no or little formal education
according to ESL research conducted in the US (Ramirez-
Esparza et al., 2012: 543). NIACE echoes this recognition of
the civic and cultural life (2006: 5), depicting the ideal ESOL
classroom as a microcosm of the public sphere, something
also implied in the title of the report, More than a Language
(NIACE, 2006). Effective engagement in the ESOL classroom,
freedom to forge meaning, to discuss social issues that
matter to you, to learn how to express your ideas, desires and
thoughts and to listen to others do the same, prepares all the
members of the class for activity beyond the classroom in all
three of Habermass spheres. That space in which peoples
experience and knowledge is respected can be imagined as
the public sphere, or more pedagogically, a classroom based
on the Freirian learner-centred principles of participatory
methodology. The Reflect for ESOL classroom (see http://
www.reflect-action.org/reflectesol) generates the conditions
for linking the micro with the macro, for connecting classroom
presence with the economic and political disruption that has
driven people away from their homes and to the UK, and
potentially, for enabling teacher and learner to recognise how
each is caught up in a transnational system of flexible labour.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 27

Classroom practice: amateurism interrogates the increasingly bandied notion of professionalism

versusprofessionalism as:
something you do for a living, between the hours of
The classroom as a microcosm of the public sphere, a place
nine to five with one eye on the clock, and another
of potential autonomy, agency, and freedom, is not simply
cocked at what is considered to be proper professional
of benefit to and a delight for students, but one of the
behaviour not rocking the boat, not straying outside the
key rewards for those teaching ESOL, and what often keeps
accepted paradigms or limits, making yourself marketable
teachers there despite the low pay and poor conditions. This
and above all presentable, hence uncontroversial and
sounds contradictory, but ESOL is riven with ambivalence,
unpolitical and objective. (1994: 55)
tensions, conflicts, contradictions and struggles. Indeed, it
was born from the msalliance of a bottom-up grassroots This notion of the professional mirrors the ideal worker in a
voluntary activism and a top-down Home Office grant. It is marketised education where individual practitioners [are
ESOLs threshold position that gives it such potential for social required] to organize themselves as a response to targets,
transformation: it can be shifted towards authoritarianism and indicators and evaluations (Ball, 2003: 215) even though
instrumentality or nudged, as it was at its inception, by the research maintains that cutting up learning into bite-sized
voluntary ethos in the other direction, impelled by utopian modules and SMART targets shows no understanding of
emancipatory impulses. incremental second language learning processes (NDRC,
2007: 70). According to Stephen Ball, the new professional
Awareness of ambivalence and an ability to conceptually and
in education, like Saids, is expected to [t]o set aside personal
critically frame it in order to get a sense of what lies beyond
beliefs and commitments and live an existence of calculation
and behind it is one of the things that makes ESOL a creative,
(2003: 215). Accordingly, the very structures put in place to
exciting place to work . Other ambivalences include students
ensure quality, the task-focused, performative, audit-trails
wanting to learn English to gain more control over their lives
advocated in Breaking the Language Barriers (DfEE, 2000)
within a learning process bound up with state regulation in
and the 2008 Ofsted report and demanded by professional
respect of work, welfare and residence rights. Additionally,
managers, hamper the work recommended by specialist
teachers enjoy flexibility but not the disempowering
scholars. NDRC research points to the detrimental impact
casualisation that accompanies it. They can feel deskilled by
technocratic rationalism has on ESOL, noting that [m]any
training courses run under the rubric of professionalism, but
of the factors that distract from rather than enhance effective
other features of the new workplace regime, isolation and
practice relate to policy and institutional requirements [which]
lack of support, can also be exploited and enjoyed as creative
shape a top down notion of effective practice not always
freedom and imaginative possibility. This would accord with
attuned to the reality of ESOL teaching and learning (ibid:
the findings of a research project into the motivation and
66). Executed under the rubric of professionalism, such
satisfaction of part-time further education staff, namely, that
practice overlooks materialist understanding of language (e.g.
part-time employment can liberate teachers from being locked
Vygotsky, Bakhtin and Luria), that language is dialogic, always
into patterns of control and de-professionalisation by regimes
an utterance, socially situated and not an asset that can be
of authority-compliance management (Jameson and Hillier,
delivered.
2008, p.46 and p. 43) and give a sense of autonomy and agency.
Saids description of the amateur, on the other hand, evokes
The term, de-professionalisation merits consideration. Up to
the ethos that coursed through ESOLs early days, when it was
this point, the notion of volunteer has been contrasted with
staffed by volunteers and informed by identity politics:
paid worker rather than amateur. The professional/amateur
binary can be identified as a further ambivalence in ESOL that someone who considers that to be a thinking and
has come about as the sector has generally recruited from a concerned member of society one is entitled to raise
pool of women rather than men. Hillier, writing of 1970s adult moral issues at the heart of even the most technical and
education, rightly warns us not to interpret volunteer activity professionalized activity as it involves ones country, its
as synonymous with amateur, uninformed or non-professional: power and its mode of interacting with its citizens as well
volunteers are not a homogeneous group [] many of them as with their societies. (ibid: 61).
had valuable experience from working as primary school
This profile corresponds to recommendations made by
teachers, social workers, librarians and a range of other
specialist ESOL educationalists and the practice of skilled
similar careers. (2006: 69); she notes that ESOL recruitment
teachers. The teacher as amateur, who thinks creatively,
drew on a more specialized and better organized professional
engages with moral issues, and interacts with students as
group than literacy and numeracy. (Hillier n.d: 6). Jameson
citizens of a shared world, in rational debates, will create a
and Hilliers accounts of the ESOL classroom underscore its
public sphere microcosm that can empower both members of
emancipatory potential for its teachers, rather than, as is more
the classroom and the teacher herself.
often the case, simply for its students. Their work focuses on
the social transformation than can take place in the classroom
and in a manner that evokes Edward Saids account of the
work undertaken by the amateur and the professional in his
Reith Lectures (1993), Representations of the Intellectual. Said
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 peer reviewed articles 28
Conclusion
This paper focuses on ESOL as part of a dialectical
historical process, from the vantage point of the teacher. It
has encouraged us to be spurred by radical emancipatory
impulses from the past, whilst simultaneously flagging up
the problems we face because of missed opportunities. One
of these was the failure to recognise the pernicious aspect of
flexible teaching conditions and the way neoliberal education
policy crept upon us in the guise of womens liberation and
the devolution of power, and took advantage of the utopian
aspects of the voluntary ethos. Within the scope of this paper
it has only been possible to open the debate and to gesture
in the direction that classroom practice and further research
might take: the creation of micro-public sphere classrooms
and recognition of ESOLs place within transnational labour
flexibility and capitalflows.
References
Ball, S. (2003) The teachers soul and the terrors of
performativity Journal of Education Policy 18/2: 215228
Baynham, M. and C. Roberts (2006) Where work is talk: the
social contexts of adult ESOL classrooms Linguistics and
Education 17/1: 1106.
Baynham, M. and C. Roberts et al. & National Research
and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy
(2007) Effective Teaching and Learning: ESOL. London, NRDC.
http://www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=89#
(accessed December 2009)
Cuban, S. (2010) Aspiring migrants are happy to make
easy money doing unskilled work: the role of ESOL
workplace education in changing skilled migrants downward
trajectories Language Issues 21/2: 1932
DfEE (2000) Breaking the Language Barriers: Report on the
working group on ESOL. http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/
esol/report.pdf (accessed December 2009)
DfES (2003) Planning Learning and Recording Achievement
in Adult Literacy, Numeracy and ESOL: A Guide for
Practitioners http://rwp.excellencegateway.org.uk/
readwriteplus/LearningInfrastructurePlanningLearning.
(accessed December 2009)
DIUS (2009) A New Approach to English for Speakers
of Other Languages ESOL http://www.bis.gov.uk/
assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publications/E/
esol_new_approach (accessed January 2010)
Hamilton, M. (n.d.) From Adult Literacy Campaign to Basic
Skills Provision: A policy analysis:ESRC End of Award Report
R000239387. Swindon, ESRC http://www.esrc.ac.uk/
my-esrc/grants/R000239387/outputs/Read/0c72de03-
2b4b-4965-a8fb-f5c1eb9bfbe3 (accessed April 2014)
Hamilton, M. and Y. Hillier (2007) ESOL Policy and Change
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/doc_library/edres/
hamilton_07_esol_policy_and_change.pdf (accessed
December 2009)
Hillier, Y. (2006) Professionalising the do-gooders: the
deployment of volunteers in adult basic skills from 1970
Voluntary Action, 7/3: 6378
Jameson, J. and Y. Hillier (2008) Nothing will prevent me
from doing a good job. The professionalism of part-time
teaching staff in further and adult education Research in
Post-Compulsory Education 13/1: 3953
NIACE (England and Wales) (2006)More than a language:
NIACE Committee of Inquiry on English for Speakers of
Other Languages: Final Report, October 2006 Leicester,
niace
Ofsted (2008) ESOL in the Post-Compulsory Learning and
Skills Sector: An Evaluation. London, Crown Copyright.
OLeary M. and R. Smith (2012) Earthquakes, cancer and
cultures of fear: qualifying as a Skills for Life teacher in an
uncertain economic climate Oxford Review of Education,
38(4) : 437454
Ramirez-Esparza, N. et al. (2012) Socio-interactive practices
and personality in adult learners of English with little formal
education, Language Learning 62/2: 541570
Rosenberg, S. & National Institute of Adult Continuing
Education (England and Wales) (2007) A Critical History of
ESOL in the UK, 18702006 Leicester, Niace
Said, E. (1994) Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith
Lectures. London, Vintage
Smith, J.D., C. Rochester & R. Hedley (1995)An Introduction
to the Voluntary Sector London, Routledge
Sun, Y. (2010) Standards, Equity, and Advocacy: Employment
Conditions of ESOL Teachers in Adult Basic Education and
Literacy Systems TESOL Journal 1/1: 142142
Vargas, K. The ESOL/EFL divide, in R. Bhanot, E. Illes
& National Association for Teaching English and Other
Community Languages to Adults eds (2009), Best of Language
Issues: Articles from the first 20 Years of NATECLAs ESOL
Journal, London, LLU
Ward, J. (2006) Building Barriers, Guardian, Thursday, 26
October 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/
oct/26/asylum.education (accessed December 2009)
Ward, J. of Adult Continuing Education (England and Wales)
(2007) ESOL: The Context for the UK Today, Leicester, Niace
Julia Podziewska is currently completing a doctoral thesis
at Sheffield Hallam University on the representation of
property transfer in the Victorian novel and its relation to
corporate capital. For as long as she can remember she has
questioned and challenged the inequitable distribution of
resources on the grounds of class/gender/nationality/race,
and following a cycle-collision injury, disability, too.
Email: jpodziewska@hotmail.co.uk
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 29
Web-based technologies
and beginnerESOL learners:
Anexploration of learner and
tutorattitudes and experiences
Katharine Stapleford
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the use of web-based
technologies by learners with minimal language, literacy
and digital skills. The technologies used in this context
are those which are freely available on the internet rather
than published software specifically designed for language
learning, or computer assisted language learning (CALL).
Although substantial research literature exists in the
field of CALL and in the field of educational technology,
little is known about the experiences of beginner ESOL
learners using generic technology for learning. This study
adopts an interpretive case study design in order to gather
qualitative data regarding beginner ESOL learners and
technology in an attempt to address this research gap.
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews,
observations, and learner evaluations. The findings sug-
gest that experiences and attitudes of learners and tutors
regarding the use of technologies for learning are gener-
ally positive and both regard digital literacy as an essential
life skill. Minimal language, literacy and computer skills
prevented learners engaging with the technologies. The
report discusses a range of further practitioner research
opportunities related to e-learning for ESOL learners that
this research has initiated.
Introduction
Technology is often seen as a means to achieving economic
well-being and social cohesion and governments have been
keen to promote Information and Communications Technology
(ICT) both as a means of improving the quality of adult
education as well as widening participation (Selwyn, Gorard
& Furlong, 2006; Ecclesfield & Garnett 2006; Olesen-Tracey
2010). Organisations (BECTA JISC) have been established to
research, develop and support innovative practice in the use of
educational technologies. Additionally, campaigns such as Go
ON UK have actively promoted digital inclusion (Cameron
2012) by bringing the benefits of the internet to every
individual and every organisation in every community across
the UK (Go ON UK 2012). So, there is clearly a top-down drive
to embrace digital technology.
With regard to Skills for Life and adult ESOL in particular, the
use of ICT to enhance teaching and learning is recognised as
good practice (DfES, 2001; Mellar, Kambouri, Sanderson &
Pavlou, 2004; Ofsted, 2008). However, my experience is that
ICTs are not fully embraced, particularly with beginner ESOL
learners. The literature tends to focus on more advanced
language learners and are classroom based; very few success
stories involve beginner learners using technologies beyond the
classroom. One study which did (Davis, Fletcher & Absalom,
2010) found self-access elements were problematic for learners
with low levels of English. The starting point for my research
then, is to gain a deeper understanding of beginner ESOL
learners use of technologies for learning and the benefits and
impediments they experience.
Little is known about the experiences of ESOL learners with
minimal language and digital skills who are often from lower
socio-economic groups. This study seeks to address this
research gap by asking:
1. What are the experiences and attitudes of beginner ESOL
learners and their tutors regarding the use of web-based
technologies as language learning tools?
2. What obstacles and opportunities do web-based techno
logies present for beginner ESOL learners?
Data collection
Student interviews
I interviewed eleven female1 Entry 1 ESOL learners aged
between 20 and 69 from Pakistan, India, China, Poland, Sudan,
Zimbabwe and Libya. Their first languages include Urdu,
Punjabi, Gujarati, Chinese, Polish, Ndebele and Arabic. Most of
them have had at least primary schooling with one learner not
having received any education in her home country and only
two progressing beyond secondary school. Due to the limited
language of the participants, the interview comprised only four
simple questions, establishing the general learning preferences
of the learners and exploring their experiences and opinions of
using the internet in and beyond the classroom. These formed
the basis for discussion.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 30
Tutor interviews
I conducted semi-structured interviews with all the Entry
1 tutors within the ESOL department as well as the ESOL
manager. The sample comprised six females and one male aged
between 40 and 60, with teaching experience from three to nine
years. All are qualified to the national standards required in the
lifelong learning sector, with two having a level 7 qualification
in teaching ESOL. The questions were designed to discover
how and why tutors use or do not use digital technologies
with learners and to explore their attitudes towards digital
literacy and ESOL teaching. Interviews were recorded with the
agreement of participants and later transcribed.
Observations
Due to the language barriers and power imbalance noticed
during the student interviews, non-verbal behaviour became
an important source of data in my study. My observations
were recorded as field notes and provided the means to reflect
on and question my motives in conducting the research. It
highlighted the researcher bias as I recorded my frustrations
with the apparent lack of success of the digital technologies
as learning tools. It also brought to light some factors I had
not previously considered relevant such as the amount of
peer collaboration which occurred as a side-effect of the
digital sessions. However, some disadvantages of being a
participant observer became apparent during the course of the
study. Firstly, I was often interrupted whilst observing as my
role as class tutor resulted in my observation data becoming
occasionally disjointed and lacking in certain details. Secondly,
as my field notes testify, there is some evidence that, as I
became aware of emergent themes during the study, I began
to actively seek these out whilst observing, in order to confirm
or contradict them, thereby potentially not noticing behaviour
which was not pertinent to these themes. It has therefore been
necessary to return to all sources during analysis in order to
allow reinterpretation of original data (Silverman, 2011).
Results and discussion
Demographic characteristics and internet usage
Age
A recurrent theme throughout the tutor interviews was how
age impacts on internet usage and digital literacy as they
perceived that youth equated to increased and more effective
internet usage. This comment is representative:
T4: Usually the younger ones, again, theyre quite
computersavvy.
This reflects Prenskys (2001a) concept of digital natives and
digital immigrants although data from my observations was
inconclusive in this regard. The weakest learner in terms of
computer skills was also the oldest at 69, whereas the most
digitally adept learners were aged 30, 31 and 42 so not
necessarily digital natives, the youngest learners aged 25
and 28, were only average in terms of computer skills. So, I
would suggest that for these learners, educational, cultural and
social backgrounds impact on their digital ability more than
age alone.
Gender, culture and education
Several tutors believed that men were more likely to engage
with web-based technologies than women as were those from
educated, modern backgrounds:
T3: Well, it depends on their background really. If
theyre Polish students, they use quite a lot and they
have computers at home. Asian students, not all of
them have computers. Well, most of them now, but men
usecomputers more than women.
No significant patterns were observable to confirm or
contradict these perceptions with my small sample of learners
as they were all female and largely of Asian ethnicity with only
a minority from other ethnic backgrounds. The more regular
and adept users of technology were a Polish learner who had
the highest level of education and a Chinese learner, thus
confirming the theory, but the other two skilled users were a
young Pakistani housewife, and a 31 year-old Libyan refugee
both with minimal education. Correlations were found in a
more extensive study by Selwyn, Gorard and Furlong (2005)
in terms of education and socio-economic status, although the
differences in gender were less apparent.
Thus, the tutors perceptions were not reflected in the reality
observed among my sample of learners. The data show that
students experiences and attitudes vary in a more arbitrary
manner than tutors would assume based on demographic
characteristics. The observation data are not sufficient to
show categorically that tutors are under a misapprehension
due to the size of and gender bias of the sample, but they do
indicate a need for more extensive research on differences
between tutor perceptions and learner realities. While current
research indicates that education and socio-economic status
influence internet usage (Selwyn et al, 2005), specific studies
with beginner ESOL learners are not available. It should also
be noted that the studies mentioned focus on general usage
rather than usage as a learning tool.
With regard to obstacles and opportunities, the data indicate
that demographic characteristics alone do not prevent or
facilitate learners use of the internet as a learning resource,
although they do suggest that level of education has more
effect than age. More extensive research with a larger sample of
mixed gender learners is needed to investigate any causal links
between demographic characteristics and successful internet
usage for language learning with beginner ESOLlearners.
Limited language/literacy and digital skills
The findings from observations seemed to contradict the
notion that a low level of language and literacy equates to a
low level of digital ability. The weakest learner in terms of
language in the sample, Maram, was one of the most skilful
and engaged users of web-based technologies and she was
often pivotal in assisting learners less familiar with digital
technology, thus reflecting the socio-cultural theory of learning
with technology, albeit indirectly. This was a significant finding.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 31
By offering her the opportunity to become a valued member
of the group, it may have increased her self-esteem thereby
allowing more learning to take place in the long term, although
this requires further investigation. On the other hand, Marams
case would seem to contradict Davis et als (2010) finding that
digital competence correlates to literacy development and
gaining employment, as I did not observe any improvement in
Marams language. Maram used the internet almost wholly in
her first language indicating that English language ability and
effective internet usage are unrelated in this instance.
The majority of comments from the tutor interviews indicated
that language is considered a barrier to Entry 1 ESOL learners
using the internet effectively for learning without any guidance
from tutors. The tutor beliefs were borne out to some extent
by the learners interview comments and suggest a need for a
more knowledgeable other reflecting the social constructivist
claims of e-learning. My observations also indicated that
generally, learners need some guidance and support with
understanding text and instructions on screen.
Other tutor comments, however, indicated that low levels of
language were not necessarily a barrier:
T6: Theres some young learners who really dont have any
literacy skills but who do know how to use a computer and
who do know how to use mobiles and texts.
I would summarise these contrasting views by suggesting that
a low level of language is a barrier to accessing web-based
technologies without any guidance at all, which is in line with
Davis et als (2010) finding as well as Coryell and Chlups
(2007) findings which highlighted support and collaboration
as important when implementing e-learning with adult ESOL
learners.
These obstacles highlight an overlap between digital literacy
and traditional literacy. For example, mistyping passwords
could be a typing error, or an inability to recognize the
difference between letter o and number 0, involving accuracy about the effectiveness of technology enhanced learning
of spelling and letter recognition skills, but they only become
apparent when using the computer. For example, one learner
set up a Facebook account using her Hotmail address, which
she typed as hotmial, meaning she was permanently excluded
from her Facebook account because, in order to confirm her
identity, she was required to access an email Facebook had
sent to hotmial, which did not exist. This learner was a
stronger learner in terms of language and literacy, but this
small typing error led to significant problems, so I would place
it in the digital literacy category.
Nonetheless, comments from learner interviews and reflective
evaluations emphasise that spelling was problematic. My
field notes also showed spelling issues were a regular feature
of the lessons using computers. This may be considered
an opportunity for learning: ESOL learners often struggle
with spelling and the fact that inaccurate spelling prevented
learners from accomplishing computer mediated tasks, could
be viewed as a positive learning experience as it provided
regular, contextualised opportunities to develop spelling
strategies by using online spelling tools and the Google
translate application. Learners were forced to adopt coping
strategies, seek out guidance from myself, other students or
the online tools, and by doing so, to move forward. I felt this
was a significant opportunity for self-directed learning albeit
on a small scale.
Digital literacy
As an ESOL teacher, it is my role to enable learners to use
language in order to function effectively in the modern
world, something I do not think is possible without engaging
with digital media. This informed one of the tutor interview
questions as I was interested in investigating their beliefs about
digital literacy and their professional role in this regard. Their
answers revealed that although they believed digital literacy
was an integral part of language learning, they were less sure
about whether ESOL tutors should teach it:
T3: I understand that in the 21st century everybody should
use computers in the modern world and in this society, so
its one of the skills everybody should learn, but I think the
aim in our class is to learn language itself, and computer
skills they include technical skills.
Most tutors felt that lessons focussing on web-based
technologies are a luxury due to the reduced guided learning
hours and the pressures of achieving targets.
So, despite the acceptance by policy makers, researchers,
practitioners and learners that digital literacy is an essential life
skill and an integral part of language learning, it is not tested
summatively nor is it recognised as a component of language
learning in the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum. Consequently it
is neglected by tutors in favour of the more urgent content
that learners will be tested on.
The data from the tutor interviews reveal a certain amount of
regret with regard to not developing learners digital literacy
and taking advantage of the learning opportunities available
online. None expressed personal or pedagogical doubt
and only two commented on feeling apprehensive about
using technology in a more learner-centred way due to their
own levels of confidence and technical expertise. It would
seem then, that the barriers to using learner-centred digital
technologies are predominantly due to reduced class contact
time and the scarcity of bookable IT facilities in college, neither
of which are in tutors control.
Teacher control and learner independence
Some tutors highlighted the importance of monitoring and
controlling their learners progress:
T7: How do you assess what theyve done? you, as a
teacher, need to know, you know, need to assess what
theyre actually doing and what theyre actually learning
This approach can perhaps be traced back to the language
teaching models such as Audiolingualism and The Direct
Method which view mistakes negatively and to be avoided
while the tutor retains tight control over the learning. It may
also be a result of the lesson observation criteria which require
regular formative assessment of learners progress which may
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 32
be at the expense of more innovative and creative approaches.
This is unfortunate as Ofsted encourage innovation and
creativity which promote learner autonomy and independent
learning (Ofsted, 2012).
This desire to control is common within ESOL as one tutor
observed:
T6: I think the one of the problems that erm, becomes sort
of inherent with the lower level learners, is that we sort of
lead them by the hand everywhere
Needing to protect learners or lacking confidence in their
abilities may prevent them experimenting and viewing
mistakes as evidence of learning. The same tutor commented:
T6: Any encouragement to work on their own will just
benefit their learning because theyll go and discover
things for themselves, ... and struggle and learn through
that struggle.
This learning through struggle is evident in this comment from
a learner who had experienced technical difficulties:
Salma: Because my many many time problem password, and
I came computer class and my mood: Oh my god,
because my computer work and not working and I go
home Today is OK and Im happy, Im good. This
time is good, no problem and OK, because you my
password is fine, sort out.
I believe this highlights a need to allow our learners more
freedom. Encouraging ESOL learners to develop their digital
literacies in this way may enable them to become proactive
and take responsibility for their learning (Knowles, 1990).
This type of learning led me to consider the importance
of establishing e-concepts with my learners. Data from
the learner interviews and my field notes occasionally
indicated that learners did not understand some of the digital
applications they were using. The example below indicates that
Zoya may be confusing an online translator tool with email:
Zoya: I like learning email.
R: Why?
Zoya: Because need more, speak need English college.
Doctor different, learning good, can change to what
you mean learning good, speak Gujarati, Urdu.
The lack of clarity here, a result of her minimal language skills,
suggests an alternative interpretation may be possible, so
in these instances the data is not as meaningful as could be
hoped. Particularly as later she seems to demonstrate some
understanding of email: Email, its good, friends, family. Me
no, but if email, help., although again, this is somewhat
lacking in clarity.
Several learners discussed the importance of being
independent and having more control over their lives as
well as their learning. They revealed that they used web-
based technologies such as Moodle and translator tools to
consolidate and expand their learning beyond the class as
reflected by Zuzas comments:
Monday, Tuesday, learn class. I go home. Friday, Saturday,
Sunday, Im computer college Moodle.
Zuza also talked about using the computer to translate
information she receives from her daughters nursery and
needing to develop her English skills in order not to have to
rely on a translator: Come doctor, I plus translator, no good.
Digital technologies and communication
I anticipated that learners would extend their use of
technologies beyond the classroom to communicate and
network with each other thus providing an opportunity for
further language practice as well as improved class dynamics
and friendship networks. The student interview data showed
that this was not the case for the majority. Only three learners
reported emailing each other and none posted anything onto
the Facebook group page or participated in the interactive
Moodle facilities outside the classroom. So, this study does
not reflect the common finding that e-learning platforms can
promote interaction between learners and facilitate language
learning (Lee, 2008; Pegrum, 2009). There are several
explanations for this including the samples limited computer
skills, the restricted access experienced by some, a lack of
motivation to engage in this mode of communication, a lack
of language with which to express themselves and perhaps
a lack of understanding of the concept of asynchronous
communication. It was difficult to ascertain whether any one
factor was dominant in preventing learners from engaging
with the Web 2.0 technologies, due to the language and
power issues, however, my impression, based on the following
comment and on my observations, is that all of the above
factors played a role:
Salma: Because computer is use and very good email
and everything very useful computer, but English, no
English and I cant easy computer using. My home is
already three, four laptop and computer my husband
is work, but I cant use because Im too much
watching TV (laughs) and movies and drama and
A further interpretation of this lack of interaction is that the
course only briefly introduced Web 2.0 technologies in the
expectation that learners would develop their skills and usage
beyond the classroom. In reality, these technologies require
a certain amount of digital competence before they can be
used independently2. Finally, the level of importance placed
on computer mediated interaction could also play a part in its
uptake (Lee, 2008) as my learners were not formally required
to participate beyond the classroom.
So, authentic communication in English did not often occur
between learners via the web with this particular sample, but
an unanticipated increase in peer collaboration was witnessed
in the classroom, particularly in classes involving technologies.
This was first commented on by the departments technician
after he assisted with a session in which the sample had used
laptops. He remarked on the social aspect of the more adept
technology users assisting the less adept users. This socio-
cultural element continued and developed into a regular
collaborative learning environment which I noted regularly in
my field notes. Often, this did not occur in English but in the
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 33
learners first language, indicating that language development
was secondary to general learning and computer skills, as
shown here:
Lots of collaborative learning going on and general
computer skills as well as increased confidence and
familiarity with ICT concepts. But minimal language
learning, just the odd spelling.
(Field notes, 06.02.12)
However, opportunities for language learning were observed
on several occasions:
Some nice collaboration: Maram corrected Anisas
pronunciation of pizza.
(Field notes, 30.04.12)
Lots of peer collaboration re: mechanical skills and
language skills especially spelling.
(Field notes, 05.03.12)
Lots of collaboration and interaction not all in English
but... mostly regarding spellings and the odd technical
thing.
(Field notes, 19.03.12)
This is significant as the majority of learners stated interaction
and collaboration as their preferred learning activities.
A further aspect of collaboration was commented on by a
tutor, who found that learners were keen to share information
regarding useful websites and this was particularly effective in
breaking down some cultural divisions within the class:
T4: I think its a massive advantage in that theyll be
sharing information, sharing it correctly for the right
reasons and even across that Poles sit that side and Asians
sit that side, its now, Tell me about that website you were
talking about
A reason for this increased collaboration during digital sessions
is perhaps the significant gap in abilities and the ease with
which learners can assist each other through demonstrating.
There may also be fewer stigmas associated with a lack of
computer skills than a lack of language skills, so learners are
more willing to seek help.
These data indicate that using web-based technologies is a
useful and worthwhile exercise for beginner ESOL learners
as a general learning and life skill, if not as a specific tool
for language development, as it activates the socio-cultural
aspect of learning, which claims that knowledge is a result
of social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978 cited in Gutierrez,
2003). Gutierrezs (2003) study is particularly reflective of the
situation with my learners as the interaction which occurred
was facilitated by but did not occur via the medium of the
computer.
Conclusion
What are the experiences and attitudes of
beginner ESOL learners and their tutors regarding
the use of web-based technologies as language
learning tools?
The findings from this small-scale research project have
demonstrated that both learners and tutors value web-based
technologies as a learning tool, as well as a means to develop
the literacies vital for integration in todays digital society. In
terms of language learning, the Computer Assisted Language
Learning activities were considered by both groups of
participants to be more beneficial and accessible than the
Web 2.0 technologies. For both groups, their experiences of
using web-based technologies can be troublesome and often
frustrating, but it is a worthwhile and necessary struggle
potentially leading to peripheral learning opportunities
including autonomy, confidence and collaboration. The study
has also demonstrated that tutors attitudes and perceptions
are not always reflected in the reality experienced by their
learners.
What obstacles and opportunities do web-based
technologies present for beginner ESOL learners?
The findings indicate that the most significant obstacle for
learners is their lack of familiarity with web-based technologies
and their low levels of digital literacy. Spelling was another
obstacle often mentioned by learners and was observed to
frustrate learners and prevent them from engaging fully with
the technologies independently. However, by addressing these
issues, with the support of a tutor, peer or family member, the
opportunities that web-based technologies present for these
learners are a more socio-cultural learning experience and
potentially self-directed, empowered adults (Brookfield, 1986:
11). A third obstacle is one I have termed e-concepts, which
I equate to Meyer and Lands (2003) Threshold Concepts
theory. E-concepts are the understanding and ideas beginner
ESOL learners need to acquire before effectively engaging with
web-based technologies. These include the basic concepts of
what the internet is and how the institutions Moodle relates to
that; what email is, the different email providers; what websites
are and how they differ from emails; what search engines are
and how to make use of search results. I suggest that learning
these concepts can be compared to learning a language, in
that native speakers or digital natives acquire them implicitly,
whereas non-native speakers or digital immigrants need to be
taught explicitly. Observations of learners demonstrating the
physical skills of sending emails, accessing Moodle and visiting
websites without much true understanding of what they were
doing indicate that these learners need a deeper understanding
of the concepts behind the technologies in order to use them
effectively and with understanding.
The obstacles of time and access from tutors point of view
would seem more prohibitive than learners language, literacy
and computer skills. Although, these too, can be overcome
with determination and collaboration and with the recognition
that digital literacy is an integral part of language and literacy.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 34

This study has highlighted several avenues worth investigating Olesen-Tracey, K. (2010) Leading Online Learning Initiatives
further such as developing beginner ESOL learners in Adult Education. Journal of Adult Education. 39 (2),
e-competencies; focussing on a particular Web 2.0 tool over a pp.3639.
period of time to assess its effectiveness with beginner ESOL Pegrum, M. (2009) Communicative Networking and
learners; the quality and emotional effects of collaboration Linguistic Mashups on Web 2.0. In M. Thomas (ed.)
resulting from using Web 2.0 technologies in class and Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language
researching a larger, mixed gender sample to explore possible Learning. London: Information Science Reference, pp. 2041.
links between background and effective digital practices for
language learning with beginner ESOL learners. Prensky, M. (2001a) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.
Onthe Horizon. 9 (5), pp.1-6.
Selwyn, N.; Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2005) Whose Internet
is it Anyway? Exploring Adults (Non) Use of the Internet in
References Everyday Life. European Journal of Communication. 20 (1),
Brookfield, S. (1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult pp.526.
Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press. Selwyn, N., Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2006) Adult learning in
Cameron, D. (2012) Foreward. [online] Available at: the digital age: information technology and the learning society.
http://raceonline2012.org/manifesto/1 Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
[Accessed June 20, 2012]. Silverman, D. (2011) Interpreting Qualitative Data. 4th ed.
Coryell, J. E. & Chlup, D. T. (2007) Implementing E-Learning London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Components with Adult English Language Learners: Vital
factors and lessons learned. Computer Assisted Language Endnotes
Learning. 20 (3), pp. 263277. 1. The class consisted of all female learners purely by
Davis, N.,Fletcher, J. & Absalom, I. (2010) E-learning for adult chance; the class is not a women only class.
literacy, language and numeracy: A case study of a polytechnic. 2. This suggests that more meaningful data regarding levels
Wellington: Ministry of Education. of web-based interaction could be gained by focussing
on one of these technologies to enable learners to
DfES (Department for Education and Skills). (2001) Skills
become familiar and confident users. By minimising
for Life: The national strategy for improving adult literacy and
the variable of lack of familiarity with the technology,
numeracy skills. London: DfES.
subsequent analysis of levels of interaction would be more
Ecclesfield, N. & Garnett, F. (2006) E-learning and Public Value. meaningful. However, this study did not seek to analyse
[online] Available at: http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/ the effectiveness of any one technological tool.
italics/vol5iss4/eccelsfield-garnett.pdf
[Accessed August 10, 2012]. Katharine Stapleford was an ESOL tutor and teacher trainer
Go ON UK (2012) Home page. [online] Available at: in FE for 11 years and is currently an academic skills tutor
http://www.go-on-uk.org/ [Accessed August 6, 2012]. and ESOL teacher trainer in an HE setting. She is interested
in the opportunities technology offers students and
Gutierrez, G. A. (2003). Beyond interaction: the study of
educators as well as the concept of digital literacy.
collaborative activity in computer-mediated tasks. ReCALL,
15 (1), pp. 94112. Email: kstapleford@hotmail.co.uk
Knowles, M. (1990) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species.
Houston: Gulf Publishing Company
Lee, L. (2008) Enhancing Learners Communication Skills
through Synchronous Electronic Interaction and Task-Based
Instruction. Foreign Language Annals. 35 (1), pp.1624.
Mellar, H.; Kambouri, M.; Sanderson, M. & Pavlou, V. (2004)
ICT and adult literacy, numeracy and ESOL. London: NRDC.
Meyer, J. & Land, R. (2003) Threshold Concepts and
Troublesome Knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and
practising within the discipline. In C. Rust (ed.) Improving
Student Learning 10 years on. Oxford: OCSLD, pp.412424.
Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Childrens Services
and Skills) (2008) ESOL in the post-compulsory learning and
skills sector: an evaluation. London: Ofsted.
Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Childrens Services
and Skills) (2012) Handbook for the inspection of further
education and skills from September 2009. Manchester: Ofsted.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 35
Own language use in ELT:
exploring global practices
andattitudes
Graham Hall and Guy Cook
Adapted by Language Issues from the
British Council ELT Research Paper 13-0
We are pleased to present an abridged version of a seminal
report about own language use in ELT classrooms. The data
comes from 2,785 teachers of English in 111 countries. The
report was published as a British Council research paper in
2013; it is presented here in the first of two parts. The first part
introduces the report with a brief review of relevant literature,
an overview of the methodology adopted and findings for
the first two of four research questions. We have retained the
original text in order to preserve the cogency and quality of
the argument, with shorter versions of the introduction, the
participant profiles and the methodology.
The second part, to follow in the next edition of Language
Issues, will recap some of the background information and
report findings for the third and fourth research questions.
The full report can be found at http://englishagenda.
britishcouncil.org/research-papers/own-language-use-elt-
exploring-global-practices-and-attitudes
The research study was conducted by Graham Hall,
Northumbria University, and Guy Cook, Kings College London.
Abstract
Throughout the 20th century, debate within ELT (English
language teaching) assumed that English is best taught and
learned without the use of the students own language(s).
This English-only assumption has been increasingly ques-
tioned recently and the role of own-language use is being
reassessed. However, there are substantial gaps in our
knowledge in this area.
This paper reports on the project Own-language use in ELT:
exploring global practices and attitudes, a survey of the
extent to which, how, and why teachers deploy learners
own-language in English language classrooms around
the world. The findings offer clear evidence of widespread
own-language use within ELT, and suggest that teachers
attitudes towards own-language use, and their classroom
practices, are more complex than usually acknowledged.
Although there is variation between individuals and
groups of teachers, the survey shows that own-language
use is an established part of ELT classroom practice, and
that teachers, while recognising the importance of English
within the classroom, do see a range of useful functions for
own-language use in their teaching.
Consequently, the report provides a resource for teachers,
confirming the validity of own-language use and touching
on a range of ideas as to how and why learners own lan-
guages can play a role within ELT classes. The findings also
suggest that there is a potential gap between mainstream
ELT literature and teachers practices on the ground.
A note on terminology
In this research, the term own language is used in preference
to first language (L1), native language or mother tongue, all
of which seem unsatisfactory. For example, in many language
classrooms, the most common shared language of the learners
is not the first or native language of all students. Furthermore,
the term native language is imprecise it mixes several
criteria and can mean the language someone spoke in infancy,
the language with which they identify, or the language they
speak best; these are not always the same (see Rampton 1990
for further discussion). Finally, mother tongue is not only an
emotive term but also inaccurate for the obvious reason that
many peoples mother tongue is not their mothers mother
tongue!
Own-language use in ELT: theoretical
background and current debates
For much of the 20th century, the assumption was that a
new language should be taught and learned monolingually,
without reference to or use of the learners own language in
the classroom (Howatt with Widdowson 2004; G Cook 2010;
Littlewood and Yu 2011; Hall and Cook 2012).
Within the ELT literature, grammar translation had been
rejected in the late 19th century, criticised for focusing
exclusively on accuracy and writing at the expense of fluency
and speaking, and for being authoritarian and dull. In effect,
claims against grammar translation were used as arguments
against any and all own-language use within ELT (Cook 2010:
15, original emphasis).
Support for and acceptance of monolingual approaches can
be ascribed to a number of factors including: classes in which
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 36
learners speak a variety of own languages, the employment
of native-speaker English teachers (NESTs in Medgyes
[1992] terminology) who may not know the language(s) of
their learners, and publishers promotion of monolingual
course books which could be used by native-speaker experts
and be marketed globally without variation. Furthermore,
the perceived goals of language teaching changed from the
so-called traditional or academic aim of developing learners
abilities to translate written texts and appreciate literature in
the original to the (often unstated) goal of preparing learners
to communicate in monolingual environments and emulate
native speakers of the target language. It is worth noting,
however, that for many learners, this goal was, and is, not
necessarily useful, desirable or obtainable (Davies 1995;
2003) in a world in which learners need to operate bilingually
or use English in a lingua franca environment with other non-
native speakers of English (Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011). In
addition, an increasing amount of communication is no longer
face-to-face but via computer.
What is fashionable in the literature does not necessarily reflect
what happens in classrooms in all parts of the world, and,
despite its disappearance from ELT theory and methodological
texts, the use of learners own languages in ELT classrooms has
survived. The grammar translation method was employed in
China until the late 20th century (Adamson 2004) and V Cook
observes that the approach carries an academic seriousness
of purpose which may seem appropriate in those societies
that maintain a traditional view of learner and teacher roles
in the classroom (2008: 239). Thornbury (2006), meanwhile,
notes that the continued survival of grammar translation may
be a consequence of its ease of implementation, especially
with large classes.
However, beyond traditional grammar translation, a wider
recognition and re-evaluation of the use of the learners own
language in the ELT classroom is now emerging, drawing upon
a range of theoretical and pedagogical insights into the nature
of language learning and its broader social purposes.
Pedagogic functions of
own-language use
Pedagogic arguments for own-language use include the efficient
conveying of meaning, maintenance of class discipline and
organisation, and teacher-learner rapport and contact between
the teacher and learners as real people (e.g. Polio and Duff
1994; V Cook 2001). Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008) classify
these pedagogic functions in terms of teachers medium-
oriented goals and their framework goals, that is, teaching the
new language (the medium) itself (e.g. explaining vocabulary
items or teaching grammar) and framing, organising and
managing classroom events (e.g. giving instructions or setting
homework). Meanwhile, Kim and Elder (2008) identify a
similar distinction, additionally suggesting that the learners
own language is often used for the social goal of expressing
personal concern and sympathy. Similarly, a number of
studies highlight the role of own-language use in potentially
establishing more equitable intra-class relationships between
the teacher and learners than via the exclusive use of the target
language (e.g. Auerbach 1993; Brooks-Lewis, 2009). Indeed,
Edstrom (2006) proposes that debates surrounding own-
language use go beyond concerns about language learning
processes or classroom management and involve value-based
judgments in which teachers have a moral obligation to use
the learners own language judiciously in order to recognise
learners as individuals, to communicate respect and concern,
and to create a positive affective environment for learning.
Theorising own-language use
Reference to the role of the learners own language as a
natural reference system and a pathfinder for learning new
languages is widespread (e.g. Butzkamm 1989; Stern 1992;
Butzkamm and Caldwell 2009). Socio-cultural theories of
learning and education suggest that learning proceeds best
when it is scaffolded onto existing knowledge (Vygotsky
1978), while notions of compound or integrated bilingualism
(in which knowledge of two or more languages is integrated
in learners minds rather than kept separate) emerge from
cognitive approaches to second-language learning (V Cook
2001; Widdowson 2003). Thus, because languages are said to
interact and to be interdependent in the minds of language
learners (who are bilingual language users), learning is likely
to be more efficient if teachers draw students attention to the
similarities and differences between their languages (Cummins
2007).
Meanwhile, the potential benefits of own-language use and
translation as an effective language-learning strategy have
been identified (e.g. Oxford 1996), while the ways in which
learners use their own language to guide and direct their
thinking about the new language and during language tasks has
also been discussed (e.g. Anton and DiCamilla 1999; Centeno-
Corts and Jimnez Jimnez 2004). Similarly, own-language
use has been identified as the most effective way of learning
vocabulary, via learners use of bilingual dictionaries and also
as a teaching strategy (e.g. Celik 2003; Nation 2003; Laufer and
Girsai 2008).
How much own-language use?
The idea of judicious own-language use has already been
touched upon, and there have been a number of calls for
research to find an appropriate or optimal amount of own-
language use in class (e.g. Stern 1992; Macaro 2009), one
which is principled and purposeful (Edstrom 2006) and which
identifies when and why the learners own language might
be used (Turnbull and Arnett 2002). While recognising the
reality of own-language use and its beneficial effects in many
ELT contexts, it is clearly important that learners obtain new
language input and practice opportunities. There is therefore
concern among some researchers that, in the absence of
clear research findings or other sources of guidance, that
teachers may be devising arbitrary rules concerning the use
of the learners own language. And yet, teachers are also best
placed to decide what is appropriate for their own classrooms
(Macmillan and Rivers 2011).
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 37
Researching predominantly communicative language
classrooms, Macaro (1997) has identified three perspectives
that teachers hold about own-language use:
the classroom is a virtual (and unattainable) reality that
mirrors the environment of first-language learners or
migrants to a country who are immersed in the new
language. Macaro points out that these perfect learning
conditions do not exist in language classrooms.
aim for maximal use of the new language in class, with own-
language use being tainted, thereby leading to feelings of
guilt among teachers.
the optimal position, in which own-language use is seen
as valuable at certain points during a lesson, providing
advantages to learners and learning beyond using only
the target language. This optimal use of the learners own
language requires principled and informed judgments by
teachers, but is also very difficult to define precisely or
to generalise across contexts, classrooms and groups of
learners.
The current research draws upon Macaros analysis as we
attempt to understand what kind of position teachers hold
about own-language use, and what an optimal position might
involve for participants in this project.
Teachers and learners attitudes
Clearly, the extent to which own-language use occurs in a class
depends on the attitudes of teachers and learners towards its
legitimacy and value in the ELT classroom, and many studies
report a sense of guilt among teachers when learners own
languages are used in class (e.g. Macaro 1997, 2009; Butzkamm
and Caldwell 2009; Littlewood and Yu 2011).
Beyond teachers guilt, however, a range of more complex
attitudes have been identified. Summarising the literature,
Macaro notes the overwhelming impression that bilingual
teachers believe that the L2 should be the predominant
language of interaction in the classroom. On the other hand,
[we do not find] a majority of teachers in favour of excluding
the L1 altogether (2006: 68, original emphasis).
Clearly then, not all teachers hold the same attitudes to
own-language use, and there is some evidence that attitudes
and beliefs might vary according to teachers cultural
backgrounds and the educational traditional in which they
work. For example, while many studies report a belief that
the balance between own and new language use in class is
most consistently affected by learners and/ or teachers
ability in English (e.g. Macaro 1997, and Crawford, 2004 for
the former, Kim and Elder 2008 for the latter), van der Meij
and Zhao (2010) find that English teachers working in Chinese
universities perceive no such link. Meanwhile, potentially
differing attitudes between teachers who do or do not share
the learners own language have been noted (Harbord 1992).
Yet even here, the picture is not clear cut; McMillan and Rivers
(2011) more recent study of NEST and non-NEST attitudes in
a specific Japanese teaching context finds little difference of
opinion between the two groups both favouring an English
mainly rather than English only approach in the classroom.
Although learners attitudes will clearly affect the extent and
role of own-language use in the classroom, there has been
less research into learner perceptions of the issue. That
said, a number of studies have uncovered positive attitudes,
particularly as a way of reducing learners anxiety and creating
a humanistic classroom (Harbord 1992; Rolin-Ianziti and
Varshney 2008; Brooks-Lewis 2009; Littlewood and Yu 2011).
Thus, twelve years into the 21st century, the reality and value
of learners own-language use in class is now more widely
recognised and researched.
Justification for the study
Despite the recent focus upon this issue, however, there remain
substantial gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the
extent to which, and how, learners own languages are used in
ELT classes, and the attitudes practising teachers hold towards
own-language use. A global survey of classroom practices,
teachers attitudes and the possible reasons for these attitudes
provide a wide-ranging empirical base for further discussion
about the role of own-language use within ELT, while also
allowing for and acknowledging the differences in perspectives
which may emerge as a consequence of contextual factors.
Research methodology
Aims and research questions
The project aimed to investigate the ways in which learners
own languages are used in English-language teaching
around the world, to explore teachers perceptions of and
attitudes towards the use of learners own languages in the
ELT classroom, and to investigate the factors that influence
teachers reported practices and attitudes. Consequently, the
study addressed the following research questions:
1. What types of own-language use activities do teachers
report that they and learners engage in?
2. What are teachers reported attitudes towards and beliefs
about own-language use in the ELT classroom?
3. What are teachers perceptions of their institutional culture,
and the culture/ discourse of ELT more broadly, in relation
to own-language use?
4. To what extent are teachers reported levels of own
language use practices associated with specific background
variables such as type of institution, learners English
language level, and teachers experience?
Research design
The project explored teachers insider perspectives on own-
language use in their classroom teaching (Davis 1995). We
pursued a mixed-method research design (Drnyei 2007; Borg
2009), combining quantitative and qualitative approaches
to provide a broad, yet in-depth picture of teachers
reported classroom practices and attitudes. Quantitative
data was collected via a survey of teachers perceptions of
own-language use, gathered from a global sample of ELT
practitioners. A copy of the final questionnaire can be found
in Appendix 1 of the full report. Qualitative data was collected
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 38
through semi-structured interviews with teachers who had
completed the questionnaire and volunteered to participate
further.
a. The questionnaire
In designing our questionnaire, it was essential to ensure that
individual items were clearly written, while the survey as a
whole needed to be relevant and interesting to respondents,
and straightforward for them to complete (see also Borg and
Al-Busaidi 2012). Having identified key themes and debates
within the literature surrounding own-language use, we needed
to balance this at times more theoretical background with the
practical experiences and attitudes of participating teachers.
Key issues that we wished to investigate with teachers included:
how and to what extent teachers used the learners own
language in their teaching
how and to what extent learners used their own language in
class
teachers attitudes towards own-language use in class
teachers evaluation of the arguments for and against own-
language use in ELT
teachers perceptions of general attitudes towards own-
language use in their schools/institutions and within the
profession of ELT more generally.
Additionally, we required relevant biographic data including an
understanding of the participants professional contexts and
their professional qualifications and experience.
The questionnaire was piloted with 19 English language
teachers working in 16 different countries around the world,
and drawn from private and state institutions within the
primary, secondary and tertiary sectors (pilot participants were
known to the researchers through their professional contacts).
Subsequent revisions were made to the questionnaires length,
wording and overall structure in light of their feedback. It
should be noted that this data represents reported rather than
actual own-language practices.
The only criterion for participation was that respondents
were practising English language teachers. The survey was
administered with a total of 2,785 teachers from 111 countries
responding.
b. The interviews
Follow-up interviews were conducted to explore teachers
responses to the questionnaire in more detail. The aim was
to provide greater insight into the thinking behind teachers
answers to questions in the survey, and also to elicit reasons for
using or not using the students own language which had not
been envisaged in the questionnaire.
From those who volunteered to be interviewed, a sample of 20
teachers was invited for interview from a variety of contexts so
that interviewees reflected key criteria in the same proportions
as the wider survey group. These criteria were:
sector: primary, secondary or tertiary level
geographical spread: by country/continent
monolingual or multilingual classes (learners share or do
not share the same own language)
Due to online difficulties, 17 teachers were interviewed in total,
from the following sectors/countries:
Primary: China, Indonesia, France, Estonia*, Argentina
Secondary: Malaysia*, Saudi Arabia, Latvia, Spain, Greece,
Egypt
Tertiary: Armenia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Portugal*, Turkey
Note: Learners shared own language in all classes except those
marked *
Although the interview sample aimed to reflect the wider
survey group as closely as possible, countries and educational
sectors are not homogenous contexts differences exist within
national populations and between institutions. Consequently,
the interviews provide illustration and insights into, rather
than full representation of, the survey data. Furthermore, as
the list of interviewees indicates, there is an absence of inner-
circle contexts (e.g. the UK, USA, Australia), meaning that the
data provides little information on the Anglophone private
language-school sector, in which mixed nationality classes
(and where learners do not share a common own-language)
are often the norm. Issues surrounding own-language use in
this sector clearly differ from those in other ELT contexts.
(For the detailed methodology section we recommend that readers
go to the full report, editors).
Results
In this section, the profile of respondents is outlined first before
presenting a summary of results in response to the research
questions outlined in the section on Methodology.
Profile of respondents
The survey respondents constituted a non-probability sample
of 2,785 teachers working in 111 countries. Five countries
returned 100 or more responses to the survey: the Peoples
Republic of China (227), Portugal (190), Spain (189), Indonesia
(108) and Turkey (105). A further 11 countries returned 50
or more responses: Latvia (98), United Arab Emirates (83),
India (79), Saudi Arabia (79), United Kingdom (71), Egypt (64),
Lithuania (61), Netherlands (58), Mexico (55), France (54) and
Japan (50).
Most respondents worked in state schools/institutions (58.7
per cent of the sample), and the vast majority taught classes
in which learners shared a common own language (87 per
cent). Almost two-thirds (62.5 per cent) of participants classed
themselves as expert or native speakers of their learners
language, with a further 7.9 per cent identifying themselves as
advanced-level speakers of that language.
Participants generally taught classes of less than 30 students,
with around one-third teaching groups of 1120, and a further
third teaching classes of 2130.
Participants ELT experience ranged from 04 years (15.8 per
cent) to over 25 years of teaching (16.3 per cent), with 59 and
1014 years of experience being most common (20.4 per cent
and 20.7 per cent respectively). Just 1.8 per cent of the sample
reported that they held no relevant qualifications for English
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 39

language teaching, while 41.4 per cent held a Masters level (a social function); this framework has been described in the
qualification and 5.9 per cent a Doctorate. theoretical background section above. However, it is also
worth noting that while own-language use appears to be part
RQ 1: What types of own-language use activities of many teachers everyday classroom practice, for each of
the functions suggested within the survey, between 20 and 35
do teachers report that they and learners per cent of respondents reported that they used only English.
engagein? Within ELT generally, there is clearly a wide variation in
teacher practices.
a. Teachers own-language use in the classroom
According to the survey, many teachers and learners make use b. Learners own-language use
of the learners own language in the classroom.
Survey responses focusing on the extent and functions of
The majority of teachers who participated in the survey learner own-language use clearly illustrate that the vast
reported using the learners own language sometimes (30.1 per majority of learners use their own language at some point in
cent), often (25.7 per cent) or always (16.2 per cent) to explain class. Indeed, only 10 per cent of participants suggest that
when meanings in English are unclear; likewise, a total of 61.5 learners never use bilingual dictionaries/word lists and never
per cent of participants also explained vocabulary via the own compare English grammar to the grammar of their own
language sometimes, often or always. Furthermore, over half the language (in fact, over 70 per cent of learners reportedly use
teachers in the survey report a similarly frequent use of own bilingual vocabulary resources and actively compare English
language to explain grammar (58.1 per cent of responses), to and own-language grammar items). And even though a
develop rapport and a good classroom atmosphere (53.2 per substantial proportion of learners reportedly never engage in
cent) and to maintain discipline (50.4 per cent). The learners spoken or written translation activities (31.1 per cent and 40.2
own language was less frequently deployed to give instructions per cent respectively), 43.2 per cent of learners do participate
to learners, correct spoken errors, give feedback on written in oral translation tasks sometimes, often or always (with around
work or test and assess learners. one third of learners engaging in written translation equally
frequently). These trends are illustrated in Figure 4 (from the
In addition to the nine teacher activities highlighted within
original report).
the survey (and listed in Figure 3 from the original report),
a number of respondents noted other ways in which they Survey respondents additional comments (from 219
made use of the learners own language. Several highlighted participants) add further detail to the quantitative summary
its role in language-awareness activities, identifying the way of learner behaviour. Many responses highlighted the way in
in which they contrasted English grammar with that of the which learners themselves use own language to understand
learners own language. Others identified own language as and manage their participation in classroom activities, i.e. own
the most appropriate medium for meta-cognitive work, such language is used by learners for framework functions such as
as discussing with students their learning strategies and study checking teacher instructions with peers and understanding
skills or engaging in needs analysis. A number of respondents how classroom interaction is to be organised during
suggested that own-language use was appropriate in the first classroom activities (especially in the early stages of pair and
few weeks of a course before being phased out or reduced over group work). Understandably, learners also appear to use
time. Several suggested that their use of own language would their own language to develop and maintain friendships (i.e.
change according to the learners age and English-language to perform a social function within the classroom). The data
level. thus emphasises the active way in which learners as well as
Figure 3: Reported frequency and functions of teachers own teachers deploy own language to establish and maintain the
language use in class. classroom as a pedagogical and social environment in which
language learning can take place.
3000
2500
Finally, a number of respondents also acknowledged the
Always
2000 Often difficulty they had in evaluating how much learners use their
1500
1000
Sometimes

Rarely
own languages in class. This raises the possibility that some
500 Never respondents may have underestimated the amount of own-
0
language use that occurs in their classes. Given that the data so
give

explain
instructions

develop rapport
grammar

correct spoken

test and assess

on written work
classroom

learners
English are
unclear

give feedback
explain when
atmosphere

errors

meanings in
vocabulary

discipline
explain

and a good

maintain

far reveals reasonably significant levels of own-language use in

ELT, the possibility that the data may in fact under-report such
activity is potentially significant.

Within this survey sample, and, in keeping with key themes

and trends identified within the literature surrounding the
issue, many respondents acknowledged a range of medium-
oriented, framework and social functions underlying own-
language use in their classes (e.g. explanations of vocabulary
and grammar (the medium), giving instructions and classroom
management (framework tasks), and maintaining rapport
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 40

Figure 4: Reported frequency and functions of learners ELT practitioners around the world, albeit teaching in ways
own-language use in class that have been widely ignored by the language teaching
and learning literature over the past century. In essence, the
3000
2500
Always data supports Macaros suggestion (2006; see theoretical
2000 Often background section above) that many teachers recognise the
1500
1000
Sometimes
importance of English as the predominant, but not necessarily
Rarely
500 the only language in the classroom. Clearly, however, it is
Never
0
use bilingual compare watch English do spoken do written prepare for possible that teachers attitudes and own-language practices
dictionaries or English language TV/ translation translation tasks and
word lists grammar to video with activities exercises activities in may be associated with variables such as their professional
the grammar own-language their own
of their own
language
subtitles language
before
context, experience and type of institution (i.e. the discussion
switching
to English
in this section outlines only aggregate trends within the survey
data).

RQ 2: What are teachers reported attitudes b. The case for and against own-language use:
towards and beliefs about own-language teachers perceptions
useinthe ELT classroom? This section of the questionnaire brought together key
arguments which potentially support or discourage own-
In Section 2 of the survey, teachers were asked to summarise
language use in ELT. Respondents evaluated the strength of
their overall attitude towards own-language use in their
each point for and against own-language practices on a seven-
teaching, to evaluate a range of arguments for and against its
point Likert scale.
use in class, and to consider the relationship between own-
language use and class variables such as learner age, English- Figure 5: Teachers views of own-language use in
language level and group size. theirclassroom

a. Teachers general attitudes towards own-language use 3000

Strongly agree
2500
2000 Agree
As Figure 5 shows, the majority of teachers suggested that 1500 Neither agree
1000 nor disagree
they try to exclude or to limit own-language use (61.4 per cent 500 Disagree
0
of respondents strongly agree or agree with excluding own I try to exclude I allow own- English should I feel guilty Own-language
Strongly disagree

own-language language use be the main if languages use helps

language, with 73.5 per cent reporting that they allow own-
language use only at certain points of the lesson).
Superficially, therefore, this attitudinal data seems to suggest
that teachers continue to reject own-language use within ELT.
And yet, as we have seen, survey respondents also reported a
notable amount of own-language practices in their classrooms.
How might we account for this apparent paradox?
Evidently, the survey data is not as straightforward as it at first
appears. For example, while the vast majority of participants
clearly believe that English should be the main language used
in the classroom (less than 4 per cent of respondents disagreed
with this statement), over one third of survey respondents did
not agree with the statement I try to exclude own-language
use. Similarly, the 73.5 per cent of surveyed teachers who
allow own-language only at certain parts of a lesson may be
indicating an acceptance that its use is inevitable. Indeed, it
seems possible that this particular set of responses may reflect
a search by some teachers for Macaros optimal position
(1997; see Section 2), in which own-language use is seen as
valuable at certain points during a lesson. Furthermore, only
around one third of survey respondents reported that they
felt guilty if languages other than English are used in class,
while the majority of participants (56.7 per cent) agreed that
own-language use helped learners to express their own identity
during lessons.
The survey data therefore suggests that teachers attitudes
towards own-language use are more complex than are
sometimes acknowledged. Those who accommodate the use
of learners own languages in class are not isolated examples
of poor practice within ELT, but are, in fact, typical of many
use only at certain
points of a
language used
in the
other than
English are
learners
express their
lesson classtoom used in the
classroom
cultural and
linguistic
identity more
easily
Respondents generally judged those arguments which point
out the disadvantages of (excessive) own-language use in
class to be stronger than those which can be categorised as
generally supportive of own-language practices. This trend
is consistent with the discussion of respondents general
attitudes already noted, whereby teachers regard English as
the primary language within the classroom and allow (or aim
to allow) own-language use only at certain points of lessons.
However, examining the data in more detail reveals that
some key arguments seem to be more plausible to survey
participants than others. The potential for own-language use
to deprive learners of both speaking and listening practice in
English was identified as the strongest argument against own-
language activities. Meanwhile, respondents perceived the role
of own-language interference (negative transfer) into English
as being a less significant concern. However, implicit in these
findings, and central to a key theme that is becoming clear
within the data, is that a substantial minority of respondents
did not rate each of the arguments against own-language
use listed within the survey as strong or very strong. Indeed,
around 20 per cent of all responses evaluated them as weak to
very weak. This is, of course, not surprising given the range of
professional contexts within global ELT; yet this diversity of
attitudes and contexts is often forgotten in the research and
methodological literature of our field.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 41
Similarly, when participants evaluated the case for own-
language use, the way in which learners might relate new
English-language knowledge to existing own-language
knowledge and its role in reducing learner anxiety were
seen as the two strongest arguments (with mean ratings of
4.21 and 3.98 respectively). Interestingly, however, the very
practical suggestion that conveying meaning through the
own-language saves time was not quite so well regarded
(mean = 3.51). This is potentially encouraging for those calling
for principled or judicious own-language use (see theoretical
background section above) as it seems to imply that teacher
decision-making may centre more on issues of learning and
pedagogy rather than expediency and convenience (that said,
saving time is clearly an essential part of classroom and course
management on occasion!).
c. Own-language use and learner/class characteristics
The survey also examined the extent to which participants
consider own-language use more appropriate with some
groups of learners than with others. The results describe
the extent to which survey participants perceived the
appropriateness of own-language use according to: learners
English-language level, age, class size, the extent to which
learners own-languages are similar to English, the language
backgrounds of the class group (students sharing the same
language or a mixed language background).
Interestingly, the majority of survey respondents believed
that own-language use is more appropriate with lower-level
learners than higher-level students, with 56.2 per cent of the
sample agreeing with this view (and less than one third or 32.1
per cent disagreeing).
In contrast, most participants did not think that own-language
use is more appropriate with younger learners or with larger
classes. Clearly, there may be a tendency for younger learners
to be studying English at a lower level than older learners, but
according to many teachers participating in this survey, age
alone should not determine the extent of own-language use.
Perspectives on the relationship between the learners own-
language background and its use in class are less clear-cut.
Although many respondents were undecided as to the
importance of own-language background, there was a slight
tendency for participants to disagree with the notion that
own-language use is more appropriate where the learners
own-language is particularly different from English (e.g. uses
a different writing system or has a very different grammar).
Additionally, while the majority of responses note that own-
language use is more appropriate with classes where learners
share an own language, a sizeable minority disagreed with
this perspective, presumably on the basis that own-language
use is to be avoided (rather than suggesting its use is equally
appropriate with classes in which learners share an own
language compared to those where they do not).
Summary for results from
questions1and 2
The data for research questions 1 and 2 suggests that teachers
make decisions about own language use in the classroom in
response to a number of factors including the aims for that part
of the lesson, the level of the students, the language mix within
the classroom and class size. Above all, this data suggests that
while teachers acknowledge the importance of maximum
target language use in the classroom, local constraints mean
that own language is also used.
The second and final part of this report appears in the next issue of
Language Issues and will include a summary of the findings.
References
Adamson, B. (2004) Fashions in Language Teaching
Methodology, in Davies, A and Elder, C (eds), The Handbook
of Applied Linguistics. London: Blackwell, 604622.
Antn, M. and DiCamilla, F. (1999) Socio-Cognitive Functions
of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom. Modern
Language Journal 83/2: 233247.
Auerbach, E. (1993) Re-examining English Only in the ESL
Classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27/1: 932.
Borg, S. (2009) English Language Teachers Conceptions of
Research. Applied Linguistics 30/3: 358388.
Borg, S. and Al-Busaidi, S. (2012) Learner Autonomy: English
Language Teachers Beliefs and Practices. British Council ELT
Research Paper 1207. London, British Council.
Brooks-Lewis, K. (2009) Adult Learners Perceptions of the
Incorporation of their L1 in Foreign Language Teaching and
Learning. Applied Linguistics 30/2: 216235.
Butzkamm, W. (1989/2002) Psycholinguistik des
Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Natrliche Knstlichkeit: Von der
Muttersprache zur Fremdsprache. Tbingen: Francke. (Nature
and Artifice. From Mother Tongue to Foreign Language: a
Psycholinguistic Approach) English summary in Weinstock,
H (ed), (1991) English and American Studies in German. A
supplement to Anglia: Tbingen: Neimeyer, 171175.
Butzkamm, W. and Caldwell, J. (2009) The Bilingual Reform: a
Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language Teaching. Tubingen: Narr
Studienbcher.
Celik, M. (2003) Teaching Vocabulary Through Code Mixing.
ELT Journal 57/4: 361369.
Centeno-Corts, B. and Jimnez Jimnez, A. (2004) Problem-
solving Tasks in a Foreign Language: the Importance of the
L1 in Private Verbal Thinking. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 14/1: 735.
Cook, G. (2010) Translation in Language Teaching: an Argument for
Reassessment. Oxford: OUP.
Cook, V. (2001) Using the First Language in the Classroom.
Canadian Modern Language Review 57/3: 402423.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 42
Cook, V. (2008) Second Language Learning and Language
Teaching. 4th Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Crawford, J. (2004) Language Choices in the Foreign Language
Classroom: Target Language or the Learners First Language?
RELC Journal 35/1: 520.
Cummins, J. (2007) Rethinking Monolingual Instructional
Strategies in Multilingual Classrooms Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics (CJAL)/revue canadienne de linguistique
appliquee (RCLA), 10/2: 221240.
Davies, A. (1995) Proficiency or the Native Speaker: what are
we trying to achieve in ELT? In Cook, G and Seidlhofer, B
(eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP,
145159.
Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Davis, K. (1995) Qualitative Theory and Methods in Applied
Linguistic Research. TESOL Quarterly 29/3: 427453.
Drnyei, Z. (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research:
Construction, Administration and Processing. New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Drnyei, Z (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:
OUP.
Edstrom, A (2006) L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teachers
Self-evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review 63/2:
275292.
Hall, G. and Cook, G. (2012) Own-language Use in Language
Teaching and Learning: State of the Art. Language Teaching
45/3: 271308.
Harbord, J. (1992) The Use of the Mother Tongue in the
Classroom. ELT Journal 46/4: 350355.
Howatt, APR with Widdowson, HG (2004) A History of English
Language Teaching (2nd ed) Oxford: OUP.
Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and
Identity. Oxford: OUP.
Kim, E.Y. (2011) Using Translation Exercises in the
Communicative EFL Writing Classroom. ELT Journal 65/3:
154160
Kim, S.H. and Elder, C. (2008) Target Language Use in
Foreign Language Classrooms: Practices
and Perceptions of Two Native Speaker Teachers in New
Zealand. Language, Culture and Communication 21/2: 167185.
Laufer, B. and Girsai, N. (2008) Form-focused Instruction
in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: a Case for
Contrastive Analysis and Translation. Applied Linguistics 29/4:
694716.
Littlewood, W. and Yu, B.H. (2011) First Language and Target
Language in the Foreign Language Classroom. Language
Teaching 44, 6477.
Macaro, E. (1997) Target Language, Collaborative Learning and
Autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. (2006) Codeswitching in the L2 Classroom: a
Communication and Learning Strategy, in Llurda, E (ed),
Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and
Contributions to the Profession. Amsterdam: Springer, 6384.
Macaro, E. (2009) Teacher Codeswitching in L2 Classrooms:
Exploring Optimal Use, in Yoshida, T, Imai, H, Nakata, Y,
Tajino, A, Takeuchi, O and Tamai, V (eds), Researching Language
Teaching and Learning: An Integration of Practice and Theory.
Oxford: Peter Lang, 293304.
Macmillan, B. and Rivers, D. (2011) The Practice of Policy:
Teacher Attitudes Toward English-only. System 39/2:
251263.
Medgyes, P (1994) The Non-native Teacher. London: Macmillan.
Nation, P. (2003) The Role of the First Language in Foreign
Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal 1, 3539.
Oxford, R (ed) (1996) Language Learning Strategies Around
the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Polio, C. and Duff, P. (1994) Teachers Language Use in
University Foreign Language Classrooms: a Qualitative
Analysis of English and Target Language Alternation. Modern
Language Journal 78/3: 313326.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. and Varshney, R. (2008). Students Views
Regarding the Use of the First Language: an Exploratory
Study in a Tertiary Context Maximizing Target Language Use.
Canadian Modern Language Review 65/2: 249273.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca.
Oxford: OUP.
Stern, H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford:
OUP.
Thornbury, S. (2006) The AZ of ELT. Oxford, Macmillan.
Turnbull, M. (2001) There is a Role for the L1 in Second and
Foreign Language Teaching, But.... Canadian Modern Language
Review 57/4: 531540.
Turnbull, M. and Arnett, K. (2002) Teachers Uses of the
Target and First Languages in Second and Foreign Language
Classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 204218.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: the Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
van der Meij, H. and Zhao, X. (2010) Codeswitching in English
Courses in Chinese Universities. Modern Language Journal
94/3: 396411.
Widdowson, H.G. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language
Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 43

Graham Hall is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at

Northumbria University, UK, where he teaches on the
universitys MA Applied Linguistics for TESOL and MA
TESOL programmes. He has been involved in English
language teaching/TESOL for 20 years, working as a teacher
and teacher educator. His research interests range from
classroom discourse to the cultural politics of TESOL. He
is the editor of ELT Journal and has published Exploring
English Language Teaching: Language in Action (Routledge,
2011), which was the winner of the British Association for
Applied Linguistics Book Prize 2012.
Email: g.hall@northumbria.ac.uk

Guy Cook is Professor of Language in Education at Kings

College London, UK. He was formerly head of TESOL at
the London University Institute of Education (199198),
Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Reading
(19982004) and Professor of Language in Education
at The Open University (200512). He has published
extensively on applied linguistics, English language
teaching and discourse analysis. He was co-editor of the
journal Applied Linguistics 200409, and was Chair of
the British Association for Applied Linguistics 200912.
His books include Translation in Language Teaching
(Oxford University Press, 2010, winner of the International
House Ben Warren Prize), Genetically Modified Language
(Routledge, 2004), Applied Linguistics (Oxford University
Press, 2003), The Discourse of Advertising (Routledge, 2001)
and Language Play, Language Learning (Oxford University
Press, 2000, winner of the MLA Kenneth Mildenberger
Prize).
Email: guy.cook@kcl.ac.uk
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 44
Cultural differences in
thelanguageclassroom
Lesya N. Bobkova
Introduction
The teaching process involves not just the transference of
knowledge and skills but also interaction with the learners
personal and social cultures. The latter becomes even more
complex when the individuals in question are from linguistic/
ethnic groups that hold different values and norms. It is
important to appreciate that classroom activities cannot always
be successful if there is little or no common understanding
and/or desire for mutual cooperation. My experience of
teaching Chinese students, who come to learn Commerce
in Russian at the Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics
and Law, has highlighted some of these issues. In this article, I
would like to show how we try to address some of the cultural
differences that can be a barrier in our classroom interactions.
While I am working in the context of teaching Russian to
Chinese learners studying in Russia, I believe the issues
I explore relate also to the context of teaching English to
learners studying in English speaking countries.
This report is based on my personal experiences in a particular
setting. Clearly, it is not possible to generalize about all
members of an ethnic/linguistic group. Younger generations of
Chinese learners who have been exposed to other cultures may
not always react in the ways that my students have hitherto.
We, as professional teachers, need to be alert to the fact that
all students have different and differing needs, and that we, as
professional teachers, should be skilled and prepared to adapt
our teaching styles to accommodate the variety of learners in
the classroom.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the
Russian language among the nations that border the country
to the east. Russia is seen as a major economic, political and
cultural partner by countries of the Asian-Pacific region. This
has led to a considerable increase in the provision of Russian
(as a foreign language) courses in many of our leading far
eastern universities.
Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law (Eastern
Siberia) has a long-standing partnership with Changchun
University of Science and Technology (Northeast China) that
enables Chinese and Russian students to obtain a BA degree
in Commerce by studying at both educational institutions. The
exchange programme offers students the opportunity to go to
the other country after two years of studying both Commerce
and the other language in the home country. Thus, it is vital to
be fluent in both Russian and Chinese in order to complete the
degree programme.
The Chinese students I worked with had been learning Russian
for two years prior to their arrival in our institution. They had
some general knowledge of Russian and the aim of our course
was to develop their competence in Business Russian, which
would enable them to build successful relationships with
Russian partners. That is why the educational process mainly
focused on business-oriented case-studies that would help the
students to develop their skills in written correspondence and
negotiating business deals.
Two of the most important aspects of Business Russian were
Cross-Cultural Communication (CCC) and Business Ethics.
The Chinese students were expected to put into practice
the theoretical knowledge they had acquired about Russian
cultural life while studying in their own country. This included
dealing with daily problems of living in Russia and coping with
some aspects of cultural differences they faced during the
classes when working with native speakers. In both cases, the
Chinese students had to overcome cultural barriers in order to
communicate successfully with the Russian students.
It is worth noting that, for my part as the teacher of Russian, I
had refreshed my knowledge about some aspects of Chinese
cultural values (as I am aware that China is a vast country
and has a great deal of diversity) before starting to work with
Chinese students. First, it was essential to create a favourable
climate in order to reduce psychological tension that could be
felt during classes. Second, it was important to appeal to the
students own cultural values if I wanted to use motivational
strategies more efficiently in the educational process. This
knowledge of the students cultural values helped me to
understand some of their behaviour patterns, and to act
accordingly. I had to pay close attention to their different
ways of operating in class (and elsewhere). I discuss some
of my strategies, below, under the headings: collectivism and
relationship orientation.
Collectivism
Collective behaviour is a feature of many Asian cultures and
it was interesting to note how it was displayed by the Chinese
students in my classes. For example, if a particular classroom
task was set, then it was completed by all the students
collectively, or it was not carried out at all. Later, I figured out
that only some students had completed the task but the group
members were unwilling to reveal this. The main reason for
this behaviour was the need of the students who had less
knowledge of Russian to save face. I saw how they supported
one another and helped the weaker students to keep up. Such
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 45
cooperation provided a certain degree of security within the
group and did not allow anyone to feel like an outsider.
However such collective orientation did not meet my
requirements during the class; my main concern was the
weaker performance of some of my students. At the same
time, the last thing I intended was to slow down the learning of
the more successful students.
To solve this problem, I focused on the personal characteristics
of the students and their individual learning skills. I worked
out individual tasks based on the knowledge and skills of each
student. I realized that the students did not expect such a
development in our class, and it took me some time to organize
and complete these individual tasks. I had to reconsider my
tactics, and decided to organize students into small groups
of two or three with a similar language level to carry out a
particular task. For example, they got cards containing brief
exercises on grammar or vocabulary development. When they
had completed the task outlined on the card, they were given
other cards with additional tasks. The idea was for the group
to get through as many cards as possible. The winning group
(the one that had completed the most cards) was, for example,
not required to do any homework. As a result, some student
groups were involved in the competition and managed to deal
with all the tasks that had been prepared for them.
This kind of activity allowed students to teach each other, ask
for advice when needed, explain any difficulties and discuss
the result of their work. Weaker students found themselves
in a situation where they did not need to hide behind the
stronger ones. The latter did not suppress the initiative and
independence of the weaker students. They understood
that each of them was responsible for their contribution to
their common successful performance, and thus tried to do
theirbest.
Relationship orientation
Relationship orientation is a value which I believe is found
in both Chinese and Russian cultures. It can be identified
as one of the humanistic perspectives that shapes many
key characteristics of the Eastern way of communication
(Qingwen & Day, 2004). Both Russian and Chinese cultures are
concerned about the satisfaction, motivation and the general
well-being of group members, focusing on providing support
and building relationships with everyone involved in the group.
At the same time, it is important to show respect for authority
and not to interrupt a lot.
I strongly believe that successful learning depends on creating
a favourable psychological climate among the learners. Despite
a certain degree of formality, the classes were conducted in a
friendly and informal atmosphere and my students accepted
me as the leader of their group, and someone who could widen
the horizons of their knowledge and enhance their Russian
language skills. The teacher/educator inside me gave way to
a facilitator who was ready to help if any difficulty appeared.
We should realize that communication is more than just
the words we use (Sommerville, 2004). It is actually a more
complex psychological process. The fear of making a mistake
is considered to be one of the psychological blocks (Lazareva,
2002) in language learning. The less the fear, the lower the
level of anxiety and the students become better equipped
for success in second language acquisition (Krashen in Schultz,
2007). On occasions, I faced a situation where students did not
want to speak Russian at all because of this fear. I made efforts
to change their attitude towards making mistakes, explaining
that I preferred them speaking and making mistakes rather
than keeping silent. It was important to encourage their own
activity and initiative by decreasing the level of uneasiness and
uncertainty which was shown in their replies. I was sympathetic
and willing to help if my students faced any difficulties while
speaking. Building positive productivity requires a positive
environment where individuals feel driven (Anzalone, 2013).
Another thing that should be taken into consideration is that
some students needed more time to do some of the exercises.
For example, in developing speaking skills, it was fruitful to
provide them with a short pause before giving an answer or
response. It allowed them to collect their thoughts as the
processes of information coding from a foreign language
into their own, and back, went more slowly. When lexical or
grammatical slips of the tongue happened to appear, they
were corrected after the completion of the monologue, or the
dialogue, and not immediately after the utterance. Thus, the
communicative intention of the speakers was not interrupted
and the students could express their thoughts freely. I had
to be very careful while assessing their replies since my aim
was to remove a barrier that could be easily created by a
psychologically uncomfortable atmosphere in the group. First
of all, I pointed out the strengths of the answer and only after
that gave recommendations for addressing the weaknesses.
I am sure that cooperation, patience, mutual respect and
encouragement helped the students to gain courage and be
more motivated to speak.
Conclusion
I have touched on just a few aspects of intercultural
communication (Chaney & Martin, 2007), but in doing so, I
hope I have highlighted that as teachers of students from
other cultural backgrounds, we need to be sensitive to, and
to be aware of, much more than the rules of the grammar
of the language we are teaching. Our professional skills may
be challenged in terms of filling the gaps in our knowledge
about other cultures and acquiring relevant classroom skills for
dealing with learners who have different pedagogic values and
norms. However, unless we address these, we are likely both
to fail our students and also to miss out on a valuable learning
experience for ourselves.
To conclude, I would like to say that working with Chinese
students, I have also gained valuable experience in teaching
Russian as a foreign language. I have become more aware
of Chinese culture(s) and values and this knowledge has
helped a lot in gaining the trust of my students and building
a cooperative working/learning environment for the mutual
benefit of all.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 46

References
Anzalone, C. (2013) Differences between Task-Oriented
Leaders and Relational-Oriented Leaders
Chan, J. 18 Practical Tips for Business Travelers in China
http://export.gov/newhampshire/build/groups/public/@
eg_us_nh/documents/webcontent/eg_us_nh_053758.pdf
(accessed December 2013)
Chaney, L. H. & Martin, J. S. (2007) Intercultural Business
Communication, Pearson Prentice Hall (4th Edition)
Lazareva, L. (2002) Psychology of Life Stability,
Published PhD thesis, Far East State University of Means
of Communication
http://www.any-book.ru/book/show/id/1698307
(accessed December 2013)
Orichinese website Cultural Differences in China
http://orichinese.com/chineseculture/cultural-differences-
in-china.html (accessed December 2013)
Dong, Q. & Day K. D. (2004) A Relational Orientation
to Communication: Origins, Foundations and Theorists
University of the Pacific
http://www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2004v13n1/09%20
Qingwen%20Dong%20&%20Kenneth%20D.%20Day.pdf
(accessed December 2013)
Sommerville, J. (2004) The 5 Keys to Interpersonal
Successhttp://www.acqyr.com/people-management/the-5-
keys-tointerpersonal-success(accessed December 2013)
Schtz, R. (2007) Stephen Krashens theory of second
language acquisition
http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
(accessed December 2013)

Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge the encouragement, advice and
helpful suggestions received from Rakesh Bhanot in the writing
of this article.

Professor Lesya N. Bobkova is a teacher and researcher in

the Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication
Department at Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics
and Law, Khabarovsk, Russia.
Email: lesjabob@rambler.ru
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 47
Twenty students, one classroom:
formulating learning objectives and
strategies for students with diverse
language learning needs
Katya Kitchingman
Abstract
A detailed account of two students journeys into assess-
ment highlights the significant role of assessment in
identifying clear, meaningful objectives as a means to
devise suitable classroom strategies. This article tackles the
greatest challenge for teachers, to find ways to attend to
diverse, and seemingly competing, student needs, with a
particular focus on aiding ESOL students on the interlan-
guage continuum within a literacy setting.
A thorough analysis of Ieva and Ashfaqs literacy skills, ref-
erenced in detail to the Literacy Core Curriculum, provides
insight into how this difficult balancing act can be achieved,
while illuminating the limitations and usefulness of those
various assessment methods commonly used in the con-
temporary field, devised for use by native English speakers
with schematic knowledge of indigenous social practices.
The article concludes that diverse and individual literacy
goals can be achieved in unison; shared strategies can
provide a holistic, universal approach and, with small
adjustments, these can be relevant to multiple, individual
targets.
Introduction
Literacy comprises a discrete set of skills (Hughes and
Schwab 2010, p8): reading, writing, speaking and listening,
and yet, the interdependency of these skills, and the social
contexts in which they are used, demand an all-encompassing
assessment process. Assessment gauges current levels,
measuring the distance between where students are now and
where they need and want to be.
This mutually dependent skill set cannot be measured by any
single method; there is no ready-made assessment available
which fits this purpose, and so, it is the responsibility of the
teacher to develop and combine strategies.
In my context at Bradford College, teaching Functional Skills
English, initial assessment uses interactive BKSB (Basic and
Key Skill Builder) software, often carried out before entry to the
core course, identifying current working levels, using simple,
multiple choice questions, adhering to a strict marking scheme.
This lends well to reliability but, like the online diagnostic
assessment, has reduced validity because it only tests some
of the necessary skills and works on the lower taxonomies.
Multiple-choice questions cannot adequately gauge writing
capabilities and, as the assessment is taken in silence, it fails to
activate speaking and listening skills. It is therefore insufficient
and should be supplemented with some real writing and spoken
English assessment so that tutors can achieve a holistic view.
Indeed there is always a trade-off between validity and
reliability (Gardner 2010, p.36), yet the combined worth of
wide-ranging methods is increased, adding to validity. Such
combined methods can be useful in the creation of SMART
(specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound) targets
which are then transferred into Individual Learning Plans
(ILPs).
Assessment of speaking and
listeningskills
Through speaking to students I was able to assess speaking,
listening and communication skills to identify current levels,
but also, crucially, to find out more about the learners and their
own literacy requirements, in effect bringing the outside in.
(Cooke and Roberts 2007, online).
Understanding student motivations informs teaching, in
order to attend to real, pertinent needs, gauging the interests
of learners which serve as useful indicators for determining
strategies (Wallace 2001, p.51).
I referred to the City and Guilds criteria (2010, online) in order
to establish an appropriate level for speaking and listening
skills.
Ashfaq is a 20-year-old, Level 3 Construction student wishing
to gain a Level 2 certificate quickly in order to enter higher
education. English is his first language as he and his parents
were born in the UK, his grandparents originating from
Pakistan. He entered the class of younger, Level 2 construction
students with confidence and his knowledge of his core subject
is highly evident.
City and Guilds Functional Skills qualifications are offered
at Entry Levels 13 (recognised as the basic knowledge and
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 48

skills needed to function in everyday situations under direct takes around two years to develop (Cummins 1979) and so it
supervision or guidance) to Levels 1 and 2 (the levels affiliated seemed likely that Ieva would benefit from some practice in
with the world of work and commonly desired by employers). the classroom to accelerate the process. Ievas understanding
skills were good, her responses to my questions always
The literacy curriculum, unlike the ESOL Core Curriculum
relevant, yet she sometimes lacked the vocabulary to explain
(with its four categories), is divided into three broad
herself coherently (Im sorryIm not sure how to) Her
categories: 1) reading 2) writing and 3) speaking, listening and
speech lacked the volume, speed and phrasing necessary to
communication, and these are indicated by R/W/Slc in the
have a free conversation. Strategies would therefore focus on
references, followed by the level, e.g. L2, and the particular
paralinguistic features, including elements of body language
skill. The curriculum is used in many contexts for the planning
and the use of the voice in terms of pitch, volume, speed of
of Literacy programmes, though many institutions also use the
delivery and rhythm (Hughes and Schwab, 2010 p.267).
Functional Skills English curriculum.
Ieva demonstrated a confidence when speaking about her
Ashfaq spoke eloquently about his construction management
vocational course, construction, using a range of words from
course, using some technical language from the specialist
the lexical field architecture, diploma, level 2, progress, plans,
lexical field but with an obvious and skilful adaptation, a respect
practical skill.
for me as audience having no knowledge of the industry. (SLd/
L2.2) On describing the shed he had designed and built in his Through assessment, I placed Ieva at Entry Level 3 for
own back garden he used clear explanations (SLc/L2.3) and listening and responding skills, but Entry Level 2 for those skills
checked my understanding, showing me photographs from his in speaking to communicate. I was therefore able to identify a
mobile phone to illustrate his points (SLd/L2.4). He moved the speaking objective for Ieva:
discussion forward (SLd/L2.1), asking questions to gain the
Speak clearly and confidently in class in order to share my
information he required regarding Functional Skills English
opinions and views.
(SLc/L2.2).
I identified that Ashfaq was working well at level 2 although his
ability to speak clearly and confidently (Slc/L2.1) diminished BKSB Diagnostic Assessment:
in larger groups when he projected quietly and at great speed. limitations
Indeed it is common for learners to be less experienced
The BKSB online initial assessment signalled that Ashfaq was
and less confident (Hughes and Schwab 2010, p. 265) with
working well at Level 1, directing the assessment to a level
the more formal genres of spoken language, and so a focus
1 diagnostic. The interactive BKSB software detects gaps in
on the features of these skills is necessary. Ashfaq himself
learners knowledge and skills, pinpointing development
highlighted this as a skill hed like to develop in preparation
areas. However, Ashfaqs answer to a question on paragraph
for university interviews which may include group discussions
sequencing reveals one of the flaws within the assessment; the
or presentations. Students learn best what they want and
sequencing question, worth 5 marks, resulted in a score of 0
need to know (Gage and Berliner 1991) and so this student-
despite there being only one error. A gap fill question in Ievas
teacher collaboration is key to the success of defining learning
assessment in the context of a prescription notice, revealed
objectives. Indeed, selecting relevant objectives should enable
the difficulty in testing literacy skills for ESOL students; the
the learner to function in the contexts they have prioritised.
question relied on schematic knowledge of pharmaceutical
(Shellekens 2004)
instructions (although it must be noted that later work with
Therefore, I was able to identify a learning objective for instructive texts confirmed this gap in Ievas knowledge
speaking and listening: signalling the need to recognise language and organisational
features of instructional texts.)
Speak clearly and confidently in order to give presentations
and have group debates. A reading objective could therefore be identified for Ieva:
It was easy to identify that Ieva, like Ashfaq, needed to Recognise the features of instructional texts by Christmas.
increase confidence, in order to interact in ways that meet
The skills Ashfaq displayed in the spoken assessment were
the demands of society.(Hughes and Schwab 2010, p.8).
mirrored in the online diagnostic, revealing good vocabulary
Crucially, through spoken assessment I ascertained that those
and an appreciation for audience. An analysis of incorrect
very demands of society were different for each student and
answers by teachers is useful in prioritising objectives; while
so too were the skills they needed to develop; while Ashfaq
BKSB provide a general results page with recommendations
needed to develop Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
for topics to work on these are often questionable. For
(CALP) skills, assessment revealed that Ieva needed to develop
example, BKSB identified a clear need to cover apostrophes
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) (Cummins
and inaccurately diagnosed sequencing. Arguably, apostrophe
1979,online).
use could have been added to Ashfaqs ILP, but this did not
Ieva is a seventeen-year-old Latvian student and has been stand out as the most important objective. The issue raised in
in the UK for a little less than a year. It was obvious from the diagnostic regarding reading comprehension is given little
her hesitancy in the initial assessment that she needed to credence, yet it seemed fundamental to Ashfaqs progression
develop basic interpersonal communication skills, those skills to Level 2 and Ashfaq identified reading comprehension as
needed to interact socially. It is suggested that BICS usually something he struggled with at GCSE. We were thus able to
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 49
identify a learning objective, crucial to summative success
but also to developmental goals. Ashfaq worded the reading
objective himself, which ensured it was meaningful:
Use different reading techniques to find the right
information and use my own brain to interpret it.
Indeed, asking students to consider their own abilities and
development areas fosters a reflective outlook from the outset
(Bandura 1994, online; Gardner 2010, p.39) When writing
SMART targets, teachers must resist any temptation to use
teacher speak, putting words into the mouths of learners.
(Hamilton 2006, online)
The BKSB assessment can be used as a signposting tool with
the caveat that teachers use their own initiative and involve
students in the process.
Free writing assessment
To counteract the insufficiency of the online diagnostic, there
should follow an assessment of real writing, the formulation
and representation of language. I approach the writing
assessment with positivity, giving consideration to the strengths
inherent in the students work as these can be developed and
built upon. It is of course necessary to make note of errors
and consider which are central to writing development and the
BKSB results provide a useful reference point when prioritising.
Any evaluation of diagnostic assessment must include an
analysis of free writing. My self-designed writing diagnostic
provides scaffolding through the reinforcement of writing with
structure. The inclusion of instructions can be seen to act as
a teaching tool rather than an assessment tool and also relies
upon good reading comprehension, a separate skill already
tested in the BKSB diagnostic. It would have been more useful
to give a much freer assessment without any teaching of
paragraphs and structure. Indeed the assessment neglects to
test the first four of the text focus writing outcomes at Level
2. (City and Guilds 2010, online).
Nevertheless the assessment was useful in diagnosing writing
at sentence and word level.
In determining how to develop writing skills it is important to
consider learner motivations for writing. Ashfaq is dedicated to
his studies, as documented in his autobiographical piece and
through my informal chats with him; he primarily writes for
academic purposes. His desire to acquire a Level 2 qualification
is directly related to his immediate desire to access higher
education.
The assessment exposes a distinct plan for progression
between curriculum elements, to close the gap between
Ashfaqs current, Level 1 writing and the academic standard
of proficiency he requires; he misses opportunities to use
complex sentences and his simple sentences are not always
successful. The use of spliced sentences (e.g. I enjoy
spending time with family and friends, I also enjoy going
gym with friends.) reveals a lack of awareness surrounding
sentence construction. I decided that a greater awareness of
the structure of simple, co-ordinated and complex sentences
would improve his writing greatly, providing development
towards Level 2.
I was therefore able to identify a learning objective congruent
with Ashfaqs need to write academically (Appendix 2):
Demonstrate the ability to use a range of simple,
coordinated and complex sentences in a piece of writing
(typed, 2 pages) in order to successfully describe a
construction process.
The written assessment clearly identified that the focus for Ieva
was to be at sentence level (We went to Estonia with family
and we walk around the old city). At whole text level the
autobiographical piece was highly successful in terms of being
appropriate for the genre; her use of anecdote and the vivid
description of her awakening to architecture in Estonia and
her conversation with her father is commendable (I asked to
my dad: Who design these buildings? Dad answered: Hah,
architects of course! Then I looked at my dad and said: Ill
be an architect!), and, at word level, spelling and vocabulary
were clearly of little concern.
At sentence level the piece had many English language learner
features, the omission of articles (Ill be really good architect),
lack of subject-verb agreement (When I start this course I
didnt knew that) and the omission of to in sentences with
the same verb patterns (verb + infinitive of 2nd verb) expressing
hopes and wishes (Some days I wish [to] go back to Latvia).
While there was only one instance of an omission of pronoun
it (how good and nice [it] is to be to be in Great Britain) this
did reoccur in later work highlighting the limitations of using
one single piece of writing as a diagnostic.
Indeed it is important to distinguish between errors and
mistakes (Ellis 1997, p.17) and suspicions of misunderstanding
can only be substantiated by an assessment that is sufficient.
In other instances pronouns were used successfully and there
was one example of to being successfully used in a verb+
infinitive sentence, I like to go to the gym yet to had been
crossed out, evidence of Ievas journey on the interlanguage
continuum (Ellis 1997 p.33).
For writing, I placed Ieva at an Entry Level 2, working towards
Entry Level 3 which created a spiky profile. A broad SMART
target was used in order to tackle both articles and subject-
verb agreement (Appendix 1):
Be able to write two paragraphs comparing my life in
Latvia with life in the UK, using good basic grammar.
Individual Learning Plans:
a tool for self-efficacy
The targets were then used to develop Individual Learning
Plans (ILPs). While there are varied criticisms of the audit
culture, particularly with reference to ESOL students whose
progress cannot be measured precisely, (Sunderland 2008,
online) the very process of creating ILPs crucially shapes
the teaching and learning relationship (Hamilton, 2006, p.3,
online) a contract and commitment by teacher and student
to work towards shared goals. Indeed as Sunderland argues
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 50
its the learners that keep us going and I have found ways
to incorporate those important soft targets which, with their
respect for how languages are learned, drive me more than
those that attempt to be SMART. Indeed, even with their
imperfections and difficulties, ILPs are integral to nurturing
student-centred practice (Hillier, 1998) and can be conducive
to self-efficacy, particularly important in a functional skills
setting.
The formulation of teaching strategies
Having identified objectives to be included in ILPs for each
learner, it is then possible to formulate teaching strategies to
address them. Formative assessment ensures that learners are
given a range of opportunities to tackle each objective and good
strategies will tackle all of the literacy skills simultaneously.
Just as objectives are clearly linked to students ambitions and
immediate demands, so too should the strategies employed.
Shared teaching strategies
The great challenge for teachers is to find ways to attend to
diverse, and seemingly competing, student needs. ILPs are
seen to be as individual as the students they serve and yet, there
are ways to resolve this conflict. Ieva and Ashfaqs objectives
for spoken communication are clearly distinct, but I have
identified a range of shared strategies focussing on different
skills to support differentiation. Shared strategies provide a
holistic, universal approach and with small adjustments these
can be relevant to multiple, individual targets. First and second
language students therefore learn together, through social
constructivism, benefitting from diverse experiences and
worldviews.
The communication strategies identified provide students
with an abundance of opportunities to use speech in a variety
of contexts, for real and hypothetical purposes. Role play is
recognised as an invaluable aid to spoken language, (Dougill
1991, p.31) providing opportunities for students to use
language differently, in a way they are unused to, exposing new
ways of self representation and utilising listening, writing and
reading skills.
The selected reading strategies are socially situated as evidence
suggests that socially constructed texts are best decoded with
others (Fairclough 1992), supportive of the interactionist view
of language acquisition. (Lightbown and Spada 1993, p.16).
NRDC publications recommend that teachers should work
with groups of similar ability (NRDC 2004, online) to interact
dynamically with a text. This is fortuitous for Ashfaq as one of
three Level 2 students, but as the only Entry Level 3 student,
Ieva may not benefit from this peer support.
Using Friths model of reading acquisition (Frith 1985, cited
in Waxler and Hall 2011) we can deduce that Ieva, despite
her short time in the UK, is already at the orthographic stage,
where there is little requirement to sound out words. The
continued development of speaking and listening skills will aid
her integration with Level 1 groups, ensuring that her reading
skills progress. Reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game
(Goodman 1967, cited in Hedge p.188) and through group
discussion learners are able to activate prior knowledge and
critically assess the purpose of texts and the intentions of
writers, crucial in the achievement of Ievas reading objective.
The use of Directed Activities Relating to Text (DARTs)
(Lunzer et al. 1984) fosters independent reading skills through
the use of relevant, subject-specific texts. This elevates the
learner to expert, an empowering stance when tackling
trickier texts. Reading activities such as underlining, labelling
and tabulation are proven to aid comprehension and Ashfaq,
with his natural flair for drawing (inherent in the architectural
elements of his construction course) may find that he can
decode a complicated description of construction procedure
through the creation of flow diagrams.
It is interesting to note that in Ievas first language, Latvian,
articles are not used, rather the role they play is inferred by
inflection. A genre approach to writing provides the best basis
to tackle this; Ieva can see the use of a/an/the in wide ranging
texts (inductive), learn the rule through scaffolding (deductive)
and begin to use articles in cloze exercises.
James Asher (1968, online) has proposed that ESOL students
learn subject-verb agreement best through the use of
language to describe a physical activity in progress. There
are two other ESOL students in the class making this activity
possible. Students combine action and speech to acquire rules
of grammar. This could be extended to embrace a creative
curriculum inspired by Ken Robinson (2010, online) using
scripts and makeshift set pieces to represent stage directions.
Formative assessment provides a way to acknowledge the
things that we value rather than valuing only the things we can
measure (Fawbert 2003, p.272); learning can be enjoyable and
removed from summative pressures.
The strategies employed to aid Ashfaqs writing incorporate
the use of already familiar meta-language, analysis of model
academic texts and, most importantly, examples of his own
academic writing which can then be adapted and improved.
Conclusion
While assessment processes can be convoluted and not
always designed for the growing number of ESOL learners
in Functional English classrooms, a merging of inclusive
strategies ensures that all student needs are met; skills are
developed in a productive classroom, where practice is
underpinned by theory.
References
Asher, J. (1968) The Total Physical Response method for second
language learning. Online at: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/
GetTRDoc?AD=AD0674868
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran
(Ed.),Encyclopedia of Human Behaviour(Vol. 4, pp. 71-81).
New York: Academic Press [On-line] USA: Available: http://
www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html [27 January 2012]
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 51

City and Guilds (2010) Qualification Handbook for Centres. Shellekens, P. (2004) Individual learning plans: fit for purpose?
Online. Available: Reflect Magazine: NRDC Issue 1 p.5
http://cdn.cityandguilds.com/ProductDocuments/ Sunderland, H. (2008) ESOL today: politics, pedagogy
Skills_for_Work_and_Life/English_Mathematics_and_ and performance measurement. Reflect online Issue 10
ICT_Skills/3748/Centre_documents/3748_Qualification_ NRDC: Available at: http://www.nrdc.org.uk/content.
handbook_v1.pdf [3 February 2013] asp?CategoryID=1411
Cooke, M. and Roberts, C. (2007) Developing adult teaching Wallace, S. (2001) Teaching and Supporting Learning in Further
and learning: Practitioner guides ESOL. London/Leicester: Education. Exeter: Learning Matters
NRDC/NIACE
Cummins, J. (1979) Cognitive/academic language
proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum Katya Kitchingman qualified as a lecturer in literacy
age question and some other matters. Working Papers on in 2013 and works in the Skills for Life Department and
Bilingualism, No. 19, 121129. Online, available at: www.wce. English Workshop at Bradford College. She is also a teacher
wwu.edu/Resources/CIRCLE/Articles/Jim%20Cummins. educator working in the Post Compulsory Education and
pdf [01 February 2013] Training team.
Dougill, P. (1991) Developing English. Milton Keynes: Email: katyakitch@icloud.com
OpenUniversity Press
Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
OxfordUniversity Press
Fairclough, N. (1992) Intertextuality in Critical Discourse
Analysis. Linguistics and Education pp 295311
Fawbert, F. (2003) Teaching in Post-Compulsory Education.
London: Continuum International Publishing Group
Frith, U. (1985) Beneath the Surface of Developmental
Dyslexia cited in: Waxler, R. P. and Hall, M. P. (2011)
Transforming Literacy: Changing Lives Through Reading
and Writing. Innovation and Leadership in English Language
Teaching. Volume 3. Bradford: Emerald Group. p.114
Gage, N. L. and Berliner, D. C. (1991) Educational Psychology
(5th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Gardner, J., Herlen, W., Hayward, L. and Stobart, G. (2010)
Developing Teacher Assessment. Maidenhead: Open University
Press
Goodman, K. (1967) Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing
game. Journal of the Reading Specialist 6/4:12635. Cited
in: Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language
Classroom. Oxford University Press
Hamilton, M. (2006) Putting words in their mouths. Lancaster
Literary Research Centre: Lancaster
Hillier, Y. (1998) Informal practitioner theory: eliciting the
implicit. Studies in the Education of Adults 30 (1) pp3552
Hughes, N., and Schwab I. (2010) Teaching Adult Literacy:
principles and practice Maidenhead: Open University Press
Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1993) How languages are
learned. Oxford University Press
Lunzer, E., Gardner, W., Davies, F. and Greene, T. (1984)
Learning from the written word Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd
NRDC 2004 Adult literacy learners difficulties in reading
(Chapter 9 p.102) online at http://www.nrdc.org.uk/content.
asp?CategoryID=424&ArticleID=379 [06 January 2013]
Robinson, K. (2010) Changing education paradigms [Online]
Available: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U [21
December 2012]
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 52
Appendix 1: Ievas Learning Objectives
Learning Objective
Reading
Recognise the features of instructional
texts byChristmas.
Writing
Be able to write two paragraphs
comparing my life in Latvia with life in
the UK, using good basic grammar.
Speaking and Listening
Speak clearly and confidently in class in
order to share my opinions and views.
Justification
BKSB assessment identified asissue.
Ievas own instructions revealed lack
ofknowledge ofinstructionaltexts.
Skill would benefit progress on
construction course.
Writing diagnostic.
Encompasses both articles and
subjectverb agreement.
Ieva needs this skill to progress on
course/fulfil goal to study architecture/
own business.
Develop BICS improve relationship
with peers.
Will benefit writing skills.
Deserves voice to be heard
(in an all male class).
Developmental goal.
SMART?
Specific: one type of text
identifiedinstructive, finite features
torecognise.
Measurable: can be tested verbally/
through comprehension.
Attainable: will most likely be able
toidentify most features.
Relevant: objective is part of
E3assessment criteria.
Time-bound: by Christmas.
Specific: two paragraphs on
aspecificsubject.
Measurable: can be marked.
Attainable: good allows some room
forerror.
Relevant: criteria linked
(outcome Ws/E3.2)
Time-bound: no.
Specific: concise.
Measurable: quite- changes will be
subtle- useful to record andcompare.
Attainable: yes. Ieva wants to dothis.
Relevant: imperative for course/
personal development.
Time-bound: gradual
(by end of course).
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 voices from the cl assroom 53
Appendix 2: Ashfaqs Learning Objectives
Learning Objective
Reading
Use different reading techniques to find
the right information and use my own
brain to interpret it.
Writing
Demonstrate the ability to use a range
of simple, coordinated and complex
sentences in a piece of writing (typed 2
pages) in order to successfully describe
a construction process.
Speaking and Listening
Speak clearly and confidently in
order to give presentations and have
groupdebates.
Justification
Ashfaqs own words.
Supported by BKSB diagnostic.
Necessary for success at Level 2.
Academic writing requires complex
sentences.
Objective for Level 2 exam/primary
reason for written work being at level 1.
Ashfaq dictated length.
Mastery and developmental goals.
Congruent with City and Guilds criteria.
Crucial to Ashfaqs personal/
professional development.
University interview may include
groupdiscussion/presentation.
SMART?
Specific: yes, focus on three
differentstrategies.
Measurable: tested through
comprehension using multipletexts.
Attainable: yes, strategies evidenced
towork.
Relevant: necessary for Level 2/
university.
Time-bound: by end of course for
university offer.
Specific: yes, three types of sentences/2
typed pages/process.
Measurable: can be marked/self-
assessed against agreedcriteria.
Attainable: unknown given time-frame.
Relevant to L2 assessment and own
wish to write academically.
Time-bound: limited time.
Specific: concise.
Measurable: against L2 SLC criteria/peer
assessment.
Attainable: yes, if given opportunities.
Relevant: crucial to university interview,
self-development/
L2 exam.
Time scale: gradual but asabove.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 r e s e a r c h ta s t e r s 54
In the shadows of language:
a process of othering
Kirandeep Kaur
Just beyond the frontier between us and the outsider English with its often perceived status as an international
is the perilous territory of not belonging: this is to where
in a primitive time peoples were banished, and where in
the modern era immense aggregates of humanity loiter as
refugees and displaced persons
Edward Said, 2001:177 cited in Haddad, 2008:47
Every community has a boundary beyond which there are
those who become labelled as the other. Edward Said notes that
the boundary between communities is in flux, shifting who is
accepted and able to access social rewards. Said further notes
that migrants shape the communities that they enter as much as
they adapt to them. Migrants, acting within a global framework
of social change, actively engage with changing linguistic
and interactional repertoires (Besnier, 2013: 470). Over time
elements of the migrants home cultures become assimilated
into the host culture and their language, demonstrating that
integration is a two-way process, which requires flexibility
from governments and host communities (Said, 2001; Wilson
and Lewis, 2006). This flexibility nonetheless is not always
forthcoming. Language plays a vital role in shaping or acting
as a gatekeeper to interaction with host communities. Through
global and local processes communities of migrants, who
additionally can be perceived as new speakers, are being
consigned to the margins (Rajaram, 2002:17 cited in Haddad,
2008:8).
This leads to the discussion of inclusion through the judgement
of who is an authenticated speaker, what is the value of their
voice and the influence it can have on others in society.
Language and language learning impacts interactions and
relationships formed by migrants with host communities.
Learning and communicating in the host countrys language
is often presented as essential, allowing individuals to
access physical, financial, emotional and social resources.
Furthermore, social hierarchies and the ability of communities
to access these symbolic resources results from whether the
linguistic product the community or individual offers is an
object of immediate utility in a particular context, or with
particular communities (Manning, 2006:282; Besnier, 2013).
Language learning itself is situated in a global economy, and
learners are members of international networks related to
businesses, universities, and community organisations along
with marginalised groups. At some stage all individuals enter
into a definition of new speaker, whether in learning a foreign
language, heritage language or a new genre of a language, or
within a new functional context. However, the value and status
attributed to these new speakers and their language practices
are mediated by ideologies, and shaped by perceptions of
linguistic competency and authenticity (Besnier, 2013; Sung
Yul Park and Wee, 2008).
language is seen as a key facilitator of communication and
integration between communities, yet may also play a role
in the production and reproduction of social inequalities.
Language practices ... maps onto both new and old patterns of
inequality in society and become intertwined with local power
dynamics...through exposure to the global (Besnier, 2013:469).
Language learners are therefore caught in a translation of
global to localised change. This means it is important for
language practitioners to recognise that local language
inequalities are drawn from a globalised linguistic market.
Bourdieus concept of linguistic capital is closely related to
issues of language, influence and power presents a useful lens to
analyse these processes and their impact on language practice
as a profession. The questions are raised into how the analysis
of language usage and competency can shed light on areas
such as the practical implications for language practitioners
who work daily with migrants caught in discourses of othering.
A further implication and question suggested by this short
summary discussion is how and to what extent is it possible
for language practitioners to challenge localised structural
inequalities created by a global linguistic market and work to
support learners in the localised contexts of ESOL classrooms?
Bibliography
Bourdieu, P., 1977. The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges;
Theories and Methods. Social Sciences Information, 16(6), pp.
645668.
Haddad, E., 2008. The Refugee in International Society. First
Edition ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Manning, P., (2006), Words and Things, goods and services:
problems of translation between language and political
economy, Language and Communication, 26, p.270284
Rutledge, D. & Roble, A., 2010. The Infrastructure of
Migration and the Migration Regime: Human Rights, Race,
and the Somali Struggle to Flee Violence. Race/Ethnicity:
Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 3(2), pp. 153-178. [Online]
Available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rac/summary/
v003/3.2.rutledge.html [Accessed 06 04 2013].
Said, E., 2001. Reflections on Exile, and other Literary and
Cultural Essays. London: Granta.
Sung-Yul Park, J. & Wee, L., 2008. Appropriating the language
of the other: Performativity in autonomous and unified
markets. Language & Communication, Volume 28, p. 242257.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 r e s e a r c h ta s t e r s 55

[Online] Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/

science/article/pii/S027153090800013X
Wilson, R. & Lewis, H., 2006. A Part of Society: Refugees and
Asylum Seekers Volunteering in the UK, Leeds: Tandem.

Acknowledgements
This article is drawn from implications of research conducted
as part of an MSSc at Queens University Belfast, from 2012
to2013.
The author is a member of the COST New Speakers in
Multilingual Europe Network and has drawn on some of the
concepts highlighted in discussions from working groups
conducted in 2014.
Join the JISCmail discussion list migration-asylum-
network@jiscmail.com for further discussion of the issues
raised.

Kirandeep Kaur is currently an EAP tutor and has been in

the field of ESOL for ten years.
Email: Ksumman01@qub.ac.uk
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 56

Kensington and Chelsea College

Diploma in Education and Training: ESOL or Literacy specialist
Validated by Canterbury Christ Church University

Start date: 25 September 2014

Duration: 2 years part-time
Fees: 2,400 per year (Student Finance available)
Day: Thursday
Times: 9:3013:30
Venue: Kensington Centre
Kensington and Chelsea College
Wornington road
London W10 5QQ

Our Specialist Teacher Training courses are How to apply

suitable for applicants wishing to become
fully qualified to teach Literacy or ESOL in
the Lifelong Learning Sector. Successful
completion of the full two year diploma
will entitle teachers to apply for QTLS
(Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills)
status. In the second year graduate trainees
can request to follow a PGCE pathway.
Applicants who hold a CELTA qualification
can gain direct entry to the second module
and would begin the course in January 2015.
All prospective applicants must attend one
of our Advice & Guidance sessions. These
monthly events are hosted by a member
of the Teacher Training Team and allow us
to explain the various options available. It
is also provides an opportunity for those
present to ask questions and complete an
initial assessment.
Details of the next Advice & Guidance
session can be found under the Help
Enrolling section on our website
www.kcc.ac.uk
For more information please contact
Stuart Ward s.ward@kcc.ac.uk
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 r e s e a r c h ta s t e r s 57
Ears to authentic materials:
using authentic listening materials
inthe classroom
Jennifer Pang
The topic of authentic materials has constantly been revisited.
Definitions have centred on the fact that they are exposure
to real life language (Widdowson, 1990, Sanderson, 1999,
Harmer, 1991). Other definitions state that authentic texts
are texts that are not written for language teaching purposes
(Jordan, 1997: 113). Geddes and White (1978) further point
out that these materials will contain features that are likely
to arise in real spoken communication. Features in genuine
conversation might contain more fillers, unfinished utterances,
contractions and ellipted forms than text specifically created
for language learning purposes.
Authentic materials, especially for ESOL students, are important
resources because motivation is boosted enormously by
evidence that they (learners) can apply classroom learning to
instances of L2 in the real world (Field 2008: 277).
This article describes a small action research project
undertaken to explore intensive listening materials with the
features discussed by Geddes and White. The purpose was to
find out about students views of activities which use noticing
tasks (Batstone, 1996; Timmis 2005). These noticing tasks,
essentially spot the difference exercises as used by Timmis
(2005: 121) in research into spoken corpora, were developed
with principles from Schmidts Noticing Hypothesis (1986),
where it is argued that, if students notice the gap between
their knowledge and where they want to be in their language
learning, acquisition will take place.
The research was carried out to see if learners noticed a
difference between more authentic texts compared to Skills for
Life (SfL) materials by using noticing tasks. Another purpose
was to explore the usefulness of noticing tasks as a means to
practise intensive listening. Why choose listening? It is seen by
many as the Cinderella skill when learning a second language
and has often been bypassed in importance by its elder sister,
speaking (Nunan, 2002: 238). It is probably one of the skills
that does not receive deserved attention as its the hardest to
assess as speaking is given more prominence (Schellekens,
2007: 67).
This research involved selecting materials from Skills for Life
(SfL), the materials designed and published in 2003 to help
teach the ESOL curriculum that was created at the same time.
The materials were analysed for language content, and a
prompt sheet was prepared for two teachers who agreed to be
recorded for the purpose of creating more authentic, natural
materials for their students. The authentic conversation was
recorded after the actors had read the brief. To ensure the
materials were as natural as possible, there was no practice
and the first attempt was recorded and used. I set out to create
a set of texts that seemed more authentic than the scripted
SfL materials and chose a conversation between neighbours
meeting for the first time. I believed that it would be of interest
and plausible as natural interaction (Timmis, 2005: 118) and
was culturally accessible (Tomlinson, 2000, cited by Timmis,
2005: 118).
Two colleagues re-enacted the chosen dialogue. I prepared
prompt sheets to have a similar conversation so it would be
comparable to the original text. My colleagues recorded the
original transcript with adopted names, so that the learners
would concentrate on the message and vocabulary not the
speakers names and accents.
I created tasks following Fields (2008) suggestion of pre-
listening to activate schema. The second part was listening to
identify items in the conversation. The third part contained the
noticing tasks requiring the learners to listen intensively for the
answers. A quantitative questionnaire asked learners to decide
which text (the SfL published text or the authentic text we had
recorded) sounded more natural and was easier to understand.
This project has shown that learners can cope with authentic
materials, if practised in a principled way. The findings revealed
that learners found the noticing tasks useful and became aware
that things can be said differently. This also highlights the
importance for ESOL learners to have opportunities to analyse
discourse and explore genres to be informed of different
ways to express themselves in interactional and transactional
communication and combat the unequal balance of power
(Cook & Simpson, 2008:73) they might feel.
The full article in a future edition of Language Issues will give
suggestions about how to introduce more authentic materials
into our classrooms and prepare learners for the real world
(Flowerdew and Miller, 1997, cited by Miller, 2003). It will
also make suggestions on how to incorporate more authentic
listening activities into lessons without eating in to too much of
teachers valuable planning time.
Bibliography
Cooke, M. and Simpson, J. (2008) ESOL: A Critical Guide.
Oxford: OUP
Field, J. (2008) Listening in the language classroom.
Cambridge: CUP
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 r e s e a r c h ta s t e r s 58

Geddes, M. & White, R. (1978) The use of semi-scripted

simulated authentic speech in listening comprehension.
Audiovisual Language Journal, 16 (3), 137145
Miller, L. (2003) Developing listening with authentic materials.
ESL Magazine, March/April edition
Nunan, D. (1988) Syllabus Design. Oxford: OUP
Timmis, I. (2005) Towards a framework for teaching spoken
grammar. ELT Journal Vol. 59.2 April 2005

Internet references
Schmidt, R. (2010) Attention, awareness, and individual
differences in language learning
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Attention,%20
awareness,%20and%20individual%20differences.pdf
(retrieved 02/04/13)
Tamo, D. (2009) The use of authentic materials in classrooms.
Article 9/LCPJ www.lcpj.pro/.../1277547685-74_pdfsam_
LCPJ,%20Per%20shtyp.pdf
(retrieved 03/04/13)
Williams & Williams (2007)
http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/PDF//ESOL-
EFL_Report_WEB%282%29.pdf
(retrieved 28/04/12)

Jennifer Pang is an ESOL and EAP tutor in Manchester.

She has recently completed an MA in English Language
Teaching at Leeds Metropolitan University.
Email: jwmpang@gmail.com
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 reviews 59

New language, new literacy:

teaching literacy to English
languagelearners
Jill Sinclair Bell
Pippin Publishing, Ontario, Canada, 2013

Reviewed by Allegra Carlton

This is a comprehensive, well-written and readable book. It
clearly encapsulates the experience of a lifetime of teaching
literacy to English language learners and indeed its author,
Jill Sinclair Bell, has taught in a wide range of countries and
environments and has worked in teacher education; she is a
Full Professor in the Faculty of Education at York University,
Toronto and she has published a number of books about
teaching ESL.
References throughout the book to the Canadian system
suggest that North American teachers (USA and Canada) are
the primary target audience, but most of what she describes,
as it relates to learners and strategies for teaching them, is
so similar to teaching experiences in the UK as to render any
minor differences relatively unimportant. Despite this strength,
however, this book has elicited something of a mixed response
from me for reasons outlined later in this review.
The author states in her introduction that she is targeting
teachers trying to address the thorny problem of teaching
literacy skills to English language learners (ELLs) from widely
ranging backgrounds and education, many of whose languages
do not use Roman script and some of whom have low literacy
in their first language. She assumes absolutely nothing about
the experience, skills and resources available to the teachers
she is addressing, and takes the reader on a journey which
starts with exploring the different educational backgrounds
of learners, and carries the reader right through to exploring
how to develop a curriculum for them. She covers both theory
and practical advice and provides ideas for materials and
activities, case studies and sample lessons, with a lot of images
demonstrating methods and materials. Throughout the book
the author stresses the importance of selecting materials for
learning activities with a focus on meaning and on constant
reinforcement, reminding the reader that adult new readers
and writers will inevitably learn slowly, despite their own (and
our?) impatience.
The book is divided into three sections, Understanding literacy
and literacy learning, Deciding what and how to teach, and
Developing a successful and coherent program.
The first section outlines the very diverse backgrounds of
learners needing to develop literacy skills in English, ranging
from those who are new in a country right through to long
term residents needing to improve skills, covering both the
variety of learner backgrounds and the varying challenges
and problems different learners face, including the complexity
of learners lives and their various motivations for learning. It
explores what we mean by literacy, reading and writing, briefly
outlines reading theory, and equally briefly discusses issues
relating to teaching adult learners.
Sinclair Bell goes on to discuss how to develop a learner
profile and how to identify literacy skills in English, including
an interesting analysis of writing on the page to determine
learner proficiency and understanding of the structure and
information provided by writing.
The main section of the book is called Deciding what and
how to teach. Throughout the section, Sinclair Bell makes
detailed analyses of learner needs and ways of meeting them.
She considers what to teach first, and goes on to discuss pre-
literacy and the skills associated with literacy. She then focuses
on teaching reading, with a particular emphasis on reading for
meaning. In this section and indeed throughout the book, she
stresses the importance of constant reinforcement of literacy
learning through speaking and listening activities as well as
reading.
In particular she discusses the Language Experience Approach
and provides an extensive outline of techniques, text types and
follow-up activities with a strong bias in favour of kinaesthetic
learning. She comments on Total Physical Response as a useful
approach for teaching reading to low level speakers, outlining
possible activities, while pointing out that it has limited
application. She dismisses the phonics approach as a primary
approach to teaching reading, but comments on its value as an
aid to spelling.
In terms of reading for meaning, she makes a powerful
argument in favour of teaching low level readers critical
reading skills and introducing telling stories from multiple
points of view (for instance, people involved in a road traffic
accident) in order to introduce the concept of the unreliable
narrator as she dryly comments, weak readers as well
as strong readers get spam and may indeed be specifically
targeted by scammers; if they automatically believe what they
read, then they become easy prey.
Sinclair Bell then focuses on how to teach writing, from the
point of view both of encoding and of developing meaning.
She outlines the multiplicity of skills and components within
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 reviews 60
writing which learners have to master: vocabulary, spelling,
punctuation, letter formation, content, format, sentence
structure and above all, the importance of understanding that
writing is generally for others, not for oneself, and how to teach
this. She highlights the importance of encouraging learners to
take risks in order to develop skills.
One suggestion she makes is the setting up of mailboxes
physically in the classroom for learners to write notes to each
other, but she does not mention using Moodle or other virtual
learning environments as a means of communication between
learners or between learners and teachers, the use of which
can be a useful way of developing confidence and skills even at
very low levels. Nor does she mention the use of mobiles and
texting which I have used with very low literacy learners. She
includes a very brief section on the use of technology to assist
in the teaching of reading, mentioning email and the potential
use of social media and citing a case study of a teacher who
has set up a social networking page for learners, for what
Sinclair Bell calls a technology supported version of a dialogue
journal an excellent idea. Even more briefly she discusses the
impact of technology on learners lives. She could usefully
have expanded this section, given the impact on both learners
and teachers of the rapidly proliferating opportunities to use
e-learning even at very low levels of literacy.
The last thirteen pages of this section are headed Challenging
teaching situations: multilevel and more. In this very short
section Sinclair Bell addresses what actually seem to me to
be some of the key problems addressed by the teachers of
literacy to ELLs, the problems of meeting the needs of classes
with learners with spiky profiles, learners with good, not so
good and no literacy in their first languages, and learners
combating other difficulties (for instance the learner whose
apparent learning difficulties may be caused by PTSD [post-
traumatic stress disorder], or the low-literacy learner whose
poor memory for spellings may or may not indicate dyslexia).
Sinclair Bell is the author of another book on teaching multi-
level learners, which she signposts readers to, and this may be
why she spends so little time on this topic, but for many of us
this is one of the most pressing issues within our teaching of
literacy to ELLs, and I was rather disappointed to find so little
on this.
The final section, Developing a successful and coherent
program, outlines how to develop a curriculum for learners,
create a scheme of work and carry out initial and formative
assessment (and presumably non-examined summative
assessment). As various states in the USA, Canada and the
UK all have their own ESL core curricula, I found myself
wondering about the role of this section, and whether it was
primarily targeted at teachers unable to access any of these,
or whether Sinclair Bell has simply not found any of them
useful; she does not reference any of them in the appendices.
Again, her writing on how to create a scheme of work and
a lesson plan and how to assess learners assumes complete
lack of support from any organisation, leading me to wonder
whether in reality the primary target for this book is teachers
from voluntary sector organisations dealing with ELLs.
She concludes with appendices which include a number of
sample lessons, which are extremely interesting, some useful
materials, and a brief bibliography including Spiegel and
Sutherlands Teaching Basic Literacy to ESOL learners (on
which I think she has drawn more than a little) and a short list
of carefully selected online resources.
For less experienced teachers, or for experienced teachers not
used to working with learners with literacy needs, this could
be a really useful resource and well worth taking the time to
read very carefully. It can, however, be very wordy there are
occasions where I felt that a diagram or a flow chart might cut
to the chase, as for instance when she painstakingly describes
the spelling process well known to most teachers as Look Say
Cover Write Check as a strategy for teaching spelling, but
does not name it or show a diagram.
A further issue I have is that she does not include an index.
While there are plentiful headings, if the reader wants to go
back and check understanding or memory of something
specific, this is not going to be easy unless they have an eidetic
memory or are prepared to scan large tracts of text.
Another caveat I have is that the text is, I think, predicated upon
the assumption of an environment in which a literacy class
designed purely to meet the needs of learners is a possibility.
Given existing funding exigencies affecting ESOL, at least in
the UK, this is an extremely optimistic assumption, whatever
the situation in Canada and the USA. For most of us, being
able to provide coherent, planned and funded literacy learning
targeted explicitly at English language learners is currently
something of a pipe dream. This, of course, is a criticism of
the current funding environment rather than of Sinclair Bells
book, but she does not appear to take much account of funding
exigencies.
This is not a read-at-a-sitting book, and indeed I spent
several weeks working my way through it, trying out some
of the techniques the author suggests and reflecting on them,
and I suspect that many readers would respond similarly. I
consider that this is in many ways an extraordinarily useful
book, dense in information, theory, suggestions and ideas, yet
while reading it I had reservations. In a sense, I feel that the
author is trying to be all things to all teachers. The book feels,
as I commented above, like the condensed experience of a
lifetime, and it almost feels as though she has been unable to
leave anything out that could be useful to an ESOL teacher.
The comprehensive nature of the book is both a strength and
a weakness; the target audience is not assumed to have any
knowledge at all, but many teachers reading it will in fact bring
considerable experience to bear and may feel that much that
Sinclair Bell writes about is already known to them, while
beginner teachers may feel somewhat overwhelmed by the
amount and depth of information and number of ideas she
provides.
Having said that, however, the author draws on such a wealth
of experience that she continually surprises by the depth of
insight, the thoroughness of her analysis and by the suggestions
she offers, and for this reason I consider that this is a valuable
addition to texts dealing with teaching low level learners.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 reviews 61

Allegra Carlton is Community and Family Learning

Coordinator in the Inclusive Learning Department of
Southampton City College. From 20042011 she worked
with refugees and asylum seekers for City Life Education
and Action for Refugees in Southampton.Allegra is
very interested in issues relating to teaching literacy
to low literacy English language learners. Despite over
40 years in Southampton she considers herself to be
aYorkshirewoman.
Email: allegra.carlton@gmail.com
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 reviews 62
Innovations in English language
teaching for migrants and refugees
Edited by David Mallows, British Council
Reviewed by Jo-Ann Delaney
This collection of articles is part of the Innovations in..
series commissioned and published by the British Council.
It comprises contributions from a range of contexts where
English is taught to migrants and refugees.
The book is organised by educational phases (primary,
secondary, post 16/adult education). This certainly facilitates
access to readers working in a particular phase, but it should
not limit the readers focus as many of the articles cover themes
in teaching and learning that have overarching significance. For
example, Latika Davis article on developing vocabulary with
primary school learners investigates aspects such as lexical
relationships which would enhance any language learning
classroom. Equally, John Sutters consideration of ways of
reconstructing the language learning syllabus in adult learning
would be of interest in any phase.
The title suggests that the focus of the book is on innovations.
What are particularly powerful, however, are the voices of
those who are engaged in those innovations. Many of the
articles are based on projects and gather data using case
studies, participant narrative and autobiographies and this
lends a strong participant voice to the discussion. A particularly
good example of this is Dimitrina Kanevas article which charts
the progress of three newly-arrived students. The voices of the
students are present in the description of their context and the
direct quotes about their experience, but the teachers voices
are also represented, recognising that successful teaching and
learning is a collaborative process. If there is a drawback to
the strong focus on participant voices, it is that those chapters
which deal primarily with policy or changing trends seem a
little flat in comparison. Sara Greens excellent review of
curriculum innovations for EAL students may not engage the
reader as much as it should as it seems less grounded in the
personal.
In tune with the digital innovations that have impacted on ESOL
teaching in all contexts, many of the projects described include
the use of digital media and through this provide illustration of
how such media can be best harnessed for the benefit of ESOL
learners. There are more of these in the articles focussing on
post 16 education with Richard Cresswell and James Simpson
looking at learners engagement with online blogs and how it
helped them develop their writing skills. The article by Carol
Savill-Smith and colleagues is particularly revealing on the
issue of how we can make technology serve the learners.
None of the elements of the mobile technology discussed (web
access, Skype, Facebook) are new. The innovation for teachers
is to see their value in enhancing language learning. Another
project illustrated the possibility of using technology to
integrate the learning of migrants with community needs. With
a wonderfully bilingual sub-title of Hey, hang on a minute,
tha mise bilingual, the article by Gordon Wells featured a
project which used the production of bilingual videos to help
learners with their language needs but also to provide an
island community with promotional videos. The whole project
seemed to take the notion of community integration to a new
level by harnessing technology.
The inclusion of so many projects which focus on learners
under the age of 16 is refreshing in such a publication. Often
EAL (English as an Additional Language) is considered as
a separate specialist area. Some of the articles highlight
particularly effectively the role of the young persons first
language in their English Language learning. Clare Wardman,
Judith Bell and Emma Sharps article on valuing home
languages presents the case for more use of the learners
first language in schools in a meaningful and academically
worthwhile way. They highlight the issues for the learners
themselves, but also the issue of teacher confidence and the
contributing factor of the low recruitment of multi-lingual
teachers. Given the current discussions around languages
in primary schools, this article adds another dimension to
the debate about how to acknowledge childrens language
expertise rather than their language deficits.
Sometimes it takes a fresh eye to notice potential for innovation.
It is a positive feature of the book that it has a number of
contributions by, or in collaboration with new teachers. Dina
Mehmedbehovcs project to use autobiographical activities
with a year 7 class working on a presentation about Places
we had to leave or Places we want to go to seemed to be
generated by her ability to see beyond the learners current
status of migrants and see them as people with a past and an
aspiration for the future. Likewise Judith Bell and Emma Sharp
as newly qualifying teachers, are able to provide an excellent
critical perspective on the challenges faced by new entrants to
the profession with existing accepted paradigms of what an
ESOL learner can do and is not expected to do. These teachers
voices act as new arrivals to our profession and provide
valuable perspectives on what we may take for granted.
No doubt there was much thought put into the structure and
organisation of the publication. With the current structure,
there is a danger that readers may be drawn to the articles that
are specific to their phase. As a reader I might be drawn to the
post 16 articles and this would certainly mean that I would
miss out on a wealth of insights from both the primary and
secondary case studies. I wondered if perhaps the book might
have been better organised into language learning themes (use
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 reviews 63

of L1, use of technology). This would only be to ensure that

the findings reach all of those to whom they would be of value.
The book is an extremely interesting and insightful contribution
to English language teaching. As a collection of research
projects it would be of interest to teachers and researchers
thinking of undertaking their own project. Most of the articles
provide an account of their methodology and this could be
a template for others. The outcomes of the projects could
both inform and inspire other teacher in implementing similar
innovations in their practice. Many of the articles could be
used on teacher training courses, both for adult ESOL and EAP.
Readers should not be discouraged by the educational phase in
which each article is placed; there are lessons to be learned for
all language teachers from all of the articles.
In combining the articles together in this volume much
thought has been given to showing the unifying factors in
the teaching of English language. This is encouraging to all
teachers of English, who may sometimes find their search for
a professional identity confused by the plethora of labels often
ascribed to them. Are you EAL, ELT, EFL, ESOL, EAP etc? As
the editor points out; they are all language teachers. This
publication encourages us to look beyond differences and seek
out the common strengths in our practice.

Jo-Ann Delaney is an ESOL teacher educator working at

Canterbury Christ Church University. She has worked in the
UK and abroad in English Language Teaching for a number
of years. She is currently co-editor of the Language Issues
journal.
Email: jo-ann.delaney@canterbury.ac.uk
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 reviews 64

Current developments in English

forwork and the workplace:
approaches, curricula and materials
Edited by Mark Krzanowski
Garnet Education (2012)
ISBN: 9781859646533
Paperback: 174 pages 12.00

Reviewed by Alexander Braddell

Just as work is thought to be responsible for most adult
learning in general1, it is surely possible that most adults learn
English for vocational reasons and certainly a great deal of
English language learning happens in workplaces, all around
the world, much of it informal.
There are many glimpses of such informal workplace
language learning in the 12 peer-reviewed papers presented
here, in what is Mark Krzanowskis third collection for
IATEFLs English for Specific Purposes Special Interest
Group, though the focus is on formal learning, mostly from
the teachers perspective. Five of the papers come from
Africa, three from the Middle East and one each from Brazil,
India, New Zealand and Austria.
The majority describe practice around needs analysis,
curriculum design and teaching, but there are also
investigations of communicative practices in workplaces
(South Africa), a macro analysis of supply and enterprise
demand for English in Austria, a consideration of how best to
meet Botswanas needs for workplace English and a survey of
English for Work practices over the last twenty years in Nigeria.
The learners in these papers include Saudi hospital operating
room technicians, South African police officers and Omani
air force ground crew, as well as learners hoping to enter
the IT workforce in Brazil, the business and professional
communities in Nigeria, the Yemen and India.
There is obvious interest in the descriptions of teaching and
learning practices employed in these various settings, and
perhaps even more in the descriptions of needs analysis and
curriculum development and some interesting contrasts
to observe. Thus there are lone-practitioner accounts from
the EFL teachers responsible respectively for the Saudi
operating theatre and Omani ground crew courses, but also
accounts from applied linguistics research teams in Brazil and
NewZealand.
The paper from New Zealand is the only one in this collection
that deals with English for migrants: a report on a learning
programme for skilled migrants from New Zealands
remarkable Language in the Workplace Project (responsible
for ground-breaking investigations of workplace discourse2).
The paper describes how the programme drew on the projects
extensive corpus of authentic discourse recorded in New
Zealand workplaces to help learners who had achieved IELTS
6.5 to develop the sociopragmatic skills needed for effective
communication and employability in New Zealand
workplaces.
Notions of appropriateness and social convention arise
frequently in these papers almost always linked, as so much
at work is, to power relations.
One of the learners on the New Zealand programme bears
vivid testimony to the power of politeness when imposing
on colleagues: I want to get this information get something
done. I may say simply could you do this for me?, could you
find it for me? but during the course I also observed my
teacher saying when [she] asked us to do something the way
is more politely and also very soft the tone so no matter
how busy the work, dont give the hard feeling to people. So I
wonder if you could that is the great wording I use it all
the time.
In his account of teaching English to Omani air force ground
crew, Neil McBeath notes that his learners imagined that
they would require English to write military letters and faxes,
whereas the writing of military letters is a privilege jealously
guarded by the officers!
The other strong theme running through the book is the role
of English as an international language in other words, a
language of world trade and commerce.
Meenakshi Raman opens her paper on the use of English in
workplace meetings and correspondence with this quotation
from an Indian manager of a multinational company: Sabre
has approximately 9,000 employees in 59 countries, and there
is a wide range of languages spoken by our employees it is
very important for us to understand our customers and each
other therefore it is very important to focus on nuances
in communication such as pronunciation or accent. Our
managers spend 75% of their time in communication both
oral and written. Grammatical accuracy and fluency is very
important. Raman goes on to note that people belonging to
an Indian workplace always look up to their colleagues who
express themselves in impeccable English.
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 reviews 65

The tensions between global English and local languages find

expression in Modupe Alimis report from Botswana where
press bemoan the workplace impact of a perceived fall in
the ability of high school leavers and graduates to express
themselves in English and in Sunday Duruohas in a paper
on teaching English in Nigeria, which notes the demand for
usage and policy focusing on the development of indigenous
languages arising from the desire for cultural and linguistic
self-determination. Modupe Alimi advocates a pragmatic
approach [to teaching English] that is cognizant of the language
ecology of the country on the one hand and the powerful
forces of globalisation on the other.
There are, of course, areas the book doesnt touch on. Support
for migrants in low-paid, low-skilled work a major concern
in the US and Canada, as well as the UK is not touched on.
Nor and perhaps this is related is workplace learning theory
more generally. The contribution of workplace learning to
organisational performance is well established and over the
last decade a number of projects in the UK and Europe have
used workplace learning theory to investigate the potential of
work activity as a vehicle for language learning by migrants in
low-skilled roles.
However, the collection offers a colourful, multifaceted picture
of vocational English language learning in a range of contexts,
and many of the papers offer useful pointers towards practice.

Notes
1. E.g. EU Skills Panorama (2014) Adult learning Analytical
Highlight, prepared by iCF gHK and Cedefop for the
European Commission http://euskillspanorama.cedefop.
europa.eu/AnalyticalHighlights
2. See http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/centres-and-institutes/
language-in-the-workplace ; also Holmes, J., and Stubbe M.
(2003) Power and Politeness in the Workplace, A Sociolinguistic
Analysis of Talk at Work. Harlow: Longman

Alexander Braddell is a practitioner-researcher specialising

in workplace basic skills. He has extensive experience of
workplace ESOL in the UK where recent work includes
research for the Mayor of Londons office on supporting
migrants in low-paid, low-skilled employment to improve
their English. With colleagues from Germany, France
and Spain, he is currently undertaking a project for the
European Centre for Modern Languages to network
European researchers, policy-makers and practitioners
concerned with learning for migrant workers.
www.ecml.at/I2/tabid/891/language/en-GB/Default.aspx
Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 articles 66

Subscribe to Language Issues

Annual subscription two journals per year (summer and winter)
25 for personal subscription
80 for institutional subscription

Preferential rates for NATECLA members

15 for personal members
45 for institutional members

How to subscribe
Complete the subscription form below and send it to the co-ordinator at NATECLA with thepayment:
Co-ordinator, NATECLA National Centre, South and City College Birmingham,
Hall Green Campus, ColeBankRoad, Birmingham B28 8ES, UK
Subscribe online
Email: info@natecla.org.uk

How to pay
By cheque payable to NATECLA/Language Issues
By online payment to NATWEST, Sort Code 56-000-46, Account no. 58842594, Account name: NATECLA/Language Issues
By debit or credit card: www.natecla.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=467

Subscription form
I would like to subscribe to Language Issues from (date) D D M M Y Y Y Y
Name:

Email:

Telephone/mobile:

Postal address:

Postcode:

Country:

Check relevant boxes

Personal subscription (member) 15

Personal subscription (non-member) 25
Institutional subscription (member) 45
Institutional subscription (non-member) 80
I am paying by cheque
I am paying by online bank transfer
I am paying by credit or debit card
I am paying in cash
I am not yet a member of NATECLA and would
like information on how to join and receive
Language Issues with my membership
A receipt will not be sent unless specifically requested.
Data held by NATECLA is never passed to third parties