Young Learners PDF

International Perspectives on Teaching English to Young Learners
International Perspectives on English Language Teaching
Series edited by Sue Garton and Keith Richards
Titles include:
Ema Ushioda (editor)
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MOTIVATION
Sue Garton and Kathleen Graves (editors)

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MATERIALS IN ELT
Sarah Rich (editor)

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO YOUNG LEARNERS
Simon Borg and Hugo Santiago Sanchez (editors)

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHER RESEARCH
Forthcoming titles in the series:

Chris Jenks and Paul Seedhouse (editors)
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON ELT CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Hugo Bowles and Alessia Cogo (editors)

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA
Thomas S.C. Farrell (editor)

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
International Perspectives on English Language Teaching

Series Standing Order ISBN 978–0–230–30850–3 hardback
978–0–230–30851–0 paperback
(outside North America only)
You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing
order. Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address
below with your name and address, the title of the series and the ISBN quoted above.
Customer Services Department, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS, England
International Perspectives on
Teaching English to Young
Learners
Edited by
Sarah Rich
University of Exeter, UK
Selection, introduction, conclusion and editorial matter © Sarah Rich 2014
Individual chapters © Respective authors 2014
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2014 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-1-137-02322-3 ISBN 978-1-137-02323-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137023230
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
International perspectives on teaching English to young learners / edited by Sarah Rich,
University of Exeter, UK.
pages cm — (International Perspectives on English Language Teaching)
Summary: “In the 21st century the teaching of English to young learners (TEYL)
has become a truly global phenomenon. It is therefore important to deepen our
understanding of the lived experience of TEYL in the very different settings where it is
being taught. The 11 research-led accounts included in this volume are by TEYL teachers,
teacher educators and other important stakeholders in a range of contexts around
the world. The accounts span a variety of topics and issues in TEYL, each of personal
importance to the authors themselves, and resonant with TEYL educators everywhere.
The fresh practical and theoretical perspectives on different facets of TEYL that the
chapters offer provide teachers and researchers with a set of stimulating ideas which
can inform debate and pedagogical innovation in all areas of language teaching and
educational research”—Provided by publisher.
1. English language—Study and teaching (Elementary)—Foreign
speakers. 2. Children—Language—Study and teaching. 3. Multicultural
education. 4. Language arts (Elementary) I. Rich, Sarah, 1959-
PE1128.A2I588 2014
372.652'1—dc23
2014026280
Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India.

To Andy, Ida and Tom, with all my love
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
List of Figures and Tables ix
Series Editor’s Preface xi
Notes on Contributors xiii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xvi
1 Taking Stock: Where Are We Now with TEYL? 1

Sarah Rich
Part I Starting Points for an Inquiry into TEYL Pedagogic Practice
2 Making the Moves from Decoding to Extensive Reading with Young

Learners: Insights from Research and Practice around the World 23
Wendy Arnold and Shelagh Rixon
3 Examining Classroom Interactional Practices to Promote Learning

in the Young Learner EFL Classroom in China 45
Zehang Chen and Qiang Wang
4 From Language Policy to Pedagogic Practice: Elementary School

English in Japan 66
Brian Gaynor
Part II Teaching TEYL in a Globalized World: New

Opportunities and New Challenges
5 The Impact of Playing Commercial Online Games on Young

Korean EFL Learners’ L2 Identity 87
Sang Ah Sarah Jeon
6 Addressing Intercultural Awareness-Raising in the Young Learner

EFL Classroom in Poland: Some Teacher Perspectives 104
Elżbieta Sowa
7 Globalization, Plurilingualism and Young Learners in Mexico

and Beyond 123
Caroline Linse and Alina Gamboa
vii
viii Contents
Part III Introducing Innovations in TEYL Practice
8 Rethinking the Role of the Native Language in Learning to Read

in English as a Foreign Language: Insights from a Reading
Intervention Study in a Rural Primary School in South Africa 141
Leketi Makalela
9 Interactive Theatre with Student Teachers and Young Learners:

Enhancing EFL Learning across Institutional Divisions in Germany 156
Janice Bland
10 Scaffolding Listening through ICT with Young Learners in Qatar 175

Mohammad Manasreh
Conclusion: The Added Value of International Perspectives on TEYL 191

Sarah Rich
Suggestions for Further Reading 201
Index 204
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
2.1 The roles of extensive reading 30

2.2 Benchmark assessment procedure for native English young learners 34
2.3 Format of benchmark assessment for REYL 34
7.1 Proposed framework to identify and build upon young learners’
linguistic capital 126
7.2 Indicative proposed content of a language contact and
linguistic capital survey 130
7.3 Exemplar instructional approaches for building upon learners’
linguistic capital 133
10.1 A classic action research cycle 177
10.2 Students’ views on how ICT helps promote different
language skills 182
Tables
2.1 Text-level reading in course materials at end of first year worldwide 29

2.2 Year group reading levels as measured before the start of the
scheme 37
2.3 Reading levels after one year 39
2.4 Progress of four young learners on the EGRS in the same class
over a period of four years 40
2.5 Overview of the assessment results of different cohorts
following the EGRS (2003 to 2011) 40
3.1 Number of video extracts examined at each learning stage 50
3.2 Interactional features in classes at the different learning stages 51
3.3 Sample teaching procedure in one lesson at the beginner stage
(with 6 to 7 year olds) 52
3.4 Teachers’ approach to error correction in the three learning stages 54
3.5 Teachers’ use of different interactional adjustment features in
classes in the different learning stage (by frequency) 55
ix
x List of Figures and Tables
3.6 Teachers’ use of question types in classes at the different

learning stages (by frequency) 56
3.7 Teachers’ use of strategies to address interactional breakdown at the
different learning stages (by percentage of teacher talk) 57
4.1 The starting age of compulsory English language learning in select
countries 67
5.1 Participants’ views on the supportive nature of the online gaming
community 94
5.2 Participants’ perspectives on the ownership of English and
themselves as users of English 96
5.3 Participants’ views on using English in the online gaming
community 97
8.1 Word recognition shifts between pre- and post-tests by means
and percentages 150
8.2 Recognition of real and pseudo-words in pre- and
post-test measures 151
9.1 Students’ affirmative responses to a ‘Coming Together’ event
(18.02.2005) 169
9.2 Students’ affirmative responses to a ‘Coming Together’ event
(23.06.2011) 170
10.1 The structure of the stage one student questionnaire 180
10.2 Students’ positive attitude to using ICT in class 181
10.3 Learners’ positive feedback on the intervention 186
Series Editor’s Preface
Teaching English to young learners (TEYL) was long seen as something of the
poor cousin in ELT, attracting some interest in terms of practical ‘this is how
you teach it’ but little in the way of research. The perception that TEYL is some-
how not as serious a business as other areas of ELT has proven hard to shake off,
in spite of the fact that over the last twenty years or so it has become a global
phenomenon that has affected the lives of millions of teachers, children and
parents around the world.
As the age at which children begin to learn languages (usually English) in
both formal and informal education continues to fall, Bill Johnstone (2009:
33) has described the introduction of early language learning as ‘possibly the
world’s biggest policy development in education’. In spite of the widespread
and almost unquestioning enthusiasm for early language learning, it remains
controversial. Evidence as to the benefits of an early start is contradictory, as
are accounts of both teachers’ and children’s experiences.
Fortunately, TEYL is now finding its place and its voice in academic circles
too. The European Union-funded ELLiE project, a number of British Council-
funded projects and a recent ELT Journal special issue all point to a growth in
interest in TEYL and a developing maturity of the field as an area of research.
Against this backdrop, this volume is particularly important as it finally
brings together those two strands of research and practice. It does so through a
series of locally grounded, research-based accounts of practice, which all have
global relevance for researchers and practitioners alike, continuing the theme
of the series with its international emphasis on the relationship between the
global and the local.
In her introductory chapter, the editor gives a lucid account of where TEYL
currently stands, in terms of contexts and controversies, pedagogy and research.
Her final chapter reflects on the complexities of TEYL and on the importance
of local accounts for global understanding, and issues an important call to
continue the dialogue at a global level to take the field forward. In between are
nine chapters that not only address a wide range of issues but also represent
the diverse contexts in which TEYL takes place globally as well as the diverse
range of professionals involved in the field. What they all have in common is
the insights they offer into TEYL and the innovative nature of the solutions
proposed, together with the wider implications of the experiences they present.
The first section of the book focuses on practice, with each chapter taking a
very different angle, from the micro to the macro levels. Arnold and Rixon look
xi
xii Series Editor’s Preface
specifically at reading instruction, while Chen and Wang focus on classroom

interaction, and Gaynor investigates the links between policy and practice.
Importantly, all offer a more critically informed understanding of TEYL prac-
tices with the aim of improving such practices.
The chapters in the second section address the key area of globalization and
its impact on TEYL. As with the first section, both micro and macro perspec-
tives are addressed, with Sowa focusing on the development of intercultural
awareness in the YL classroom, Jeon looking at the opportunities for com-
munication in English outside the classroom, and Linse and Gamboa situating
language choices in the wider context of globalization and the perceived need
for plurilingual competence.
The final section points the way forward, with a focus on developing inno-
vative practices from the perspective of various stakeholders: young learners
themselves (Makalela on developing literacy), teacher trainees (Bland on train-
ing teachers to use drama) and teachers (Manasreh on using action research as
a strategy for teacher development).
The breath and depth that this volume achieves in addressing key issues and
challenges, and the clarity it brings to the immensely complex world of TEYL
make it a significant step forward on the TEYL landscape.
Reference
Johnstone, R. (2009). An early start: What are the key conditions for generalized success?
In Enever, J., Moon, J. and Raman, U. (eds) Young Learner English Language Policy and
Implementation: International Perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education, pp. 31–41.
Notes on Contributors
Wendy Arnold has extensive experience in the field of TESOL as a teacher,

materials writer and teacher educator. She holds an MA in Teaching English
to Young Learners from the University of York, a Post-graduate Certificate of
Education (PCEd) from the University of Hong Kong, and both the CELTA
and CELTYL. She has recently been on the writing and training team of a
new British Council teacher and trainer training course, CiPELT (Certificate
in Primary English Language Teaching) and CiPELT TOP (Trainer Orientation
Programme). She was also on the writing team of the award-winning Middle
East and North Africa Kids Read project, sponsored by HSBC and commis-
sioned by the British Council.
Janice Bland is currently visiting professor at the University of Vechta,

Lower Saxony. She worked as a primary and secondary school teacher as well
as in adult education before taking up the post of Associate Lecturer at the
University of Duisburg-Essen in 2000. She joined the English Department at
the University of Hildesheim in 2007, and subsequently the Department of
English and American Studies at the University of Paderborn in 2012. Her
research interests include children’s literature in education, and drama and
creative writing. Some of her recent works include Children’s Literature and
Learner Empowerment (2013) and the edited volume Children’s Literature in
Second Language Education (2012, with co-editor Christiane Lütge). Janice also
co-edits the new international peer-reviewed journal Children’s Literature in
English Language Education.
Zehang Chen is an associate professor, and currently Chair of the English

department at the Centre for Foreign Language Education and Teacher
Education at Beijing Normal University in China. Her research interests include
language teaching methodology, language teacher education, material devel-
opment and e-learning. She has been involved in many research projects and
published extensively in the area of language learning and teacher education.
She is also a key member of a materials writing team working on developing
course books aimed at primary to senior high school English language learners
across China.
Alina Gamboa was born and raised in Mexico in a bi-cultural family. She has a
Master’s degree in International Political Economy and a PhD in Politics from
the University of Warwick in the UK. Her main research interest is in develop-
ment policy, with a particular focus on education.
xiii
xiv Notes on Contributors
Brian Gaynor is Associate Professor of English at Muroran University in north-

ern Japan. He has taught at all levels of formal education in Japan for 15 years,
and is presently the coordinator of the Teaching Children special interest group
of the Japan Association of Language Teachers (JALT). The principal focus of his
research is on the interaction between language policy and teaching pedagogy
in EFL at the primary level. He is also interested in multilingualism and ethnic
diversity in Japanese primary education. He is currently finishing a PhD in
Applied Linguistics at Aston University in the UK.
Sang Ah Sarah Jeon has taught English to young learners in Korea and China
for nine years. Her research interests include computer-assisted language
learning, English as an International Language (EIL) and EFL learners’ L2
identity development and motivation. She is currently working towards her
professional doctorate in TESOL at the Graduate School of Education at the
University of Exeter in the UK.
Caroline Linse is a senior lecturer at Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern

Ireland. She coordinates the TESOL EdD. Programme, supervises research stu-
dents and also teaches in the Master’s programme. Caroline has worked in ESL
and EFL programmes in various contexts in the US and UK, and in Mexico,
Korea, Latvia and Belarus. Her current areas of research interest include the
relationships and connections between schools and homes as well as the chal-
lenges and benefits of being interlingual families.
Leketi Makalela is Associate Professor and Deputy Head of the Division of

Languages, Literacies & Literatures at the Wits School of Education, University
of the Witwatersrand, in South Africa. He is a National Research Foundation-
rated researcher in biliteracy development, language policy and planning, and
World Englishes. His latest book publication is Language Teacher Research in
Africa.
Mohammad Manasreh has more than 12 years’ experience as a language edu-

cator in Qatar. He worked until 2012 as an English teacher and school supervi-
sor, responsible for supporting teachers with their professional development,
when he took up the post of English language instructor on the foundation
programme at Qatar University. Mohammed holds a Master’s in TESOL and is
currently working to complete his doctorate at the University of Warwick in
the UK.
Sarah Rich has worked in the field of TESOL for more than 30 years. She has
taught at both school and university level in a range of countries worldwide.
She holds an honorary fellow position at the University of Exeter where until
recently she directed the Master’s in TESOL and Professional Doctorate in
TESOL programme. Sarah is currently employed as an educational advisor
Notes on Contributors xv
for the Ministry of Education in the Sultanate of Oman, where she oversees
the delivery of in-service training to primary and secondary school teachers
of English. Sarah’s research interests and publications focus on identity con-
struction and learning and teaching, teaching English to young learners, and
language teacher education.
Shelagh Rixon’s first degree was in Classics but her career has been in English
language teaching, teacher education and materials writing. Having taught
English in Rome for three years in the 1970s, she then trained as a teacher of
TESOL to primary and secondary school children. She spent 16 years in the
British Council in various roles, including English Language Officer in Italy,
before joining the University of Warwick as a lecturer in 1991. There she set
up and coordinated the MA in Teaching English to Young Learners. She holds
an MSc in Applied Linguistics from the University of Edinburgh, and recently
obtained a doctorate in the area of early literacy teaching to Young Learners of
English. She left Warwick University in 2009 and now concentrates on writ-
ing and research, as well as acting as a school governor and volunteer in two
primary schools.
Elżbieta Sowa is a graduate of the Warsaw School of Social Sciences and

Humanities in applied linguistics. She also holds a Diploma in Elementary
Education from Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland. She has
been involved in teaching English to young children for a number of years.
She is currently working to complete her doctorate at the University of Exeter
in the UK.
Qiang Wang is a professor and also director of the School of Foreign Languages
and Literature at Beijing Normal University in China. Her research interests
cover English curriculum reform in basic education, language learning theo-
ries, ELT methodology, curriculum development, action research, language
teacher education and English for young learners. In the past ten years, she
has co-headed the national English curriculum development project in China
and published widely in her areas of interest. Some of her major publica-
tions include A Course in English Language Teaching, Action Research for English
Teachers and Primary ELT in China. She has also edited a series of English course
books for schools in China.
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CMC computer-mediated communication
EAL English as an additional language
EERS English Extensive Reading Scheme
EFL English as a foreign language
EGRS English Graded Reading Scheme
ELL English language learners
EPER Edinburgh Project on Extensive Reading
EYL English for young learners
FL foreign language
ICT information and communications technology
L1 first language
L2 second language
MMORPG Massive multi-player online role-playing game
MOBA multiplayer online battle arena
MOE Ministry of Education
NL native language
REL1 learning to read in English as a first language
REYL learning to read by young learners in English as a second or
foreign language
RP Received Pronunciation
SLA second language acquisition
SMT senior management team
TEFL Teaching English as a foreign language
TESOL Teaching English to speakers of other languages
TEYL Teaching English as an additional language to young learners
xvi
1
Taking Stock: Where Are We
Now with TEYL?
Sarah Rich
The teaching of English as an additional language to young learners (here-

after referred to as TEYL) has grown in the last two decades to become a truly
global phenomenon. It is increasingly prioritized by governments world-
wide and is possibly currently one of the world’s largest educational policy
developments (Johnstone 2009). This phenomenon, as Cameron (2003) has
observed, is one that needs to be taken seriously by all of those involved in
TESOL, since lowering the age at which English is introduced into school
systems has important implications for English language educators at second-
ary level and beyond. Not least this is because increasingly older learners will
be those who have already encountered formal second and foreign language
learning as children and will carry the impact of this, whether positive or
negative, into their further studies.
Although our understanding of TEYL is steadily growing, there is still much
to be achieve – not only in describing the complexities and local realities
faced by young English learner educators in their work around the globe but
also in identifying emerging agendas for enhancing the development of this
important facet of additional language learning. Research in all shapes and
forms has an important role to play, and this book, with its focus on inter-
national research accounts regarding how educators are addressing TEYL, is
one that aims to make a valuable contribution to this area. To help contex-
tualize and position the accounts to be presented in subsequent chapters,
the main purpose of this introductory chapter is to explore the reasons for
the growth of TEYL worldwide, the issues posed by this expansion for young
learner educators and to survey the existing knowledge base regarding how
best to address TEYL. This is followed by a brief introductory overview of the
volume, detailing the organizational structure and the focus of each of
the subsequent chapters.
1
2 Sarah Rich
Mapping the territory: young English learners in the

21st century
An important starting point for any discussion of TEYL is to establish what is

meant by a young learner of English as an additional language. In the context
of the global spread of TEYL and the steady downward migration of the age at
which children around the world start their English language learning journey,
the term ‘young learner’ has extended its reach considerably in recent years.
To talk of young English learners today requires that we acknowledge the huge
numbers of children now engaged in learning English. As well as those study-
ing English in the lower grades of secondary schooling, recent estimates put
the numbers of children learning English in the early stages of compulsory
schooling worldwide at between four and five hundred million (Knagg and
Ellis 2012). A growing number of children are also being introduced to English
in pre-school programmes as well. Thus, the term ‘young learner’ is increas-
ingly employed to cover children studying English from as early as 3 years old
all the way up until the age of 13–14 (Pinter 2006: 2).
It is also important to recognize the very different linguistic environments
within which children are engaged in learning English as an additional lan-
guage. In some settings these children are those whose families are members of
linguistic minorities within countries where English is the dominant language
in the wider community, such as in the UK or USA. These children are variously
described as learners of English as an additional language (EAL) or as English
Language Learners (ELL). However, in the vast majority of settings these young
learners are learning English as a school subject where English is not widely
spoken as a first language and where there have traditionally been fewer oppor-
tunities for incidental learning outside the classroom. In the various research
contributions that make up this volume, with its interest in examining inter-
national perspectives in TEYL, it is this group of children, and specifically those
primarily engaged in what is typically referred to as learning English as a foreign
language in formal primary and secondary school settings, that are given most
attention. Broadly speaking, the term primary is employed to refer to children
from the ages of 6–11 and lower secondary to refer to children aged 12–14 years
of age. However, education systems around the world vary in terms of what
constitutes the start ages of primary or secondary schooling, and the various
contributors to this volume use these terms to reflect the educational systems
in their own contexts.
Reasons for the emergence of TEYL as a global phenomenon
Underpinning the growth of the TEYL movement worldwide are two different
but complementary perspectives on the importance of an early start in foreign
Taking Stock 3
language learning. The first of these relates to the fact that for a variety of
historical, political and economic reasons English has emerged as a, if not the,
major language for international communication. It is also often a primary
means of communication between linguistically and culturally diverse com-
munities within many nation states. For these reasons, as Graddol (2008, cited
in Enever et al. 2009: 6) notes, English is increasingly viewed as a core generic
skill by educational policy makers worldwide and an essential component of
school and university curricula designed to prepare students for life and work
in a globalized world.
The move to lower the age at which young people start formal studies in
English as an additional language is one response to the ways in which English
has come to occupy the status of global lingua franca. Alongside the growth
of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), dual language curricula
and the English as a medium of instruction (EMI) movement, the introduction
of an early start in English language learning is seen as a way to maximize
exposure to this important source of linguistic capital (Bourdieu 1997) in the
21st century. Increasingly, parents too, aware of the importance of English to
educational and job prospects in a global marketplace, expend considerable
effort and financial resources in ensuring their children have as many oppor-
tunities to engage with this language as possible, including an early start. The
proliferation of fee-paying English clubs and classes for children that operate
outside of regular school hours in many countries is one example of this. In
addition, in many contexts, parents with the financial means to do so will also
seek to provide their children with an alternative to state school education by
enrolling them in private schools where instruction is largely or completely
English medium. The growing number of short-stay study abroad programmes
for children is yet further testament to parental ambitions to help ensure their
children get a critical edge where English language knowledge and skill is
concerned (Song 2011). Indeed, these sorts of parental actions have served to
pressure governments to lower the age at which English is introduced into state
school curricula in many parts of the world (Enever et al. 2009).
The second reason for the move to introduce English at the earliest stages of
primary education and its inclusion in pre-school provision as well, is the wide-
spread belief that children find it easier to learn languages and that an early
start with English enables them to achieve greater overall proficiency (Nunan
2003). The evidence for this is partly anecdotal but also draws upon some of
the demonstrated language gains documented in research into an early start
in naturalistic settings; those where English is widely spoken outside of the
classroom. While the two sets of assumptions outlined above are increasingly
being called into question, as will be discussed below, the widely held view that
younger is better continues to hold sway and has helped fuel the move to lower
the ages at which children embark on instruction in this prized world language.
4 Sarah Rich
Rhetoric and reality in TEYL: What can an early start in

foreign language learning achieve?
As TEYL has expanded into ‘drip feed’ settings, where English is taught primar-
ily as a foreign language and where young learners only receive a few hours
of instruction per week, the question of what can realistically be achieved has
become the focus of considerable debate. Central to this debate is whether an
early start can actually deliver the linguistic benefits it is widely assumed to. The
theoretical premise underpinning this view is that there is a critical or sensitive
period for individuals to attain full competence in their first language, normally
assumed to be up to the onset of puberty (Birdsong 1999), and that if the mother
tongue is not acquired before this, full competence in the language will not be
achieved. Leaving aside the fact that the precise timing of this critical period
is hotly contested, the question of whether this can be applied to the consid-
eration of additional language learning (to be distinguished from bilingualism
where children are exposed to two languages from birth) remains uncertain.
Space does not permit me to go into a detailed account of the research that has
examined this here (see Pinter 2011 for an excellent synthesis). However, what
is clear is that this research has been unable to conclusively establish that an
early start in additional language learning is necessarily better than a delayed
start when learners have greater cognitive maturity (from the age of 10 to 11),
both in terms of the speed at which the language is acquired or regarding the
long-term linguistic gains and benefits.
Indeed, regarding the rate of language learning, the vast majority of research
studies have demonstrated that older learners (from the age of 10 or 11) are
able to make more rapid progress than those who start earlier (Marinova-Todd
et al. 2000). Moreover, in terms of the ultimate levels of attainment reached
by children who start early, while research suggests that those who start ear-
lier in naturalistic settings may evidence some possible long-term advantages
(notably in native-speaker-like pronunciation), there is no indication that
this benefit transfers to formal foreign language learning. As Marinova-Todd
et al. (2000) argue, we should therefore be very cautious in assuming universal
benefits from an early start. Indeed, it is widely agreed that there are a host of
other variables which need to be considered alongside age, such as motivation,
aptitude and environmental constraints (Agulló 2006; Nikolov and Mihaljević
Djigunović 2006).
The failure to identify age as the critical variable in successful additional
language learning suggests that that parents and governments who invest in
an early start in TEYL in formal schooling with the assumption that it will
lead to rapid gains in language and ultimately enhanced proficiency are likely
to be short-changed. Indeed, it has been argued that in terms of language
pay-offs, the drive to push down the start age of English instruction is both
Taking Stock 5
inefficient and a waste of resources (Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). Given this,

a central question that is increasingly addressed in the literature is: what
are the other benefits, if any, that accrue from an early start that make this
worthwhile?
Broadly speaking, the response to this question is that there are a number
of qualities of younger children as learners in pre-school or the early stages
of primary schooling that suggest this can be beneficial. First of all, younger
children are considered to have both the emotional and intellectual readiness
for additional language learning (Doyle and Hurrell 1997) Specifically, they
are seen to be less anxious and inhibited than older learners, as well as enthu-
siastic, curious and open to new experiences (Read 2003). For these reasons,
an early start is seen to be important for the generation of positive attitudes
towards the language and culture (see, for example, Nikolov and Mihaljević
Djigunović 2006) and to help develop the intercultural awareness needed to
build the global citizenship that life on an increasingly interconnected planet
requires (Read 2003; Tinsley and Comfort 2012). It has also been claimed that
the regular use of two languages supports children’s cognitive development
and evolving language awareness, promoting enhanced problem-solving,
creativity and flexible thinking as well as enhanced communication skills in
general, in both the first and additional language (Caccavale 2007; Liddicoat
et al. 2007; Read 2003).
Given these benefits, it is argued that, under the right conditions, an early
start is seen to advantage young learners over those who start their language
learning in late childhood, particularly since some of these early benefits are
seen to diminish with time. For example, it has been observed that the poten-
tial for building a positive attitude towards the speakers of the target language
may be harder to achieve with older learners who have often already formed
stereotypical impressions that, if negative, are difficult to shift (Barrett 2007).
Similarly, motivation towards the target language has also been observed to
differ between younger and older children, with some studies suggesting that
older children become less motivated with time (Sharpe 2001; Williams et al.
2002). What these ideas suggest is that children who embark on additional lan-
guage learning at an older age (from 7 or 8 years of age) will bring greater cog-
nitive maturity to their language learning endeavours. However, as Johnstone
(2009: 34) argues, the benefit of an earlier start is that this provides a solid
attitudinal and motivational platform from which to develop the more explicit
language work that is possible with these older children.
To sum up, a review of the debates regarding what is possible with an early
start suggests that, as Rixon (2000) observes, attention needs to be directed
away from the identification of an optimum age at which to embark on addi-
tional language learning towards an emphasis on identifying the optimum
conditions that are needed to maximize the potential that an early start can
6 Sarah Rich
afford. In particular, it is widely recognized that the promotion of quality

instructional practices that are appropriate to the social, psychological, emo-
tional and cognitive needs of children is crucial to how far these potential
benefits are realized. Given this, establishing precisely what the optimum
conditions of successful TEYL programmes are has been an important focus of
attention in the literature over the years.
Towards an appropriate pedagogy for TEYL
The emergence of TEYL as a discrete field of practice within TESOL has a

relatively short history. It was not until the 1990s that we witnessed a steady
stream of publications that sought to help us begin to articulate what might be
distinctive about helping children learn additional languages and some of the
features of appropriate TEYL pedagogy. Reflecting back on the contributions of
this decade, at the start of the 21st century Ellis (2000) paid tribute to the ways
in which this literature had led us to a point of a growing confidence in the
teaching of young learners and the generation of a relevant body of knowledge,
much of which had not previously existed. In the intervening years since then,
the proliferation of texts to further refine our understanding of what principles
should underpin our work and what practices are effective in delivering these
has continued unabated.
We now have a growing number of texts that provide us with a synthesis of
important theoretical perspectives concerning child development and learning
from which we can build an informed understanding of how to teach young
learners and the ways this differs from the teaching of adults (see, for example,
Cameron 2001; Moon 2000; Slatterly and Willis 2001). These have helped us
appreciate the distinctive complexities of work with young learners. These
have also led us to an appreciation of the need for an activity or task-based
pedagogy enabling us to accommodate the very different developmental levels
observable with children of a similar age and to build upon children’s natu-
ral orientation to meaning and communication through which they can be
directed to notice important features of language (Cameron 2001). Moreover,
drawing upon Vygotskian sociocultural theory and the work of others such as
Bruner, the importance of the teacher in providing instructional practices that
focus on supporting or scaffolding children’s learning is widely appreciated
(Cameron 2001; Read 2006). There is also a growing awareness of the impor-
tance of setting age-appropriate objectives and pedagogic responses to meet the
different levels of cognitive and linguistic maturity exhibited with older and
younger young learners (Agulló 2006; Butler 2005; Edelenbos et al. 2006). In
line with the characteristics of younger children outlined above, for example,
activities that can build and sustain motivation and positive attitudes are seen
as a priority for younger young learners, with activities with a more explicit
Taking Stock 7
focus on language analysis being better suited to older young learners (Agulló
2006; Nikolov and Mihaljević Djigunović 2006).
Alongside this, there is also a growing awareness of the importance of exam-
ining the challenges of translating these principles into practice in the differ-
ent and very diverse settings where English is taught to children around the
world. As a number of writers have observed, the rush to introduce English to
younger and younger children worldwide has often been undertaken without
due consideration given to such things as resourcing (both in terms of materi-
als and a qualified teacher workforce), planning, assessment mechanisms and
how to coordinate and ensure continuity between primary and secondary
English language learning provision (see, for example, Carless 2003; Enever
et al. 2009; Nunan 2003). These things are seen to impact on the quality of
provision with important follow-on consequences for the quality of children’s
learning experiences. To illustrate, in many contexts there is still a lack of
teachers with the requisite linguistic and pedagogic skills to meet the needs
of children, particularly where English is taught by home-room teachers
rather than subject specialists. Teachers may struggle to adopt the more com-
municative approaches advocated in work with young learners (Butler 2005),
and some may pursue teaching practices more suited to much older learners,
especially where secondary school teachers are drafted in to work with young
learners without adequate preparation (Gahin and Myhill 2001; Howard 2012
cited in Emery 2012). Without the provision of suitable teacher training, young
learner teachers may inadvertently contribute to the development of negative
attitudes towards language learning through the provision of impoverished
learning experiences.
In addition, while it has been the case that in many countries the move to
lower the age of English instruction has met with parental approval, it is also
the case that parental proficiency in English can impact on how well parents
can support the move to promote TEYL (Hewitt 2009, cited in Enever 2011).
Parental attitudes towards this endeavour and beliefs about the sort of progress
their children should make can also be detrimental to the success of these ini-
tiatives. The role of parents, whether as partners or protagonists in children’s
learning (Crozier 2000), is increasingly recognized as important to young learn-
ers’ orientation to and engagement with additional language learning opportu-
nities in formal schooling and their evolving identity as users of English (see,
for example Linse 2009; Rich and Davis 2007). More broadly, in some settings,
TEYL is taking place within the context of growing concerns in wider society
about whether starting early with English might have a negative impact on
children’s evolving first language competence and cultural identity (Bruthiaux
2002; Hu 2007). It seems likely that national debates that question the value of
an early start on these grounds may well lead some parents to question their
commitment to helping promote and support their children.
8 Sarah Rich
Taking all of these factors into account, it is evident that local conditions
in TEYL may not always be favourable for promoting the pedagogic principles
that are advocated in the literature outlined above. Moreover, it is increasingly
acknowledged that if these local conditions are not taken into account and
consideration given to how these can be addressed, then endeavours to pro-
mote an early start with English learning may well be unsuccessful. Warnings
about the failure to address these issues are being voiced from a growing num-
ber of those writing about the tension between policy and practice in different
settings around the globe, including, for example, Lee (2009), writing about the
situation in South Korea, and Gimenez (2009), writing about primary English
teaching in Brazil. Uncovering more about local TEYL realities and the ways
in which educators are effectively navigating these, as in the various research
accounts included in this volume, is important for the development of a more
informed and nuanced picture of TEYL. It is also important for evolving our
understanding of what an appropriate pedagogy for additional language learn-
ing with young learners might look like, and can help us appreciate the impor-
tance of context-sensitive grounded responses to local needs and possibilities
regarding TEYL (Bax 1997; Canagarajah 2005).
Researching TEYL: Trends and priorities
As Nikolov (2009) observes, today TEYL is increasingly recognized as a key

area of research within applied linguistics and language education with its
own set of research agendas. In addition to the extensive coverage of research
that is devoted to exploring TEYL in naturalistic settings (for overviews of key
themes emerging from this, see Davies et al. 2007; Wardman 2012), there is a
burgeoning body of research into early foreign language learning and teaching,
with much of this focused on exploring the teaching and learning of English in
particular. Since the research accounts in this volume are drawn from settings
where English is taught primarily as a foreign language, these will be the focus
of the discussion here.
The growth of research in TEYL is well documented in a number of surveys of
research into early foreign language learning at different points in time within
the last 15 years, notably those undertaken by Blondin et al. (1998), Edelenbos
et al. (2006), and most recently, by Nikolov and Mihaljević Djigunović (2011).
These accounts highlight the steady growth in the number of research articles
with a focus on TEYL mainstream, applied linguistics and educational journals
and the increasing number of edited volumes of research accounts of TEYL
that have and continue to be published (see, for example, Enever et al. 2009;
Moon and Nikolov, 2000; Nikolov and Curtain 2000). In addition, research
into TEYL is increasingly attracting substantial funding from various bodies.
Notable in this respect are the very recent research projects awarded to Enever
Taking Stock 9
and her colleagues (Enever 2011), Emery (2012) and Garton et al. (2011) This
trend, a testament to the growing stature and importance of research into
TEYL, is encouraging, as the opportunity this affords for more extensive stud-
ies into TEYL can only further contribute to our understanding of effective
TEYL pedagogy.
As TEYL has continued to expand, a number of shifting trends and research
priorities can be observed in the research literature. Firstly, in keeping with the
expansion of TEYL to include children who are embarking on learning English
at ever earlier ages, it is possible to detect a growing move to undertake research
that targets the full range of educational stages within which TEYL is being
promoted today, with a marked emphasis in many of the recent research stud-
ies on issues concerning TEYL in the early stages of formal schooling (see, for
example, Enever 2011; Garton et al. 2011).
Secondly, with regard to the different facets of TEYL covered in research stud-
ies, there is an increasing move away from examining language gains per se
and towards a focus on examining a host of other factors, which can contribute
to the development of an informed understanding of pedagogic principles for
TEYL. In particular, these signal a shift towards an interest in the practice of
TEYL. A recent survey of TEYL research undertaken by Nikolov and Mihaljević
Djigunović, (2011) shows, for example, a growing interest in examining appro-
priate assessment practices and ways to promote literacy development, learn-
ing strategies and intercultural awareness with young learners.
Another trend is the move to consider multiple factors and variables in
research studies, and the need to give greater recognition to the interplay
between these. In particular, there has been a move towards research that
focuses on better understanding the pragmatic realities of TEYL in different
contexts. These have helped highlight the impact of such things as resourc-
ing, parental support, government policy and the wider socioeconomic and
cultural context on pedagogical possibilities and learning outcomes. The Early
Language Learning in Europe (ELLiE) project can be seen as ground-breaking
in this respect, with its interest in examining the effectiveness of the teach-
ing of English in seven countries in Europe over a three-year timeframe with
reference to the perspectives of parents, teachers, children and head teachers
(Enever 2011).
The ELLiE study also illustrates an emerging trend with regard to the
design of TEYL research projects, namely, the move to adopt a mixed-method
approach to data collection (Nikolov and Mihaljević Djigunović 2011). In the
case of the ELLIE study, for example, this involved interviews, surveys and
observational case studies. This study also highlights two further trends in the
design of TEYL research projects: an interest on the one hand in foregrounding
a trans-contextual understanding of TEYL and, on the other in an increasing
visibility of locally situated practitioner accounts regarding the day-to-day
10 Sarah Rich
realities of TEYL and efforts to develop pedagogic responses to these. While the
majority of research studies tend to adopt one or other of these approaches,
as Nikolov and Mihaljević Djigunović have observed (2011), and as the ELLIE
project exemplifies, these are not mutually exclusive and both are needed for
furthering our understanding of the field.
Trans-contextual research studies
Trans-contextual studies are typically initiated by academics with the means

and resources at their disposal to create an understanding of the bigger picture.
An advantage is that they enable us to distill ‘quality indicators’ (Edelenbos
et al. 2006: 111) that can transcend national boundaries informing our under-
standing of the conditions for generalized success for TEYL (Johnstone 2009)
as well as exposing the significance of local conditions that may militate
against the successful introduction of TEYL. Trans-contextual studies have until
recently tended to concentrate on understanding TEYL at a regional level, and
most typically, in Europe, as in the case of the ELLIE project described above.
However, as TEYL has expanded its reach across the globe there is increasing
recognition of the importance of trans-contextual studies that explore the ways
in which TEYL is being enacted in other regions. See, for example, Butler’s
(2005) contrastive examination of teachers’ efforts to promote communicative
approaches to TEYL in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
More recently a number of trans-contextual studies have shifted to an
examination of TEYL as a global phenomenon. The study undertaken by Emery
(2012), for example, inquired into the professional conditions for TEYL teachers
in 89 countries through the generation of 2,500 survey responses from teach-
ers and 85 in-depth interviews undertaken in nine of these countries. A study
undertaken by Garton et al. (2011) also sought to obtain a global perspective
on TEYL by examining 4,696 survey responses of TEYL teachers in 144 coun-
tries around the globe with regard to their lived experience as TEYL educators,
particularly their attitudes, their perception of their roles and responsibilities,
their pedagogic practices and the challenges they faced. In addition, by under-
taking five observational case studies of TEYL in countries in different parts of
the world, the researchers were interested to establish a detailed description
of how experienced teachers engage with TEYL, something about which we
still have a limited understanding.
The importance of locally situated research accounts of TEYL
As well as exemplifying the emergence of trans-contextual research designs to

explore TEYL around the globe, as with the ELLiE study, the study undertaken
by Garton et al. (2011) provides further illustration of the growing appreciation
Taking Stock 11
of the need to seek out and increase the visibility of locally situated accounts
of TEYL as a significant research agenda, and one that is important in light of
the global spread of TEYL. These sorts of accounts, including the ones in this
volume, have a number of benefits for the development of TEYL as a field.
As well as revealing the interplay between the global and local (Enever et al.
2009), they also highlight the interplay between macro realities informing
practice in a given setting (such as TEYL policy at a national level) and the
micro realities of the classroom itself (Garton et al. 2011). These sorts of stud-
ies can also make a very positive contribution to evolving our understanding
of what effective pedagogy for TEYL looks like, revealing local practices that
may well have global resonance and which can help TEYL educators in other
settings innovate their own practice.
Given the potential of locally situated accounts to contribute to furthering
our understanding of TEYL, finding platforms to allow for the dissemination
of research accounts of TEYL practice around the globe should be an important
priority. Edited collections of research into TEYL have an important role to play
in this respect, and there are signs of a growing appreciation of this resource.
On the whole edited collections have tended and continue to primarily report
on research undertaken in European settings (see, for example, Gonzalez Davis
and Taronna 2012; Moon and Nikolov 2000; Nikolov 2009) where TEYL is
now well established. However, as TEYL programmes continue to proliferate,
edited collections that focus on empirical research from other regions are start-
ing to appear. Recent publications include a collection of research papers that
examine TEYL in South East Asia (Spolsky and Moon, 2012) and a collection
by Enever et al. (2009), which looks at how TEYL educators are implementing
policy around the globe.
Although a promising development, research-based accounts by TEYL edu-
cators in the different localities where this is being practised are still largely
under-represented in published accounts of research. One possible reason for
this may be the as yet limited capacity of TEYL practitioners around the globe
to conduct research or to develop the confidence and skills to disseminate
their findings. The development of guidelines on how to conduct small-
scale research into TEYL and possible points of departure provided in such as
those provided by Pinter (2006 and 2011) is one useful and welcome step in
helping build capacity in practitioners to generate research-led practice. The
provision of more examples of research-led practice, particularly from those
practitioners who like them are working in settings that still remain largely
marginalized in accounts of TEYL research is also important. This volume,
with its focus on practitioner research accounts in a wide range of countries
around the globe, is one that seeks to help extend an understanding of the
potential of local perspectives undertaken by informed insiders to contribute
to the development of TEYL pedagogy.
12 Sarah Rich
An overview of the TEYL research accounts in this volume
In soliciting the accounts of practitioner inquiry into TEYL that are included
in this volume one important objective was to choose those that were repre-
sentative of the enormously diverse nature of the settings within which TEYL
is being promoted around the world, with a particular emphasis on contexts
where English is taught as a foreign language. It was also the intention to select
accounts that identified a wide range of issues and challenges facing TEYL edu-
cators around the globe and which were seen to generate innovative responses
that would be of both wider interest to the global TEYL community and would
help stimulate debate and set agendas for furthering our understanding of TEYL.
The nine chapters that were selected, to be described below, are ones that
meet these criteria. They are written by those who have an investment in
TEYL, whether as teachers, teacher educators, materials writers or academics
in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. As such they are
illustrative of the very different conditions faced by TEYL educators in differ-
ent part of the world. Their accounts focus variously on TEYL in early primary
education right through to the teaching of young adolescents of 13–14 years
of age, and while primarily they focus on teachers and learners as central
stakeholders in TEYL, they also acknowledge the significance of others such as
school administrators, parents and policy makers.
The topics covered in these chapters reflect issues identified as important
concerns by the authors in the context of their own experiences. All were
selected because they are deemed to have something of interest to contribute to
TEYL, whether in terms of new insights into an existing area of interest in TEYL
(such as literacy), in terms of identifying new agendas for practice or research
(such as supporting plurilingualism in the TEYL classroom), or in terms of
providing illustration of different ways in which practitioners engage in a
process of inquiry to generate new understandings or ‘solutions’ to problems
that they encounter. Although the chapters manifest the different interests of
their authors and describe different settings, all make explicit reference to the
wider implications and significance of their inquiry to TEYL educators in other
locales, and stipulate a number of follow-on priority engagements for practice
and research.
The chapters are grouped into three main parts that reflect some of the key
cross-cutting themes they illustrate: namely, on the one hand the efforts of
TEYL educators to address the challenges and opportunities of globalization in
TEYL, manifested in the increasing contact between linguistically and cultur-
ally diverse resulting from migration and technology; and on the other, by
their illustration of the processes and procedures they employ in seeking to
explore, better understand and to introduce innovations to address local issues
and concerns.
Taking Stock 13
Part I: Starting points for an inquiry into TEYL

pedagogic practice
The first three chapters, by Arnold and Rixon, Chen and Wang and Gaynor illus-
trate different possible points of departure for generating a critically informed
understanding of TEYL practice, an important first step in setting agendas for
improving practice. Chapter 2, by Arnold and Rixon, considers how the cur-
rent knowledge base regarding reading instruction in first language research
is one useful starting point for developing a critically informed understand-
ing of effective TEYL reading pedagogy around the globe. These authors’
particular focus is on charting key stages of literacy development and the
importance of bridging activities to help young learners make the transition
from one stage to another. The importance of this is illustrated with reference
to efforts to establish an extensive reading programme with young learners
in Hong Kong.
This is followed by Chapter 3 by Chen and Wang, which explores the rela-
tionship between classroom interactional practices and learning outcomes
with primary school children in China. This illustrates how undertaking a
local research inquiry is another possible point of departure for TEYL, and one
that can provide important new insights into TEYL. Chen and Wang drew
upon a body of data generated from a longitudinal study that spanned six
years and which demonstrated the positive impact of a primary school EFL
curriculum reform on young learners’ English language achievements and atti-
tudes. Through an examination of teachers’ interactional practices across the
six-year timeframe, the authors demonstrate how the different interactional
practices adopted at the different stages of children’s spoken language devel-
opment were seen to not only align with the children’s shifting emotional,
cognitive and linguistic needs, but how collectively these combined to provide
supportive conditions that facilitated the observed success in their spoken
English production at the end of the six years.
In Chapter 4, the final chapter in Part I, Gaynor considers the complex rela-
tionships and contradictions between elementary school TEYL policy and prac-
tice in Japan. Gaynor provides a carefully argued account of the forces shaping
policy decision-making regarding TEYL and how insufficient attention is given
to how this can be enacted at a classroom level. Gaynor observes that there is
a need to include the perspectives of those charged with implementing TEYL
policy and the realities on the ground, and that this should be an important
point of departure for identifying what is realistically achievable with TEYL,
both in Japan and elsewhere. Given the disconnect between the rhetoric of
policy and practice, Gaynor concludes by proposing compromise solutions,
which acknowledge that while the decision of governments to promote TEYL
with ever younger learners is unlikely to be reversed, there is a need to be more
14 Sarah Rich
realistic about what is achievable with careful consideration of the realities fac-
ing teachers on the ground.
Part II TEYL in a globalized world: New opportunities and

new challenges
Many of the chapters in this volume touch on the ways in which globalization
is impinging on the work of TEYL educators in line with the increasing flow
of information, ideas and people around the world; whether with respect to
how to handle the growing cultural and linguistic diversity present in our class-
rooms, or with respect to the changing educational landscapes brought about
by technology. However, the three chapters included in this section make a
consideration of the opportunities and challenges this presents an explicit
focus of their enquiry.
The first chapter, Chapter 5 by Jeon, examines an important opportunity
afforded by globalization for young learners, namely the possibility for more
exposure and communication opportunities in English in young learners’ out-
of-school worlds. Jeon considers the impact of young learners’ engagement in
transnational multiplayer on line gaming communities in South Korea. Her
focus is on how the opportunities this provides for them to communicate with
other non-Korean players impacts on their developing sense of themselves as
L2 users, or their L2 identity. She demonstrates how the participants in her
study, 10–14-year-olds, identify a number of benefits from their experiences
that allows them to evolve a more positive sense of themselves as L2 users,
namely, in an increased willingness to communicate, increased confidence and
reduced anxiety, both in the on-line gaming communities and in their off-line
in-school world. She ends by arguing that TEYL educators need to pay more
attention to uncovering beneficial out-of-class learning opportunities, and con-
sider how these can be these can be supported in class, as well as drawn upon
to help innovate TEYL classroom practice.
The next chapter, Chapter 6 by Sowa, picks up on the issue of how to
promote intercultural awareness with young learners. Sowa’s interest is in
the challenges she faced in finding appropriate resources to support teach-
ers with their endeavours to achieve this stated objective of TEYL in Polish
primary schools. She describes how this led her to uncover the practices of
four primary teachers in Poland who drew upon two European initiatives to
help teachers with the promotion of intercultural awareness. While her initial
expectation was that these would provide her with insights into how to evolve
her own practice, she concludes the chapter by identifying a number of limita-
tions with these initiatives, raising some important questions with regard to
what it means to promote intercultural awareness with young learners in an
increasingly globalized world.
Taking Stock 15
The final chapter in this section, Chapter 7 by Linse and Gamboa, is one
that considers the issue of language choices for the TEYL classroom within the
context of globalization with reference to the situation in Mexico. On the one
hand, Linse and Gamboa consider the ways in which the promotion of English
as a dominant world language can undermine children’s existing language cap-
ital, which in Mexico encompasses Spanish but also a number of indigenous
languages. On the other hand, they highlight how plurilingual competence is
increasingly viewed as a crucial form of linguistic capital for life in a globalized
world. Taking these two points together, they argue that this requires TEYL
educators to move away from an English-only pedagogy in the TEYL classroom,
and they propose a four-stage procedural framework of steps that teachers and
other stakeholders can take to put this into practice.
Part III: Introducing innovations in TEYL practice
The three chapters included in Part III illustrate some of the different ways in
which TEYL educators around the globe are working to introduce innovations
into their practice. In the first of these, Chapter 8, Makalela describes a literacy
intervention introduced into a rural primary school in South Africa. Echoing
some of the same issues raised by Linse and Gamboa above, he and his col-
leagues devised a literacy intervention that endeavoured to maintain and
support the development of children’s L1 literacy while also promoting their
literacy development in English. He demonstrates how the active involvement
of parents in reading to their children, the creation of a print-rich environ-
ment in both languages in class and the use of contrastive literacy teaching
strategies in his intervention all contributed to the enhancement of children’s
English reading development as measured in pre- and post-tests.
Following on from this, in Chapter 9, Bland describes an innovative
approach to encourage student teachers to embrace drama in their future work
as teachers of English to young learners. She argues that drama has a number
of important benefits for TEYL, including its potential to increase intercultural
awareness. She also sees this as particularly useful to build bridges across insti-
tutional divisions in Germany where she works. With these things in mind,
she describes the evolution of her Interactive Theatre approach, which entails
student teachers working with groups of young learners drawn from differ-
ent types of schools to perform short plays. She documents how undertaking
Interactive Theatre with schools with different student populations (primary
and secondary schools, those in more or less socially deprived areas and with
different degrees of linguistic and culturally diversity) provided both student
teachers and children alike with important benefits.
The third and final chapter in Part III, Chapter 10 by Manasreh, describes the
way in which he employed an action research strategy to help him identify
16 Sarah Rich
ways to better exploit the e-learning resources readily available but often under-
utilized in schools in Qatar. As a school supervisor, he also hoped to model the
effectiveness of this sort of research strategy to other TEYL teachers in the school
where he worked at the time of the study. Through an initial process of obser-
vation and questionnaires distributed to learners, he decided to focus on how
children’s listening skills could be supported through e-games and resources in
two class groups. He demonstrates how the subsequent actions not only led to
positive outcomes from students’ perspectives but also stimulated more debate
among teachers about the role and potential of e-learning in supporting young
learners English language learning and a further potential cycle of inquiry to be
taken to help them improve the ways in which they used e-learning resources.
The last chapter in this volume, Chapter 11 by Rich, reflects on the collec-
tive contributions of the different research accounts detailed above to our
understanding of TEYL pedagogy. As will be argued, they point to the added
value of seeking out international perspectives, not only in helping us better
understand the complexities inherent in TEYL around the globe but in offer-
ing ways forward, both in terms of innovating our understanding of effective
practice and in helping us set future agendas for furthering the project of TEYL.
References
Agulló, G.L. (2006). Overcoming age-relate differences. ELT Journal, 60 (4): 365–373.
Barrett, M. (2007). Children’s Knowledge, Beliefs and Feelings about Nations and National
Groups. Hove: Psychology Press.
Bax, S. (1997). Roles for a teacher educator in context-sensitive language teacher educa-
tion. ELT Journal, 51 (3): 232–241.
Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A. and
Taeschner, T. (1998). Foreign Languages in Primary and Pre-school Education: A Review of
Recent Research within the European Union. London: CILT.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H., Brown, P. and Stuart
Wells, A. (eds), Education, Culture, Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 46–58.
Bruthiaux, P. (2002). Hold your courses: language choice, and economic development.
TESOL Quarterly, 36 (3): 275−296.
Butler, Y.G. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards elementary school teachers in
South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (2): 245–278.
Caccavale, T. (2007). The correlation between early second language learning and native
language skill development. Learning Languages, 13 (1): 31–32.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cameron, L. (2003). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children.
ELT Journal, 57 (2): 105–112.
Canagarajah, S. (ed.) (2005). Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taking Stock 17
Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary

schools. System, 31: 485−500.
Crozier, G. (2000) Parents and Schools: Partners or Protagonists? London: Trentham
Books.
Davies Samway, K. and McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and Realities: Best Practices for English
Language Learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Doyle, P. and Hurrell, A. (1997) Foreign Language Education in Primary Schools (age 5/6 to
10/11). Strasburg: Council of Europe Press.
Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. (2006). Languages for the Children of Europe.
Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/
languages/documents/doc427_en.pdf [accessed 24/09/2012].
Ellis, G. (2000). Teaching English to Young Learners: Reflections on a Decade (1990–2000).
London: British Council.
Emery, H. (2012). A Global Study of Primary English Teachers’ Qualifications, Training and
Career Development. London: British Council.
Enever, J. (ed). (2011). ELLiE: Early Language Learning in Europe. London: The British
Council.
Enever, J., Moon, J. and Raman, U. (2009). Young Learner English Language Policy and
Implementation: International Perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education.
Gahin, G. and Myhill, D. (2001) The communicative approach in Egypt: Exploring the
secrets of the pyramids. TEFL Web Journal, 1/2. Available at: www.teflweb-.org/v1n2/
Gahin_Myhill.html [accessed 19/10/2012].
Garton, S., Copland, F., and Burns, A. (2011). Investigating Global Practices in Teaching
English to Young Learners. London: The British Council.
Gimenez, T. (2009). English at primary school level in Brazil: Challenges and
perspectives. In J. Enever, J. Moon and U. Raman (eds), Young Learner English Language
Policy and Implementation: International Perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education,
pp. 53–59.
Gonzalez Davis, M. and Taronna, A. (2012). New Trends in Early Foreign Language Learning:
The Age Factor, CLIL and Languages in Contact: Bridging Research and Good Practices.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Graddol, D. (2008). How TEYL is changing the world. Paper presented at the Bangalore
Conference, ‘The Way Forward: Learning form International Experience of TEYL’,
3–6 January 2008. Bangalore, India: RIESI.
Hewitt, E. (2009). Are Parents an Effective Resource for Learning English as a Foreign
Language? Am Empirical Study with Complete Beginner Children. Navarro Coy, M.
(ed) Practical Approaches to Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. Bern: Peter Lang
pp. 91–113.
Howard, A. (2012). Teaching English to young learners: Primary to ELT or ELT to
primary? In Emery, H. and Gardiner-Hyland, F. (eds), Contextualising EFL for Young
Learners: International Perspectives on Policy, Practice and Procedures. Dubai, UAE: TESOL
Arabia, pp. 61–70.
Hu, Y. (2007). China’s foreign language policy on primary English education: What’s
behind it? Language Policy, 6: 359−376.
In J. Enever, J. Moon and U. Raman (eds), Young Learner English Language Policy and
Knagg, J. and Ellis, G. (2012). Global Issues in Primary ELT. Available at: http://iatefl.
britishcouncil.org/2012/sessions/2012-03-20/british-council-signature-event-global-
primary-elt-issues. [accessed 28/09/2012].
18 Sarah Rich
Lee, W. L. (2009). Primary English Language Teaching (ELT) in Korea: Bold risks on
the national foundation. In J. Enever, J. Moon and U. Raman (eds), Young Learner
English Language Policy and Implementation: International Perspectives. Reading: Garnet
Education, pp. 95–102.
Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A. and Kohler, M. (2007). Report on Intercultural
Language Learning. Australian Government Department of Education, Science and
Training. Available at: http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/nalsas/pdf/intercultural.pdf.
Linse, C. (2009). Meet the parents. English Teaching Professional, 60: 24–25.
Marinova-Todd, S.H., Bradford-Marshall, D. and Snow, C. (2000). Three misconceptions
about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (1): 9–34.
Moon, J. (2000). Children Learning English. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Moon, J. and Nikolov, M. (2000). Research into Teaching English to Young Learners. Pecs:
University Press Pecs.
Nikolov, M. (ed.) (2009). Early Learning of Modern Foreign Languages: Processes and
Outcomes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nikolov, M. and Curtain H. (2000). An Early Start: Young Learners and Modern Languages in
Europe and Beyond. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Nikolov, M. and Mihaljevic´ Djigunovic´, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second
language acquisition and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 26, 234–260.
Nikolov, M. and Mihaljevic´ Djigunovic´, J. (2011). All shades of every color: An overview
of early teaching and learning of foreign languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
31, 95–119.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and
practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 589–613.
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pinter, A. (2011). Children Learning Second Languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Read, C. (2003). Is younger better? English Teaching Professional, 28: 5–7.
Read, C. (2006). Scaffolding children’s talk and learning. In Current Trends and Future
Directions in ELT. Berlin, Germany: The British Council.
Rich, S. and Davies, L. (2007). Insights into the strategic ways in which two bilingual
children in the early years seek to negotiate the competing demands in their home and
school worlds. International Journal of Early Years Education, 15 (1): 35–47
Rixon, S. (2000). Optimum age or optimum conditions? Issues related to the teaching of
languages to primary age children. Available at: http://www.britishcounil.org/english/
eyl/article01.htm. Accessed 14/12/2005.
Sharpe, K. (2001). Modern Foreign Languages in the Primary School: The What, Why and How
of Early MFL Teaching. London: Routledge.
Slatterly, M. and Willis, J. (2001). English for Primary Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Song, J. (2011). Globalization, children’s study abroad, and transnationalism as an
emerging context for language learning: A new task for language teacher education.
TESOL Quarterly, 45 (4): 749–758.
Spolsky, B. and Moon, Y. (2012). Primary School English Language Education in Asia: From
Policy to Practice. London: Routledge.
Tinsley, T. and Comfort, T. (2012). Lessons from Abroad: International Review of Primary
Languages. Cfbt Educational Trust. Available at: http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcor
porate/files/research/2012/r-lessons-from-abroad-2012.pdf [accessed 17/12/2012].
Taking Stock 19
Wardman, C. (2012). Pulling the Threads Together: Current Theories and Current Practice
Affecting UK Primary Children who have English as an Additional Language. London: The
British Council.
Williams, M., Burden, R. and Lanvers, U. (2002). French is the language of love and stuff:
Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language.
British Educational Research Journal, 28 (4): 504–528.
Part I
Starting Points for an Inquiry into
TEYL Pedagogic Practice
2
Making the Moves from Decoding
to Extensive Reading with Young
Learners: Insights from Research
and Practice around the World
Wendy Arnold and Shelagh Rixon
Introduction
The main theme of this chapter is supporting the progress of Young Learners
from the first steps of learning to read in English towards independent read-
ing in English. We will consider the support that children need in making the
transitions from one stage to the other and the skills and knowledge that this
requires from their teachers. The first part of the chapter identifies key issues
and priorities in supporting young learners with reading in English, drawing
upon research on this topic in a number of young learner contexts worldwide,
while the second part illustrates how these inform the steps taken to success-
fully prepare and support young learners’ introduction to independent reading
through an extensive reading programme in Hong Kong. The term ‘extensive
reading’ is being used to mean independent reading of a variety of fiction and
non-fiction text.
In this chapter, the term REL1 will be used to refer to learning to read in
English as a First Language, and REYL will refer to learning to read in English
as a Second or Foreign language. RE1 refers to learning to read in one’s own
first language (L1).
Considerable reference will be made in this chapter to approaches to teach-
ing reading in English as an L1. This is not because we assume that processes
of learning to read in L1 and L2 are necessarily very similar but because an
essential premise for our discussion is that English L1 reading development is
considered to be a challenging matter for learners and needs careful and sys-
tematic instruction. It is very striking, therefore, that our research shows that in
many contexts young beginners for whom English is a foreign language seem
to receive so little support for their English reading development. Another
reason for making the comparison is that terms from L1 reading instruction
such as ‘Phonics’ and ‘grading’ are being more and more used in the discourse
surrounding English young learner teaching (hereafter referred to as EYL
23
24 Wendy Arnold and Shelagh Rixon
teaching), though sometimes with rather different meanings from those cur-
rent in L1 teaching.
Unlike listening and speaking, L1 literacy is not developed ‘naturally’ in
the early stages of children’s lives purely through interaction with the people
around them. It requires some degree of instruction and thus is among the
areas categorized by Geary and Bjorklund (2000) as ‘biologically secondary’ in
terms of human development.
It is our view that children taking their first steps in reading in a foreign
language also need support. Although in many cases young learners of English
have already developed at least some ability to read and write in their own
language, this does not mean that smooth transitions through different stages
as English readers can be taken for granted. As will be discussed below, many
young learners come from language backgrounds in which the writing system
is markedly different from the alphabetic writing system used by English.
Beyond such sources of difficulty, English in itself has characteristics that make
it among the most difficult languages in which to learn to read fluently, even
for its native speakers. Yet, in most materials intended for children learning
English as a foreign language, reading is very sketchily treated.
Research and debate in REL1 and REYL
Studies such as those by Street (1984), Heath (1993) and Scribner and Cole
(1981) emphasize that reading and learning to read is embedded in social
practices. It is not an autonomously operated, value-free, purely cognitive
capacity, and learning to read is not a pure skill-getting matter. Cross-cultural
differences can therefore be important to bear in mind when teaching reading
to L2 users. There is also a substantial and growing theoretical literature on
language issues in learning to read in an L2. See, for example, concerns with
the effects of different writing systems in Perfetti and Dunlap (2008) or the
effects of different linguistic systems (Fender 2008; Mumtaz and Humphreys
2001), particularly the contrasting phonology of particular L1s and English
(Koda 2008: 225–6; Perfetti and Liu 2005). None of the areas mentioned above
is trivial: learning to read across languages presents different issues for different
cultures and combinations of languages, and although most learners tend to
find their way eventually, this may be after a number of false starts. By con-
trast, this substantial amount of research-based work has not been reflected
in an equal amount of discussion at a professional level of what needs to be
done in the English young learner classroom and the best choices to make in
syllabus and methodology terms. Apart from important contributions made
by Cameron (2001; 2003) and some research by Rixon (2007; 2011) we find in
the professional world of EYL teaching a general lack of debate and controversy
about early reading.
From Decoding to Extensive Reading with Young Learners 25
Another perhaps even stronger contrast is between the scarcity of debate con-
cerning classroom approaches to REYL development and the raging ‘Reading
Wars’ (Chall 1996) concerning how best to approach REL1 in the classroom.
There is ample agreement that REL1 is challenging and needs attention, but
unfortunately over the past century there has been little stable agreement
on what precise forms that attention should take. The swings of fashion and
official policy (Rose 2006) regarding reading instruction are familiar to many.
The main issue seems to be whether children best learn to read through first
mastering a set of enabling skills and knowledge such as letter recognition and
frequent letter–sound correspondences or whether the first approach should be
more holistic, for example through the recognition of whole words by shape
and by dependence on context.
Many ‘ways in’ to early reading
The main locus of debate in the 1960s was between teaching methods that
reflected these polarities: Phonics represented sound–letter correspondences
and the Whole Word or ‘Look and Say’ approach represented the more holis-
tic views. A later source of controversy also came from the Real Books/Whole
Language movement, which promoted approaches to early reading that were
in contrast with both Phonics and Look and Say in that its focus was sociolin-
guistic and affective rather than linguistic, based on the notion that children
needed to know what reading was ‘for’ (see the commentary by Dombey in
Hall 2003: 116–24) and to develop an enthusiasm for what lay within books
before they engaged closely with the linguistic fabric of which text was built.
However, in spite of the controversies, all L1 reading experts would probably
agree on one thing, that the teaching of early reading in English is an area
in which children need carefully staged support. Most, although favouring
one perspective above others, would probably also agree that for the teach-
ing of REL1 no one approach will suit all children (Hall 2003: 191) or indeed
adequately address enough of the features of English that make it particularly
challenging for all beginning readers. As the Bullock Report (HMSO 1975:
521), as long ago as 1975 put it, ‘[t]here is no one method, medium, approach,
device, or philosophy that holds the key to learning to read’.
None of this fully answers the questions that EYL teachers might have
concerning what best to do with foreign language learners rather than native
speaker beginning readers, but it does perhaps suggest that the solutions here
will not be simple to arrive at, either, and that this is a priority area for EYL
teacher education.
Surveys of the state of training in young learner teaching worldwide (Emery
2012; Rixon 2007) suggest that many current teachers of EYL have had lit-
tle substantial overall orientation to the skills and repertoire of classroom
activities appropriate for teaching English to children. Within this general

shortfall it is particularly notable that most teachers have had no officially
organized opportunities to study and reflect on how best to introduce young
learners to reading in English. Out of 61 EYL teachers surveyed in 2006 (Rixon
2007) only four reported any specific training in the teaching of reading, and
these were native speakers of English trained in English-speaking contexts.
Of 26 teachers from 12 different contexts later investigated in more depth by
questionnaire and interview (Rixon 2011), only two reported any training in
early reading instruction, and both of these had trained as mainstream school
teachers in a context where English was the medium of instruction. Minimal
guidance for teachers seems to be the current norm in many contexts. This
should be the cause of serious concern if it also leads to minimal support for
the learners.
The challenges posed by English in particular – orthographic

depth and learning to read
The particular challenge for teachers and learners concerning the first steps in
learning to read in English derives from its notorious orthographic depth (Katz
and Frost 1992) – that is, the fact that there is a considerably less reliable cor-
respondence in English than in most other languages between its graphemes
(alphabetical letters such as <c> or regular combinations of letters such as <ea>)
and the range of phonemes they may stand for. In the above two examples <c>
is found with the values of /s/ or /k/ as in ‘cinema’ and ‘cat’, and there are at
least four different vowel values that can be represented by <ea>, e.g. (/i:/ in
‘peach’, /ɪə/ in ‘ear’, /e/ in ‘head’ and /eə/ in ‘pear’. This particular characteristic
of English means that it takes considerably longer for native English-speaking
children to learn to decode fluently than it takes native speakers of other
languages, even those making use of the same Roman alphabet. Spencer and
Hanley (2003) estimate that Turkish, Italian and German speakers have nor-
mally mastered this stage by the end of Grade One. English-speaking children
can take much longer, however. The complexity in letter–phoneme relation-
ships found in English adds another dimension to the underlying difficulty
regarding reading development that exists for all beginners in any foreign
language: that is, that unlike native speakers, they are not already competent
in the language in which they are learning to read, they may not have a solid
operational grasp of its phonology and they do not have the large structural
and lexical repertoire that native speakers can draw upon when they are trying
to arrive at the identity and the meaning of words on the page.
We have seen above that many EYL teachers have not yet had the substantial
training that might help them to guide young learners through the above dif-
ficulties. However, where teacher education is lacking, some form of substitute
may be found in well-conceived materials that inform as well as guide teachers

and structure their teaching (Hutchinson and Torres 1994).
Early reading instruction and EYL materials
The first and most fundamental issue for EYL teachers is when to start early
reading instruction: whether to start reading at or very near the beginning of
their children’s English learning journey or whether to delay reading until the
children actually have a command of some English lexis and structures. In
the different contexts investigated by Rixon (2011), reading (in the sense that
there were printed ‘words on the page’) was already an integral part of teach-
ing from the beginning or very near the beginning of each course. This pres-
ence of words on the page, however, does not necessarily constitute systematic
instruction in early reading. Rather, it can represent a ‘taken-for-granted’ use
of the printed word as if it were an effective support for other teaching. Heavy
early use of words on the page was found in most materials, for example, in
printed scripts for dialogues, in speech bubbles for characters, in presentation
of new structures or as labels for pictures showing new vocabulary. This very
early reliance on the printed word seems highly inconsistent with other parts
of the same beginner’s materials, when it occurs in the same lessons as very
basic early reading work. This basic work often consists of linking single letters
with phonemes (<a> for apple, <b> for boy etc.).
Learning about sound–symbol correspondences
The groundwork for early decoding is rarely adequately laid in EYL teaching
materials. Arnold and Rixon (2008) identified that very few published materials
for EYL included ‘… developing awareness of sound–symbol correspondences
in English’. Rixon’s research (2011) into published EYL materials for young
beginners from 12 different national contexts revealed that, where there was
an attempt to teach letter–sound links, the predominant and very limited
approach was to present single or small groups of example words (e.g. boy,
ball, bag) and to focus only on the initial letter and a corresponding phoneme.
In most cases these word-groups were spread out over the first year or more of
the course according to their alphabetical order, starting, say, with <a> for ‘ant’
and ending with <z> for ‘zebra’. This results in a very inadequate account of the
phonemes of English, with only 23 out of the 43 or 44 phonemes in modern
British Received Pronunciation represented. The total of 43 or 44 phonemes
depends on whether we count the diphthong /ʊə/, as in an old-fashioned pro-
nunciation of ‘poor’, which is increasingly rarely used (Wells 1992).
In a typical a–z list focusing only on initial letters and their corresponding
sounds many consonant phonemes can simply not be covered. Examples are
/η/, which never appears in initial position in English words, and /ʃ/, which
initially is represented by two letters (a digraph) <sh>. In the case of vowels,
the letters <a><e><i><o><u> when they appear initially in words like ‘ant’ or
‘ink’ represent only the five short vowels of English, which leaves the other
14 or 15 vowels uncovered.
In materials investigated by Rixon (2011) activities based on initial letters in
a–z lists were frequently labelled ‘Phonics’. However, they failed to represent
some of the key principles of Phonics, which include an ordering and prioritiz-
ing of the introduction of letters and sounds based on systematic principles such
as notions of difficulty or of the potential for certain combinations of letters to
create the maximum number of real words. The presentation of letter–sound
links according to alphabetical order is thus an irrelevant and crude approach
to marshalling material to be learned as well as an incomplete one.
In only two courses analysed by Rixon was any account taken of ‘sight
words’ – those frequent but impossible-to-decode-phonically words such as
‘one, two, eight, laugh, enough’ that even the strongest proponents of teaching
sound–symbol links agree must be learned as ‘Look and Say’ items.
It may therefore be stated with some confidence that young learner teachers
who rely on English language textbooks alone to structure and guide their
young learners’ first reading encounters with English text will provide many
children with too few anchors, and (given that there was no separate work
on pronunciation in any of the courses analysed) probably an incomplete
grounding in English phonology. The results of neglecting work at this level
in the early stages will be seen in the second part of this chapter in which one
of the authors, Wendy Arnold, describes the sound–symbol support materials
needed to help learners engage with an extensive reading scheme in Hong
Kong in spite of the fact that they had been learning English for at least a year.
Moving to text-level work
Most teachers would agree that moving beyond the decoding stage to confi-
dent text-level work and arriving at a stage of extensive independent reading is
the main point of learning to read.
A broad issue, which leads directly to the study in the second part of this
chapter, is the time that elapses in each context before children are helped to
move from early decoding work to reading in order to understand texts. In
Arnold’s project this was after one year of English learning. In Rixon’s research
(2011) the point in the different courses at which text-level reading was intro-
duced varied considerably, not only from context to context, but even among
courses designed for the same context. Table 2.1, which is adapted from Rixon
(2011: 201–2) shows the point reached at the end of the first year of learning
in some of the sets of course materials analysed.
Table 2.1 Text-level reading in course materials at end of first year worldwide
Course title Context of use App By end of this

start level children are
Age reading
Primary English for Cameroon 1 Cameroon [Anglophone] 6 Short texts

Basic Eng for Cameroon 1 Cameroon [Anglophone] 6 Short texts
Sign in to English Bk 1 Cameroon [Anglophone] 6 Short texts
Junior Primary English 1 Cameroon [Anglophone] 6 Short texts
Beginning English SIL Cameroon [Francophone] 6 Short texts
Fun Way 1 Greece (state) 8 Sentences
Wonderland A Greece (private) 8 Sentences
Gogo Loves English 1 International 7 Sentences
English Today 1 International 7 Sentences
Elementary school English 3 South Korea 9 No reading
Elementary school English 4 South Korea 10 Minimal reading.
(word-level)
Elementary school English 5 South Korea 11 Sentences
Elementary school English 6 South Korea 12 Sentences
KBSR English Year 1 Malaysia [Tamil and 6 Sentences
Chinese schools]
PEP Primary English PR of China 8 Sentences
Pioneer English 1 and 1b PR of China 8 Sentences
New Standard English PR of China 8 Sentences
Millie 3 Russia 8 Texts
Let’s Learn English! Grade 3 Sri Lanka 8 Sentences
(Book 1)
English for Starters 1 Syria 8 Sentences
Go SuperKids! 1 Taiwan 8 Sentences
Welcome1 Taiwan 8 Sentences
Darbie Teach Me! 1 Taiwan 8 Sentences
Source: Based on Rixon (2011).
In most of the materials analysed there was some attempt at text-level

engagement with reading before the end of primary school, although this was
often very modest. Strong contrasts can be seen between contexts. In the South
Korean materials used in state schools between 2000 and 2011 reading seemed
to be only at sentence level and used only for language consolidation. The
sentences to be read were all repetitions of oral language introduced previously
and no substantial texts for reading comprehension work appeared. At the
other extreme ‘Millie’, designed for Russia, introduced reading comprehension
texts within the first few weeks of the first year of learning. Where reading texts
language
development
through
extensive
reading
reading in English as a
source of
engagement and
viable decoding skills
pleasure
Figure 2.1 The roles of extensive reading
were presented in EYL course materials they tended to cater mainly for language
presentation or consolidation, containing examples of the structure or lexis that
was the focus of the lesson. Comprehension questions often seemed to have a
secondary role. In many cases the reading passages were more like vehicles for
language examples than texts that children might genuinely want to read.
It seems not always to be feasible for texts in course materials to be as engag-
ing as those found in real books. We are proposing, through the description of
the Hong Kong project that follows, that there needs to be a ‘bridge’ between a
stage at which decoding and presentation of new language items are still major
concerns and a ‘lift-off’ stage at which a Young Learner can read for meaning
and see reading as a source of pleasure as well as a source of language develop-
ment. Good-quality extensive reading schemes seem one way of providing this
bridge. Figure 2.1 shows how the different stages might interrelate.
Moving from learning to read to reading to learn
Bound up with many notions of extensive reading is that of increasing inde-

pendence on the part of the readers, who should be building up self-reliance
and strategy use as well as making their own choices as to what to read. It is at
this stage that learners are often said not just to be learning to read but ‘reading
to learn’. Not only do they enjoy engaging with stories, information texts and
poetry but through extensive reading they also add independently to their
‘language store’, particularly at the level of lexis. Aitchison (2003) writes of the
‘spurt’ of vocabulary gain at about the age of 12 or 13 by L1 learners who are
keen readers. L2 researchers such as Nation (1997), Day and Bamford (1998)
and Krashen (2004) have posited that a similar gain is available to learners of
English as a foreign language who read widely.
Wide reading for young learners of English may indeed involve reading
‘real’ (non-pedagogic) materials, but for many learners who need more support
there is also a range of extensive reading materials containing more controlled
language. Specialized materials are available for both L1 and L2 independent
reading development. These materials – both fiction and non-fiction – are
designed to ensure that the comprehension load from new language is ade-
quately balanced against what is assumed to be known and that there is a rate
of recycling of new language, which may allow it to be assimilated via read-
ing alone. Nation’s (1997) research with older learners suggests that it takes at
least 12 separate reading encounters with a new word in context for learners
of English to have a chance of adding it to their repertoire of words that are
comprehended to some extent.
In order to ensure progression for learners, materials may be graded, that
is, there is a route or routes that will take the learners step by step from what
they can cope with at the present moment through more and more challeng-
ing texts. In graded reader schemes the ordering and grouping of books at
increasing levels of challenge and language richness has been ‘designed in’
by a publisher and made plain to users by devices such as colour-coding and
numbering. It is also possible for unrelated materials to be put into a graded
system. The EPER (Edinburgh Project on Extensive Reading) is a service run
under the auspices of the University of Edinburgh, which seeks to help educa-
tional authorities and teachers integrate graded ELT readers into their teaching
(Hill 2008). On the other hand, an informal attempt to achieve a similar result
may be made by teachers or librarians, as when books from several different
ELT schemes are used in the same institution or class.
There is some contrast between ELT graded reading schemes and REL1
schemes. At the lower levels of reading in REL1 graded texts the content is
made accessible by following one of the procedures below:
1. Repeated use of words that are frequent in children’s language or thought

to be useful. These, such as ‘laugh’, ‘said’, ‘phone’, may not be orthographi-
cally transparent but are included because of their utility in real life or rel-
evance to a topic.
2. Repeated use of words in which linguistic patterns such as a grapheme–
phoneme link or a repeated rhyme are found, such as ‘cat’, ‘sat’, ‘mat’.
These words are more orthographically transparent, and children may find
patterns and draw analogies from such words. Repeated sentence structures
may also be found.
3. A combination of the two.
Less rigour and consistency seem to be applied by EFL series editors. Claridge
(2012) gives a full discussion of the issues as they apply to readers of all ages,
and points out in particular the neglect of the beginner stages as far as EFL
reading schemes are concerned. This lack of linguistically graded materials for
the early stages of REYL could explain why some EYL teachers use REL1 graded
reading schemes.
However, an overriding issue with L1 graded reading schemes is that of lin-
guistic level compared with cognitive and interest level. REL1 materials that
contain restricted lexical and grammatical content are often intended for very
young children rather than for older children who happen to be beginners
in the language. More mature content tends also to be more linguistically
demanding. REL1 schemes might be problematic for EYL teaching for another
reason, as discussed by Kuhiwczak (1999), in that their cultural background
may be unfamiliar and thus puzzling to young learners. The use of REL1
materials with young learners of English, therefore, may need the teacher to
support and mediate when cultural and cognitive as well as textual difficulties
may arise.
Introducing young learners to extensive reading in Hong Kong
In this section we consider the points raised above with reference to the imple-
mentation of an REL1 extensive reading scheme with Hong Kong young learn-
ers of English as an Additional Language by one of the authors, Wendy Arnold,
in conjunction with other teachers of English. The learners this targeted had
been exposed in their first year of English Language learning, via a locally
published textbook, to the sort of basic induction to early literacy in English
that has been described above. Below we describe the procedures that were
necessary to equip learners with the decoding and text-reading skills needed
for them to achieve ‘lift off’ and make use of the scheme as readers in their
own right.
Background
The introduction of the REL1 extensive reading scheme took place against
a backdrop of a previous attempt to introduce an English extensive reading
scheme (EERS). A scheme based on REL1 titles had been introduced in state
secondary schools in the early 1990s (Wong 2001) and cascaded to primary
schools in 1993 (Yu 1994, 1995). It was based on the EPER (Edinburgh Project
on Extensive Reading) design (see Hill 2008), adapted and modified for primary
schools by the Hong Kong Education Department. The value of the programme
was thought to lie in introducing authentic story books and graded readers
written for REL1 to English young learners in Hong Kong. However, there were
a number of challenges leading to this being abandoned in 2002, discussed
in detail by Arnold (2008a; 2008b). One of the key challenges was that six
levels only were available, which did not cover the wide range of needs of the
young learners regarding not only their reading ability but also their different
interests. This led to many becoming disengaged with reading in English very
quickly because the books that matched their reading levels were of low inter-
est and many learners considered them to be too babyish. It was also felt that
there was no clear formula to distinguish between the reading levels assigned
to different books in the scheme. Other important challenges related to class-
room management of the reading lessons and the role of the teacher.
Details of the REL1 extensive reading scheme adopted

The EGRS (English Graded Reading Scheme) discussed in this section was written
for REL1 but chosen because it seemed to offer more opportunity for differentia-
tion than the previous scheme, in the way of number of levels. It also offered a
comprehensive assessment system focusing on understanding and decoding text.
The EGRS scheme had 30 reading levels and a benchmark assessment, which
required a face-to-face interview with a teacher using a reading ‘running
record’. The reading ages for the EGRS levels were: levels 1–14 in the range of
L1 reading age 5–6.5 years. According to Smith and Nelley (2002), the authors
of some of the titles in the series and of the Benchmark Kit 2 assessment, the
fine grading of the levelling made it ‘inappropriate’ to give a specific reading
age to the individual levels between 1 and 14. At level 15 the L1 reading ages
were 6.5 years, increasing by 0.5 years for each level, up to level 30, where the
L1 reading ages were 11.5–12 years. The benefits of using REL1 materials versus
REYL materials was that there was an understanding that there were wide vari-
ations in learner abilities at the early stages of reading and that levels were not
fixed to age groups.
Other features of note in the account of Smith and Nelley (2002) of the EGRS
are that:
1. there was a strict control over the number of high-frequency words and
their order of introduction with the aim of allowing young learners to read
with 95 percent accuracy. The high-frequency words had been selected from
those used most frequently in the free writing of primary school children
and from those that storytellers need;
2. texts were checked for readability using the Fry Readability Formula (2012),
and reading starting levels were decided on after the benchmarking activity
by counting the number of errors made and dividing them by the number
of words read. This provided a ratio which was aligned to 90–95 percent
reading accuracy level.
EGRS benchmark placement assessment

The benchmark assessment procedure as designed for native English children
had three key features, as shown in Figure 2.2.
However, as the young learners in Hong Kong were explicitly taught how
to read text aloud or to decode by their English teachers, it was agreed by the
senior management at the school to reorder the format of the assessment pro-
cedure as shown in Figure 2.3.
The reasoning behind changing the procedure for REYL was to focus on the
importance of reading for meaning/understanding as a priority over decoding
or reading text aloud. As the reading lessons were focusing on moving away
from memorizing text for some future use, to reading and understanding the
Retelling (levels 1–10 Reading records (running Questions (include

using illustrations, reading records, using same literal and inferential
levels 11–30 after text as in test and recording comprehension as well
reading text silently) types of errors) as generalisations)
Figure 2.2 Benchmark assessment procedure for native English young learners
Silent Answering Reading Re- Starting

reading of questions text out telling level
assessment which loud
text accompany
text
If questions cannot be If text cannot be read If re-telling with

answered, lower level texts out loud, lower level illustrations or using
are attempted texts are attempted text cannot be done,
lower level texts are
attempted
Figure 2.3 Format of benchmark assessment for REYL

meaning of the message, it was thought that encouraging young learners to

re-tell what they had read might give mixed messages. The young learners
were ‘readied’ for questions arising from activity materials or in the bench-
mark tests by practising how to demonstrate the depth of meaning they
had gained from reading the text. They did this at the ‘recalling’ part of the
benchmarking, but they were also encouraged to use their own background
knowledge and experiences as they answered the questions in both sections.
The metacognitive skills that the EGRS benchmarking activities mainly
focused on were based on Bloom’s taxonomy (http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/
assessment/files/pages/strategies/Bloom_s_Taxonomy.pdf ), and examples are
listed below in order, from low- to high-order thinking. The young learners
had to answer the questions accurately and score 92–94 percent accuracy in
decoding text when reading aloud. Examples of the types of questions in the
benchmark include:
Level 1 (reading age REL1 5–6.5 years)

Where did the girl put the toys?
What was the last toy that she put on the table?
Which toy would you like to play with?
Level 15 (reading age REL1 6.5 years)

What was the name of the sea plane?
Why did Jess and Skip have to go over to the island?
Why did Skip land at the far end of the beach?
How do you think the boy might have broken his arm?
Level 30 (reading age REL1 12 years old)

This story uses the words ‘I’ and ‘me’. Who is telling the story?
What was the careful training Black Beauty’s master gave him?
What does ‘skirted by a railway line’ mean?
Why do you think the author believed that horses had feelings and could
learn about the world? Explain why a horse that is terrified of trains would
be a danger to itself and a rider.
The implementation of the REL1 extensive reading scheme

The REL1 extensive reading scheme outlined above was adopted by teachers
in a government-aided primary school for children aged 6–12 in the New
Territories, in Hong Kong. The school had four parallel classes in each year
band from Primary 1 to Primary 6 (ages 6 to 12 years). The children were all
Cantonese speakers. The English teachers were also Cantonese-English speak-
ers with the exception of the researcher. English was taught from Primary 1
(6–7 years old) for five hours a week using a course book written for the Hong
Kong context.
After a period of piloting in 2003 with 9–10 year-olds (Primary 4) the EGRS
was extended to include 10–12 year-olds (Primary 5–6) in 2004. In 2005 the
EGRS was extended to Primary 3 (8–9 year olds) and in 2006 to Primary 2 (7–8
year olds). The EGRS lesson took up one hour out of the five hours of English
in a week for each year group.
From the initial pilot, it became clear from analysing the running reading
records on errors that the children had considerable gaps in their knowledge
of reading strategies (Arnold 2010). The issues that needed to be addressed
included:
• Miscuing (common error: changing verb endings and adding final ‘s’ – little
syntactic awareness).
• Little use of self-correction.
• Not attempting unknown words (little or no phonemic awareness).
• ‘Decoding’ text without any understanding (little semantic awareness).
One of the interventions introduced to address these issues included whole-

class plenary sessions at the beginning of an EGRS lesson, focusing on one of
the following reading strategies: phonemic awareness, making meaning from
text and visual cues and making use of grammatical expectations; syntactic
awareness, punctuation, word order, use of tenses and articles; and semantic
awareness, visual and textual literacy, understanding by using text and art-
work. Thirteen generic activity sheets focusing on different reading strategies
were prepared as well as individual activity sheets based on the text read, to be
completed after reading the text in many, though not all of the lessons. More
details about these can be found in Arnold (2010).
This amount of intervention might seem to be considerable; however, it
proved to be essential in view of the wide range of reading levels found in one
class. Table 2.2 shows the EGRS benchmark test results of a year group at the
end of Primary 1 (aged 6/7 years old) who had completed a year (approximately
200 hours) of English instruction using a course book. The top row of the table
indicates the 30 reading levels of the EGRS and the vertical column the four
parallel classes. Each filled box indicates the number of children in each class
who had attained each reading level. The highlighted cells show individual
pupils who had a very high reading level. The average EGRS reading level for
the year group is level 5.
As can be seen in Table 2.2, while the average reading level for the whole
year group was level 5, there are children both considerably below this level
and above it.
Table 2.2 Year group reading levels as measured before the start of the scheme
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1A 2 8 3 4 3 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1B 5 1 1 1 7 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1C 2 4 2 4 7 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1D 2 4 5 3 3 1 0 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37
The long-term impact of the extensive reading programme

on young learners
Throughout the project the children continued to work with their regular EYL
course book, which was not linked to the reading lesson in any way. It is not
known at what comparable level texts in this course book might be, and that
could be an interesting follow-on research project. The young learners are
assessed annually by their reading teachers using the assessment system that
accompanies the EGRS, both for their understanding of text as well as their
‘decoding’ abilities. The availability of multiple levels was therefore appealing
considering the wide range of reading levels apparent after only one year of
classroom instruction. This was the only example of differentiated learning in
the school curriculum at that time.
After one year using the EGRS and the explicit instruction on reading strate-
gies and text types, the young learners had made appreciable progress, as can
be seen in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 shows that some readers in each class had progressed well beyond
level 15 in the EGRS. In addition, the average reading level after one year had
moved from level 5 to level 8. At this stage it became easy to identify the young
learners whose progress was causing concern, that is, those who after two years
of English language instruction using a course book and EGRS instruction had
made no progress and were still on EGRS reading levels 1–2. By cross-checking
with their Chinese-language teacher, it could be confirmed that action was
needed if the young learners were not progressing in either language.
Each young learner’s benchmark result was recorded and reported to rel-
evant stakeholders who included: the children themselves, their parents,
English teacher and the Senior Management Team, which included the Head
of English. The young learners were encouraged to work at their reading level
and supported with this. It was emphasized that the EGRS was not a race to
get through the levels. Table 2.4 shows the progress of four children in the
same class who started the EGRS when they were in Primary 3 (8–9 years old)
and had a total of four years of usage of the scheme. It was clear from all the
EGRS benchmark tests that each class had young learners with a wide range of
English abilities; this would have caused the teacher many challenges if they
had not been using differentiated texts.
Introducing the EGRS at Primary 2 resolved a conflict we had had with the
lower levels of text being ‘right language level’ but of ‘low interest’ for older
young learners. The children no longer complained that the illustrations and
contexts were ‘babyish’. This need for the ‘right level’ and ‘high interest’ is
crucial for the success of EGRS. There continue to be issues with the content of
the EGRS titles as very few have content, either in fiction or non-fiction, which
reflects the reality of the Chinese context where these children were learning
to read in English.
Table 2.3 Reading levels after one year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
2A 1 1 0 1 5 2 2 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2B 0 2 2 3 5 1 5 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2C 0 0 1 1 3 2 4 3 2 3 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2D 0 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 5 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39
Table 2.4 Progress of four young learners on the EGRS in the same class over a period
of four years
July 2007 July 2008 July 2009 July 2010 July 2011
Pupil 1 1 3 5 7 7
Pupil 2 7 12 15 17 20
Pupil 3 13 17 22 25 26
Pupil 4 22 25 28 29 30
Table 2.5 Overview of the assessment results of different cohorts following the EGRS
(2003 to 2011)
Cohort Year Formative +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 Ave.

started benchmark year years years years years increase/
EGRS level year
1 2003 8.5 13.5 18.2 23.7 5

2 2004 7.2 12.3 18.1 23.4 5.4
3 2005 11.6 17.4 23.1 27 5.1
4A 2006 8.2 16.2 20.4 22 4.6
4B 2006 7 14.9 18.5 21 Not 3.2
done*
5A 2007 9.1 14.6 20.8 3.9
5B 2007 5.5 9.2 11.1 17.4 3
(1.5 years)
6 2008 5.9 7.1 14 13.8 2.7
7 2009 5.3 10.3 2.5
8 2010 4.7 7.5 2.8
9 2011 4.8
Note: *an outbreak of bird ’flu stopped last benchmark assessment.

N.B. Starting age of the young learners on EGRS for cohort 1–4A = aged 9–10 years old; cohorts
4B–5A = 8–9 years old; cohorts 5B–10 = 7–8 years old
An examination of the data on the young learners’ reading performance

collected since the start of the REL1 extensive reading scheme provides some
interesting insights into the outcomes of an early start with extensive reading.
The comparison of results between earlier cohorts of children (cohorts 1–4A,
who started the scheme aged 9–10 years old) and later cohorts who started
the scheme aged 8–9 years old (cohorts 4B–5A) and 7–8 years old (cohorts 5B
onwards) suggests that an early start does not necessarily speed up their L2
reading development, as can be seen in Table 2.5. Children in early cohorts
who began the scheme at the age of 9–10 had a better yearly average increase
than those children who started earlier. However, arguably those young learn-
ers who started at ages 7–8 years have had longer to acquire and hone their
language skills.
To sum up, the EGRS on its own was not a panacea for all language learning
issues in the school, but in this case it proved to be a very valuable adjunct. In
addition to the EGRS there needed to be preparation for differentiated autono-
mous reading of texts, and the young learners needed to be taught explicit
reading strategies including multiple ways of making meaning in English.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have touched on a number of issues and debates regarding

REYL. We saw in the first part of this chapter that the early stages of REYL are
under-represented in both research and practical classroom literature. Materials
in many contexts do not reflect the need for a systematic and thorough
approach to building reading skills, and the transition from decoding to cop-
ing with reading at the text level is largely neglected in course materials. We
also argued that there is currently a lack of ELT reading material to introduce
learners at or near the beginner level (Claridge 2012) to reading extensively,
and there is a strong case for ELT publishers to develop multi-level and multi-
cultural EGRS for the REYL context. Adapting an REL1 series, as we have seen
above, can yield valuable results, but not without considerable focusing and
extra input on the part of the staff implementing it in order to ‘bridge’ lan-
guage levels and make culturally different content more understandable. An
earlier start on an EGRS may not appear to speed up the language development,
but it gives young learners more time to hone their linguistic skills, thus read-
ing to learn as well as learning to read.
Engagement priorities
There is still much to uncover about the REYL process and pedagogy to sup-
port this. The chapter has highlighted a number of pedagogical and research
procedures to help further our understanding of this.
1. What teaching interventions could accelerate young learners’ development

towards the ability to understand written texts?
2. How can the difficulty levels of texts in course books be assessed and if
necessary adjusted in order to support learners’ engagement with language
above sentence level?
3. What valid means can be adopted to evaluate the different types of impact
of integrating an extended graded reading scheme with a course book?
For example, attempts could be made to capture children’s affective responses

as well as the impact on learning.
4. What sorts of bridges would need to be crossed to build a culturally sensitive
approach to literacy development in your own setting? What steps can you
take to identify what these are?
References
Aitchison, J. (2003). Trickles, spurts, bangs or whimpers? Profiling the development of
the lexicon. In Teaching English to Young Learners: Second International TEYL Research
Seminar 2003. York: University of York, pp. 4–11.
Arnold, W.H. (2008a). Use of project work to promote collaboration and research after
the MA. A longitudinal study to evaluate the use of graded/leveled readers with
YL 9–12 year old in Hong Kong. In Hughes, A. and Taylor, N. (eds) Teaching English to
Young Learners: International TEYL Research Seminar. York: University of York, pp. 15–26.
Arnold, W.H. (2008b). Graded/leveled readers = effective scaffolding in EFL. Some con-
crete evidence! In Arnold, W.H., Powell, K. and Mol, H. (eds) Literacy in the Language
Classroom: the Role of the Young Learner Professional in Developing Reading and Writing
Skills in Young Learners. Whitstable: IATEFL, pp. 87–99.
Arnold, W.H. (2010). A longitudinal study of the effect of a graded reader scheme for
Young Learners in Hong Kong. In Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. (eds) Research for
Materials Development in Language Learning. London: Continuum, pp. 37–50.
Arnold, W.H. and Rixon, S. (2008). Materials for teaching English to young learners.
In Tomlinson, B. (ed.). English Language Teaching Materials: A Critical Review. London:
Continuum, pp. 59–74.
University Press.
Cameron, L. (2003). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT
Journal, 57 (2): 105–112.
Chall, J.S. (1996). Learning to Read: The Great Debate. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Claridge, G. (2012). Graded readers: How the publishers make the grade. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 24 (1): 106–109.
Day, R.R. and Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Emery, H. (2012). A Global Study of Primary English Qualifications: Training and Career
Development. London: British Council.
Fender, M. (2008). Arabic literacy development and cross-linguistic effects in subse-
quent L2 literacy development. In Koda, K. and Zehler, A. (eds) Learning to Read
across Languages: Cross-Linguistic Relationships in First and Second-Language Literacy
Development. London: Routledge, pp. 101–124.
Fry, E. (2012) The Fry graph readability formula. Available at: http://www.readability
formulas.com/fry-graph-readability-formula.php [accessed 17/4/12].
Geary, D.C. and Bjorklund, D.F. (2000). Evolutionary developmental psychology. Child
Development, 71: 57–65.
Hall, K. (2003). Listening to Stephen Read: Multiple Perspectives on Literacy. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language Life and Work in Communities and
Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, D.A. (2008) The Edinburgh Project on Extensive Reading (EPER). Available at:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/english-language-teaching/courses/teacher-
development/eper [accessed 3/4/12].
HMSO (1975). The Bullock Report: A Language for Life. Report of the Committee of Enquiry
Appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the Chairmanship of Sir
Alan Bullock FBA. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Hutchinson, T. and Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48
(4): 315–328.
Katz, L. and Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthogra-
phies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In Frost, R. and Katz, L. (eds) Orthography,
Phonology, Morphology and Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland Press,
pp. 67–84.
Koda, K. (2008). Thinking back and looking forward. In Koda, K. and Zehler, A. (eds)
Learning to Read across Languages: Cross-Linguistic Relationships in First and Second-
Language Literacy Development. London: Routledge, pp. 222–234.
Krashen, S. (2004). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research (2nd edn). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Kuhiwczak, P. (1999). Enchantment in the classroom: Children’s literature as a teach-
ing aid. In Rixon, S. (ed) Young Learners of English: Some Research Perspectives. Harlow:
Pearson Education, pp. 43–54.
Mumtaz, S. and Humphreys, G.W. (2001). The effects of bilingualism on learning to
read English: Evidence from the contrast between Urdu–English bilingual and English
monolingual children. Journal of Research in Reading, 24 (2): 113–134.
Nation, I.S. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading. The Language
Teacher, 21 (5): 13–16.
Perfetti, C. and Dunlap, S. (2008). Learning to read: General principles and writing
system variations. In Koda, K. and Zehler, A. (eds) Learning to Read across Languages:
Cross-Linguistic Relationships in First and Second-Language Literacy Development. London:
Routledge, pp. 13–38.
Perfetti, C. and Liu, Y. (2005). Orthography to phonology and meaning: Comparisons
across and between writing systems. Reading and Writing, 18 (3): 193–210.
Rixon, S. (2007). Forward to basics? YL teachers’ practices in early reading instruction. In
Joseph, N., Powell, K. and Mol, H. (eds) Literacy in ELT: The Role of the YL Professional in
Developing Reading and Writing. Canterbury: IATEFL, pp. 10–16.
Rixon, S. (2011). Beyond ABC: Investigating Current Rationales and Systems for the
Teaching of Early Reading to Young Learners of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
University of Warwick.
Rose, J. (2006). Independent Report on the Teaching of Early Reading. London: Department
for Education and Skills.
Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Smith, A. and Nelley, E. (2002). PM Benchmark Kit 2 Teachers Notes. Southbank: Nelson
Thomson Learning.
Spencer, L.H. and Hanley, J.R. (2003). The effects of orthographic consistency on reading
development and phonological awareness: Evidence from children learning to read in
Wales. British Journal of Psychology, 94: 1–28.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wells, J.C. (1992). Phonology in EFL teaching. In Bowers, R. and Brumfit, C. (eds) Review
of ELT: Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, 2 (1): 100–108.
Wong, C.K. (2001). What we know after a decade of the Hong Kong Extensive Reading
Scheme? University of Connecticut. Available at: http://extensivereading.net/docs/
wong1999.pdf [accessed: 2/9/13].
Yu, V. (1994) English extensive reading in the primary curriculum: Current practice
and new initiatives. In Bird, N. (ed.) Language and Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Institute of Education.
Yu, V. (1995). Organising an extensive reading book programme. In Ingham, M. and
Bird, N. (eds) Learning How to Learn. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education,
pp. 101–117.
3
Examining Classroom Interactional
Practices to Promote Learning in
the Young Learner EFL Classroom
in China
Zehang Chen and Qiang Wang
Introduction
In the past 40 years, the promotion of communicative classroom methodolo-

gies has come to be seen as a priority by those involved in teaching English
as a foreign language, both with adults and older school learners and, more
recently, reflecting the growth of primary EFL, with younger learners as well.
These are methodologies that are underpinned by the assumption that an
important focus of the foreign language classroom should be on helping learn-
ers acquire the communication skills seen as increasingly important given that
English has become an important means of international communication.
Drawing upon developments in second language acquisition theory, they
are also ones that recognize that the nature and quality of the interactional
opportunities in the classroom are of central concern in our efforts to promote
successful learning (see e.g. Ellis 1999). More broadly, Allwright (1984: 159)
has argued that interaction is not just ‘an aspect of modern language teach-
ing methods but a fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy’. In other words,
everything that happens in the classroom happens through person-to-person
interaction.
Against this backdrop, a great deal of research interest has focused on
describing the nature and structure of foreign language classroom interaction.
This is seen as a way of understanding the relationship between teaching and
learning in its own right as well as a means of identifying an emerging set
of interactional principles to guide teachers’ pedagogical practices. A study
of the existing literature shows that the principles that have been developed
primarily reflect research into classes with older learners or adults, and very
few papers can be found concerning the empirical study of interaction in EFL
classrooms in primary schools. As such, important questions remain as to
how far these interactional principles will apply to teaching young learners in
primary schools with their different cognitive, emotional and developmental
45
46 Zehang Chen and Qiang Wang
needs (Pinter 2007). It is hoped that the study reported in this chapter, which
examines the interactional practices of three Chinese EFL teachers of young
learners in China over a six-year period in classes where there was a noticeable
improvement in children’s achievement and attitudes, can provide a useful
contribution in this respect.
In China communicative language teaching has been steadily gaining ground
since its first adoption in the Chinese national syllabus of English in 1993 (Wang
2002). Moreover an explicit requirement that teachers should develop more
interactive practices in their classes was clearly laid out in the Strategic Plans
for Reviving Education for the 21st Century in China in early 1999. In 2001
when the new National Standard of English was introduced (MOE Document
2001), the Chinese government initiated a nation-wide curriculum innovation
to promote English as a foreign language in primary schools. As in many other
young learner programmes around the globe, in keeping with the emphasis
on communication and interaction promoted in earlier reforms, the classroom
methodology advocated was a student-centred and activity-based approach.
The requirement set by the National Standard of English aims to cater for
all Chinese children in what is a very large and diverse country. Therefore
different regional educational authorities are expected to adjust the ways in
which these are proceduralized to reflect the particular needs, circumstances,
and especially the proficiency levels, of children in different localities. The
study reported here examines data collected as part of a larger longitudinal
study, which sought to evaluate the impact of a curriculum reform project that
took place in two primary schools in Beijing, China. This reform introduced
a new course structure with a new course book as well as innovative teaching
methods, and it has led to significant achievements in children’s language
development and their positive attitudes in learning the language. Through an
analysis of teachers’ interactional practices in these two schools and how these
evolved over time, it is hoped to gain some insight into how primary teach-
ers seek to support the learning of English as a foreign language through their
interactional practices and whether this highlights differences from established
principles drawn from the research literature.
The significance of interaction and teachers’ interactional

practices in learning English as a second or foreign language
In the 1990s, inspired by work in first language acquisition, SLA researchers

conducted many studies aimed at describing the nature and structure of for-
eign language classroom interaction. These sought to highlight the importance
of interaction and the features of quality interaction (Ellis 1991).
The importance of interaction to SLA, now well established, was initially pro-
posed by Long in a series of papers (1983a, 1983b, 1985). Long’s contribution was
Interactional Practices in the Primary Classroom in China 47
to point out how interaction enables learners to learn new language through a
process of negotiation. Extending out from work done by Krashen (1985) on the
importance of comprehensible input to successful language learning, research
by Pica (1991) and Ellis et al. (1994) among others demonstrated how interac-
tion enables individuals to modify input in ways that could make this more
comprehensible, leading to better acquisition. The importance of interaction
was also picked up by those stressing the importance of interactional exchanges
in promoting comprehensible output (Swain 1985). It is believed that learners
should be ‘pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed,
but is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately’ (Swain 1985: 249).
Pedagogically speaking, to maximize opportunities for student interaction,
group work and pair work are seen as important components of communica-
tive language teaching. However, teachers also continue to play a central role
in what sorts of interactional opportunities are provided in the classroom,
especially in the young learner classroom where whole-class teaching tends
to dominate (Myhill 2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, examining
the ways in which teacher talk supports the learning of English as a second or
foreign language has been the focus of much research. Early studies on class-
room interactional analysis focused on quantifying aspects of teacher talk and
the need to reduce this in the interests of generating more opportunities for
language learning (Walsh 2002). However, more recently, in recognition of the
prominent role of teachers in mediating second language learning, researchers
have focused more on the quality of interaction and teachers’ contribution
to this, in the belief that this has a greater impact on learning outcome. Tsui
(1992: 89, cited in Macaro 2003), for example, suggests that high-quality class-
room interaction should operate with the following principles:
1. It should serve the needs of the vast majority of, if not all, the students in
the class.
2. It should ensure psycholinguistic progression, developing the learners’
interlanguage by providing cognitively challenging mental processing.
3. It should provide the learners with sufficient time and space in which to
decode, retrieve and process information.
4. It should take into account sociolinguistic factors such as the creation of
positive and enabling classroom identities and discouraging peer pressure
to the contrary.
5. It should take into account the evidence that teacher feedback has a measur-
able impact on principles 1, 2, 3, and 4.
(based on Tsui 1992)
More insights into the quality of teachers’ interactional practices are pro-
vided by Walsh (2002: 12), who argues that ‘teachers who constantly seek
clarification, check for confirmation and who do not always accept the first
contribution a student offers are more likely to maximize learning potential
than those who do not’. In his study, eight experienced teachers of EFL were
invited to make two 30-minute audio-recordings of their lessons with adult
learners containing examples of teacher–learner interaction. From this Walsh
identified a number of features that obstruct learning potential:
1. The teacher completes student turns. This limits the frequency and quality
of student contributions and minimizes learning opportunities because they
do not have to put in effort in making meaning clear.
2. The teacher repeats the student response. This may interrupt the flow of
discourse and prevent other students from participating in the interaction.
3. The teacher interrupts the student’s turn in order to correct. A longer wait
time and more patience would increase more opportunities for interactional
adjustments and maximize opportunities for learning.
(based on Walsh 2002)
The studies that informed the insights offered by Walsh and Tsui’s observations
above were with adults, not with young learners, which is the focus of the
study reported in this chapter. While they provide some valuable insights into
the features of quality classroom interaction, they should therefore be treated
with some caution. Nevertheless, they provide a useful point of departure for
considering issues of quality in young learner classroom interactional practices.
Of interest is whether these principles apply but are realized differently, for
example, or if the nature of teaching and learning in young learner primary
classrooms generates a different set of principles for successful classroom
interaction.
Another study of interest, and one of the few to look at interaction in
primary classrooms, is one conducted by Myhill (2006) undertaken with 15
teachers in three primary schools in the UK where English is taught as the first
language. Myhill (2006: 24) identified that whole-class teaching, common in
young learner classes, ‘involved relatively little interaction which supported
and scaffolded children in their learning’. She suggested that this reflected the
following problem with teacher talk:
1. Teacher talk dominates the class and very little talk is initiated by the
children.
2. Teachers’ questioning is heavily directed towards factual and closed
responses.
3. Teachers tend to select volunteers through raised hands to answer questions,
which does not support participation of those who do not volunteer.
(based on Myhill 2006)
Although Myhill’s research did not focus on classes where children are learn-
ing a foreign language, as in the study reported here, this provides some useful
additional insights into issues of quality regarding teachers’ interactional prac-
tices in young learner teaching arenas.
Taken together, the accounts of quality in interaction in classrooms in all
three studies point to the importance of teachers and their interactional strate-
gies in promoting and supporting interactional opportunities for successful
language learning. All three studies can also be seen to draw upon the emphasis
on the role of interaction in language learning theory and the importance of
increasing learners’ opportunities for negotiation and output highlighted in
the literature.
Description of the study
As explained earlier, the focus of this chapter is on an analysis of teachers’

interactional practices in EFL primary classrooms in China where children’s
achievement in and attitudes towards learning English as a foreign language
have shown improvement following the introduction of a curriculum reform
project over a six-year period. The main aim of the study is to examine the
interaction practices teachers employ and to consider the ways in which these
may have contributed to the success of the reform.
The research site comprised teachers and children in years 1–6 (from 6 to
11years of age) in two primary schools in Beijing, China. All of the teachers
in this study were experienced female teachers. Most of the pupils had no
or very little experience of learning English before starting primary school.
As part of the wider study, classes were frequently observed by the project
team and the lessons were video-taped regularly from the beginning of the
project. At the start of the project, informed consent was obtained from all
participants and their parents to use this data for research purposes. These
video tapes are the main source of data for the study reported in this chapter.
As members of this project team, we have gained access and agreement to use
the video-taped lessons to conduct this study.
For the purpose of this study 11 lessons were selected to be transcribed.
These lessons are seen as a representative sample of lessons taught during the
six years as they were taught by different teachers working with different levels
and were chosen from different lesson types (e.g. story reading lessons and
integrated skills lessons) and different semesters (e.g. spring and autumn). As
such, they are deemed adequate to demonstrate the features of interaction at
the different learning stages of children’s English learning across the six years
that the research was conducted.
For the purposes of the analysis we have grouped the six grades into three
stages: beginner (6–7 years old), lower intermediate (8–9 years old) and
Table 3.1 Number of video extracts examined at each learning stage
Stages Grade Age Number of videoed

lessons analysed
Beginner 1–2 6–7 4

Lower intermediate 3–4 8–9 4
Intermediate 5–6 10–11 3
intermediate level (10–11 years old). Table 3.1 provides details of these three
stages and the number of video extracts examined in each stage.
Once we had transcribed the 11 lessons, we first summarized the distinct
steps in these lessons and tried to identify the typical procedures for each learn-
ing stage. Then, we looked through these carefully and coded the interaction
for each stage with reference to interactional characteristics highlighted in
previous studies (notably Ellis 1985), such as error correction methods, interac-
tional modification strategies and communication breakdown and strategies.
The results of this process are presented below.
Results of the analysis: the features and quality of teachers’

classroom interactional practices
In what follows, we first provide a general description of the features of the EFL
classroom interaction in the three main stages of primary schooling. We then
present and discuss the characteristics of teachers’ interactional practices as
highlighted above. Extracts from the transcribed data in the 11 lessons will be
used to illustrate the analysis. For convenience, these have been coded to show
which lesson these are taken from. For example, VL1 means the extract is chosen
from the video of the first lesson with 6 to 7 year old students. Extracts VL1–4
are those from lessons with 6 to 7 year olds, extracts VL5–8 refer to lessons with
8 to 9 year olds and extracts VL 9–11 are from lessons with 10 to 11 year olds.
An overview of the interactive features of young learner classes at

the three learning stages
Based on the analysis of the transcriptions of the 11 videotaped lessons, dif-

ferent interactional features were identified in the three stages as summarized
in Table 3.2.
The beginner stage (with 6–7 year old children)

At this stage, we observed that it was common practice to expose learners
to one or two structures and five to six words in each lesson. Learners were
Table 3.2 Interactional features in classes at the different learning stages
Learning stage Interactional features
Beginner 1. Both input and output are highly controlled.

(6–7 year olds) 2. Word–sentence–dialogue is the major proce-
dure of lessons.
3. The major interaction pattern is teacher–pupil
interaction.
Lower intermediate 1. Input is controlled but output is open to some
(8–9 year olds) extent.
2. The lesson begins to show some variety of
teaching procedures.
3. More discussion between pupils can be
identified.
Intermediate 1. Input is controlled but output is more open
(10–11 year olds) and more meaning-oriented.
2. The lesson demonstrates a variety of teaching
procedures.
3. More meaningful discussions between teach-
ers and pupils happen in class. Higher-order
thinking is encouraged.
expected to practise them several times and be able to produce them by the end
of the lesson. Given that the lessons are highly structure-based, it is perhaps
unavoidable that the input pupils get from their teacher and the output they
produce is highly controlled. The major structures listed in the textbook for
each lesson are often the major sources of input in the language classroom. As
a result, the pupils’ output in the class is highly structured and restricted too.
Teachers often use the following three methods to make sure pupils modify
their output to be ‘correct’:
1. Provide the beginning of the target sentence and let pupils

continue. For example: ‘Here’s the……’
2. Give the requirement clearly. For example: ‘You must say……’
3. Use rhetorical questions. For example: ‘Is this right?’
Often when pupils failed to use the ‘correct’ language, the teacher would inter-
rupt them by asking questions like ‘What should you say?’ or ‘Um?’
Secondly, teachers seem to have set up established routines. From the tran-
scripts of the four lessons analysed at this stage, it is noticeable that the teach-
ing procedure displays a word–sentence–dialogue order as illustrated in the
summary of the major steps in one of the lessons shown in Table 3.3.
A final observation is that it seems that a lot of pupils participated in the
interaction and the classroom seems to be very active. In-depth examination
Table 3.3 Sample teaching procedure in one lesson at the beginner stage (with 6 to 7
year olds)
Steps Teaching content
Step 1: TPR (Total Physical Response)

Step 2: Watch video
Step 3 Teach words. (The names of toys in the video: truck, airplane,
ball, car, teddy bear, doll, boat, whistle, block)
Step 4 Play a guessing game (The teacher puts some toys into a box.
A pupil comes to touch it and others guess what it is. Purpose:
practise saying the names of toys)
Step 5 Teach and practise a chant. (‘It’s a car. It’s a car. What a
beautiful car.’)
Step 6 Teach and practise a new sentence. (‘Look, I have a truck.’)
Step 7 Teach and practise another sentence. (‘Oh, what a beautiful
truck.’)
Step 8 Pairwork. (Practise the dialogue: ‘Look, I have a truck. Oh,
what a beautiful truck.’)
Step 9 Performance. (Pairs come to the front and present their
dialogue to the class.)
of the transcripts shows that much of this was teacher-led, and reflected the
teacher-fronted nature of classrooms at this stage.
The lower-intermediate stage (with 8–9 year old children)

At this level, teachers began to offer more opportunities for pupils to produce
their own language although the input from the textbook is still controlled and
structure-orientated. Teachers tried not to limit pupils’ answers, and their pre-
existing language was encouraged and acknowledged. Pupils were seen to be
more active and learning seems to be both involving and fun. Learners’ creative
use of language kept them highly motivated in language learning.
As for the teaching procedures, analysis of the transcripts suggests that teachers
tried to use more stories with this age group. In addition, content was observed
to sometimes became more of a focus than form. Teachers were tolerant of chil-
dren’s mistakes and tried to keep meaningful conversation going. Teachers also
acknowledged that children’s language proficiency was getting better, therefore
they began to create more opportunities for learners to discuss in pairs and
groups. Typically teachers would prepare some questions for discussion and learn-
ers discussed these in groups before presenting their opinions to the whole class.
The intermediate stage (with 10–11 year old children)

As described earlier, in the previous two stages, teachers tended to use a
more structure-oriented approach. At this last stage, teachers tended to pay
more attention to the meaning that learners were trying to convey. The atmos-
phere was open and encouraging, and there was more variety in the teaching
procedure. Children had more opportunities to experience the language before
paying attention to the form of the language.
At this stage while the amount and the content of input was still carefully
planned by teachers because the interaction had become more meaning-ori-
ented, learners’ output showed more variety and was more creative. For exam-
ple, one of the teachers invited learners to think about things they would do if
they saw a bear. The following responses demonstrate the variety of language
the children employed:
• I would lie on the ground, and just like I was die and bears you know,
they are didn’t eat dead meat.
• I will use some fishing rope and I climb on the tree and use the rope tie
the bear.
• I’ll throw the fish and want the bear eat some, eat the fish.
• I will have a stone on the ground and hit the bear, and then can run
away.
• I know bear is very stupid. I’ll pick up a rope, throw it to the lake, the
bear think it was a fish, so it go to catch the rope and eat, when he know
it was wrong, I’ll go to the tent.
Although there are a lot of mistakes in the extracts above, learners are
actively thinking and trying very hard to use language to show what they know
about how to deal with a dangerous situation.
Because of the shift of focus to language communication, more meaningful
discussions between teachers and pupils and between pupils happened in class
at this stage. It seems that at this stage teachers thought it was more important
to get meaning across. Teachers used more challenging questions to promote
higher-order thinking. The following are some sample questions:
• If you want to know so much information, maybe you don’t know them
before, how do you know that?
• Does Lizzie want to keep it (a lizard)? Why?
• What do you think about bears?
• If you were Nico, what would you do when you saw the bear?
Such questions seem to be effective in encouraging the higher-quality inter-

action mentioned above.
To sum up, on the basis of the video-taped lessons we observed, it can be seen
that classroom interaction with younger primary learners tends to be teacher-
controlled or teacher-led. Meaning negotiation and creative use of language
encouraged by active interaction happens when children grow older and their
language proficiency gets higher. The link between teachers’ practice and the
changing quality of interaction will be discussed further below.
Teachers’ use of key interactional strategies in the different stages
Error correction
According to Peccei (2000), in first language (L1) learning, errors are rarely
explicitly corrected with the emphasis placed on elaborating or expanding on
their utterances. Research by Shatz (1982, cited in Peccei 2000: 55) has shown
that ‘only about four per cent of all children’s errors are explicitly corrected’. A
summary of the results of the analysis of the ways in which teachers addressed
errors in the different stages is shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Teachers’ approach to error correction in the three learning stages
Learning stage Explicit Repairing or Ignoring

correction expanding
Beginner 53% 33% 14%

(6–7 year olds)
Pre-intermediate 18% 50% 12%
(8–9 year olds)
Intermediate 20% 36% 44%
(10–11 year olds)
It is interesting to see that in contrast to the research findings outlined

above, teachers used more explicit correction during the first stage and they
chose to ignore more during the third stage. Careful examination of teachers’
error correction strategy showed how this was linked to their general teach-
ing focus. In the early stage, teachers were focused on accuracy and did a lot
more explicit correction, but at the end of the primary school stage, teaching
was more meaning-oriented and teachers were much more tolerant of errors,
choosing to ignore almost half of those made.
Teachers’ interactional adjustments

According to Long (1983a), there are six major interactional features of inter-
actional adjustment (see Table 3.5). Pica and Doughty (1985) conducted a
study comparing interactional adjustment used in teacher-fronted and group
activities. They were surprised to find that ‘conversational adjustments such as
comprehension and confirmation checks and clarification requests were more
available during the teacher-fronted interaction’ (Pica and Doughty 1985:
130). In order to examine whether there was a difference in adopting these
interactional adjustments over the developmental stages in the teacher–pupil
interaction in this study, the average number of occurrences of each feature

in one lesson at different stages was analysed. The results of this are shown in
Table 3.5.
The results suggest that with the development of learners’ language compe-
tence, teachers tended to use more confirmation checks and expansions. From
the table we can see that when learners are younger, teachers use very few
confirmation checks or clarification check questions. This may reflect the fact
that language input and output is highly controlled and largely form-focused
compared to the last stage where there is more need to check for meaning.
At this stage, teachers often use phrases like, ‘You mean…’ ‘Do you mean…’.
Moreover, more expansion of learners’ utterances can be seen on the part of
the teacher. Teachers would either rephrase learners’ utterances or elaborate on
their answers as the following extract shows:
Extract 1 (VL11)
1. T: How about, em, [T pointed at S17] Maria, Please?

2. S17: How long is the biggest lizard?
3. T: Oh, you mean the, the [T paused and gesticulated]
size.
4. S17: Size.
5. T: Yes, very good. [writing on the blackboard] Ok,
anymore? Em… [T pointing at S18] David, please?
6. S18: I want to know, en, the lizard eat, en, en, the lizard
except eat, the insect, en, and what, what is he eat?
7. T: What do they eat, except insects, you mean, right?
Table 3.5 Teachers’ use of different interactional adjustment features in classes in the
different learning stage (by frequency)
Teacher use of Learning stage

interactional adjustment
features 6–7 year olds 8–9 year olds 10–11 year olds
1. Confirmation Checks 3 3 9
(E.g. A house?)
2. Comprehension Checks 9 12 23
E.g. Do you understand?)
3. Clarification Checks 1 0.5 0
(E.g. Sorry? Say it again.)
4. Self-repetition 3 2 6
5. Other repetition 13 14 7
(Repeat students’ response)
6. Expansions 0.5 2 11
Another prominent feature observed in all three stages is that teachers

tend to repeat learners’ utterances a lot. This might suggest that teachers
unconsciously provide a large amount of repetitive utterances in order to
make sure learners catch what others have said. Finally, it is interesting to see
that the number of comprehension check questions increases as time goes
by. The possible explanation for this is that as learners’ language competence
develops, more meaning negotiation opportunities come along and the com-
plexity of language urges the teachers to check if learners understand what
is being said.
Teachers’ use of questions

Questions play an important role in classroom interaction. The types of ques-
tions teachers use determine the kind of language learners will produce (Ellis
1985). The analysis undertaken drew on Ellis’ (1985: 74) classification of
teacher questioning and his distinction between:
• Questions requiring object identification (e.g., ‘What’s this?’, ‘Where is it?’)

• Questions requiring some comment (e.g., ‘What do you think of……?’, ‘Is
he right?’)
The results of our analysis are provided in Table 3.6.

From this table, it is clear that teachers tend to ask questions to which a
particular response is anticipated (object identification questions). Questions
where the answers are predictable or limited are frequently used in the class-
room and are particularly common in the first two stages. Although it is argu-
ably quite understandable and acceptable to use these to build up children’s
confidence with English and to scaffold their learning, over-use of these sorts of
questions leads to a situation where teacher talk is dominant (as is the case in
the first two stages), which may inhibit the development of genuine communi-
cative skills. However, with the development of learners’ language competence,
in stage 3 teachers adjust their questioning strategies to involve the children
more in the learning process.
Table 3.6 Teachers’ use of question types in classes at the different learning stages (by
frequency)
Teacher use of question types Learning stage
6–7 year olds 8–9 year olds 10–11 year olds
Object identification questions 12 9 7

Comment required questions 2 3 6
Teachers’ strategies for handling interactional breakdown

In a primary English classroom, children sometimes do not quite understand
teachers’ talk and the classroom interaction may break down because of this.
Therefore, teachers need to modify interaction in order to facilitate compre-
hension of the intended message (Doughty and Pica 1986). According to Ellis
(1985: 74), teachers use three kinds of responses to interactional breakdown:
a. teacher accepts (i.e. the teacher accepts a pupil response even though it is
clearly not an appropriate response to the task);
b. teacher repairs (i.e. the teacher seeks to elicit another response to the task
either by repeating his initial question or by reformulating it or requesting
clarification);
c. teacher supplies (i.e. the teacher gives the solution to the task himself).
Drawing upon Ellis’ typology, the results of our analysis are shown in
Table 3.7.
Table 3.7 Teachers’ use of strategies to address interactional breakdown at the different
learning stages (by percentage of teacher talk)
Feature 6–7 year olds 8–9 year olds 10–11 year olds
Interactional breakdown
a. Accept 0 0 0
b. Repair 0.5 0.5 0
c. Supply 0.75 0.75 0
From the table, we can see that there were few instances of communication
breakdown. This does not necessarily mean that interaction is effective; it might
just mean children’s production is limited and teachers’ help is more than enough.
At the last stage, no communication breakdowns were identified. From the analy-
sis of the interaction in lessons at this stage, this can be seen to relate to teachers’
tendency to ask more open questions. Therefore, no right or wrong answers are
involved. Learners appear to be very active in answering those questions.
We also noticed a number of other strategies employed by the teachers to
reduce communication breakdown in whole-class interaction. These were as
follows.
Translating into Chinese

In class teachers were often seen to switch to Chinese when they found their pupils
failed to understand them. Obviously, using Chinese is the quick way to move the
teaching on, but in the long run both the teacher and the pupils may come to
rely heavily on Chinese and not try hard to use and understand English in class.
Setting an example
When one weak pupil is called and fails to give an appropriate answer, the
teacher might ask the rest of the class the same question, and let them set an
example and then ask the pupil to try again.
Giving prompts or response

Sometimes when the teacher finds that the pupil who is called upon cannot
give an appropriate response, he/she will give help by offering prompts or a
simply response for the pupil. In the following example taken from a lesson
with 6–7 year olds, the teacher wants the learners to pick up the things that
their parents use at work and tell her and the whole class what their parents’
job is. However, this learner can’t find the thing an engineer would use there-
fore he does not know what to say so he keeps silent.
Extract 2 (VL2)
1. [S1 came to the front.]

2. T: What does your mother do?
3. [S1 tried to find the thing.]
4. T: [Pointed at one thing] Does your mother use it?
5. S1: No.
6. T: What does your mother do?
7. [S1 tried to find the thing.]
8. T: [Pointing at one thing] Is your mother a doctor?
9. S1: No.
10. [T and S1 talked in a very low voice in Chinese.]
11. T: OK, you can say ‘My mother is an engineer’.
12. S1: My mother is
13. T: An engineer.
14. S1: An engineer.
In this example, the teacher had to offer the language to modify the interac-
tion. Otherwise, the teaching cannot continue.
Repeating and/or rephrasing the questions

Another skill teachers used to modify their talk so that the interaction gets
moved on smoothly is to reword or paraphrase the question or instruction.
Extract 3 (VL8)
1. T: Who is the reviewer of the movie?

2. [Students had no response.]
3. T: Who is the reviewer of the movie?
4. T: Who writes the review?

5. [Two students put up their hands.]
6. T: Who writes? [Teacher points at the words on the screen.] Here, Pa…?
7. Ss: Patrick Gallivan.
In this incident, the teacher tries to repeat the question but obviously it
does not work. Then she tries to rephrase the question, and two students seem
to understand the question. In order to make sure that most of the learners
understand the question, the teacher makes a third attempt by pointing to the
name on the screen.
Interestingly, after children are over 9–10 years old, the classroom interaction
changes. Less Chinese can be heard and teachers become more skilful in play-
ing with the language. No interactional breakdown can be identified.
Reflections on the quality of teachers’ interactional practices in

primary EFL classrooms
Teacher-fronted interaction is still a predominant feature of primary EFL class-

rooms, and the quality of such interaction plays an important role in support-
ing pupils’ language development. It is therefore necessary to establish criteria
for quality interactional practices in the primary EFL classroom. As discussed
earlier in the chapter, while the insights gained from the examination of
teacher interactional practices in classes with older learners or L1 classrooms
can be regarded as useful frameworks for discussing the quality of interaction
in this study, the unique features of successful EFL young learners’ classrooms,
such as those in this study, could also be seen as a source of insights.
Viewed from the perspective of the studies undertaken by Walsh (2002) and
Myhill (2006), a number of interactional features identified in the classrooms
we looked at mirror those they suggest hinder learning potential and point
to the poor quality of teachers’ interactional practices. These were as follows:
• Teachers often complete the turn for the pupils. The waiting time is relatively
short, and teachers are quick in helping pupils to complete their utterances.
• Teachers often interrupt the pupils’ turn in order to correct. Since the les-
sons are practice-oriented, teachers do interrupt promptly when they iden-
tify errors, especially with younger children.
• Negotiation of meaning is hardly detectable via clarification requests, confirma-
tion checks. Since the dominant interaction pattern is teacher–pupil(s) interac-
tion and the major questions are directed towards factual and closed responses,
pupils seldom need to negotiate meaning with their classmates or teachers.
• Teachers echo the pupils’ responses even if they are correct.
• Pupil initiation rarely happens.
In contrast, it seems that among children at stage 3 (10–11 years old) teachers
tend to reverse these negative practices and provide more open questions and
more opportunities for meaning negotiation.
However, by comparing the findings of this study with Tsui’s (1992) typol-
ogy of high-quality classroom interaction mentioned earlier in the chapter,
the classroom interaction practices outlined above can be viewed in a more
positive light since they can be seen to realize some of the key features identi-
fied by Tsui. From this perspective, the following positive features of classroom
interaction are noted in this study:
1. Teachers in this study try to interact with all students in the class and to
ensure that no one is left behind.
2. A lot of whole-class repetition, pair work and group work can be identified,
which allow everyone enough time to learn the new language.
3. Tasks set for children in the first two learning stages are not so cognitively
challenging.
4. Teachers try to match the interactional demands to the needs of children’s
evolving linguistic and cognitive repertoires.
5. The overall classroom atmosphere is relaxing and encouraging. Children
seem not to bother too much about peer pressure.
6. Teachers’ feedback is not very complicated but encouraging considering
children’ limited language.
As will be discussed below, we argue that the interactional adjustments

adopted by teachers in this study are in tune with the needs and ages of their
learners.
Another way to consider the issue of quality regarding teachers’ interactional
practices is to look at how these are seen to have supported the children’s lan-
guage development over time. In Ellis’ (1985) study into the role teacher–pupil
interaction plays in children’s second language acquisition, he claims that if
the teacher takes an active role in helping children to stretch their resources
and to build ‘new’ utterance types, their interaction can facilitate second lan-
guage acquisition effectively. To explore children’s language development in
this study, we examined the transcripts carefully to identify ‘new’ utterances
produced by pupils, and the relationship between these and the teachers’ inter-
actional practices.
Our analysis suggested that when children are at 6 to 7 years old, it is very
rare to see any creative utterances. The limited number of vocabulary items,
phrases and sentences they produce in class are the target language for that les-
son. However, when children are at 8–9 years old, teachers employ more open
questions so that learners have more space to create language. The following
extract shows how the teacher uses these to try to push children to come up
with variety in language.
Extract 4 (VL5):
1. T: Ice-cream cake, how does it look?

2. Ss: (noise) It looks…
3. T: Susan.
4. S: It looks… It looks good.
5. T: Good! Mike?
6. S: It looks wonderful!
7. T: Oh, wonderful! How about you?
8. S: It is nice! It looks beautiful!
9. T: It is good, beautiful. Ok. Rudy? How about you?
10. S: It looks delicious!
11. T: Delicious! Good! How does it smell?
Finally, we noticed that when children are at 10–11 years old, the lesson is
much more open. Teachers often use questions like ‘Why?’, ‘If you were …
what would you do?’ and ‘What do you think of…?’ Questions like these are
high-level questions and are thought to facilitate better learning (Arends 2005;
Wilen 1991). The use of such questions results in more complex language
production by learners (Nunan 1987) and higher-order thinking. In order
to answer these questions, learners need to analyse, synthesize and create.
Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that the kind of language produced by
learners might not be grammatically correct but certainly encouraging in terms
of language learning. The following example illustrates this point.
Extract 5 (VL10)
1. T: Ok, now what have you learnt from story after you read it? Or
maybe how do you think about Nico? Ok, you try please.
2. S1: I learnt it when you meet a…, when you meet a danger, you would
be …, you would be clever and careful.
3. T: you must be.
4. S1: you must be.
5. T: Yes, Ok, sit down please. Ok, how about you Peter?
6. S2: If you meet some terrible thing, you should stay calm and more care-
ful and try xxx.
7. T: Ok, thank you. Another one. How about Julia?
8. S3: I think Nico is very clever and brave, because when he saw the bear,
he didn’t shock and scared he just think what to do.
9. T: Yes, to think is a very good ideas to solve the problem, right? Ok,
now how about you?
10. S4: I think when you take a trip, you must follow your parents, when
your parents don’t allow you do something, you mustn’t do.
Our analysis shows that teachers’ interaction practices were shown to be

responsive to the linguistic and cognitive development of the children at dif-
ferent ages. By the time these children are 10–11 years old, their teachers are
seen to play an active role in helping children to stretch their resources and to
build ‘new’ utterance types (Ellis 1985). In the early stages of foreign language
learning it is perhaps understandable that they might not encourage or offer
many opportunities for pupils to produce ‘new’ language. However, their inter-
actional practices may work to instil confidence at this early stage, enabling
children to reach the levels of achievement and develop the positive attitudes
that were a feature of this curriculum reform project.
Implications and conclusion
The importance of interaction in the process of foreign language learning

has been recognized for some time. This study was undertaken to explore the
extent to which teachers’ interactional practices might be a contributing to the
success of a primary curriculum reform in China. Viewed from the perspective
of adult EFL and primary school findings where English is taught as a first
language, the data seems to reveal that the interaction between teachers and
younger children (grades 1–2) is not of very high quality. Both the input and
output are highly controlled and the interaction is not authentic. However, as
the children’s language develops, the interaction becomes more high-quality
and encourages rich language creation. At this stage, interaction promotes
comprehension and acquisition effectively.
From this perspective, our analysis of classroom interactional across the dif-
ferent language learning levels has provided us with some useful insights into
how to better support teachers in developing their interactional strategies.
In the early stages of the curriculum reform project, teachers’ interactional
practices (as shown in the results for the first learning stage) reflected a lack
of familiarity and confidence with activity-based learning and a reluctance to
relinquish control in the classroom. This analysis has therefore helped high-
light how the teachers in our study would have benefited from more support
on how to establish high-quality interaction with younger learners. With hind-
sight we can see that it might have been useful, for example, to have encour-
aged teachers to use more open questions to encourage language output, to use
body language and gesture to make meaning clearer, and to have used clarifica-
tion or confirmation check questions to push children to repair their language.
Nevertheless, viewed from another perspective, it is important to acknowl-

edge that the curriculum reform project was a great success, and the children
developed both linguistic competence and creative thinking over the six-year
period. Tracking learners developing English language over time and linking
this to interactional practices adopted has enabled us to reflect on whether
earlier ‘ineffective’ practices may be an important way of supporting the
development of ‘effective’ practices at a later stage. The interactional features
we observed at the different learning stages are ones that appeared to work
together to provide effective support for the developmental process of foreign
language learning in the teacher-fronted young learner classroom. This high-
lights a need to take the age and the cognitive and language needs of children
at different stages into consideration in discussions of quality interaction
in the young foreign language learning classroom, and that young learner
educators should be cautious in judging this purely with reference to criteria
developed to describe quality interaction in adult and first language learning
classrooms.
We believe that given that the teacher-fronted young learner classrooms
described in this study are commonplace in many contexts where English is
taught to children as a foreign language, these findings may provide teach-
ers and teacher educators with some fresh insights into the nature of quality
interaction in the young learner classroom. We hope that it will also trigger
more research interest, which can build a stronger knowledge base regarding
the relationship between interactional strategies and language development in
the young foreign language learning classroom.
Finally, we propose that the analysis of interaction in young learner
classrooms and the different ways we have done this could be a very useful
tool for promoting awareness of classroom interaction in teacher educa-
tion programmes in China as well as elsewhere. Breaking down interaction
and analysing it for its effects on acquisition and its quality in observed
lessons is, we suggest, an efficient tool to assist teachers to reach higher
levels of teaching ability and to help them become aware of their problems
more easily.
1. Our findings have highlighted the benefits of a longitudinal study to under-

stand the relationship between pedagogic practices and young learners’
developing language knowledge and skill. Although requiring considerable
time and energy, we believe longitudinal studies can yield valuable insights
into TEYL and are an important research priority for the field. How might
longitudinal research be employed to deepen an understanding of TEYL in
your own professional context?
2. We also believe that teachers should be encouraged to take more of a

long-range perspective in considering children’s language development in
teacher education programmes and be helped to better appreciate how very
different pedagogic responses are needed at different stages of children’s
additional language learning journey. What sorts of small-scale research
projects could be developed in your own professional context to help stu-
dent teachers as well as more experienced teachers develop an informed
understanding of the interplay between pedagogic strategies and children’s
developing English knowledge and skills?
3. Our examination of interactional practices in the young EFL classroom
pointed to a number of pedagogic strategies that seemed to be effective with
learners at different ages. How might these be used as a point of departure
to critically examine teachers’ interactional practices in a teaching context
you are familiar with?
References
Allwright, D. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 5 (2): 156–179.
Arends, R.I. (2005). Learning to Teach. Xi’an: Shanxi Normal University Press.
Doughty, C. and Pica, T. (1986). ‘Information-gap’ tasks: Do they facilitate second lan-
guage acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20: 305–325.
Ellis, R. (1985). Teacher–pupil interaction in second language development. In Gass, S.M.
and Madden, C.G. (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Newbury
House Publishers, pp. 69–85.
Ellis, R. (1991). Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. and Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and
the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44 (3): 449–491.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Long, M. (1983a). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the
research. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (3): 359–382.
Long, M. (1983b). Native-speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4: 126–141.
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S.M. and
Madden, C.G. (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Newbury House
Publishers, pp. 377–393.
Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and Learning a Second Language. London: Continuum.
MOE Document (2001). National English Curriculum for Nine-Year Compulsory Education
and Senior High Schools. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research
Papers in Education, 21 (1): 19–41.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41

(2): 136–145.
Peccei, J.S. (2000). Child Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
and Routledge.
Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, participation and comprehension: redefining rela-
tionships. System, 19: 437–452.
Pica, T. and Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language
classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S.M. and
Madden, C.G. (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Newbury House
Publishers, pp. 115–136.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising
with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11 (2): 189–207.
Shatz, M. (1982). On mechanisms of language acquisition: Can features of the commu-
nicative environment account for development? In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. (eds)
Language Acquisition: The State of the Art. New York: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 102–127.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S.M. and Madden, C.G. (eds) Input
in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers, pp. 235–253.
Tsui, A.B.M. (1992). Classroom discourse analysis in ESL teacher education. ILE Journal,
9: 81–96.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in
the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6 (1): 3–23.
Wang, Q. (2002). The national curriculum changes and English language teaching in the
People’s Republic of China. Presentation in an International Conference of Foreign
Language Teaching and Teacher Development.
Wilen, W. (1991). Questioning Skills for Teachers. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association.
4
From Language Policy to Pedagogic
Practice: Elementary School
English in Japan
Brian Gaynor
Introduction
Although close to a cliché now, the constant iteration of the effects of globali-
zation on learning English as a foreign language (EFL) continues to have merit.
English is now considered one of the key components of the modernized global
economy and is perceived by state polities the world over as essential for the
future success of their respective nations. The principal way countries develop
their citizens’ English ability is through their formal education systems.
Whereas traditionally foreign language education has begun at the second-
ary level, recent years have seen a sharp increase in the number of countries
commencing EFL at the primary level. However, unlike secondary school pro-
grammes there is still a lack of international consensus at the primary level as
to what constitutes best practice in teaching English to young learners (TEYL).
As Table 4.1 outlines, there is a wide divergence among countries with regard
to the starting age for TEYL.
Similarly, there are notable differences in the amount of instruction given,
not just in the cumulative total of years taught, but also in the number of hours
of instruction given per school year. Further differences exist in what is to be
taught, by whom, and whether young learners are formally assessed on the
subject. These differences highlight two main themes, both of which will be
explored in this chapter; the first concerns language in education policy – the
when, who, what, why, where and how questions of TEYL. Before any English
teaching actually takes place in the language classroom, a range of decisions
at different levels of public administration have already determined much of
what students will learn, and indeed, won’t learn.
Following from this the second theme is concerned with the lack of consen-
sus surrounding the most effective way to implement a successful TEYL pro-
gramme. Different states will have different resources to call upon, primarily
financial, and so will have different options in establishing and implementing
66
From Language Policy to Pedagogic Practice in Japan 67
Table 4.1 The starting age of compulsory English language learning in select countries
Starting age of compulsory English language learning
5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years
France Austria Finland Belgium Argentina Brazil

Netherlands Bangladesh Bulgaria Lithuania Hungary
Estonia China Romania Japan
Sweden Greece Turkey
Croatia Korea
Italy Taiwan
Poland
Source: Rixon (2013).
a policy for TEYL. Even so, this doesn’t fully account for differences in practice.
In Japan, for instance, compulsory English commences in the fifth grade of
primary school (age 11), but the curriculum specifically omits the teaching of
English literacy. In South Korea, by contrast, students start learning the four
skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing from the third grade (age 9).
These differences in when children commence studying English are not made
by teachers or schools; rather they are made by state bodies, the respective
ministries of education in Japan and South Korea. They are as much political
choices as they are pedagogical ones.
The political influence is also evident if we take a step back and consider
why it is English that is being taught to young learners and not some other
language. The obvious answer – that English is the lingua franca of the world
economy – bears closer scrutiny. Again, to return to Japan and South Korea, for
both countries their largest trading partner is China, so for purely economic
reasons there is a stronger case for learning Chinese. In the specific case of
Japan a further argument could be made for Chinese on the basis that it is
the language of the country’s largest ethnic minority – English is only spoken
by a minority of the minority. Indeed, one could also add that the shared lin-
guistic features of Japanese and Chinese would make it an ‘easier’ language for
students to learn. Yet, the reality is that the vast majority of Japanese school
children commence studying English at 11 years of age, and should they attend
tertiary education, will be compelled to do so until they are 20.
Thus, as we can see, politics and policy are fundamental to understanding
the nature of a country’s TEYL programme. What follows then is an examina-
tion of how the political, via decisions concerning language policy, impacts
on pedagogical practice in the classroom. The focus of this chapter will be
primarily on Japan where, in 2011, compulsory classes in ‘Foreign Language
68 Brian Gaynor
Activities’ in elementary school commenced. I will start with a theoretical

overview of language policy and its influence on foreign language education.
Following on from this I will outline recent developments in English education
policy in Japan, culminating (though not ending) in the introduction of com-
pulsory English classes in elementary school. In providing illustrative examples
of the various issues that have arisen following the introduction of elementary
school English, I draw upon my experiences as an assistant language teacher
(ALT), teacher-trainer and researcher. In this chapter I will highlight both the
tensions inherent in the formulation of language policy, and the practical
compromises that are required in the classroom in order to implement policy.
My hope is that the examples, though taken from Japanese classrooms, will
transcend schools, regions and borders and will provide some insights that can
be applied to the reader’s own situation.
Language policy and language in education planning
The most widely cited definition of language planning is by Cooper, who

describes it as ‘the deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others
with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their
language codes’ (1989: 45). He proposed three major types of language plan-
ning approaches: corpus planning, defined as ‘the creation of new forms, the
modification of old ones or the selection from alternative forms in a spoken or
written code’ (1989: 31); status planning, which refers to ‘deliberate efforts to
influence the allocation of functions among a community’s languages’ (1989:
99); and acquisition planning, which refers to ‘organized efforts to promote the
learning of a language’ (1989: 157), and what is now more commonly known
as ‘language in education planning’ (Baldauf 2005). This broad definition was
in contrast to the hitherto ‘problem-solution’ approach to language policy, best
summed up by Fishman’s description of it as ‘the organized pursuit of solutions
to language problems, typically at the national level’ (1974: 79). Such a defini-
tion, Cooper argued, ‘obscured a fundamental point about language planning,
namely that it is typically, perhaps always directed towards nonlinguistic ends’
(1989: 35). In essence, Cooper was making the case for viewing language plan-
ning as a political act as much as a linguistic one.
According to Baldauf (2005: 961), ‘Language in education planning is the
area most explicitly related to language learning and teaching.’ Although it
is theoretically conceived of as occurring concurrently with status and corpus
planning (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997) it often constitutes the sole language
planning activity in many polities (Corson 1999). Much of the literature in the
field has concentrated on the broader societal level by addressing such issues
as national and supranational language policies (Gottlieb 2007); language
ideology (Ricento 2006); linguistic culture (Schifferin 1996); and linguistic
nationalism (Ricardo and Burnaby 1998). However, this macro-level approach

has come in for some criticism, particularly in its emphasis on unidirectional
top-down approaches to language in education policy, whereby schools and,
by implication, teachers were generally regarded as agents of the state and as
‘bottom-up bit players in the language policy hierarchy’ (Ramanathan and
Morgan 2007: 449). Rather, there should be an acknowledgement of the influ-
ence of teachers and schools on the interpretation and implementation of
policy. Indeed, one of the crucial issues for policymakers is how to reconcile the
macro with the micro; as Baldauf and Kaplan (2005: 1014) put it:
to define and facilitate choices that are relevant to individual’s interests and
needs … while at the same time ensuring that the general [language] educa-
tion benefits and societal needs are being met.
Language policy in Japan and internationalization
Language in education policymaking in Japan occurs within the framework

of kokusaika, ‘internationalization’ (Butler 2007). Although the term ‘interna-
tionalization’ may suggest a form of intercultural exchange, in Japan kokusaika
is primarily framed as an encounter between Japan and the English-speaking
world (Kubota 2002). To fit this constructed frame therefore requires that
foreign language education become publicly accepted as synonymous with
English language education (Morita 1998). This is espoused at the state level.
The 2002 Course of Study for Languages (Ministry of Education Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology [MEXT] 2003) clearly states that ‘For compulsory for-
eign language instruction, English should be selected in principle,’ a statement
reprised in the 2008 Course of Study for Elementary Schools, which states that
‘In principle English should be selected for foreign language activities’ (MEXT
2009). In both instances the emphasis is on native-speaker varieties of English,
so that teaching English as a foreign language, within the frame of kokusaika,
is ‘directed at communication with the economically and politically dominant
English-speaking nations, rather than communication across a broad geo-
graphical and linguistic spectrum’ (Liddicoat 2007: 36).
For Suzuki (1995) kokusaika is also concerned with spreading Japanese cul-
ture and values internationally so that the foreign ‘other’ can see the world
from a Japanese perspective. The inference here is that kokusaika is less about
transcending linguistic and cultural boundaries, and more about maintain-
ing them. It is essentially a policy of assimilation, whose aim, Hashimoto
(2000: 49) argues, is to foster within students a heightened sense of their own
‘Japaneseness’. Liddicoat advances a similar criticism contending that kokusaika
is ‘mono-directional – it allows Japanese self-expression in the world
rather than articulating a mutually informing encounter between cultures’
70 Brian Gaynor
(2007: 38). Again, evidence for this argument can be found in official policy
documents; the most recent Course of Study document issued by MEXT for
‘Foreign Language Education’ in 2008 states that ‘Teachers should enable
pupils to deepen their understanding not only of the foreign language and
culture, but also of the Japanese language and culture through foreign language
and activities’ (MEXT 2009).
English language education policy in Japan
Gottlieb (2007) contends that English language education policy in Japan is

premised on the idea that the language serves a purely pragmatic function, as
the international language of globalization, particularly in its role as the lingua
franca in the fields of business and science. Similarly, Hashimoto characterizes
the teaching of English as being based on a policy of economic utility, one that
‘focus[es] less on the educational needs of individual learners, and more on
how TEFL contributes to the nation’s economic success’ (2009: 23).
These utilitarian views of English have been reflected in recent official
policy developments, which, Butler (2007) argues, have been a response to
constant pressure from the business sector for English education to place more
emphasis on practical communication skills. Such developments include the
introduction of the Japanese Exchange and Teaching Program (JET) in 1987
under which ‘native speakers’ of English were placed in local schools and
boards of education in order to ‘promote communicative based English teach-
ing’ (McConnell 2000: 13); the 2003 ‘Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with
English Abilities’ (MEXT 2003), with its explicitly stated aim of ensuring that
all students will be able to communicate in English upon graduation from
high school; and the ‘Revised Course of Study’, introduced in 2002, which
proposed introducing English at the elementary school level as an optional
subject. This recommendation was officially adopted by MEXT and approved
by the Government in 2008 with the result that, since April 2011, all public
elementary schools in Japan have enacted compulsory English education for
fifth- and sixth-grade students.
This account though gives the somewhat misleading impression that all
policy initiatives have been top-down in nature, primarily concerned with
furthering the economic success of ‘Japan Inc.’. In fact the issue, as in so many
other countries, is quite nuanced. Butler (2007: 137) gives a comprehensive
overview of the multiple interrelated social and political factors, both macro
and micro, that have influenced the introduction of elementary school English
in Japan, citing:
The role of English as a measure of one’s academic ability within the

Japanese education system […] as an attractive ‘selling point’ for certain
schools […] the (unwarranted) perceptions of English as a potential solution

for communication-related behavioral problems […] and growing concerns
about ensuring equal access to [elementary school English] in different
regions and among different socio-economic groups.
I will examine a number of these issues in more detail later in the chapter, but
given these influences we can clearly see how language in education policy
must respond to both educational and political pressures.
Language policy and English in the elementary school
In Japan major curriculum developments, such as the introduction of elemen-

tary school English (ESE), are by definition the creations of policymakers,
specifically the Ministry of Education. However, the motives and expected
outcomes from the perspective of the state can diverge quite considerably
from those of schools, teachers, students and parents. Bridging this diver-
gence often results in policy documents that emphasize aspirational con-
tent, for example, ‘developing students who can communicate effectively in
English’, but offer only vague instructional guidelines on how to do so. As
Gorsuch (2000: 677) observes, ‘Policy makers want short-term results, and a
curriculum statement that focuses on content has the appearance of achiev-
ing those results.’
This gap between policy content and classroom instruction is evident in the
problems affecting the introduction of ESE in Japan. A survey conducted by
the Benesse Educational Research and Development Centre in 2008 found that
elementary school teachers ranked the lack of clear instructions on what to
teach and how to teach as their biggest concern in implementing ESE (Benesse
Educational Research and Development Centre 2008). Yet, the policy docu-
ment, ‘Foreign Language Activities’ explicitly places the burden of curriculum
design and instruction upon the shoulders of the teachers: ‘Homeroom teachers
or teachers in charge of foreign language activities should make teaching pro-
grams and conduct lesson’ (MEXT 2009). Commenting on a similar proposal in
the 2003 ‘Action Plan’, Butler and Iino (2005) see this as offering teachers and
local governments the opportunity of greater autonomy in determining educa-
tional policy at the micro level. However, grasping such opportunities presup-
poses that teachers and local governments have the knowledge and expertise to
do so. Again, the results of the Benesse Educational Research and Development
Centre survey call these assumptions into question; approximately 40 percent
of teachers said they lacked the necessary time to plan lessons and develop
materials, while similarly, less than one-tenth of the boards of education sur-
veyed had developed a curriculum for ESE (Benesse Educational Research and
Development Centre 2008).
72 Brian Gaynor
There are also pedagogical issues with the deliberate elision in the policy
documents of the differences between fostering ‘international understanding’
and developing basic communicative competence in English. Kusumoto (2008:
31) quotes an elementary school homeroom teacher as saying:
We play games and sing songs as an ‘international understanding’ cur-

riculum, but is playing English games really international understanding? It
seems like the period is just ‘play time’ with no clear objectives and goals.
Such problems are indicative of the difficulty of implementing a new English

curriculum within existing structures; they highlight the need to consider such
issues as the optimal start age, teacher quality and training, English’s place in
the curriculum, resource allocation, methodology, educational equity, and con-
tinuity with secondary education.
To coincide with the commencement of compulsory English classes in
Japan, I undertook a series of case studies of four public elementary schools
in Hokkaido prefecture from 2011 to 2013. My research aims were twofold:
the first was to understand the process through which official language policy
became classroom practice; the second was to suggest some prescriptive
measures on how policy could be more effectively implemented. Over two
school years I observed a total of 191 classes taught by 18 teachers. I formally
interviewed six of the teachers along with two school principals and two vice-
principals, though I conducted many more informal interviews with both the
teachers and their students. In addition, I collected and analysed a wealth of
written materials – everything from official policy documents to students’
self-evaluations of their English classes. In order to see if the main findings
from my case studies had wider applicability I also conducted a survey of 82
elementary school teachers in the same administrative district. In the follow-
ing discussion I draw upon this research to highlight the tensions inherent in
TEYL policy implementation and how these in turn require pedagogical com-
promises in the classroom.
Japan and the age of instruction
Although a detailed discussion concerning the optimal age to commence

English education is beyond the scope of this chapter (for a comprehensive
overview, see both Cameron (2003) and Pinter (2011)), there are two issues
particularly relevant to the situation in Japan.
The first is to do with one might call the ‘zero-game’ approach to foreign
language learning: the belief that learning English at an early age will hinder
the acquisition of students’ Japanese (Otsu 2004). In addition, as languages
are also regarded as conveyers of culture there is a further concern that the
introduction of English will have a detrimental effect on Japanese national

identity and language (Kawai 2007). It should be noted in passing that such
concerns are not unique to Japan; similar doubts about TEYL have been aired
in countries as diverse as Oman (Al-Zedjali and Etherton 2009), Vietnam
(Nguyen 2011) and Cameroon (Kuchah 2009).
It is easy to dismiss such concerns by pointing to the number of bilingual/
multilingual speakers around the world, but these claims perhaps bear closer
examination. In one sense the argument about the effect of English on L1
learning is correct; the introduction of English into a fixed school curriculum
necessitates the reduction of lesson hours in some other subject or subjects. As
these subjects are taught through the first language, such a reduction will result
in students having less exposure to various specialized academic discourses
in that language, for example, the specialist discourses employed in maths or
science. Whether this in turn hinders the development of students’ long-term
L1 abilities, particularly their understanding and use of academic discourses, is
unknown; to the best of my knowledge no longitudinal comparative research
has been undertaken in this area, nor would it be ethically feasible to do so.
Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that language policy is as much a politi-
cal process as a pedagogical one and public perception often occludes wider
understanding of more substantive research-based knowledge.
Similar caution should also be exercised when invoking comparisons with
multilingual students as you are not comparing like with like. The concen-
trated input bilinguals receive in their second language – be it at home, in an
immersive school or extracurricular private school – does not equate to the
45-minute, once-a-week English class as experienced by the typical Japanese
elementary school student.
Finally, along with the cognitive arguments for and against starting early
English language learning, we must also consider the affective dimension of
the type of learning students do (Meece et al. 2006). In the policy goals they
set for TEYL many countries emphasize positive language awareness, inculcat-
ing a favourable attitude towards learning English and about other cultures
(Enever 2011). In Japan this is clearly stated in the Course of Study document,
which calls for students ‘to experience the joy of communication in the foreign
language’ (MEXT 2009). The pedagogical effect of such aims is to emphasize
activities that, again in the words of the Course of Study, ‘focus on the foreign
language sounds and use letters of the alphabet and words as supplementary
tools for oral communication, in effort not to give too much burden to pupils’.
However, a more critical appraisal of such language awareness goals would
venture the question ‘why?’: why is the main policy aim to instil a favourable
attitude towards language learning and not language learning per se; and, relat-
edly, why is such a goal deemed suitable for 11 and 12 year old children? There
are solid arguments for raising language awareness and inculcating positive
74 Brian Gaynor
motivation in young students (for a comprehensive overview, see Nikolov and

Mihaljević Djigunović 2006), but less convincing are the reasons for making
it the overriding aim of ESE as in Japan. Pinter (2011) notes that while it is
suitable for 5 and 6 year olds to concentrate on language awareness games
and activities, students at the upper end of primary school invariably find
such activities childish and do not conform to what they consider learning.
Comparisons with other subjects in their curriculum further highlight this ped-
agogical gap. The cognitive demands subjects like Japanese, maths and science
make on students’ abilities strongly suggests that they are mentally capable of
doing more in the English classroom than simply games and oral-based activi-
ties. To understand why students do not engage in such learning leads us back
to the problem of resource scarcity, particularly the acute shortage of teachers
with suitable language proficiency and methodological skills for TEYL.
Teacher quality and training
The lack of qualified teachers means that Japan, as with many other countries
at the primary school level (see Garton et al. 2011), has to rely on existing
‘generalist’ homeroom teachers who are not trained to teach TEYL. This in turn
has an impact on learner outcomes and demands a realistic assessment of what
can be achieved in elementary school. In Japan there is the added concern
that successful classroom initiatives and effective methodology are often the
result of the efforts of these individual ‘generalist’ homeroom teachers rather
than specialized school programmes. Such a situation results in quality teach-
ing being personalized rather than institutionalized so that when that teacher
leaves the school (teachers are usually transferred every six years) much of the
English programme leaves with her.
Shortfalls exist too in the provision of both pre-service and in-service teacher
training. As English is not an academic subject there is no specific qualification
in TEYL offered at any of the 56 national educational universities in the coun-
try. The non-academic status of English also affects in-service training oppor-
tunities for teachers; greater emphasis is placed on career training in teaching
Japanese, maths and science (Izumi 2006). The result is that with the limited
time they have for in-service training, teachers understandably opt for train-
ing in those courses upon which they and their students are formally evalu-
ated. Furthermore, in-service training is for the most part conducted by local
boards of education (BoE); there are no set standards for such courses, and the
quantity and quality of provision is very much subject to the resources avail-
able to the individual areas (Benesse Educational Research and Development
Centre 2010). Thus whereas a BoE in a large urban area situated close to one
of the national universities of education can call upon their expertise, as my
own research found that such an option is not available in distant rural areas.
Even the MEXT-mandated courses teachers must take every ten years in order
to renew their teaching licences are not standardized but left to individual pre-
fectures. It is indicative of the neglect at the policy level in this area that the
only recourse available to in-service teachers seeking some form of comprehen-
sive training programme in TEYL are those offered by private companies, the
expense of which must be borne by the teachers themselves (Akiyama 2010).
A final issue that is sometimes overlooked is the rather uncomfortable fact
that many primary school teachers simply don’t want to teach English; they are
extremely busy as it is with the academic and administrative demands of their
jobs, and adding an additional subject, particularly one for which they have
received no formal pedagogical training, is something many of them resent.
Such feelings, as I have observed, often manifest themselves in the classroom,
where teachers’ sole aim is to ‘just get through’ the 45-minute English lesson.
This often results in an over-emphasis on games, teacher-centred Japanese
explanations, late starts and early finishes so that the duration of the class is
considerably shortened, with little consistency from one lesson to the next. For
the majority of the teachers I surveyed elementary school English is regarded
as an unnecessary burden rather than a rewarding challenge.
Resolving such problems requires a considerable increase in the quantity and
quality of both pre-service and in-service teacher training. Butler (2005), in a
comparative review of elementary school teachers in Japan, Korea and Taiwan,
identified similar problems with teachers’ attitudes to TEYL, their English lan-
guage ability and methodological competence. To alleviate these problems she
suggested that teachers should receive comprehensive instruction in all areas
related to child L2 learning along with systematic support in improving their
English language ability. This is a call that has been echoed by many others
(Edelenbos et al. 2007; Enever et al. 2009; Garton et al. 2011), yet in the case of
Japan, such teacher support systems are not in place. The answer to the obvious
question of ‘why not’ is elaborated on in the next two sections, TEYL’s place in
the primary school curriculum and the allocation of resources.
TEYL’s place in the curriculum in Japan
Although eigo (English) is how the subject in elementary school is referred to by

students, teachers, parents and Japanese society as a whole, the term at the pol-
icy level is more deliberately nuanced. The official course of study document
(MEXT 2009) terms the class gaikokugo katsudo (Foreign Language Activities);
the document does state that English is the preferred language of instruction,
but describes such instruction in terms of activities rather than the teaching
of the language per se. In addition, although compulsory, ‘Foreign Language
Activities’ is not deemed an academic subject in the same way Japanese, maths
or social studies are. Rather it comes under the domain of ‘general integrated
76 Brian Gaynor
studies’, akin to art and music, and accordingly is limited to a total teaching
time of 35 hours for each grade during one full school year.
This non-academic status has a number of wider implications for TEYL
in Japan besides the obvious issue of no formal assessment. For instance, in
Hokkaido prefecture all public elementary schools are compelled by the prefec-
tural Board of Education to participate in the annual ‘National Assessment of
Academic Ability’ undertaken by the Ministry of Education (MEXT). These tests
assess 6th grade students’ knowledge of maths, Japanese and science. Based
on the results, schools, administrative areas and prefectures are all ranked.
Hokkaido has consistently placed at the bottom of the national prefectural
table, which has led to demands, particularly from parents, for steps to improve
their children’s scores (Asahi Shimbun 2011), the implication being that both
the problem and solution are found in the school system. In response, the
prefectural Board of Education has initiated a series of classroom policies and
professional teacher development programmes to try and improve scores in
the test.
All this in turn has a number of implications for the teaching of English.
Foremost is the importance attached to the three tested subjects within the
overall curriculum; English, as a non-academic, unevaluated subject, is not
integral to students’ (and schools’) academic standing, and thus is not prior-
itized by schools, teachers, students and parents. In addition, the emphasis
placed on teachers’ professional development in teaching Japanese, maths
and science by the Hokkaido Board of Education, crowds out what little time
there is available for in-service training in English language teaching. Finally,
the presence of native-speaking assistant language teachers in the majority of
English lessons means that available financial resources are allocated to them
(in the form of salaries), rather than the homeroom teacher (in the form of in-
service professional development courses).
Assistant language teachers and the allocation of resources
In Japan, like a number of other countries in East Asia (Baldauf et al. 2011),
native speakers of English are employed as assistant language teachers (ALT) in
both primary and secondary schools. However, ALTs are not trained teachers,
nor do many of them possess any formal qualifications in teaching English as
a foreign language (Butler 2007). In addition, the cost of employing ALTs in
the form of salaries and living expenses means that the quality and quantity of
those hired can vary quite dramatically from one local area to the next.
Although the ALT is ostensibly there to assist the Japanese homeroom teacher,
a comprehensive survey of elementary school teachers (Benesse Educational
Research and Development Centre 2010) found that in most English classes
the ALT leads the lesson. There is, however, no formal evaluation, either at
local or national levels, of the effectiveness of employing ALTs in further-

ing both students’ English ability and teachers’ pedagogical ability (Ohtani
2010). Whereas the Native English Teacher (NET) scheme operated by the
Hong Kong government explicitly states that one of the programme’s aims
is to ‘help local teachers develop innovative learning and teaching methods,
materials, curricula and activities suited to the needs of local children’ (Hong
Kong Education Bureau 2013), and assesses NET participants’ contributions in
these areas, no such specificity applies to ALTs in Japan. Rather, the use of ALTs
offers a compromise between policy, practice and public perception. By having
native English speakers in the classroom the elementary school English policy
in Japan can be perceived as being put into practice; that neither policy nor
practice is subject to critical appraisal is something that seems to be willingly
overlooked by all parties concerned.
Methodology and the teachers’ manual
Perhaps the area where the tension between policy and practice is most evident
is in the seemingly contradictory assumption concerning teachers’ expertise.
The policy document specifically assigns responsibility for course development
to the homeroom teacher, yet all of the teachers I observed scrupulously fol-
lowed the MEXT supplied course book and curriculum despite the fact that
they are not compulsory. This would seem to be in line with experience in
other countries. According to Pinter (2006: 115), ‘the most important teach-
ing and learning material that guides teachers’ and learners’ activities in many
classrooms seems to be the course book’. In the context of Japan I would add
to this statement the importance of the teacher’s manual.
There are approximately 419,000 elementary school teachers in Japan
(MEXT 2013), the majority of whom will, at some stage of their careers, have to
teach English classes. However, as we have seen, the lack of in-service training
and the prominence attached to the use of ALTs means that many teachers lack
detailed pedagogical knowledge in teaching English. In an attempt to address
this issue, MEXT has published and distributed Hi Friends, a two-level course
book, to all public elementary schools along with a comprehensive teacher’s
manual that provides detailed instructions on how to teach a full, year-long
35-hour curriculum. Although McGrath (2002: 37) warns that ‘a book should
not be a course in the sense that it determines the totality of the learning
experience’, for many teachers in Japan the course book and the manual
determine not only the totality of the learning experience, but the teaching
experience as well. The manual provides a comprehensive lesson plan for each
unit, detailing what is to be taught; how it is to be taught and in what order;
provides clear instructions on the roles of teachers, students and ALTs; and
addresses a number of underlying linguistic and cultural points to provide a
78 Brian Gaynor
richer understanding of each lesson’s objectives. Although the manual explicitly

states that it should not be perceived as the sole method of conducting English
classes, the day-to-day realities of homeroom teachers, faced with the ongoing
and ever-changing demands of teaching a diverse array of subjects, general
administrative tasks, and, most importantly, the responsibility for the care
and welfare of their students, means that the manual is assigned a broad, all-
encompassing role from curriculum planner to a source of jazz chants. In many
cases it becomes the de facto English class, and in its detailed, inclusive struc-
ture, can be seen to unwittingly thwart the development of teacher autonomy.
Continuity with secondary education
One of the most common problems associated with the introduction of pri-
mary school English is the lack of continuity with the secondary level (Enever
et al. 2009). In Japan this problem is magnified by the lack of clearly defined
outcomes for ESE. The Benesse Educational Research and Development Centre
survey found that over 90 percent of teachers were basing their evaluation sim-
ply on observing ‘student behavior in class’ while less than 2 percent carried
out any form of formal testing (Benesse Educational Research and Development
Centre 2010). Compounding the problem is that the loose autonomy granted
to schools and local governments as to what and how much they can teach,
along with differences in the resources allocated to English education, means
that students are leaving different elementary schools with varying levels of
English ability (Yano 2011). It is when these diverse students enter the same
secondary school and begin their academic English education that their differ-
ences in prior learning quickly become apparent.
The fudged solution to this is to assume, at both the policy and practical
level, that students have had no ‘formal’ education in English. Recall that the
course of Study Policy document refers to ‘foreign language activities’ rather
than English learning per se, and that its overall objectives are chiefly affective:
‘developing the understanding of languages and cultures … fostering a posi-
tive attitude toward communication, and familiarizing pupils with the sounds
and basic expressions of foreign languages’ (MEXT 2009). In contrast, the
equivalent policy document for junior high school English education specifies
the development of ‘students’ basic communication abilities such as listening,
speaking, reading and writing’ (MEXT 2006). The inference is that students
are suitably motivated in elementary school and are now ready to embark on
learning a foreign language in junior high school.
Practical possibilities
As with many other countries, there are a number of interrelated factors at the
level of language policy that have constrained rather than enabled effective
TEYL in Japan, some of which I have detailed here. I deliberately use the word
‘constrained’ as I think the current formulation of ‘Foreign Language Activities’
in Japan represents an opportunity missed (or hopefully delayed).
It is easy to find fault with the current programme of ESE, particularly in
its deliberate ambiguity towards defining measurable learning outcomes for
students. Less easy to do, though, is to provide workable solutions. Calls for
greater resources, more qualified teachers and better pre- and in-service training
are matched by calls for similar provisions for other subjects in the curriculum
along with greater investment in school facilities, particularly in information
technology. These competing claims have to be managed somehow, and the
political enthusiasm for introducing TEYL must engage with the far from ideal
realities of the classroom. This requires reconciling what should be done with
what can be done, and the result is often ‘fudged’.
This can be clearly seen in the case of Japan where a pedagogically compro-
mised version of English language learning at the primary level permits the
current language in education policy for English at both the junior high school
and high school levels to remain unchanged. Implementing a comprehensive
TEYL programme in elementary school would necessitate a reform of the junior
high school curriculum, which in turn would require a detailed revision of the
high school curriculum. It would also have ancillary effects on teacher training
and qualifications, materials design, methodology and academic assessment at
the different levels of schooling. Implementing such changes would require
considerable amounts of time, money and political will, none of which can
be guaranteed particularly in the light of constant calls to improve students’
performance in the core academic subjects of Japanese, maths and science.
Rather the current manifestation of elementary school English may be best
thought of as a ‘tactical’ (Butler 2007) first step towards making English a full
academic subject.
Compromise, though, shouldn’t constrain possibility. In Japan, there is sig-
nificant emphasis placed on the lack of teachers’ English ability and thus their
ability to teach the language (Butler 2005). However, such an assumption rests
on the belief that high levels of English mastery are necessary to successfully
teach the language at the primary level. Garton et al. (2011: 6), based on their
findings from a global survey of primary school English teachers, suggest that:
The real issue is not the teachers’ lack of proficiency, which may well be
more than adequate for TEYL, but rather a lack of confidence predicated on
the belief that native-like competence is required to teach […] successfully.
The issue then is to consider what can be done given present circumstances
rather than what could be done under ideal circumstances. One such opportu-
nity, requiring little in the way of language ability or specific training, would
be to integrate TEYL with other subjects across the curriculum. Unlike the
80 Brian Gaynor
specialized and distinct EFL courses at the secondary level, the elementary
school is institutionally structured to facilitate the natural diffusion of English
learning across the whole curriculum and indeed, into most aspects of non-
academic school life too. Within her classroom the homeroom teacher could
conduct many of the usual routines such as taking attendance or assigning
cleaning chores in English. At a more academic level English could be easily
incorporated in other subjects such as numbers and calculations in maths,
nomenclature in science, geographical features in social studies, and so on (for
details, see Edelenbos et al. 2007). Such an approach could draw upon various
initiatives developed under the auspices of Content and Integrated Language
Learning (CLIL) with an emphasis on developing teachers’ skills in mediating
between languages, curriculum content and the development of inquiry and
research skills in children (Arnold and Rixon 2008). None of this requires exper-
tise in English, but rather a willingness to both instigate and maintain such
approaches so that the students become used to such linguistic transference and
eventually consider them an integral part of their entire learning experience at
school. As Sharpe (2001: 16) rightly notes, ‘[students] are at an age to be taken
along by a committed and enthusiastic presentation without the vulnerable self-
consciousness of adolescents. The foreign language is in this way “normalized”.’
Such normalization is particularly apposite in situations like Japan where
English, though compulsory, lacks the academic ‘value’ of the other formally
assessed subjects in the curriculum. In such a case the impetus should be on
English ‘attaching’ itself to these subjects through a cross-curricular approach,
thereby avoiding the unfortunate impression that learning the language is
‘play time’.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be attached to such cross-curric-
ulum integration. The first is that what is applicable to Japan may not neces-
sarily be appropriate for other countries and other situations. Secondly, the
inclusion of English into the teaching of other subjects does not in of itself
constitute teaching English. Rather it sensitizes students to using English as a
means of engaging with different aspects of their worlds, in the same way as
they do through Japanese. Such an initiative should be seen as a step towards
providing more effective TEYL instruction. It should not, however, be seen as
the ultimate goal. In Japan, as in many other countries, there is still the press-
ing need for a systematically planned course of language instruction, which,
in tandem with a cross-curriculum approach, can potentially raise students’
motivation and ultimately their levels of achievement.
1. This chapter has highlighted the tensions inherent between language policy
aspirations and practical classroom realities. Alleviating these tensions often
involves various forms of compromise, be it in what is taught (content), who it

is taught to (starting age), and who does the teaching (generalists or specialists).
Are such compromises apparent in your country? What form do they take, and
what effects do have on the effectiveness of teaching English to children? Can
you suggest any practical measures to improve upon these compromises?
2. Japan eschews formal testing of students’ English ability in elementary
school, but this is not to say that students don’t take tests. There is a bur-
geoning private sector, compromising both Japanese and international
companies, that provides an array of tests for young learners. What are
the advantages and disadvantages of having formal assessment in primary
school? Consider such issues as secondary school continuity, learner equal-
ity, the academic validity of English in the curriculum, the role of tests in
learner motivation (both positive and negative), and administrative over-
sight of schools and teachers.
3. One of the obstacles to implementing a comprehensive TEYL programme in
Japan has been the ongoing concern that learning English will detrimentally
affect students’ Japanese language ability and sense of Japanese identity. Do
such tensions exist in language in education policy in your own country?
How do such tensions manifest themselves, and how are they reconciled
both at the policy level and in the classroom?
4. Including English across the primary curriculum demonstrates to students
that the acquisition of a foreign language is an integral part of their educa-
tion. Homeroom teachers can ensure that such cross-curriculum initiatives
are enjoyable and motivating, but at the same time challenging and rel-
evant to children. Can you suggest various activities and tasks that can help
achieve these worthwhile aims?
References
Akiyama, T. (2010). The challenging tasks of developing a professional English teacher.
Bunkyo University Bulletin of Institute of Educational Research, 19: 19–26.
Al-Zedjali, F. and Etherton, S. (2009). Literacy development through the Integrated
Curriculum Project: The Omani experience. In Enever, J., Moon, J. and Raman, U.
(eds) Young Learner English Language Policy and Implementation: International Perspectives.
Reading: Garnet Education, pp. 149–156.
Arnold, W. and Rixon, S. (2008). Materials for teaching English to young learners. In.
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London:
Asahi Shimbun (2011). Hokkaidonai no kouritsu shouchuu, gakkuryouku tesuto kaishi (Test
of Academic Ability starts in Hokkaido Elementary and Junior High Schools). Available at:
http://www.asahi.com/edu/news/HOK201109280003.html [accessed on 17/7/13].
Baldauf, R.B. (2005). Language Planning and Policy Research: An Overview. In Hinkel,
E. (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 957–970.
82 Brian Gaynor
Baldauf, R.B. and Kaplan, R.B. (2005). Language-in-Education Policy and Planning. In
Hinkel, E. (ed) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1013–1034.
Baldauf, R.B., Kaplan, R.B., Kamwangamalu, N. and Bryant, P. (2011). Success or failure
of primary second/foreign language programmes in Asia: What do the data tell us?
Current Issues in Language Planning, 12 (2): 309–323.
Benesse Educational Research and Development Centre (2008). Shougakko eigo – kyoten-
kou no torikumi ni kan suru chousa [Elementary School English: Survey of Effective Schools].
Available at: http://benesse.jp/berd/center/open/report/syo_eigo/hogosya/index.html
[accessed on 17/7/13].
Benesse Educational Research and Development Centre (2010). Dai 2 shougakkou eigo ni
kan suru kihonn chousa [The Second Basic Survey of Elementary School English]. Available
at: http://benesse.jp/berd/center/open/report/syo_eigo/2010/index.html [accessed on
17/7/13].
Butler, Y.G. (2005). Current Japanese Reforms in English language education. Language
Policy, 4 (1): 25–45.
Butler, Y.G. (2007). Foreign language education at elementary schools in Japan: Searching
for solutions amidst growing diversification. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8 (2):
129–147.
Butler, Y.G. and Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education:
The 2003 ‘Action Plan’. Language Policy, 4: 25–45.
Journal, 57: 105–112.
Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Corson, D. (1999). Language Policy in Schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. (2007). The Main Pedagogical Principles
Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Brussels: European
Commission. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/young_
en.pdf [accessed 17/7/13].
Enever, J. (2011). ELLiE – Early Language Learning in Europe. London: The British Council.
Available at: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/publications/early-language-learning-
europe [accessed 17/7/13].
Enever, J., Moon, J. and Raman, U. (eds) (2009). Young Learner English Language Policy and
Implementation: International Perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education.
Fishman, J.A. (1974). Language modernization and planning in comparison with other
types of national modernization and planning. In Fishman, J.A. (ed) Advances in
Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 79–102.
Garton, S., Copland, F. and Burns, A. (2011). Investigating Global Practices in Teaching
English to Young Learners. London: The British Council. Available at: http://iatefl.brit
ishcouncil.org/2012/sites/iatefl/files/.../eltrp_report_-_garton.pdf [accessed 17/7/13].
Gorsuch, G.J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influence on
teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (4): 675–710.
Gottlieb, N. (2007). Japan’s Language Policy and Planning in Transition. London: Routledge.
Hashimoto, K. (2000) ‘Internationalisation’ is ‘Japanisation’: Japan’s foreign language
education and national identity. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 21 (1): 39–51.
Hashimoto, K. (2009). Cultivating ‘Japanese who can use English’: Problems and contra-
dictions in government policy. Asian Studies Review, 33 (1): 21–42.
Hashimoto, K. (2011). Compulsory foreign language activities in Japanese primary
schools. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12 (2): 167–184.
Hong Kong Education Bureau (2013). NET Scheme in Primary Schools Objectives. Available
at: http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/resource-support/net/pnet-
objectives.html [accessed 17/7/13].
Izumi, E. (2006). The role of homeroom teachers and teacher training in English language
education in elementary schools. Bulletin of Kyoto University of Education, 110: 131–147.
Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf, R.B. (1997). Language Planning: From Practice to Theory.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kawai, Y. (2007). Japanese nationalism and the global spread of English: An analysis of
Japanese governmental and public discourses on English. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 7 (1): 37–55.
Kubota, R. (2002), The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In Block,
D. and Cameron, D. (eds) Globalization and Language Teaching, London: Routledge,
pp. 13–28.
Kuchah, K. (2009). Early bilingualism in Cameroon: Where politics and education meet.
In Enever, J., Moon, J. and Raman, U. (eds). Young Learner English Language Policy and
Kusumoto, Y. (2008). Needs analysis: Developing a teacher training program for elemen-
tary school homeroom teachers in Japan. Second Language Studies, 26 (2): 1–44.
Liddicoat, A.J. (2007). Internationalising Japan: Nihonjinron and the intercultural in
Japanese Language-in-Education policy. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2 (1): 32–46.
McConnell, D.L. (2000). Importing Diversity: Inside Japan’s JET Program. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Meece, J., Anderman, E.M. and Anderman, L.H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57: 487–503.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (2003). Regarding
the Establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese. Available at: http://www.mext.
go.jp/english/topics/03072081.htm [accessed 17/7/13].
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (2006),
Course of Study for Junior High School: Foreign Language Activities. Available at:
http://mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afield-
file/2011/04/11/1298356_10.pdf [accessed 17/7/13].
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (2009). Course of
Study for Elementary School: Foreign Language Activities. Available at: http://www.mext.
go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/1261037.htm [accessed 17/7/13].
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (2013). Statistics.
Available at: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/statistics/index.htm [accessed 17/7/13
Morita, T. (1998). shinkyokushin to nihonjin, nihon bunka on [The Committee for
Education Reform and Study of the Japanese People and Culture]., Tokyo: Shin Nihon
Shuppansha.
Nguyen, H.T.M. (2011). Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights
from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12 (2): 225–249.
Nikolov, M. and Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second
language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 26: 234–260.
Ohtani, C. (2010). Problems in the assistant language teacher system and English activity
at Japanese elementary schools. Educational Perspectives, 43 (1): 38–45.
Otsu, Y. (2004). shougakko de no eigo kyouiku wa hitsuyo ka [Do we need English Instruction
at Elementary Schools?]. Tokyo: Keio University Press.
84 Brian Gaynor
Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramanathan, V. and Morgan, B. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments: Perspectives from
practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (3): 447–463.
Ricardo, T. and Burnaby, B. (eds) (1998). Language Policies in the United States and Canada:
Myths and Realities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ricento, T. (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Rixon, S. (2013). British Council Survey of Policy and Practice in Primary English Language
Teaching Worldwide. London: The British Council. Available at: https://www.teach
ingenglish.org.uk/article/british-council-survey-policy-practice-primary-english-lan
guage-teaching-worldwide [accessed 21/9/13].
Schifferin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Constructions of identity. Language in
Society, 25: 167–203.
Sharpe, K. (2001). Modern Foreign Languages in the Primary School. London: Kogan Page.
Suzuki, T. (1995), nihongo wa kokusaigo ni naru ka [Can Japanese become an international
language?]. Tokyo: Kodansha.
Yano, J. (2011). Problems with the introduction of foreign language activities in elemen-
tary school. Shizuoka daigaku kyoˉiku gakubu kenkyuˉ hˉokoku, 42: 57–66.
Part II
Teaching TEYL in a Globalized
World: New Opportunities and
New Challenges
5
The Impact of Playing Commercial
Online Games on Young Korean EFL
Learners’ L2 Identity
Sang Ah Sarah Jeon
Introduction
As English has emerged as an important medium for global communication in the

21st century, this has created an array of new informal learning opportunities for
learners of English as a foreign language outside of traditional face-to-face class-
room settings. In recent years there has been a growing awareness of the need to
better understand how these learning opportunities influence the language learn-
ing process and to incorporate them into the development of more comprehen-
sive accounts of second and foreign language teaching and learning (Benson and
Reinders 2011). Perhaps not surprisingly, given the digitally networked nature of
21st-century life, the sorts of out-of-class English learning opportunities created by
the growth of computer-mediated communication (CMC), such as through social
networking sites, email, fan fiction and participation in multi-player online games,
is emerging as a particular focus of research interest (see e.g. Thorne et al. 2009).
One thing that distinguishes participation in the sorts of activities mentioned
above from the ways in which CMC is typically adopted in formal foreign lan-
guage programmes is that these provide learners with opportunities to commu-
nicate in English with a transnational global community of those with shared
interests who may be speakers of English as a first language as well as others
engaged in learning English as an additional language worldwide. Given this,
researchers such as Thorne (2003) and Black (2009) have become interested in
the ways in which participation in these communities can enable learners to
evolve new forms of identities as speakers of English (hereafter referred to as
their L2 identity). Identity is increasingly recognized as an important variable
underpinning foreign or second language learning success (Block 2007). As
Thorne and Black (2011) observe, a growing number of educators argue for a
need to develop a better understanding of the ways in which the L2 identity
acquired in learners online encounters transfers and informs their off-line
encounters with the target language, including their formal in-school learning.
87
88 Sang Ah Sarah Jeon
Although many young people spend large amounts of time online in their
out-of-class worlds, there are still few studies that have explored how out-of-
class online English learning opportunities are being exploited by learners of
English as an additional language and how their encounter with these opportu-
nities is informing their language learning process. Exceptions I have found are
the studies conducted by Lam (2000; 2004), which look at the ways in which
young Chinese teenagers form new identities and build relationships through
their informal online contact with transnational peers in the USA. However,
I have not been able to identify any studies that look at the experiences of
young learners studying English as a foreign language. As a young learner
educator I feel it is important to explore how engagement with online English
learning opportunities might also be impacting on young learners developing
L2 identity and language learning success, and to consider the implications
for pedagogical practice. The study informing this chapter, which focuses on
young Korean EFL learners’ experiences with online-gaming, seeks to go some
way towards addressing this gap.
Young EFL learners and multi-player online games in the Korean

context
In Korea, formal EFL instruction in schools starts when children are 9 years of
age. However, the particular focus of the study informing this chapter is on
the experiences of young Korean EFL learners (aged from 10 to 14) as it is this
group who are known to regularly engage in transnational multi-player English
medium online games in their out-of-school lives.
Of the various forms of computer-mediated communication mentioned at
the start of the chapter, online games are perhaps one of the most popular
among young learners in Korea. According to a recent survey undertaken in
Korea, 41.6 percent of Korean children of 10–14 years of age identify online
games as their favourite leisure activity (KOCCA, 2012). This also reflects my
experience as a primary and secondary school teacher in Korea for a number
of years, where I have observed this to be a popular leisure activity and topic
of conversation between my students. Not all of the games played online by
Korean young people are in English and not all are multi-player ones, but these
are popular and many of the latest ones are only currently available in English.
In the Korean media, online games have been the focus of criticism, with
concerns being voiced, among other things, about the effect of the time young
people spend on these games on their school studies. However, there is also
an emerging recognition of the language learning benefits these offer. A fea-
ture of multi-player online games is that lots of people can access the game
space simultaneously, interact with each other and collaborate to build new
scenarios, using game characters. While playing games, players need to build
alliances through chatting, discuss game strategies with team (guild) members,
Commercial Online Games and Young Korean Learners 89
and contribute their distinctive skills to the team so that they can accomplish
game quests, which can only be achieved through virtual collaborative conver-
sational interaction (Bryant, 2006). Through their interaction with others, EFL
learners who participate in English-medium online games can practise English
they have learned, acquire new words and expressions incidentally, and at
the same time, as mentioned above, they can potentially develop new forms
of identity, which can link to non-linguistic outcomes such as enhanced self-
confidence and reduced anxiety.
In recognition of the motivational pull of these games for young people and
the language learning benefits they can offer, efforts have been made in recent
years to develop online games for use in the EFL young learner classroom in
Korea. Research studies undertaken have concentrated on demonstrating the
linguistic benefits to primary and high school students when using multi-
player online games developed and adjusted for ELT in-class activities (Suh
et al. 2010; Wi et al. 2009; Wi and Kim 2010). The focus of the study reported
in this chapter can be seen to offer a complementary perspective to this
research by exploring young learners’ experiences with such games in a dif-
ferent learning environment from that of their formal classrooms. In schools,
interaction is limited to other classmates and the teacher while playing these
games. In contrast, out-of-class online gaming communities provides unlim-
ited encounters with English language users from a variety of backgrounds. I
argue that the opportunity to interact with English language users worldwide
through game characters of their own choice offers an opportunity for young
Korean English language learners to express different aspects of the self than
might be possible in multi-player online games adopted in EFL classes in
school. With this in mind, the study reported in this chapter sought to address
the following questions:
• How do young EFL learners in Korea construct their L2 identities while play-
ing commercial multi-player online games in their free time?
• How far and in what ways do their experiences positively impact on their
L2 learning?
• How far do their online out-of-class learning experiences impact on their
in-class formal L2 learning experience?
The development of an L2 identity and its relationship to

L2 learning
Identity has attracted a considerable degree of interest in discussions of lan-

guage learning. Although the topic of identity is approached from different
perspectives, broadly speaking, it is recognized that identity formation is both
an individual and a social process. On the one hand, learners’ sense of who
they are (their identity) is understood to relate to their inner effort at shaping
their perceptions of themselves (Williams and Burden 1997). On the other
hand, a learner’s identity is also formed in interaction with others (Peirce
1995). In this regard, identity should be understood as ‘both self-generated
subject positioning as well as subject positioning that are imposed on indi-
viduals by others’ (Block 2007: 26). As such an identity, such as an L2 identity,
can be understood to be dynamic, evolving and the negotiated outcome of an
individual’s own reflections on their sense of self as well as on those obtained
through interactions with others (Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004).
The growth of interest in identity in accounts of second and foreign language
learning can be seen to reflect an awareness of the role this plays in terms
of learners’ attitudes and engagement with language learning opportunities.
Dörnyei (2009), for example, has made an explicit link between motivation
and identity in the development of his L2 Motivational Self System where he
describes the way in which a sense of the ideal L2 self, ought-to self and the
language learning experience work in conjunction to generate an evolving
motivation towards the L2. In a similar way, there is a growing awareness of
how learners’ self-confidence and levels of anxiety reflected in their willing-
ness to communicate are seen to closely reflect their sense of self in relation
to others in a given setting. For example, as Miller (2003) has observed, when
L2 learners have the experience of being discriminated against owing to their
L2 competence by their teachers and classmates, they can develop a negative
self-image as a deficient communicator, which can lead them to have strongly
negative feelings towards the target language, and as a result, their motivation
to learn the language can be decreased. On the other hand, when L2 learners
have a pleasant experience of interacting with others, this contributes to the
building of a positive L2 identity and self-confidence.
Online learning communities, L2 identity and second language

learning
From the above it can be seen that L2 identity evolves over time. It not only
orientates learners towards learning opportunities in particular settings but
is transformed in positive or negative ways through participation in these.
This emphasis on participation in describing learning is one that has been
developed into a theory of learning by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger
(1998) that stresses the importance of community. Lave and Wenger (1991: 98)
describe a community as ‘a set of relations among persons, activity, and world
which can apply to groupings of any size, of many different types, and with dif-
ferent degrees of formality’. Communities are understood to be both concrete
or virtual (such as in the case of an online gaming community) and may also
exist merely in the form of an imagined community, not based on our direct
experiences (Kanno and Norton 2003; Wenger 1998). Over time communities
take on particular characteristics and rules of engagement, and for Wenger
(1998) learning and the process of identity formation are closely tied up with
our efforts to join particular communities of practice. That is, with the efforts
of newcomers, described by Lave and Wenger (1991) as legitimate peripheral
participants, to gain membership of communities with the assistance of those
who are already expert members of these.
For those with an interest in exploring learning through online gaming com-
munities, these are viewed as having a distinctive set of characteristics and prac-
tices. In particular, they are viewed as providing a more democratic learning
community than in many traditional formal learning settings (Thorne 2003),
as non-hierarchical ‘affinity spaces’ (Gee 2004). One of the reasons for this is
that participants can negotiate their identities with others through their cho-
sen game characters and are liberated from traditional markers of identity, such
as age, gender, nationality and race. In addition, along with some other forms
of CMC, in such communities, because participants are drawn from many dif-
ferent countries, English operates as a genuinely international medium of
communication no longer measured by the standards of the countries where
English is a first language (Gnutzmann, 1999). This can help those who are not
first language speakers feel a greater acceptance and equality, allowing EFL/ESL
learners to engage in a process of re-imagining what it means to be speakers
of English (Lam 2000; 2004). As such, I suggest online gaming communities
provide an especially rich environment to develop positive L2 identities linked
to increased self-confidence, reduced anxiety and a greater willingness to com-
municate. Bearing these things in mind, in what follows I describe the study
undertaken and how far these things were evident in the findings obtained.
Exploring the impact of commercial online gaming on young

EFL learners’ L2 identity and learning
To address the questions mentioned above, I sought out the views and experi-
ences of 81 Korean young learners, most of whom (77) were boys. As mentioned
earlier their ages ranged from 10 to 14 years. These young learners had partici-
pated in at least one of two popular online games in Korea. At the time of the
study, on average they had been playing the games for 17–24 weeks and for
6–10 hours per week. One of these games, Star Wars: The Old Republic, is a mas-
sive multi-player online role-playing game (MMORPG), which was launched in
December 2011 and is one of the fastest-growing online games in the world.
At the time that I conducted my study it was only possible to play this game
in English. The other, League of Legends, is a multi-player online battle arena
(MOBA) game, which was released in October 2009. It is one of the most popu-
lar online games in the world and has only recently become available in Korean.
To find out their views I developed an online questionnaire, which was

completed by all of the 81 participants. I followed this up with in-depth semi-
structured interviews completed by five of the participants.
The questionnaire contained four parts comprising 13 items in total. These
were arranged as close-ended tick-box questions in the first part of the ques-
tionnaire, and a five point Likert-type scale was used in the second and third
parts of the questionnaire. One open-ended question was also included to
solicit any further comments from participants on any aspect of their experi-
ence of the online gaming community. In line with my questions, question-
naire items asked participants about their L2 learning and communicating
experiences while playing online games, their L2 identity construction and
their perceptions of foreign language anxiety while playing English online
games with international gamers.
The questionnaire was piloted with three online game players, and once
adjustments had been made, it was sent to the Korean community leaders of
the two games who agreed to post the questionnaire web link on their game
community websites for three weeks in April 2012. Follow-up semi-structured
interviews were conducted after collecting survey responses to gain more
detailed perspectives on things covered in the questionnaire, and also to find
out about the ways in which their experiences of participating in these online
gaming communities might be perceived to be impacting on their off-line L2
learning experiences. These were undertaken with three 13 year old and two
14 year-old boys who responded to calls for volunteers posted on my behalf
by the community leaders. Interviews were conducted through an instant
messenger programme with conversations saved as text. These lasted for
between 60 and 80 minutes each. Both the questionnaire and the interviews
were conducted in Korean. I then translated these into English, and trans-
lations were checked by a former colleague. Questionnaire responses were
analysed statistically by frequency and percentage and presented in tables.
Data from the five semi-structured interviews was coded and then key themes
identified.
I was careful to follow ethical procedures in this study by making sure that
consent to take part in the study was obtained from participants, and that they
were provided with full details of the study and the right to withdraw at any
time. To respect their right to anonymity, all interview participants are referred
to by pseudonyms in the presentation of the results below.
The impact of online gaming on Korean young learners’

L2 identity construction and learning
My analysis of the data I collected provided a number of interesting insights

into these young learners’ views on their experience of their membership of
the online gaming community they joined and how these allowed them to
construct their L2 identity. In the discussion that follows, I will illustrate these
points with reference to a selection of key findings from the questionnaire and
interview data.
The supportive nature of the online gaming community

Participants indicated a number of ways in which they found the online gaming
community to be supportive. First of all, as shown in statement 1 in Table 5.1,
the majority (85%) acknowledged that there were some important commu-
nal rules and protocols to be acquired in joining this community. In their
responses in the open-ended question on the questionnaire and in interviews
they pointed to a number of ways they had felt supported in their efforts.
Several participants explained that one thing that had helped them was that
they could consult game jargon and useful expressions on websites where other
players had posted these and provided explanations for them. For example,
Woong observed:
When I just started playing the game, it was hard to understand what other
players said. I felt isolated and it was like not 5:5 game but 9:1 for me. I felt
like I was alone. But once I learned some terms that game players often use,
I don’t feel so.
There was also some evidence that community members provided assistance
for each other via online chats, as the following comment by Hoon illustrates:
When I first played the game, an American guy asked me if I wanted to learn
English. He taught me game terms and some basic English words and gram-
mar rules for three months through the internet. Now I can enjoy the game
using the game jargons I’ve learned from him.
Many of the participants also clearly felt a sense of affiliation and mutual
engagement through the collaboration with others that was necessary to suc-
cessfully play the game, as can be seen from their responses to statement two
and three in Table 5.1. This was also evident in some of their comments on
the open-ended questions. One participant, for example, commented: ‘I enjoy
communicating with foreign players and have made some friends with them.’
Similarly, in an interview, Young remarked:
Game players show consideration to other players. I think it is a manner

among gamers. As members of a team, we collaborate and help each other.
I can even be shot by the enemy’s shooting to protect one of my team
members.
Table 5.1 Participants’ views on the supportive nature of the online gaming community
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
1. There are some shared rules and 59.3% 25.9% 7.4% 3.7% 3.7%
manners that I need to adhere to
2. While communicating with other 18.5% 33.3% 24.7% 13.6% 9.9%
players, I feel like we are school
friends or neighbours
3. When collaborating with other 32.1% 29.6% 23.5% 9.9% 4.9%
players I feel intimacy even though
we do not meet face to face
4. Everybody is on an equal footing 50.6% 30.9% 12.3% 3.7% 2.5%
regardless of age, gender, race,
nationality or English proficiency
5. People I encounter in the game 25.9% 43.2% 17.3% 11.1% 2.5%
are generally supportive regardless
my English proficiency
1, Strongly Agree; 2, Agree; 3, Neutral; 4, Disagree; 5, Strongly Disagree.
As mentioned earlier in the chapter, one of the perceived benefits of online

gaming communities is that since these take place virtually, things like age, gen-
der, nationality and race are not necessarily visible, and this contributes to the
development of a more democratic learning environment. This was a perspective
that the majority of the participants agreed with as can be seen from statement
four in Table 5.1. This perspective was reinforced by interviews too. For example,
Young commented: ‘People from different countries behave differently in the
game. I know their characteristics but do not discriminate them by their nation-
ality.’ Dong reinforced this view, remarking: ‘I feel that nobody is a foreigner in
the game. We are just equal gamers.’ From a different perspective, Woong argued
that his nationality gave him more, not less status in the community because
as he explained: ‘Some of the Korean players are usually very good at playing
games. So when I tell other players that I am Korean, they treat me special.’
The final statement in Table 5.1 concerned gamers’ views on the extent to
which they felt they experienced discrimination on account of their language
proficiency. As can be seen, the majority of participants (69%) indicated that
game players are generally cooperative regardless of their English proficiency.
Interviewees provided some elaboration on this. For example, Choi explained:
‘People who are fluent in English try to collaborate with those who are not so
good at English. Most of them try to be kind.’ Similarly Myung claimed: ‘Other
players often support me and cheer me up with simple expressions such as
“Good!” and “Nice!” So I feel like there is no language barrier among us.’
Taken together these perspectives highlight that some of the traditional markers
of identity are deprioritized in online gaming communities where participants are
united around achieving common shared goals. As can be inferred from Woong’s
comment above, it seems that status is conferred primarily on the basis of skill in
playing the game, a point also made by Choi, who observed: ‘The game playing skill
is the most important thing because the ultimate goal of playing games is to win.’
The overall picture emerging from these young learners’ accounts is that they
found the online gaming community a supportive and positive interactional
space. Moreover, their comments highlight that even at such a young age they
are aware of the ways in which this allows them to take part on an equal foot-
ing with other community members to achieve shared goals and objectives. As
such, it seems that the conditions of online gaming community might provide
an environment that is conducive to the development of a positive L2 identity.
Below I consider the ways in which this was evident in the accounts of the
young learners who participated in this study.
The impact of the online learning community on young learners’

L2 identity construction and language learning
One of the challenges of asking young people for their explicit views on
identity construction is that they may struggle to articulate or even concep-
tualize the ways in which taking part in an online community can impact
on their sense of themselves as L2 speakers. For this reason, in order to find
out if their experiences had contributed to the development of a positive L2
identity, I tried to approach this indirectly by asking them if their experi-
ences enabled them to imagine themselves as fluent speakers of English in
the future and for their views on who English belongs to. Bearing in mind
the links between L2 identity and motivation and other learning behaviours
mentioned early in the chapter, I also sought out their views on how their
experiences had increased their willingness to communicate and their self-
confidence, which could be seen to be behavioural features associated with
a more positive L2 identity.
Statements one and two in Table 5.2 show that more than sixty percent saw
English as a means for intercultural communication, which seemed to point,
at least indirectly, to their ability to see themselves as legitimate L2 users.
Regarding statement three in Table 5.2, which concerned how their experi-
ences could enable them to imagine themselves as more fluent speakers of
English in the future, the picture that emerged was more mixed. Just under half
suggested that their experiences did enable them to consider this possibility. In
interviews one participant, Woong, elaborated on this, saying:
While I play the game, I have imagined myself freely making jokes in
English with foreign friends. Sometimes, I would talk with foreign friends
on some serious social issues, too. I think it would not happen in Korea but
maybe in an English speaking country like America or England.
However, as can be seen from Table 5.2, others were neutral or uncertain. This
perspective was also evident in interviews. Myung, for example indicated: ‘I
cannot imagine such a great future because I don’t think I will go abroad in
the future and my English skill is far from a fluent level.’ Similarly, Hoon made
the following point:
I have few chances to speak English with foreigners in my real life. I some-
times meet foreigners in my town but have not talked with them. So it is
hard to imagine myself speaking English fluently with foreigners.
Taken together, these responses suggest those young learners’ visions for their
future L2 identity can vary considerably. This seems to reflect how these young
learners’ visions for the future are often grounded in their understanding of
their current reality and more crucially, perhaps, their lack of experience of the
wider world may have made it difficult for them to have envisaged their use of
English beyond the immediacy of the here and now.
An indication of the ways in which their membership of the online gam-
ing community helped them evolve their L2 identity was also evident in their
responses to questionnaire statements and interview comments regarding
their language use in the community. These revealed the ways in which many
claimed to feel less anxious about using English and being happier to take risks.
The responses to statement one and two in Table 5.3, for example, show that
over half of the participants claim to experience a reduction in anxiety about
communicating in English in their interactions online compared to in the real
world, which for these young learners primarily referred to their formal learn-
ing experiences in the classroom.
Table 5.2 Participants’ perspectives on the ownership of English and themselves as users
of English
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
1. While playing the game, I feel English is 37.0% 25.9% 19.8% 13.6% 3.7%
just a language which everybody needs for
conversation
2. While playing the game, I feel English is 12.3% 12.3% 11.1% 42.0% 22.2%
language of American or British people and
not the language of everybody in the world
3. When I play with foreign players as a team, 18.5% 29.6% 25.9% 9.9% 16.0%
I can imagine myself speaking English fluently
in the future

Interviewees gave a number of reasons for this. One was that the primary
focus of the online activity was playing the game, a non-linguistic objective,
which took the pressure off needing to be linguistically accurate. For example,
Choi stated: ‘Because I am completely absorbed in playing games I am not
tense when using English,’ and Young said: ‘the fact that players in the same
team have a common goal makes me feel safe’. Another reason given was that
since they were not visible to others this meant they didn’t feel so exposed. As
Young explained, ‘Since we cannot see each other in games and I will not meet
players after finishing a game I feel less nervous.’
Interviewees also pointed to the impact of their encounters with others on
their perceptions of their own language skills and those of others. For example,
one of the survey participants wrote: ‘Before I tried it out, I had been wor-
ried about not being understood. But they understood me better than I had
expected.’ Another mentioned that ‘I found American people also often make
grammar mistakes while communicating in games.’
These experiences, together with their desire to play the game, led many
to feel greater willingness to communicate as evident from their responses to
statement 3 in Table 5.3, where almost sixty percent indicated their agreement.
Choi explained in his interview, for example:
I tried out my poor English just to contribute to my team’s winning against

the other team. Since it is a team playing game, I realized that it is more impor-
tant to get messages across in the right time than to make perfect sentences.
For Hoon too there was the realization that in order to play the game he should
draw upon his linguistic resources, and in doing so he could open himself up
Table 5.3 Participants’ views on using English in the online gaming community
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
1. I am less nervous of communicating in 35.8% 28.4% 9.9% 14.8% 11.1%

English in the virtual world than in real
world situation
2. I don’t worry about making mistakes 29.6% 27.2% 21.0% 11.1% 11.1%
while communicating in English with
other players
3. I am willing to try to out English while 34.6% 24.7% 23.5% 6.2% 11.1%
playing the game
4. Thanks to the game character I choose, 17.3% 18.5% 16.0% 29.6% 18.5%
I think I have become braver to try out my
English skills

to new knowledge from other participants. As he said: ‘There is no way but to

use all the vocabulary and grammar rules that I know right away in order to
communicate with other players.’ Interviewees also commented in how tak-
ing these risks opened them up to new language learning opportunities. One
participant also observed how rewarding it was to see a positive outcome of his
efforts: ‘I try to use newly learned vocabulary while playing games. When other
players understand what I say and respond accordingly, I feel thrilled.
One of the things I was interested to explore was whether adopting a game
persona had a bearing on their willingness to communicate. I was surprised
to find that, as can be seen from their responses to statement four in Table
5.3, that for just under half of participants this was not perceived to have
an impact, although just over a third did feel that it did. In interviews, par-
ticipants elaborated on their understanding of the relationship between their
choice of a game character and how this affected their ability to take risks or
their willingness to communicate. Hoon made the point that since the choice
of game character resided with the person who was playing the game, this
character couldn’t override the feelings of the player himself. As he said: ‘Even
though characters are varied, the person who controls them is not changed. So
I think I feel the same whichever character I choose for the game.’ Similarly,
Young explained: ‘Different champions [characters] have different positions. I
can be a supporter, a commander, and so on. So I can behave differently, but
in terms of using English, I don’t feel any difference.’
One interviewee, Woong, however, pointed to the strategic ways in which he
selected characters in line with his evolving confidence and language ability.
As he observed:
Depending on the position I choose, sometimes I need to talk more.

Therefore, when I was a beginner of this English game, I chose the position
which does not require much talk. But since I became confident in playing
this game, I have chosen characters which I can play well and not consid-
ered how much I need to talk in the game.
Reflecting on these various responses to questionnaire items and questions I

asked in interviews, there does seem to be a general sense that these young
learners found the conditions of the online gaming community enabled them
to readjust their understanding of themselves as L2 language users. First of
all, their encounters with other users of English led them to develop a more
nuanced understanding of themselves as users of English relative to others in
the community. As a result of their experiences, many appeared to experience
a reduction in communicative anxiety and a greater willingness to communi-
cate. As such, they appeared to develop a more positive L2 identity through
their engagement in this community. This was seen to have a knock-on effect
on their learning, both in terms of motivation and in terms of their language

production and knowledge. As will be seen below, interviews also provided an
indication of how the benefits of their online learning experience transferred
to their off-line informal and formal school experiences.
The positive impact of online learning experience on young

learners’ off-line learning experiences
One of the most insightful results of this study for me was a realization of how
these young learners online experiences appeared to transfer to their off-line
worlds. On the one hand, it was interesting to note that one participant, Dong,
described how the online virtual gaming community spilled over into these
young learners’ informal off-line worlds, providing a source of affiliation and
a focus for discussion in friendship groupings with other gamers in and out of
school. Moreover, that this led to opportunities to transfer and use some of the
new language they had acquired. As he said:
I used terminologies I had used in the game while talking with my friends at
school cafeteria because many of my friends play the same game. Sometimes
we joke in English.
The linguistic benefits of online gaming in their formal school world were also
evident in comments made one of the survey participants:
While playing online games, I have learned some vocabulary like ‘infinity
edge’ and ‘invincible’, and these words appeared in school exams. I also
sometimes guess the meaning of new words through game terms.
In addition to these linguistic benefits resulting from their online gaming, par-
ticipants also talked of the ways in which they felt an increase in motivation and
interest in learning, which appeared to reflect their enhanced self-confidence
as a result of their experiences. An increased motivation was evident in
Myung’s account of seeking out the meaning of new words encountered during
the game. As he said: ‘After playing a game, I looked up some new words in
the dictionary because I became curious about the meaning while playing the
game.’ Similarly, one of the survey participants stated: ‘I have always thought
English was boring. But since I have started playing English online games,
I have begun to be more curious about English.’ Finally, participants increased
self-confidence and the subsequent enhanced self-esteem were also clearly
evident in participants’ accounts. Choi, for example, referred to the increased
status his knowledge of English acquired through gaming gave him in his
friendship group. As he said:
One day, my friends watched me playing the game in English; they were
amazed at how well I could communicate in English with foreigners. I was
proud of myself. I feel like learning English more.
Woong described how his gaming experiences were impacting on his perfor-
mance in his EFL class:
My native English teacher at the academy I attend commented in the report

card that I had been very shy but I have become quite active in his class
these days. I think I have begun to feel less anxious in conversation with
foreigners.
Some final reflections: capitalizing on insights into the positive

impact of online gaming on young learners’ L2 identity
This chapter started with a consideration of the ways in which increased glo-
balization particularly via technology has increased the amount of exposure
to informal English learning opportunities for all EFL learners, including
young learners. I have argued for a need for a greater acknowledgement of
this as well as a better understanding of what this contributes to their overall
foreign language learning experience. While I share the concerns of many
parents and educators in Korea and elsewhere concerning the amount of time
young learners spend in uncensored online activity, the results of the study
reported in this chapter have suggested that joining an online transnational
gaming community appears to provide a number of benefits for young EFL
learners. That is, a more positive self-image of themselves as L2 users leads
them to feel more confident and motivated, and to take greater risks in com-
municating in English.
This study has helped me realize that there is a need to recognize that in an
era of globalization that young learners in our EFL classrooms will potentially
have access to a wide range of English language learning opportunities, and
that there is a need to recognize this and identify what sorts of things they are
doing. If we are more aware of this activity, we are in a better position to work
to incorporate these learning opportunities into our classrooms, which is likely
to positively impact on motivation for in-class formal learning. In addition,
this process can enable us to identify the ways in which our classrooms can
better develop and support out-of-class learning experiences.
As the insights gained from the study I undertook have also demonstrated,
exploring the out-of-class informal English learning opportunities young
learners engage in can also identify some ways in which we might enhance
classroom practice. The participants in the study pointed to a number of quali-
ties of online gaming communities that were conducive to the development
of a positive L2 identity. Firstly, they highlight how the supportive, equitable

nature of the online learning community appeared to increase their positive
self-concept as L2 users, leading to an increased willingness to communicate,
more risk-taking and a reduction in anxiety. It is useful to think about how
the support conditions in online gaming communities might be reproduced.
For example, through an increase of group activities and tasks with motivating
non-linguistic objectives, which encourage learners to try out English without
fear or embarrassment.
The results of this study also point to the ways in which these young learn-
ers’ L2 identity was positively enhanced by the opportunity to interact with
other users of English, both learners of English in other countries as well as
those who speak English as their first language. Although small in scale, the
findings of the study suggested that this allowed them to see themselves as
legitimate users of English and to gain a greater ownership of this global
medium of communication. As a young learner educator, this has highlighted
for me how important it is to try to build opportunities for young learners to
communicate with other users of English worldwide in our classroom prac-
tices. This can be achieved via school twinning programmes, for example,
with schools in countries where English is taught as a first language as well
in those where children are learning English as a foreign language as is the
case in Korea.
To conclude, I hope that this chapter will prove to be thought-provoking
for other young learner educators in thinking about the lessons that can be
learnt for young learner pedagogy through an examination of the sorts of
out-of-class informal English learning opportunities that many young learners
increasingly encounter and engage in. As I have demonstrated in this chapter,
some of these, such as online gaming, appear to provide powerful support for
the development of a positive L2 identity with young learners with important
spin-offs for language learning. I suggest that identifying these opportunities is
an important area for further research and can make an important contribution
to developing our understanding of effective young learner pedagogy.
1. What steps can be taken to identity the out-of-class learning opportunities

available to young learners in your own teaching setting, and how can these
be drawn upon in classroom activities?
2. How can TEYL curricula and materials better represent and support out-of-class
learning opportunities, such as online gaming?
3. The findings of this study suggest that participation in online transna-
tional gaming communities provides a number of benefits such as helping
to support the development of positive L2 identities and a willingness to
communicate. However, they also expose young learners to an adult world,

complete with potentially inappropriate language and behaviours. How can
we draw upon these benefits while ensuring these are safe spaces for young
learners?
References
Benson, P. and Reinders, H. (eds) (2011). Beyond the Language Classroom. Basingstoke:
Palgrave, Macmillan.
Black, R.W. (2009). Online fan fiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the
Teaching of English, 43 (4): 397–425.
Block, D. (2007). Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Bryant, T. (2006). Using World of Warcraft and other MMORPGs to foster a targeted,
social, and cooperative approach toward language learning. Available at: http://
www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/bryant-MMORPGs-for-SLA, [accessed
9/10/2012].
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (eds)
Motivation, Language Identity, and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–42.
Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (eds) (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. London:
Routledge.
Gnutzmann, C. (ed) (1999). Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language. Tubingen:
Stauffenburg.
Kanno, Y. and Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities:
Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2 (4): 241–249.
KOCCA (2012). Korea Game White Paper 2012. Seoul: KOCCA.
Lam, W.S.E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writ-
ing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3): 457–482.
Lam, W.S.E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and
local considerations. Language Learning and Technology, 8 (3): 44–65.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press.
Miller, J. (2003). Audible Difference: ESL and Social Identity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. (eds) (2004). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual
Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Peirce, B.N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,
29 (1): 9–31.
Suh, S., Kim, S.W. and Kim, N.J. (2010). Effectiveness of MMORPG-based instruction in ele-
mentary English education in Korea. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (5): 370–378.
Thorne, S.L. (2003). Artifacts and culture-of-use in intercultural communication.
Language Learning and Technology, 7 (2): 38–67.
Thorne, S.L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open Internet environments and
massively multiplayer online games. In Magnan, S. (ed) Mediating Discourse Online.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 305–327.
Thorne, S.L., and Black, R.W. (2011). Identity and interaction in Internet-mediated con-
texts. In Higgens, C. (ed) Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts. New York: Mouton
de Gruyter, pp. 257–278.
Thorne, S., Black, R.W. and Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learn-
ing in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Review,
93: 802–821.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wi, J.H. and Kim, T.Y. (2010). Academic effectiveness of G-learning: The effect on aca-
demic achievement of elementary school students nT⩂┳O㡾⧒㧎Ợ㧚G ₆⹮G 䞯㔋PG 䆮
䎦䁶㦮G 䞯㔋G 䣾ὒG ⿚㍳G ˀ㽞❇䞯㌳㦮G 䞯㠛㎇䀾☚㠦G ⹎䂮⓪㡗䟻UG 䞲ῃ❪㰖䎎㡗㌗䞯䣢.
Preview, 7 (1): 67–82.
Wi, J.H., Won, E. and Jung, D. (2009). The effectiveness of English teaching and learning
utilizing MMORPG in high school [MMORPG ⯒G䢲㣿䞲Gἶ❇䞯ᾦG㡗㠊Gᾦ㑮䞯㔋㦮G䣾ὒ]
Journal of Modern English Education (Korea), 10 (3): 194–216.
Williams, M. and Burden, R.L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
6
Addressing Intercultural Awareness-
Raising in the Young Learner EFL
Classroom in Poland: Some Teacher
Perspectives
Elżbieta Sowa
Introduction
In recent decades the vast majority of governments worldwide have begun

to give serious consideration to the development of educational policies
to address issues posed by life in an increasingly globalized world. Among
other things, the intensification of contacts between people from different
cultural and linguistic backgrounds by means of advances in technology and
the increasing mobility of peoples worldwide in the 21st century, has led
educational policymakers to focus on ways to develop learners’ intercultural
awareness across the school curriculum. This is seen to comprise helping
learners to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes to enable them to
successfully communicate with people across linguistic and cultural divides,
whether in their own communities or further afield, and in ways that build
mutual understanding, tolerance and respect for difference (Leeman and
Ledoux 2003).
One area of the school curriculum seen as particularly well suited to promot-
ing this intercultural capability is foreign language education, since an under-
standing of the relationship between culture and language and how interaction
across cultures operates is an important component of becoming communica-
tively competent in a foreign language (Byram 1997; Kramsch 1998). Given
this, it is now common for this to be presented as an important curriculum
objective in foreign language programmes at all levels of education worldwide,
including in young learner EFL curricula.
Despite this move, there is often a gap between the stated goals of the cur-
riculum and the reality in terms of what teachers do in the classroom. One
reason for this, as Sercu and Bandura (2007) have noted, is the problem of
resourcing. First of all, the course book itself often provides little support to
help teachers promote intercultural awareness (Kamaravadivelu 2009). This
problem is made even worse by the fact that teachers find it challenging to
104
Intercultural Awareness-Raising with Polish Young Learners 105
identify additional or supplementary resources to help them address the inad-

equacies of their textbooks (Marijarre, 2009). In many contexts there is little
debate about what sorts of materials and activities are effective in developing
intercultural capacity-building and few guidelines are available for teachers in
selecting materials.
The issues raised above are of real concern to many teachers who are charged
with promoting intercultural awareness with primary school EFL learners. In
addition to the problems of resourcing, primary school teachers also need to
consider the cognitive and emotional maturity of the children they are work-
ing with in developing strategies to promote their intercultural capability.
However, again, very little guidance is provided for teachers on this, and very
little discussion has taken place in the literature to date.
In my own professional context in Poland, as in many other European
countries, a key objective of learning a foreign language in the primary edu-
cation sector is to instil in children an awareness of, and positive attitudes
towards, the cultural other. Teachers in Poland have considerable flexibility
in terms of how they can achieve this objective of the foreign language learn-
ing curriculum. While course books endeavour to address this objective, as
Secru and Bandura (2005) report, EFL teachers in Poland, along with many
others in the European Union, are not satisfied with the way course books
handle this and are interested to identify additional resources. Yet many
young learner educators in Poland remain uncertain as to how to do this
effectively.
Recently a growing number of primary teachers in Poland have become
involved with two European Union initiatives, namely The European
Language Label Competition and e-Twinning, to be discussed in more
detail below, which are widely regarded as encouraging innovative practice
in intercultural awareness-raising (see e.g. Zeidler et al. 2007). I am aware
that projects developed by Polish EFL primary school teachers to promote
intercultural understanding within these have been generally well received
by parents and children alike, and given this reaction I decided to approach
four teachers to obtain their accounts of the ways they have used these
materials. My initial motivation was to gain useful insights into possible
resources and instances of good techniques and activities that I and other
teachers might adopt. However, examining their accounts with reference
to existing literature on intercultural awareness-raising both in general and
with young learners in particular, has also led me to identify a number of
issues and questions that I feel can stimulate wider debate among TEYL
educators regarding how we can evolve a pedagogy for promoting this
important facet of our work. The purpose of this chapter is to describe these
accounts and to share the insights that evolved through my critical exami-
nation of them.
106 Elżbieta Sowa
The nature of intercultural awareness-raising and its place in the

primary foreign language classroom
Since intercultural awareness is the term adopted across the European Union
and used in the Polish curriculum I will adopt this in this chapter. However, it
is important to acknowledge that in the literature there are a variety of compet-
ing terms to describe the outcomes of intercultural education (Deardorff 2006).
Intercultural awareness is perhaps most closely linked in the literature with
the term intercultural competence (Byram 1997; Gudykunst 2003), and the
attempts to describe the competencies that are needed to become intercultur-
ally aware developed by Byram have been influential in discussions of peda-
gogy to develop this. Byram identified a number of dimensions of intercultural
competence comprising:
1. Attitudes: curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other

cultures and belief about one’s own culture.
2. Knowledge: of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own
and in the interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal
and individual interaction.
3. Skills: of interpreting and relating, discovering and interacting, and critical
cultural awareness (based on Byram, 1997; Byram et al. 2002).
These dimensions stress the importance of providing an opportunity for learn-

ers to compare and contrast their own cultural worlds with others to reflect
on differences and similarities. That is, to develop an awareness of their own
culturally induced standpoint and the culturally induced standpoint of others
(Tomalin and Stempleski 1993).
In terms of how this can be done, a wider range of activities and techniques
are advocated in the literature. Generally speaking, there has been a move to
recognize the importance of establishing a ‘sphere of interculturality’ (Kramsch
1993: 205) and a move away from merely focusing on transmission of informa-
tion about other cultures. This is seen to require the creation of an authentic
encounter with cultural others. Suggested ways to do this include the provision
of short-stay study abroad opportunities, accessing culturally diverse commu-
nities in the ‘home’ society, opportunities to develop on-line projects between
children in schools in different regions or countries, and the use of literature
and plays that manifest different cultural values and practices (Byram 1998;
Kramsch 1993). In terms of how an intercultural encounter can be exploited for
developing intercultural awareness, a number of pedagogic techniques to pro-
mote reflection and comparison are suggested. These include critical incident
analysis, student research projects, and problem-solving approaches (Byram
et al. 2002; Tomalin and Stempleski 1993).
With regard to materials to promote intercultural awareness with EFL learn-

ers, this has become the focus of considerable debate in recent years (see for
example, Kumaravadivelu 2008). Whereas a traditional focus of many text-
books to promote intercultural awareness has been to introduce and to invite
reflection on target language cultural practices in contrast to the ‘home’ culture
of the EFL learners, this is increasingly being called into question in light of
the growth of English as a lingua franca. Since English is spoken by people in
a wide range of different sociocultural contexts, it is argued that learners need
to work with materials which are more representative of the diverse settings
where English is used (Nault 2008).
In addition, a number of writers (see for example Baker 2012; Nault 2008)
have also pointed out that given the growing interconnectivity between people
and places that is occurring as part of a process of globalization, it is increas-
ingly difficult to distinguish culture on the basis of nation or geographical
location. These perspectives emphasis the teaching of culture as differences
between people (wherever these occur) and the need to focus on the process
of understanding others whose cultural identity is shaped by many different
and diverse cultural influences (Kramsch 1993). They also highlight a need
to foreground the development of the skills dimension in Byram’s framework
above, so that learners are prepared to handle the intercultural aspect of foreign
language communication in any situation where this is encountered. However,
in many settings this skills dimension is often given less attention by teachers
than the promotion of positive attitudes and a cultural ‘facts’ approach to par-
ticular national cultures. For example, a study undertaken into the nature and
scope of pedagogic practices to promote intercultural competence employed in
foreign language education in a number of European countries, showed that
both in the curriculum and in terms of classroom practice, the main emphasis
in all stages of compulsory education was on promoting knowledge of other
cultures and instilling positive attitudes (Meyer 2007). Similarly, a study which
looked at the content of EFL course books in Poland suggested that materials
designed to promote intercultural awareness mainly provided declarative about
different cultures rather than creating the dialogue across cultures necessary to
promote intercultural awareness (Bandura 2007).
Very little has been written to date with regard to how intercultural aware-
ness should be promoted with young EFL learners. To date, to the best of my
knowledge, there are few published accounts of how EFL primary teachers in
particular support young learners’ intercultural awareness, and little critical
consideration has been given to this issue. Nevertheless, among those who
write about the promotion of intercultural awareness with primary school
children in general, this is clearly seen as important. As Santrock (2004: 59)
has observed, for example, it is in childhood that negative or positive stereo-
types are formed, and these tend to be long-lived and continue to impact well
108 Elżbieta Sowa
into adulthood. With regard to when to introduce this, Barrett (2007) stresses
a need to bear in mind children’s cognitive and emotional development. He
suggests that in the early stages of primary school (ages five to six) children
are only just beginning to identify themselves with a country and feel pride in
their national identity. But as they move into middle childhood they begin to
form stereotypes and prejudices about various countries or ethnic groups but
are also able to better identify with others perspectives. As such, Barrett argues
that this is the optimum age to introduce activities designed to promote inter-
cultural awareness-raising (Barrett 2007: 98).
Some clues as to how to promote intercultural awareness-raising with children
learning English as an additional language are also provided by Byram (2008).
Again, bearing children’ cognitive and emotional maturity in mind, he suggests
that with primary school children the focus should be on developing the atti-
tudes and knowledge components of his framework. By building on their exist-
ing knowledge about social practices in their own environment, he argues they
can be encouraged to find similarities and differences between these and those
held by others. However, he argues that the development of meta-awareness of
interculturality through the skills of interpreting and critical reflection is best
left until learners have the cognitive capacity to develop these (Byram 2008: 10).
European initiatives to promote intercultural awareness among

young learners
As mentioned earlier, in European Union (EU) member states addressing

intercultural awareness is viewed as an important priority in teaching foreign
languages. The emphasis on intercultural awareness-raising in teaching EFL in
Poland in the primary curriculum, as in other European countries, is informed
in no small part by wider EU documentation, and educational policymakers
and teachers draw upon this in developing the curriculum and practice in EFL
instruction at a national level. A particularly influential consultative document
for all foreign language educators in European member states is the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). This highlights how
the development of intercultural awareness is crucial to promoting mutual
understanding and acceptance of difference across linguistic and cultural
boundaries (CEFR, 2001). The CEFR has also helped shape another important
document, the European Language Portfolio. This is designed as a pedagogical
resource to encourage learners to not only record and reflect on their language
development but their intercultural development as well (http://www.coe.
int/t/dg4/education/elp/).
Byram’s (1997) framework for the development of intercultural competence
outlined above has informed the four main competences that teachers should
work to develop in the CEFR. These are:
• Declarative knowledge
Knowledge of the world: the knowledge of basic geographical, political and
historical facts.
• Sociocultural knowledge
Knowledge of living conditions, interpersonal relations, values, beliefs, and
gestures and body language.
• Skills and know-how
Practical skills: the ability to notice differences and similarities between the
target and home culture.
• Existential competence
Attitudes towards language learning.
(based on Komorowska 2003: 15)
In the CEFR the importance of teaching study skills to help students to locate
different sources of knowledge about cultural others is also emphasized. This is
closely aligned with an emphasis on project learning in the European Language
Portfolio, which is seen to help school children develop their awareness of
themselves as foreign language learners, and to analyse their strengths and
weaknesses.
As mentioned above, among foreign language educators in EU member states
there is a growing recognition of the limitation of EFL course book content to
promote intercultural awareness. In recognition of this shortcoming, to help
teachers promote pupils’ language and intercultural awareness, a number of
Europe-wide initiatives have been developed that teachers can draw upon to
advance their practice. Two of the most popular are The European Language
Label Competition and e-Twinning. These have been enthusiastically received
by teachers of all educational stages in the EU, including those in the primary
sector, such as in Poland, as discussed above.
The European Language Label Competition
The European Language Label Competition invites teachers to submit projects

that promote the implementation of innovative methods in teaching, includ-
ing in foreign language teaching. It was launched in 2002 as a competition
between institutions, and in 2005 it was extended to include individual teach-
ers. Teachers who submit their projects have to meet certain criteria. The most
important of these are that they should integrate subjects from the school cur-
ricula with a foreign language, and they should promote intercultural aware-
ness with reference to global diversity whether within Europe or beyond. The
projects that are considered most innovative are awarded a certificate signed
by Ministry of National Education at national level (www.cilt.org.uk/home/
valuinglanguages/europenlanguagelabel).
110 Elżbieta Sowa
E-Twinning
The e-Twinning initiative, launched in 2005, focuses on interaction between

classrooms, including foreign language classrooms, in different EU member
states. The initiative’s main aim is to raise awareness of cultural diversity in the
EU. Additional aims are to promote innovative methods of teaching and school
collaboration through the use of technology. Teachers who wish to participate
in the programme need to register on the platform www.etwinning.net and
find a partner with whom they decide the theme and aims of the project. The
project should have an interdisciplinary character and encourage pupils to
learn a foreign language and other subjects from the curricula.
Polish teachers’ accounts of intercultural awareness-raising through

e-Twinning and the European Language Label initiatives
The four Polish public primary school teachers whose accounts are discussed
below will be referred to by the pseudonyms Ania, Jola, Grażyna and Agnieszka.
Two of the teachers (Grażyna and Agnieszka) had recently participated in pro-
jects within the e-Twinning initiative and two (Ania and Jola) had submitted
one-year projects within the European Language Label initiative. It should be
noted that their projects were not awarded a label by the Polish Ministry of
Education.
All four teachers teach the first three grades of primary school (6–9 year old
children) and all were working within the Polish National Curricula framework
for young learners in effect since 2008. This lists a set of operational outcomes
to be achieved by the end of grade 3, namely, that on completion of the third
grade of primary schooling children should:
• know several titles of Polish and European’s children literature;

• be able to list customs and traditions typical for Anglophone and European
culture; and
• demonstrate a positive attitude towards representations of various cultures.
Primary EFL textbooks in Poland broadly reflect these curriculum objectives,

and in line with this include information about children’s lives in various
European countries and declarative knowledge about two major English-
speaking countries, the UK and the USA.
The four accounts below represent the outcome of interviews undertaken
with each teacher. They were asked for the reasons they had decided to take part
in either the e-Twinning initiative or the European Language Label Competition
and to describe the ways in which they employed these to promote intercultural
awareness-raising with their pupils. These interviews, which were audiotaped,
lasted for between 60 and 90 minutes. The first two accounts consider teachers’
engagement with the European Language Label Competition and the second
two relate to their engagement with the e-Twinning initiative. In each account
I first focus on the reasons given for taking part in the projects, the perceived
aim of the project, and then the description of the project they developed.
Each account is followed by a brief summary of key aspects of their approach to
promoting intercultural awareness. A critical discussion of these four teachers’
accounts of promoting intercultural awareness-raising with young learners and
broader implications follows on from this at the end of the chapter.
Promoting intercultural awareness through the European Language Label

initiative
Ania’s project: ‘Learning English through Polish and Romany Fairy Tales
and Legends’
Ania’s project was developed for a class of 6 year old children in which 25
percent of the children were of Roma origin. The Roma people form a sizable
minority in some parts of Poland. Roma children have their own distinctive
cultural and linguistic heritage and often experience difficulties in school in
Poland. Ania’s project was conducted in collaboration with the teaching assis-
tant who supported the Romany pupils.
Ania offered several reasons for why she had decided to develop her own
resources for promoting intercultural awareness-raising with her students.
These reflected her desire to find ways to bring Romany pupils’ culture and
language into the classroom. Ania believed that the content of the course book
negatively impacted on these students. As she said: ‘These pupils are not famil-
iar with Christian festivals. They do not learn as they feel that their culture is
not respected.’ Secondly, Ania mentioned that she felt that by learning about
other cultures the children in her class would become more tolerant towards
people from different cultures. She explained this in the following way: ‘Other
children, like their parents, present negative attitudes towards Roma citizens.
I hope this project will change this hostility.’ Ania described the aim of her
project as sensitizing both Polish and Roma pupils to their cultural heritage
and enhancing curiosity and openness towards other cultures.
The project consisted of two parts.
Part 1: Familiarization with Polish and Roma legends

Ania chose five Polish legends, which were translated into simple English: ‘The
Polish Eagle’, ‘The Golden Duck’, ‘The Basilisk’, ‘The Dragon of Cracow’ and
‘The Three Billy Goats Gruff’. In order to facilitate the understanding of the
texts she adapted them into short plays and prepared large-format illustrations
to be hung on the classroom walls. Ania experienced major problems find-
ing Romany legends in press. Therefore, she established contacts with Roma
112 Elżbieta Sowa
families as a valuable source of information about the past. Their task was to
share the most interesting stories. Five of the most interesting were translated
into simple English, printed and illustrated.
Ania familiarized the children with simplified English versions of the leg-
ends. Later she familiarized the pupils with the most important vocabulary
items connected with the legends. They created an English–Polish dictionary
of these vocabulary items. Finally, they acted out the legends in front of other
pupils from the school, the headmaster and parents.
Part 2: Finding out about the lives of Roma people in the past
The second part of the project was entitled ‘The lives of Roma people in the
past’. Ania established contacts with the Roma Institute in Cracow. The insti-
tution supplied her with valuable information about the lives of Roma people
in the past and photographs of household objects, toys, and clothes used by
Roma families.
Ania invited the representatives of the Roma Institute in Cracow, the organi-
zation whose role is to preserve Romany language and culture, to tell stories
about the Roma past. The children were encouraged to look at photographs
depicting everyday household objects. They took part in a game where they
had to guess what this object was for. Later they participated in a discussion
in Polish about the differences between modern and old-fashioned objects.
Finally, they made an English–Polish picture dictionary of clothes, toys and
household objects.
Reflection on Ania’s project

The procedures Ania developed were primarily designed to increase the chil-
dren’s knowledge of another culture, helping to develop positive images of the
other for Polish children, and, through greater visibility of Roma culture, to
have the effect of increasing a positive attitude towards schooling for the Roma
children. In terms of the resources she developed, these exploited things readily
available in her wider community. The decision to involve parents and members
of the Roma Institute enabled her to create a strong connection between the
children’s in-school and out-of-school worlds. Overall, her account illustrates
how the promotion of intercultural awareness with young children might start
‘at home’ by building an awareness of cultural diversity within children’s imme-
diate worlds, tapping resources that are readily available in the local setting.
Jola’s project: ‘American and Canadian days at our school’

Jola’s project was developed in cooperation with the art teacher in her school
and developed for use with her class of 8 year old pupils.
Jola mentioned several reasons for her decision to develop her own materials
to promote her pupils’ intercultural awareness-raising. First of all she pointed
to the poor quality of the cultural content of the materials in her English
course book, describing these as unattractive and boring. She also explained
how being a teacher of children in grade 3, she was not really constrained by
the demands of the curriculum and had the flexibility and time to ‘sensitize
pupils to different cultures and not focus only on grammatical structures’.
She explained that her project aimed to stimulate interest in Canadian and
American culture by exploring children’s literature, food, and flora and fauna
in these countries. Jola also hoped this would enable children to acquire useful
practical skills such as ordering at a restaurant, and develop study skills.
Her project comprised three parts:
Part 1: Geography and animals

The children made paper maps of the USA and Canada where they marked
major cities such as New York City, Washington, Toronto and Vancouver. Later
they watched documentary material on New York City and Washington, and
participated in a virtual tour of the White House via the Internet. Afterwards
they made a plan of the White House and labelled all the rooms with English
names. They also watched a slide show devoted to Toronto and Vancouver. At
the end pupils undertook small group projects, which entailed identifying and
talking about places worth visiting in these two cities.
As homework they were asked to search the Internet and children’s encyclo-
paedias to identify American and Canadian animal species. Later they printed
the pictures of the animals and labelled them with English and Polish names.
To help the children to memorize the names Jola organized various games such
as bingo and mime games.
Part 2: American and Canadian children’s literature

Jola introduced several children’s stories by American writers: ‘Horton Hatches
the Egg’ and ‘The Cat in a Hat’ by Dr Seuss, and ‘Franklin and the Copycat’ and
‘Franklin’s Expedition’ by Paulette Bourgeois. Because the children only had
limited English vocabulary she asked the children to read Polish translations
of the books. Later they took part in a quiz in English where they were asked
question about the content.
Part 3: American and Canadian food

The children explored different sources of information such as the Internet,
encyclopaedias and interviews with their parents and older siblings to identify
typical American and Canadian food. They studied fast food menus in English
and learned typical vocabulary connected with the ordering of meals. Jola also
assisted children in preparing American-style pancakes. Pupils made a menu in
English and invited children from other classes for a party.
114 Elżbieta Sowa
Reflection on Jola’s project

Jola’s project was designed for work with older learners than Ania’s and sought
to provide pupils with an encounter with a different culture from the one
found in their immediate social worlds, namely, American and Canadian
culture. Arguably, this is appropriate for the needs of children in middle child-
hood, who are conceptually more able to identify with other perspectives
(Barrett 2007). As with Ania’s project above, the focus appeared to be placed on
developing children’s knowledge about other cultural phenomenon, but Jola
also introduced the children to skills they could develop to help them find out
more about these cultures. In Jola’s class the majority of the cultural encounters
were exploited as a vehicle for learning discrete language items. There was no
mention in her account of how children were invited to reflect on differences
between things they encountered about American and Canadian life and life
in Poland.
Promoting intercultural awareness-raising through the e-programme

Grażyna’s project: ‘Our favourite tales from various European countries’
Grażyna also developed her project with 8 year old children and, in keep-
ing with the remit of the e-Twinning initiative, she partnered with a school
in Hungary. The teachers from both institutions decided on a theme for the
project via discussion on the e-Twinning Project Forum and on Google Group.
Granma’s reasons for deciding to twin with a school in Hungary was her
view that this gave her students, many of whom were from an underprivi-
leged district in her city, the chance to interact with other children that they
would not normally have. As she observed, ‘The parents of my pupils do not
have financial resources to pay for a holiday abroad.’ Furthermore, she felt
participation in the initiative enabled her to develop collaborative skills. She
explained this in the following way: ‘I know from experience that children
learn more efficiently in cooperation. In this way they see a purpose of learn-
ing.’ Grażyna mentioned the following aims of the project she developed with
her Hungarian counterpart: to introduce major several well-known writers of
European fairy tales, to learn teamwork skills, and to shape tolerance towards
different cultures.
The project was divided into three parts.
Part 1: Hans Christian Andersen and his fairy tales

The Polish children attended a workshop organized by the Danish Institute on
the life of Hans Christian Andersen and 18th-century Copenhagen. The meet-
ing was recorded on DVD and sent to the Hungarian children in the partner
school. After the workshop the children prepared a model of the house where
Andersen was born. They labelled every room of the house with English names.
Next the children read a simplified English version of one of Anderson’s fairy
tales (the Polish children read ‘The Ugly Duckling’ and the Hungarian children
read ‘The Snow Queen’). They acted out the fairy tale for the pupils from the
other group online. Then the children in the Polish school prepared a model
of a farmyard with geese, ducks, hens and turkeys made of modelling clay and
the Hungarian children made a model of the Snow Queen’s castle.
Part 2: Charles Perrault and 17th-century France

In the second part of the project the Polish and Hungarian children took part
in a video conference organized by the French Institute in Budapest on a typi-
cal day for a French child in the 17th century. They learned how to greet and
say goodbye, how to ask a partner to dance or to invite them to a meal in
French and English. The children also had an opportunity to dance a minuet –
a typical 17th-century dance. In the classrooms the pupils read simplified
English version of Charles Perrault’s fairy tales. The Polish children read ‘The
Donkey Skin’ and the Hungarian children read ‘The Fairies’. Then they made a
puppet show, which they shared online and prepared a quiz on the content of
the fairy tale for children in the partner school to complete.
Part 3: The world of Astrid Lingren’s stories

In this part of her project, Grażyna and the teacher in the partner school in
Hungary focused on the Swedish writer Astrid Lingren, and the children from
both classrooms explored one of her stories, ‘The Six Children of Bullerbyn’.
Because of the difficulty accessing a simplified English version of this story,
the children in both schools read its translated version. They also watched an
English movie based on the story. They discussed whether the creators of the
film faithfully recorded the content of the book. Finally they organized ‘a fash-
ion show’ for their colleagues from the other classroom. It was entitled: ‘In the
Bullerbyn village’. Costumes was illustrated and labelled with English names
and shared with children in the partner school.
Reflection on Grażyna’s project

Grażyna’s project, as with those described above developed by Ania and Jola,
placed a strong emphasis on promoting cultural awareness by examining lit-
erature. However, it is interesting to note that the focus seemed to be more
on examining the cultural heritage of three major European countries they
explored through the fairy tales rather than on developing an understanding of
cultural practices in modern-day Europe. It is also intriguing why Grażyna and
the Hungarian teacher with whom she was twinned did not decide to exploit
the opportunity they had to help children learn about each other’s cultural
practices. It appeared that Grażyna and the Hungarian teacher saw e-Twinning
116 Elżbieta Sowa
more as a way for them to collaborate in planning together than as a way

to promote intercultural awareness-raising between the children themselves.
Grażyna suggested that this was because it was felt the children had limited
communication skills and would have faced problems exchanging ideas of
cultural practices.
Agnieszka’s project: ‘Cracow: Melting pot of different cultures’

Like Grażyna, Agnieszka also developed her e-Twinning project with 8 year old
children. Agnieszka linked with a second grade class in an English-medium
international school located in the same city, Cracow. The class in the interna-
tional school comprised children from British, American, Irish, Canadian, New
Zealand and Polish nationality.
Agnieszka’s motivation for developing this project was twofold. Firstly, she
felt this could help raise her pupils’ awareness of the increasingly multicultural
nature of Cracow. As she said: ‘My school is located in the scruffy part of the
city. My pupils seldom visit the centre, therefore they assume that the foreign-
ers can only be seen outside the Polish borders.’ Secondly, she pointed to the
advantages connected with communication with the more fluent speakers
of English in the International school: ‘The majority of the children in my
classroom come from underprivileged backgrounds and often do not see any
purpose in learning. Contact with children who speak English well will moti-
vate them to learn.’ This reasoning was closely aligned with the stated aims of
her project, which were to provide opportunities for her pupils to get to know
children from other countries, which could benefit their language skills and
raise their intercultural awareness.
Agnieszka’s project consisted of four parts spanning an entire school year and
was repeated over a three-year period. Every year children from both schools
explored two different cultures of some of the children in the class in the
international school. At the time I interviewed her, the focus was on Italian
and Slovakian culture.
Part 1: Italian geography

During this part of the project the children from both schools met to work
together to identify sights of interest to tourists by examining some guidebooks
about Italy. Together they planned a one-week trip. They made a map of Italy
where major cities and monuments were marked. They also watched a docu-
mentary about Mount Etna and prepared a paper model of a volcano.
Part 2: Italian children’s literature

In the second part of the project, the children from the Polish primary school
attended a show prepared by their colleagues from the international school
based on Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi. They made comparisons between the

original and adapted version of the fairy tale. Afterwards the children prepared
a dictionary of the words associated with the tale.
Part 3: Slovakian sights of interest and fauna and flora

The focus of the third part of the programme was on Slovakian culture. The
children from both schools worked separately on developing a list of places
worth visiting in Slovakia. Agnieszka explained that the children then worked
on a project together in two languages (Polish and English), which involved
them in creating a description of the most interesting places to visit in Slovakia
and illustrating this with pictures. They also participated in a multimedia show
devoted to presentations of Slovakia’s national parks. Afterwards they created
a dictionary of typical flora and fauna found in these parks.
Part 4: Slovakian food

In this stage of the project the children from both schools visited the Slovakian
Institute in Cracow together. They familiarized themselves with typical
Slovakian dishes including ‘halusky’ (pasta with grated cottage cheese and pork
fat). They then prepared halusky in class, translated the recipe into English and
posted it on their e-Twinning project website.
Reflection on Agnieszka’s project

The project described by Agnieszka sought to promote intercultural awareness-
raising by drawing upon local resources in the form of the multicultural and
linguistic community found in an English-medium international school in
the city where she teaches. In contrast to the other e-Twinning programme
described by Grażyna above, this focused on promoting intercultural awareness-
raising between the children taking part in the e-Twinning project themselves.
This was achieved by creating face-to-face collaborative learning opportunities
and through an exploration of the cultural heritage of individual children in
the international school. As with the other projects described above, the focus
was on creating links to other aspects of the school curriculum, notably, geog-
raphy, food and children’s literature.
Some reflections on the promotion of intercultural awareness

with young learners in the teachers’ accounts
A central purpose of my inquiry was to gain insights and inspiration for prac-
tice in promoting intercultural awareness in the young learner EFL classroom.
To some extent this was achieved. Firstly, the accounts above present a number
of different activities and techniques and some potential resources that could
118 Elżbieta Sowa
be utilized by young learner EFL teachers, whether in Poland or elsewhere. In

addition, broadly speaking, their practices are in line with an activity-based
and child-centred approach that is widely advocated in the literature as effec-
tive pedagogic practice for teaching English to young learners (Cameron, 2002;
Pinter, 2006). These teachers’ approaches also reflect the current thinking
regarding appropriate practice for promoting intercultural awareness-raising
with young learners in the limited literature that is available. Drawing upon
the work of Barrett (2007), for example, it would seem that Ania’s focus on
the immediate world of the classroom is appropriate to her 6 year old learners
since at this age learners are just beginning to form a sense of national identity
(Barrett, 2007). By examining the cultural heritage of some children in her
class, this provided them with an opportunity to evolve a more multicultural
understanding of Polish society and nationality. In the other accounts where
teachers worked with 8 year old children, the move towards an exploration of
cultural perspectives in other settings is also in line with Barrett’s (2007) rec-
ommendations that these things can start to be introduced at this age to help
address emerging prejudices and stereotypes.
The approaches taken by these teachers have, however, also highlighted a
number of issues and raised questions for me regarding what can be achieved
and what is effective practice in developing intercultural awareness with young
learners. First of all, it is interesting to reflect on the content that these teach-
ers concentrated on in their projects. It is noticeable that fairy tales and folk
tales were given a prominent place in all accounts. Similarly, in all accounts
emphasis was placed on integrating English with other school subjects (such
as geography and history). This choice of content reflects (and may also have
been constrained by) the objectives set by the Polish curriculum. It also reflects
the criteria of the EU European Language Label Competition and e-Twinning
initiatives. While it might be argued that this content is appropriate to help
build young learners’ knowledge and develop positive attitudes, as Byram
(2008) maintains, nevertheless, I suggest the content chosen and the way it was
addressed also had a number of limitations.
Regarding the emphasis on literature, for example, while this is seen as a
valuable resource in intercultural awareness-raising (see e.g. Valdes 1986), it
is only one of a number of ways of promoting this. In addition, since a range
of literary text types is seen as best able to address cultural norms and values
(Kramsch 1998), questions might be raised as to how effective it is to over-
rely on fairy tales and myths and legends as the teachers who took part in my
inquiry did. Turning to the development of intercultural awareness-raising
through an exploration of other subject areas in the school curriculum, this
tended to push teachers towards the development of a ‘cultural facts’ approach
to addressing culture. This provided learners with the opportunity to learn
about flora and fauna, facts and figures, and the historical and cultural heritage
of various countries, but few activities were presented that would enable them
to consider the ways in which these did or did not relate to their own experi-
ences in Poland.
As was discussed earlier in this chapter, arguably young learners in pri-
mary school settings have neither the psychological readiness (Byram 2008)
nor the linguistic proficiency to enable them to engage in discussion and
reflection activities, and this helps perhaps explain why explicit efforts to
encourage their learners to consider the links and relationships between
their worlds and the cultural worlds of others they were exposed to was not
evident in these teachers’ accounts. Nevertheless, I argue that this does not
mean that young learner educators should not pay attention to the quality
of the experiences of interculturality they provide, and I suggest that the
approaches taken in these accounts demonstrated, in different ways, a num-
ber of missed opportunities for raising these children’s implicit awareness of
interculturality.
In these accounts, for example, there is a tendency to view encounters with
‘culture’ as primarily providing a vehicle for promoting language competence
rather than as a way to develop intercultural competence, which is an impor-
tant aspect of overall communicative competence in a target language (Byram
1997). Moreover, while children are encouraged to develop knowledge of cul-
tures, the importance of creating a ‘sphere of interculturality’ (Kramsch 1998)
is downplayed. There is no mention of getting children to describe their own
practices as well as those of the cultural ‘other’ in these accounts. In addition,
while the e-Twinning initiatives provide the possibility for children to inter-
act in ways that allow them to experience interculturality at an interpersonal
level, this is primarily seen as promoting inter-class collaboration, particularly
in Grażyna’s account.
Finally, a tendency to equate culture with nation in many of these accounts
also provides a superficial view of culture given the manner that globalization
is complicating the ways in which individuals are constructing their cultural
identity, as mentioned earlier in the chapter. A focus on national cultures may
also serve to reinforce and generate stereotypes rather than work to reduce
them. As Jones and Coffey have observed, ‘to prepare children for a fast-
changing world of cultural mixing and global communication where the need
to adapt to changing circumstances and different social contexts is essential’
(Jones and Coffey, 2006: 137) requires that young learner educators provide
models of culture that will help with this task. One of the ways to do this is to
follow the lead of Ania and Jola, who chose to exploit the multilingual reali-
ties already present in their young learners’ worlds, both in and outside the
classroom. Exploring cultural differences ‘at home’ can help build awareness
among young learners of the complex cultural make-up of all societies. With
older young learners exploring this at a global level through the opportunities
120 Elżbieta Sowa
provided by electronic media might be a useful way to extend this important

agenda for young foreign language learners.
Some final thoughts: the importance of supporting teachers in

promoting intercultural awareness-raising with young learners
As discussed above, the inquiry undertaken with these teachers has generated
some interesting insights into an aspect of teaching English to young learn-
ers that has received limited attention to date. My investigation has led me
to uncover a number of possible ways in which to promote children’s inter-
cultural awareness-raising, and has helped highlight some of the issues that
need to be addressed. Young learner teachers are often faced with inadequate
resources to promote intercultural awareness-raising with young learners, and
many, such as those whose accounts are reported in this chapter, will take steps
to try to address this important curricula objective. The European Language
Label competition and the e-Twinning initiative in the EU served to motivate
the four teachers whose projects I have described in this chapter, and provided
them with a framework within which they could develop their ideas.
Undertaking this inquiry has also highlighted the ways in which teachers’
underpinning beliefs and assumption about culture and what intercultural
awareness-raising implies inform the ways in which teachers will approach
this with learners. Thus, helping teachers to locate and effectively exploit
resources also requires the provision of professional development opportuni-
ties to critically engage with what is meant by culture and interculturality. As
Secru (2006) argues, teacher education programmes that work to address this
can help bridge the current gap between current theoretical understandings of
intercultural awareness-raising and the efforts of teachers to promote it, as has
been illustrated in this chapter. This is, I suggest, central to evolving pedagogic
practices that will lead to meaningful intercultural awareness-raising with
young EFL learners.
1. The teachers who took part in the small-scale inquiry reported in this chap-
ter were seen to favour a cultural ‘facts’ approach to intercultural awareness-
raising that focuses on increasing learners’ knowledge and positive attitudes
towards different cultural groups, but much less on developing important
intercultural skills of reflection and comparison. I have argued that there
are a number of things that these teachers could have done to promote
these. Reflect on the young learners you work with. Would it be possible to
develop these intercultural awareness skills with them, and how might this
be done?
2. It has been suggested that exploring diversity ‘at home’ is an important

way to create meaningful intercultural encounters for young learners. How
far and in what ways could the immediate world outside the classroom be
exploited to do this in a teaching context you are familiar with?
3. Developing teachers’ awareness of the theoretical debates about culture and
how to promote intercultural awareness is important. This can help ensure
they make informed decisions about suitable resources and ways to exploit
these effectively. Yet in many settings this is not addressed in teacher educa-
tion programmes. What steps can be taken to ensure that teachers obtain
the input and support they need?
References
Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT
Journal, 66 (1): 62–70.
Bandura, E. (2007). Nauczyciel jako mediator kulturowy. Kraków: Tertium.
Barrett, M. (2007). Children’s Knowledge, Beliefs and Feelings about Nations and National
Groups. Hove: Psychology Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2008). Intercultural competence and foreign language learning in the primary
school. In Byram, M. (ed) From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural
Citizenship: Essays and Reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 77–86.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B. and Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension
in Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Brussels: Council of Europe.
University Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deardorff, D. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10 (3):
241–266.
Gudykunst, W.B. (2003). Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication (4th edn).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jones, J. and Coffey, S. (2006). Modern Foreign Languages 5–11: A Guide for Teachers.
London: Routledge.
Komorowska, H. (2003). Europejski system opisu kształcenia językowego w pracy nauc-
zyciela. Języki obce w szkole, 6: 74–80.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In Byram, M. (ed)
Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through Drama and Ethnography.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–31.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural Globalization and Language Education. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Leemann, Y. and Ledoux, G. (2003). Intercultural education in Dutch schools. Curriculum
Inquiry, 33 (4): 385–399.
122 Elżbieta Sowa
Marijarres, N. (2009). Intercultural competence: Another challenge. Profile Issues in

Teachers’ Professional Development, 11.
Meyer, B. (2007). The Intercultural Competences Developed in Compulsory Foreign Language
Education in the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/404_
en.htm [accessed 13/8/2012].
Nault, D. (2008). Going global: Rethinking culture teaching in ELT context. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 19 (3): 314–328.
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2010). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science
Students and Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.
Santrock, J. (2004). Children. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.
Schaffer, H. (2005). Psychologia dziecka. Warszawa: Biblioteka Psychologii współczesnej.
Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisi-
tion of a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17 (1): 55–72.
Sercu, L. and Bandura, E. (2005). Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An
International Investigation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Tomalin, B. and Stempleski,
S. (1993). Cultural Awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Valdes, J. (1986). Culture Bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Zeidler, B., Galvin, C., Gilleran, A., Hogenbrick, P., Hunya, M. and Selinger, M. (2007).
Reflections on eTwinning: Cultural understanding and interaction. Available at: http://
www.etwinning.net/shared/data/etwinning/general/pag_iii.pdf [accessed 19/10/2012].
7
Globalization, Plurilingualism
and Young Learners in
Mexico and Beyond
Caroline Linse and Alina Gamboa
Introduction
We live in a world that is increasingly multilingual, where people and the

accompanying languages that they speak are no longer confined to a specific
geographical context or even a single family. This has occurred as a result of
increased mobility and contact between peoples in the 21st century. The result
is that many children today are fortunate to have access to, and are often in
the process of acquiring proficiency in, more than one language (Cummins
2001; Wang 2008). That is, in developing plurilingual competence, a composite
competence comprised of the development of evolving language proficiency in
two or more languages (Coste et al. 2009). Bourdieu (1993) invoked the term
linguistic capital to describe being in possession of the language proficiency
and competencies required to successfully meet particular societal demands.
In the 21st century, plurilinguistic competence is increasingly recognized as
advantageous as it provides individuals with a valuable form of capital in light
of the complex linguistic demands placed on individuals in an increasingly
multilingual globalized world (Canagarajah and Liynage 2012).
An appreciation of the importance of plurilingual competence has been
central to the recent calls for the development of plurilingual pedagogic strate-
gies (Breidbach 2003). Plurilingualism as a pedagogic construct has its origins
in a study commissioned in the late 1990s by the Council of Europe, which
informed a view of modern second or foreign language teaching and learning
as a complex equation where different languages and cultures are seen to be
interwoven and drawn upon to collectively enhance communication (Coste
et al. 2009). In viewing languages as in dynamic interplay, plurilingual peda-
gogy can be seen to support and extend the often-maligned premises of bilin-
gual education (Taylor and Snoddon 2013).
Plurilingualism can be invoked as a pedagogic principle to facilitate the
learning of any cluster of languages (Willans 2013). In this chapter we are
123
124 Caroline Linse and Alina Gamboa
interested to describe its importance and how it can be used to inform the
teaching of English to young learners. Given the status of English as a key
world language in the 21st century, English is widely viewed by governments
and parents alike as one of the most important forms of linguistic capital a
child can attain. It is frequently prioritized over other languages in foreign
language policy decision-making worldwide, and has in some contexts become
a medium of instruction for the delivery of content areas, such as via the
Content and Language Integrated Learning movement within the European
Union (Eurydice 2006). The exponential growth of the teaching of English
to primary school children worldwide in the past two decades is also a reflec-
tion of the elevation of English to global language status (Johnstone 2009).
The lucrative private school market in many countries is another very visible
example of this (Chandler 2010). In addition, increasing numbers of parents
are enrolling their children in bilingual or international schools so that they
can develop language skills in a target language (typically English) that differs
from what they speak at home (Gallagher 2011).
While it seems unlikely that English will lose this status as lingua franca
anytime soon, the preoccupation with this among governments and parents
is also raising concerns. One of these concerns is the impact of prioritizing
English instruction from an early age on the preservation and maintenance of
other languages that are also part of a child’s linguistic repertoire, with some
suggesting that the expansion of world languages such as English will eventu-
ally cause more minority, including indigenous, languages to become extinct
(Crystal 2000). Drawing upon an increasing body of research that supports the
notion of languages co-existing and forming a language ecology, questions are
also being raised about the detrimental effects of the continued prevalence of
monolingual instructional practices in English classes. These practices, it is
argued, create artificial divisions between languages that are both counter-intu-
itive and counter- productive to the required plurilingual competence needed
for success in a multilingual global world (Taylor et al. 2008).
Haugen (1972) introduced the concept of language ecology to describe the
dynamic nature of languages and various forms of linguistic capital, and how,
as languages interact with the environment, these may or may not be passed
on to others, nurtured and encouraged to flourish, or even allowed to die.
Within the context of growing plurilingualism, it is argued that language edu-
cators should work to create a positive linguistic ecosystem, by adhering to the
basic tenets of linguistic ecology and ensuring that learners’ existing linguistic
capital is respected and encouraged to coexist in the English language learning
classroom (Mühlhaüsler 1996). Finally, as more and more English language teach-
ers are walking into classrooms typified by linguistic diversity and face challenges
posed by their pupils’ differential access to English in their out-of-school worlds
via technology and other media, it is increasingly argued that it is important
Globalization, Plurilingualism and Young Learners in Mexico 125
to take concrete steps to honour all the linguistic capital that children possess
(Coste et al. 2009). In addition, as Jessner (2006) reports, there is empirical
evidence from a variety of studies that children benefit cognitively when they
speak more than one language, and even if they are just in the process of learn-
ing a new language.
As young learner language educators within the realm of global ELT, along
with a growing number of other young learner EFL educators, we subscribe to
the view that it is important to help nurture a positive linguistic ecosystem
by identifying the existing sources of linguistic capital that children have and
ensuring that these are protected, respected and drawn upon as a resource
in the classroom. But we would concur with the view of Garton et al. (2011)
that teachers often struggle to address language variation effectively in the
classroom. While there is a growing body of work that explores the use of
plurilingualism as an instructional tool in classroom settings where English is
a public and/or an official language (Garcia, 2013; Stilles and Cummins 2013),
little work is currently available on how to support teachers as they evolve
plurilingual strategies in settings where English is taught as a foreign language.
With this in mind, this chapter seeks to contribute to this emerging interest
on addressing plurilingualism in instructional settings by outlining a proce-
dure for those who work with young EFL learners to build upon the different
linguistic capital that the children themselves bring to the ELT classroom. We
illustrate this with reference to the ways we feel this can be proceduralized and
localized in Mexico. Mexico is an excellent illustrative case of two different and
significant types of linguistic capital that children may hold, which need to be
given consideration by teachers in the young learner classroom and which are
reflected in other settings: firstly, indigenous language capital – in Mexico, 6.5
percent of the population speak indigenous languages; secondly, variable degrees
of English language capital that children have access to in their out-of-school
worlds. In Mexico this is particularly marked owing to its proximity to the
USA. Currently there are around 300,000 minors in the school system who
returned from the US to Mexico between 2005 and 2010, often with English
language capital that may be superior to their school-based Spanish language
capital (Cave 2012).
Overview of the proposed framework
The framework we propose, shown in Figure 7.1, comprises a number of steps

or stages that form a process underpinned by the conceptual premises outlined
above and informed by the generation of empirical data through the enhance-
ment of a well-established process known as the home language survey. While
we envisage that these procedures may be used in their entirety, teachers and
other educational and linguistic stakeholders might equally use them only in
STAGE 1. Description of context and sources of linguistic capital
STAGE 2. Development of a Language Contact Survey
STAGE 3: Developing a Plurilingual Language Policy
STAGE 4. Developing Instructional Practices to build upon

learners’ linguistic capital
Figure 7.1 Proposed framework to identify and build upon young learners’ linguistic
capital
part as a means to begin the journey of plurilingual recognition and validation

that is child- and community-focused.
The framework we propose is organic and begins with a contextual descrip-
tion of the country, region or community that the child and his or her family
call home, and the various sources and types of linguistic capital that young
learners may possess or have access to. This is the basis for the development of
a language contact survey and subsequently the development of an educational
language policy statement based on a positive stance towards plurilingualism
whether at a school, regional or national level. The process concludes with a
consideration of contextual-based pedagogic practices that can be introduced
to build upon learners’ linguistic capital and preserve and develop learners’ and
children’s linguistic ecosystems.
STAGE 1. Description of context and sources of linguistic capital

The description of the overall context is an important reference point that pro-
vides educators with a sense of the types of cultural, political, socioeconomic,
ethnic and linguistic environments within which children live, and their role
in the development of different forms of linguistic capital. A number of schol-
ars, including Kumaravadivelu, (2011) and Hornberger (2009), have observed
that the development of appropriate language classroom practice requires that
educators develop an awareness of and responsiveness to the context surround-
ing the classroom. Moreover, as Duff (2007) observes, moving between L1 and
L2 communities and becoming a fully-fledged member of the L2 community
is often heavily influenced by a range of prior experiences and enriched by
levels of involvement that learners have had in other linguistic communities.
Understandings of learning, such as the sociocultural theory described by
Lantolf and Thorne (2007), also help highlight the way the social world medi-
ates language acquisition processes and how teachers are tasked with helping
to scaffold and support children in managing the language requirements of
these social arenas.
The Mexican societal and educational context and sources of linguistic capital
Different geographical locales provide their own educational milieu and
sources of linguistic capital, and it is important for educators to consider the
impact of a given setting on the linguistic resources and the value attached to
these. Mexico is typical of many countries where plurilingualism is increasingly
prevalent, and there is some recognition of this in the educational provision
especially in the US/Mexico border region (de la Piedra and Guerra 2012). Thus,
although in Mexico Spanish is the language used for government activities
and commerce and is widely spoken, it is not designated as the national or
official language in Mexican legislation, and there are a number of other living
indigenous languages including Mayan, Mixtec, Nahuatl and Zapotec spoken
by approximately six and a half million people or 6.5 percent of the Mexican
population (http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/poblacion/lindigena.aspx?tema=P).
These languages are protected and actively promoted by the Mexican constitu-
tion, and the Secretary of Public Education (SEP) in Mexico is officially com-
mitted to ensuring that children speaking indigenous languages are educated
in their home languages even though often Spanish emerges as the dominant
linguistic force (Azuara and Reyes 2011). Numerous public schools provide
bilingual education in learners’ indigenous languages as well as Spanish.
Given the increasingly mobile nature of the world’s population, communi-
ties of speakers of particular languages are springing up in many large cities
in countries around the globe. Mexico is no exception in this respect, and the
multilingual nature of Mexican society is further enriched by the existence of
numerous speakers of other languages residing throughout Mexico, with pock-
ets of speakers of different languages especially congregated in Mexico City. For
example, there are several hundred thousand Arabic speakers and over thirty
thousand Chinese speakers in Mexico (Lewis et al. 2013). Moreover, multilin-
gual families are increasingly commonplace in Mexico, as elsewhere.
Any discussion of context needs to include the wider geopolitical context,
which has important ramifications for language contact and which languages
are prized as sources of linguistic capital. As mentioned earlier, the fact that
English is an important language for international trade, science, technology
and increasingly for higher education as well, is fuelled in no small part by
the strong economic and political power of some key English-speaking coun-
tries, most notably the USA. It is therefore not surprising that educational
policymakers and parents around the globe have prioritized this language in
foreign language education for young learners. In this respect, Mexico is no
different, and the Secretary of Public Education (SEP) in Mexico has attempted
to introduce English language instruction to all primary school students in
Mexico, regardless of economic capital (http://www.iea.gob.mx/webiea/sisema_
educativo). Even without this emphasis on English in their school world, many
children will be aware of the significance of English as an important form of
linguistic capital in Mexico because, as is the case in other contexts, English
permeates the daily lives of many Mexican children via television shows and
other electronic media, such as computers and electronic games.
Although from the above, it is evident that there are parallels between
Mexico and many other settings where English is taught as a foreign language,
the geopolitical context in Mexico is also unique in some respects owing to
its close proximity to the USA, where English is spoken by 80 percent of the
population. This has undoubtedly contributed to the perceived importance of
English among Mexicans as a whole and to the orientation that children have
towards this language. One of the results of bordering the USA has been a great
deal of northbound immigration from Mexico to its richer northern neigh-
bour in the interests of securing work and a better standard of living. In 2011
alone there were over 32 million northbound crossings on the Texas border
between the USA and Mexico (http://texascenter.tamiu.edu/texcen_services/
border_crossings.asp). Many of these crossings are done by individuals known
as transfronterizos or border dwellers/crossers, who develop plurilinguistic com-
petence as they navigate the languages and cultures on both sides of the US/
Mexico border (de la Piedra and Guerra 2012). In addition, both well-to-do
families and those who are less well-off who live in regions of Mexico that
border the USA will also take measures to try to ensure that their children
receive a US education, which is considered to be of high quality. Since this is
normally undertaken through the medium of English, this is also seen to give
their children an educational advantage and the ability to develop this prized
form of linguistic capital in the global market place (Gilmer and Cañas 2005).
From the above it is evident that children have access to a range of forms of
linguistic capital in Mexico, as is often the case in many other settings world-
wide. It is also evident that while English is undoubtedly one of these, children
are likely to hold different degrees of existing competency and proficiency in
English. This phenomenon is increasingly impacting ELT classrooms and chal-
lenging EFL teachers such as in East Asia with students returning after study
abroad in English-speaking countries, as Song (2011) observes.
In Mexico, official records reveal that Mexican children who have attended
school in the USA and have returned to Mexico and enrolled in Mexican
schools face a lack of acknowledgement, for the most part, of the academic and
linguistic capital they have acquired in the United States (Zuniga and Hamann
2009). According to Zuniga and Hamann (2009), English language teachers
in Mexico are aware only in a very few cases that some of their learners have
received US education even though in portions of Central Mexico over 1.7

percent of school children have received education in the USA. This lack of
acknowledgement of their pre-existing English language linguistic capital is in
spite of the fact that many transnational children have difficulty with Spanish
when they return from the USA to Mexico, as Orellana et al. (2000) and Cave
(2012) report. It stands to reason that children are not going to develop any
plurilinguistic competence in the classroom if the school has not even recog-
nized their extra linguistic capital. This particular example highlights the fact
that many EFL young learner educators do not have a mechanism for identify-
ing information about children’s varied access to different sources of linguistic
capital, and it is to help address this shortcoming that we would propose the
second stage of the framework, the development of a language contact survey.
STAGE 2. Development of a language contact survey

To help schools and teachers to become aware of the specific sources of linguis-
tic capital that children have, the information gained about the context from
stage one of the proposed framework could serve as a basis for the second stage.
This is the development of a language contact survey, which can be drawn
upon to develop a language policy (stage 3) and pedagogical practices to build
upon children’s linguistic capital (stage 4), to be discussed below.
The practice of surveying children’s linguistic capital to develop and design
programmes for language minority students is already well established in the
United States via the use of Home Language Surveys that virtually all parents
complete when they enrol their children in US schools (Callahan et al. 2010;
Zehr 2010). An analysis of exemplar Home Language Surveys in the US reveals
that more often than not the survey only seeks out information about the
child’s language use in the home and does not consider other forms of linguis-
tic capital they might have access to within the community (Bailey and Kelly
2013). Moreover, the focus is often on considering what steps to take to sup-
port them with the demands of an English medium education, rather than the
development of their plurilingual competence, and this is why this survey is
typically accompanied by assessment of their current levels of English language
proficiency (Bunch 2011).
As an improvement to the practice used in the US, the purpose of the survey
proposed here is to begin the linguistic recognition process through the devel-
opment and implementation of a language contact survey that is linked to and
draws upon the empirical data obtained from a consideration of all the sources
of linguistic capital in a given societal and educational setting as detailed in
Stage 1 above. Unlike many versions of the Home Language Survey used in
the United States this proposed survey would also attempt to ascertain what
language or languages a child may have been exposed to in other situations
in addition to the home and the wider community. In the case of Mexico, it
Indigenous Languages
Are any indigenous languages spoken in your home or community?
If so which indigenous language or language(s) are spoken?
Languages Spoken in the Home and with Extended Family

What language(s) do you speak at home with your child?
What other language(s) are spoken in your home and with extended family
members?
What language(s) does your child speak?
What language(s) do you think that your child prefers to speak?
What language(s) has your child been exposed to either in the past or currently?
What languages has your child spoken in former places of residence?
Languages Learned as a Result of Travel

Have you or your child visited English speaking countries? If so how frequently?
Languages Learned at Skills in Different Languages

What language(s) has your child studied or learned in school?
What language(s) can your child understand, speak, read and write?
What types of schools has your child attended? How many hours a week were in
English?
Media
What language(s) does your child watch on TV, use on the computer, Internet,
video and audio players?
Figure 7.2 Indicative proposed content of a language contact and linguistic capital
survey
would also seek to establish whether these children have been schooled in the
USA. Thus this proposed survey also differs from the US surveys because one
of the aims is to preserve and utilize the home language rather than merely to
get the children to transition into English.
Listed in Figure 7.2 are sample questions that could be included in such a sur-
vey, which would be targeted at parents. These questions have been developed
to help teachers identify the language contact and linguistic capital of Mexican
schoolchildren. While these are largely generic, they may need to be adapted
by teachers administering such a survey in different social and cultural settings
based on the outcomes of the first stage of the framework.
Although it may seem straightforward to design and administer a language
contact survey there are some sensitive issues that need to be addressed relat-
ing to parental language, literacy levels and, in some settings, such as Mexico,
experiences with immigration. It is likely that it will need to be administered
in the home language rather than English, meaning that it may also be helpful
to have different versions to enable parents who speak indigenous languages to
complete it. It is also worthwhile to have cultural informants representing dif-
ferent groups of parents review the survey before it is administered so as to tease
out any sensitive issues. When asking about languages learned as a result of
travel, for example, in Mexico, this may cause some concern, as many Mexicans
have resided in the USA without the appropriate legal documentation, and it
is important to check that this question does not inadvertently shame parents
and lead to their not completing the survey. In addition, ideally each family
would be asked to complete the survey with their child’s name listed on the
form so that the teachers could tailor instruction for the particular child. On the
other hand, in some cases, parents may prefer to complete the survey anony-
mously if they wish, for example, to be discreet regarding the way that their
children attained English language linguistic capital. Finally, the survey could
either be administered in written form or conducted as an oral interview for any
parents who may not possess literacy skills.
STAGE 3: Developing a plurilingual language policy

After identifying the different linguistic capital held or being developed by
learners via the survey outlined above, the third stage of the proposed frame-
work for identifying and building upon young learners’ linguistic capital is for
key stakeholders, including educators and parents, to generate and enact policy
aimed at carving space within the overarching school curriculum to tap into
learners’ linguistic knowledge (Shohamy 2006). Drawing upon their work with
indigenous populations, Hornberger and Vaish (2009) make the point that a
key tenet of such a language policy is that the preservation of local languages
is balanced with the goal of learning English.
While we would advocate that a policy that embraces the principle of
plurilingualism should be developed at a national or regional level, it is also
something that can be developed at a school level, and this is realistically
speaking currently more achievable in many contexts. Whether the policy is
developed locally, regionally or nationally will depend upon the way curricula
and instructional process are both governed and delivered. Irrespective of the
level at which the policy is developed, it needs to be crafted in such a manner
that learners are enabled to develop language skills in a variety of languages,
and that the actual languages they know are honoured and respected, whether
or not these are world languages. The language policy statement should
therefore be supportive of innovative plurilingual teaching policies that help
children develop English language skills within the context of their existing
linguistic capital.
One of the challenges is helping stakeholders practise linguistic ecology and
recognize the value of all linguistic capital and not only prestige language
linguistic capital (Willans 2013). From a language ecology standpoint it is nec-

essary to support preservation of the home language, and also to ensure that
the indigenous language maintains its status as a living language and, argu-
ably, all stakeholders have an ethical duty to do so. Yet multilingualism, let
alone plurilingualism, is not always viewed as appropriate by wider society. For
example, as Piper (1993) reports, in many cases in North America individuals
do not view bilingualism and multilingualism as a reasonable educational goal.
Given this, teachers may well struggle to overcome their monolingual disposi-
tions (Coste et al. 2009), and parents too may be surprised that a space is being
carved to preserve and protect linguistic capital in the English classroom.
As Coste et al. (2009: 23) have observed, the aspirations for plurilingualism
in schools can only remain aspirations ‘unless the factors making for resistance
are not constantly taken into account and unless realistic proposals based on
them are progressively put to the test of innovation’. Teachers, parents and
other stakeholders may need time and space to explore issues related to lan-
guage preservation and the value of all linguistic capital. Teachers will need
training in helping them develop their own awareness, skills and attitudes
towards the promotion of plurilingualism (see Bernaus et al. 2007, for a com-
prehensive set of resources). For parents, if they are consulted about their home
practices regarding language development and these practices are validated
through school practice this is likely to help them embrace a shift towards
plurilingualism in classrooms.
STAGE 4. Developing instructional practices to build upon learners’

linguistic capital
The next step for educators is to develop and deploy instructional practices
to draw upon the linguistic knowledge that learners possess as part of the
educational process leading towards plurilingual competence. It may be chal-
lenging to incorporate the wealth of linguistic capital within the instructional
curriculum. Traditionally languages have been segregated within schools and
classrooms, even though languages can easily coexist in multilingual class-
rooms designed to foster language including literacy acquisition (Helot 2011).
Children do not need to be confined to one language as they work towards
developing skills, even though some teachers and administrators need to
learn that multiple languages in the classroom can serve as a tool rather than
an obstacle to language learning (Lin 2013). Educators can learn from many
interlingual families who engage in translanguaging (simultaneously drawing
upon more than one language in communication), often generating a more
advanced cultural and linguistic competence than is possible from the use of
a single language (Garcia 2013). In Mexico, for example, in areas near the US
border children are seen to show off their plurilinguistic selves as they banter,
switching back and forth between English and Spanish, while in Chiapas in
southern Mexico children commonly intermingle their indigenous language,

English and Spanish in conversations. Plurilingual pedagogic practices should
aim to support and draw upon these naturally occurring phenomena and not
be constrained by imperialistic de facto language polices (Willans 2013).
Figure 7.3 lists some exemplar learner-centred practices that honour, preserve
and extend the linguistic capital that children have brought with them to the
classroom and which we suggest can be utilized to draw upon learners’ cultural
and linguistic capital. These indicative pedagogic strategies are very straightfor-
ward and easy to implement. Fortunately, we are now moving to a point where
teachers in many parts of the world are beginning to successfully develop and
implement instruction that incorporates the language capital children have
developed in their out-of-school worlds (Garcia 2013), and an examination of
other practices can also help inspire the development of instructional practice
to help promote plurilingualism. The content-rich plurilingual instruction
described by Lin (2013) to be used with 13 and 14 year olds, for example,
Linguistic Capital Instructional Practices
Community • Place trilingual indigenous language, English, and

Indigenous Linguistic Spanish labels on classroom objects and on items in
Knowledge bulletin boards.
• Have children critique materials published in English
about their home indigenous culture.
• Create a museum of community artifacts with labels in
all 3 languages.
Home Language • Set up dialogue journals between the child and her/his
Linguistic Capital family in the child’s home language and English.
• Have children create bilingual picture dictionaries in
their home language and English.
• Have children create their own versions of favourite
English language stories.
• Provide time for children to serve as peer tutors for
children with lower levels of English proficiency.
Media Linguistic • Provide learners with homework assignments that draw

Capital upon their access to English language media. For exam-
ple, learners can write reviews of English language TV
shows.
• Learners can also do web-quests in English where they
are developing both language skills and content based
academic knowledge.
Figure 7.3 Exemplar instructional approaches for building upon learners’ linguistic
capital
could easily be adapted for work with younger learners in context-sensitive

ways. Naturally, precisely which practices to adopt in a given setting will need
to take account of the linguistic capital that children already possess and the
possibilities afforded by the language policy.
Conclusion
The impetus for this chapter has been an awareness of the increasingly diverse
linguistic demographics in many countries in the context of globalization that
are contributing to a need to recognize the varied but largely untapped lin-
guistic knowledge and skills that children bring to the ELT classroom. We have
argued for the importance of recognizing, valuing and developing children’s
plurilinguistic competence in ways that develop English language skills but
also help preserve their linguistic ecosystems.
We have suggested a number of reasons why it is especially important to
bring children’s linguistic capital into the EFL classroom and to transform the
classroom into a welcoming plurilinguistic environment. On the one hand,
there is a need to take steps to preserve children’s home languages, especially
indigenous languages, in the face of the growth and spread of English as a
world language. Indigenous languages in particular are invaluable cultural
resources (Nettle and Romaine 2000), yet, as McCarty et al. (2008), writing
about the USA, have observed, minority languages are easily marginalized in
light of the ways in which English has evolved to be such a powerful language
for global communication and business. Ethically, teachers need to be mind-
ful of the ways in which the spread of English, especially into primary-level
classrooms, can contribute further to the endangerment of other languages,
and finding ways to recognize and value these within the EFL classroom
may be one way to help preserve their place in a country’s language ecology.
A second reason to tap into children’s existing linguistic repertoires in the EFL
young learner classroom is in the interests of developing their plurilinguistic
competence, viewed as increasingly important to prepare children for life in a
multilingual world propelled by globalization. To do so is to help reposition
English as an important international language that has a place alongside other
languages that children have access to, but is by no means the only useful form
of linguistic capital in light of this multilingual reality. Finally, there is a need
to acknowledge and address the differential access to English that children may
have or have had through their out-of-school encounters, which needs to be
accommodated in pedagogical decision-making.
Given that a basic tenet of primary education in general is to build upon
what children already know and to connect children’s classroom learning
with what they bring into the classroom from their personal world (Cameron
2001), many young learner educators are already committed to building upon
the knowledge that children have developed at home and in their wider
out-of-school lives. However, the importance of utilizing children’s linguistic
capital as a resource in the teaching of English to young learners has only very
recently started to be recognized, and to date teachers and other stakeholders
often have limited awareness of this, along with few resources to help them
take the practical actions to put this into effect. Our framework is designed
to extend these established principles in work with young learners through a
process of discovery of children’s existing linguistic capital and using this to
develop policy and pedagogic practice.
We argue that the proposed framework presented in this chapter can ben-
efit all stakeholders involved in children’s ELT education, including, parents,
educators, policy makers, researchers and last but not least, the children them-
selves, for five main reasons. Firstly, it benefits children by taking into account
the linguistic elements that are part of the whole child and can help them build
a robust linguistic identity. Secondly, the framework helps connect homes and
schools by formally acknowledging the linguistic foundations that families and
communities have generously provided for their children. Thirdly, it provides
educators with very clear steps for identifying and utilizing the varied linguis-
tic content that children bring through the classroom doors. Fourthly, it also
addresses some of the contextual issues that must be considered if instructional
programmes and gains are to be comprehensively examined, and will aid poli-
cymakers by giving them a blueprint for creating and implementing contex-
tually based policies. Finally, it can raise awareness of vital issues concerning
young learner linguistic capital and plurilingualism, and thereby help identify
research agendas and actions to further enhance the development of practice
and policy to recognize, value and work with the linguistic resources that chil-
dren bring to the EFL classroom.
We offer this framework as one means to help actualize plurilingual agendas
in the young learner EFL classroom in a variety of different settings worldwide.
We acknowledge that there is still much to be done to make plurilingual agen-
das a reality in young learner English classrooms, but hope that the suggestions
here will serve to stimulate debate and act as a springboard for further explora-
tion of this important facet of work with young learners.
1. Children often come to school with a variety of linguistic capital. Consider

an individual setting you are familiar with. What types of questions could
you ask to find out the linguistic capital they have been exposed to and/or
possess?
2. You have been asked to teach children who are exposed to two or more
languages in either their families or in their out-of-school community. What
are some ways that you could honour these children’s pluralingualism in the
English language classroom?
3. While in many settings plurilingualism is not currently embraced in
national policy statements for TEYL, we have suggested that this does not
preclude schools generating a school-level policy to promote it. Consider
the steps that can be taken to support school administrators, teachers and
parents in appreciating the importance of plurilingualism and realizing this
in the classroom in a setting you are familiar with.
References
Azuara, P. and Reyes, I. (2011). Negotiating worlds: A young Mayan child developing
literacy at home and at school in Mexico. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 41 (2): 181–194.
Bailey, A.L. and Kelly, K.R. (2012). Home language survey practices in the initial identifi-
cation of English learners in the United States. Educational Policy [online]
Bernaus, M., Andrade, A.S., Kervran, M., Murkowska, A. and Trujillo Sáez, F. (eds) (2007).
Plurilingual and Pluricultural Awareness in Language Teacher Education: A Training Kit.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Breidbach, S. (2003). Pluralism, Democratic Citizenship in Europe and the Role of English.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Bunch, M. (2011). Testing English language learners under ‘No Child Left Behind’.
Language Testing, 28 (3): 323–341.
Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L. and Miller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course
taking among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34 (1): 84–117.
University Press.
Canagarajah, S. and Liynage, I. (2012). Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism.
In Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of
Mulitlingualism. London: Routledge, pp. 49–65.
Cave, D. (2012). American children now struggling to adjust to life in Mexico. New York
Times, 19/06/2012.
Chandler, J. (2010). The role of location in the recruitment and retention of teachers in
international schools. Journal of Research International Education, 9 (3): 214–226.
Coste, D., Moore, D. and Zarante, G. (2009). Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence
(French version originally published in 1997). Studies towards a Common European
Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe Publishing.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education?
Sprogforum, 7 (19): 15–22.
de la Piedra, M.T. and Guerra, J.C. (2012). The literacy practices of transfronterizos in
a multilingual world. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
15 (6): 627–634.
Duff, P.A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and
issues. Language Teaching, 40: 309–319.
Eurydice (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe.
Brussels: European Commission.
Gallagher, E. (2011). Young children have stories to share. In Murphy, E. (ed) Welcoming
Linguistic Diversity in Early Childhood Classrooms: Learning from International Schools.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–16.
Garcia, O. (2013). Informal bilingual acquisition: Dynamic spaces for language edu-
cation. In Singleton, D., Fishman, J.A., Aronin, L. and Laoire, M.O. (eds) Current
Multilingualism: A New Linguistic Dispensation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 99–118.
Gilmer, R.W. and Cañas, J. (2005). Industrial Structure and Economic Complementarities
in City Pairs on the Texas–Mexico Border. Research Department – Working Paper 0503.
Dallas, TX: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Haugen, E. (1972). The Ecology of Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Helot, C. (2011). Children’s literature in the multilingual classroom: Developing multi-
lingual literacy acquisition. In Helot, C. and Laoire, M.M.O. (eds) Language Policy for
the Bilingual Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 42–65.
Hornberger, N.H. (2009). Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties
(grounded in indigenous experience). Language Teaching, 42 (2): 197–211.
Hornberger, N. and Vaish, V. (2009). Multilingual language policy and school linguistic
practice: Globalization and English-language teaching in India, Singapore and South
Africa. Compare, 39 (3): 305–320.
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language.
Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
In Enever, J., Moon, J. and Raman, U. (eds) Young Learner English Language Policy and
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2011). Language Teacher Education for a Global Society: A Modular
Model for Knowing, Analyzing, Doing and Seeing. London: Routledge.
Lantolf, J.P. and Thorne, S.L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learn-
ing. In Van Patten, B. and Williams, J. (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 201–224.
Lewis, M.P., Simons, G.F. and Fennig, C.D. (eds) (2013). Ethnologue: Languages of the
World. Dallas, TX: SIL International.
Lin, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilin-
gual pedagogies from the ground up. TESOL Quarterly, 47 (3): 521–545.
McCarty, T.L., Romero-Little, M.E. and Zepeda, O. (2008). Indigenous language policies
in social practice: The case of the Navajo. In King, K.A., Schilling-Estes, N., Fogle, L.,
Lou, J.J. and Soukup, B. (eds) Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority
Languages and Language Varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
pp. 159–173.
Mühlhaüsler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the
Pacific Region. London: Routledge.
Nettle, D. and Romaine, S. (2000). Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Orellana, M.F., Thorne, B., Chee, A. and Lam, W.S.E. (2000). Transnational child-
hoods: The participation of children in processes of family migration. Social Problems,
48 (4): 573–591.
Piper, T. (1998). Language Learning: The Home and School Years (2nd edn). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London:
Routledge.
Song, J. (2011). Globalization, children’s study abroad, and transnationalism as an
emerging context for language learning: A new task for language teacher education.
Stille, S. and Cummins, J. (2013). Foundation for learning: Engaging plurilingual students’
linguistic repertoires in the elementary classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 47 (3): 630–638.
Taylor, S.K. and Snoddon, K. (2013). Plurilingualism in TESOL: Promising controversies.
Taylor, S.K., Bernhard, J.K., Garg, S. and Cummins, J. (2008). Affirming plural belonging:
Building on students’ family-based cultural and linguistic capital through multilitera-
cies pedagogy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8 (3): 269–294.
Wang, X.L. (2008). Growing Up with Three Languages: Birth to Eleven. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Willans, F. (2013). The engineering of plurilingualism following a blueprint for
multilingualism: The case of Vanuatu’s education language policy. TESOL Quarterly,
47 (3): 546–566.
Zehr, M. (2010). Researchers: ELL surveys are flawed: Paper finds questions miss or over
identify ELL students. Education Week, 30 January.
Zuniga, V. and Hamann, E.T. (2009). Sojourners in Mexico with US school experience:
A new taxonomy for transnational students. Compare Education Review, 53 (3): 329–354.
Part III
Introducing Innovations in TEYL
Practice
8
Rethinking the Role of the Native
Language in Learning to Read in
English as a Foreign Language: Insights
from a Reading Intervention Study in
a Rural Primary School in South Africa
Leketi Makalela
Introduction
Discussions of how to develop literacy with young learners of English as a foreign

or second language have until very recently tended to reflect the deep-seated
emphasis on monolingualism in the field of TESOL (May 2011). This has tended
to result in the practice of immersing children in foreign language (FL) literacy
after first having received instruction on literacy practices in their native lan-
guage (NL). Little recognition has been given to drawing upon children’s existing
linguistic and cultural repertoires as a resource that can support the development
of their FL reading literacy (Garcia 2009; Hornberger and Link 2012). This situa-
tion has prevailed despite a vast amount of international scholarship, spanning
over 30 years, which has showed that such approaches to teaching literacy are
counter-productive and are invariably linked to delayed reading abilities in both
the native language and the target language (Goldenberg 2008; Makalela 2012).
It is now well established that learning to read in an unfamiliar language is
a complex and challenging process for young learners. Martinez and Murphy
(2011: 246), for example, report that ‘readers processing text in a foreign lan-
guage are faced with a comparatively laborious and cumbersome job that at
times might seem like an unpleasant guessing game’. Similarly challenging is
the development of effective instruction strategies to assist them with this task.
This is exacerbated in some contexts, especially in the developing world, where
resourcing is often an additional issue to be addressed (Paran and Williams
2007). Moreover, while those who research reading in an additional language
(including where it is a foreign language) have come to a general understand-
ing that children who have difficulties in reading in their NL are likely to expe-
rience similar level of difficulties in the FL, the precise role of the learners’ NL
in FL reading development remains a subject of intense debate.
141
142 Leketi Makalela
On the one hand, there are researchers who have concluded that young
learners exposed to two languages become confused and delayed in their lit-
eracy development owing to the high volume of language and literacy skills
they have to juggle with at the same time (see e.g. Chiappe and Siegel 1999).
But on the other hand, some researchers have revealed that NL skills enhance
the development of reading skills in the FL in domains such as word readings,
spelling, vocabulary, reading comprehension and reading strategies (Alptekin
and Ercetin 2011; Nation 2001). Even more pointedly, they have suggested that
FL learners need only have reached a certain vocabulary threshold (about 8000
words) for comprehension to increase naturally when there is cognate support
from their NL, that is, when the NL and FL are from the same root language
(Martinez and Murphy 2011).
While there are many influential approaches to NL reading instruction and
emerging research on FL reading strategies, there are very few studies that
comprehensively address the use of the linguistic and cultural repertoires in
children’s home languages to enhance FL reading development in discussions
of instructional practice. In the vast majority of studies the focus has been
directed at the relationship between reading instruction and outcomes rather
than on how what young readers bring with them to FL language reading can
inform instructional practices. In this chapter I report on an intervention study
I designed to promote children’s biliteracy development that drew upon the
cultural and linguistic resources of children’s NL, and consider their effective-
ness in promoting their FL literacy development. This took place in South
Africa where I work, in a school in a remote rural region in Limpopo Province.
As will be discussed, this demonstrated the ways in which attention to the
children’s NL and home literacy culture was seen to support their FL literacy
development. On the basis of these insights, I end the chapter by reflecting on
the sorts of instructional practices that were successfully used to promote the
use of the NL in this project, which I hope can both stimulate debate about the
role of an NL-resourced pedagogy for teaching FL reading to young learners and
serve as a springboard for considering how to do this in a variety of different
settings around the world.
The case for using the NL in promoting FL reading development

Before turning to an account of the intervention study, in this part of the
chapter I first consider the theories and existing research findings regarding
the relationship between NL and FL reading development that helped shape
the intervention study.
Theorizing the relationship between NL and FL reading

Well-known theoretical frameworks that have been used to explain reading
in more than one language are the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, the
Reading Intervention in a South African Rural Primary School 143
Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis, the Linguistic Coding Difference Hypothesis and,

more recently, the Biliteracy Continua Framework. Each of these is explained
below to shed some light on the perceived relationship between NL and FL
reading development among elementary school readers.
The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis emerged as a language and literacy
model to understand the interface between first and additional languages from
as early as the 1980s. It posits that literacy skills, behaviours and strategies
transfer across languages – from the NL to the FL and oftentimes from the FL to
the NL (Berhardt and Kamil 1995; Cummins 1979). Bernhadt and Kamil (1995:
17) maintain that while language operations such as FL reading and writing
skills may be superficially different from those employed in the NL, they have
an underlying interdependence, and at heart they are similar. This hypothesis
has subsequently been demonstrated through reading achievement tests where
bilinguals revealed positive skill transfer between their NL and FL, as in Spanish
to English (Carrell 1991; Clark 1979), Turkish to Dutch (Bossers 1991), French
to English (Barnett 1986) and, more recently, in an African context, from
Sepedi to English (Makalela 2012).
One interpretation of the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis has led to a
view that NL reading skills should be sufficiently developed before learners are
exposed to foreign language reading. However, it is now widely recognized
that the development of NL and FL literacies may have parallel, not sequential
development paths and provide fluid and mobile discursive resources that leak
into each other (Hornberger and Link 2012). It is within the context of the
parallel development of NL and FL reading skills that the biliteracy design of
the intervention study described in this chapter, which sought to accelerate the
interdependence between the NL and the FL, took place.
The second hypothesis, the Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis, explains the role
of FL proficiency in enhancing reading development of the target language.
The main thrust of this hypothesis is that there is a need for a certain level
of maturity in FL proficiency for one to read in it, and that such a maturity
level is also a necessary condition for NL reading skills to transfer to FL reading
(Clark 1979). When transfer fails, good readers of NL become short-circuited
as they resort to using poor reading strategies in order to read FL texts (Bossers
1991). Using this frame of reference, it seems logical that FL learners who have
not yet developed language competencies in the foreign language will find it
hard to read in it. Bearing in mind this understanding of the close relationship
between language and literacy development, I recognized the need to make
sure space and time for both the NL and FL language to mature were provided
in my reading intervention.
The Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis extends the third hypothesis, the Linguistic
Coding Difference Hypothesis. This proposes that the difficulties encountered in
using one’s NL are the possible cause of FL learning difficulties (Sparks and
144 Leketi Makalela
Ganschow 1991). Within foreign language reading research, specific L1 opera-

tions are often cited as causing difficulties include phonological, grammatical
and semantic aspects. Research in African countries in particular shows that
reading in the NL is largely carried out in a print-poor environment and that
the skills in L1 are often not developed to be a reliable baseline for FL reading
skills to develop (Pretorius and Mampuru 2007; Williams 2006). As a result,
the poor reading skills used in the NL are transferred to the FL reading, with
the negative results that both NL and FL skills become underdeveloped. These
insights suggest it is important to take steps to work on addressing NL-induced
reading problems as a means to enhance FL reading, as in the intervention
study to be discussed below.
Another useful framework that has gained currency in the recent years is
Hornberger’s (2002) Biliteracy Continua Framework. This emphasizes the impor-
tance of bringing sociolinguistic and ecological perspectives to bear on under-
standing the relationship between English as an additional language and the
NL by considering language evolution, language environment, and, with regard
to indigenous languages in particular, the issue of language endangerment, and
how a Biliteracy Continua framework can help preserve these. The notion of
a continuum with regard to the concept of biliteracy (as in Hornberger 2002;
Hornberger and Link 2012) assumes that languages and literacies are not fixed
entities, but rather that they develop in an incremental fashion, with the impli-
cation that literacy development can be understood as a process of language
evolution. An ecological interpretation of this framework is in the assumption
that literacy skills in one language are developing in relation to another.
The Biliteracy Continua framework is concerned to consider the significance
of context to biliteracy development, and has focused on how the unequal
power across languages and literacies can impact on this. Where literacy skill
in a language such as English, which is highly prized in many contexts, is given
preference over skills in one’s NL, a pull-effect towards English can occur. The
Bilingual Continua framework creates a case for ensuring that FL literacy does
not develop at the expense of NL literacy, and that indigenous language lit-
eracy is preserved and protected. This model relates to a social view of literacy
(Street 1984) that sees literacy not as an isolated cognitive activity, but as taking
place within a whole range of social and linguistic contexts in which it occurs
and which need to be given due consideration. The concepts of a biliteracy
continua and the social models of literacy highlight the importance of ensur-
ing that an intervention programme is culturally sensitive to the linguistic and
cultural contexts where the young foreign language learners live.
Research evidence on how the NL supports FL reading development

The important ways in which the NL supports FL reading development have
been well documented in research. Research studies have shown that there
are many layers of skills transfer between FLs and NLs – lower-order skills at
word and sentence level as a well as higher-order skills at text level, and meta-
cognitive skills (Berhardt and Kamil 1991; Fitzgerald 1995). One of the major
highlights for building a case for a biliteracy pedagogic strategy development
within this body of literature is the finding that young readers who are literate
in their NL can progress faster in their FL reading than those who have not
developed skills in their NL (Ovando and Collier 1998).
In line with the increased recognition of the readers’ NL as a necessary condi-
tion for reading development in the FL, a plethora of studies have examined
this relationship in depth from different angles. Until relatively recently, in
large part these have focused on the situation for learners who do not have
English as a first language in English-speaking countries. Many of these have
been conducted in the USA and examined NL Spanish speakers learning to
read in English. These studies have found evidence of positive cross-language
transfer in the phonological processing of Spanish students learning to read in
English. Oller and Eilers’ (2002) study, for example, found that children who
were taught in both their home language and English fared better than those
who transitioned to school through English only. In another study on young
readers conducted by Langer et al. (1990), fifth grade readers (11–12 year olds)
who used good and efficient strategies in Spanish successfully transferred these
strategies into English. In a related study that compared good and bad Spanish
mother tongue readers of English, Jimenez et al. (1996) showed that good
grade 6 readers between 12 and 13 years old used a multi-strategic approach
in reading in both Spanish and English. Good readers were also found to have
succeeded in reading comprehension strategies. In other words, in their study,
both decoding and comprehension skills were transferred positively when the
two languages were recognized and utilized.
In line with the worldwide growth of English foreign language learning
among children in the past two decades there has been a gradual increase
in research studies that explore the relationship between NL and FL literacy
in many other languages in addition to Spanish. The studies confirm the
positive relationship between NL and FL reading development. With regard to
the transfer of micro-reading strategies, recent studies have found a positive
transfer of skills, such as phonological memory and word recognition skills,
between numerous other languages and English. Service and Koehen (1995),
for example, found that children’s ability to discriminate non-words from real
words in Finnish positively predicted English literacy development over two
years. Dufva and Voeten (1999) also assessed word recognition through lexical
decision and word naming among Spanish elementary school learners. Their
study revealed that NL word recognition and comprehension skills and pho-
nological memory had positive effects on learning English as a FL, with these
skills accounting for as much as 58 percent of learners’ success in reading in
146 Leketi Makalela
the beginning stages of FL literacy (1999: 342). In addition, the transfer of NL

phonological skills to FL reading was also confirmed among non-alphabetic
languages such as Cantonese (Cottardo et al. 2001) and Farsi (Gholamarin and
Geva 1999). All these studies, taken together, suggest that structural differ-
ences between languages have no negative impact on transfer of reading skills.
These provided a solid basis for the development of the intervention study I
undertook.
The reading intervention study
Participants in the reading intervention study

As explained in the introduction to this chapter, the reading intervention
described below took place in a remote rural school in Limpopo Province in
South Africa. Most of the children in this school came from very poor house-
holds, and the school qualified for the South African government’s feeding
scheme, which provides at least one meal a day at school. Sixty young learners
from grade 4 (10 year olds), grade 5 (11 year olds) and grade 6 (12 year olds)
took part in the reading intervention. These learners were selected by means
of a systematic random sampling technique from a pool of about 340 learn-
ers studying in all these three grades at the time of the study. In South Africa,
language education policy requires that children receive the first three years
of schooling in their NL and from grade 4 that all school subjects are deliv-
ered in English. All of the children who took part in this intervention study
had Sepedi, one of South Africa’s 11 official indigenous African languages, as
their NL and had received instruction in Sepedi until they reached grade 4.
The grade 4 learners who took part in this project had only had six months’
exposure to learning through the medium of English at the start of the study.
Given the school setting, these children had very limited access to English in
their out- of-school world.
In addition to the 60 young learners who participated in the study, nine
parents of participating learners were selected to take part in home literacy
events. Involvement of the parents in the study was aimed at drawing upon
the learners’ home literacy practices and cultural backgrounds as developing
an NL linguistic and culturally sensitive pedagogy was seen as an integral part
of the intervention design.
The design and implementation of the intervention

The intervention lasted for a period of three months. It comprised three main
stages: a pre-intervention (baseline) testing stage, an intervention task stage,
and a post-intervention testing stage. This three-stage cycle was deemed nec-
essary to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention. The following questions
guided the intervention:
a. Does an induction in L1 reading skills predict better reading development

in English in this foreign language context?
b. Does a culturally responsive intervention programme have an impact on the
improvement of reading development in English?
c. What is the role of NL linguistic and cultural resourcing in improving lit-
eracy practices in the FL?
The intervention programme involved literacy events both at school and out
of school. This was achieved by:
a. The development of a print-rich environment in both languages.

b. The involvement of parents as key stakeholders in building reading habits
within a culturally responsive approach.
c. The use of contrastive literacy pedagogical practices.
d. Coaching teachers and supporting their explicit teaching of reading skills in
their classrooms.
The intervention programme entailed the extensive reading of texts over a

12-week period. The learners’ NL reading materials were collected from a range
of texts that included ones produced by the teachers. Each of the learners was
provided with six different texts, three written in their NL and another three
in English. Once the learners received the books, they were instructed to read
these, write reflections and retell the stories orally and in writing verbally in
both languages. Learners were particularly encouraged to produce written
pieces in a different language from the one they read in. This was followed by
the creation of literacy corners that were filled with bilingual texts that were
recreated from the readings in both languages. This habit of populating the
print environment with these texts was designed to bridge the gap between
home and school reading literacies. For any work carried out at home (to be
discussed below) the learners were asked to bring their reflections and summa-
ries to class for wall postings, presentations and discussions with peers in class.
The intervention programme also entailed the introduction of a number of
activities explicitly designed to instruct the children in decoding skills. These
targeted literacy activities (which were undertaken by myself, three research
assistants and the teacher) focused on two things. Firstly, helping learners
resolve decoding problems such as verbalization, pointing and head move-
ment as well as improving their reading speed in both languages. Secondly,
we applied contrastive analysis of sounds and spellings in both the NL and
English. The latter activity comprised phonemic and graphological awareness
exercises, and made learners aware of a predominantly Consonant Vowel (CV)
syllable structure in Sepedi, on the one hand, and complex English syllabic
choices such as consonant clusters, on the other. This approach to sound and
148 Leketi Makalela
spelling discrimination was also aimed at heightening awareness of the English

spelling versus phonological systems.
Finally, one of the key components of the intervention was the involvement
of parents and caretakers in the reading programme. Since I undertook the
intervention with the support of three trained research assistants, we were able
to ensure that we could undertake home visits. These helped us better under-
stand the out-of-school literacy environment and enabled us to provide parents
with coaching on their role in promoting home literacy events. Parents were
given a different set of readings and coached on reading and sharing with the
learners for at least 15 minutes a day, usually before the children went to bed.
They were also encouraged to listen to their children reading to them, and we
also modelled how the parents could read with their children in the evening.
In some families, books ran out and parents with high school education cre-
ated local stories themselves when the children were at school during the day
in order to continue the evening reading practices. Parental involvement was
deemed necessary in this study to support and strengthen reading literacy in
both languages. However, as most of the parents could only read or understand
readings in the NL, their involvement was largely seen as an important compo-
nent in activating NL literacy for the children.
Assessment tasks used to measure the success of the intervention

The main way the evaluation of the intervention was undertaken was through
assessment tasks. Two main types of pre- and post-assessment tasks were car-
ried out to measure the success of the intervention programme. These focused
on the impact of the intervention on children’s FL literacy development over a
three-month period and were conducted at the start and end of the interven-
tion study.
1. Listening and spelling tests for word recognition

In order to establish the relationship between phonology, graphology and the
semantic interpretation of a number of high-frequency words deduced from
the grade 4, 5 and 6 school curricula, the 60 participating learners were asked
to undertake a word recognition task in both pre- and post-tests. This required
them to listen to each of the words read to them and to write the spelling of
the words. During the pre-test stage, the children were also asked to choose
one picture that represented the word from four possible picture options. Each
of the words had between 6 to 11 letters and was between 2 and 5 syllables
long. These included the words triangle, electricity, record, punctuation, author,
nutrition, and justice. These words were read twice in a natural tone, and learn-
ers then wrote each of the dictated words in the spaces provided in the answer
books. The learners were further instructed to put their pens down as soon as
they completed their spelling writing tasks for each of the words in order to
ensure that every learner was focusing on exactly the same word at the same
time.
2. Lexical discrimination tasks

The learner participants were also pre- and post-tested on their ability to recog-
nize pseudo-words and discriminate them from real words. In word recognition
studies, the child’s ability to discriminate real words from non-words (pseudo-
words) has been used extensively as a predictor of reading comprehension
(Hunt and Beglar 2005), and these are considered to be reliable predictors of
reading development (Duva and Voeten 1999; Service and Kohenen 1995).
Pseudo words are pronounceable letters or phoneme strings that do not form a
valid word, even though they respect the phonotactic structure in the language
being tested. Eight English words were selected from a list of high-frequency
words for grades 4–6. Five of these words were pseudo-words, which were cre-
ated by randomly changing the sequence of the letters to create expressions
such as lecumole (molecule), suadeper (persuade) and rydia (diary). Three real
words were also given to the children, namely, study, divide and safety. Each
word was given to the learners individually on a flash card, and they had to
decide by crossing YES or NO boxes if they thought the word was a real English
word or a pseudo-word. This task lasted for about 10 minutes.
Analysis of pre- and post-test reading responses

Regarding the word recognition spelling tasks, children’s responses were rated
on a four-point scale comprising (1) not recognizable, (2) recognizable, (3)
minor correction and (4) correct. Percentages for each point on the rating scale
were calculated in pre- and post- tests, and mean scores for ratings in both tests
were generated through the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). For
the lexical discrimination task where children were asked to identify real and
pseudo-word, NO and YES cases were analysed separately. Using SPSS, paired
t-test measures were calculated to compare mean gains between the pre- and
post-test lexical discrimination tasks. For both tasks, all these statistical proce-
dures were pitched at an alpha vale of 0.05 to measure statistically significant
changes between pre- and post-tasks.
Results of the intervention: pre-and post-test results

The results of the pre- and post-tests for the word recognition and lexical dis-
crimination tasks are discussed below, and the implications of these are then
considered within a broader discussion of the success of the intervention.
Increase in children’s FL word recognition

With regard to the word recognition test results, as can be seen from Table 8.1,
there was a clear positive increase in the children’s ability to recognize FL words
150 Leketi Makalela
Table 8.1 Word recognition shifts between pre- and post-tests by

means and percentages
Performance categories Pre-test Post-test
Unrecognizable spelling 31.87 (53%) 10.5 (17.5%)

Recognizable spelling 12.25 (20%) 8 (13.3%)
Minor errors on spelling 4 (6.6%) 6.6 (11%)
Correct spelling 12.37 (20.6%) 31.6 (52.6%)
over the course of the intervention. The pre-test results showed a very low
vocabulary development and recognition in English as reflected in the spelling
task. The majority of the words were classified as not recognizable (53%), with
nutrition as one of the least recognized words in the sample. There were only
a few (20.6%) that were classified as correct spelling formations. The post-test
results, in contrast, showed a reversed performance pattern where the majority
of the words were in the correct spelling formation category (52.6%) and far
fewer cases were classified as not recognizable (17.5%).
To put this another way, there was a pre- to post-test decline in mean scores
from 31.87 to 10.5 in the unrecognizable category and a decline from 12.25 to
8.0 in the recognizable category, whereas there was an increase in mean scores
from 4 to 6 in the minor correction category and a jump from 12.37 to 31.6 in
the mean scores under the correct word category. When put together, these
results generally indicate that there has been a statistically significant shift
(P < 0.05) in word recognition skills over the three months of the intervention.
These results therefore suggest that the intervention study phase has reduced
most of the spelling and listening errors that were prevalent before the inter-
vention activities were carried out. This improvement of their word recogni-
tion skills is one way of evidencing learners’ enhanced reading skills in English
as a result of this culturally responsive biliteracy intervention.
Increase in children’s lexical discrimination

The children who took part in the intervention study also showed an increase
in their ability to discriminate real FL words from pseudo-words, which, as
mentioned earlier, is considered a reliable way of predicting reading develop-
ment. This provides further evidence of the success of the intervention.
Two results patterns were observed in the learners’ responses, as shown in
Table 8.2. Firstly, there was an increase in children’s ability to correctly judge
real English words. Secondly, there was also an increase in the children’s ability
to correctly identify pseudo-words. In other words, there was a better recogni-
tion of words after the intervention programme and more correct decisions
made. This was also found to be statistically significant.
Table 8.2 Recognition of real and pseudo-words in pre- and post-test measures
Real words Pre-test recognition as real words Post-test recognition as real words
Study 36% 80%

Safety 45% 55%
Divide 35% 65%
Pseudo-words Pre-test recognition as pseudo-words Post-test recognition as pseudo-words
suadeper 16% 83%

rydia 25% 71%
rafction 26% 73%
leculem 28% 71%
Cateedu 27% 66.6%
I attribute this improvement to the use of the contrastive technique to make

the learners more aware of the differences between word structures in English
and in their NL, and the increased exposure to English words through the
readings provided. Overall, the results imply that explicit focus on lexical dif-
ferences between the NL and English as a foreign language to teaching reading
in this FL context is effective.
Reflecting on the intervention, implications and conclusion

The results of the pre- and post- tests, as described above, present an encour-
aging picture regarding the aims of the intervention. On the one hand, they
concur with the findings in other studies on the effectiveness of using the
NL in developing FL reading (see e.g. Ovando and Collier 1998; Service and
Kohenen 1995) and provide support for the use of contrastive reading activi-
ties, which deliberately focus on specific word recognition skills in both the NL
and FL. However, the success of this intervention is ultimately attributable to
a complex interplay of a number of its features to be discussed in turn below.
First of all, it seems likely that the bilingual pedagogic strategies were an
important factor. The creation of a biliteracy print environment via the crea-
tion of extensive reading texts in both languages and literacy corners compris-
ing learners’ own texts (written in a different language from the one they wrote
in) all contributed to the improvement in their FL literacy development as
evidenced by the improvement in their word recognition and lexical discrimi-
nation results in pre- and post-tests.
More broadly, the results of this intervention point to the value of a strategy
for developing FL literacy that is culturally responsive and seeks to develop
and build upon home and school literacy practices and creates a bridge
between them. In this intervention, this contributed to the creation of a
flexible multilingual space (Creese and Blackledge, 2010), which stressed the
152 Leketi Makalela
interdependence of NL and FL literacy and created conditions for the learners

to harness the full range of linguistic resources at their disposal to develop
literacy in both their NL and in English. The purposeful involvement of the
parents as pivotal partners was seen as essential to resolve cultural barriers and
conflicting priorities as well as in providing advocates and models of reading
for the children beyond the walls of the classroom. We observed that the par-
ents of the learners were successful in taking more agentive roles to ensure that
their children read daily for at least 15 minutes for enjoyment or exploration,
among other literacy purposes. The majority of the parents also sat with and
listened to the children reading for them at these times as well. I suggest that
this was likely to have been central to the ways in which the children engaged
in the reading activities and developed as readers in this study.
Undertaking the intervention study described in this chapter, and seeing the
growth in children’s L2 literacy, was personally very rewarding for me. It has
provided me with a first-hand experience of how using a culturally sensitive
biliteracy approach to support underprivileged young learners in a print-poor
environment can enhance their L2 literacy by drawing upon their existing cul-
tural and linguistic repertoires and also furthering the development of these.
Although small in scale, the findings of this intervention add further to the
growing recognition of the NL as a resource in FL learning, and to the need to
include this in developing strategies to promote FL literacy.
Drawing upon my own experience of undertaking this intervention, I summa-
rise below what I see as some key pedagogic strategies for developing a cultur-
ally sensitive biliteracy approach to teaching young English learners:
1. Be aware of cultural barriers to literacy (including L2 literacy), and conflict-

ing priorities between the home and the school.
2. Include parents as cultural assets in supporting children in developing a
positive L2 literacy trajectory.
3. Raise phonological awareness in the learners’ NL and use the NL to discuss
reading challenges and problems.
4. Use texts that tap into the children’s existing cultural repertoires.
5. Resource and improve the print environment with ‘local’ texts in both the
NL and FL.
6. Include contrastive analysis between NL and FL, building on home language
skills.
I hope the description of the intervention and its results will inspire other
young learner educators to consider developing culturally sensitive approaches
to young learner literacy development in their own contexts and to consider
the benefits of a biliteracy approach in their own teaching contexts. Where
resources permit, this may take the form of a formal collaborative intervention
study as I developed in South Africa, but it would also be useful to undertake a

much smaller classroom inquiry for teachers who are interested in embarking
on a journey towards introducing a biliteracy approach to FL literacy develop-
ment in their classrooms.
Although I have not discussed at length the teachers who took part in my
study, teachers are clearly central to any efforts to introduce innovations to
practice. In this study, in the absence of supportive teacher education, I and my
research assistants worked hard to help the teacher engage with the principles
of what we were trying to achieve. This was successful, but the process also
highlighted the potential challenges in getting teachers to shift their existing
monolingual tendencies in promoting reading instruction in the young learner
foreign language classroom without adequate support. There is currently very
little attention given to this in most teacher education programmes designed
to prepare young teachers, or activities that enable them to recognize the social
and cultural nature of literacy.
Finally, while the focus of the study reported here has been on considering
how to promote literacy with children learning English as a foreign language,
the benefits of the inclusive, fluid and plurilingual approach to teaching read-
ing it has highlighted can be used in a variety of different settings, including in
multilingual classrooms in English-speaking countries such as the UK and the
USA where English often operates more as a second language. Indeed, the need
to create spaces for these languages and to practise pedagogic strategies that
facilitate the cross-transfer of reading practices from children’s NL to English
remains just as important in these contexts as in contexts where English is a
foreign language. It is anticipated that as more young learner educators come
to appreciate the importance of biliteracy teaching strategies in a host of dif-
ferent linguistic and cultural settings and instigate their own projects, insights
into effective pedagogic practices to help promote literacy in English in rela-
tion to local languages will continue to evolve and grow.
1. This chapter has demonstrated the benefits of a biliteracy strategy to

enhance children’s foreign language reading proficiency. This requires the
creation of a biliteracy print environment, and a number of suggested ways
of doing this were proposed. Which of these would be appropriate in your
own context, and what other ways of achieving this can you identify?
2. It has been suggested that creating partnerships between schools and
parents is an important component of a biliteracy strategy in work with
young English learners. In what ways can partnerships between schools and
parents be developed in your own work to help support and create bridges
between children’s developing native language and English literacy?
154 Leketi Makalela
3. In this chapter, I have proposed that part of the success of this biliteracy
strategy was that it was both sensitive and responsive to the local Sepedi cul-
ture. What sorts of local literacy practices would need to be accommodated
into a culturally sensitive approach to biliteracy development in your own
setting? What steps can you take to identify what these are, and how can
you draw upon these in selecting materials and activities to exploit them?
References
Alptekin, C. and Ercetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content
familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly,
45 (2): 235–266.
Barnett, M.A. (1986). Syntactic and lexical/semantic skill in foreign language reading
importance and interaction. Modern Language Journal, 70: 343–349.
Berhardt, E.B. and Kamil, M.L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between LI and L2
reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16: 15–34.
Bossers, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceilings and short circuits: The relations between L1
reading, L2 reading and L2 knowledge. In Hulstijn, J.H. and Matter, J.F. (eds) AILA
Review, 8: 45–60.
Carrell, P.L. (1991). Second language reading ability or language proficiency? Applied
Linguistics, 12: 159–179.
Chiappe, P. and Siegel, L.S. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in
English and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91:
20–28.
Clark, M. (1979). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading – or when language compe-
tence interferes with reading performance. The Modern Language Journal, 64: 203–209.
Cottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L.S. and Wade-Wooley, L. (2001). Factors related to English
reading performance in children with Cantonese as first language: More evidence of
cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93: 530–542.
Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in bilingual classroom: A pedagogy
for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94: 103–115.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interde-
pendence, the optimum age question, and some other matters. Working Papers on
Bilingualism, 19: 197–205.
Duvfva, M. and Voeten, M. (1999). Native language literacy and phonological memory
as a prerequisite for learning English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics,
20: 329–348.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English as a second language learners’ cognitive reading process.
A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65: 145–190.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden,
MA: Wiley/Blackwell.
Gholamarin, M. and Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the current
development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49:
183–217.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does -–
and does not – say. American Educator, 33 (2): 8–44.
Hornberger, N.H. (2002). Multilingual policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecologi-
cal approach. Language Policy, 1: 27–51.
Hornberger, N. and Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in mul-
tilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 15: 261–278.
Hunt, A. and Beglar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary.
Reading in Foreign Language, 15 (2): 23–59.
Jiménez, R.T., García, G.E. and Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual
Latino/a students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles.
Reading Research Journal, 27: 427–471.
Langer, J.A., Bartolome, L., Vasquez, O. and Lucas, T. (1990). Meaning construction
school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research
Journal, 27: 427–471.
Makalela, L. (2012). Developing L1 and L2 reading literacy among fifth graders:
Implications for research-based teacher education. In Osman, R. and Venkat, H. (eds)
Research-led Teacher Education. Cape Town: Pearson, pp. 127–144.
Martinez, R. and Murphy, V.A. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second
language reading. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (2): 267–290.
May, S. (2011). The disciplinary constraints of second language acquisition and TESOL:
Additive bilingualism and SLA, teaching and learning. Linguistics and Education, 22 (3):
233–247.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Oller, D.K. and Eilers, R.E. (eds) (2002). Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. New
York: Multilingual Matters.
Ovando, C.J. and Collier, V. (1998). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in Multicultural
Contexts (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paran, A. and Williams, E. (2007). Editorial: Reading and literacy in developing countries.
Journal of Research in Reading, 30 (1): 1–6.
Pretorius, E.J. and Mampuru, D.M. (2007). Playing football without a ball: Language,
reading and academic performance in a high-poverty school. Journal of Research in
Reading, 30 (1): 38–58.
Service, E. and Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relationship between phonological memory
and foreign language learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied
Psycholinguistics, 16: 155–172.
Sparks, R. and Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning difficulties: Affective or
native language aptitudes differences? Modern Language Journal, 75: 3–16.
Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, E. (2006). Bridges and Barriers: Language in African Education and Development.
Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
9
Interactive Theatre with Student
Teachers and Young Learners:
Enhancing EFL Learning across
Institutional Divisions in Germany
Janice Bland
Introduction
The application of drama in teaching English to young learners (TEYL) is not

new, but its potential remains underdeveloped. One reason for this is that
teachers are often not fully aware of its benefits or how to apply it in their
teaching. In this chapter, I argue that it must be introduced and rehearsed in
teacher education in order to attain a widespread application in schools.
I have been working with drama in TEYL in Germany for a number of years:
as a practising teacher, a materials writer, and more recently as a teacher educa-
tor. In this chapter I report on a project I have developed to promote drama as
a methodology for TEYL, which has demonstrated benefits for both the student
teachers and the young learners who participated in the events the student
teachers prepared. Previous to the teacher education project, an interschool
Drama Workshop was undertaken as a case study to gauge the acceptance of
drama by diverse groups of young learners. The results of this were extremely
encouraging and helped initiate my interest in trialling ways to improve the
provision of drama methodology in pre-service TEFL teacher education.
I have since developed the concept of Interactive Theatre in teacher educa-
tion at two universities, in order to provide experiential learning for student
teachers, and this has continued to evolve over the years. The university-based
project, entitled ‘Coming Together’, focuses on pre-service teachers’ and young
learners’ experiences with drama as a bonding activity – as Interactive Theatre
relies heavily on co-operation. In the seminars, student teachers investigate
some of the wide variety of activities that drama as a creative teaching tool
offers, processes that can be used with or without play scripts for children.
These include freeze-frames, imaging relationships, conscience alley, question-
ing-in-role and teacher-in-role, with the aim of providing context-embedded,
stimulating language-learning opportunities. We also prepare an Interactive
Theatre event, usually only one each term, which takes place either at
156
Interactive Theatre in Teacher Education in Germany 157
university or in a local school. In order to create a basis to further debate with

the student teachers, and to inform the international teacher education project
on a much larger scale currently in planning, questionnaires were administered
with 3rd to 6th grade students who formed the participant audiences at the
Interactive Theatre events. The student teachers recorded their own observa-
tions and critical incidents in a portfolio.
A feature of both the Drama Workshop and the ‘Coming Together’ pro-
ject was the bringing together of very different young learner populations.
Children who took part were drawn from primary and secondary schools as
well as from schools with different degrees of linguistic and cultural diversity.
On the one hand, this was to provide the student teachers with an opportunity
to experience the full diversity of the young learner populations they might
encounter in schools. On the other hand, since drama with its team-teaching
pedagogy is one useful way of building bridges, helping develop an inclusive
and positive peer culture, it was intended to demonstrate this potential of
drama across institutional divisions.
The issue of inclusion is currently one that is being given considerable atten-
tion in educational circles in Germany. There is a new agenda to attempt to
establish a culture of inclusion in state schools, adapting schools to the dif-
fering needs of all children, rather than selecting certain children for certain
schools – thus realizing the ‘shift from seeing the child as a problem to seeing
the education system as a problem’ (UNESCO 2009: 14). It is intended that
schools shall provide an apprenticeship towards a society that welcomes diver-
sity (www.gew.de/Binaries/Binary43645/SonderdruckManifest.pdf).
This agenda, however, has been met with some firm resistance by stakehold-
ers, as there is a diehard tradition of selection and division in the German
school system and little cross-institutional interaction. The secondary level
starts from grade 5 in most parts of Germany, when children have reached
10 years of age. In the last year of the primary school, the children are either
selected or recommended (this depends on the federal state) for one of sev-
eral school types. The most common school types are the more academic
and higher-status Gymnasium, the Realschule that prepares students for their
professional lives, but not for university, and the low-brow and lower-status
Hauptschule, which contains a higher proportion of children from non-German
backgrounds as well as those children whose families are of a low socioeco-
nomic standing. Although comprehensive schools (Gesamtschule) exist, these
are far from commonplace. As Bosch et al. (2008) have observed, this situation
disadvantages children from linguistic and cultural minorities:
Children with a migration background suffer from the general weaknesses

of the German educational system, i.e. the early streaming after the fourth
grade, which tends to place pupils with less favourable starting positions
158 Janice Bland
(e.g. insufficient German language proficiency) in the lower levels of the

multitrack school system. (Bosch et al. 2008: 73)
This division is to some extent mirrored in teacher education provision too.

The distinction between the required teacher qualifications to work in differ-
ent types of schools exacerbates the lack of cross-institutional co-operation in
German schools.
Part of my interest in establishing the ‘Coming Together’ project was to pro-
vide a chance for teachers to reflect on these tensions – which clearly impact on
the teaching profession – and how they themselves might draw upon drama as
a resource to reach across institutional divisions in their future work as teach-
ers. Given that many of these issues will also be faced in young learner settings
in other countries, it is hoped that the consideration of drama as methodology
for teaching young learners in this chapter, and the ways in which Interactive
Theatre can be used in teacher education, will be of interest to many involved
in young learner foreign language education worldwide. More specifically, it is
also hoped that it will provide insights and inspiration into the potential and
effectiveness of drama in the teaching of EFL to young learners, which will
encourage other teachers to give this more attention in their classrooms.
The importance of drama in EFL education
Children’s literature experts with a specialism in drama (Hollindale 2001), edu-

cationalists in the field of drama (Bolton and Heathcote 1998; Goldberg 1974;
Slade 1958) and educationalists in TEFL with a specialism in drama (Fleming
2001; 2004) all extol the importance of drama in education. The efficacy of
drama-based approaches to foreign language learning has been well docu-
mented. According to the applied linguist Guy Cook:
The rehearsal and performance of an appropriate play combines the best of

both structural and communicative syllabuses: rote learning and repetition
of a model, attention to exact wording, practice in all four skills, motivating
and authentic language and activity, instances of culturally and contextu-
ally appropriate pragmatic use, and integration of linguistic with paralin-
guistic communication. (Cook 2000: 196)
Drama is a tremendously useful addition to the now-established functional-

communicative language syllabus. Drama, like literature, creates a parallel
or secondary world, known in narratology as the storyworld (Herman 2005:
569–70). This storyworld is lived through in drama – and the embedding
of language in action thus increases motivation: ‘if the language is embed-
ded in action which has more genuine motivation, it is likely to be less
mechanical and carry more emotional content and meaning’ (Fleming 2004:
186). Moreover, as drama is story acted out, it creates a ‘slowing down’ of
experience while both introducing an enjoyable creative tension and giving
responsibility of interpretation to the learner (Wessel 1987: 53–4). Drama also
highlights the multiple ways in which meaning is communicated. Referring to
the importance of developing new literacies in the technological age, such as
visual literacy, Anstey and Bull (2009: 29) maintain: ‘the linguistic should not
take precedence over the other semiotic systems’. This is avoided with drama,
as it utilizes all five semiotic systems (Anstey and Bull 2009: 28) simultane-
ously. In other words, educational drama involves:
1. the linguistic system – this includes the written script, stage directions and
spoken dialogue;
2. the visual system – this includes scenery, props, masks, stage make-up and
costumes;
3. the gestural system – this includes facial expressions, body language, move-
ment and stillness;
4. the audio system – this includes intonation (indicating e.g. happiness or
anger), sound effects, music, rhythmical chorusing and silence;
5. the spatial system – this includes the setting, as well as the positioning of
characters to each other and to the audience.
Too often young language learners are presented with mono-dimensional rep-
resentations of ‘text’, for example worksheets, inhibiting a multi-dimensional
encounter with language involving sensory images. As a holistic method,
drama is one important way of avoiding this situation. Drama also addresses
the affective dimension in language teaching, highlighting the importance of
‘what goes on inside and between people in the classroom’ (Stevick 1980: 4)
for language-learning success. Young learners can identify with their language
learning – so achieving a positive mind-set – if they can emotionally engage
with the content.
Drama, like the use of storytelling and children’s literature, can provide
vivid input. When children empathize with the characters and plot, they are
transported into another perspective. Students experience alternative worlds: a
different country and characters, a different time or culture, and are provided
with food for thought. In this way, drama is also a powerful way to promote
understanding of other peoples and their cultures (Byram and Fleming 1998).
Drama provides the opportunity for students to enter a storyworld, live in it
for a time, and to exercise the ability to change perspective. The new insights
gained can help develop intercultural literacy, helping them ‘read’ their own
culture afresh and to build bridges across difference through empathy and
understanding.
160 Janice Bland
In addition to the educational value and benefits of drama for EFL in general,
drama is also very well suited to the young learner classroom with its emphasis
on interactive play. Play is considered an innate human capacity and vital to
a child’s learning and development (Slade 1958: 1). Young children are smart
in learning about life, turning everything into a game. Children show us their
active way of learning: they play, they play roles, they observe, they listen,
they imitate, they try out. And this, like all child’s play, belongs to the really
serious stuff of life. In primary and early years education, there is widespread
recognition that teachers need to find ways to support children’s play for, as
Slade observes, ‘The best child play takes place only where opportunity and
encouragement are consciously given to it by an adult mind’ (Slade 1958: 1).
Since drama can be seen to provide many of the conditions for play activity, it
is widely advocated by many young learner practitioners and has historically
occupied an important position in young learner pedagogy in many countries.
Despite this, however, the role of drama in TEYL is often given little system-
atic focused attention by teacher educators, and suitable material to promote
drama is sparse. To Bolton and Heathcote (1998: 159), ‘there appears to be
evidence of much talk but little practice’. Hollingdale’s pronouncement on
the lack of attention to the use of drama with and for children highlights the
urgent need to address this situation:
Given the historical depth of children’s drama, the long tradition of chil-
dren’s creative involvement as participants, not just spectators, the diversity
of educational gains which it affords, and the omnipresence of drama in
contemporary adult life, it should no longer be acceptable for children’s
drama to be the impoverished curricular and theatrical Cinderella which it
currently is. (Hollindale 2001: 220)
Working with student teachers to raise their awareness and to develop their
capacities through hands-on drama experiences, as is discussed in this chapter,
is a powerful way of addressing this.
From child play to drama scripts
The writings on drama for TEFL, by scholars such as Maria Eisenmann, Mike
Fleming and Carola Surkamp, outline a variety of approaches. On the one
hand, drama methodology is seen to comprise improvisational drama pro-
cesses involving whole-body response and, on the other, play scripts as literary
texts to be studied and enacted. This highlights the difficulty of developing a
coherent rationale for the use of educational drama. Nevertheless, as Moses
Goldberg (1974: 4), an influential drama educator, has argued, both what he
calls ‘creative dramatics’ (without a script) and ‘recreational drama’ (scripted
drama) aim for ‘the development of the whole child through a group process’.
Goldberg (1974: 5) also stresses that the term recreation is not meant to sig-
nal drama as a diversion activity but as one that allows for the re-creation of
the self. In the EFL classroom, both scripted and unscripted drama have the
potential to provide multisensory clues to meaning, and both give students the
opportunity to learn to trust and enjoy their linguistic resources and extend
their repertoire. Thus, both scripted and unscripted drama should have a place
in TEFL teacher education.
As in this chapter I am concerned with the ways in which recreational drama
can enhance EFL learning, it should first be considered how drama scripts can be
employed with young learners who are not yet fluent readers of English. It is now
generally accepted that young learners should have the opportunity to read brief
familiar texts in English, such as reading a picture book when they have already
heard the story several times in class (see, for instance, Kolb 2013). Children’s
play scripts consist of dialogue to be performed; in order to appeal to the children
authentically they should reflect the playful linguistic manifestation of children’s
oral culture. Furthermore a patterned, rhythmical text best serves the literacy
apprenticeship of young EFL learners, as rhyme and alliteration are a superb aid
in mastering reading (Bryant et al. 1990). According to Franks’ (2010) report on
drama and language and literacy learning, drama has been shown to be effec-
tive in enhancing reading and writing abilities at all levels, including primary.
Therefore it seems likely that using drama scripts can also support children’s liter-
acy development in the foreign language. The need to read the scene that will be
acted out represents a task-based approach to literacy, and is a powerful incentive
to students to reach beyond the functional decoding of words on a page. Finally,
through participation in drama with a rhythmical and repetitive script, children
experience the vitality, emotional and musical intensity of idiomatic English.
The following short scene or ‘role-rhyme’, extracted from a longer mini-play,
illustrates the sort of play scripts that can be employed, typically over a series
of lessons.
Sam: Let’s play chase.

Ron: No! Let’s have a race.
Eve: A race?
Liz: Where to?
Tom: To the gate.
Sam: But not through!
Ron: Over here!
Eve: The way’s clear!
Liz: Hurry up!
Tom: Don’t be slow!
All together: Ready! Steady! GO! (Bland 2009a: 13)
162 Janice Bland
This exchange can be played by a team of five to ten children. During the
activity a number of important dimensions of child learning are activated.
Acting out the scene animates the language and brings the emotions into
play, teamwork and discipline are promoted and a multisensory experience,
in which the senses of seeing, hearing and touching are involved, is provided,
including movement, which is essential to the activity and a fundamental
aspect of how children learn (Cranston 1995). The first child soon recognizes
the pattern (Let’s play chase. Let’s have a race. Let’s play a game. Let’s go outside.)
and step by step the children will learn from each other. The children’s sensi-
tivity to language patterns is enhanced through their acting, as children more
easily become aware of rhythms and patterns in language when their own
natural rhythms are involved in their movements such as walking, running or
dancing. As Frank has observed, drama affords these conditions as it ‘requires
the involvement of the whole person – the active and integrated engagement
of mind and body, involving imagination, intellect, emotion and physical
action’ (Franks 2010: 242).
Short role-rhymes such as the above can easily be learned by heart. The
teacher models all the lines first, helping the students to visualize the action
by setting the scene: a meeting with friends to play. When the children have a
sufficient understanding of the lines, the class is divided into two to speak the
lines alternately in a chorus dialogue. A chorus dialogue is far more stimulat-
ing than when all speak with one voice. Next the children are each given a
number from 1 to 10. There could be three or more students to each number.
The teacher speaks each line in turn, and asks for suggestions how to act it out
in the classroom, that is, with gestures, movements, tempo and volume, which
illustrate the meaning – such as running on the spot (Let’s have a race) and
knocking on the desk (To the gate). The whole class must try out each sugges-
tion, and the group whose line it is decides which is best. During this process
the children do not notice that they are repeating the lines again and again
and thereby memorizing them. When the gestures have been agreed upon for
every line, the role-rhyme is recited, three speaking each line together, the
whole class chorusing the last line: Ready! Steady! GO! All must be in perfect
unison before the teacher is satisfied with the performance. The children – who
by now have committed the rhyme to their short-term memory – rehearse in
groups either in class or as homework.
Authentic classroom interaction is essential to organize the rehearsals, with
sentences such as ‘Get into groups of five…’, ‘Hurry up, we’re starting!’ and ‘Learn
your lines by heart by Monday’. In addition, rehearsals can create situations that
require initiative, commitment, innovative thinking, urgent decisions, col-
laboration, supportive peer feedback and responsibility. The young learners
can now read the semi-internalized lines in order to practise autonomously.
In the next lesson they may perform the scene, preferably in the gym. In this
way scripted drama can be divided into short scenes and rehearsed with young
learners who are just beginning to read familiar texts.
To sum up, the above activity illustrates how recreational drama links to key
aspects of child learning. It combines the affordances of child play with scripted
drama for learning and simulates social interaction, which will ensure access
to context-embedded language and also motivate young learners to actively
engage in classroom activities (van Lier, 2001). Providing a context for lan-
guage learning is crucial, for it is the context – not the language – that gives the
children the incentive to talk. The context prompts a sharing of meaning and
understanding that will fix multi-dimensional mental representations in the
children’s minds, important for long-term retention and for reading (Masuhara
2005). In recreational drama, the context (the script, which is a dramatized
story when it is enacted) provides multisensory clues to meaning (gestures,
facial expression, movement and groupings, costumes, scenery, props, sound
effects and light). This is the opposite of dull, disembodied English.
Drama Workshop and Interactive Theatre Project
Bearing the above principles in mind, I will now describe how I drew upon
these to inform the development of the first interschool Drama Workshop and
the subsequent Interactive Theatre project, an approach I have evolved to help
support student teachers’ understanding of the value of drama with young
learners and for bridging divisions between schools in Germany. I also report
on insights gained into the efficacy of this approach from student question-
naires and from student teachers’ commentary in their portfolios.
Interschool Drama Workshop

An initial Drama Workshop in 2005 involved EFL students drawn from a range
of grades across different school types. This comprised students from Grade 4
(9–10 year olds) in a Grundschule (primary school), and students in Grades 5
and 6 (10–12 year olds) who were attending either a Gymnasium (academic
secondary school) or a Hauptschule (low-status secondary school) in Nordrhein-
Westfalen (NRW). NRW is the most highly populated state of Western
Germany; it includes the economically important Ruhr region, but currently
suffers from high unemployment. A teacher experienced in drama methodol-
ogy from each of the schools was involved in the workshop, and I myself was
responsible for the primary-school group; without the support of experienced
teachers the undertaking could not have been realized. The aim was to establish
whether drama was motivating and practicable both as methodology and as an
institutional bridging activity. As mentioned in the introduction, this workshop
served as a trial and the results as an impetus for the subsequent project involv-
ing student teachers in their initial teacher education phase. We chose a play
164 Janice Bland
that was flexible enough to give every participant a small speaking role, whether
speaking alone or in chorus, The Pied Piper (Bland 2009b). As with the illustra-
tive drama script extract presented above, I wrote The Pied Piper with second
language learners in mind; I employed the same teaching procedure to work
with scripted texts previously described. After rehearsing separately in their vari-
ous schools, the 45 school children aged between 9 and 12 rehearsed and acted
together on stage. Following two successful performances before large audiences
the children involved in the Drama Workshop filled in a questionnaire (written
in German) regarding their experience in performing The Pied Piper.
The responses to the student questionnaire suggest drama in the EFL class-
room facilitates learner autonomy, including study skills widely recognized as
important components of successful foreign language learning, such as con-
centration and learning by heart. The responses also evidenced a keen inter-
est in doing more drama. In the questionnaire, almost all participants (96%)
from all of the three schools confirmed that they were able to learn their roles
quite easily by heart. Again, almost all (98%) indicated that they thoroughly
enjoyed acting or chorusing their lines in English. In addition, almost all (96%)
confirmed that they were proud of their success and therefore gained in self-
esteem, and all of the children (100%) said they would like to act in front of an
audience again. Finally, the majority of children (91%) also enjoyed cooperat-
ing with children from other schools, thus answering a central objective of the
investigation overwhelmingly positively.
Given the potential of drama to promote literacy development, I was also
interested in how the workshop helped build the children’s confidence in read-
ing. This was the one question that was answered quite differently by children
from the three types of school. All students from the academic secondary school
and all students from the primary school answered in the questionnaire that
they felt able to read the whole play by themselves as an outcome of the Drama
Workshop. However, the majority of students from the low-status secondary
school (13 out of 18 students) indicated that they felt unable to read the whole
play in English after the Drama Workshop and performances. This lack of confi-
dence may well reflect a negative experience of reading in German (as suggested
by their teacher), as well as a lack of any motivating reading materials in English
with which to hone their emerging skills (these children are unlikely to have
access to books in their homes, and Hauptschulen are notoriously ill-equipped
with school libraries). It is particularly striking that the older Hauptschule stu-
dents were far less confident in reading the whole play by themselves after the
workshop than the younger, as yet unstreamed primary-school students.
The Interactive Theatre Project

Following on from the success of the workshop described above, the ‘Coming
Together’ project comprises experiential learning of drama methodology as
a way to prepare student teachers for future work as English language teach-
ers. The project involves the concept of bringing the primary and diverse
secondary-level learners together with pre-service teachers destined to work
in different types of school, through the preparation of an Interactive Theatre
event. This was possible in NRW, but would not have been possible within the
established framework of teacher education in some of the federal states in
Germany, where teachers for the different school types are educated at differ-
ent institutions.
Regarding the aims of the Interactive Theatre events with young learners,
these remained the same as those for the initial workshop described above.
The first aim was to motivate learners through a feeling of success and achieve-
ment, as this is considered one of the key priorities for students, particularly
in the early stages of language learning. The second was to develop literacy
with young learners by encouraging reading and acting out of the play scripts
following the Interactive Theatre event. New and additional aims reflect the
move towards work with student teachers in this project, to enhance their
appreciation of drama as methodology for teaching young learners. For student
teachers the key aims were:
• To rehearse in the teacher-education seminar the progression from the

scripted, carefully scaffolded character of EFL young-learner interaction in
primary schools towards the largely unscripted and improvised interaction
more typical of the ways in which drama can be used in secondary EFL
classrooms.
• To prepare student teachers to use drama methodology and to develop an
ability to prepare and employ a meaningful and realizable progressive TEFL
methodology with drama, extending from young learners in the primary
school to the heterogeneous lower-intermediate learners found in second-
ary schools.
The Interactive Theatre events, which each lasted typically one hour, were pre-
pared in university seminars at the two institutions where I worked as teacher
educator at the time, from 2005 to 2011. Three of the events took place in
a university auditorium: two at the University of Duisburg-Essen and one at
the University of Hildesheim. One event took place at a theatre in Essen, and
three further events took place in schools – a Gymnasium, a Hauptschule and a
primary school – that happened to have a hall large enough to accommodate
the participant audience from the surrounding schools. The student teachers
were prepared during the weekly seminar sessions, which included theory and
materials development as well as methodology, over a period of around ten
weeks. Where possible, the student teachers helped the local teachers prepare
the young learners for the Interactive Theatre, for example, when they spent
166 Janice Bland
one morning each week in school on pre-service teaching practice, known

as Fachpraktikum. Student teachers also supported the children’s teachers by
administering post-event questionnaires in order to gauge the children’s per-
spectives. In addition to evaluation through questionnaires – the method also
chosen for the initiating Drama Workshop – further evaluation was made pos-
sible by the portfolios student teachers were required to keep throughout the
project, logging their impressions and any critical incidents that occurred (see
extracts below). The young learners themselves, however, were far less involved
in preparing the Interactive Theatre event than had been possible during the
Drama Workshop described above. An institutional framework to increase the
involvement of the children and their teachers, both before the Interactive
Theatre event and subsequent to it, is one of the aims of a long-term project
that is in planning.
Preparing student teachers for an Interactive Theatre event
Preparing the student teachers for Interactive Theatre required attention to a

number of things. First, they were engaged in the mechanics of setting up the
project. This entailed locating suitable materials, contacting local schools and
preparing the ‘stage’ where the event would take place. There is a noticeable
lack of published material for preparing and performing Interactive Theatre
with young learners as the participating audience. This deficiency is a stumbling
block, and is something I hope to address in the planned large-scale Interactive
Theatre project. I have used my own published plays written for performance
by large casts of young learners (Bland 2009b; 2009c) and traditional tales
(Lupton 1998; 2001), as well as fairy tales, poems and nursery rhymes. In every
case we needed to adapt and partially rewrite scenes to encourage and allow
for audience participation. We also created PowerPoint slides as ‘scenery’, and
in this way we managed with the technical resources and staging opportunities
already in place where these events were held.
It proved to be practical to involve several groups of pre-service student
teachers; this helped bring together ongoing teachers who were being prepared
for future work in different school systems. One aspect of the seminar work
was to focus on enhancing the student teachers’ self-confidence in speaking
English spontaneously in front of children and young adults. It is far from
being the case that student teachers (who in Germany are generally able to use
academic English at a high level of fluency) can automatically speak naturally
yet accessibly to young learners. Student teachers need to rehearse the use
of clear enunciation, good eye contact, repetition, elaboration, phonological
intensity and scaffolding – involving gestures, facial expressions and regulated
tempo – to sufficiently support the children in their comprehension fluency.
Practising oral story telling provides an opportunity for rehearsing scaffolded
teacher talk in the teacher seminar. Moreover, the Interactive Theatre rehears-
als are of central importance, for working towards a whole-group goal creates a
motivating seminar and classroom environment and group cohesion. It is not
easy to produce confident on-stage spontaneous verbal reactions with convic-
tion and self-confidence, and the rehearsals were designed to help with this.
Teachers who are able to ad lib convincingly, using well-formed, authentic yet
accessible language under stressful conditions, have learned a very important
skill for dealing with the sometimes shy, sometimes outspoken and spontane-
ous children in today’s classrooms.
Student teachers I have worked with in the ‘Coming Together’ project have
been very enthusiastic about the experience, and reflective comments in their
portfolios indicate a number of key points of learning they have taken from
it. A student teacher found, for example, the involvement of primary school
children in the project ‘totally amazing’, and she continued:
It reflected how much pupils at this age can understand and also even do
and speak in a foreign language they have been learning for only two years.
This discovery is actually of very practical use. Knowing that children of
that age can manage to understand and act like this encourages me to have
a theatre project with my future classes as well.
The student teachers also maintained they learned a great deal from the vitality
and enthusiasm of the children, for, as one said, they found they were ‘soaking
up the energy of the children and giving it back’. The Interactive Theatre also
unleashed energy and passion, and a belief in drama methodology that had not
been anticipated by the pre-service teachers. As one observed:
According to my experience […] drama activities are unfortunately not

that current in the language classroom. This is due to various reasons such
as additional work for the teacher or insufficient practical experience in
this area. I have to admit that I myself had doubts about the efficiency of
language learning with the help of drama activities. My fear was losing too
much time with preparation, organization and rehearsals, time that could
be used more effectively otherwise […]. In fact I changed my mind through
our course work on the performance that term.
Additionally, the student teachers pointed to some particular aspects of the

preparation seminars that they had found genuinely helpful. For example, one
commented:
All in all the rehearsals were great fun because of speaking English the
whole time, always contributing new ideas to the play and putting them
168 Janice Bland
into action. It was difficult at the beginning to express in English the stage
directions or instructions for the dance movements, but this had a positive
effect on our knowledge of English.
The student teacher portfolios also reflected how the team-teaching peda-
gogy of ‘Coming Together’ can develop and intensify a positive peer culture.
For example, one student teacher recorded the following observation in her
portfolio:
Our seminar group developed a feeling of fellowship. This solidarity came

because of the group work, the intensive discussions and issues during the
seminar and the rehearsals on stage. This is the way I would like to organize
myself in future. In my opinion, this experience on stage is very important
and every person seeking to become a young learner teacher should partici-
pate in this great experience.
This illustrates how for many of the student teachers, the experience of the
interactive theatre project helped model ways in which they could develop
their own practice in the future.
Participant audience questionnaires
The participant audience questionnaires were designed to establish if the

Interactive Theatre also benefited the children. This aspect was particularly rel-
evant for the motivation of the student teachers, as it was intended that their
experience of the project would persuade them to use drama methodology in
future in school. The results helped teachers recognize that the generous com-
mitment of time from everyone involved was worthwhile and justified.
In what follows, by way of illustration, I will compare the results of the first
and latest Interactive Theatre events (at Duisburg-Essen University in 2005 and
at Hildesheim University in 2011). These involved student teachers with large
audiences of children who participated in the Interactive Theatre – not in the
rehearsals – but some of whom participated in post-event activities (this was at
the discretion of the class teachers). The data collection within the classrooms
was carried out by my student teachers, and a combined total of 386 question-
naires were returned. These focused on learners’ attitudes to the Interactive
Theatre event and confidence with regard to reading and acting out of play
scripts.
Table 9.1 shows the results obtained for the event in 2005 resulting from the
analysis of 292 completed questionnaires. It shows the percentage of affirma-
tive responses to the questions asked by gender across 4th grade primary
school children aged 9–10 and 5th and 6th grade children aged 10–12 in an
Table 9.1 Students’ affirmative responses to a ‘Coming Together’ event (18.02.2005)
Question GIRLS BOYS
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

(4th grade) (5th & 6th (4th grade) (5th & 6th
grade) grade)
Do you like learning 91% 93% 83% 91%

English?
Did you enjoy the 100% 97% 93% 76%
English theatre event?
Did you learn anything 93% 80% 85% 68%
new?
Did you understand 79% 88% 83% 86%
most of the action of
The Pied Piper?
Would you like to act in 72% 74% 48% 41%
a play in English?
Would you like to read 74% 59% 65% 62%
The Pied Piper in class?
Would you like to see 99% 96% 92% 89%
another play in English?
academic-track secondary school (Gymnasium). None of the children in the sec-

ondary school will have received English instruction in their primary school,
as English was introduced in the primary schools in NRW after these children
had passed through.
Table 9.2 shows the results obtained for the event in 2011 resulting from
the analysis of 94 completed questionnaires. This shows the percentage of
affirmative responses to the questions asked by gender across 3rd and 4th grade
primary school children aged 8–11 and 5th grade children aged 10–12 in a
comprehensive school (Gesamtschule). The age range suggests that some of the
comprehensive-school children had repeated a year (Sitzenbleiben). This is nor-
mal practice in Germany when students are not considered ready to progress
to the next grade.
The answers to question 1 (Do you like learning English?) are enthusiastic
in both the 2005 and 2011 questionnaires and for all grades. The answers to
questions 2 (Did you enjoy the English theatre?), 3 (Did you learn anything
new?), 4 (Did you understand most of the action of The Pied Piper?) and 7
(Would you like to see another play in English?) are largely very enthusiastic,
particularly in the 2011 questionnaire. More student teachers were involved in
the 2011 Interactive Theatre event, and I was able to spend considerably more
time on preparing them for scaffolding the script to help the audience follow.
In addition, due to the experience I had gathered throughout the project, more
170 Janice Bland
Table 9.2 Students’ affirmative responses to a ‘Coming Together’ event (23.06.2011)
Question GIRLS BOYS
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

(4th grade) (5th & (4th grade) (5th &
6th grade) 6th grade)
Do you like learning English? 89% 92% 89% 89%

Did you enjoy the English 97% 100% 93% 100%
theatre event?
Did you learn anything new? 87% 88% 79% 88%
Did you understand most of 97% 91% 92% 89%
the actions of The Pied Piper?
Would you like to act in a 72% 80% 63% 25%
play in English?
Would you like to read The 56% 58% 50% 44%
Pied Piper in class?
Would you like to see another 97% 100% 90% 89%
play in English?
Did you like taking part? 97% 88% 82% 75%
audience participation had been made possible. For this reason question 8 was
added to the 2011 questionnaire (Did you like taking part?), and the result was
highly positive. It was delightful for my student teachers to experience the
eagerness of children to take part in Interactive Theatre.
I consider the results of questions 5 and 6 as very striking. The answers to
question 5 (Would you also like to act in a play in English?) show a welcome
to this idea on the part of the girls, but a rather negative reaction on the part
of the boys. Yet the report earlier in this chapter on the Drama Workshop that
involved 45 children from three different school types (who acted in The Pied
Piper themselves) indicates that 100 percent of the children concerned – who
were certainly not all high flyers – would like to act in front of an audience
again, and 98 percent of them enjoyed acting or chorusing their lines in
English. This is a very strong argument for Interactive Theatre in teacher educa-
tion in order to prepare ongoing teachers to actually use drama methodology;
however, it also indicates that experiencing Interactive Theatre alone does
not necessarily enthuse children to take part in drama in the classroom. I also
suggest the answers to question 5 indicate that we should start with drama
activities and scripted Drama Workshops in the primary school rather than
wait till the secondary school (where the girls were still enthusiastic in the
post-Interactive Theatre study, but the boys were sceptical).
The answers to question 6 (Would you like to read The Pied Piper in class?)
seem to show a decline of interest in reading a play, as the percentage of
children who would like to read the play after seeing the performance has
fallen quite sharply from the 2005 to the 2011 questionnaire. It is interesting
to compare the reactions of the participating audiences of 2005 and 2011 with
the experience of the children in the Drama Workshop from three different
school types. The play script employed was the same one (The Pied Piper), but
of course these children had had a much closer involvement in the perfor-
mance, and had learned some of the lines by heart. In the case of the Workshop
100 percent of children from the primary school and academic secondary
school had reported they felt able to read the whole play now by themselves.
However 13 out of 18 students of the low-status secondary school involved in
the Workshop did not think they could read the play script. Certainly with
regard to literacy, then, which probably has the most important role to play
in equalizing life chances, more commitment, more age-appropriate materials
and more work on promoting confidence and motivation for reading must,
I conclude, be provided through drama in the EFL classroom, particularly with
students disadvantaged by lack of literacy events outside of school. Projects
such as the cross-institutional Drama Workshop would appear to offer excel-
lent opportunities for an inclusive and bridge-building pedagogy. Such a
workshop requires, however, committed language teachers who are already
experienced in drama methodology. It is my argument that Interactive Theatre
is a very promising project for developing EFL teachers – both pre-service and
in-service – with the expertise and commitment for drama.
Some final reflections on the Interactive Theatre project
The project described in this chapter highlights a number of benefits for both
student teachers and the young learners who took part in the events. First, it
yields support for the claim that drama provides gains for a ‘positive affective
and attitudinal engagement with learning and schooling’ (Franks 2010: 248)
and has the potential to help lay foundations for literacy skills. As language
learning worldwide involves ever-young learners, the craft repertoire of the
language teacher must also develop, in order to perpetuate the advantages of
younger L2 learners, as listed, for example, in Saville-Troike (2006: 82). These
include brain plasticity (helpful for the acquisition of target phonology), non-
analytical processing mode (helpful for the acquisition of language chunks
holistically), fewer inhibitions (helpful for taking risks) and weaker group
identity (helpful for acquiring intercultural competence). These advantages are
best exploited in naturalistic language-learning settings, such as drama offers.
Interactive Theatre provides an opportunity to both nurture the global and
holistic cognitive style of the younger learner, and to support and value less
analytic secondary-school learners, whose cognitive style is often undervalued
in mainstream schooling.
172 Janice Bland
Secondly, as was evidenced in their portfolios, student teachers clearly ben-

efited enormously from their involvement in Interactive Theatre, and their
perceptions of the value of a hands-on experience of employing drama justifies
the effort and commitment involved in running this project. The opportunity
the Interactive Theatre events provided for bridging institutional divisions
was also seen to be a powerful aspect of the project for the student teachers.
Interactive Theatre as an inter-institutional project introduces student teach-
ers to a team-teaching and bridge-building pedagogy, which can hopefully go
on to inform their work in the future and provide them with an example of
how to address and better manage primary to secondary school transitions for
young EFL learners.
Given the move towards inclusion and honouring linguistic and cultural
diversity in young learner populations in Germany and elsewhere, not only
does the project I have described in this chapter provide the student teachers
with an experience of working with children drawn from diverse backgrounds,
but can also help raise awareness of how plurilingual and pluricultural com-
petence could be promoted and celebrated. Drama and play are universal
activities that can fulfil an important role in trans-sociocultural communi-
cation and can also be beneficial for the student teachers themselves. At an
English Interactive Theatre event I conducted in the Audimax of the University
Duisburg-Essen in February 2006, as part of the Unikids programme for 8–12
year olds, for example, among the most memorable moments were when pluri-
lingual members of the participant audience – more than 500 children – were
able to interact in their mother tongue (Turkish, Arabic, Polish and Russian)
as well as in English with the plurilingual student teachers (www.unikids.de/
galleryviewer.php?id=2006-02-03).
Thus, the Interactive Theatre project also has the potential to raise student
teachers’ intercultural awareness. This was clearly an outcome of another
Interactive Theatre event that took place in 2006 in a Hauptschule (the low-
status German secondary school where socioeconomically disadvantaged
students are always over-represented). The interactive participation, which
had worked so well with the same student teachers performing an Interactive
Theatre event in a primary school, was disappointing in the Hauptschule. This
was only superficially due to the 11–13 year olds themselves. It was largely due
to the very apparent apprehension of the student teachers towards the (socially
disadvantaged) children; the mistrust of the student teachers towards them
blocked a satisfying interaction. In the post-performance seminar discussions,
the student teachers expressed an awareness of their lack of intercultural com-
municative competence with this target group, and this became a critical point
of learning for them.
To conclude, I believe Interactive Theatre is shown to be an excellent
model for student teacher development, and I would advocate its promotion
in pre-service teacher education in order to support teachers in managing

issues of inclusion and the bridging of institutional divisions (primary and
secondary), which pose dilemmas for teachers but for which concrete peda-
gogical solutions are often lacking. While Interactive Theatre clearly requires
effort and commitment, in terms of resourcing all that is required is a large
space (ideally with a stage) to allow for interaction and movement, and good
acoustics or microphones. Preparation of the student teachers can take place
within the well-established framework of teacher education common in most
countries, as the drama work can enrich teacher-education seminars that focus
on, for example, TEFL with Young Learners, Classroom Discourse in EFL and
Task-Based Language Learning. I hope the account of the way in which I have
conducted the project in my own professional context, together with the case
I have made for the importance of drama in teaching young learners, will
encourage others to incorporate some of the ideas in their own work. A drama
workshop project, similar to the one I reported on earlier in the chapter, is an
excellent way to experience team teaching and inter-institutional fellowship.
This could then lead to a co-written account in order to share the results and
so help enrich and evolve our understanding of the benefits of drama both for
young learners themselves and for the institutions and teachers involved.
1. A number of different approaches to drama in the TEYL classroom have

been introduced in this chapter. Do they suggest any ways in which drama
could be promoted to teach younger learners in your own teaching setting?
2. It has been argued that drama has considerable potential for ‘bridging and
bonding’. In what ways could this be developed to support cross-institu-
tional interaction in your own teaching context?
3. A fresh belief in drama methodology was an outcome of the interactive
drama experience with pre-service teachers. Could this method energize
teacher education in your own context?
References
Anstey, M. and Bull, G. (2009). Developing new literacies. Responding to picture books
in multiliterate ways. In Evans, J. (ed) Talking Beyond the Page: Reading and Responding
to Picturebooks. London: Routledge, pp. 26–43.
Bland, J. (2009a). Mini-Plays, Role-Rhymes and other Stepping Stones to English. Book 1: At
School (2nd edn). Studio City, CA: Players Press.
Bland, J. (2009b). Mini-Plays, Role-Rhymes and other Stepping Stones to English. Book 2:
Legends and Myths (2nd edn). Studio City, CA: Players Press.
Bland, J. (2009c). Mini-Plays, Role-Rhymes and other Stepping Stones to English. Book 3:
Favourite Festivals (2nd edn). Studio City, CA: Players Press.
174 Janice Bland
Bolton, G. and Heathcote, D. (1998). Teaching culture through drama. In Byram, M.

and Fleming, M. (eds) Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through
Drama and Ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bosch, N., Peucker, M. and Reiter, S. (2008). Racism, Xenophobia and Ethnic Discrimination
in Germany 2007. Report for compiled for the European Forum for Migration
Studies (efms), Bamberg University. Available at: http://www.efms.uni-bamberg.de/
pdf/Diskriminierung_Deutschland_2007_1.pdf [accessed 10/6/12].
Bryant, P.E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L.L. and Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration,
phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26 (3): 429–438.
Byram M. and Fleming M. (eds) (1998). Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective:
Approaches through Drama and Ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. (2000). Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cranston, J.W. (1995). Transformations through Drama. Trinidad, CA: Jenfred Press.
Fleming, M. (2001). Teaching Drama in Primary and Secondary Schools. London: David
Fulton Publishers.
Fleming, M. (2004). Drama. In Byram, M. (ed) Language Teaching and Learning. London:
Routledge, pp. 185–187.
Franks, A. (2010). Drama in teaching and learning language and literacy. In Wyse, D.,
Andrews, R. and Hoffman, J. (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of English,
Language and Literacy Teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 242–253.
Goldberg, M. (1974). Children’s Theatre: A Philosophy and a Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Herman, D. (2005). Storyworld. In Herman, D., Jahn, M. and Ryan, M.-L. (eds) Routledge
Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 569–570.
Hollindale, P. (2001). Drama for children. In Watson, V. (ed) The Cambridge Guide to
Children’s Books in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 216–220.
Kolb, A. (2013). Extensive reading of picturebooks in primary EFL. In Bland, J. and
Lütge, C. (eds) Children’s Literature in Second Language Education. London: Bloomsbury
Academic, pp. 33–43.Lupton, H. illus. Sharkey, N. (1998). Tales of Wisdom and Wonder.
Bath: Barefoot Books.
Lupton, H. (2001). The Story Tree. Bath: Barefoot Books.
Masuhara, H. (2005). Helping learners to achieve multi-dimensional mental representa-
tion in L2 reading. Folio: Journal of the Materials Development Association, 9 (2/1): 6–9.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Slade, P. (1958). An Introduction to Child Drama. London: University of London Press.
Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
UNESCO (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Available at: http://
www.inclusive-education-in-action.org/iea/dokumente/upload/72074_177849e.pdf
[accessed 27/11/12].
van Lier, L. (2001). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and
symmetry. In Candlin, C. and Mercer, N. (eds) English Language Teaching in its Social
Context: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 90–107.
Wessels, C. (1987). Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
Scaffolding Listening through ICT
with Young Learners in Qatar
Mohammad Manasreh
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to report on the first cycle of a collaborative

action research project I undertook to investigate the role of Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in supporting the teaching of English to
young learners (TEYL) in the Qatari context. This comprised three stages. First
was a planning stage comprising an extensive survey undertaken with young
Qatari teenagers (aged 13–14) in a number of intermediate schools and the
observation and interview of two of their teachers. Secondly, based on the find-
ings of the first stage, the subsequent development of an innovative interven-
tion designed to explore the ways in which ICT could inform the teaching and
learning of listening was undertaken with three classes of children and their
teachers in one intermediate school. Finally, an evaluation of the intervention
programme was undertaken to establish the impact of this on these students
and teachers.
This project was initiated within the context of a number of sweeping edu-
cational reforms in Qatar in recent years. These are placing great emphasis
on the use of technology in education including in the learning of English,
which is a compulsory school subject from the first grade of primary school
(6 years of age). Although the role of technology in education is being felt
around the world, ICT is still a relatively new phenomenon on the educational
scene in the Arab world. Qatar has been at the forefront of initiatives to pro-
mote ICT in education in the Arabian Gulf region, and this has witnessed a
rapid growth since the establishment of the Supreme Council of Information
and Communication Technology (ictQatar) in 2004. ictQatar aspires to make
technology an accessible and integral part of everyday life in Qatar and in
particular in education (www.ictqatar.gov.qa). The increasing pressure to use
ICT effectively in the classroom and to ‘upskill’ the workforce of tomorrow is
felt by all stakeholders. More than 15 national e-learning projects have been
175
176 Mohammad Manasreh
implemented by the Qatari government, and a great deal has been invested in
creating technology-enhanced learning environments in schools. As well as
an e-lab, all classrooms are networked and children are provided with e-tablet
personal computers as standard.
Nevertheless, in spite of the investment in these projects by the Qatari gov-
ernment, the aims of the programmes have not yet been fully achieved. One
reason for this is that many projects are managed by international private ven-
dors. Not all of these pay sufficient attention to understanding the local culture
in implementing their projects, and it is not always easy to address issues of
accountability if these are unsuccessful. However, my seven years of experi-
ence as both a teacher and supervisor, and more latterly as someone in charge
of helping school teachers with the ICT reforms in Qatar across a number of
schools, has led me to recognize that the biggest issue faced relates to the ways
in which ICT initiatives are implemented in schools. I have noticed that there
is still limited attention to the potential of ICT to support teaching and learn-
ing as reflected in a lack of serious consideration as to how it can be integrated
into classroom practice in many schools. In addition, most schools lack long-
term ICT plans and visions, as is evidenced by a lack of involvement of parents
and school administrators in supporting the adoption of ICT, and insufficient
training for the teachers who are expected to employ it in their teaching.
In Qatar there is widespread recognition of the need to examine the impact
of the educational reforms that are being implemented (Robinson 2008), and
increasing awareness of the need for in-depth analysis of the ways these are
experienced by key stakeholders. On the basis of my understanding of the issues
regarding the implementation of the ICT in schools, I believe that it is crucial
to focus on the experiences of teachers and learners as front-line stakeholders in
these reforms. As Louis et al. (1996) have noted, the success of a reform is ulti-
mately determined by those who are engaged in the process of its implemen-
tation in classrooms. Moreover, the pivotal role of teachers’ competence and
orientation towards ICT as well as learner perspectives have both been acknowl-
edged as important for research agendas in the successful implementation of
ICT-enhanced learning in the literature (see e.g. Dale et al. 2004; Neal 2005).
Regarding my decision to employ action research, this is firstly because, as is
widely advocated in the literature, this helps educators evolve their practice by
providing a way to engage in a self-reflective, critical and systematic approach
to understand their teaching (Burns 1999). Action research typically entails the
identification of a central issue or ‘problem’, the development of an interven-
tion (or action) to address this, and reflection and evaluation of the outcomes.
This process, illustrated in Figure 10.1, is described as an ongoing cycle of
inquiry as the outcomes of this process are seen to entail the identification of
new actions to be taken and the generation of further cycles of action research
(McNiff, 2002).
Scaffolding Listening through ICT with Qatari Young Learners 177
ACTING PLANNING
OBSERVING REFLECTING
Figure 10.1 A classic action research cycle
As Burns (1999) argues, action research can also help teachers gain better own-
ership of a change that has been instigated elsewhere as they can develop their
own responses. This was another reason why I found this method appealing in
considering ways to address the issues regarding the use of ICT in EFL young
learner classrooms in Qatar outlined above.
Based on my insider knowledge of the Qatari school as a supervisor I decided
to undertake the action research myself rather than engage in a collaborative
action research with other teachers in schools. This is because, despite a move
to encourage more critical reflection among teachers though professional
development workshops in Qatar, including the promotion of action research,
many teachers are reluctant to engage with this. As in many other settings,
while teachers are aware of the principle of action research, they struggle to
engage with the concept of teacher as researcher and are uncertain as to how
to introduce action research in practice. In addition, given the pressures faced
in their professional lives, many indicate that research into their own practice
is too time-consuming. I hoped that an illustration of how action research can
be undertaken and what this can contribute to understanding and identifying
potential solutions to issues in the use of ICT with young EFL learners would
raise their awareness of how to use ICT in teaching English. I also hoped to
‘persuade’ them of the value of this sort of professional inquiry and encourage
them to consider it as a way to evolve their own professional development
in future.
The main focus of my inquiry was directed to helping teachers find solutions
to the issues faced with regard to adopting ICT and young EFL learners outlined
above. However, as will be discussed below, the study has contributed to shed-
ding light on some potential practices for promoting listening through ICT
with young EFL learners. This may be informative for young learner educators
more generally, especially since this has only received limited explicit research
attention to date (Macaro et al. 2011). Moreover, since very few studies on the
use of ICT in TESOL have employed action research (Bax 2003), it is hoped
that the report on the use of it here will provide some insights into how it can
develop an informed understanding of the issues posed in using ICT in the
young learner EFL classroom. I hope this will inspire others to consider action
research as a useful line of inquiry in their own working contexts, whether in
comparable settings in the Gulf region or beyond.
In what follows, I first undertake a review of literature, which highlights
the importance of promoting ICT in teaching EFL to young learners as well as
some of the challenges. This informed the first stage of the action research I
undertook (the planning stage). I then report on the findings of this first stage
and how this led to the decision to focus on the use of ICT to promote listen-
ing, and what the outcomes of the listening intervention were. I conclude the
chapter by reflecting on the process I undertook, how this helped me improve
my own understanding of the issues faced in using ICT in teaching English
to young learners, and the wider implications for using action research to
promote teachers’ understanding of their work in teaching English to young
learners.
Opportunities and challenges with the use of ICT in TEYL
As we move forward in the digital age, ICT has come to be seen as an indispen-
sable tool for educational progress, and has ensured that collaboration between
teachers and students is no longer constrained by time and place. This reality has
led to increasing calls to incorporate technology in educational systems in gen-
eral and in language classrooms in particular (Locke 2003). Policymakers around
the world have called on schools to use digital technology to modernize and per-
sonalize education for learners, and to make digital opportunities available to all.
Moreover, a burgeoning literature has highlighted how, as the use of ICT contin-
ues to expand exponentially, this brings unprecedented opportunities for achiev-
ing greater educational access and success (UNESCO 2006: 21; Webb 2005). From
the ‘virtual classroom’ to the ‘cybercampus’, ICT-assisted teaching and learning is
now a significant part of the educational landscape (Selwyn 2003: 2).
ICT has been found to be a good tool for language learning as it is seen to pro-
vide more equal participation than in face-to-face discussion. It is also observed
to make class discussions more collaborative and to increase language-learning
opportunities both in terms of increased input and through generating more
negotiated classroom interaction and output (Warschauer and Meskill 2000).
In the realm of teaching young learners, defined here as children up until the
age of 14, ICT is seen to:
• Engage and empower learners across all subjects inside and outside formal
learning.
• Enable young learners to understand, visualize and interpret difficult texts.
• Offer learners and practitioners access to high-quality tools and resources,
which can produce savings in time and effort for teachers.
• Motivate students and differentiate learning experiences to suit the different
needs and levels of learners.
• Improve the outcomes of education.
• Help to link school and home.
• Provide access to new teaching materials and assessment mechanisms.
• Enhance the development of a range of social learning skills, including com-
munication, negotiation, decision-making and problem-solving.
(based on BECTA 2008; Selwyn 2003)
In addition to these benefits, in the teaching of EFL to young learners specifi-

cally, ICT is seen as enriching as it allows teachers to bring a multimedia and
multisensory experience to the classroom through the combination of sounds,
visuals, graphics and animation. It also enables teachers to draw on content
materials from a wide range of different cultures to promote inclusion and
reflect cultural and linguistic diversity (Lama 2006).
While on the basis of the above, ICT is widely assumed to bring many oppor-
tunities to improve student learning (Oblinger and Oblinger 2005), it is also
recognized that it is not without its problems, as I have noted above in the dis-
cussion of the Qatari educational context. In line with my own observations,
for example, Johnson et al. (2001) note that 72 percent of ICT educational
projects around the world are either unsuccessful or struggling. While some of
the reasons for this relate to challenges faced in using technology, it is also the
case that ICT-supported learning still lacks proper pedagogical frameworks and
without attention to these, as a number of writers have observed, it will often
fail to deliver on its promises (see e.g. Smeets 2005; Wells 2001). The action
research project I undertook was one that was informed by the potential of
ICT in teaching English to young learners outlined above, and was interested
in identifying issues in the way it is employed in classrooms to help ensure its
success.
The inquiry design and results
With reference to the principles of action research discussed above, my inquiry

comprised three main stages. These were Planning, Acting and Evaluation.
Each stage is described in turn below. The informed consent of all those who
participated in the action research was obtained.
Stage one: planning

The purpose of this first stage was to develop a deeper understanding of the
views and experiences of young teenagers (aged 13–14) and their teachers
regarding ICT and its use in English language classes in Qatar. This information
was seen as a way of helping me to identify a particular issue that would be a
focus of my intervention.
To do this I observed a number of classes taught by two teachers in one inter-
mediate school in Qatar, and asked them for their views on the use of ICT, its
value and they problems they faced with employing it. I also developed a ques-
tionnaire, which was distributed to 500 young learners in a number of schools;
219 children completed these questionnaires. I considered this second step to
be particularly valuable. As an academic supervisor and former teacher I was
not unfamiliar with the teacher’s perspective and approach to implementing
ICT, but I realized that I knew much less about the student perspective, which
is widely considered to be important to seek out in understanding the success
of efforts to introduce ICT reforms (Neal 2005).
The use of the questionnaire to collect data from students at this stage, as
opposed to other methods such as interviews and observations, was to enable
as many students as possible to contribute and to maximize the number of
perspectives I could obtain. The questionnaire’s objectives were to evaluate stu-
dents’ attitudes towards ICT, their perceptions of its value in language learning
and, most importantly, to identify any major issues with the use of ICT in their
English classrooms. Informed by my reading and my knowledge of the Qatari
context, the main dimensions of the questionnaire are illustrated in Table 10.1.
The questionnaire was written in the students’ first language, Arabic.
In considering the outcomes of this planning stage of my inquiry, I will first
discuss the findings of the survey conducted and then reflect on these in light
of my findings from the observations of classes and the views of the teachers.
Learners’ general orientation to ICT and perception of its value

The findings from the student questionnaire highlighted the widespread avail-
ability of computers among learners and their active use of these in their daily
Table 10.1 The structure of the stage one student questionnaire
Dimension Item numbers
Background information 1–7

Attitudes towards ICT 8–17
Perceived value of ICT 18–29
Current uses of ICT at school 30–37
Current uses of ICT in English classes 38–52
Factors affecting the use of ICT 53–59
Open question 60
Table 10.2 Students’ positive attitude to using ICT in class
Questionnaire statement Percentage of learners

who agreed
I enjoy lessons more if my English 75

language teacher uses ICT
I feel happy when my teacher uses 82
technology in the class
I like using ICT in class 83
lives. Almost all children (97%) indicated that they had access to a personal
computer at home and a majority (70%) claimed to use a computer for at least
one hour each day. Their overall attitudes towards using ICT were also very
favourable, with the vast majority indicating that they found using computers
motivating (83%) and effective (74%). More specifically, they indicated that
it helped address different needs and levels of learners (73%), allowed them
to learn at their own pace (71%), was a good way to encourage collaboration
between themselves and other students (72%) and that it enabled them to get
instant feedback when undertaking language learning activities (73%). The
positive orientation towards ICT among these students is in line with the find-
ings of other studies that sought out the views of young learners such as those
undertaken by BECTA (2008) and Smith et al. (2008).
The use of ICT in English lessons

In line with the positive attitudes that learners held to ICT above, the question-
naire findings revealed that the vast majority were very enthusiastic about its
use in English lessons, as is revealed by the high numbers of those who agreed
with the statements shown in Table 10.2.
Nevertheless, about half of the learners indicated that they felt frustrated
when using ICT in class. For some this was due to technological problems
they claimed to encounter (59%), but others also mentioned teachers’ lack of
confidence as a factor (53%). A further 45 percent felt that the way it was used
was not interesting. In response to the open-ended question at the end of the
questionnaire, several highlighted a desire for more games and fun activities in
using ICT. As one learner remarked, for example, ‘If we have more games we
will love the teacher more and learn more.’
The observations of the classes taught by the two teachers mentioned above,
together with other observations I have undertaken in my role as supervisor,
confirms some of these learner perspectives. Teachers themselves acknowl-
edged a lack of confidence in trying out new ideas as well as a lack of awareness
of what sorts of activities might be deployed. In addition, while the observa-
tions I undertook revealed that learners clearly enjoyed lessons where ICT was
employed, an element of fun was often missing. I also observed that teachers
ICT helps MOST with...... ICT helps LEAST with......

N = 193 N = 195
Speaking Reading
Listening 15% Speaking
23% 21%
11% Reading
42%
Writing
Writing Listening 22%
32% 34%
Figure 10.2 Students’ views on how ICT helps promote different language skills
struggled with behaviour management when the children were engaged with
their tablet PCs, leading them to favour a teacher-fronted and teacher-
controlled approach to work with ICT.
The use of ICT to promote different language skills

In terms of which language skills learners felt ICT helped most with, as illus-
trated by the two pie charts in Figure 10.2, the questionnaire revealed that
learners perceived ICT to help most with reading and least with listening.
While these views may not necessarily reflect the ways in which ICT is
employed in their English lessons, this result did correlate with the ways in
which teachers tend to employ ICT in class. In the classes I observed, ICT was
mainly used to promote reading, and teachers also conceded that downloading
texts for children to read was the most common way they used ICT, followed by
getting students to complete written tasks on their tablet PCs. An examination of
literature suggests that the neglect of listening with ICT initiatives, as I observed,
is not uncommon. Although listening is one of the most important language
skills, it is often given less attention in ICT-supported contexts (Higgins 1995).
To summarize, the planning stage of the action research project I undertook
showed that students were well disposed to the use of ICT in their EFL lessons,
and observations showed that teachers did use this in their classrooms regu-
larly. However, this planning stage also highlighted a number of things regard-
ing their use of ICT that were seen as important to address in the action stage
of the research to be discussed below. These were:
• To introduce more fun elements through ICT, such as by using games, which
are perceived to add interest and enjoyment.
• To find ways to support the teaching of listening through ICT, which was
underrepresented in the ICT activities that teachers employed.
• To find ways to help upskill teachers to feel more confident to manage the
use of ICT in the classroom.
Stage 2: the listening intervention: design and implementation

On the basis of insights developed through the planning stage, the action stage
of my inquiry took the form of a listening intervention.
The first step in developing the intervention was to identify teachers who were
happy to take part in the delivery of the lesson. This proved to be quite challeng-
ing as many were reluctant for me to observe their classes or had concerns about
their competence in using ICT. Since I often observe classes in my role as supervi-
sor, this was not surprising. However, after explaining that I would be undertaking
observations as part of a research project, three teachers in one school agreed to
get involved and agreed to my presence as an observer. I shared the outcomes of
the planning stage with these three EFL teachers, and each took part in the deliv-
ery of the intervention with one of their student groups in one of their classes. I
used one teacher’s class to pilot the intervention, and the actual intervention was
undertaken with two teachers and 25 students in each of their classes.
In designing the intervention, in addition to bearing in mind the findings
of the action stage, I also undertook further reading of literature to inform my
understanding of how listening can be promoted through ICT and the design
of the activities that were to be employed in the intervention itself. These
activities were designed to complement the existing provision for listening
instruction within the EFL school curriculum in Qatar, and drew upon estab-
lished principles for teaching listening. These included that listening activities
should aim to promote both higher-order skills, such as listening for gist and
prediction, and lower-order skills, such as sound discrimination, and working
on recognition of words (Scrivener 2007). Moreover, based on my reading, I
bore the following recommendations for EFL listening pedagogy in mind:
• Ensure the activities are engaging, authentic and based on students’ level of
English and background.
• Ensure the activities address a range of listening skills and connect listening
to the other language skills.
• Ensure listening tasks, like other language learning tasks, comprise a pre-,
during, and post-listening stage.
(based on Saricoban 1999)
One of the most-cited classifications of listening tasks is the one suggested

by Lund (1990: 110–11). He identifies nine different types of listening tasks
(doing, choosing, transferring, answering, condensing, extending, duplicating,
modelling and conversing). Lund’s classification helped me ensure that a good
variety of task types was adopted in the intervention.
I decided to design four tasks in the form of a webquest, which can be
defined as ‘an inquiry-oriented activity in which some or all of the infor-
mation that learners interact with comes from resources on the internet’
(Dodge 1995: para. 1). The lesson was designed utilizing free online activi-
ties from a number of websites such as the BBC, the British Council and the
American Public Broadcasting Service. It was delivered through the school’s
Learning Management Platform and included stories, games, audiobooks and
online assessment, which catered for students’ mixed abilities and offered
personalized and autonomous learning opportunities. The lesson’s focus was
on learning about dinosaurs. This topic was chosen because it linked to one of
the topics in the students’ English course book and linked to a topic they were
covering in the science curriculum, which was delivered in English in Qatar
at the time I conducted my inquiry. The first and second listening tasks took
place in the school’s ICT laboratory, the third in class, and the fourth was a
homework task.
TASK 1
The first task, which aimed to prepare them for the story they would hear,
utilized an animated learning object. Students had to listen to a description of
a dragon and then spot the correct dragon from six pictures. The activity has
seven levels, and in each level students have several options to choose from to
determine the difficulty level. This included the option of clicking on a link to
read the text they were listening to if they felt they needed to.
TASK 2
The second task in the intervention was an individualized and differentiated
audio story activity. The story was about a group of children who go back in
time to the age of the dinosaurs and their adventures there. I was inspired to
use a digital story after reading a study undertaken by Verdugo and Belmonte
(2007), who found these to be effective in promoting listening skills with
young EFL learners in Spain due to their visual, interactive and reiterative
nature. The dinosaur story was presented as an audio story where students read
and listen at the same time. This technique, based on Hoven’s (1999) model,
provides concurrent visual and auditory versions of the same input, which
is seen to maximize listening benefits. The learners listened to the story in a
self-paced way through individual headsets in the e-lab. They could pause at
any time and also access dictionaries installed on computers to look up any
difficult words.
TASK 3
The third task was the final in-class task and the first of two post-listening tasks
undertaken. This was an e-assessment activity in the form of an interactive quiz
to check their understanding of what they had listened to. Students had the
option of undertaking a revision of key words they had met related to dinosaurs
in the first two activities via a virtual tour of a dinosaur museum. Students then
took a quiz, which required them to listen to questions and select answers. This
employed dinosaur sounds to indicate whether their answers were correct and
applause when they had completed. This task was completed in pairs or small
groups using their e-tablet PCs.
I chose this activity as it met the criteria for fun activities with ICT that
learners had highlighted in stage 1 of the inquiry. I also saw this as a means
of assessing the children’s understanding of the content area they had looked
at (dinosaurs) via a mechanism that also provided a further listening experi-
ence. I also wanted to highlight for teachers the potential of online assessment,
namely, how this helps promote differentiated learning with young learners,
enables learners to take charge of the assessment process and to gain instant
feedback, and how it allows for greater interaction than traditional paper-based
approaches (Race et al. 2005).
TASK 4
The final activity of the intervention, the second post-listening activity, was a
writing activity undertaken as homework. Learners were assigned one of two
options. The first of these was to watch a flash animation about the different
theories as to why dinosaurs became extinct, and to write a report on this.
The second was to develop a description of a dinosaur (real or imaginary) and
to also draw a picture of this dinosaur using a framework for the description
freely available for downloading from the British Council’s website. In both
activities, the learners were asked to use the school’s online dictionary to assist
with words they needed. These tasks were designed to promote autonomous
self-directed learning with ICT and to promote independent problem-solving
(Cooper 1994). At the same time students’ autonomy was scaffolded by the
online resources they were provided with, and, it was hoped, by the involve-
ment of their parents in the e-learning experience as well.
Stage 3: evaluation of the intervention

The third stage of the study was the evaluation stage. The students’ response to
the intervention was evaluated through a questionnaire and classroom obser-
vations while teachers’ delivery of the intervention was evaluated through
classroom observations. The choice of classroom observations was based on
Chapelle’s (2003: 97) recommendation that such a method helps in evaluat-
ing ICT intervention programmes. The observation format had five sections.
Two of these sections focused on the students’ performance, and they served
to triangulate the questionnaire. The remaining three sections dealt with the
teachers’ delivery of the intervention. With regard to the questionnaire, this
primarily focused on asking learners about their enjoyment of the lesson over-
all and the different tasks they undertook. It also asked them about the experi-
ence of differentiated learning these provided.
Table 10.3 Learners’ positive feedback on the intervention
Questionnaire statement Percentage of learners

who agreed
Class 1 Class 2
I have enjoyed the dinosaur lesson 96 96

The game activities were enjoyable 100 100
I enjoyed the audio story 96 84
I like having more than one option in the activities 96 92
The results revealed an overwhelming positive picture of the intervention from

the students’ perspective in both the classes that took part in the intervention,
as can be seen from the positive responses to the questionnaire statements
from both classes in Table 10.3. The blend of ICT, games and audiobooks
appealed to the students and gave them an enjoyable experience of a listening
lesson. These findings were supported by my observation of their lessons as
well. Students were seen to be engaged, and their expressions (verbal and non-
verbal) clearly showed they found the lesson enjoyable.
Although the picture presented from the results is very positive, there are
slight differences in the responses between the students in the two classes, and
my observations suggested that this may have been related to the ways in which
the teachers delivered the lesson. In my observations I noted that the teacher of
class one generally delivered the lesson better. Mostly I attributed this to a better
general rapport with the students, but I also felt this teacher had planned better
for the lesson and gave clearer instructions. He also appeared more confident in
using the resources. In contrast the teacher of class two struggled more with the
technology. ICT-supported learning depends heavily on hardware, and a single
unexpected failure is very disruptive to the lesson – until support was provided
by the technical assistant, the audio story part of the lesson was temporarily
suspended. In discussions with the teachers, it appeared that neither had a plan
B to address the possible failure of technology and the need to be prepared to
switch back to traditional teaching methods. When this was required in class
two, because the teacher did not have a plan B, this meant that the teacher
was unable to proceed, leading to disruption and some classroom management
issues. I also noted that both seemed unclear as to their role in this lesson and
that they undertook very little monitoring to facilitate students’ learning.
Reflection on the ICT listening intervention and the action

research process
The ICT listening intervention was undertaken as part of a process of inquiry

into how to improve the promotion of ICT in TEYL classes in Qatar. It was
developed as a response to issues raised by learners in the delivery of ICT in

English classes as well as insights from interviews and observations with teach-
ers. The intervention was designed to provide learners with an opportunity to
develop their listening skills through ICT activities that would emphasize fun
and enjoyment. It was also designed to provide teachers with an example of
how they could use ICT in ways that were not practised in the school where
the intervention took place.
The intervention is deemed to be a success on a number of levels. First was
because it was perceived as enjoyable by learners and was seen to actively
engage them in language learning. In both classes in the student evaluation
questionnaire it is interesting to note that 96 percent of these young learners
felt they would like to have more lessons like this. It was also successful because
it enabled me to help locate issues in the delivery of ICT in TEYL in Qatar,
which could then be worked on and improved. Key insights were that teach-
ers need to work on in improving their delivery of ICT in their English classes,
their uncertainty about their role in ICT classes, and their lack of confidence
in handling technology. While some of these insights were ones that teachers
shared with me before I designed the intervention, these became more visible
as I watched them deliver the lesson and new insights emerged. Among these
insights, particularly notable was the lack of clarity that teachers showed about
their role as facilitators in an ICT-focused classroom and the need for greater
preparation and contingency plans if technology fails. This can provide an
impetus for a further future cycle of action research regarding ways of improv-
ing their practice of ICT in TEYL.
I have learned many things in the course of undertaking this inquiry. First of
all, while I was already favourably disposed to the idea of using ICT in teaching
young learners, the reading I undertook considerably enhanced my knowledge
of its potential and of the issues that needed to be addressed. Secondly, putting
these new insights about ICT into practice, as I did through the course of the
action research, has also raised my awareness of how this can be done.
Another powerful point of learning for me in undertaking this inquiry was
the way it has stimulated discussion of issues faced in delivering ICT with
young learners, and how to address these among teachers in the school where
I undertook the intervention. Several teachers have since asked me to share
the materials I used with them and have gone on to try these out in their own
classes. This has helped validate the role of classroom-based inquiry, such as
action research, among the teachers and sowed the seed of a more collabora-
tive inquiring professional community. This has hopefully paved the way
for teachers to become more active collaborators in the development of the
further proposed action research cycle. Finally, as mentioned at the start of
the chapter, schools in Qatar often lack a long-term ICT vision. Sharing the
findings of the inquiry with the school management team in the school where
the intervention took place has also been fruitful in stimulating debate, and
has laid the foundations for the building of a more positive ICT school culture,
an important factor that can help sustain ICT initiatives (Tubin 2007). These
personal benefits are ones that can be transferred to young learners in other
parts of the globe who I hope will feel inspired to consider action research as a
useful way to explore the effective deployment of ICT in young learner English
classrooms in their own setting and/or to appreciate the value of an action
research strategy in problematizing existing practice and evolving innovations
to address this in our work with young EFL learners.
It is important, however, to acknowledge that the intervention was designed
in a technologically advanced and extremely well-resourced educational set-
ting, and that this meant that I faced very few technological constraints in
terms of deciding what to do. While the activities could be employed in rela-
tively technologically poor environments, such as where only the teacher has
access to a computer and digital display unit, some of the individualized and
self-directed learning components of this would be lost. With regard to resourc-
ing, however, the resources I used were freely available on the Internet and are
therefore accessible to TEYL teachers in any setting where they are in a position
to use technology in their classrooms.
1. The chapter has highlighted the valuable insights into TEYL practice that
young learners can offer. In this chapter they helped pinpoint some ways
of improving the use of ICT in TEYL in Qatar. In what ways could young
learner perspectives help teachers develop more responsive TEYL practice in
your own professional context, and how could this data be collected?
2. Using ICT in TEYL has a number of documented benefits for young English
learners. How far and in what ways might ICT be better exploited with
young learners in your own setting?
3. This chapter has highlighted the need to build a positive whole-school
culture to ensure the effective implementation of innovations in teaching
English to young learners, such as the use of ICT. The role of collaborative
inquiry and the support of school administrators are both important. How
can these things be developed and sustained in schools in your setting?
References
Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present and future. System, 31 (1): 13–28.
BECTA (2008). Harnessing Technology Review 2008: The Role of Technology and its Impact on
Education. Coventry: BECTA
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Chapelle, C. (2003). English Language Learning and Technology: Lectures on Applied

Linguistics in the Age of Information and Communication Technology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Cooper, H.M. (1994). The Battle over Homework: An Administrator’s Guide to Setting Sound
and Effective Policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dale, R., Robertson, S.L. and Shortis, T. (2004). You can’t not go with the technologi-
cal flow, can you? Constructing ICT policy in education. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 20 (6): 456–470.
Dodge, B. (1995). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Available at: http://webquest.sdsu.
edu/about_webquests.html [accessed 22/10/2012].
Higgins, J. (1995). Computers and English Language Learning. Oxford: Intellect.
Hoven, D. (1999). A model for listening comprehension in multimedia environments.
Language Learning and Technology, 3 (1): 88–103.
Johnson, J., Boucher, K.D., Connors, K. and Robinson, J. (2001). Project management:
The criteria for success. Software Magazine, 21 (1): 3–11.
Lama, D. (2006). Using ICT to support young learners who are non-native speakers of
English. IATEFL Young Learner Newsletter, 26–27.
Locke, T. (2003) DEP(ICT)IONS: Pre-service English teachers engage with ICT’s L1.
Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3: 123–147.
Louis, K.S., Kruse, S. and Raywid, M.A. (1996). Putting teachers at the center of reform:
Learning schools and professional communities. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (580): 9–21.
Lund, R.J. (1990). A taxonomy for teaching second language listening. Foreign Language
Annals, 23 (2): 105–115.
Macaro, E., Handley, Z. and Walter, C. (2011). A systematic review of CALL in English as a
second language: Focus on primary and secondary education (State-of-the-Art Article).
Language Teaching, 45 (1): 1–43.
McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new
action researchers, Available at: http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp [accessed
1/11/2012]
Neal, G. (2005). Student reflections on the effectiveness of ICT as a learning resource.
Paper presented at AARE Annual Conference.
Oblinger, G. and Oblinger, L. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Available at:
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ELI/EducatingtheNetGeneration/43017 [accessed
22/02/2010].
Race, P., Brown, S. and Smith, B. (2005). 500 Tips on Assessment (2nd edn). London:
Routledge.
Robinson, M. (2008). The experience of Gulf Arab students new to elearning. Unpublished
master’s dissertation, Athabasca University.
Saricoban, A. (1999). The teaching of listening. The Internet TESL Journal for Teachers of
English as a Second Language. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Saricoban-Listening.
html [accessed 09/08/2012].
Scrivener, J. (2007). Learning Teaching (2nd edn). London: Macmillan.
Selwyn, N. (2003). ICT in Non-formal Youth and Adult Education: Defining the Territory.
Presented at the NCAL/OECD International Roundtable. Available at: http://www.
literacy.org/ICTconf/OECD_Selwyn_final.pdf [accessed 24/08/2012].
Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary
education? Computers and Education, 44 (3): 343–355.
Smith, P., Rudd, P. and Coghlan, M. (NFER) (2008). Harnessing Technology: Schools Survey
2008, Report 1: Analysis. Coventry: BECTA.
Tubin, D. (2007). When ICT meets schools: Differentiation, complexity and adaptability.
Journal of Educational Administration, 45 (1): 8–32.
UNESCO (2006). Using ICT to Develop Literacy: The UNESCO ICT in Education Programme.
UNESCO, Bangkok. Available at:. http:www.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/088/
Using_ ICT_to_Develop_Literacy.pdf [accessed 10/08/2010].
Verdugo, D.R. and Belmonte, I.A. (2007). Using digital stories to improve listening com-
prehension with Spanish young learners of English. Language Learning and Technology,
11 (1): 87–101.
Warschauer, M. and Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language learning. In
Rosenthal, J. (ed) Handbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 303–318.
Webb, M. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implications for an integrated
pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (6): 705–735.
Wells, L. (2001). Real concerns on distance education when distance is a reality. Paper
presented at the 12th International SITE Conference, Orlando, FL.
Conclusion: The Added Value of
International Perspectives on TEYL
Sarah Rich
The purpose of this final chapter is to reflect on what sorts of insights the vari-
ous research accounts included in this volume provide into how to build an
effective and appropriate TEYL pedagogy and research agendas to further this
project. As will be demonstrated, their contribution is not inconsequential,
pointing to the very real potential of locally grounded accounts to stimulate
global debates about TEYL. With this in mind, the chapter ends by arguing for
the importance of continuing to build and sustain a global dialogue on TEYL
and some of the ways in which we might approach this.
Embracing complexity as lived reality in TEYL
Although the concerns of the contributors to this volume are varied, reflecting
issues and problems faced in their own teaching realities, a common thread
running through their accounts is the need to acknowledge and embrace the
complexity inherent in our work as TEYL educators in the 21st century. Closely
linked to this is another: the importance of taking a big-picture perspective to
better appreciate and actively engage with the interconnections between the
various elements that underpin, and factors that impinge on, our work as TEYL
educators. This emphasis on the need to gain a sense of the bigger picture in
developing TEYL pedagogy is one that has already been acknowledged in the
research literature (Edelenbos et al. 2006). It is also one that has informed the
move to explore the global reach of TEYL (Emery 2012; Garton et al. 2011), and
the efforts to look at the interplay between a number of different dimensions of
TEYL in the work of Enever and her colleagues in the Early Language Learning
in Europe research study (Enever 2011) detailed in Chapter 1 of this collection.
As the various studies reported in this volume illustrate, taking this stance can
help generate new directions for practice as well as inform and further stimu-
late global debate about TEYL. These things will be considered in turn below.
191
192 Sarah Rich
Appreciating children’s complex additional language learning

trajectories
Two of the chapters in this volume point to a need for TEYL practitioners to
appreciate and find ways to address the complexities of children’s additional
language learning process. We have already begun to evolve an understanding
of the importance of identifying what sorts of strategic pedagogic responses
can best address the complex interplay between the emotional, cognitive and
language characteristics of children at different ages (see e.g. Pinter 2006).
However, there is also a need to develop informed understandings of how chil-
dren evolve their language competence over time, and the ways in which we
should align our pedagogical responses to meet their shifting needs to ensure
these are effective in contributing to their long-term success. Chapters 2 and 3
by Arnold and Rixon and Chen and Wang respectively invite us to step back in
order to gain a better understanding of the interplay between classroom prac-
tices and children’s developing language skills. In doing this they generate a
number of valuable and thought-provoking insights into how TEYL practition-
ers can support children’s developing language competence. As such they make
important reading for policymakers, curriculum officers and materials writers
alike, as well as offering frameworks to help classroom teachers to critically
appraise their own practices.
Working to further our understanding of additional language learning tra-
jectories is not only important for TEYL educators. More awareness of the
ways in which young learners progress from one development stage of skills
acquisition to another and what sorts of pedagogic practices can help bridge
these transitions is likely to help ensure that TESOL educators establish a steady
progression from elementary to secondary schooling, something that poses
enormous challenges in many contexts for children and teachers alike (Tinsley
and Comfort 2012).
Embracing the complex interplay between languages in

children’s developing linguistic repertoires
Two of the chapters in this collection also direct us to appreciate the growing
understanding of the ways in which languages coexist and intersect in chil-
dren’s evolving linguistic repertoires, and what this means for language choices
in the TEYL classroom. Writing about the situation in South Africa and Mexico
respectively, Makalela (Chapter 8) and Linse and Gamboa (Chapter 7) contest
the widespread, overly simplistic monolingual bias in TEYL and the exhorta-
tion of teachers to rely exclusively on the target language. Drawing upon a
well-documented evidence base that understands languages as operating as
part of complex linguistic ecosystems, in different ways, they argue that TEYL
The Added Value of International Perspectives on TEYL 193
needs to undergo something of a paradigm shift – moving from a view of class-

rooms as ‘monolingual cocoons’ to one that sees these more as ‘multilingual
mosaics’ (Kumaravadivelu 2003, cited in Rubdy 2009: 162). This, they argue,
charges us to develop curricula and materials that actively embrace home and
community languages in the TEYL classroom alongside English. Not only can
home languages provide an important form of support in additional language
learning, as Makalela demonstrates, but also, as Linse and Gamboa argue, more
attention is needed to ensure that proficiency in home and community lan-
guages is not eroded by the foregrounding of English as a key world language
within the context of globalization.
These chapters are ones that argue for a need to embrace rather than shy away
from linguistic complexity in TEYL policy and practice. The ways these authors
suggest that TEYL educators can draw upon children’s existing linguistic capital
to engage with and promote the plurilingualism that is required for life in a
globalized world will provide welcome food for thought for many who strug-
gle to maintain artificial barriers between English and home languages in their
classrooms. Makalela’s chapter also helps us appreciate how drawing upon home
and community languages in the TEYL classroom is not only an important way
to enhance additional language learning but allows the benefits of additional lan-
guage learning to further support children’s developing proficiency in their home
languages as well. While an appreciation of these things is steadily growing in the
applied linguistics literature, at best this continues to remain an aspiration rather
than a reality in terms of policy and practice in most state school TEYL provi-
sion. More research into these things is important to help TEYL educators better
appreciate how the efforts to maintain the artificial divides between languages,
particularly with younger children, does little to benefit their evolving language
proficiency in English or in other languages comprising their linguistic repertories.
Making the connection between classrooms and complex local

realities in TEYL
Many of the contributors to this volume also add further to the growing num-
ber of accounts that draw attention to the local contextual complexities faced
by TEYL educators around the globe alluded to in the introduction, Chapter 1.
Whether brought about by issues of resourcing, the disconnect between policy
and practice or inadequacies in teacher education provision, the problems and
dilemmas the various contributors to this volume describe will resonate with
many. Moreover, their accounts of how they sought to better understand and
address these things makes for stimulating reading. What these accounts also
illustrate is the need for more focused attention on the lateral interconnectivity
between the immediate world of the classroom and the wider environment in
developing an informed TEYL pedagogy.
194 Sarah Rich
Gaynor, for example, in Chapter 4 proposes that we consider compromise

solutions to address the dissonance between policy and practice in many TEYL
settings. Arguing that these should be grounded in the realities of what is cur-
rently achievable in a given setting, Gaynor suggests that these are a means to
embark on, but not end, the journey towards the generation of effective TEYL
pedagogy. His pragmatic proposal will be welcomed by many who struggle to
maximize the potential of TEYL in far from ideal conditions. Echoing one of
the recommendations of the ELLiE study (Enever 2011), the chapters by Linse
and Gamboa (Chapter 7) and Manasreh (Chapter 10) also point to the signifi-
cance of the wider school culture to TEYL practice, particularly with the need
to generate whole-school responses to help sustain and support the efforts of
teachers to introduce innovations in TEYL. Finally, the importance of the role
of parents in supporting children’s additional language learning journeys and
finding ways to build home-school partnerships, also an important implication
of the ELLiE study (Enever 2011), is highlighted by several of the authors in
this volume. Since very little research has been done to date on how to maxi-
mize the potential of parents to work in partnership with schools to support
their children’s learning, the chapters by Sowa (Chapter 6), Linse and Gamboa
and Makalela will provide welcome reading, offering some useful transferrable
pedagogic strategies.
The complicating effects of globalization
A final set of insights offered by the contributors to this volume, ones sig-
nalled in many of the accounts, is a need to take seriously the complicating
effects of globalization in discussions of TEYL. In many settings globalization is
transforming the linguistic and cultural fabric of children’s immediate worlds,
adding a new layer of complexity to our work. An important message of this
volume is that globalization requires us to set new pedagogic agendas. These
are ones that reflect the need to address the increasingly diverse multilingual
and multicultural nature of the student body we encounter in the young
learner classroom, and to find ways to equip our learners for life in an increas-
ingly globalized world. They are also ones that encourage us to appreciate the
opportunities technology affords us to generate new learning possibilities and
resources in class as well as the new out-of-class additional language learning
opportunities these are providing for young English learners. The contributions
by Linse and Gamboa, Sowa, Manasreh and Jeon (Chapter 5) among others add
considerably to the still limited understanding of these things.
The chapters by Sowa and Linse and Gamboa, for example, point to the
importance of generating pedagogic responses to help learners develop
intercultural and plurilingual competences increasingly recognized as crucial
21st-century competencies (Huber 2012). Alongside this, the accounts by
Sowa and Manasreh illustrate a number of ways in which TEYL practitioners

can develop technologically enhanced pedagogic practices that appreciate the
enormous potential of the Internet as a resource for TEYL. Finally, Jeon picks up
on the important ways in which globalization and the emergence of English as
a world language is transforming English language learning opportunities for
many young learners in their out-of-class worlds, something that we are only
beginning to appreciate and have yet to take seriously in discussions of TEYL
pedagogy. Echoing the recommendations of the ELLiE research study (Enever
2011), as she concludes and as Linse and Gamboa also acknowledge, there is
a need for TEYL educators to pay more attention to the expansion of learn-
ing opportunities brought about by a greater visibility of English in children’s
out-of-school worlds. Finding ways to uncover what English language-learning
opportunities are available to children in their out-of-school worlds and cre-
ating better connections between these and our classrooms are all important
pedagogical and research agendas for TEYL educators to engage with.
Building a knowledge-base for TEYL in the 21st century
As well as drawing our attention to the inherent complexities in TEYL and

highlighting some important agendas for practice and research to address
these, the accounts in this volume also signal a number of ways in which we
can continue to build a solid knowledge-base for our field in the 21st century.
The contribution of local knowledge

Firstly, they illustrate the value and importance of local knowledge in the
context of the global spread of TEYL. A shift to the ‘localization of knowl-
edge’ (Widdowson 2004: 369), increasingly advocated in applied linguistics
literature (see e.g. Canagarajah 2005; Rubdy 2009), is motivated by a growing
appreciation of the limitations of one-size-fits-all descriptions of effective peda-
gogy and the need for more context-sensitive approaches to address inherent
complexities at a local level. As is signalled in several accounts, practitioner-led
research inquiry is an important way to generate this local knowledge, which
in turn can help with the development of informed judgements with regard to
local pedagogical decision-making. To illustrate, Manasreh demonstrates how
uncovering young learners’ perspectives regarding the use of ICT in learning
English was an important point of departure in identifying ways to improve
the use of technology-enhanced learning in TEYL classes in Qatar. Similarly,
Jeon demonstrates how her inquiry into young Korean learners’ experiences
of English medium online transnational gaming communities helped her to
develop some critical insights into how to improve TEYL classroom practices.
As the research accounts included in this volume also illustrate, the devel-
opment of local knowledge that local inquiry makes possible can provide a
196 Sarah Rich
valuable contribution to the evolution of the global knowledge-base for TEYL

as well. For example, Chen and Wang’s inquiry into the interplay between
interactional practices and children’s evolving spoken English competence and
Jeon’s focus on the potential significance of out-of-class learning opportunities
to what goes on in the classroom clearly point to the ways in which vernacular
understandings of TEYL can generate new practical and theoretical insights to
help advance our understanding of children’s additional language learning.
These are not only of relevance to those of us who work in settings where
children typically have limited exposure to English outside the classroom, but
also provide a useful set of insights of interest to TEYL educators who work
with children in immersion-settings, such as in Anglophone countries. More
broadly, they also point to the potential contribution of the insights generated
from local inquiry into TEYL to a more nuanced understanding of some core
operating assumptions in the wider applied linguistics community.
Given the important contribution of local knowledge to building a knowl-
edge-base for TEYL in the 21st century both locally and globally, it follows
that it is important that teachers develop the capacity to undertake the local
inquiry process that helps generate this. The contributors to this volume high-
light a number of important points to be borne in mind in undertaking local
inquiries into TEYL practice, echoing the principles of exploratory inquiry
advocated by Allwright (2003) and action research by Burns (2009), among
others. The importance of adopting a critically reflexive stance with regard to
existing practice requires that we develop an in-depth and, as far as possible,
critically informed understanding of a particular local issue as a first step to
identifying ways to address this. The contributors to this volume illustrate a
number of ways in which this can be achieved. As Gaynor exemplifies, this may
be achieved through a process of deconstruction, which works to understand
the interplay between classroom realizations of TEYL and wider operating
norms and assumptions regarding this at a national policy level. This critically
informed understanding can also be developed through an examination of the
existing research literature regarding a particular issue or concern, as Arnold and
Rixon illustrate. Finally, as is demonstrated by Manasreh and Linse and Gamboa,
it may entail the gathering of empirical data through surveys, observation and
in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in the local TEYL context such as
teachers, parents and children themselves.
It follows that an important agenda for those of us who help to prepare
teachers for their future work with TEYL, or those who are engaged with sup-
porting the professional development of those teachers already in the field, is
to find ways to help practitioners develop their capacity to actively embrace
the principles of inquiry into TEYL outlined above. Many TEYL educators shy
away from formal research endeavours, as Mansarah observes in his chapter,
and it is important that teachers are helped to appreciate that inquiry is a
natural extension of their ongoing efforts to improve practice with learners.

Bland’s account (Chapter 9) points to one useful way in which the principles
of active collaborative inquiry can be modelled with student teachers. As she
documents, the Interactive Theatre strategy she developed not only benefited
the learners who participated in it but also provided important in situ learning
opportunities for the student teachers as well, providing them with an impor-
tant platform for furthering their understanding of themselves as critically
reflective TEYL practitioners.
The importance of joined-up thinking in building a

knowledge-base for TEYL
A second set of insights regarding how we can build a knowledge-base for TEYL
that the accounts in this volume highlight relates to how our understanding
and practice of TEYL can be enhanced by drawing upon the flow of ideas and
information made possible through advances in technology in the 21st cen-
tury. TEYL educators increasingly have recourse to a host of different practical
resources and theoretical perspectives regarding children’s additional language
learning to drawn upon in their work. As the chapters by Arnold and Rixon,
Makalela and Linse and Gamboa among others illustrate, examining insights
emanating from research and practice into first language learning, bilingualism
and additional language learning in naturalistic settings can help us critically
interrogate our TEYL practice in those settings where English is not widely
spoken outside the classroom.
To put it another way, the growing interconnectivity between people and
ideas brought about by globalization is making it increasingly difficult to
maintain hard-and-fast boundaries between previously discrete spheres of
knowledge. The authors in these chapters show an awareness of the ways in
which forging new synergies between different bodies of knowledge regarding
TEYL is important, not only in generating innovations at a local level but also
to the ways we can re-vision and further our understanding of our field in the
21st century.
Part of this process of re-visioning our field requires that we also problema-
tize some of the existing terminology that is used to demarcate the different
settings where children are engaged in learning English as an additional lan-
guage around the world, as Dewey and Leung (2010) argue. Applying the term
‘foreign’ to additional language learning, for example, is difficult to uphold in
many settings since increasingly children will have the opportunity to connect
to real and virtual communities of English speakers in their out-of-class worlds
as Jeon and Linse and Gamboa illustrate in their accounts. An appreciation of the
increasingly blurred borders between the ways we have traditionally carved up
the field of additional language learning and embracing the joined-up thinking
198 Sarah Rich
evident in many chapters in this volume is likely to prove profitable in con-

tinuing to further our understanding of TEYL in the 21st century.
Finding ways to help TEYL educators engage in this sort of ‘connected’
thinking is clearly important. Nevertheless, it is also important to appreciate
that managing the multiple sources of information at our disposal in building
appropriate and workable solutions to local issues and problems in our work
as TEYL professionals is not without its challenges. As Sowa illustrates in her
chapter with reference to the efforts of primary school teachers to promote
intercultural awareness with young learners in Poland, wholesale adoption
of resources and ideas encountered on the Internet without first developing a
critically informed and principled understanding of how these might be best
used is problematic. It follows that as part of an agenda to help TEYL teachers
become critically reflective practitioners in the 21st century, teacher educators
need to ensure that teachers are helped to carefully scrutinize the potential of
new ideas and resources that they are increasingly able to access and to make
informed judgements about the suitability of these to enhance their own
understanding and practice.
Concluding remarks: furthering a global dialogue in TEYL
As discussed in the introductory chapter to this volume, in the last 15 years

the teaching of English as an additional language to young learners TEYL has
grown very rapidly. It is now a truly global phenomenon, with very large num-
bers of young learners engaged in formal study of English worldwide. There is
still much to discover and understand, and international perspectives on TEYL,
as is clearly demonstrated by the accounts in this volume, have an important
role to play in building an informed understanding of effective TEYL practice
in the 21st century.
While inevitably the various accounts presented here have not addressed all
of the different complicating factors that concern TEYL educators today, they
have drawn attention to a number of these, many of which have received lim-
ited coverage to date. The fresh insights they offer into how to enhance literacy
and spoken communication with young learners, how to work with a global
language in an increasingly globalized world, and how to build capacity and
move forward with TEYL in not always ideal conditions make for stimulating
reading.
These accounts have also helped us establish important agendas for further
research, and pointed to some of the ways in which we can undertake research
inquiry into TEYL. Not only have they provided examples of how to interro-
gate the particular issues of immediate concern in our practice, but they have
also signalled some important research design priorities for the field as a whole.
In addition to foregrounding the importance of critically reflexive locally
grounded inquiry, many of the authors provide illustrative examples of some

of the approaches to research that are increasingly prioritized in the research
literature on TEYL (see e.g. Enever 2011; Nikolov and Mihaljević Djigunović
2011). These include the importance of using multi-method designs to gener-
ate more complex understandings of phenomena, as highlighted by Manasreh
and Bland in their accounts. They also help highlight the importance of lon-
gitudinal studies, which examine learning processes or the impact of innova-
tions over time. This stance, for example, allowed Chen and Wang to reflect on
the interplay between classroom practices and children’s evolving language
development strategies across a six-year time span. Similarly, Arnold and Rixon
and Bland drew upon small-scale interventions they undertook over a number
of years to generate new insights into the effectiveness of an extensive reading
and interactive theatre intervention respectively.
Finally, several contributors, most notably Manasreh and Linse and Gamboa,
draw attention to the importance of seeking out multiple stakeholder perspec-
tives in research into TEYL. In particular, the perspectives of parents and of
learners themselves have tended to be downplayed in much of the existing
research literature. Seeking out the views of all of those who have an important
stake in TEYL is crucial to deepening our understanding of and finding ways
to address teaching and learning processes. We have also yet to fully engage
with these different stakeholders as possible co-researchers and to consider
the benefits of this. As Pinter (2013) has recently pointed out, moving to
view children as active collaborators in our research inquiries, for example,
is enormously enriching, not only for the children themselves but also in
furthering our understanding of how they learn and what they perceive to be
significant to this process. There is no reason to assume that engaging parents
as co-researchers will not be equally enriching for all involved in promoting
children’s additional language learning as well as for the children themselves.
Bearing all of the above in mind, it is clear that opening up a global dialogue
on TEYL is not only necessary in light of the ways in which TEYL is now a
global phenomenon, but is also enormously beneficial to our field. It is there-
fore important that we continue to find ways to ensure that opportunities for
the voices of all those involved in TEYL endeavours in the 21st century are
heard. This volume represents one step towards realizing this. It is hoped that
future edited collections will seek to continue to work to promote a multi-
voiced understanding of TEYL pedagogy. There is plenty of additional scope for
the development of platforms to encourage the collaborative inclusivity that is
needed. One recent project undertaken by Copland et al. (2012), resulting in
a published collection of fifty ideas for teaching they received from more than
one thousand teachers around the globe, also clearly demonstrates the keen
desire for practitioners worldwide to participate in the development a global
conversation on TEYL. This sort of endeavour is but one example of the many
200 Sarah Rich
creative ways in which we can continue to build the dialogue needed to further
our knowledge and understanding of the vibrant and important field within
which we work.
References
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language
teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7 (2): 113–141.
Burns, A. (2009). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2005). Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Copland, F., Garton, S. and Davis, M. (2012). Crazy Animals and Other Activities for
Teaching English to Young Learners. London: British Council.
Dewey, M. and Leung, C. (2010). English in English language teaching: Shifting values
and assumptions in changing circumstances. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics,
25 (1): 11–15.
Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. (2006). Languages for the children of
Europe. Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. Available at: ec.europa.
eu/languages/documents/doc427_en.pdf [accessed 24/09/2012].
Emery, H. (2012). A Global Study of Primary English Teachers’ Qualifications, Training and
Career Development. London: British Council.
Enever, J. (ed) (2011). ELLiE: Early Language Learning in Europe. London: The British
Council.
Huber, J. (ed) (2012). Intercultural Competence for All: Preparation for Living in a Heterogeneous
World. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nikolov, M. and Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2011). All shades of every color: An overview
of early teaching and learning of foreign languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
31: 95–119.
Pinter, A. (2013). Child participant roles in applied linguistics research. Applied Linguistics,
34: 5.
Rubdy, R. (2009). Reclaiming the local in teaching EIL. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 9: 156–174.
Tinsley, T. and Comfort, T. (2012). Lessons from Abroad: International Review of Primary
Languages. Cfbt Educational Trust. Available at: http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbt
corporate/files/research/2012/r-lessons-from-abroad-2012.pdf [accessed 17/12/2012].
Widdowson, H.G. (2004). A perspective on recent trends. In Howatt, A.P.R. and
Widdowson, H.G. (eds) A History of English Language Teaching (2nd edn) Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 353–372.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Arnold, W.H., and Rixon, S. (2008). Materials for teaching English to young learners.
In B. Tomlinson (ed.), English Language Teaching Materials: A Critical Review. London:
Provides an overview of the state of the art in teaching materials for young learners
of English worldwide and detailed discussion of the ways in which teaching materials
mediate, or sometimes ignore, the role of systematic literacy development in Young
Learners teaching.
Barletta Manjarres, N. (2009). Intercultural Competence: Another Challenge. Profile, 11:
143–158.
Provides a thought-provoking and critical account of the ways in which teachers seek
to promote intercultural awareness-raising with their students and identifies a number
of agendas for in service teacher education programmes to help teachers with this.
Benson, P. and Reinders, H. (eds) (2011). Beyond the Language Classroom. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Explores theoretical and practical aspects of language teaching and learning beyond
the classroom in a wide variety of settings.
Block, D. (2007). Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
A clear account of current theoretical perspectives on identity construction and the
ways this plays out in a number of different additional language learning settings.
Burns, A. (2009). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. London: Routledge.
A clear and accessible account of how action research can be used to inform additional
language teaching.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B., Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in
Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Brussels: Council of Europe.
Organized around a series of frequently asked questions, this book provides a useful
introduction to the concerns teachers often have about how to promote intercultural
awareness-raising and ways these can be addressed.
University Press.
Provides a comprehensive introduction to a number of theoretical perspectives on
TEYL and considers practical implications for classroom teaching.
Journal, 57(2): 105–12.
Provides a very clear account of a number of issues and challenges posed by the spread
of the teaching of English to young learners worldwide.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Code-meshing in academic writing: identifying teachable strate-
gies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95, 401–17.
This article provides a detailed introduction to the idea of meshing language codes and
the development of literacy development in more than one language.
Coste, D., Moore, D., and Zarante, G. (2009). Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence
(French version originally published in 1997). Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing.
Offers a clear introduction to plurilingual and pluricultural competence and why and
how this can be promoted.
201
202 Suggestions for Further Reading
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Cross Fire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Offers a panoramic view of literacy development and offers a very good introduction
to the study of literacy development among bilinguals.
Day, R. R. and Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Provides an authoritative account of the principles behind the use of extensive reading
at all levels of language teaching, including primary school level, and discusses exam-
ples of good practice from many contexts.
Enever, J., Moon, J., and Raman, U. (eds). (2009). Young Learner English Language Policy
and Implementation: International Perspectives. Reading: Garnet.
An international collection of 28 short articles on young learner English and language
policy. The diverse range of countries and experiences represented is particularly useful
for understanding how both global and local forces constrain policy implementation.
Enever, J. (ed.). (2011). ELLiE: Early Language learning in Europe. London: The British
Council.
This reports on the findings of a major and extensive study of foreign language learn-
ing in Europe. A number of implications are identified which make for important
reading for TEYL educators everywhere.
Farmer, David: Drama Resource. Available at: http://dramaresource.com
A drama educationalist’s website that introduces many technical terms for drama strat-
egies with concise explanations. Drama for language learning is also featured on this
well-organized site.
Hall, K. (2003). Listening to Stephen Read: Multiple Perspectives on Literacy. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Provides an excellent introduction to a range of different perspectives on reading in
the early years offered by a number of literacy experts with reference to one literacy
event; an English-speaking child reading aloud with his teacher, described and tran-
scribed in detail in the first chapter of the book.
Maley, A. and Duff, A. (2005). Drama Techniques: A Resource Book of Communication
Activities for Language Teachers (3rd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This classic book of drama methodology clearly demonstrates how to involve the
entire class in drama, with engaging drama activities for language learning.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st century: A Global Perspective. Miden, MA:
Wiley/Blackwell.
Provides a convincing case for the need to understand the boundaries between lan-
guages as fluid and versatile and offers useful insights into the relationship between
learners’ native and foreign language learning process.
Kirsch, C. (2008). Teaching Foreign Languages in the Primary School. London: Continuum.
Although the book is aimed at modern foreign language teaching in the UK primary
sector, it can be very easily adapted for teaching English to young learners. It is par-
ticularly good at detailing cross-curriculum approaches to second language teaching.
Lewis, G. (2004). The Internet and Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This resource book is full of accessible and interesting ideas using the internet in teach-
ing English to young learners aged between 8-13 years.
Macaro, E, Handley, Z. and Walter, C. (2011). A systematic review of CALL in English as a
second language: Focus on primary and secondary education. (State-of-the-Art Article).
Language Teaching, 45(1): 1–43.
Pulls together a growing body of research into the use of information communication
technology to support the development of English as an additional language with
school children. Offers valuable insights and important future research agendas.
Suggestions for Further Reading 203
Moon, J. (2000). Children Learning English. Oxford: Heinemann MacMillan.

A very practical book, targeted at teachers that addresses a number of important areas
of TEYL classroom practice. Clearly demonstrates how principles can be put into
practice.
Myhill, D., Jones, S. and Hopper, R. (2005). Talking, Listening and Learning: Effective Talk
in the Primary Classroom. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Provides a clear introduction to the role that talk plays in children’s learning and effec-
tive ways in which teachers’ questions, instructions and statements can support and
extend children’s learning.
Nikolov, M. and Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2011). All Shades of Every Color: An Overview
of Early Teaching and Learning of Foreign Languages. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 95–119.
Offers a useful synthesis of current research into TEYL and some directions for further
research. Provides useful summaries of research into the role of affective factors in early
additional language learning, the relationship between cognitive development and
achievement, and young learners’ learning strategies.
Nault, D. (2008). Going global: rethinking culture teaching in ELT contexts. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 19(3): 314–328.
This article provides a clear account of the need for young learner educators to respond
to the ways in which globalization is reshaping young people’s worlds and of the need
for TEYL pedagogy to address this. The particular focus is on how to address culture in
TEYL materials and classrooms.
A very accessible introduction to TEYL. Includes some very helpful examples of pos-
sible research topics to help teachers investigate their practice.
A comprehensive overview of theoretical perspectives and recent research in second
language learning in early childhood. The book provides a number of excellent case
studies on conducting research in this area, along with suggesting a number of themes
for future studies.
Slatterly, M and Willis, J. (2001) English for Primary Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
A useful resource to help teachers improve their spoken English and use it effectively
to help children learn in the primary classroom.
Stille, S. and Cummins, J. (2013). Foundation for Learning: Engaging Plurilingual
Students’ Linguistic Repertoires in the Elementary Classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
47: 630–638.
Makes a strong case for promoting plurilingualism in young learner English classrooms
around the world and provides examples of how this can be done.
Tinsley, T. and Comfort, T. (2012). Lessons from abroad: international review of primary
languages. Cfbt Educational Trust.
This paper presents an excellent synthesis of international research and practices in
early language learning, employing case studies from a number of countries world-
wide. The impetus for the paper was to gain insights into how to address primary
foreign language teaching in the UK. However it will be of interest to TEYL educators
everywhere.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.
This book provides a useful and practically-grounded introduction to the impor-
tance of language and interaction to learning in additional language learning
classrooms.
Index
action research, 15, 176–8, 187–8, 196 ways of using drama in the
activity-based learning, 6, 62 classroom, 160
age, see under early start in learning English drama to bridge institutional divisions,
age-appropriate pedagogy, 6, 45, 48, 15, 157–8, 172–3,
175–8, 187–8, 196 drama and literacy development,
attitudes, 5–7, 73, 78, 90, 106–9, 118, 168, 161, 171
180–81 drama and motivation, 158, 171
impact of teachers on learner attitudes, 7
teacher attitudes to English, 75 (EAL) English as an Additional
Language, 2
bilingualism, 4, 197, 132 early start in learning English, 1–7, 67, 72
bilingual education, 123–4, 127 benefits and limitations, 5–6
bilingual learners, 73, 143 start age, 1–5, 7, 67, 72
bilingual teaching strategies, 133, 151 educational planning, see policy
biliteracy, 142–4, 151 ELL (English language learners), 2
English as a lingua franca see
CEFR (Common European Framework of globalization and English
Reference for Languages), 108–9 extensive reading, 23, 30–1, 38–41
characteristics of young learners, 3, 45–46 extensive reading material, 31–33
child development, 5, 6, 9, 24, 45, 108,
160–1 global spread of teaching English to
addressing developmental needs, 24, young learners, 1–2, 195
54–5, 59, 107–8; globalization, 12, 14, 15, 66, 85–7, 104,
see also age-appropriate pedagogy 123, 193–5
children’s linguistic repertoires, 60, 134, pedagogical practices to address
141–2, 152, 192 globalization, 100, 134
classroom interaction, 13, 45–62 globalization and culture, 107, 119
importance of, 46–7 globalization and English, 3, 70, 87,
impact on language development, 124, 198
59–60, 62 global dialogue, 191, 198–9
classroom interaction quality indicators,
47–8 home culture, 107, 109, 132–3, 193
classroom interactional strategies, 50–51, home languages, 124–5, 127 129–30, 131,
59–60, see also teacher talk 133–5, see also indigenous languages
community languages see home home literacy, 142, 146–8, 151–2
languages; indigenous language home-school partnerships 179, 112, 194
context, see local realities
course book inadequacies, 24, 27–30, 41, identity, 7, 14, 87–91, 73, 107–09, 118,
77, 104–5, 107, 109, 111, 113 135, 171
importance of, 90–91,
definition of young learners, 2 second language identity, 87–89, 91, 135
drama, 15, 156, 158–63, 172–73 identity and online learning, 91–2, 101–102
affective benefits of drama, 159, 203 identity and intercultural
importance of, 158–160 awareness, 106–09, 118–19, 171
204
Index 205
indigenous languages, 124–5, 127, 130, online resources, 179, 184–5, 188
132–4, 144, 146 out-of-class learning opportunities, 2–3,
informal learning see out- of- class 14, 125, 195–6
learning opportunities exploiting out of class learning
intercultural awareness-raising, 9, 14, 104, opportunities in class, 101,
111–120 106, 110–17, 133–35, 197
importance with children, 107–8
intercultural awareness raising activities parental English proficiency, 7
and resources, 106, 107, 111–18, 120 parental influence on English learning,
impact of English on first language 3–4, 7, 12, 76, 111, 114, 124, 127, 132
development, 73 parental involvement, 15, 112, 176,
ICT (Information and Computer 185, 194
Technology), 110, 175–9, 194 parents as partners, 112, 146–148,
attitudes to ICT, 180–81 152–153, 194, see also home-school
listening and ICT, 182–4 partnerships; researching parental
perspectives
language choice, 15, 57, 192 plurilingualism, 12, 123–7, 129,
language ecology, 124, 131–2 132, 193
linguistic and cultural minority plurilingual competence, 15, 123–4,
children, 124, 127, 158, 172 132, 172, 194
linguistic capital, 3, 15, 123–25, 127–9, 131–3 plurilingual language policy,
listening, 16, 24, 148, 177–8, 183–4 126, 131–2
listening and ICT, 177–8, 182, 184 plurilingual teaching approaches, 123,
designing listening activities, 183–4 133, 153
literacy, 9, 13, 15, 23–4, 26, 30–31, 141–6, policy, 2–3, 9, 11, 13, 66, 155
148, 152–4, 164 language policy 67, 70–71, 75, 77
literacy development, 23, 26, 31, 141–6, policy- practice gap, 8, 69, 71, 73,
149–51, 161, 164 putting policy into practice, 78, 126,
literacy policy, 25 131–2
see also reading
local teaching realities, 1, 8, 10, 46, 127, reading, 13, 23–28, 30–31, 38–41, 141–6,
193, 198 161, 163, 199
early reading process 23–24, 27–28,
materials see course book inadequacies; 141, 163
online resources; resourcing debates about reading, 25–26
monolingual bias in the young learners use of L1 reading to support L2 reading,
classroom, 124, 132, 141, 153, 192–3 142–146
motivation, 4–6, 74, 80, 89–90 see also extensive reading; literacy
second language identity and reading resources and practices, 27–29,
motivation, 95, 99–100 147, 164
see also drama and motivation research, 1, 8, 10–11, 24, 27–28, 45–49,
multilingual classroom practices, 151, 54, 141–145, 193, 195–9
193, see also plurilingual teaching importance of research, 1, 8, 193, 195–9
approaches value of local research accounts, 8,
10–11, 195–9
online gaming and identity researching parental perspectives,
construction, 91, 98, 100–1 130–131, 199
online learning, 87–9, 115, 184 research priorities, 9, 10–11, 193, 195,
relationship of online learning to 196–7, 198–9
offline learning, 99–100 research trends, 8–9
206 Index
research with stakeholders, 199 teacher as researcher, 11, 166–8,

resourcing, 7, 24, 27–30, 31–2, 32–3, 41, 172–3, 195
76–7, 79, 104–5, 107, 109, 111, 113, supporting teacher-led research, 11,
133, 147, 164, 179, 184–5 196–7
inadequate resourcing, 24, 27–30, 41, teacher development, 76, 80,
51, 77, 104–5, 107–9 120, 172, 177, 195–6 see also
see also course book inadequacies; teacher training
online resources; reading resources teacher education, see teacher training
and practices; teacher quality, 7, 10, 72,
74–76
school culture, 132, 176, 187–88 proficiency in English, 74, 79
school partnerships, 101, 114–17, qualifications, 7, 72, 74, 76,
156–57, 163–65, see also E-twinning 79, 158
stakeholder perspectives, 9, 12, 125, training, 7, 26, 74, 153, 176, 193
131–2, 135, 147, 157, 176, 196 teacher talk, 47–48, 56–57
support for teachers, see teacher training; teacher training, 7, 25–26, 72, 74–5, 79,
see under teacher as researcher 156, 163, 165, 193
agendas for teacher training, 62–3, 120,
task-based learning see activity- based 132, 158, 170, 172–3, 187
learning technology-enhanced learning, see ICT
teacher attitudes, 10, 75, 132, 168, see also transition from primary to secondary
attitudes school, 7, 78, 172, 192

Young Learners PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Young Learners PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Perspectives on Teaching English to Young Learners

International Perspectives on English Language Teaching

Series edited by Sue Garton and Keith Richards

Sue Garton and Kathleen Graves (editors)

Sarah Rich (editor)

Simon Borg and Hugo Santiago Sanchez (editors)

Forthcoming titles in the series:

Hugo Bowles and Alessia Cogo (editors)

Thomas S.C. Farrell (editor)

International Perspectives on English Language Teaching

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India.

List of Figures and Tables ix

Series Editor’s Preface xi

Notes on Contributors xiii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xvi

1 Taking Stock: Where Are We Now with TEYL? 1

Part I Starting Points for an Inquiry into TEYL Pedagogic Practice

2 Making the Moves from Decoding to Extensive Reading with Young

3 Examining Classroom Interactional Practices to Promote Learning

4 From Language Policy to Pedagogic Practice: Elementary School

Part II Teaching TEYL in a Globalized World: New

5 The Impact of Playing Commercial Online Games on Young

6 Addressing Intercultural Awareness-Raising in the Young Learner

7 Globalization, Plurilingualism and Young Learners in Mexico

Part III Introducing Innovations in TEYL Practice

8 Rethinking the Role of the Native Language in Learning to Read

9 Interactive Theatre with Student Teachers and Young Learners:

10 Scaffolding Listening through ICT with Young Learners in Qatar 175

Conclusion: The Added Value of International Perspectives on TEYL 191

Suggestions for Further Reading 201

2.1 The roles of extensive reading 30

2.1 Text-level reading in course materials at end of first year worldwide 29

3.6 Teachers’ use of question types in classes at the different

specifically at reading instruction, while Chen and Wang focus on classroom

Wendy Arnold has extensive experience in the field of TESOL as a teacher,

Janice Bland is currently visiting professor at the University of Vechta,

Zehang Chen is an associate professor, and currently Chair of the English

Brian Gaynor is Associate Professor of English at Muroran University in north-

Caroline Linse is a senior lecturer at Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern

Leketi Makalela is Associate Professor and Deputy Head of the Division of

Mohammad Manasreh has more than 12 years’ experience as a language edu-

Elżbieta Sowa is a graduate of the Warsaw School of Social Sciences and

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

The teaching of English as an additional language to young learners (here-

Mapping the territory: young English learners in the

An important starting point for any discussion of TEYL is to establish what is

Reasons for the emergence of TEYL as a global phenomenon

Rhetoric and reality in TEYL: What can an early start in

inefficient and a waste of resources (Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). Given this,

afford. In particular, it is widely recognized that the promotion of quality

Towards an appropriate pedagogy for TEYL

The emergence of TEYL as a discrete field of practice within TESOL has a

Researching TEYL: Trends and priorities

As Nikolov (2009) observes, today TEYL is increasingly recognized as a key

Trans-contextual research studies

Trans-contextual studies are typically initiated by academics with the means

The importance of locally situated research accounts of TEYL

As well as exemplifying the emergence of trans-contextual research designs to

An overview of the TEYL research accounts in this volume

Part I: Starting points for an inquiry into TEYL

Part II TEYL in a globalized world: New opportunities and

Part III: Introducing innovations in TEYL practice

Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary