Becoming bilingual in the EFL

classroom
Pat Moore

For some time now, EFL has been debating the extent to which models of
attainment should be aligned with ‘native-speaker’ (NS) norms. One of the
core problems with the NS concept is that it implies a monolingual speaker, and
many of its critics have leant on descriptions coming out of bilingually oriented
research. Increasingly cited in recent critiques, the concept of ‘translanguaging’
was born in the classroom and has now moved out into society and, as a
starting point at least, may provide useful information for foreign-language
educators regarding bilingual learning and behaviour. In this article, I briefly
describe an EFL course inspired by translanguaging practices and discuss the
students’ reactions to the idea of bilinguality as the goal of EFL.

Introduction Rejection of the ‘monolingual native-speaker’ as a model for attainment in

foreign-language learning/acquisition is nothing new. Over 25 years ago,
in the pages of this Journal, Rampton (1990: 98) was already questioning
the appropriacy of nativeness as a yardstick for EFL. He preferred the
notion of expertise, suggesting that it was time to realign language with
communication rather than with social identification. Aside from the
biological hurdle—by definition, one can only ever be a native-speaker
(NS) of the first language(s) one learns—nativeness is notoriously hard
to pin down. Descriptions of NS competence are inevitably chimeric and
normative, and thus divorced from reality; they are arguably ideological
constructs (Holliday 2006).
One of the most well-known alternatives to the idea of nativeness as
the target for foreign-language learning, Cook’s Multicompetence
Model (1999, 2007, 2016), was borne out of a ‘1990s “liberal” zeitgeist
in applied linguistics about the political role of native-based models’
(Cook 2016: 186). The Multicompetence Model is based on a bilingual
perspective although, noting the problematic nature of defining bilingual
attainment (Cook 2007: 241), Cook prefers the term ‘L2 user’:
L2 users are different kinds of people from monolingual native
speakers, and need to be measured as people who speak two languages
[…]. Their differences from native speakers reflect the complexity of a
mind with two languages compared to the simplicity of a mind with
one. (2007:241–2)

ELT Journal; doi:10.1093/elt/ccx045  Page 1 of 10

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
 More recently, under the banner of the Multilingual Turn, people have
started to discuss how alternative praxis might develop (see May 2013 and
Conteh and Meier 2014 for two useful collections), although as Paquet-
Gauthier and Beaulieu (2015: 167) observe, there is little sign yet of
change in L2 classrooms. That said, in the revised and expanded version
of the CEFR descriptors (Council of Europe forthcoming), in recognition
of the fact that the term has become controversial, references to NSs are
to be dropped. Given the influence of the CEFR, this could prove to be a
decisive step.
Turnbull (2016) cogently argues that foreign-language instruction should
be reframed as ‘bilingual education’ and foreign-language learners as
‘emergent bilinguals’. He prefers this term to Cook’s ‘L2 user’ claiming
the latter ‘fails to include the ongoing learning process’ (ibid.: 3), although
Cook (2002) has distinguished between users ‘exploiting whatever
linguistic resources they have for real-life purposes’ and learners ‘acquiring
a system for later use’ (ibid.: 2), thereby implying a contextual rather than
competence-based distinction.
Setting the sights of foreign-language teaching on bilinguality1 rather than
pseudo-nativeness may free the language teaching community from an
unrealistic goal, but it does not negate the need for models of reference.
If becoming bilingual is the goal of foreign-language learning, we need to
know how bilinguals behave. This is very much an ongoing quest, but one
helpful key concept which has emerged recently is ‘translanguaging’.
The term translanguaging was first employed to describe a pedagogic
technique developed in Wales in the 1980s involving the pre-planned
alternation of input and output languages with a view to fostering
bilingualism (i.e. attention to both languages). Over the past decade,
however, the term has increasingly become associated with what we might
call ‘mundane’ bi-/multilingual behaviour, especially in super-diverse2
communities.
We should perhaps note here that, although the terms are often confused,
translanguaging goes beyond code-switching (Nikula and Moore 2016). It
encompasses all manner of language meshing and melding (alternation,
translation, calques, coinages, etc.) but moves away from the notion of
languages as separable entities (or codes): ‘Translanguaging posits that
bilinguals have one linguistic repertoire from which they select features
strategically to communicate effectively’ (García 2012: 1).
This evolution of translanguaging results in a potentially confusing duality
between translanguaging as bilingual educational strategy and as bilingual
behavioural phenomenon. In response, Welsh researchers have suggested
a distinction between Universal and Classroom Translanguaging, where
‘Universal’ implies bilingual behaviour irrespective of the context (i.e. in
the classroom or out) and ‘Classroom’ refers to formal bilingual learning
(Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012: 650). In a CLIL context, Nikula and Moore
(op.cit.) have argued that Classroom Translanguaging should perhaps
be understood as ranging from a pre-planned proactive version, as in the
original Welsh model, to an improvisational reactive version, expressed

Page 2 of 10 Pat Moore

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
 as a predisposition to multilingual language practices when they further
teaching goals.
If we were to paraphrase this last option in traditional EFL terms, what
we are dealing with is the use of the L1 to support L2 development. This
has been the focus of much research, and nowadays it is probably safe
to say that there is a consensus that the judicial use of L1 can contribute
positively to classroom learning. But what if EFL were to go further and
embrace overtly bilingual praxis? In this article, I explore student reactions
to an EFL course which, rather than adhering to an English-only policy,
was designed to promote bilinguality.

Context and This research was carried out at a public university in Southern Spain
participants 2015–2016 during the course Lengua Inglesa BVI, a core third-year course
on the undergraduate translating/interpreting track. BVI is the last
(English) language course students take, with subsequent years devoted
to professionally oriented courses (Conference Interpreting; Audio-Visual
Translation, etc.), work placements, and final dissertations. The group
comprised 96 ‘home’ students and we were hosting overseas students
through the Erasmus (Europe) and Atlanticus (Americas) programmes.
The entry level for BVI is equivalent to a basic C1 in the CEFR, and so
these are advanced-level students. The goal of BVI is both to expand
the students’ range in English through an increased understanding of
styles and genres and, as for many this will be their last ever ‘English as
a foreign language’ course, prepare them for a future as autonomous
learners/users of other languages.
From a bilingual perspective, the group’s language profile is relevant. That
said, it is rather complicated (although probably not atypical in similar
scenarios). Table 1 below summarizes the situation: most of the students
were Spanish L1 speakers, and most were studying English with a view
to it being their main working language (L2 in the table below, for the
sake of convenience), with either Arabic, French, German, or Italian as
their second working language (L3 in the table). Some of the students also
spoke other Spanish languages to varying degrees of proficiency (Basque,
Catalan) and a couple were also Arabic speakers. The Erasmus students’
L1s were Danish, French, German, and Greek (and their Spanish levels
varied). There were also speakers of different Latin-American dialects
(primarily Mexican and Argentinian) scattered between Atlanticus and
home students.
Since these are students who have chosen to specialize in language-related
fields, it comes as little surprise to find that the majority had already
spent periods abroad, either through academic exchanges, summer jobs,
or simply ‘travelling’, and had picked up other languages along the way.
Some were motivated enough to be learning extra languages (notably

L1s Spanish (mostly); Arabic; Danish; French; German; Greek

L2s English (mostly)
1
ta b l e
L3s Arabic; French; German; Italian
Language profile of Lengua + Basque; Catalan; Chinese; Gaelic; Japanese; Polish; Portuguese;
Inglesa BVI 2015–2016 Romanian; Swedish

Becoming bilingual in the EFL classroom Page 3 of 10

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
 Chinese and Japanese) in their own time. Others were romantically
involved with speakers of other languages. My profile as the teacher/
researcher—a proficient speaker of French, Portuguese, Spanish, and
English and a not-so proficient speaker of Italian, German, Greek, and
Mandarin Chinese—completes the picture of a context that on one hand
can be considered inherently multilingual, yet on the other is an ELT
context.

Rationale and According to François Grosjean,3 Europeans tend to set the bar very high
methodology when it comes to acknowledging bilingualism, and a straw poll conducted
in the first week of term revealed that the majority of the BVI students
were very reluctant to call themselves bi- and/or (much less) multi-lingual.
Classroom discussion revealed that many of them still subscribed to the
arguably out-dated understanding of bilingualism as ‘native-like control of
two languages’ (Bloomfield 1935: 56), which they associated with having
grown up ‘that way’. Since I have been conducting similar straw polls
with students for a couple of years now, this did not come as a surprise,
although, given the context and student profile, perhaps it should have
(after all, these are advanced foreign-language students working with
multiple languages towards a languages-related career).
The goal thus became to introduce them to a more contemporary take on
the issue and to encourage them to explore the terrain and, potentially,
assume the mantle, in other words, to start thinking of themselves
as bilinguals (and to gather data from them in the process). During
the course, we dealt with multilingualism as a topic, for example via a
reading aloud activity using short texts written by immigrants to the
UK.4 Students also experienced both proactive and reactive classroom
translanguaging. As examples of the former, we undertook a collaborative
writing activity which involved students retelling (in English) the opening
story from the Argentinian film Relatos Selvajes. We also explored the
transfer/interference issue (by translating chunks of text containing false
cognates) and looked at how to exploit the similarities between English
and Spanish. As an example of the latter, while they were in groups
and on-task, designing a leaflet for a special-interest weekend break in
Andalucía (English output), I did not insist on their talking in English (see
discussion below).
In the BVI course, written interaction was partially assessed by means of
an exchange of letters. During the course, students received (en masse),
and had to reply to (individually), three letters from me. Each of the letters
contained a series of prompts, and how students responded to these
prompts helped to inform the evaluation of their interactive writing. They
also allowed me to explain my pedagogic approach and to gauge student
reactions/attitudes/opinions.
The letters were written in a colloquial style and students were instructed
to follow suit. This was partly motivated by a desire to increase their
stylistic range but also for affective reasons. In Figure 1 below (from my
second letter and following on directly from discussion of the group work
leaflet design task described above), I explicitly addressed the topic of
multilingualism in ELT.

Page 4 of 10 Pat Moore

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
 figure 1
Extract from the second
letter.

Results and Students were advised not to try to answer everything in the prompt letters
discussion but rather to focus on things they were personally interested in. In the
114 replies received, 78 students responded in some way to the question
of multilingualism; ‘in some way’ because it became clear that there
were both explicit and implicit responses to the issue. Fifty-six students
responded explicitly to the above extract with further discussion of the
topic and these are the texts which shape the discussion below. In many
of their replies, however, students were also putting the ideas into practice
and thereby responding implicitly. Thirty-three of the students who
responded explicitly also translanguaged in their texts, as in the example
below, and a further 22 translanguaged but did not pick up explicitly on
the topic. In the extracts, numbers in square brackets identify the student.
(Students have all given written permission for the use of their texts for
research purposes.)
Can you SERIOUSLY imagine how would it be if I only had Twitter?
I can tell you: Fin de la vida, as my classmates and I like to call it. [2]
Notice that this student does not provide a translation for the Spanish
employed; within the class more generally, some do and some do not (see
below for further discussion). Similarly, some flag ‘foreign’ words with
italics or scare marks and some do not. In the extracts here, rather than
artificially standardizing the students’ writing, I am reproducing their
writing in its original form.
From the perspective of explicit response, three strands emerge:
1 reactions to the ideas in theory;

Becoming bilingual in the EFL classroom Page 5 of 10

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
 2 reactions to in-class practice; and
3 reflections on out-of-classroom practice.

In theory Around a third of the students picked up on and used some of the
terminology (‘translanguaging’, ‘repertoire’, etc.) used in the prompt.
Several also mentioned ‘researching’ the topic:
I’ve done a little bit of research about translanguaging because I
was kinda lost. It just means to change from one language to another,
right? [8]
Engagement was further evidenced by the introduction of terms which,
although they may have featured in classroom discussion, had not
appeared in the prompt letter:
Concerning translanguaging, I don’t know if I get it. It’s something like
code-switching? If so, I can say I do it all the time, srsly. [39]
Likewise, I was amazed at the fact of actually realizing that in, let’s call
it ‘translingual minds’, what some of my classmates and I usually do
is quite normal. We’re truly used to find a use for English, French and
even German words in our daily Spanish. Reading in your letter that
what we were doing was just using whatever communicative tools at our
disposal was highly didactic. [2]
Fifteen students picked up on and discussed the learner/user distinction,
although many seemed to be wary of labelling themselves purely users
and preferred a double designation:
As an English learner and user, I don’t want to get stuck in my
current English knowledge. At the end of the day, I will be working
professionally with languages so playing safe has to come to an end. [95]
I totally agree that a lecturer should treat students as language users,
because it’s what we are going to be in a near future or, maybe, what we
are trying to be already. As well, I think at this level we should take the
language as our own. [13]
I remember you once said in class we won’t need to attend English
courses anymore, but be autodidactic by improving our skill on our
own. We have already spent approximately 15 years listening to a
hundred different teachers just repeating the same grammar rules
again and again. Now it’s the time to make a change and become
self-sufficient. [103]

Reactions to in-class There were a number of comments relating to general bilingual praxis
practice in class:
The translations and things you explain in Spanish are also easier to
remember, so I suppose that multilingualism is working well with
us. [60]
Your multilingual method is exciting and realistic. [37]
Around half of the students explicitly mentioned the leaflet design task.
Several admitted surprise at not being admonished for talking Spanish

Page 6 of 10 Pat Moore

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
 while on-task and others pointed out that they were used to an L2
monolingual policy:
I was quite shocked as well when you didn’t ask us to speak in
English. [64]
At first I thought that it was strange that you, as an English teacher,
didn’t say ‘Please only English! I don’t want to hear anybody speaking
Spanish!’ as we’re used to. [29]
I believed we had to [work in English] and every time you were walking
round our table, I pretended I was speaking in English. It is a big relief.
[40]
One student flagged the inauthenticity of having to speak L2 with fellow
L1 speakers:
It’s true that we didn’t talk too much in English, but well, it’s really
difficult to speak a foreign language with someone who you know can
speak your native language. [12]
There was quite a lot of reflection on the way they had organized
themselves during the task, and general consensus that ‘allowing’ them
to speak Spanish had facilitated the task by making it ‘easier’ and ‘faster’.
They also felt that it had been useful both from ‘real world’ and future
professional perspectives:
It was easier because we could use Spanish as well and not only English:
we worked faster and we could interchange ideas and opinions without
the need to talk in English and run the risk of misunderstanding and
so on and, of course and shocking for us, we discovered new words in
Spanish that we knew in English. It was a positive experience for all of
us. [49]
… we made a research around both Spanish and English web sites so we
felt like in an authentic multicultural context (and we put into practice
our translator’s skills too). [46]
Most of the groups including Erasmus students went beyond English/
Spanish:
In our case the idea of talking in any [one] language was quite chaotic,
but at the same time enriching, because our Erasmus was German in
whose language I felt like a fish out of water, but my classmate weren’t.
So I was talking to her in English whereas my colleagues were helping
each other with key words in German and we also had our mother
tongue in which the Erasmus was strong. It was a very interesting
multicultural encounter. [68]
It is worth observing that one of the Erasmus students in an ‘English-only’
group commented:
[W]e were only speaking English. I guess my co-workers did it for me,
because they noticed I’m not really good in speaking Spanish. On
one hand it was nice of them but on the other hand it’s a pity because
I didn’t improve my Spanish. In general for me it’s quite difficult to
speak Spanish even though we are in Spain. Somehow I feel like I’m

Becoming bilingual in the EFL classroom Page 7 of 10

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018

Reflections on out-
of-class practice
Page 8 of 10
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
in the Erasmus-bubble where you only speak English. But I don’t really
mind. My English needs to be improved anyways. [108]
The question of experience outside the classroom relates to the idea of
Universal Translanguaging outlined above. Out in the community, do the
students behave bilingually? As noted previously, most had spent time
outside Spain, studying, working, and/or travelling, and there were fond
memories aplenty:
Pan-linguistic gains? That made me remember so much my Erasmus.
What a wonderful time. I was part of an international group, consisting
of people from Poland, Germany, Greece, Czech Republic, Lithuania,
Taiwan and me and it was crazy how we could use so many words in
different languages to express the same thing. Sometimes we would say
‘hello’ to each other in German, ‘thanks’ in Polish, ‘cheers’ in English
and ‘bye’ in Spanish, or just the other way around. We learned words,
expressions, structures, and more than that, perspectives, views, how
people feel about their own language. For a student of languages like
me, that was pretty much the paradise. [30]
Also from the perspective of bilingual experience, several students
commented on having a word pop into their head in a different language:
… when you know an expression in a language but you feel it’s
impossible to translate it to another language without losing something.
[114]
Some acknowledged opting deliberately for one language or another:
Since English is all around the web and most of the series and books
I follow are in English it’s inevitable for me to mix its colloquial
expressions with my daily Spanish. In fact sometimes I prefer to say
things in English ‘cause the translation doesn’t quite mean the same to
me. [43]
After a little bit of hacerte la pelota (I looked for that expression in
English and it is ‘suck up to’, but I don’t like it) ... [40]
It was reassuring to see that many recognized the contextual dependence
inherent in such choices:
I met a boy from London at the university and we became good friends,
we used to change from English to Spanish and vice versa, not because
we didn’t know how to say something in one language, just to be fair
and talk both languages. It was in a natural way, maybe one of us felt
like changing and we continued. [14]
But what if I remember that same word in another language? Why
shouldn’t I use it? Of course the people you’re speaking to are also
important (my grandpa wouldn’t understand a word). [43]
Overall the students who responded explicitly to the multilingualism
prompt expressed positive attitudes to the idea, and many seemed to find
it quite logical:
Pat Moore
 [I]t doesn’t matter which language you’re supposed to use, the main
goal here is to communicate, to understand and to be understood. And
it feels soooooo good when you realize you’re capable. [58]
Anyone shd be bilingual after studying a language for 15 years! [71]

Bilingual interaction
From a task fulfilment perspective, the students were being assessed on
written interaction. And among the ‘pro-bilingual’ cohort, what started to
emerge was bilingual interaction. As noted above, when translanguaging
in their texts, students sometimes provided translations/glosses and
sometimes they did not. On further examination, what emerged was that,
aware of their reader’s linguistic profile, they were providing translations
of terms I might not be familiar with (for example unternehmungslustig
and itadakimasu below), but not when they knew I would know the term
(for example Arigato and amour-propre). Should this be considered explicit
or implicit response? It would depend on how conscious the students
were of this behaviour:
I am a really unternehmungslustig—enterprising—person (I wrote that
German word because it’s my favourite word ever). [85]
As I’m studying Japanese, I mix it too. Arigato or itadakimasu (said
before starting to eat) are part of my usual talk. [39]
I have a very low amour-propre (I’ve just discovered this term & I love
it!). [3]

Conclusions The objective of this small, exploratory piece of research was to see how
students would react to the overt subversion of monolingual (i.e. English-
only) norms in an EFL classroom. As teacher/researcher, I adopted
Classroom Translanguaging techniques and, although classes were still
conducted largely in and generally focused on English, English was not
the sole goal of the lessons. The students were encouraged to reconsider
bilinguality and were given the opportunity to reflect upon the idea
through interactive writing.
In this case, the results were generally positive: over two-thirds of the
students reacted favourably (explicitly and/or implicitly) to the notion. It
is quite possible, however, that both the advanced levels of these students
and the fact that they are studying multiple languages made them more
receptive to the idea of translanguaging and bilinguality. The approach
therefore needs to be repeated with lower-level, and younger, students
who might only be studying one foreign language, and also with a range
of teachers.
We should also not ignore the fact that the way the writing was evaluated
could have skewed the results to some degree. After all, the students were
aware of my pro-bilingual stance and there may well have been some
hacerme la pelota (saying what they thought I wanted to hear/‘sucking up’
to me). But it does have to be said that when discussing other potentially
controversial topics in class, they had no compunction in expressing
disagreement with what they perceived to be my views. Of course, during
the exchange of letters, 36 students neither discussed the topic nor

Becoming bilingual in the EFL classroom Page 9 of 10

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
 translanguaged in their texts and we can only speculate as to their beliefs,
or eliminate the self-selection aspect of the next study.
Final version received June 2017
Notes
1 I follow Hamers and Blanc (1989/2000) in
distinguishing between individual bilinguality and
societal bilingualism.
2 The idea of super-diversity has evolved in the
social sciences to reflect the complexity of modern
multi-culturality in large urban cities. For more
information, visit: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_
news/4266102.stm (accessed on 25 August 2017).
3 For more information, visit http://www.
multilingualliving.com/2011/03/03/what-
bilingualism-is-not/ (accessed on 25 August 2017).
4 For more information, visit https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/
ng-interactive/2015/mar/24/immigrants-in-their-
own-words-100-stories (accessed on 25 August 2017).
References
Bloomfield, L. 1935. Language. London: Allen &
Unwin.
Conteh, J. and G. Meier. (eds.). 2014. The Multilingual
Turn in Languages Education. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Cook, V. 1999. ‘Going beyond the native speaker in
language teaching’. TESOL Quarterly 33/2: 185–209.
Cook, V. 2002. Portraits of the L2 User. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. 2007. ‘The goals of ELT: reproducing native
speakers or promoting multi-competence among
second language users?’ in J. Cummins and C. Davison
(eds.). Handbook of English Language Teaching. Berlin:
Springer.
Cook, V. 2016. ‘Where is the native speaker now?’
TESOL Quarterly 50/1: 186–9.
Council of Europe. 2017. CEFR Companion Volume
with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-
framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-
teaching/168074a4e2 (accessed on 25 August 2017).
García, O. 2012. ‘Theorizing translanguaging
for educators’ in C. Celic and K. Seltzer (eds.).
Page 10 of 10 Pat Moore
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/elt/ccx045/4598593
by Mount Royal College user
on 25 January 2018
Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for
Educators. New York, NY: CUNY-NYSIEB.
Hamers, J. F. and M. Blanc. 1989/2000. Bilinguality and
Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holliday, A. 2006. ‘Native-speakerism’. ELT Journal
60/4: 385–7.
Lewis, G., R. Jones, and C. Baker.2012.
‘Translanguaging origins and development: from
school to street and beyond’. Educational Research and
Evaluation 18/7: 641–54.
May, S. (ed.). 2013. The Multilingual Turn. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Nikula, T. and P. Moore. 2016. ‘Exploring
translanguaging in CLIL’. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advanced Access
published 17 May 2016.
Paquet-Gauthier, M. and S. Beaulieu. 2015. ‘Can language
classrooms take the multilingual turn?’ Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37/2: 167–83.
Rampton, B. 1990. ‘Displacing the “native speaker”:
expertise, affiliation, and inheritance’. ELT Journal
44/2: 97–101.
Turnbull, B. 2016. ‘Reframing foreign language
learning as bilingual education: epistemological
changes towards the emergent bilingual’.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism. Advanced Access published 28
September 2016.
The author
Pat Moore has been involved in ELT since the
beginning of the 1980s. She has worked in both the
state and private sectors in the UK, Greece, France,
Portugal, Brazil, and China. Since 2004, she has
been working in the Department of Languages and
Translation at the Universidad Pablo de Olavide in
Seville. Her interest in bilinguality stems from ten
years researching secondary bilingual education
(CLIL), and she is now looking at ways to apply
what she has learnt to other EFL contexts.
Email: pfmoox@upo.es