Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Pathways to Competence 9781788922517

Citation preview

Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition

EARLY LANGUAGE LEARNING IN SCHOOL CONTEXTS Series Editor: Janet Enever, Umeå University, Sweden The early learning of languages in instructed contexts has become an increasingly common global phenomenon during the past 30 years, yet there remains much work to be done to establish the field as a distinctive area for interdisciplinary investigation. This international research series covers children learning second, foreign and additional languages in educational contexts between the ages of approximately 3 and 12 years. The series will take a global perspective and encourage the sharing of theoretical discussion and empirical evidence on transnational issues. It will provide a platform to address questions raised by teachers, teacher educators, and policy makers who are seeking understanding of theoretical issues and empirical evidence with which to underpin policy development, implementation and classroom procedures for this young age group. Themes of particular interest for the series include: teacher models and teacher development, models of early language learning, policy implementation, motivation, approaches to teaching and learning, language progress and outcomes, assessment, intercultural learning, sustainability in provision, comparative and transnational perspectives, cross-phase transfer issues, curriculum integration – additional suggestions for themes are also most welcome.  All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

EARLY LANGUAGE LEARNING IN SCHOOL CONTEXTS: 2

Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition Pathways to Competence

Edited by Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow and Melanie Ellis

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/ROKITA2500 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Rokita-Jaśkow, Joanna - editor. | Ellis, Melanie - editor. Title: Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Pathways to Competence / Edited by Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow and Melanie Ellis. Description: Bristol, UK; Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, [2019] | Series: Early Language Learning in School Contexts: 2 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018038740| ISBN 9781788922500 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788922494 (pbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788922531 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Second language acquisition. | Language and languages—Study and teaching (Elementary)—Foreign speakers. | English language—Study and teaching (Elementary)—Foreign speakers. Classification: LCC P118.2 .E14 2019 | DDC 372.65—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018038740 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-250-0 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-249-4 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2019 Joanna Rokita-Jas´kow, Melanie Ellis and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by Short Run Press Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

Contents

Contributors vii Introduction 1 Joanna Rokita-Jas´kow and Melanie Ellis Part 1:  Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction Introduction 9 Melanie Ellis 1 Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning: The Case of Poland Joanna Rokita-Jas´kow and Małgorzata Pamuła-Behrens

11

2 Integrating and Emulating: Early English Initiatives in Portugal Sandie Mourão

26

Part 2:  Pathways to Developing Early L2 Oracy and Literacy Introduction 51 Melanie Ellis Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input 3 From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice Teresa Fleta 4 Spotting the Differences between Child–Child and Child–Adult Interactions: Evidence from Spanish EFL Learners at Low Levels of Proficiency Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola and Raúl Azplicueta-Martinez

57

80

5 The Role of Teacher Language in a Young Learner Classroom 106 Małgorzata Szulc-Kurpaska v

vi Contents

Pathways to Developing Early Literacy 6 Young EFL Learners and Their Reading Awareness: A Case Study with Twins Renata Šamo

129

7 Effective Learning Interventions in Young Children: The Impact of Critical Reading Strategies Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe and Maria Victoria Zenotz

142

8 Extensive Reading in Primary EFL: Can Story Apps Do the Trick? Annika Kolb and Sonja Brunsmeier

153

Part 3: Pathways to Understanding Relationships in Early Foreign Language Learning and Teaching Introduction 171 Melanie Ellis 9 Parental Perceptions of Bilingual Primary Schools in Poland: The (Added) Value of English Barbara Loranc-Paszylk 10 Parental Involvement in Very Early FL Education Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow 11 Investigating the Self-Concept of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Context of Foreign Language Learning Werona Król-Gierat

175 191

206

12 Power Relationships in an Early Foreign Language Classroom 225 Ewa Guz and Małgorzata Tetiurka Afterword Melanie Ellis and Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow

242

Author Index

249

Subject Index

252

Contributors

Sonja Brunsmeier works as Professor for teaching English to young learners at the University of Education, Tyrol, as well as a research fellow at the University of Education, Freiburg. In her PhD project, she investigated the development of Intercultural Communicative Competence in the primary EFL classroom. Melanie Ellis, PhD, teaches at the Pedagogical University of Cracow, where she heads the Practical English section in the Department of English Language Education. Her research interests include the effects of high-stakes national foreign language examinations on teaching and learning in school, the development of spoken production and interaction in early stages of learning and how teachers in mainstream education work with learners for whom foreign language learning presents a challenge. Teresa Fleta, PhD, is a teacher, teacher trainer and researcher based in Madrid. As a classroom teacher, she taught pre-school, first grade, second grade and in secondary education. At university level she taught in the Master’s Degree programme of Bilingual Education in Alcala de Henares University and in the International University of La Rioja. Currently, she is Honorary Research Fellow in the Complutense University of Madrid. Her research interests are child language acquisition and bilingual education. Ewa Guz holds a doctoral degree in linguistics from John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, where she is currently employed as an assistant professor at the Department of Applied Linguistics. She also works as a teacher trainer in the University College of Language Teacher Education in Warsaw. Her research interests include L2 speech production and processing, formulaic language in (non)native speech, measures of L2 proficiency/performance, academic literacy at the tertiary level and learner engagement in early foreign language instruction. Amparo Lázaro Ibarrola, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Public University of Navarre (Spain). She is based in the Department of Philology where she teaches Undergraduate and Master's level courses in the EFL Teacher Training Programmes. She specializes in the field of Applied vii

viii  Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition

Linguistics and Education and her research focuses on the processes of second language acquisition.  Werona Król-Gierat, PhD, works at the Pedagogical University of Cracow, where she completed Doctoral Studies in Applied Linguistics. She holds a degree from the Jagiellonian University in Romance Languages and Cultures and is qualified in early-school pedagogy, psychological-pedagogical diagnosis and therapy, and education management. Her main research interests include inclusive education, especially the psychological-pedagogical aspects of teaching foreign languages to young learners with Special Educational Needs. Annika Kolb is professor at the English Department of the University of Education, Freiburg. She holds a doctoral degree in primary EFL from Hamburg University and has worked as a teacher in primary and secondary school in Germany and Spain. Her main research interests are teaching English in primary school, literature in language education, and story apps. Barbara Loranc-Paszylk, PhD, works as Assistant Professor in the Department of English Studies, University of Bielsko-Biała, Poland. Her research interests focus on various aspects of Content and Language Integrated Learning and also include innovative uses of new technologies and e-learning resources in teaching foreign languages at the tertiary level. She is also the head of the postgraduate programme for Primary EFL teachers at University of Bielsko-Biala, Poland. Raúl Azpilicueta Martínez, PhD, is a lecturer at the National Distance Education University  (UNED) and trains teachers at the Official School of Languages of Navarre (Spain). His research interests revolve around second language acquisition and assessment.  Sandie Mourão, PhD, is an invited assistant professor at Nova University Lisbon in Portugal, where she lectures on the MA for primary English education. Her recent publications include English Teaching in the Early Years: Research in Peru (2018); English Learning Areas in Preprimary Classrooms: An Investigation of their Effectiveness (Robinson, Mourão & Kang, 2015); and Early Years Second Language Education: International Perspectives on Theories and Practice (Mourão & Lourenço (eds), 2015). Małgorzata Pamuła-Behrens is Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics at the Pedagogical University of Cracow. She is interested in early language learning, particularly of French as a foreign language, development of child FL literacy and academic language, as well as learner and teacher autonomy. She was a co-author of the language component curriculum for the pre-primary level in Poland (2014) as well as of Polish adaptations of the European Language Portfolio for young learners (2007). She participated in many projects at ECML in Graz (e.g. 2011). At the moment she is interested in language education and integration of migrants. She is the head of Postgraduate Programme for Teaching Polish

Contributors 

ix

as a Foreign language. Results of her research were published in over 60 journals and book chapters and in two books. Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow is Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics at the Pedagogical University of Cracow, Poland, where she is head of the ELT section. Her main research interests concern child foreign and second language acquisition and foreign language teacher education. She is author of over 40 papers and 3 books, the most recent one titled: Foreign language learning at pre-primary level: parental aspirations and educational practice (2013, Pedagogical University Press). She also initiated and coordinates the postgraduate programme for pre-primary and primary FL teachers. Renata Šamo works as an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, SLA and TEFL at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. Her research interests include the psycholinguistic aspects of learning and teaching EFL, the age factor, and L1/L2 reading. She has been involved in two large-scale longitudinal research projects, focused on FL learning at an early age. Her publications include the research book Čitanjem do spoznaje, spoznajom do čitanja [From Reading to Cognition, from Cognition to Reading], the first of this type in Croatia, and many papers. She has also co-edited the research volume Early Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Perspectives and Experience. Małgorzata Szulc-Kurpaska is currently an Associate Professor at the Pedagogical University of Cracow, Poland. For 25 years she was a teacher trainer at the Foreign Language Teacher Training Colleges in Legnica and in Wrocław. She is the co-author of programmes for teaching English in the primary school and kindergarten, the Polish adaptation of the coursebook Sparks (2004), and a methodology book on Teaching English to Young Learners (2009, PWN). She took part in the Ministry of Education project developing a core curriculum for foreign languages in schools, and she cooperated with the Educational Research Institute in Warsaw in conducting research into the conditions of foreign language instruction and its effectiveness in primary school. Małgorzata Tetiurka is a Lecturer at John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, where she currently teaches the Young Learner Methodology course at the Department of Applied Linguistics. Her research interests include foreign language acquisition and learning for children of all ages. She is interested in language learning processes in both formal and informal contexts, learner engagement and developing language learning materials for children. She is currently working on her doctoral thesis concerning the role and the use of L1 in a foreign language classroom. She is also an in-service teacher trainer and materials writer. Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe is Associate Professor in Language and Applied Linguistics at the University of the Basque Country. Her research interests focus on the acquisition of English as a second and third language, multilingualism and Content and Language Integrated Learning

x  Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition

(CLIL). Her work has appeared in books, edited books and international journals. Victoria Zenotz has a PhD from the University of the Basque Country and is a lecturer in language and education at the Public University of Navarre. She has BA degrees in English, German and French Philology and her research interests are multi-literacies, strategies, metacognition and reading, with several papers and articles published in those fields.

Introduction Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow and Melanie Ellis

Despite a large amount of research questioning the need for an early start in foreign language learning (FLL) and pointing to the potential benefits of later, but more intensive instruction, FLL is being introduced at increasingly earlier ages in many educational settings globally. The decision to introduce a foreign language (FL) very early is often political, designed to promote certain policies, or is in response to parental aspirations to secure better future prospects for their children, for which FL competence is seen as key. This is the situation in many places where the national language is not widely spoken outside the country and so learning an international language, such as English, is a necessity if one wishes to become a member of the global community. In many of the European countries represented in this book, such as Poland, Germany, Croatia and Portugal, this is the case. Some of these countries have a considerable tradition in teaching FLs to young learners (YLs), although often on a fee-paying basis. The focus on the promotion of a very early start in FLL in Europe dates from language policy documents as early as the Conclusions of the Barcelona Presidency (2002), when the concept of learning two FLs from a very early age was advocated as a means of fostering individual plurilingualism. Activities undertaken by European institutions, such as the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the European Centre of Modern Languages in Graz, have been to promote the widespread and lifelong learning of languages for all European citizens as a means of strengthening social cohesion in European society, through enhancing communication and thus mutual understanding. This has meant that FLL has ceased to be the prerogative of an elite and has become accessible to all, including children with special educational needs. Activities promoting an ‘early start’ policy are supported by research findings as outlined in two important research reports, published by Blondin et al. (1998) and Edelenbos et al. (2006). In a survey of research on early FLL, Blondin et  al. (1998) found a number of circumstances that appeared to support positive learning outcomes. These included the amount of exposure to the language outside 1

2  Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition

school, mainly through the media or the internet; systemic support for an early start in FL; and parental support or involvement. They also highlighted the significance of crucial factors relating to the school such as continuity of language learning from one educational level to the next, the class size and the time allocated for language learning (both the number of hours and the frequency of classes). In the teacher, proficiency in the FL was emphasised, as this is needed to ensure that the teacher can interact naturally with the children and is able to respond flexibly and with ease to the different needs of individual learners. Training of the teacher of early foreign language was also stressed. If the teacher is a generalist, then their training needs to build an understanding of how the FL develops, while if the teacher is an FL specialist, they need additional training in child development and in teaching approaches appropriate for early years. In the learner, research focused on factors associated with learning outcomes. General verbal ability was found to correlate with FL performance. Lower socioeconomic status was associated with lower outcomes, while it was suggested that ethnicity and bilingualism may have a positive effect on FLL. An early start was found to promote positive attitudes to FLs and motivation for learning them. Blondin et al. (1998) suggest that the experience of learning a new language may contribute to the child’s overall personal development, and help them develop intercultural and metalinguistic awareness. The second report (Edelenbos et al., 2006) contributed significantly to setting standards for good practice in early FL teaching. Drawing on findings from reported research carried out worldwide from 1999 onwards (continuing the work of Blondin et al., 1998), surveys of good practice in different countries in Europe and analysis of policy and curricula documents, a list of principles that underlie early FLL was drawn up. This was discussed and revised with an expert group and then consulted with policymakers and practitioners in the form of a questionnaire. The outcomes are a comprehensive overview of principles recommended for consideration when organising early FL instruction, and principles for early FL teaching, with the implications these have for teacher education and the classroom. First, when planning instruction, the personality, capability and development of the child should be considered, and allowance made for different learning styles and strategies. The main reasons for early learning of an FL seem to be to encourage tolerance and understanding of others, to take advantage of the young child’s potential for language acquisition, to motivate language learning and, through increasing the time given to school learning of languages, to improve levels of competence. With this in mind, approaches that aim to provide enjoyable learning and at the same time stimulate and motivate all children are advised. These include using multisensory activities and materials suited to the age and stage of

Introduction 

3

development of the learner, which, while ensuring that comprehension is well-established before production, encourage them to take the first steps in basic communication. Recognising that phonological development is particularly acute at this stage, the report stresses the importance of including sound awareness and pronunciation training. Building understanding of the relationship between written forms and sounds is advised in order to support FL literacy skills from the beginning. For young children, learning needs to be meaningful and so the approach, topics and contexts chosen are key, with opportunities for holistic learning seen as valuable. The teacher is seen as important in the early FLL process, providing language input and supporting children in developing their understanding of languages, different cultures and the language learning process. The attitude of the teacher and their relationship with the learner is also an important motivating factor. The publication of the document titled Language Learning at PrePrimary School Level: Making it Efficient and Sustainable (European Commission, 2011) precipitated further activity in the very early teaching of FLs, providing signposts for development and prompting changes in educational systems, curricula, materials and teacher education in some EU member countries, such as Poland and Cyprus. The lowering of the starting age for FLL to the pre-primary level has opened a new area of educational practice and fresh territories for research, some of which are covered in this book. As a reference point, the editors of the book took into account the recommendations for further research outlined by Edelenbos et al. (2006) and Nikolov and Mihaljević-Djigunović (2006). Edelenbos et  al. call for holistic investigation of what leads to success in early FLL through research on relationships between how early FLL is implemented in a given context and factors pertaining to the teacher, how they teach and the outcomes achieved. They also stress the need for descriptions of good practice, particularly those based on analysis of data from observation, with the aim of promoting discussion on how quality in early FLL can be developed for the purposes of teacher education. Like Nikolov and Mihaljević-Djigunović, they draw attention to the fact that there is a need for longitudinal research to throw more light on how children’s language and their motivation for language learning develop in instructed settings over time. More needs to be known, state Nikolov and MihaljevićDjigunović, about factors relating to the learner and how these interplay with learning outcomes. Also under-researched is the role that the first language (L1) plays in the development of the second language (L2), and developmental sequences. In the selection of chapters for this book, we have tried to find research that addresses these areas. The participants of the studies in this book are young and very young learners, or those directly related to them, i.e. their parents or teachers. YLs are usually defined as children attending primary school, whose age

4  Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition

in different settings varies between 5 and 12 or 13 years. Whereas, very young learners are those before the onset of compulsory schooling, which usually refers to children attending pre-school instruction, between ages 3 and 6/7. There may be even younger children, attending, for example, nursery school. The book consists of four parts. The opening part, titled ‘Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction’, describes how early instructed language learning is regulated and practised in specimen European countries (Poland and Portugal). It aims to show that in low-input contexts, FLL outcomes may to a large extent depend on the provision and organisation of the teaching–learning process, which is often reflected in national (or regional) educational policy. However, systemic educational reform on a national or regional level can only take place as a result of new legislation, which may leave the introduction of early FL teaching vulnerable to the whims of politicians, or make it the victim of party politics, as Rokita-Jas´kow and Pamuła-Behrens show (Chapter 1). By contrast, Mourão (Chapter 2) focuses on the pedagogy of pre-primary early language learning, showing how it can benefit from adopting principles and practices from pre-primary education, with particular emphasis on making provision for child-initiated play. With examples from Portugal, the author demonstrates how setting up an English language area (ELA) with the same resources the children use in teacher-led class activities leads to children spontaneously practising the language, taking on the roles of teacher and learners in unsupervised play. This cycle of teacher-led lesson followed by the opportunity for child-initiated play, followed by further teacher-led work and more time for play in the ELA, is proposed as an effective solution to increase affordance for language practice in low-exposure instructed settings. The second part of the book, ‘Pathways to Developing Early L2 Oracy and Literacy’, is sub-divided into two parts, the first focusing on the development of speaking skills and different aspects related to L2 input, and the second on different studies that relate to the development of reading skills. This first part starts with a chapter by Teresa Fleta (Chapter 3), who describes the stages of development in the acquisition of English grammar of Spanish children aged from 4 to 5 years, studying in a bilingual immersion context over a period of two and a half school years. These children have a massive amount of contact with L2 input, which allows for the construction of a common L2 grammar across the participants, and shows that implicit learning mechanisms take place. Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola and Raúl Azplicueta-Martinez (Chapter  4) compare child–adult and child–child interactions in carefully designed oral storytelling tasks in an experimental study in Spain. The inclusion of three distractors among the set of pictures to be put in order pushes the interlocutors to negotiate for meaning. The interactions are then analysed

Introduction 

5

for negotiation of meaning strategies, which are then divided into four groups, according to the functions they perform. The interactions are found to be significantly different in several respects. Finally, L1 structural transfer is investigated. Małgorzata Szulc-Kurpaska (Chapter  5) examines language use in lessons used by four different YL teachers in sixth-grade (age 12;0) primary English classes in Poland. She investigates how the L1 is used by teachers and learners, the balance of teacher and learner talk and the functional purposes of teacher language. She also shows how the modes of interaction differ when compared with earlier grades. The second part includes three longitudinal studies of the development of literacy, starting from the commencement of schooling. Renata Šamo (Chapter  6) presents a case study of the reading skills in L1 and L2 English of twins learning together in the same school in Croatia. She compares the strategic processes they use to support their comprehension in each of the languages and analyses the differences between the pair. Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe and Maria Victoria Zenotz (Chapter 7) investigate the effectiveness of a strategic training intervention in teaching critical reading to third language (L3) learners of English in the north of Spain, comparing experimental and control groups. Finally, Annika Kolb and Sonja Brunsmeier (Chapter  8) describe how the use of multimodal digital story apps in an after-school club in Germany encourages extensive reading, enhances the reading strategies and comprehension of YLs of English and promotes collaboration interaction. The third part, titled ‘Pathways to Understanding Relationships in Early Foreign Language Learning and Teaching’, offers insights into different aspects of early FLL, looking at key stakeholders in the process: parents, the children themselves and teachers. Attitudes, motivations and behaviours are investigated, suggesting how these interplay and may impact on the teaching/learning process. The role played by parents is an area that is still under-researched and yet seems to be particularly influential in the pre-school and early school years. This influence is visible in decision making about schooling (such as enrolment in a specific type of school) and in the transmission of certain attitudes and expectations to their children. Barbara Loranc-Paszylk (Chapter 9) examines reasons why parents enrol their children in private bilingual primary schools in Poland. She finds out that the key motivation is to maximise exposure to the L2, even if there are some doubts about how this is organised. Joanna Rokita-Jas´kow, in a quantitative survey study (Chapter 10), investigates the ways that parents in Poland are involved in the pre-primary child’s learning. She concludes that parents who themselves are more knowledgeable of FLs can provide more opportunities for L2 acquisition and use. Yet, she also points out that YL teachers should inform, and possibly even educate, YL parents about ways of effective and playful L2 practice

6  Early Instructed Second Language Acquisition

at home. Werona Król-Gierat (Chapter 11) examines the development of YLs’ self-concept and their attitudes to the difficulty of FLL in response to teacher input. How these special needs children perceive their ability is compared with their learning outcomes and the perceptions of their teacher. In the final chapter, Ewa Guz and Małgorzata Tetiurka (Chapter 12) investigate the importance of teacher verbal and non-verbal communication in establishing successful classroom relationships. On the basis of video recordings of English lessons taught by YL teacher trainees, the authors analyse types of verbal and non-verbal behaviour found to inhibit success or prevent the teaching objectives from being achieved in a lesson and show how lack of awareness of these results in the pupils taking control. The book concludes with a summary of how the personal language learning experiences of parents and teachers impact on their beliefs and attitudes about early FLL. Although the chapters included in this book all come from Europe, it is hoped that through these reflections readers from other countries will find relevance for their own situation. This final chapter considers what has been learned from the studies described, and the applications these may have for the teaching of young and very young learners. We consider, in particular, the question of the different competences needed by the teacher of early FLL. Throughout, attention is drawn to areas we feel are worth further investigation. The book should be of interest to all professionals involved in teaching FLs to YLs, whether undergraduate or postgraduate students of education and departments of applied linguistics, researchers or teacher educators of early FL teachers. This collection could also be of relevance on university courses such as second language acquisition or teaching English to young learners (TEYL) methodology. Of particular interest in teacher education may be the chapters that include qualitative data from classrooms (Guz & Tetiurka; Szulc-Kurpaska) or samples of learner speech (Fleta; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Raúl Azpilicueta-Martínez) and the chapter on learners with special educational needs in an integrated FL class (Król-Gierat). References Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A. and Taeschner, T. (1998) Foreign Languages in Primary and Pre-school Education. London: CILT. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. (2006) Languages for the Children in Europe: Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. See http://ec.europa. eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/languages/policy/language-policy/documents/ young_en.pdf (accessed 12 July 2017). European Commission (2011) Language Learning at Pre-Primary School Level: Making It Efficient and Sustainable. A Policy Handbook. Brussels: European Commission. See http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/languages/policy/languagepolicy/documents/early-language-learning-handbook_en.pdf (accessed 12 July 2017). 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.

Part 1 Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

Introduction Melanie Ellis

Implementing mandatory early language learning is at an early stage in Europe. Recent surveys (Eurydice, 2017) suggest that while quite widespread, there is a great deal of variety in what has been introduced and how this has been done. Responding to the call for descriptive studies of early language learning in different contexts (Edelenbos et al., 2006), this part presents two chapters that show different aspects of key importance in introducing a new initiative: policy and principled practice. To sustain the innovation of early language learning, state or national educational legislation consistent with European recommendations is needed. Also required is long-term commitment for funding of staff, resources and teacher education. Bringing about fundamental change, as is needed if language learning in early years and pre-primary education is to be successful, takes time and is potentially fraught with practical difficulties. If new legislation making early language learning mandatory is introduced before graduates of new teaching specialisation programmes emerge, or even ahead of solidly prepared, up-and-running teacher education programmes, then inevitably there will be problems with the supply of appropriately qualified teachers. This most likely will impact on the quality and effectiveness of early language education. Yet, the alternative, providing in-service training for early years or pre-primary generalist teachers in how to introduce foreign language into their practice, may present particular challenges, as in the Polish context. Early years specialists have their own class who they work with all day, every day. Pre-primary teachers in Poland work long days, as such schools open very early, stay open late and also function during periods when schools are on holiday, as, similar to Portugal, they also provide a child-care function for working parents. This situation creates logistical problems for the organisation of further or additional training, as attending part-time studies on weekends means that the teacher has no day off, while day-release training is unfeasible as the teacher is assigned to a class and there is no supply provision. Even if the deadline for gaining a new qualification is set some time in the future, these difficulties still apply. In short, the enthusiasm of an elected 9

10  Introduction to Part 1

government to introduce early language learning and satisfy the popular demands of parents, or to implement European policy by a deadline, may create a situation in the education system that is fragile and difficult to sustain. For such major change to be implemented successfully, comprehensive contextual analysis, consultation with all stakeholders, both those in education policy, teacher education institutions and schools, is needed in order to draw up a feasible plan. Failure to do this places strain on different parts of the system, with the potential for negative consequences. In the interim, before enough generalist teachers can be trained to introduce early language learning, it falls to the specialist teacher of English to meet the needs. The outcome may be what Mourão describes as the ‘parachute teacher’, a peripatetic specialist who drops into a school to give short lessons before moving on to the next school. While the research (cf. Edelenbos et  al., 2006) indicates that children need both exposure to the language and the impetus to practise in stimulating activities, the context of brief visits from a specialist teacher makes this difficult to achieve. Based on an example from Portugal, we learn how, through the introduction of English language areas (ELAs – where children have the opportunity to play without teacher supervision), in careful ­coordination with teacher-led lessons, a workable solution can be found that exemplifies principled good practice. If activities done with the teacher are sufficiently motivating and enjoyable, we see that the children in the ELA spontaneously pick up the materials they used in the lesson and act out in the target language. In other words, systemic constraints do not necessarily mean that successful solutions cannot be found. On the contrary, organisational difficulty may serve as a trigger that inspires innovation. References Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. (2006) Languages for the Children in Europe: Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. See http:​//ec.​europ​ a.eu/​dgs/e​ducat​ion_c​ultur​e/rep​osito​ry/la​nguag​es/po​licy/​langu​age-p​olicy​/docu​ments​/ youn​g_en.​pdf (accessed 12 July 2017). Eurydice (2017) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

1 Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning: The Case of Poland Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow and Małgorzata Pamuła-Behrens

Introduction

A global economy, free travel, the simplified transfer of money and goods and opportunities for professional mobility have enforced the necessity to obtain foreign language (FL) competence as a means of establishing interpersonal contacts. A special role in the international market and communication has been acknowledged for English, which is now perceived as a global language (Crystal, 2003), or a lingua franca, due to its post-colonial dominance in many territories and its widespread use in the spheres of politics, economics and culture (including pop culture). English remains the means of communication between lay people and business partners alike, and in many circles knowledge of English is a precondition for advancing a career. This is described as the ‘knowledge economy’ (Williams, 2010). It is not unusual, therefore, that in many societies that speak languages of rather low international recognition, the major goal for many individuals is to acquire English. Its fluent use is regarded as a competence required to obtain any employment (e.g. services for tourists), high prestige employment (e.g. top managerial positions, work in international companies) and often for social mobility. Shohamy (2006) further endorses this view by claiming that in countries where English is not spoken as an official language, it is knowledge of the powerful global language, English, that often serves as a class marker enabling entrance to power groups in terms of education and social class and others such as universities and the labour market – while excluding others […]

11

12  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

By contrast those who cannot speak English are the new form of underclass, whose participation and representation are minimized. (Shohamy, 2006: 144)

Not surprisingly then, in poststructuralist theories of language acquisition (e.g. Block, 2003; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), language is an important capital that can boost the accumulation of other capital. Therefore, learning an FL is regarded as a considerable investment in better life opportunities. This conviction has particular strength in societies in which there is little presence of English in the public space or media (e.g. in the form of subtitled films), which would enable subconscious language acquisition. Where daily authentic contact with an FL is limited, heavy investments have to be made in FL instruction to enhance its frequency and effectiveness. An early start in an FL can be regarded as one of the means toward this goal, as starting early may prolong the overall period of learning and is more likely to result in the achievement of native-like competence. A case in point is Poland, or other countries in Central Europe where languages of Slavic origin are spoken. The dominance of English has not only lowered the status of many other local languages in the world, but in some cases it has evicted them from daily use, a phenomenon known as linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 2009). Consequently, there is a diminishing interest in learning other FLs. When one has to make a conscious choice, is possibly limited by time or economic resources and is fully aware of how much effort it takes to learn an FL, particularly in instructional settings, English is often the first FL chosen. The option of learning subsequent languages, however, remains attractive for those who are passionate FL learners. To counteract the monopoly of one language that may even lead to the death of some minority languages globally (cf. Fishman, 2001), different educational and cultural institutions, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) or the Council of Europe, exercise their power and undertake action to guarantee equal rights to all language users. By the same token, the goal of the European Union (EU) and its institutions is to promote multilingualism and lifelong learning of FLs. It is hoped that these measures will counteract the linguistic imperialism of English. Another drawback that is brought about by globalisation is the sanctioning of economic deregulation in many spheres of life, which contributes to a heightened degree of inequality (Williams, 2010: 195). Therefore, another goal of the institutions aiming to guarantee the equal rights of individuals is to guarantee equal access to learning opportunities in order to prevent social exclusion on the grounds of inadequate resources or low socioeconomic status (SES). To summarise, the goal of this chapter is to show how educational practice and educational aspirations can contribute to forming a

Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning  13

supportive language education policy, and secondly, how politics and policy affect educational processes and outcomes. Ager (2001) distinguishes seven motives that are used as incentives in forming language policy. The top-down motives that are determined by state governments are identity, ideology, image creation, insecurity and inequality, of which the most relevant seem to be identity and inequality. The bottom-up motives are the voices of citizens, whose aspirations and opinions should be taken into account in democratic societies. These are integration with a group and instrumental motives for advancement. These aspects will be referred to when presenting the educational situation in Poland, which is an example of a country implementing an early language learning policy. Top-Down Influences of an ‘Early Start’ Language Policy

An early start in FL instruction became the main objective of EU language education policy, not only for political reasons and to promote the idea of European integration, but also for the long-term benefits of early exposure to a language, as outlined in two important reports prepared for the European Commission (Blondin et al., 1998; Edelenbos et al., 2006). While the first report (Blondin et al., 1998) laid the ground for the second interim action plan of the EU (2004–2006), whose main objective was promoting lifelong learning of languages, the second report indicated the principles that should be followed in early FL education, including pre-primary education. On the basis of available data from linguistic research, it drew attention to the fact that the goal of very early instruction cannot and should not be to strive for native-like proficiency. Rather, the courses should be short and aimed at habituation to an FL. They should focus on raising metalinguistic and particularly phonological awareness, and intercultural awareness while recognising the influences of the mother tongue. The report (Edelenbos et  al., 2006) also emphasised that effective teaching of languages to young learners requires institutional support, which can ensure good quality teaching (e.g. through appropriate teacher training), the appropriate placing of languages in the curriculum, as well as guarantee continuity of language learning throughout the different school levels. Another goal of the early introduction of FLs in the curriculum is to counteract the possible negative impact of low SES, as this demographic variable seems to be the most influential mediating factor determining the ultimate outcomes in FL education. Learners from a lower socioeconomic background may have limited access to good quality teaching or educational materials, may participate less often in extracurricular language learning activities and may have limited or no opportunities to learn a language abroad. For these reasons, it seems that children have varied learning opportunities at the very start of their educational careers.

14  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

As a continuation of these arguments, two other important documents were issued by the European Commission, which reinforced key directions in European policy. These were a comparative study titled Early Language Learning at Pre-Primary Level in Europe: Current Situation and Future Perspectives (European Commission, 2011a) and a policy handbook for implementing FLs at the pre-primary level in the EU member state countries, titled Language Learning at Pre-Primary School Level: Making it Efficient and Sustainable (European Commission, 2011b). The first was a report of survey research carried out among national ministries of education in EU member states, aimed at describing instances of good practice and identifying key principles of good practice. This document laid the ground for the policy handbook. As outlined in the handbook, effective very early teaching of FLs should meet the following criteria: equity, quality, consistency and continuity. The criterion of equity means that early foreign language l­earning (FLL) should be available to all children, regardless of their socio­ economic background. It had been found that in many settings (Poland is a case in point), for a long time FL instruction was taught on a private basis, even in state kindergartens, thereby leading to educational and social exclusion of those children whose parents could not afford it. Therefore, early FLL was often elitist. This can only be prevented if FLs are a part of the curriculum in public kindergartens. The criteria of both quality and consistency denote that there should be similar teaching and learning conditions, curricula and materials with which children learn, again irrespective of the type of institution the children attend. This can be achieved if FLL is a part of the official curriculum and undergoes monitoring and evaluation. Following such a decision, governments should also support the appropriate provision of very young learner teacher education. These measures will help ensure that an FL is taught in a similar, consistent way across different institutions, and appropriate governmental support will ensure its quality. The final criterion, continuity, says that once serious investments in early FLL are made, the continuity of teaching the FL should be guaranteed in the transfer from pre-primary to primary education, so that the language is continued and not started again from the very beginning. The key terms used to characterise the fundamental directions in European language policy are: developing individual plurilingualism (i.e. knowledge of several FLs at a level suited to the learners’ needs), linguistic diversity (ensuring that a variety of languages is accepted in the public space and in education), mutual understanding (acknowledgment of the fact that learning FLs is key to mutual communication and understanding of intercultural differences), democratic citizenship (i.e. participation in democratic processes in multilingual societies can only be enabled by means of plurilingualism) and social cohesion (assuming that all individuals have similar learning opportunities) (Council of Europe, 2006: 4).

Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning  15

Having said this, it can be clearly shown how Ager’s top-down motives for language policy planning, such as identity, ideology, image creation, insecurity and inequality, manifest themselves in European language policy guidelines for the formulation of language policies in EU member states. The promoted identity of an individual is one of multilingual identity, i.e. through language learning, an individual should acquire multilingual competence that will enable him/her to function in the global/European society. This way, adopting a European identity is valued and should be strived for, not least in education. Learners should become aware of their common European heritage and relate their national cultures to the cultures of other nations. That is the cornerstone of another competence of the multilingual user, i.e. intercultural competence (Byram, 1997: 26). The accompanying ideology is one of maintaining European integrity and solidarity by means of languages. The multilingual competence of European citizens is seen as an indispensable competence for the ‘knowledge society’, and the European economy should be competitive. By the same token, the image that European institutions aim to create for the outside world is that of equity, i.e. all languages, including minority and regional languages, are equally valued and their use encouraged in the public space. What is more, languages that are in danger of extinction are protected or even revived. Education for these languages is also provided, as guaranteed in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Rights. Finally, the two last motives of insecurity and inequality are treated as counter motives, in that these are phenomena the European policy is aiming to fight against. Language policy is rather aimed at providing equal learning opportunities and security (social cohesion) than providing barriers to social mobility. Bottom-Up Influences Shaping Language Education Policy

The bottom-up influences that contribute to language policymaking are, as distinguished by Ager (2001), integration with a group and instrumental motives for advancement. As regards the first motive, what motivates learners to learn a particular FL is their desire to join a particular social group of well-established prestige, the elite. In the history of mankind, a superior status was assigned to different languages, from Latin in mediaeval Europe, to French in 19th-century intelligentsia/bourgeois circles, to the growing popularity of English in the 20th century. Clearly, knowledge of such a prestigious language was a means of social inclusion and a mark of belonging to the distinguished class. Lack of FLs in education or limited access to good quality education, particularly in the past, used to be one of the ways of restricting access to better job positions or limiting movement up the ladder of social mobility. This tendency may

16  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

still be true in hierarchical societies in some parts of Asia (Murphy & Evangelou, 2016: 8). It is less so in the more egalitarian European society, where knowledge of a prestigious language such as lingua franca English, or now more commonly several FLs (i.e. plurilingualism), is a precondition of getting a job in an international company. Thus, the motive of integration into a group may mean a desire to join a largely understood international society, to become a citizen of the world and to make use of the opportunities that mobility in the globalised world brings (Lamb, 2004). An instrumental motive means that FL knowledge is a tool to obtain a better social position. It is a competence that brings immediate reward, and all the effort that has been invested in learning the FL is immediately rewarded. Advancement in society may mean both moving up the ladder of social mobility and occupying a higher-earning position. However, it has to be mentioned that the criteria for advancement become stringent as there is less space at the top, yet there are more people, thanks to the development of new technologies, who share similar qualities, such as knowledge of lingua franca English. As expectations increase, the knowledge of just one language may not be enough. In such a situation, it is no wonder that in an instructional setting, investments in early FLL have to start early, thereby prolonging the overall time devoted to the process and increasing the chances of FL mastery. In the case of very young learners, it is usually the parents who make educational decisions for their children and, for example, enrol them in very early FL instruction. It is their educational aspirations for their children’s future achievement that incline them to make such decisions. This need was voiced in the Barcelona Presidency Conclusions (European Council, 2002). In Point 44 of this document, it was explicitly stated that two languages have to be taught from a very early age if ‘improved quality, facilitation of universal access, and opening-up to the wider world’ are to be guaranteed (European Council, 2002: 19). For many parents of young learners in Poland, globalisation is synonymous with Europeanisation, hence the willingness to learn European languages. This choice and these aspirations are also recognised in the European policy guidebook. Beacco and Byram (2003) state that the forms of plurilingualism (number and nature of linguistic varieties) to be promoted and developed will be defined specifically in relation to each situation (national, regional or local), the sociolinguistic situation (varieties present in the geographical area), and collective needs and group aspirations. (Beacco & Byram, 2003: 68; emphasis added)

A study of how parental aspirations can contribute to forming early language learning policy was conducted by Rokita-Jaśkow (2013). The findings of her study showed that parental aspirations in Poland for their

Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning  17

children’s FL achievement had not been satisfied by the 2008 reform that was implemented in 2009 (Ministry of Polish Education, 2008), which introduced obligatory FL instruction from the onset of schooling, i.e. from the age of 7;0 (and from 2014 from the age of 6;0). Despite the fact that languages have been commonly taught in the public and private (after-class) sphere, and the continuity of FL teaching was guaranteed in the 2008 reform, parents generally wanted their children to start FLL earlier and learn even more languages, although English was still prioritised. An important variable in the aforementioned study was parental SES. Higher SES parents clearly connected high linguistic achievement with future professional career opportunities. The higher the SES of the parents, the more prestigious jobs they expected their children would perform in the future. Once learning English from the first year of school became commonplace, the more ambitious parents raced for their children to achieve even more (Rokita-Jaśkow, 2013). This study shows that parental aspirations and motivations can be regarded as bottom-up motives for language policy planning. Such parental desire to have languages present as an obligatory part of the overall primary curriculum has been referred to as ‘parentocracy’ (Enever, 2007), when an FL was introduced from the onset of schooling in Poland in the 2008 reform. As Enever (2007: 215) argues, parental desires were seriously taken into account by the key decision makers responsible for this reform, although it was not stated in any official documents. This reform actually sanctioned the process that had been taking place from the early 1990s, when an FL was commonly taught as an extracurricular subject in schools, usually as an additional fee-paying lesson, thus satisfying parental desires. Implementation of Very Early Language Learning Policy in Poland Background

Poland was one of the first countries to implement EU language education policy guidelines at the pre-primary level. To understand the reasons for this decision, as well as the overwhelmingly positive attitudes to learning FLs, one should take into account the historical and sociopolitical context of the country. First of all, Poland is a largely monolingual country; 99% of the population speak Polish as their mother tongue, although some minority language uses are also noted. This, however, was not always the case; before World War II, many more languages (such as Yiddish, Belorussian and Ukrainian) were spoken on Polish territory. Monolingualism resulted from Nazi extermination, changes in national borders, as well as the communist policy of establishing linguistic homogeneity (cf. Komorowska, 2014).

18  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

Secondly, nearly half a century of political isolation behind the Iron Curtain and communist rule (as in other Central and East European countries) deprived its citizens of the possibility of free travel. Consequently, access to authentic texts and the possibility of communication with native speakers of a given language were largely limited. Occasionally, some people emigrated to the United States or Western Europe to make extra money and improve their material status. Yet, lack of FL knowledge limited many to performing manual work. Thirdly, the collapse of communism in 1989 brought immense enthusiasm, the promise of self-fulfilment and the realisation of vocational goals. For many Poles, learning Western European languages might have also symbolised a departure from Soviet dependency and a desire to join Western countries. This motivation to learn FLs may have been further enhanced by joining the EU in 2004. Open borders enabled mobility for the purposes of education and work. These were new freedoms cherished by Polish society. Knowledge of FLs was key to utilising these possibilities and was seen as a gateway to better prospects. Finally, Polish is not a language of high international utility, as it is practically not spoken (with the exception of some diasporas in the United States and other EU countries) outside the country’s borders. Thus, learning other languages is a necessity if one wishes to participate in the benefits of the global economy. All in all, the historical context, together with bottom-up parental motives, provided the positive climate for the introduction of FLs in early education. Legacy and curriculum

The decision to introduce an FL at pre-primary level was announced in the Journal of Laws (30 May 2014), which specified the core curriculum for pre-primary education. It was introduced from 1 September 2015 and included all 5-year-old children in the preparatory year of school instruction. In subsequent years, it was to gradually embrace earlier age groups of children: in 2016, all 4-year-olds were to be taught and in 2017, all 3-year-old children. The goals of early FLL teaching were specified in Point  11 of the document and were as follows: Preparing children for using a modern foreign language by arousing their language awareness and intercultural sensitivity, as well as building positive motivation for FLL in further stages of education, and in the case of children with intellectual disability – developing awareness of the existence of linguistic and cultural diversity. (Ministry of Polish Education, 2014, 30 May, Point 895; authors’ translation)

Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning  19

As can be seen, the objectives of very early FL teaching concerned three areas: enhancing language awareness and intercultural awareness, as well as arousing motivation for further language learning. This indicated that the goal of very early learning is habituation to the FL rather than achieving native-like fluency. These expectations can be further observed in the attainment targets for the end of kindergarten education. They state that a child should be able to understand simple instructions in a modern foreign language and react to them, participate in simple games of e.g. musical, movement, art, construction or dramatic character, use words and phrases relevant to a game or other activities at hand; repeat rhymes and simple poems, sing songs, understand the general sense of oral stories when they are accompanied by pictures, props, movement, gesture and mime. (Ministry of Polish Education, 2014, 14 February, Point 895)

This stance is slightly different to the goals specified in the European Commission (2011: 13) policy document where the cognitive advantages of bi- and multilingualism are emphasised, especially when introduced through FL-medium instruction, including the necessity of early immersion for the acquisition of pronunciation and intonation, and the overall longer learning time allotted to FL acquisition throughout the schooling process. However, it must be recognised that the context of early FL teaching in predominantly monolingual, monocultural Poland is different than in many Western European countries, where exposure to many languages in education and in public space (e.g. in the form of TV in the original language with subtitles) is the norm. In the situation where exposure to an FL is limited to classroom contact, the attainment of affective goals (i.e. positive motivation, attitudes and awareness) were probably more realistic to achieve, particularly in light of the available research on the age factor in very early instruction (cf. Huang, 2016). It seems, therefore, that the decision to introduce FLs at pre-primary level was mainly political. On the one hand, it satisfied parental desires. On the other, it followed European language policy guidelines. The reform meant sanctioning the existing situation, as an FL was widely taught in kindergartens, yet for many years on a fee-paying basis (in 2013, a ban on the organisation of additional fee-paying classes in public kindergartens was introduced). The reform provided language education for all children, and it was assumed it would be integrated within the whole school curriculum, thus meeting the proposed criteria of equity, consistency and continuity. The criterion of quality was to be met by further provisions made regarding the education of FL teachers of young learners.

20  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

Provision for Foreign Language Teacher Education: European and Polish Contexts

The UNESCO (2005: 21) report on the quality of education across the world claims that teachers are the most significant link in the process of effective education. Their professional training influences the results of learning to a great extent. Therefore, if good learning outcomes are to be achieved, investments in pre-service and in-service education are needed. The Polish regulation on the introduction of an FL into pre-primary education was preceded by heated debates concerning the profile of the language teacher at this level of education. The question most often asked and discussed related to deciding who would make a better pre-school language teacher: a language specialist (a graduate of modern languages with a very good knowledge of the language), or a pre-primary teacher whose knowledge of the language might be less perfect, but whose knowledge of the needs and abilities of the pre-schooler is more profound. The question remains open as there are no research results that provide an answer. The legislation clearly specifies the qualifications and competences of a pre-primary language teacher. According to the regulation (Ministry of Polish Education, 2014), a language teacher at the pre-primary level can be a person who is a graduate of modern language studies with a pedagogical specialisation, or a pre-school teacher who has passed the first- or second-degree state examination (i.e. at B2 level) in the target language. In either case, an FL teacher is obliged to have completed studies or a course in early language teaching pedagogy. Alternatively, the person can hold professional qualifications to teach at the pre-school level and a certificate in the target language (at minimum B1 level). These qualifications are being phased in until the year 2020. In Poland, many bodies responsible for running kindergartens are aware of the need to support teachers in this new educational area. They have analysed the educational needs, and have organised professional training courses and postgraduate programmes in order to help teachers meet the qualification requirements. This has been done in collaboration with universities and teacher training institutions. What competences should a pre-primary teacher have? The following list compiled by one of the authors (Pamuła-Behrens, 2016) includes some key competences. A pre-school language teacher should: (1) Know the target language and culture related to the target language very well: • be proficient in the target language (communication, accuracy, knowledge of comparative grammar);

Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning  21

• have knowledge about the culture of the country related to the target language; • have intercultural competence and sensitivity. (2) Be familiar with the processes of first and foreign (second) language acquisition: • know how first language develops; • know what problems may occur during first and second language acquisition and how to deal with them; • be aware of the differences between first and foreign language acquisition; • be familiar with methods for supporting the development of the first and foreign language. (3) Know the specificity of teaching pre-schoolers (some elements of psychology, pedagogy, pre-primary language teaching): • have a basic knowledge of developmental psychology; • know the basic principles of pre-primary education; • be able to adjust language classes to the level of the children; • know nursery rhymes and children’s songs; • know children’s literature, children’s films in the target language; • be perceptive and be able to recognise the needs and abilities of the pupils. (4) Be open to continuous self-improvement and willing to collaborate with other teachers: • actively participate in various forms of professional training; • collaborate with other kindergarten teachers in order to integrate language classes into the curriculum (refers to staff employed solely to teach language); • compile a professional portfolio or a diary (reflections on one’s teaching and learning). These competences indicate how complex the teaching profession is and certainly place higher demands on further investments in teacher education. Once the goals of very early FL education were specified and the need for well-educated teachers of FLs was indicated, it became clear that instruments for supporting teachers had to be developed. Different educational projects initiated by the European Centre of Modern Languages in Graz have developed practical tools to support the implementation of European policy guidelines. One such tool is Pepelino: European Portfolio for Pre-Primary Educators (Goulier et al., 2015). This is a reflective tool for initial and in-service teacher trainees, which aims to foster their thinking about how children learn languages. It emphasises that the very young learner teacher should develop the following competences, which coincide with those indicated by Pamuła-Behrens (2016): adopting appropriate behaviour towards the

22  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

child (which would include adjustment to the child’s linguistic ability and consideration of their linguistic and cultural background); creating a favourable learning environment for the children (which would include understanding child language acquisition processes, as well as organising intercultural events); observing and supporting each child’s development (taking into account children’s learning needs and abilities, as well as their mother tongue backgrounds); and developing cooperation with children’s parents, as well as among the children themselves. A notable component is the focus on intercultural competence and an individualised approach to language teaching that would take into account the different mother tongues of the learners. Clearly, the situation where the FL teacher meets with children of various ethnolinguistic backgrounds in one class is more typical of Western societies, which have been multilingual for several decades. The situation is still not very common in Poland, although it is gradually changing with more foreigners, particularly immigrants from Ukraine, settling on Polish soil. Conclusion: The Interplay of Policy and Practice

The reform introducing FL instruction at pre-primary level has made Poland one of the pioneer countries implementing the guidelines of European language policy, next to Cyprus, where English has been taught at pre-primary level since 2011 (cf. Karoulla-Vrikki & Vrikki, 2014) and some regions in Spain (cf. Chapter 3 by Fleta). The implementation of the reform started on 1 September 2015, and included all 5-year-old children in the preparatory year for school instruction. However, in the same autumn of 2015, parliamentary elections were won by the strongly conservative rightist party PiS (transl. Law and Justice), the major tenets of whose programme could be described as anti-liberal and nationalist, calling for greater state control over different aspects of civic activity. While the government’s official policy is adhering to integration with the EU, their rule has resulted in numerous reforms, including those in education, which aim at establishing the hegemony of the ruling party and independence from external bodies (such as institutions, governments, etc.). The decision that has had the strongest impact on the issues discussed in this chapter is the raising of the age of starting obligatory school instruction to 7;0  years (Ministry of Polish Education, 2017b). For the time being, FL instruction at the pre-primary level has been limited to learners participating in the obligatory preparatory year for schooling. Since the onset of schooling has been raised, this means that FL kindergarten instruction will embrace only 6-year-old children. Thus, overall, children will start learning an FL at a later age and for a shorter period of time.

Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning  23

The modified curriculum for pre-primary education has kept elements of obligatory FL instruction in the curriculum for all children attending obligatory instruction 1  year prior to the onset of schooling (Ministry of Polish Education, 2017b); however, it is as yet unknown whether obligatory FL instruction will be further lowered to the age of 3;0 as had been previously planned. The only change introduced was to exclude children with intellectual disability from FL instruction, for whom learning a FL was supposedly judged to be an additional difficulty. The New Core Curriculum (Ministry of Polish Education, 2017a) designed for kindergarten and the reformed primary school, which is to start later and last longer (8 years), devotes very little space to FL teaching at pre-primary level. In Point 17, it specifies that its goal is to ‘create educational situations conducive to building a child’s interest in a modern foreign language, and willingness to get to know other cultures’ (Ministry of Polish Education, 2017b; authors’ translation), and in Point 21, it cites the same teaching objectives as in the previous regulation (Ministry of Polish Education, 2014). The motives for making these decisions, as well as further directions in reforms are as yet unknown and difficult to evaluate. Withdrawing from teaching FLs at pre-primary level could mean less emphasis on teaching FLs. However, this decision may also be motivated financially and grounded in research. Since there is still a lack of well-qualified and fluent FL teachers ready to teach very young learners, the starting age may be postponed till later school years, particularly as recent linguistic research does not support the necessity to start an FL very early (cf. Huang, 2016; Pfenninger & Singleton, 2016). Starting later can easily be compensated with greater intensity of instruction, higher teaching standards and more measurable linguistic objectives at the lower-primary level. There are signs of these plans in the New Core Curriculum for Kindergarten and General Education in Primary School (Ministry of Polish Education, 2017a: 47–48), which place higher demands on a child’s achievements in terms of productive skills. It is also expected that the children attain A1 level at the age of 10. Secondly, it has to be admitted that using appropriate methodology in teaching very young learners (i.e. playful, frequent, in small groups) is very costly. Provision for such instruction, although satisfying parental desires, may not be one of the priorities of the government, as the funding can be allocated for other purposes. All things considered, it seems that very early FLL in Poland is practically back to square one. Unfortunately, measures to ensure equity and quality of instruction for all pre-school children may have fallen foul of political ambitions. The rapid changes in the last three years show how the lack of stability in formulating the country’s language policy impedes investment in quality teacher education and adequate organisation of

24  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

FL teaching in kindergartens. Furthermore, it deters parents from making far-reaching educational decisions for their children. It can only be speculated that the well-off will continue to enrol their children in private pre-primary, primary, secondary and often higher education, where a greater degree of FL tuition is offered in the curriculum. The private language educational sector in Poland is extremely buoyant. Indeed, through a large-scale educational study it has been shown that primary school leavers, to a large extent, owe their FL success to private tuition rather than the effectiveness of school instruction (Muszyn´ski et al., 2015). The decision to introduce an FL at pre-primary level was met with great enthusiasm by many: parents who do not have to pay for additional education; publishers and course book/material developers who found a gap in the educational market; and teachers-to-be who found additional employment opportunities. However, the new educational reforms of 2017 raise doubts as to whether the promise of earlier achievements will be maintained. References Ager, D. (2001) Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Beacco, J-C. and Byram, M. (2003; revised 2007) Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe: From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, Council of Europe. Block, D. (2003) The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A. and Taeschner, T. (1998) Foreign Languages in Primary and Pre-School Education. London: CILT. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe (2006) Plurilingual Education in Europe. 50 Years of International Co-operation. Language Policy Division, Strasbourg. See http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/ linguistic/Source/PlurinlingalEducation_En.pdf (accessed 20 May 2015). Crystal, D. (2003) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. (2006) Languages for the Children in Europe: Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. See http://ec.europa. eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/languages/policy/language-policy/documents/ young_en.pdf (accessed 12 July 2017). Enever, J. (2007) Yet another early start languages policy in Europe: Poland this time! Current Issues in Language Planning 8, 208–221. European Commission (2011b) Language Learning at Pre-Primary School Level: Making It Efficient and Sustainable. A Policy Handbook. Brussels: European Commission. See http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/languages/policy/languagepolicy/documents/early-language-learning-handbook_en.pdf (accessed 12 July 2017). European Council (2002) Barcelona Presidency Conclusions. See http://ec.europa.eu/ invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/barcelona_european_council.pdf (accessed 12 July 2017).

Policy and Practice in Early Foreign Language Learning  25

Fishman, J.A. (ed.) (2001) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Goulier, F., Carré-Karlinger, C. and Orlova, N. (2015) Pepelino: European Portfolio for Pre-Primary Educators. The Plurilingual and Intercultural Dimension. Graz: ECML. Huang, B.C. (2016) A synthesis of empirical research on the linguistic outcomes of early foreign language instruction. International Journal of Multilingualism 13 (3), 257–273. doi: 10.1080/14790718.2015.1066792. Karoulla-Vrikki, M. and Vrikki, M. (2014) Early English language learning in Cyprus: Parental perceptions of identity and intelligibility. In B. O’Rourke, N. Bermingham and S. Brennan (eds) Opening New Lines of Communication in Applied Linguistics. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the British Association of Applied Linguistics (pp. 219–229). Edinburgh: Scitsiugnil Press. Komorowska, H. (2014) Analysing linguistic landscapes. A diachronic study of multilingualism in Poland. In A. Otwinowska and G. De Angelis (eds) Learning and Teaching in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 19–31). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lamb, M. (2004) Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System 32, 3–19. Lantolf, J.P. and Thorne, S.L. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Polish Education (2008) Regulation on the New Core Curriculum for General Education in Primary School. Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 23 December 2009. Poz.17. See http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20090040017 (accessed 12 July). Ministry of Polish Education (2014) Regulation on the Core Curriculum for Kindergarten and General Education. Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 2014. Poz.803. See http:// isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20140000803 (accessed 12 July 2017). Ministry of Polish Education (2017a) Regulation on the New Core Curriculum for Kindergarten and General Education in Primary School. Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws] 14 February 2017. Poz.356. See http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/DU/2017/356 (accessed 12 July 2017). Ministry of Polish Education (2017b) Prawo oświatowe 14 December 2016 [Bill on Educational Law]. Dziennik Ustaw [Journal of Laws]. Poz.59. See http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2017/59/1 (accessed 12 July 2017). Murphy, V. and Evangelou, M. (eds) (2016) Early Childhood Education for Speakers of Other Languages. London: British Council. Muszyński, M., Campfield, D. and Szpotowicz, M. (2015) Język angielski w szkole podstawowej – proces i efekty nauczania. Wyniki podłużnego badania efektywności nauczania języka angielskiego (2011–2014) [English Language Teaching in the Primary School – Process and Teaching Results. Results of the Longitudinal Study (2011–2014)]. Warszawa: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych. Pamuła-Behrens, M. (2016) Pani od języka, czyli o kompetencjach zawodowych nauczycieli języków obcych pracujących w przedszkolu [The ‘language lady’ or about the competences of FL teachers working in kindergarten]. Języki Obce w Szkole 18–23. Phillipson, R. (2009) Linguistic Imperialism Continued. London: Routledge. Rokita-Jaśkow, J. (2013) Foreign Language Learning at Pre-Primary Level: Parental Aspirations and Educational Practice. Kraków: Wydawnictwo University Press. Shohamy, E. (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. New York: Routledge. UNESCO (2005) Education pour tous. L’exigence de qualité. Paris: UNESCO. See http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001374/137403f.pdf (accessed 10 November 2016). Williams, G. (2010) The Knowledge Economy, Language and Culture. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

2 Integrating and Emulating: Early English Initiatives in Portugal Sandie Mourão

Introduction

One of the main objectives of the European Union language education policy is to introduce two foreign languages (FLs) from a very early age. As a result, in the last 15 years, second or foreign languages are being taught to children at ever-younger ages. This chapter looks first at early childhood education and care (ECEC) and then at the emerging evidence that an FL (usually English) is being taught, often as a result of parental influence in relation to both the provision of an FL and the choice of language. Discussion around the relevant issues leads to suggestions for an integrated approach to FL provision. It suggests a curriculum model that emulates pre-primary practices, that recognises play as a child’s work, includes circle time supported by routine, child-initiated and teacher-led activity and, when suitable, collaborative practices, as the way forward. The chapter provides examples of practice from a pre-primary institution in Portugal to exemplify how this model works in reality and conveys five issues that require consideration for the model to be successful. Pre-Primary Education

This section begins with a more general look at early childhood education in Europe and defines pre-primary education. It then focuses on the increase in early English initiatives in Europe and the most common models documented in the literature. Early childhood education in Europe

Care and education services before entry into formal schooling have a variety of labels – for example, nursery, crèche, kindergarten, pre-school and pre-primary education. The United Nations refers to early childhood education (UNESCO-UIS, 2012), and denotes two separate age groups: early childhood educational development (ECED) – children from birth to 2 years old (infants and toddlers), and pre-primary education – children 26

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   27

from 3 years to the start of primary education. The age at which children begin primary education varies across Europe, thus pre-primary education can stretch from 3 to 7 years of age. Provision in the pre-primary sector is characterised by diverse providers and funders, including government and private, community, faith-based and non-governmental organisations. Figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports show that as many as 71% of all 3-year-olds are enrolled in some form of early childhood education programme (OECD, 2016: 298). Public provision is also on the increase and 68% of children enrolled in pre-primary education attend public institutions (OECD, 2016: 299). ECEC is seen as a growing priority around the world, securing increased policy attention mainly due to the recognition that it is an important first step in a lifelong journey of learning (Neuman & Hatipoğlu, 2015). Early childhood education varies across countries around the world regarding provision and accessibility mainly due to the absence of ‘early childhood development policies, strategic plans and laws’ (The Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development, 2013: 1). Its expansion since the 1970s runs parallel with the evolution of a female workforce (OECD, 2014: 319), and although pre-primary education is the initial stage of ‘organised instruction [and is] designed primarily to introduce children to a school-like environment’ (OECD, 2014: 324), in some cases it might include not only a focus on education during short periods of the day, but also an element of care, extending provision to support parents’ working hours. Different countries draw upon different philosophical traditions in their approach to education; however, UNESCO-UIS (2012) recommends that pre-primary education focuses on children’s language and social skills, logical and reasoning skills, and alphabetical and mathematical concepts and aims to develop a child’s understanding of the world. Activities should be play based and encourage self-discovery and interaction between peers, thus contributing to the development of an autonomous child. Through pre-primary education, children become socialised into the culture of school and learning and develop into responsible members of their society. Recently, a European working group report was published outlining the key principles of a quality framework for ECEC (European Commission, 2014), based on common practices. These include: • Responding to the needs of young children, promoting their emotional well-being and encouraging active engagement in learning. • Undertaking educational practices and learning strategies that sustain children’s curiosity, rather than focusing on formalised learning that does not meet children’s developmental potential.

28  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

• Implementing a curriculum that combines staff-led and child-initiated activities in order to sustain children’s active engagement in the learning process. This includes encouraging children to make their own decisions about their learning, organising group interactions, providing a variety of resources that respond to children’s interests and valuing play as a way in which children understand their world and develop their knowledge with adult support. • Establishing a strong commitment to working with parents and promoting higher levels of parental engagement in their children’s learning at home. My intention at the beginning of this chapter with information about early childhood education is to highlight the difference between ECEC and education once it becomes compulsory. Most language educators are familiar with an educational context that focuses on the development of academic skills, even in early primary education. In ECEC, education focuses on the development of the whole child with practices that remain ‘qualitatively different’ (European Commission, 2011: 14) to those of primary education for, as we have seen, play-based activities are particularly evident. Evidence of early language learning in early childhood education

With the growing recognition of the importance of pre-primary education and the provision for early childhood education on the rise, it is not surprising that English is also being introduced into this sector and ‘cascading into Early Years teaching’ (Rixon, 2013: 13) – it is an area of English language teaching (ELT) that John Knagg (2016: 3) has described as ‘the final frontier in the rush to teach and learn English at ever younger ages’. The most recent Eurydice (2017: 30) report shows that just over a third of the European Community officially implements second or foreign language education for children aged 6 years and under. These include Cyprus and Poland, which have statutory pre-primary education laws for 5-year-olds and where English was introduced as a compulsory part of their pre-primary programme from the age of 5 in September 2015 (for further discussion on Poland, see Rokita-Jaśkow & Pamuła-Behrens, this volume). The variety of approaches to ECEC provision in most European countries results in little ‘structured data’ related to early language learning (European Commission, 2011: 1); however, nationwide surveys and related publications are confirming that English is well established in both state and private sectors, often without the support of official legislation, resulting in a variety of learning experiences and varied quality in programming (Andúgar et al., 2017; Brumen, 2010; Černá, 2015; Dolean, 2015; Langé et al., 2014; Mourão & Ferreirinha, 2016; Portiková, 2015).

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   29

In many countries, the private sector – private mainstream education and private language schools – is leading in these initiatives, culminating in inequality in opportunities based on region and student socio-economic status and ethnic/linguistic status (Butler, 2015; Rokita-Jaśkow, 2013). Models of early language learning in pre-primary education

According to the European Commission (2011: 15), existing models for language learning in pre-primary education range along a continuum of low to high exposure. Low-exposure models begin with the ‘language awareness model’, which expects children to ‘develop the perception and recognition of different sounds and concepts of one or more languages’, an approach also known as éveil aux langues (Candelier, 2004). The ‘language exposure model’, on the other hand, prepares and helps children to learn a new language, ‘exposure differs in focus and duration according to the language and one language, the actual language of instruction, is dominant’ (Candelier, 2004). This model is also usually at the low-exposure end of the continuum and is associated with FL education. High-exposure models, at the opposite end of the continuum, include the ‘full immersion model’, where children are taught in ‘an official or minority/regional language other than the child’s first language/mother tongue’ (Candelier, 2004). The low-exposure FL programmes differ quite considerably from immersion or bilingual models, in that the children receive a restricted amount of exposure to the FL in a school setting, which can be as little as 30 minutes, once a week. There may be little or no access to this language outside of the classroom, and there are rarely opportunities for interacting with peers who speak the FL, for children share a majority language in the classroom. In addition, the language exposure model contradicts the European Commission (2011: 14) handbook guidelines that state ‘languages should not be seen as a specific subject but rather as a communication tool to be used in other activities’. As yet, little research has been done that investigates appropriate early language learning practices in a low-exposure pre-primary context (Mourão, 2018b); nevertheless, it is clear from European documentation what these practices could look like, especially in a Europe where approaches to ECEC value play and children’s active engagement in learning. Such approaches are child directed and combine staff-led and child-initiated activities. As such, an ‘integrated model’ (Brumen et  al., 2017; Mourão, 2015a; Robinson et  al., 2015) proposes an approach to the FL that emulates the way children learn in their ECEC context and results in language becoming ‘integrated into contexts in which the language is meaningful and useful, such as in everyday or playful situations’ (European Commission, 2011: 14). It also suggests that the FL should be planned to accompany what the children are doing in their daily ECEC activities so that connections can be made between learning

30  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

through the languages (Dolean, 2015). It may also imply a collaborative approach between pre-primary practitioner and the FL teacher, if they are indeed two different staff members (Mourão & Robinson, 2015). Discussions around appropriate pedagogies for teaching pre-primary FL learners are scant, and this chapter now continues with a description of an approach to FL education in Portugal, which both integrates and emulates mainstream pre-primary practices. The Case of Portugal Pre-primary education in Portugal

Pre-primary education in Portugal is considered an important foundation for successful schooling and the first step in the process of lifelong learning. Just under 53% of pre-primary institutions are state run (GEPE, 2017) and provision is made for children between the ages of 3 and 6 years. Although pre-primary education remains non-statutory, attendance is around 95% for 5-year-olds, 90% for 4-year-olds and 80% for 3-year-olds. Government-produced guidelines, first published in 1997 and recently revised, outline three content areas: ‘Personal and Social Education’, ‘World Knowledge’ and ‘Expression and Communication’, each of which should be articulated across the curriculum (Ministério da Educação, 2016). Pre-primary education in Portugal is influenced by socio-constructive approaches and favours active, child-led learning with the three most prominent approaches to influence teacher education at this level being Movimento da Escola Moderna (MEM),1 the HighScope Model2 and the Reggio Emilia Model3 (Oliveira-Formosinho, 2013). As a result, a typical pre-primary classroom in Portugal is open-plan and divided into different learning areas or activity centres, which aim to provide opportunities for children to benefit from teacher-initiated group work as well as have access to child-initiated ‘potentially instructive play activities’ (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002: 43). Effective educators create opportunities for children to learn by doing, in the belief that, by interacting with their environment, children develop as autonomous and responsible learners (Ministério da Educação, 2016; OliveiraFormosinho, 2013). Early English initiatives in Portugal

In Portugal, children begin primary education in the September of the year they turn 6 years of age, and English becomes part of the primary curriculum in Grade 3 (8 years old). There is no official early language learning strategy for pre-primary education, neither is training provided in higher education institutions for either pre-primary practitioners or English teachers with a view to supporting the successful implementation

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   31

of early English initiatives. Nevertheless, a nationwide study investigating early language learning in pre-primary education in Portugal (Mourão & Ferreirinha, 2016), combining an online survey with follow-up interviews and observations,4 substantiated that early English initiatives were underway in both the public (23%) and private (70%) sectors, confirming the European trend. The number of respondents to the online survey was representative in both sectors. A number of significant results emerged from the study: (1) The private sector has been actively involved in implementing early English initiatives for longer than the public sector, where the majority of initiatives began less than five  years prior to the study. (2) The public-sector initiatives are more likely to be extra-curricular (60%) attended by only some children and at an additional cost, whereas the private sector is more likely to be curricular (80%) for all children and at no additional cost. (3) Children begin English at the age of 3 in over 75% of the institutions in both sectors; however, for different reasons. The public sector has heterogeneous class groups of children between 3 and 6 years old so initiatives tend to include all children. The private sector usually groups children by age, indicating a more focused approach to English from as early as possible. (4) The majority of initiatives in both sectors run for one session of 30–60  minutes a week – a clear example of a low-exposure FL instruction model. (5) Over 85% of initiatives in both sectors employ an English teacher; however, around three-quarters of these are teachers who have degrees in teaching English to older learners (10–18 years old). There is also some evidence that pre-primary practitioners are involved in these initiatives, a negligible 1% in the public sector and just over 10% in the private sector. (6) In the public sector, English teachers are in the main external, part-time staff (96%), whereas in the private sector there is a higher percentage of permanent staff (45%). The information collected from the survey suggests that English initiatives begin in the first years of pre-primary education and may be disassociated from other learning processes as they are given by a visiting other, ‘a parachute teacher’, who arrives from elsewhere, teaches only English and then leaves, often taking resources and references to English with them. Follow-up interviews and observations with 26 pre-primary practitioners and 14 English teachers (in both sectors) suggested that sessions led by parachute English teachers were planned with a view to developing discrete language skills with little consideration of how

32  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

English might contribute more widely to other aspects of learning and development of the whole child in general. Some pre-primary practitioners, from contexts where English was curricular, described how they had been able to help the English teacher make changes to their practice to suit this age group. Pre-primary practitioners interviewed in the extra-curricular contexts did not always consider English as relevant to the children’s overall learning and development and instead saw it as something additional, incorporated into the children’s day to ‘occupy’ them and satisfy parental requests to include English (e.g. interview response, EC5). The idea of ‘occupying’ comes from children being in their pre-primary institutions for anything from 8 to 11 hours a day, with just 5 hours spent with the pre-primary practitioner. This is not specific to Portugal and reflects the necessity for pre-primary education to extend provision with an element of care to respond to parents’ longer working hours. Portugal is also not unique in its reliance on ‘specialist’ English teachers, that is teachers who have trained to teach English, often to older learners (see Černá, 2015; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2017; Lugossy, 2018; Portiková, 2015). Nevertheless, during the post-survey interviews, both sets of practitioners (n  =  40) indicated that even if a pre-primary practitioner could speak English, they considered having a separate English teacher to be beneficial, as these teachers brought not only their language expertise into the classroom, but also the outside world, ‘the children meet another person (…) who uses strategies and approaches which are different’ (interview response, C2). Possessing a good level of English was recognised as being of extreme relevance, and the possibility of collaborative practices (pre-primary practitioner and English teacher) was regularly suggested as a way to overcome an English teacher’s lack of training in early childhood education. This brief description of the situation in Portugal is typical of many countries around the world. Pre-primary education is non-statutory, yet English is very much part of this stage of education and given by specialist English teachers who are unlikely to have training in early childhood education. It is with this as a background that the following section describes a possible integrated model, an approach that emulates early childhood education practices. Early Childhood Education Practices for Emulation

This section begins with a brief discussion around the different activities and approaches seen as relevant for development and learning in the early years, which includes an overview of play in early childhood education.

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   33

Circle time

Circle time, also referred to as carpet time or the morning/afternoon routine, is when whole-group activities take place and is usually an opportunity for more formal adult-led instruction. Children sit in a circle on a carpet to begin or end the morning, afternoon or the day, to listen to stories together. Circle time will include a number of routines – greetings, discovering who is at school and who is at home, asking about the weather, the days of the week, a birthday, talking about what they had for lunch, sharing any news for the day and even planning what will happen during the day together. This latter activity is typical of the educational models mentioned earlier in the chapter. The pre-primary practitioner will incorporate songs and rhymes, tell a story and may even play a game or two as well as set up the day’s activities. If included at the end of a session, circle time might focus on helping children reflect on their learning and revisiting certain issues together. Circle time forms an essential part of a pre-primary schedule as it supports the development of the whole child, for it is through these different activities that children’s personal and social skills are developed alongside other competencies like maths, language and literacy, and gross and fine motor skills. For example: • Children learn to wait their turn to speak, listen to others and sit still for a certain length of time. • While counting how many children are missing, they are developing their notion of number and quantity and begin to understand the concept of time while talking about the days of the week. • When saying a nursery rhyme, not only are they developing their phonological awareness, but they might also be using their hands and fingers, thereby developing fine motor skills. • While listening to and talking about a story, they are developing their listening and thinking skills as well as any number of other competencies depending on the content of the story. Routines

Routines are extremely important for small children: the familiarity of routines enables them to feel safe and relaxed, which in turn directs and defines their behaviour. We saw that circle time begins with routines, but routines are also inherent in the daily running of a class of children, e.g. when and how to enter or leave the room; how to move from one space to another; how to ask for help; how to prepare for an activity. Succeeding in responding to routines results in reduced instances when children feel out of control or at a loss, for the structure behind the routines provides the boundaries that children need to regulate their behaviour and a consequence is usually fewer instances of challenging behaviour

34  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

for the practitioner. A predictable routine also contributes to children becoming more responsible, independent and confident. Language is part of the organisation of routines, and their frequency and repetitive nature provide children with opportunities to predict, support their understanding of a certain activity, as well as pick up language and build their vocabulary. Bruner (1983: 45) describes these routine activities as an occasion for ‘systematic use of language with an adult’ and has called them ‘closely circumscribed format(s)’ (Bruner, 1983: 46). It is the formats in routines that enable children to acquire language, making them additionally relevant for early years contexts. Play

Within early childhood education, play has been considered central to learning for over 100 years. Susan Isaacs’ (1929: 9) definition of play as ‘the child’s work and the means whereby he grows and develops’ marks the beginning of the ‘play ethos’ (Smith, 2010: 28), idealising play in the early years, despite the continual debate around definitions of what play actually is, as well as a scarcity of empirical evidence to ensure that it becomes a requisite (Howard & McInnes, 2013). There are variations in attitudes towards children’s play around the world, resulting from different cultural values regarding childhood, gender and a child’s relation with the natural world around them, as well as specificities such as economic conditions, religious beliefs and social structures (Gosso, 2010). Smith (2010: 217) suggests that although play might not be essential in education, it is certainly useful and contributes to facilitating development and learning, with ‘evolutionary, anthropological, and psychological evidence’ coming together to confirm this. Different kinds of play stimulate different aspects of learning, a learning that is both cognitive and affective and can include the acquisition of concepts, skills, knowledge and attitudes. In addition, play is particularly important for developing such competencies as self-esteem, task orientation, persistence, flexibility and creativity, essential to learning but not always recognised as learning. Along with the relevance of play in early childhood education, effective pedagogy is seen as being ‘instructive’ (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002: 27) and should embrace both adult-led and child-initiated activities. Wood cites the work of Vygotsky, who referred to interaction involving teacher and child as an opportunity for ‘formal instruction’, and these adult-led practices often include teachers and children engaging in playful ways with the curriculum content. According to sociocultural theory, this interaction can be extended when children play alone or with others during child-initiated play, when ‘informal learning’ occurs (Wood, 1988: 25). Adult-led directed play, in particular, allows for children to succeed with activities they could not manage alone and to learn new skills

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   35

and concepts. Adult-led activities are also highly relevant for language development as they provide access to quality contextualised language exposure. Child-initiated activities allow children to explore and examine resources and situations for themselves (Moyles, 1989). These play opportunities may be structured play activities, e.g. building a house with blocks following adult instructions; or unstructured, e.g. selecting and using blocks with no adult direction. Learning areas furnish opportunities for structured and unstructured child-initiated play, where children play alone or with others and interact with the instructional materials they find there. Learning is introduced, reinforced and/or extended during these play opportunities, usually with little assistance from an adult. During unstructured child-initiated, or free, play, children decide what to do, with what and with whom; they become responsible for their learning through these opportunities for self-selection, experimentation and trial and error, and they are encouraged to be, and respected as, autonomous learners (Bruce, 2011). A combination of adult-led, structured and unstructured child-initiated play is considered desirable, as each provides unique opportunities for development and learning (Tassoni et al., 2013). Moyles (1989: 15) suggests that this likens learning to ‘a pebble on a pond, the ripples from the exploratory free play through directed play and back to enhanced and enriched play, allow [for] a spiral of learning [showing] accretion of knowledge and skills’. Circle time, routines and the relevance of child-initiated play in children’s learning are important considerations when planning for emulating pre-primary practices and integrating English in a low-exposure FL context. The following section looks at each of these in relation to early English initiatives. Early English Initiatives Emulating and Integrating

Teacher resources and research describing developmentally ­appropriate practices in early English initiatives make reference to songs, chants and nursery rhymes, stories and picture books, games and game-like activities, movement and hands-on interactive pursuits and an integrated approach to learning experiences that develops the whole child (Brumen, 2010; Coyle & Gómez Gracia, 2014; Davis & Fan, 2016; Dunn, 1983; Elvin et  al., 2007; Fleta, 2006; Ghosn, 2016; Mourão, 2015c; Ordóñes, 2016; Puchta & Elliot, 2017; Wu, 2003). In early English initiatives given by specialist English teachers in low-exposure contexts, an English session may include some or all of these activities and approaches, but will likely be adult led and provide formal instruction with the intent of exposing children to as much English as possible. Children need exposure to the language to acquire it, thus early English initiatives tend to include adult-led activity to the ­detriment of child-initiated activity and the desirable combination

36  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

remains remote. There is an obvious disjunction between the need to provide formal instruction in English and the acknowledgement that learning should be child centred, as child led as possible and include play. The specific examples shared in the following sections are collected from an institution in central Portugal that has developed an approach to English which I consider integrated (see also Mourão, 2018a) and exemplary. Centro Social Paroquial dos Pousos5 (hereafter Centro) is a private institution, subsidised by both the Portuguese Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Work and Social Services (Private Institutions of Social Solidarity)6 where parents pay an income-adjusted fee for their child to attend. The majority of children come from low to low-middle socio-economic backgrounds, and a very small percentage may speak a language other than Portuguese at home. Children at the Centro are grouped according to their ages and are the responsibility of a qualified pre-primary practitioner and an auxiliary helper. Since 2001, at the initiative of the school director, all children in their last two years at the institution have learned English for one hour a week. A peripatetic English teacher is hired to give these English classes, which are divided into two 30-minute sessions scheduled during the morning when the pre-primary practitioner is in the classroom with the children. The two practitioners collaborate to ensure that English is integrated into the short- and long-term planning of the children’s learning programme (see Mourão & Robinson, 2015). Circle time, repetition and routine in English

Circle time is a very important part of English sessions, providing an opportunity for focused teacher-led interaction, routine and repetitious use of English in context. Formal instruction is likely to involve playing with words and expressions related to a theme, usually accompanying the children’s learning in the common classroom language. Language is contextualised using a battery of different game-like activities, using flashcards and physical movement, with which the children are already familiar. Many of these activities involve memorising, predicting, deducing and hypothesising, which is motivating for children. The focus is on providing children with real reasons to interact with and respond in English. To begin with, the children are expected to respond to what the teacher says and does using gestures and movements and, if confident, repeat what she says in chorus. Then, gradually, the children are encouraged to use English, as and when they feel comfortable and then move on to independent use. The teacher will include topic-related songs and rhymes, as well as a story; over several English sessions, she will sing the song, say the rhyme and retell the story, encouraging the children to join in. There will be more game-like activities, which further engage the children in using the

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   37

language and encourage them to take more and more responsibility for using English together. Interaction is rather like a carefully woven cloth, where language, gesture, movement and resource come together to create a unique learning experience. As mentioned earlier, routines contain formats which support the acquisition of language – games are also mini-formats (see Mourão, 2014, 2015a, 2018a). The repetitive nature of the games, as well as the inherent formats within each, means that children can predict what will happen, which in turn supports both understanding and language development. The following is an example of how a format in a teacher-led activity can later support a child-initiated activity, adapted from a description in Mourão (2015a). Teacher-led practice at the Centro

A favourite movement game during circle time is Listen and Do, played when children are getting to grips with a new set of lexical items and their related expressions. It involves the teacher asking the children to mime actions when they hear an instruction and is an enjoyable game that supports memorisation due to the inclusion of multiple modes of input and output, a flashcard image, spoken word, gesture and movement. I observed this activity after a group of 5- to 6-year-old children in the Centro had been learning English for 18 months. They were playing with clothes words and related expressions. Their English teacher had earlier shared a chant with them, the following is an excerpt: Brrr, It’s cold! Put on your hat Brrr, it’s cold! Put on your scarf Brrr, it’s cold Put on your gloves. Umm much better! (Coelho & Mourão, 2009: 45)

It served to support the instructions of the game, where first the teacher places flashcards of clothes in a row and then gives instructions like, ‘Put on your hat’. The children mime putting on a hat and repeat the instruction. This particular activity is entertaining as it involves children miming putting on their clothes, pretending to get hot and then taking them all off again and pretending to get cold, and of course they are exposed to the formula, ‘put on your NOUN’ repeatedly. I observed that the children were already familiar with the format of this game from previous exposure; they knew the structure and the role elements and were getting to grips with the script – formulaic language related to this particular topic, ‘Put on your NOUN’. The English teacher

38  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

was careful to ensure that after playing the game a couple of times, she invited a child to come to the front and be the leader and give the instructions. This is referred to by Bruner (1983: 60) as the ‘handover principle’ and involves setting up an activity to facilitate a child’s scaffolded entry to ensure their ‘ineptitudes can be rescued or rectified by appropriate intervention’. The scaffold is removed little by little as the child demonstrates an ability to proceed alone. During my observation, confident children were very successful at giving instructions and even those children whose language confidence was less developed had a go, with a little more support from the teacher. This also demonstrates the move from being dependent upon the teacher, to being independent of the teacher during the sequence of eight sessions around a theme. English learning areas and child-initiated play in English

A strategy that provides opportunities for child-initiated play in English involves the inclusion of an area dedicated to English, which is integrated into other areas in the educational space (Mourão, 2001, 2014). English learning areas (ELAs) have been successfully included in approaches to early English initiatives in Portugal for over 15 years, as well as in Cyprus, Italy and Spain following teacher development activities, and anecdotal feedback has been consistently positive. Recently, research by Robinson et al. (2015) has shown that children in low-exposure settings often select ELAs and interact in English with the resources they find there and with their peers during child-initiated play. Robinson et al. (2015: 28) suggest that these resources stimulate memories of teacher-led English sessions, as children were observed re-enacting teacher-led activities, taking on the role of teacher and student and replicating familiar sequences of English associated with teacher-led activities. Play in the ELAs also prompted experimental use of English, which demonstrates that children are also creative with English during play. Mourão (2018b) has also shown that children scaffold each other in ­novice–expert interactions during child-initiated play in English, as well as make the most of their linguistic repertories by using the common classroom language (Portuguese) and English, thereby ensuring and allowing for successful peer interaction. ELAs not only enable child-initiated play in English, but they also extend the amount of time that children are exposed to English, as this play occurs outside the formal English sessions with the English teacher. As such, the English teacher is not present during the children’s free play activities. Nonetheless, the English teacher should use the short English sessions they lead to ensure that children are exposed to repetitious language that can be taken, along with English-only resources, into the ELA once they leave.

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   39

Child-initiated play in English at the Centro

Returning to the example of teacher-led practices at the Centro, once the English session I had been watching was over, I observed this same group of children during child-initiated play, where several of them selected to play in the ELA engaging with a number of different activities using the English resources they found there. Three children, Isabel, Pedro and Sara (all pseudonyms), were observed for around 10 minutes. They first read an English picture book together, then took out the story cards belonging to the clothes topic (a story about a snowman getting dressed). They sequenced the story, retelling parts together, successfully repeating chunks of story language. Sara placed the clothes flashcards alongside the story cards to emphasise the sequence inherent in the story. Once they had finished retelling the story, Pedro put the story cards away but left the clothes flashcards on the floor. Isabel, a confident child who often played teacher, or leader, in the ELA, placed the flashcards in a row, chanting the clothes words and imitating their English teacher’s actions. Pedro and Sara sat back and watched. Excerpt 1 is a transcription of what happened next: Excerpt 1 Put on your hat [mimed patting head] Isabel: Pedro and Sara: [Mimed patting their heads] hat Isabel: STOP! Pedro and Sara: [Froze] Put on your gloves! Isabel: Pedro and Sara: [Mimed putting on gloves] gloves Isabel: You moved! [pointing at Pedro] M  as eu estou a respirar (trans: But I’m breathing) Pedro: [sits down] Isabel: Put on your coat! Sara: [Mimes putting on a coat] coat Pedro: [Stands up] Put on your scarf! Isabel: Pedro and Sara: [Mimed winding scarf around neck] scarf, scarf, scarf. The game stopped and the children went on to play something else. These children are following the structure of a known game, STOP!, which they enjoy playing with their English teacher during circle time. They each have roles: Sara is the teacher and Pedro and Isabel are the students. There is a very clear script, ‘Put on your NOUN’, repeating

40  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

‘NOUN’, ‘STOP!’, ‘You moved!’. This latter exclamation is very much part of the circle time game, for the teacher, or child playing teacher, calls out ‘You moved, sit down’. The children were also copying their experience of classroom English, which was essentially teacher led! This exemplifies Vygotsky’s (1978: 74) description of ‘real play’ – essentially dramatic or make-believe and consisting of three components: (1) an imaginary situation, (2) the taking on and acting out of roles and (3) a set of rules determined by the specific roles. Vygotsky (1978: 103) suggests that through play a child relives real experiences not imaginary situations and a child may appear free to act spontaneously, but ‘this is an illusory freedom, for [the child’s] actions are in fact subordinated to the meanings of things, and [they act] accordingly’. Teacher-led activity supporting child-initiated play

A ‘format is a routinized and repeated interaction in which [adults and children] do things […] together using language’ (Bruner, 1983: 132, emphasis in the original). In the context of an English session, it enables the children during teacher-led circle time to acquire the language of a topic through a familiar format. It is familiarity with the format that facilitates the handover of the activity, and it is the handover aspect of a format that is essential in supporting later child-initiated play, for both the leader and the led roles are being practised, allowing the formulaic language to be memorised as well. In Excerpt 1, children engaged in the Listen and Do game during circle time with their teacher and used the formulaic language they had acquired to play another game, STOP! in their ELA. This transfer of language from one context to another is clear evidence of language development and creativity supported by the existence of formats. In sharing the examples from early language learning activities in Portugal, I have sought to highlight what an English teacher can do during circle time to support the children’s independent use of English in an ELA and what the children do with the English they have encountered with their English teacher. I have presented the activities sequentially, but in fact the process is cyclical – the relationship between the teacher-led activities and child-initiated play is shown in the play spiral in Figure 2.1. The play spiral is based on a concept by Moyles (1989) who began her spiral with children playing; however, children need language to be able to play in English so in this model the play spiral begins with directed, adult-led, play-like activities so that the children are exposed to the language they need to be able to play in English. As such, they are exposed to the activity formats, their structures, roles and scripts. Once English is over, the children move into child-initiated play mode, interacting with the same, or similar, English resources in the ELA, where they play using these structures, roles and scripts. The children are able to use English

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   41

Figure 2.1  The play spiral (In Mourão, 2014: 257, by permission of Oxford University Press)

in the ELA precisely because they were given formal instruction, followed by an opportunity to explore the language they have encountered for themselves through play – informal instruction. This exploration is followed by more formal instruction, then play again and this cycle continues, reinforcing the children’s ability to use the English they have been exposed to and which the resources in the ELA prompt (Mourão, 2014). It is the constant move between formal instruction through teacher-led activities during English sessions, and informal instruction in the ELA with peers, that supports the children’s restructuring of their learning. This leads to a growth in language use and later acquisition. Through the ELA, English is naturally integrated into the children’s daily classroom lives, evident by the ease with which some children use English for play. The research into ELAs did not set out to measure language acquisition over time as a result of playing in an ELA; instead it focused on collecting evidence that children are indeed able to use English during child-initiated play and interact with peers who speak the same classroom language. In their study, Robinson et al. (2015) conclude that, [Classroom ELAs], which are organised and resourced to co-ordinate with teacher-led English sessions, are an effective and age appropriate means of facilitating additional opportunities to learn, use and practise the English being taught during classroom sessions. (Robinson et  al., 2015: 29)

42  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

ELAs are thus a possible solution to overcoming teacher-led English sessions in a low-exposure context, where child-initiated activity is absent within the actual English sessions. As the ELA is included in the choice of learning areas from which the children can chose, it also ensures that English is integrated into the children’s day – it is ever-present. This visibility also serves to remind the children, and all who enter the educational space, that English is a meaningful part of their lives. The relevance of resources

Key to the success of the ELA in enabling independence and fostering motivation for using English is the addition of new resources as children engage with different topics. Once children encounter a new topic, a set of flashcards representing the lexical set can be left there. Later, these can be joined by a visual representation of the song or rhyme of the story (as book, story cards or props). Whatever resource is used during teacher-led activities, it remains with the children in the ELA, e.g. bingo sets, board games and role-play props. The pertinence of associating a resource to language cannot be underestimated. It appears that a child is more likely to resort to using English with a resource if they have experienced it in English. The ‘one resource – one language’ strategy may resemble that of the ‘one person – one language’ strategy, used in families with parents who speak different native languages but who wish their children to grow up as bilinguals (Park, 2008: 635), also the ‘one environment – one language’ strategy adopted by Prosic-Santovac (2016) to ensure that her daughter learned English even though she and her husband both spoke Serbian as their native language. In all cases, the children associate something, or someone, with a particular language and thus are prompted to use that language. The Implications of Integrating and Emulating

The fact that provision for child-initiated play is largely ignored in low-exposure English as a foreign language models means that to set up an ELA implies a change in present practices. It is common for English teachers to be solitary professionals, parachuting into a classroom for short periods of time and disappearing, taking everything related to English with them when they leave. This may be because they are responsible for teaching English to a number of pre-primary classes, or it might be that English is an after-school activity, either in a pre-primary institution or in a language school. Whatever the reasons, a number of issues need overcoming for an integrated model to be successful.

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   43

Opportunities for collaboration

First and foremost, if the English teacher is peripatetic, visiting the school or class to teach English, which is common in Portugal, then they should make every effort to work together with the pre-primary professional. It is not always easy to convince pre-primary professionals of the validity of an ELA until they actually see how children use this additional area and the benefits it brings to their use of the target language. If an ELA is to be created and used successfully by the children in the classroom, the pre-primary practitioner has to be involved, for it is they who will be responsible for coordinating child-initiated free play time and ensuring that children are given time to play in the learning areas and thus the ELA, so without their collaboration, this integrated model will not work. It is not always possible to work alongside the pre-professional, especially if English is at a time when they are absent from the class, or when English is seen as an extra-curricular activity. However, it is through communication that the two staff, a pre-primary practitioner and the English teacher, can decide what to do to ensure that the children’s learning is connected and meaningful. If dialogue is not possible, for any number of reasons, an integrated model resulting from joint planning will not emerge. English in language institutes

English activities for children in English language institutions or schools make collaboration extremely difficult, as children will attend the language school from a variety of different pre-primary institutions. In English language institutions, where children may attend lessons for longer, sessions need to be planned to include lots of variety, so a 10-minute free play session can be included every now and then. Opportunities for free play can also be provided at the beginning of each session, as children arrive. To do this, activities using resources that children are already familiar with can be set up in different parts of the classroom to represent different stations, English stations. Key to success is giving the children choice of resources and activities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this strategy can be successful and children have been observed either using English or demonstrating they have understood English, as well as helping each other use English. Children were also very autonomous in proceeding with the activities they had chosen (Mourão, 2015b). This will of course be dependent upon how the teacher sets up these English stations.

44  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

Space

When space is limited, as pre-primary rooms can be small, providing a space for an ELA may be difficult. If a corner, or a piece of wall for a shelf is not available, a mobile ELA can be used – a box or boxes for the English resources, which can be placed on a shelf alongside other toys and games. The English resources are then taken out and used on the carpet area, or on a table during children’s free play time. What is essential is that the children have access to the resources they associate with using English, for it appears to be the resources that are key to prompting meaningful use of English. Resources

As we have seen, for an ELA to be successful requires resources. Materials made for or used in an ELA have to stay in the ELA for a period of time. This means that teachers need to make or find these additional resources, for many teachers often use the same sets of flashcards, games, puppets, stories, etc., with multiple groups of children. The above has shown that access to resources during child-initiated play brings huge potential benefits to the children’s learning experience; however, the very necessity of having to create these materials may be detrimental to the implementation of an ELA for any number of reasons, e.g. financial constraints, time, lack of motivation. Anecdotal evidence has also shown that children often resort to using the classroom language if a resource has not been associated with English right from the start, or if the resource is one found in the education space and used in the classroom language already. A child-directed social pedagogic approach

The final, but most important implication is the perception of play in pre-primary settings. Early childhood education sits within two philosophical traditions based on two approaches: a teacher-led, education-focused approach related to school readiness skills such as numeracy and literacy, and a child-directed social pedagogic approach, where attention is given to educational goals, play and interactivity with both teachers and peers (de Botton, 2010). European early childhood education tends to sit towards the child-directed social pedagogic end of this continuum. This is an approach that follows socio-constructive theories, viewing a child’s development as a collective responsibility occurring in both formal and informal contexts. This results in an approach to learning where relationships between adults and children are fostered and encouraged, in order to develop a child’s social and cognitive wellbeing. ELAs will, understandably, be easier to set up and flourish in those

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   45

settings that believe in a child-directed, social pedagogic approach to educating children. Final Comments

In this chapter, I have suggested that integrating and emulating ECEC practices is the only way to successfully implement a programme of early language learning in pre-primary education. I have shared practice from an institution in Portugal (and some anecdotal evidence from elsewhere) that integrates English through collaboration with staff and by emulating pre-primary practices. These practices incorporate circle time, routines and an ELA to support development in the target language by providing children with access to repetitious activities and language and opportunities to engage in child-initiated play in English. I have argued, and provided some evidence, that if language learning is seen as meaningful, fostering development through English instead of for English, a pre-primary FL project can very successfully provide solid foundations to support a child’s lifelong journey into language learning. Notes (1) Movimento de Escola Moderna Portuguesa (MEM) began in the 1960s following the natural method of learning of the French pedagogue Célestin Freinet, and is an approach that values cooperation solidarity and democracy. For further information see http://www.movimentoescolamoderna.pt/modelo-pedagogico/. (2) The HighScope Curriculum is an approach that emphasises adult–child interaction and a carefully designed learning environment with teachers and students being active partners in shaping the educational experience. For further information see http:// www.highscope.org/. (3) For more information about the Reggio Emilia Model see Edwards et al. (2011) or http://reggiochildrenfoundation.org/?lang=en. (4) Only the results from the survey have been published thus far. (5) We have been given permission by the institution to refer to their name. (6) Around one-third of all pre-primary establishments in Portugal are Private Institutions of Social Solidarity (European Union, 2011: 104).

References Andúgar, A., Cortina-Pérez, B. and Tornel, M. (2017) Tratamiento de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil en las distintas comunidades autónomas españolas. Revista de Profesorado. Bruce, T. (2011) Early Childhood Education (4th edn). Abingdon: Hodder Education. Brumen, M. (2010) The perception of and motivation for foreign language learning in preschool. Early Child Development and Care 181 (6), 717–732. Brumen, M., Fras Berro, F. and Cagran, B. (2018) Preschool foreign language teaching and learning: A network innovation project in Slovenia. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25 (6), 905–917. Bruner, J. (1983) Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton. Butler, Y.G. (2015) English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004–2014). Language Teaching 48 (3), 303–342.

46  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

Candelier, M. (ed.) (2004) Janua Linguarum, the Gateway to Languages: The Introduction of Language Awareness into the Curriculum – Awakening to Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Černá, M. (2015) Pre-primary English language learning and teacher education in the Czech Republic. In S. Mourão and M. Lourenço (eds) Early Years Second Language Education: International Perspectives on Theories and Practice (pp. 165–176). Abingdon: Routledge. Coelho, D. and Mourão, S. (2009) Little Hoola Teachers’ Guide. Porto: Porto Editora. Cortina-Pérez, B. and Andúgar, A. (2017) An exploratory study on English teachers’ opinions in multicultural preschools. Procedia Social and Behavioural Science 237, 334–340. Coyle, Y. and Gómez Gracia, G. (2014) Using songs to enhance L2 vocabulary acquisition in preschool children. ELT Journal 68 (3), 276–285. Davis, G.M. and Fan, W. (2016) English vocabulary acquisition through songs in Chinese kindergarten students. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 39 (1), 59–71. de Botton, O. (2010) Effective Early Childhood Education Programmes: Case Studies. Reading: CfBT Education Trust. See https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/~/ media/EDT/Reports/Research/2010/r-early-childhood-programmes-case-study-2010. pdf (accessed 15 August 2017). Dolean, D.D. (2015) How early can we efficiently start teaching a foreign language? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23 (5), 706–719. Dunn, O. (1983) Beginning English with Young Children. London: Modern English Publications. Edwards, C., Gandini, L. and Forman, G. (eds) (2011) The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Elvin, P., Maagerø, E. and Simonsen, B. (2007) How do the dinosaurs speak in England? English in kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15 (1), 71–86. European Commission (2011) Language Learning at Pre-Primary School Level: Making It Efficient and Sustainable. A Policy Handbook. Brussels: European Commission. See http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/languages/policy/language-policy/documents/early-language-learning-handbook_en.pdf (accessed 15 August 2017). European Commission (2014) Proposal for Key Principles of a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care. Brussels: Directorate General for Education and Culture. Eurydice (2017) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Fleta, T. (2006) Stepping stones for teaching English L2 in the early years. In R. MitchellSchuitevoerder and S. Mourão (eds) Teachers and Young Learners: Research in Our Classrooms (pp. 43–51). Whitstable: International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language. GEPE (2017) Educação em Números – Portugal 2017. Lisboa: Direção-Geral de Estatisticas da Educação e Ciência. See http://www.dgeec.mec.pt/np4/%7B$clientServletPath%7 D/?newsId=827&fileName=DGEEC_DSEE_DEEBS_2017_EducacaoEmNumeros2. pdf (accessed 24 April 2018). Ghosn, I.-K. (2016) No place for coursebooks in the very young learner classroom. In B. Tomlinson (ed.) SLA Research and Materials Development for Language Learning (pp. 50–66). Abingdon: Routledge. Gosso, Y. (2010) Play in different cultures. In P.K. Smith (ed.) Children and Play (pp. 80–98). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Howard, J. and McInnes, K. (2013) The Essence of Play: A Practice Companion for Professionals Working with Children and Young People. Abingdon: Routledge.

Integrating and Emulating: Initiatives in Portugal   47

Isaacs, S. (1929) The Nursery Years: The Mind of the Child from Birth to Six Years. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Knagg, J. (2016) Foreword. In V. Murphy and M. Evangelou (eds) Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers of Other Languages (p. 3). London: British Council. Langé, G., Marrocchi, D., Lopriore, L., Benvenuto, G., Cinganotto, L. and Vacca, M. (2014) Esperienze di insegnamento in lingua straniera nella Scuola dell’Infanzia. Report presented at Early Childhood Education and Care & Early Language Learning, Reggio Children – Loris Malaguzzi Centre Foundation, 16–18 December, Reggio Emilia, Italy. See http://www.istruzione.it/allegati/2015/INFANZIA_Lingue_Straniere_Rapporto_Monitoraggio_Dicembre%202014.pdf (accessed 15 August 2017). Lugossy, R. (2018). Whose challenge is it? Learners and teachers of English in Hungarian preschool contexts. In M. Schwartz (ed.) Preschool Bilingual Education: Agency in Interactions between Children, Teachers, and Parents (pp. 99–131). Dordrecht: Springer. Ministério da Educação (2016) Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-Escolar. Lisbon: Ministério da Educação. Mourão, S. (2001) Integrating a foreign language programme in Portuguese preschools. In J.O. Strecht Ribeiro (ed.) Da investigação às prácticas—estudos de natureza educational vol II no. 1 número temático—Línguas para os mais novos (pp. 39–62). Lisboa: CIED, ESE Lisboa. Mourão, S. (2014) Taking play seriously in pre-primary English classes. ELT Journal 63 (3), 254–264. Mourão, S. (2015a) English at pre-primary: The challenges of getting it right. In J. Bland (ed.) Teaching English to Young Learners. Critical Issues in Language Teaching with 3–12 year olds. (pp. 51–70). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Mourão, S. (2015b) Learning English is child’s play: How to leave them to it. Voices Magazine. See https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/learning-english-childsplay (accessed 30 April 2018). Mourão, S. (2015c) Response to picturebooks: A case for valuing children’s linguistic repertoires during repeated read alouds. In S. Mourão and M. Lourenço (eds) Early Years Second Language Education: International Perspectives on Theories and Practice (pp. 62–77). Abingdon: Routledge. Mourão, S. (2018a) Playing in English: The emerging voices of pre-primary children in a foreign language context. In F. Copland and S. Garton (eds) Voices from the TESOL Classroom: Participant Inquiries in Young Learner Classes (pp. 67–76). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Mourão, S. (2018b) Play and peer interaction in a low-exposure foreign language-learning programme. In M. Schwartz (ed.) Preschool Bilingual Education: Agency in Interactions between Children, Teachers, and Parents (pp. 313–342). Dordrecht: Springer. Mourão, S. and Ferreirinha, S. (2016) Report: Early Language Learning in Pre-primary Education in Portugal. See http://www.appi.pt/activeapp/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ Pre-primary-survey-report-July-FINAL-rev.pdf (accessed 15 August 2017). Mourão, S. and Robinson, P. (2015) Facilitating the learning of English through collaborative practice. In V. Murphy and M. Evangelou (eds) Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 253–264). London: British Council. Moyles, J. (1989) Just Playing? The Role and Status of Play in Early Childhood Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Neuman, M. and Hatipoğlu, K. (2015) Global gains and growing pains: Pre-primary education around the world. Early Childhood Matters 124, 43–50. OECD (2014) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. See http:// www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en (accessed 12 July 2017).

48  Part 1: Early Language Learning in Compulsory Instruction

OECD (2016) Education at a Glance: 2016 Indicators. OECD Publishing. See http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/EaG2016_EN.pdf (accessed 15 August 2017). Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (ed.) (2013) Modelos Curriculares para a Educação de Infância. Porto: Porto Editora. Ordóñes, C.L. (2016) Just singing, role playing and reading: A case study in education for bilingualism. In V. Murphy and M. Evangelou (eds) Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 241–253). London: British Council. Park, C. (2008) One person – One language (OPOL). In J.M. González (ed.) Encyclopedia of Bilingual Education (pp. 635–637). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Portiková, Z. (2015) Pre-primary second language education in Slovakia and the role of teacher training programmes. In S. Mourão and M. Lourenço (eds) Early Years Second Language Education: International Perspectives on Theories and Practice (pp. 177–188). Abingdon: Routledge. Prosic-Santovac, D. (2016) Popular video cartoons and associated branded toys in teaching English to very young learners: A case study. Language Teaching Research 21 (5), 568–588. Puchta, H. and Elliot, K. (2017) Activities for Very Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rixon, S. (2013) British Council Survey of Policy and Practice in Primary English Language Teaching Worldwide. London: British Council. Robinson, P., Mourão, S. and Kang, N.-J. (2015) English Learning Areas in Preschool Classrooms: An Investigation of Their Effectiveness in Supporting EFL Development. London: British Council. See https://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/ default/files/attachments/english_learning_areas_in_pre-primary_classrooms_1.pdf . (accessed 4 September 2018). Rokita-Jaśkow, J. (2013) Foreign Language Learning at Pre-Primary Level. Parental Aspirations and Educational Practice. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R. and Bell, D. (2002) Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years. Research Report No. 356. London: Department of Education and Skills, HMSO. Smith, P.K. (ed.) (2010) Children and Play. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Tassoni, P., Baker, B., Burnham, L. and Hucker, K. (2013) Children’s Play, Learning and Development Student Book. London: Pearson. The Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development (2013) The Importance of Early Childhood Development to Education. Prepared for the Global Meeting of the Thematic Consultation in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Dakar, 18–19 March. See http://www.beyond2015.org/sites/default/files/ECD-EducationPost-2015.pdf (accessed 15 August 2017). Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. UNESCO-UIS (2012) International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/International_Standard_Classification_of_Education_(ISCED) (accessed 15 August 2017). Wood, D. (1988) How Children Think and Learn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Wu, X. (2003) Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of the classroom environment. System 31 (4), 501–517.

Part 2 Pathways to Developing Early L2 Oracy and Literacy

Introduction Melanie Ellis

In their review of the literature on early foreign language (FL) learning, Edelenbos et  al. (2006) found general agreement that a condition for success is frequent exposure to the target language. Similarly, there is widespread acceptance that comprehension comes before production, mirroring the process from first language (L1) acquisition. It is logical therefore, particularly in settings where the FL is accessed mainly through school, that what happens in the classroom is key in the process. In the same document, the authors call for research based on data collected from classroom observation and case studies to collectively build a more comprehensive picture of how child language learning in school takes place. To understand the learning process better, we need to get inside classrooms and become more aware of how learners and teachers interact. What sort of exposure to what sort of language are learners in fact getting? What affordances for meaningful language use are children being given? Is there evidence of holistic learning taking place with a variety of activities that allow for focus on both meaning and accuracy, and for both planned and spontaneous talk (Blondin et al., 1998)? Are children being supported with strategies that will help them learn and encourage the growth of meta-awareness? What sort of feedback are learners receiving? Does this promote ‘noticing’ (Schmidt, 1990)? We also need to follow learners over time to discover how their language develops. While there are suggestions that the L1 follows through stages of development, little is yet known about how early FL develops in instructed settings. What stages does this go through and how might these compare with what is known about L1 stages? Is there any evidence that early FL learners develop different language features in the same sequence? Insights from such research would have important implications for curriculum design and coursebook syllabuses, and could inform assessment criteria and attainment targets. While the teacher and the classroom are one important source of exposure to the target language, a second important way to access the FL is through text, both written and multimedia. Children today are 51

52  Introduction to Part 2

growing up in a world where the digital screen is replacing paper as the default medium. Information is being obtained increasingly not from a written page, but from a complex combination of pictures, moving images, sounds and text. Reading, perhaps contrary to popular media reports that lament the downfall of the book, plays a central role in the world, with access to unlimited text available at the touch of a button. Short text messages are overtaking spoken messages as the predominant form of information exchange. We are already in a world where examinations are increasingly delivered onscreen, rather than on paper, as seen, for example, in the 2015 PISA tests, where reading tests were completed around the world on computer by 57 out of the 72 countries taking part. With English still a dominant language on the internet, the ability to read it is a key tool for learning and so it makes sense that it should be introduced as early as possible. Yet, we still know very little about how children’s reading in an FL develops, or about how FL reading relates to reading in an L1. Do children connect what they know from L1 reading and transfer the strategies they have developed to support their reading in the FL? How do they perceive FL reading? How do they tackle text? How do they deal with overcoming the difficulty of a limited linguistic resource? In order to read more fluently, what support can be given and how can this be done in a school setting? One fundamental skill that young people need to develop today is the ability to read critically in order to evaluate the veracity of a source text. As fact and fiction become increasingly blurred in online text and digital networking enables instant copying to many, the scope for manipulation of the reader is growing. Without strategies for determining the reliability of a source, we are all vulnerable. The skill to discriminate what is true online is perhaps the most important thing that schools today can teach. Is it possible to introduce critical reading at an early stage in FL development? How can this be done? These questions shape the content of the chapters that form this part, which we have divided into two subparts. In the first subpart, Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input, we travel inside three different learning contexts, a bilingual immersion school; a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programme, where three languages are woven together through the teaching of different subjects; and a setting where the FL is taught as a subject by a specialist teacher. The FL in all three contexts is English. Although these are different contexts, we are focused on one common area, how language develops in the instructed setting. Using carefully collected data transcribed from recordings, these three chapters offer detailed insights from the perspective both of the learner and of the teacher. In Chapter 3, we learn more about child language development over time. In Chapter  4, we discover differences between how children use language when they are working with an adult and when they are

Introduction to Part 2  53

working with a peer. In Chapter 5, we see how language is used in the classroom, how the L1 and L2 are used and with what functions and how teacher and child language use compares. In the second subpart, Pathways to Developing Early Literacy, in Chapter 6 we learn about how FL reading develops through a case study of twins, which investigates the inter-relationship between use of strategies for understanding text in the L1 and English, revealing insights into the role of individual differences. In Chapter 7, we follow an experimental study that shows how critical reading was introduced in an intervention with learners aged 10–12. In Chapter 8, the final chapter in this part, we are introduced to story apps as a means to promote and support extensive reading in a school-based club. References Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A. and Taeschner, T. (1998) Foreign Languages in Primary and Pre-school Education. London: CILT. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. (2006) Languages for the Children in Europe: Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. See http:​//ec.​europ​ a.eu/​dgs/e​ducat​ion_c​ultur​e/rep​osito​ry/la​nguag​es/po​licy/​langu​age-p​olicy​/docu​ments​/ youn​g_en.​pdf (accessed 12 July 2017). Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 129–158.

Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

3 From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice Teresa Fleta

Introduction

We have entered a new era in the teaching of foreign languages (henceforth, L2). At no time before in history has the teaching of English to ever younger learners spread so widely throughout the world (Murphy & Evangelou, 2016; Rixon, 2015). Nowadays, the number of so-called bilingual programmes offered by institutions is increasing exponentially, while the age of onset continues to be lowered. The learners’ age is a key factor that plays an important role for language learning in both naturalistic and formal L2 contexts, the reason being that young learners seem to be better at acquiring a new language than those learners who start later (Johnstone, 2002: 19). With the adaptation of the European Commission recommendations in the Action Plan (2004–2006) based on the White Paper (1995), many Spanish schools developed bilingual programmes, some of them adopting Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as an approach to teach cross-curricular subjects through the medium of English. … It is a priority for Member States to ensure that language learning in kindergarten and primary school is effective, for it is here that key attitudes towards other languages and cultures are formed, and the foundations for later language learning are laid …, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age. (Action Plan, 2004–2006: 7)

These bilingual programmes differ in various aspects, relating to the content that is taught in the foreign language, to the language level required for the teachers or to evaluation methods. This situation is in line with the current panorama in European countries in which the number of schools offering bilingual programmes has rocketed in the last decade and where English is positioned as the language most offered at private and institutional levels (Rixon, 2013). 57

58  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

Despite this rapid increase in bilingual programmes, little attention has been paid to the developmental process of English L2 by very young learners in instructed settings. Most research on child L2 acquisition to date has tended to focus on how English L2 grammar develops in naturalistic settings (Dulay & Burt, 1973; Hakuta, 1976; Haznedar, 2013; Lakshmanan, 1994, among others). This dearth of research in instructed settings may be due to the rapid lowering of the age of L2 teaching (Eurydice, 2017; Rixon, 2013); or it could also be attributed to the difficulty of assessing language developmental processes in very young learners’ classrooms. This chapter is intended to fill this gap by investigating the interlanguage of children engaged in an English bilingual programme at the British Council School of Madrid and to provide insights in the field by exploring the applicability of research in English L2 acquisition to language teaching. The main research aim and objectives of this case study are as follows: to re-examine the interlanguage of children learning English L2 in a bilingual immersion school with emphasis on phenomena such as (a) first language (henceforth, L1) influence on interlanguage; (b) developmental patterns, focusing on early and late acquired structures; and (c) the existence of a ‘common grammar’ among child learners. Finally, the chapter brings together research and its applicability in the classroom by proposing a range of key points for teachers to consider when teaching young learners. The topic of learning another language in childhood is not only relevant in Spain because of the increase in bilingual programmes, but also in other countries with a longer or shorter tradition of bilingual education. We consider that this chapter may encourage the opening of new research avenues relating to child acquisition of English. Literature Review

This part of the chapter deals with the importance of early oral exposure to L2 English for successive/sequential acquisition of bilingualism, ‘because children who start learning a foreign language very young may encounter nothing but the spoken language for several years’ (Cameron, 2001: 17). In the field of language acquisition, Meisel (2011) differentiates between simultaneous language acquisition, which emerges if exposure to two (or more) languages occurs within a week after birth onwards, and successive/sequential acquisition of bilingualism, which arises when children start an L2 before the age of 5. In both situations, simultaneous and successive/sequential, children acquire the target language/s through social communicative interaction by listening and speaking and by understanding messages (Fleta, 2015; Long, 1996; Mackey, 2007). In Meisel’s (2011: 1) words: ‘The suspicion thus is that whatever enables the child to acquire the mother tongue might not be lost forever, rather that it could

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  59

be hidden somewhere among or underneath our other cognitive faculties’. Later, after 5  years of age, the acquisition of an L2 is considered L2 acquisition. In spite of this, from the perspective of language acquisition, there seem to be close links between both simultaneous language acquisition and successive/sequential learning at school, as the same psycholinguistic mechanisms to process language apply to young learners in naturalistic settings and in a classroom situation (Cutler, 2012: 304; Lightbown & Spada, 2013: 41). In the case of successive/sequential learning of an L2, Cameron (2001: 18) reminds us that the ‘new language is largely introduced orally, understood orally and aurally, practised and automatized orally’. Overall, the greatest difference between L1 and L2 successive/sequential acquisition of bilingualism lies in the onset and the end points of acquisition. The reason being that unlike in L1 acquisition, child L2 learners have already gone through the process of building up the structure of another language: …those who have learnt a language know a great deal about many other languages without realizing that they do. The learning of further languages generally facilitates the activation of this knowledge and increases awareness of it, which is a factor to be taken into account rather than proceeding as if it did not exist. (Council for Cultural Co-operation, 2001: 170)

Moreover, in successive/sequential acquisition of bilingualism, ultimate attainment is not guaranteed, not only due to the age of onset, motivation or individual differences among child learners, but also due to factors such as the learning context, the amount and type of classroom input the learners receive and the output they are able to produce. Notwithstanding, a number of studies on L2 acquisition have revealed that given adequate conditions of input and time, young learners develop the target language in a natural and subconscious manner (Cameron, 2001; Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Moon, 2000). Overall, children acquiring their L1 are immersed in around 3,000–5,000  hours of input per year; however, despite this, it still takes them around five years to reach good knowledge of their L1, with a total amount of exposure of 20,000 hours or more by the time they attend school (Lightbown & Spada, 2013: 13). All in all, the evidence presented in this section indicates that children are able to acquire more than one language implicitly by listening during childhood, without formal instruction, and to do so they rely on their language-making capacity, on the social context and on interaction with mature speakers (Meltzoff et al., 2009: 285). As Cameron (2001: 18) suggests: ‘For young learners, spoken language is the medium through which the new language is encountered, understood, practiced and learnt’. However, what children have to overcome in instructed settings is the dearth of exposure when the target is a foreign language; the main reason

60  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

being that ‘in foreign language teaching, there is an onus on the teacher to provide exposure to the language and to provide opportunities for learning through classroom activities’ (Cameron, 2001: 11). At school, child learners are confronted basically with input from their teachers who are the main and, most of the time, the only linguistic models available for interaction (Moon, 2000: 14). Thus, the teacher’s talk becomes the only means that supports meaning making during oral communicative interaction (Gibbons, 2015). As a result, children in instructed settings ‘do not have sufficient amount of input (being in an input-limited environment)’ (Murphy, 2014: 6). Besides, classroom talk is different from talk at home, in that teachers’ classroom conversational interactions must ‘create the conditions that will foster language development’ (Gibbons, 2015: 24). Considerable evidence from key studies of both L1 and child L2 acquisition of English in naturalistic contexts suggests that monolingual English-speaking children and children receiving input data successively in varying naturalistic environments exhibit a natural order of acquisition of English grammar (Brown, 1973; de Villiers & de Villiers, 1973; Dulay & Burt, 1973; Hakuta, 1976; Haznedar, 2013; Klima & Bellugi, 1966; Lakshmanan, 1994; Radford, 1990). Just as Brown (1973) and de Villiers and de Villiers (1973) observed a systematic order of morpheme acquisition in data on monolingual English-speaking children, likewise Dulay and Burt (1973), Hakuta (1976), Haznedar (2013) and Lakshmanan (1994) noticed that children learning English L2 followed similar developmental stages independent of their L1. In particular, what L1 acquisition research suggests is that the copula be is later acquired (Brown, 1973; de Villiers & de Villiers, 1973), while studies of English L2 in naturalistic contexts report that the copula be is early acquired (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Hakuta, 1974; Haznedar, 2013; Lakshmanan, 1994). Within the realm of developmental studies, researchers also looked at the stages of negation and question-formation of children learning English using Klima and Bellugi’s (1966) L1 data as a basis for comparison. Klima and Bellugi found regularities of developmental stages for negation and for question-formation among monolingual English-speaking children at different stages of early childhood. However, studies on negation suggest that children who learn English L2 naturalistically do not pass through exactly the same stages as monolingual English-speaking children (Cancino et al., 1978; Haznedar, 2013; Wode, 1977). According to the findings of these researchers, there seem to be ordered developmental stages for the acquisition of negation distinct from the development of L1 English. But even though L2 stages do not entirely parallel the L1 sequences, one can suppose that the developmental sequences for the L1 and L2 learners are similar. Commenting on interrogative sentences, Klima and Bellugi (1966) reported on the production of intonation questions during the first

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  61

stages of L1 English acquisition of interrogative sentences. During a second stage, Wh-elements were introduced, but subject-Aux inversion was still absent. Finally, in stage three, subject-Aux inversion was used, first in yes/no questions, and later in Wh-questions. In the same vein, Brown’s (1973) study of L1 interrogatives showed that auxiliary verbs and subject-Aux inversion appear first in yes/no questions and later in Wh-questions. The general outcome of longitudinal studies on English interrogative acquisition suggests that questions may lack auxiliaries, modals or subjects in early grammars. These findings show a delay in the development of subject-Aux inversion in native English and, therefore, a delay in long movement operations of verbs for English questions. In sum, native-speaking children seem to acquire interrogative sentences in various stages. Unlike L1 development, early studies on the acquisition of English L2 interrogatives conducted by Cancino et al. (1978) and by Ravem (1978) found no evidence of subject-Aux inversion during the first stages of the acquisition of both types of interrogatives (yes/no and Wh-questions). Subsequent studies by Lakshmanan (1994) and Lakshmanan and Selinker (1994) found the auxiliary be, copula be and modal can before sentence subjects in yes/no questions very early on, but never found thematic verbs before subjects in interrogatives (*eats John?). Overall, there seems to be some evidence to indicate that interrogatives are acquired both by monolingual English-speaking children and by child L2 learners in various phases. During the first stage, children produce intonation questions and interrogatives that may lack subject-Aux inversion or subjects. This delay in the development of subject-Aux inversion consequently leads to a delay in the movement operations of verbs with do-support. To sum up briefly, within the specific field of study of this chapter and despite the differences in the learners’ age, learning settings and amount and type of exposure, the conclusion can be drawn that the processing of English by monolingual English-speaking children and by child L2 learners in naturalistic settings is accomplished in various phases, following the developmental stages for both morphological and syntactical structures. Although in the field of L2 acquisition research there has been an increasing interest in the topic of orders and sequences in the acquisition of morphosyntax (see Hulstijn et al. (2015) for a thorough review of current perspectives on acquisition orders and sequences in L2 acquisition), there is no room to discuss such hypotheses here because our spontaneous data cover child learners’ initial contact with English L2 in a formal context and not adult L2 English development. Alternatively, we take Tabors (1997) developmental stages of child L2 learners as reference for our study: (i) use of children’s L1; (ii) silent period; (iii) formulaic and telegraphic speech; and (iv) productive use of L2.

62  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

Two Studies of Child Successive/Sequential Acquisition of English

There are fundamental differences between the acquisition of the mother tongue and an L2 in childhood. The term ‘mother tongue’ or ‘first language’ refers to the language or languages (in the case of simultaneous bilingualism) to which the child is exposed from birth and whose acquisition is innately guided (O’Grady, 2008: 620). Basically, this arises when the language is acquired without any intentionality on the children’s part, since they are endowed with genetic capacity (Chomsky, 1965); using the Chomskyan metaphor, when the language ‘grows’ in children’s minds. With regard to non-native languages, if the L2 is the medium of communication in society and available in children’s daily lives, acquisition takes place in a naturalistic context. However, if the L2 is part of an educational programme a few hours a day, it is formally acquired in a setting where the amount of input is rather limited outside the classroom (Baker, 2011). In order to facilitate the L2 learning process in an instructed setting, these differences must be taken into account in the teaching. The main aim of the present case study research is to gain insight into the manner in which children grow proficient in English L2 by exploring the emerging grammar of children immersed in bilingual education (Duff, 2014). The research compiles empirical evidence on the grammatical representations underlying the interlanguage of Spanish-speaking children who learn English successively. Selinker (1972) coined the term ‘interlanguage’ to refer to the intermediate grammars that L2 learners go through during the learning process (G0---G1---} G2---} G3---}Gn). This section is organised as follows. First, information about Spanish and English grammars is provided. Second, the research questions are posed. Third, in order to understand the L2 acquisition process in an instructed setting, data from children who learn English successively in a bilingual school are analysed. Some relevant morphosyntactic properties in Spanish and English

From the linguistic perspective, children who start learning English L2 at the age of 3 do not start from scratch as monolingual English-speaking children do, due to the fact that their L1 grammar has developed to some degree (Council for Cultural Co-operation, 2001; Meisel, 2011). Moreover, when children start an L2 at 3 years of age, their Spanish grammar is still developing (Cameron, 2001: 12). In this respect, the children in the present study have previous linguistic knowledge and experience of what learning a language means because their mother tongue (Spanish) has already developed, allowing the children to communicate in simple and complex sentences. Among other features, children have learned that Spanish is a head-initial language, a free word order language, with a strong verbal morphology and with null subjects. As far as the

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  63

Table 3.1  Spanish/English morphosyntactic features English

Spanish

Head-initial language

SVO

SVO

Word order

Fixed

Free

Weak (-s; -ed)

Strong

Verbal morphology Subjects Interrogative sentences Negative sentences

Obligatory

Null

Subject Aux-inversion

Intonation

Do-support

No + verb

acquisition of English L2 is concerned, children need to ‘…crack the code through exposure and opportunities to converse’ (Machado, 2015: 82). In order to better understand the young learners’ developing grammars and to make use of the findings for actual classroom practice, Table  3.1 briefly summarises some of the most relevant Spanish and English morphosyntactic features. Following standard assumptions, both English and Spanish are head-initial languages in simple and complex sentences (SVO: subjectverb-object), and in both languages verbs and prepositions are placed before complements (Haegeman, 1991: 5): (1)  a.   Mary reads a book every night. b. María lee un libro todas las noches. c. I know that Mary reads a book every night. d. Sé que María lee un libro todas las noches. As shown in 2a, b, c and d, Spanish is a free word order language, while English has fixed word order like in 2e. Hence, sentences 2f, g, h are unacceptable (*) in English (Haegeman, 1991: 14): (2)  a. María llegó a las diez. b. Llegó María a las diez. c. Llegó a las diez María. d. A las diez llegó María. e. Mary arrived at 10 o’clock. f. *Arrived Mary at 10 o’clock. g. *Arrived at 10 o’clock Mary. h. *At 10 o’clock arrived Mary. Spanish is a morphologically rich language in terms of inflectional affixation (Haegeman, 1991: 455) allowing missing subjects (3a); free subject-Aux inversion in interrogative sentences that results in intonation questions (3b); and placing negation preceding all three kinds of verbs (thematic verbs, auxiliaries and modals) (3c):

64  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

(3a) Spanish: Vinieron a las tres come-3rd P PL PAST at three English:   *arrived at three vs. They arrived at three (3b) Spanish: ¿quieren venir tus amigos? Want-3rd P PL your friends English:   *want come your friends? vs Do your friends want to come? (3c) Spanish: María no sabe leer María NEG know-3rd P SING leer English:   *Mary no can read vs Mary can’t read English, on the other hand, has a relatively limited verbal morphology (-s; -ed) (Haegeman, 1991: 111) and as a consequence, subjects are needed in all types of sentences, (declarative, interrogative and negative) (4a); subject-Aux inversion is obligatory in interrogatives (4b); negation of lexical verbs requires do-support (4c); with the exception of auxiliaries (4d) and modals (4e) (Haegeman, 1991: 66): (4)   a. They are coming. b. Can you read? c. They don’t want to come. d. Mary isn’t Spanish. e. Peter won’t come. In sum, we assume that English and Spanish are different in relation to their morphosyntactic properties. We assume that Spanish is a null-subject language and English is not. Moreover, Spanish has a rich verbal agreement morphology while verbal morphology in English is weak and therefore subjects, subject-Aux inversion and do-support are needed (Haegeman, 1991). Research questions

This research aims to address the following research questions about children’s interlanguage processing of English grammar: (1) Do young learners (aged 4–5 years) who learn English at bilingual school transfer properties of their L1 (Spanish) into the initial representation of the L2?

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  65

• The prediction is that transfer effects will be expected because at 3 years of age children have already acquired the grammar rules for Spanish. (2) Does the emerging grammar of the children in this study display developmental stages for the grammar of English similar to those of monolingual English-speaking children and of child L2 learners in naturalistic settings? • Previous research has shown that monolingual English-speaking children and child L2 learners in naturalistic settings follow developmental stages. In light of these findings, we expect to find developmental stages in this study, but will these developmental stages have the same characteristics? (3) Finally, will there be a ‘common grammar’ among child L2 learners of English in this study? • The fact that an identical pattern has been attested cross-linguistically with children from different L1 backgrounds, it is plausible to conclude that the children in this study will follow the same linguistic avenue. In order to answer these questions, empirical evidence on the processing of morphosyntactic information from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies will be presented (Fleta, 2001, 2003, 2005), the focus of both studies being the development of English morphosyntax. Findings from these two descriptive studies will be of interest not only to teachers of young learners, but also to textbook authors and curriculum designers. Context, participants and instruments

The corpora consist of data from children attending the British Council School of Madrid, a private English/Spanish early immersion school for students from 3 to 18 years of age, most of whom are monolingual speakers of Spanish (96%). In this school, English is both the medium and the object of instruction and at an early age acquired naturalistically by listening, even though this takes place in a formal learning context. From 3 to 6  years of age, the medium of instruction is English (90%), except for a few weekly sessions intended to foster children’s knowledge in Spanish language and literacy education, which are taught in Spanish and represent 10% of the total tuition time. From the beginning, children are familiarised with English throughout the school day in a natural manner. Every pre-school class (aged 3–6 years), with an average of 20 children each, has three fully qualified professionals: a native English-speaking teacher, a specialist Spanish teacher and a bilingual classroom teaching assistant. In the pre-school section, the pupils follow the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (Department of Education, 2014). Within this framework, the

66  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

emphasis in the early years is on listening and speaking, the foundation skills on which literacy is built. The research tools used in this investigation were recordings from interviews between the researcher and the children. The instruments for data collection in each study included games designed to provide reliable data on students, picture books, picture cards, toys, objects and role-play. Longitudinal study and findings

The main aim of the small-scale longitudinal study was to track English language development over time. A case study method is a well-acknowledged research method for tracing the longitudinal linguistic development of young bilinguals (Duff, 2014). For this study, four children (aged 4 years 8 months; 4;9, 5;3, 5;10) were audio-recorded, all of whom were first exposed to English when they entered the pre-school years. The children were interviewed individually, each recording lasting for 20–30  minutes, every fortnight for approximately 2.5  school years. The interviews consisted of spontaneous interaction between the researcher and the children, during which the children were asked questions about themselves and their daily routines. They were also presented with picture cards, picture books, toys, games, activities and familiar objects to elicit language from them. All utterances were included in the transcription for analysis. The four children were monolingual Spanish and at the time of entering the school it was assumed that they had no English input from the home. As Table 3.2 shows, the participants’ age ranged from 4 years 8 months to 5 years 10 months at the first recording. Andrés and Diana were absolute beginners, while Beatriz and Carlos had already been exposed to English for one year when they were 3 and 4 years of age. During the first round of recordings, the children either showed no comprehension of English or produced single word utterances in English. Andrés, for example, answered questions in Spanish, explaining that he did not understand English (1). At a later stage, he showed comprehension of the question made in English, but still answered in Spanish (2). Moreover, Andrés showed lack of knowledge of some lexical items in both English and Spanish (3). It should be noted here that young learners

Table 3.2  Information about participants in the longitudinal study Beatriz

Carlos

Age at the onset of study (years and months)

Andrés 4;8

4;9

5;3

5;10

Length of exposure to English

0

1

1

0

21

20

26

21

Number of recordings School years covering recordings

2.5

2.5

2.4

Diana

2.4

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  67

have little knowledge of the world and at an early age they are still learning both concepts and words in their L1. (1)  Children show no comprehension: Researcher:  Are you making a phone call? Andrés:  ¿Qué? [English=What?]     (3rd month of exposure) (2)  Children show comprehension and answer in Spanish: Researcher:  Can you do it? Andrés:  No sé hacerlo. [English = I can’t do it] (3rd month of exposure) Researcher:  Do you know the name of this dog? Andrés:  ¿Cómo se llama? Spot. [English = What’s his name?] (5th month of exposure) (3) Children show lack of knowledge of English and Spanish lexical terms: Researcher:  What animal is this? Un osito que tiene pinchos, pero no sé cómo se llama Andrés:  [English = A bear that has spikes, but I don’t know how it is called]. Researcher:  It’s a hedgehog. Pero en español ¿cómo se dice? [English = But in Spanish, Andrés:  how is it called?] (6th month of exposure) At the beginning, utterances with one, two or more words seem to be sufficient to communicate in the target language during the first stages of L2 acquisition. These phases are followed by subsequently more complex phases in which simple and complex sentences appear. Another characteristic of child L2 production is the mixing of English and Spanish codes simultaneously in the same utterance (4), which, far from causing confusion to the children, is a skilled activity, normal in a two-language learning process. As suggested by some authors (Stilwell Peccei, 2006: 39), this feature may be closely related with the learners’ L2 degree of development, ‘learners are faced with the need to express a concept or an idea in the second language but find themselves without the linguistic resources to do so’ (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 285). Children mix languages in two directions, Spanish into English and English into Spanish: ‘Such switching between languages may sometimes reflect the absence of a particular vocabulary word or expression’ (Lightbown & Spada, 2013: 31):

68  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

(4)  Andrés:  In school have puré [puree] and tomato with lechuga [English = lettuce] y tortilla [English = and omelette] Carlos: Play in the water... y también en el barro [English = and with mud too] The data analysis reveals that the four children use the copula and auxiliary be productively very early on. Although the third-person ‘is’ is the form most often used by the children, it never occurs in the contracted form (5). Moreover, it is attested in the recordings of the four children that none of them is sensitive to the phoneme /m/ of the contraction of the first-person singular, which may be due to the fact this sound is not included in word-final position in the Spanish phonological system (6). (5)  Carlos:  The monkeys are playing for the ball. (13th month of exposure) (6)  Carlos: I going to leave this in here. (17th month of exposure) As far as the production of sentences with explicit and null subjects is concerned, data analysis shows the co-occurrence of both types of sentences. Looking at the totals, we find that of the 2138 finite sentences analysed, 1683 had overt lexical or pronominal subjects (79%), while the incidence of null-subject sentences was relatively low (21%). It is interesting to note here that most of the omitted overt subjects correspond to the subject pronoun it. These findings suggest that, despite occurrences of some null-subject sentences, the early use of obligatory subjects indicates that child learners have knowledge from a very early stage in L2 acquisition that English is not a pro-drop language like Spanish and, consequently, that overt subjects (lexical or pronominal) are needed in English sentences. Common grammar

Data from the longitudinal study were used to explore the presence of a ‘common grammar’ among child learners of English. Despite the varying linguistic input that children experience during their L1 acquisition process, studies have reported that infants approach their target languages building up their own grammars, modifying hypotheses about the adult speech they encounter, filtering the input data and, subsequently, creating their own output data (Lightbown & Spada, 2013: 14). One example of the active role that children play in constructing their own grammars is the overuse of different forms of the dummy auxiliary be (am/is/are) with no lexical content, which does not exist in adult English. This pattern has been attested cross-linguistically by various authors in the acquisition of English, German and Dutch (Blom et al., 2013; Fleta,

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  69

2003; Haberzettl, 2003; Ionin & Wexler, 2001; Lakshmanan, 1994; Lee, 2001; Radford, 1990; Roeper, 1992; Van de Craats & Van Hout, 2010). As reported in the literature, there is evidence of dummy be forms in L1 acquisition of English baby talk (Akmajian & Heny, 1975: 75; Davis, 1987: 390; Radford, 1990: 297; Roeper, 1992: 341). These authors have discussed the implications of such deviations from adult speech patterns and conclude that children formulate rules in terms of structural rather than semantic notions and that the insertion of be forms is prior to the use of the correct forms. Examples of English baby talk in (7) from Akmajian and Heny (1975: 75) and Davis (1987: 390) illustrate this point: (7)  a. Is Ben did go?          (Did Ben go?) b. He’s go to the dentist       (He has gone to the dentist) c. Is he can jump?          (Can he jump?) d. The boy is no have it        (The boy doesn’t have it) This intriguing and unexpected pattern relates to the fact that child learners have difficulties processing English morphosyntactic structures, namely, inflectional morphology in declarative sentences, obligatory subject-Aux inversion in interrogative sentences and do-support in negative sentences. Various authors have observed that English morphosyntactic structures are acquired late by L1 learners (Brown, 1973; Radford, 1990). Hence, learners find that dummy auxiliaries are useful tools to help unravel the morphosyntactic system of English. Roeper (1992) highlights that during a subtle stage of English acquisition, children insert be forms (am/is/are) as linguistic ‘dummies’. For Roeper, is-insertion is as natural as do-insertion and both insertions are a form of morphosyntactic economy (8): (8)  a. did talk is simpler than talked b. is talk is simpler that talks/talked In sum, dummy auxiliaries have a syntactic function for the construction of interrogative and negative L1 sentences. Moreover, they have a morphological function to convey information about person, number, mood, tense and aspect (Van de Craats & Van Hout, 2010: 477). On somewhat similar grounds, child L2 learners of English from different linguistic backgrounds also go through a stage during which they use the dummy auxiliary is in contexts where English language requires verbal inflection, do-support or subject-Aux inversion. This preference for the insertion of the is pattern is reported, among others, by Tiphine (1983) in two French speakers of English; Suzman (1999) in Sesotho speakers in an early immersion setting; Ionin and Wexler (2001) in Russian children; and Lee (2001) in two Korean child learners (9):

70  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

(9)  a. My dog is not like the cage (Tiphine, 1983) b. Vava is want to go to the house (Suzman, 1999) c. He is run away, I stayed here (Ionin & Wexler, 2001) d. Is go (Lee, 2001) Researchers’ interpretations of this idiosyncratic feature differ with respect to the use of dummy auxiliaries. For Lakshmanan (1994), the use of is-patterns is a kind of phonological ‘error’ between English is and Spanish es. However, data from Lee (2001) and Suzman (1999) suggest that there is no phonological matching in the L1 of learners (Sesotho, Korean) and the dummy auxiliary is. Similarly, is-patterns cannot be the effect of direct transfer from L1 in Russian either, because Russian lacks the be copula in the present tense and has no be auxiliary in any tense except the compound future (Ionin & Wexler, 2001). Lee (2001) points out that children ‘invent’ a rule and at one stage of the L2 grammar construction they insert is in declarative, negative and interrogative sentences. Finally, for Blom and de Korte (2011) dummy auxiliaries seem to be more easily retrievable. In our view, the observation that child L2 learners of English from different linguistic backgrounds insert the pattern with is before the target-like structures is supported by the same structural analysis suggested for dummy auxiliaries in monolingual English-speaking children. Data under study from the longitudinal study show evidence of the use of the dummy auxiliary is co-existing with copula/auxiliary be constructions. A closer analysis of the data showed that overuse of the dummy auxiliary is in declarative, negative and interrogative sentences before English verbal morphology [-s, -ed], do-support and subject-Aux inversion were accurate. Later, the use of the is pattern gradually decreased in favour of the correct grammatical structures. For a period of time, child learners often produced sequences like (10), in which they omitted the verbal inflection, and in which they inserted is. The following examples belong to the longitudinal study data: (10)  a. The dogs is like to eat the cats (Andrés, Recording 14/21) (Dogs like to eat cats) b. That is go to my house (Beatriz, R12/20) (He went to my house) c. The zebras is eat grass (Carlos, R4/26) (Zebras eat grass) d. Is he can jump? (Andrés, R9/21) (Can he jump?) As can be seen above, it seems that the is-insertion stage is a step forward between developmental stages (Fleta, 2003).

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  71

Cross-sectional study and findings

The objective of the cross-sectional study of 36 children was to explore if children’s emerging grammars display developmental stages for the acquisition of interrogatives, similar to those stages of monolingual English-speaking children and of child L2 learners in naturalistic settings. The study included 36 children aged 5–11 years (18 boys and 18 girls). They had all entered pre-school in the British Council School at around the age of 3, thus, they had all been exposed to English for at least two years at the time of the data collection (Table 3.3). Table 3.3  Age, number of children, school level and years at school Age

Years at school

Number of children

Reception

Level

5/6

2

6

Primary 1

6/7

3

6

Primary 2

7/8

4

6

Primary 3

8/9

5

6

Primary 4

9/10

6

6

Primary 5

11/12

7

6

To elicit spontaneous yes/no interrogatives, a variation of the interrogatives game described in Twenty Questions (MacCallum, 1980) was designed. The material for eliciting interrogatives consisted of a set of five photographs of people, a set of five pictures of animals and a set of objects. The objective of the game was to guess which card or object the tester had chosen by asking a series of questions to which the answers could only be yes or no. Thus, the elicited questions were spontaneous, given in a context of free play. Sentences were of the forms presented in (11): (11)  a. Is the rabbit going to eat an ice-cream?     (Infant III, S18) b. Do you like tennis?            (Primary 1, S13) c. Is the cake on a plate?           (Primary 2, S18) d. Has it got white lines?           (Primary 3, S171) e. Can they swim?             (Primary 4, S168) f. Does it walk on two legs?          (Primary 5, S38) The utterances obtained through spontaneous elicitation were transcribed and the formula for calculating the percentage of subject-Aux inversion and the percentage of obligatory subjects in interrogatives is shown in (i): (i)  X/X + Y X represents the actual number of interrogatives with pre-posed auxiliaries and modals in obligatory contexts. Y is the number of cases where

72  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

subject-Aux inversion could have occurred but did not. The number of all productions corresponds to X + Y. Figure 3.1 shows that L2 learners follow stages for the acquisition of English yes/no interrogatives, indicating the percentage of correct subject-Aux inversion interrogatives in each year group. Although sentences in Reception (15.7%), Primary 1 (0.8%) and Primary 2 (2.3%) have obligatory subjects, the auxiliaries and modals are not yet moved in front of the subjects, indicating that children have not acquired the movement operations of verbs in English, thus resulting in a series of intonation questions. The examples given in (12) illustrate this point: (12)  a. You can play in the house? b. We can play tennis? c. He had that of here to fly like that? d. It’s a box of sweets? e. The frog can jump?

(Reception, S133) (Primary 1, S125) (Primary 1, S148) (Primary 2, S104) (Primary 2, S104)

Percentage

In Figure  3.1, a relatively consistent phase of subject-Aux order is observed in Reception (15.7%) followed by a drop in inversion in Primary 1 and Primary 2. One explanation for this U-shaped curve, which is common in L1 and L2 acquisition, would be that some of the interrogatives at this early stage are imitative and not analysed. The frequency of subject-Aux inversion with auxiliaries and modals begins to rise at the level of Primary 3 (26.8%) and continues to rise in Primary 4 (65.8%) and also in Primary 5 (85.8%) indicating that the use of subject-Aux inversion with auxiliaries and modals is in the predicted direction. Examples from Primary 4 and Primary 5 in (13) illustrate that children invert auxiliaries and modals, and insert do-support for questions with thematic verbs:

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Reception

Primary 1

Primary 2

Primary 3

Primary 4

Figure 3.1   Stages for the acquisition of English yes/no interrogatives

Primary 5

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  73

(13)  a. Does it fly? b. Has it got legs? c. Did James Bond drive it? d. Can you kick it?

(Primary 4, S43) (Primary 4, S172) (Primary 4, S177) (Primary 5, S105)

To conclude this study, the results show how children are forming a question whether they are using inversion or not. What the data from the cross-sectional study show is that regarding the subject-Aux inversion, child L2 learners do not approach English interrogatives from the perspective of L1 properties, namely moving thematic verbs before subjects (*eats John?). On the contrary, they make use of overt subjects very early on and acquire yes/no questions in phases – step by step. Discussion

Taking a case study analysis as its point of departure, the overall aim of this chapter was to investigate the development of English in child L2 learners in an early immersion bilingual setting and the applicability of the findings to English L2 teaching. To this end, the research explored if the developmental sequences for the acquisition of English morphosyntax paralleled those in the acquisition process of children in naturalistic settings and if there was evidence of a ‘common grammar’. As reported above, the child L2 data from the bilingual school were contrasted with data from monolingual English-speaking children (Brown, 1973; Radford, 1990; Roeper, 1992, among others) and with data from L2 studies whose child learners (Marta, 4;6, Muriel, 4;6, Uguisu, 5, Erdem, 4, Dasha, 8, Greg, 5;4, Kenny, 5;8, among others) were learning English in naturalistic contexts (Hakuta, 1976; Haznedar, 2013; Lakshmanan, 1994; Tiphine, 1983; among others). The findings reveal a number of properties that, to a large extent, are in agreement with what was reported in monolingual and in child L2 studies. The four children in the longitudinal study show a considerable amount of variability, not only in the quantity of the English utterances that they produce, but also with respect to the grammatical knowledge that these utterances exhibit, which shows their individual rate of acquisition. Focusing on the acquisition of grammatical structures, these children construct English grammar through interacting orally with their teachers, namely, listening to the teachers’ talk, understanding the messages and speaking in class (Fleta, 2015; Long, 1996; Mackey, 2007); much in the same way as children in naturalistic settings. On the basis of the results, one of the major findings is that oral communicative interaction seems to be playing an important role in incidental L2 learning in an instructed setting. The interaction between teachers and child learners occurs when teachers provide learners with positive L2 input, when child learners make themselves

74  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

understood through modified output and when learners receive any form of feedback in response to their output (Long, 1996). Our analyses also show that, as this study took place in an instructed setting where the learners had limited input access, the process was lengthier than that of monolingual English-speaking children and of child L2 learners in naturalistic settings. Importantly too, what the longitudinal study adds is that English grammar appears to be built upon aural and oral skills and that comprehension precedes production. Moreover, the study seems to show that some structures were acquired early and some followed a more protracted process. Regarding the early acquired structures, a first observation was that, surprisingly, children in this study learned the copula and auxiliary be early in a manner similar to children from L2 studies in naturalistic contexts (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Hakuta, 1974; Haznedar, 2013; Lakshmanan, 1994). More specifically, children produced utterances with the form is relatively early in comparison to monolingual children (Brown, 1973; de Villiers & de Villiers, 1973). On the other hand, and contrary to what would be expected from children whose L1 has null subjects (Spanish), a high percentage of English utterances with obligatory subjects were used very early on. Looking at the null-subject totals, the incidence of utterances with no subjects was low and most of the time the omitted overt subject corresponded to the subject pronoun it. In addition, the modal verb can was learned early; by contrast, other modal auxiliary verbs like will; should; would were acquired late in this learning context. Finally, although verbal inflection in English is weak compared to Spanish verbal inflection, data analysis revealed that it took children a lot of time to learn the agreement and tense markers -s and -ed, suggesting that some grammatical features that appear to be simple in principle are not necessarily easy to learn early. Regarding the acquisition of English syntax, negative utterances were not large in number in the longitudinal corpus and they were unanalysed in most cases (Beatriz: ‘I like no go very fast because I fall down’). Only Carlos used negation correctly very early on with the auxiliary and copula be; however, he overgeneralised don’t with all the other verbs (‘I don’t can walk’). As for the acquisition of English interrogative sentences, the cross-sectional study reveals that children followed developmental stages that they acquired in phases – step by step. The results from the interrogatives study give us enough information to ascertain whether the teaching objectives (in this case using subject-Aux inversion when forming an interrogative) are being reached. This information would be useful for individual and group assessment; also, it would be extremely useful for individual class teacher planning and in whole school language policy planning. The issue of a ‘common grammar’ in English acquisition has been identified by many scholars, who suggest different possible solutions

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  75

for the dummy insertion phenomenon (Blom et  al., 2013; Haberzettl, 2003; Ionin & Wexler, 2001; Lakshmanan, 1994; Lee, 2001; Radford, 1990; Roeper, 1992; Van de Craats & Van Hout, 2010). All in all, it seems that what motivates child learners to create these constructions in the absence of their presence in the input from the teacher is that child learners formulate certain types of hypotheses about English guided by language learning mechanisms. These mechanisms let the children work within the target language and construct a possible ‘grammar’ that helps them to learn English-specific rules independently of the rules they know for their L1. In sum, the use of dummy auxiliaries may be explained as a developmental form in the constructions of child grammars of English, as a step forward between developmental stages (Fleta, 2003). Conclusion and Implications

In summary, this chapter contributes to a wider understanding of how children learn and use English L2 focusing on a case study of Spanish bilingual children. Detailed data analysis and observation provide valuable insights for effective classroom practice by showing how children filter the input data and create their own output data. Examining grammar development from different perspectives, it appears to confirm the results of previous research studies on child L2 acquisition of English. While the general outcome of successive/sequential acquisition of bilingualism seems to be rather positive in the case of these Spanish-speaking children, this research underlines that oral communicative interaction in an immersion school and its concomitant features, which implicitly lead to the quality and quantity of the input to which young children are exposed, is highly beneficial for the acquisition of a range of L2 morphosyntactic features. Overall, children attending bilingual education have more opportunities to use the target language in meaningful context and real interaction than children who only access English as a foreign language at school three or four times a week, but have fewer opportunities to communicate with native English speakers than children immersed in naturalistic contexts, where the L2 is spoken. Indeed, in formal contexts, the new language is introduced aurally and orally to young learners (Cameron, 2001); accordingly, what seems appropriate for young monolingual and English-speaking children may also be suitable for young L2 learners (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008). In spite of the amount and type of classroom input, the opportunities for oral communicative interaction in instructed settings are restricted and as a consequence, it is not possible to expect children to produce correct grammatical structures after a short exposure time (two or three sessions a week). Consequently, teachers may need to familiarise themselves with effective pedagogies that best suit the learning context and take into consideration the learners’ age, cognitive and

76  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

linguistic development and knowledge of the world. Teachers should bear in mind that at an early age, children learn about the world at the same time that they acquire the language to define the world (Fleta, 2015). These theoretical findings can be of benefit for (student) teachers by helping them understand about the nature of L2 acquisition of English and about what they can achieve in formal contexts. The first key point of the present research indicates that children might understand the linguistic message even during the stage in which they use their L1 in class. Likewise, teachers should notice that during early stages, transfer from children’s L1 and language mixing may occur when child learners start speaking. Moreover, the production of full sentences is not immediate and at the beginning, utterances may only consist of one, two or three words, along with some memorised formulas (‘Can I have some milk, please?’), which might form the only longer unanalysed utterances that children are able to retrieve from memory (Tabors, 1997). It should be borne in mind that very young learners (3 and 4 years) are not able to produce long strings of words even in their mother tongue. The second key point concerning English morphosyntax acquisition is that child L2 learners do not go through exactly the same L1 developmental stages. Thus, teachers should not expect children to learn the third-person singular pronouns (he/she/it) or some be forms (am, are) early. Furthermore, teachers may encounter the omission of the agreement and tense markers -s and -ed and also overgeneralisation of the be form ‘is’ before inflection of verbs for agreement and tense becomes accurate. The third key point relates to the production of intonation questions, which are also found in the speech of monolingual English-speaking children. They should be considered features whose development is extremely gradual in L2. Last but not least, modal English verbs (could, will, would, should, ought to, etc.), with the exception of can, are learned late and gradually. Importantly too, the methodologies for early L2 teaching should not only focus on memorising songs and vocabulary items in isolation but should also be based on the idea that early L2 learning runs in parallel with content learning and that at an early age, children learn languages in a natural and subconscious manner by listening (Cameron, 2001; Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Moon, 2000). Accordingly, the classroom focus should be on meaning and on fluency, rather than on form and accuracy (Lightbown & Spada, 2013: 38). In particular, the best practices to help language learning in a classroom setting should be those that foster oral communicative interaction through listening and speaking. To develop listening skills, children should be playing with sounds of all sorts (exploring the sounds around, sounds of common objects, sounds of musical instruments, sounds in picture books, speech sounds); to develop speaking, children should be using the language during daily routines

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  77

and circle time, playing in the English language area and through use of songs, rhymes and chants. Acknowledgements

I thank Andrés, Beatriz, Carlos and Diana as well as the British Council School of Madrid for their constant support and understanding during several years of data collection. Earlier versions of this chapter were presented at the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (IASCL), San Sebastian, 12–16 July 1999; at the Biannual Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA-6), Ottawa, 26–28 April 2002; and The Young Language Learners Symposium (YLL), Oxford, 6–8 July 2016. References Akmajian, A. and Heny, F.N. (1975) An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Blom, E., & de Korte, S. (2011). Dummy auxiliaries in child and adult second language acquisition of Dutch. Lingua, 121(5), 906–919.Blom, E., Verhagen, J. and Van De Craats, I. (2013) Dummy Auxiliaries in First and Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Brown, R. (1973) A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cameron, L. (2001) Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. and Schumann, J. (1978) The acquisition of negatives and interrogatives by Spanish speakers. In E.M. Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition (pp. 207–230). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Commission of the European Communities (1995) White Paper on Education and Training. Teaching and Learning. Towards the learning society. http:​//eur​opa.e​u/doc​ument​ s/com​m/whi​te_pa​pers/​pdf/c​om95_​590_e​n.pdf​ (accessed 4 September 2018). Council for Cultural Co-operation Education Committee, Modern Languages Division, Strasbourg (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Commission of the European Communities (2003) Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004 – 2006. https​://eu​r-lex​.euro​pa.eu​/LexU​riSer​ v/Lex​UriSe​rv.do​?uri=​COM:2​003:0​449:F​IN:EN​:PDF (accessed 4 September 2018). Cutler, A. (2012) Native Listening: Language Experience and the Recognition of Spoken Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Davis, H. (1987) The acquisition of the English auxiliary system and its relation to linguistic theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Department of Education (2014) Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Statutory Framework: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. Runcorn: Department of Education. See http:​//www​.foun​datio​nyear​ s.org​.uk/e​yfs-s​tatut​ory-f​ramew​ork/ (accessed 15 June 2017). de Villiers, J.G. and de Villiers, P.A. (1973) A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2, 267–278.

78  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

Duff, P.A. (2014) Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 34, 1–23. Dulay, H.C. and Burt, M.K. (1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23 (2), 245–258. Dulay, H.C. and Burt, M.K. (1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24 (1), 37–53. Eurydice (2017) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Fleta, M.T. (2001) Child L2 acquisition of interrogatives. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M.-J. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal and B. MacWhinney (eds) Proceedings 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (IASCL) (Vol. I; pp. 1356–1370). San Sebastian: Cascadilla Press. Fleta, M.T. (2003) IS-insertion in child grammars of English: A step forward between developmental stages? In J.M. Liceras, H. Zobl and H. Goodluck (eds) Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002) (pp. 85–96). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Fleta, M.T. (2005) Stepping stones for teaching English L2 in the early years. In R. Mitchell-Schuitevoerder and S. Mourão (eds) Young Learners Special Interest Group Anniversary Publication. Teachers and Young Learners: Research in Our Classrooms (pp. 43–51). Whitstable: Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language. Fleta, M.T. (2015) Active listening for second language learning in the early years. In S. Mourão and M. Lourenço (eds) Early Years Second Language Education: International Perspectives on Theories and Practice (pp. 137–148). Abingdon: Routledge. Gass, S.M. and Selinker, L. (2008) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (3rd edn). New York: Routledge. Gibbons, P. (2015) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Haberzettl, S. (2003) ‘Tinkering’ with chunks: Form-oriented strategies and idiosyncratic utterance patterns without functional implications in the IL of Turkish-speaking children learning German. In C. Dimroth and M. Starren (eds) Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition (pp. 45–63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haegeman, L. (1991) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Hakuta, K. (1974) Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning 24, 287–29. Hakuta, K. (1976) A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning 26, 321–351. Haznedar, B. (2013) Child second language acquisition from a generative perspective. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3 (1), 26–47. Hulstijn, J., Ellis, R. and Eskildsen, S. (2015) Orders and sequences in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on: An introduction to the special issue. Language Learning 65 (1), 1–5. Ionin, T. and Wexler, K. (2001) L1 Russian children learning English: Tense and overgeneration of ‘be’. Proceedings of the 2000 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 76–94). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Johnstone, R. (2002) Addressing the Age Factor: Some Implications for Language Policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Language Policy Division. Klima, E and Bellugi, U. (1966) Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J. Lyons and R.J. Wales (eds) Psycholinguistics Papers (pp. 183–208). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Lakshmanan, U. (1994) Universal Grammar in Child Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lakshmanan, U. and Selinker, L. (1994) The status of CP and the tensed complementizer That in the developing L2 grammars of English. Second Language Research 10, 25–48. Lee, E-J. (2001) Interlanguage development by two Korean speakers of English with a focus on temporality. Language Learning 54, 591–633.

From Research on Child L2 Acquisition of English to Classroom Practice  79

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2013) How Languages are Learned (4th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, M. (1996) The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). London: Academic Press. MacCallum, G. (1980) 101 Word Games: For Students of English as a Second or Foreign Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Machado, J. (2015) Early Childhood Experiences in Language Arts, Early Literacy (11th edn). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Mackey, A. (2007) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meisel, J. (2011) First and Second Language Acquisition: Parallels and Differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Movellan, J. and Sejnowski, T. (2009) Foundations of a new science of learning. Science 17, 284–288. Moon, J. (2000) Children Learning English. Oxford: Macmillan-Heinemann. Murphy, V. (2014) Second Language Learning in the Early School Years: Trends and Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murphy, V. and Evangelou, E. (2016) Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers of Other Languages. London: British Council. O’Grady, W. (2008) Innateness, universal grammar, and emergentism. Lingua 118, 620–631. Peregoy, S. and Boyle, O. (2008) Reading, Writing and Learning in ESL. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Radford, A. (1990) Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Ravem, R. (1978) Two Norwegian children’s acquisition of English syntax. In E. Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings (pp. 148–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Rixon, S. (2013) British Council Survey of Policy and Practice in Primary English Language Teaching Worldwide. London: British Council. See http:​//eng​lisha​genda​.brit​ishco​ uncil​.org/​sites​/ec/f​i les/​D120%​20Sur​vey%2​0of%2​0Teac​hers%​20to%​20YLs​_FINA​ L_Med​_res_​onlin​e.pdf​ (accessed 25 July 2017). Rixon, S. (2015) Primary English and critical issues: A worldwide perspective. In J. Bland (ed.) Teaching English to Young Learners: Critical Issues in Language Teaching 3–12 year olds (Chapter 2). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Roeper, T. (1992) From the initial state to V2: Acquisition principles in action. In J. Meisel (ed.) The Acquisition of Verb Placement (pp. 333–370). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. IRAL 10, 209–241. Stilwell Peccei, J. (2006) Child Language. A Resource Book for Students. Abingdon: Routledge. Suzman, S. (1999) The Acquisition of English as a Second Language by Children who Speak Bantu Languages. Paper presented at the 8th International Congress for the Study of Child Language, San Sebastian. Tabors, P. (1997) One Child, Two Languages: A Guide for Preschool Educators of Children Learning English as a Second Language. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Tiphine, U. (1983) The acquisition of English statements and interrogatives by Frenchspeaking children. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Kiel. Van de Craats, I. and Van Hout, R. (2010) Dummy auxiliaries in the second language acquisition of Moroccan learners. Second Language Research 26, 473–500. Wode, H. (1976) Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. Working Papers on Bilingualism 11, 1–31.

4 Spotting the Differences between Child–Child and Child–Adult Interactions: Evidence from Spanish EFL Learners at Low Levels of Proficiency Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola and Raúl Azplicueta-Martinez

Introduction

Young populations still remain under researched in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) and, in general, the younger the population, the fewer the studies. Interaction-based studies are no exception to this. The benefits of interaction were initially demonstrated for adult learners. Triggered by Oliver’s (1998, 2000) seminal work, the interactions of children in second language environments also became the focus of several studies and, inspired by these, some recent investigations (García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015) have explored children’s interactions in foreign language classrooms, a highly populated context of learners worldwide (Cameron, 2003; Muñoz, 2014). The variables playing a part during conversational exchanges are countless. In the present study, we will examine the combination of the interlocutors’ level of proficiency and age. These two variables are particularly relevant for foreign language school contexts where collaborative tasks only comprise two types of dyads: children interacting with their peers (age- and level-matched pairs) or children interacting with their teacher (low-proficient young learner with proficient adult speaker). In the literature, child–child dyads have been explored both in English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, always suggesting that peer interaction, even when the level of proficiency of the participants is very low, is possible and beneficial 80

Spotting the Differences between Child–Child and Child–Adult Interactions  81

(Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015; Oliver, 1998, 2000; Pinter, 2007). As for child–adult dyads, they have almost exclusively been examined in the context of the provision of feedback by the teacher during language lessons (Lyster, 1997; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver & Mackey, 2003). Therefore, the differences between child–teacher and child–child interactions while doing tasks in the classroom remain unexplored. In the present study, the conversational interactions of 20 (8- to 9-year-old) Spanish children learning English at school are examined on two tasks, one of which is performed with a level- and age-matched classmate, while the other is carried out jointly with an adult proficient speaker of English. This will help us to understand the different behaviours of children with the two possible interlocutors who are present in school. Ultimately, this study intends to help inform language teachers about what to expect from student–student and student–teacher interactions. Literature Review

Interaction, in particular when it generates negotiation for meaning (NoM), has long been proved beneficial for SLA. In line with most of the research in the field, many studies have examined adult populations (cf. Mackey (2012) and Mackey and Goo (2007) for a review), and a smaller yet increasingly growing body of research has also examined children in ESL and EFL contexts (e.g. García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015). At the same time, collaborative tasks and peer work are being encouraged in pedagogical publications, and are rapidly gaining ground in language lessons (Oliver, 2002). Child–child dyads

Studies on child populations in ESL and EFL contexts have mainly explored the interactions that occur in child–child dyads. In ESL contexts, the main bulk of the work on oral interaction among young learners has been led by Dr Oliver in Australia. Oliver’s (1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000, 2002) studies examine a large database of conversational interactions of children (ages 8–13) learning ESL. She points out that children are able to interact and engage in conversational interaction cooperatively. In her 1998 study, she offers the results of level-matched child–child dyads (among other pair types) and, considering the number of NoM strategies over the total number of utterances, she reports a rate of 15.23 for conversational adjustments (7.71 for clarification requests; 6.27 for confirmation checks; 1.25 for comprehension checks) and a rate of 53.25 for repetitions (26.98 for self-repetitions and 26.27 for other-repetitions of previous utterances within five speaking turns) (Pica & Doughty, 1985a). When comparing the interactional patterns of

82  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

children and adults, Oliver demonstrates that both populations benefit from comprehensible input, produce comprehensible output and receive feedback about their attempts. She also finds that children and adults use the same types of strategies, although at different rates. The most striking difference is that children use fewer comprehension checks. This difference becomes greater when the children are younger and implies not only fewer comprehension checks, but also a lower percentage of repetitions of their partners’ utterances (other-repetitions) (Oliver, 2008). In EFL contexts, studies are scarce, but growing in number. In Hungary, Pinter (2006, 2007) examined the interactions of age- and level-matched EFL learners with low levels of competence and she also compared child–child vs. adult–adult interactions in pairs. This author found that both age groups were able to interact and do tasks in English, but she also identified differences in the task-related strategies that both groups used, with advantages for the adult learners regarding the effectiveness of their task-solving strategies, amount of production and lower use of first language (L1). In Spain, a country that has invested greatly in the implementation of English as a compulsory subject from an early age, several authors have recently examined the interactions of level- and age-matched peers in school (García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017). All these authors agree that children are able to negotiate and interact despite their low level in the target language. They also report that these children negotiate less frequently than adults and children in ESL contexts. Lázaro-Ibarrola and Azpilicueta-Martínez (2015) report data from the youngest – and least proficient in the target language – group of learners (7- to 8-year-old beginners). These authors examined child–child interactions while performing a guessing game in the classroom and found the lowest rate of NoM strategies, with only 2.10% for repetitions and 1.15% for conversational adjustments. Lázaro-Ibarrola and Hidalgo (2017) examined the interactions of children following a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programme while performing a guessing game and found a rate of 11.76% for repetitions and 7% for conversational adjustments. García Mayo and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2015) analysed Spanish children in two age groups (9 and 11) and in two methodologies (CLIL and EFL), and also found very low rates of repetitions and conversational adjustments: the highest rates were found in the CLIL group at age 9, with 8.96% of repetitions and 5.6% of conversational adjustments. These studies also include an analysis of the participants’ use of their shared L1 (Spanish) as one more conversational strategy. The researchers report that children use L1 words only occasionally (5.57% is the highest rate reported; see Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017); however, Lázaro-Ibarrola and Hidalgo (2017) also identify abundant examples of L1 structures. These

Spotting the Differences between Child–Child and Child–Adult Interactions  83

authors call for further research on this aspect and warn of the possibility that these structures could be reinforced in peer interactions of this kind (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017). When looking at studies that have considered the proficiency of the interlocutors, NoM generally seems to decrease as proficiency increases (Gass & Varonis, 1985a; Oliver, 2002). The only exception to this has been reported in the case of very young child learners with a very low level of proficiency in the target language. These young children are able to interact, but they are barely able to negotiate when breakdowns occur (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015). Accordingly, it has been suggested that interaction activities might not be as useful unless a threshold level in the target language has been crossed (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015; Swan, 2005). In summary, the results from child interaction studies indicate that children, despite their cognitive (and often proficiency-related) differences when compared to adults, are able to interact and negotiate for meaning and benefit from negotiations. In general, children negotiate less than adults; EFL children, in turn, do so less than ESL children and, when looking at children of different ages, younger children negotiate less than older children. As regards proficiency, it has been found that more proficient learners negotiate less than less proficient learners only when a minimum level has been reached, and below which negotiation appears to be jeopardised (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015). Likewise, when investigating the different strategies that learners use, all studies (both in adult and children contexts) report a comparatively greater number of repetitions and a lower rate of conversational adjustments. However, as Lázaro-Ibarrola and Hidalgo (2017) have recently warned, it is now necessary to go beyond merely quantifying the use of different interaction strategies and consider what it means that certain strategies are used more or less frequently. In order to understand the purpose of the participants when they negotiate, these authors propose a further classification of the different types of NoM strategies into three main functions: (i) preventing a failure in communication, (ii) repairing a failure in communication and (iii) confirming that communication has succeeded. Child–adult pairs

Some early studies of child–adult pairings examined their negotiated interactions (Hamayan & Tucker, 1980; Scarcella & Higa, 1981) as has some more recent research (Lyster, 1997; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver & Mackey, 2003). However, these studies were mainly focused on the provision of feedback between teachers and students, usually framed within the context of a lesson, i.e. these studies examined the interactions that emerge in regular lessons and not in the context of a child and an adult doing a joint communicative task.

84  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

An early study by Van den Branden (1997) compared interlocutor type in researcher–child dyads vs. child–child dyads (11- to 12-year-olds), examining the effects of negotiations on output modifications. He found that children negotiate for meaning (not for form) and modify their output regardless of whether it is the researcher or a peer providing this feedback. The author described this finding as ‘encouraging’ because he interpreted that not only researcher–pupil interactions, but also peer– peer dyads can generate significant language growth. Finally, several studies have brought into the spotlight the idea that the effectiveness of the interaction depends greatly on the social relationship between the interlocutors (Philp et al., 2013). In this respect, some important differences in the behaviour of children have been identified, namely, pairs of children are capable of mutual scaffolding thanks to their relative symmetry, although they are not likely to ask each other for linguistic assistance. Also, children seem more interested in interacting than in the content of the interaction itself (Philp & Duchesne, 2008; Philp & Tognini, 2009). Proficiency of the pairs

Research considering the proficiency of participants has been carried out with adults; however, their findings can have some bearing on our study, in that we will compare pairs of similar proficiency (child–child dyads) vs. non-proficient–proficient pairs (child–researcher). In general, child–adult studies agree that in the interactions between a proficient (teacher or native) and a less proficient speaker (learner or non-native), the interlocutors produce less NoM than in learner–learner pairs (Gass & Varonis, 1985b; Pica & Doughty, 1985a, 1985b; Yule & MacDonald, 1990). Another difference related to the proficiency of the interlocutors is the different level of participation of the two members when their command of the language is very different. Pica et al. (1987) examined the impact of interaction on comprehension when eliciting data from natives interacting with non-native speakers. She found that the non-native member of the pair participated less than the native. She interpreted this as beneficial for the least proficient member, who would benefit from the abundant comprehensible input and the opportunity to participate at his or her own level. Yule and MacDonald (1990) studied the interactions of mixed-proficiency dyads of university students, who had to do a task that required one learner to provide map directions to their interlocutor, who was given a slightly different map. The authors found that there was little negotiation when the high-proficiency learner was giving the map directions. By contrast, negotiation was abundant when the lower proficiency partner took on the dominant role and was thus the provider

Spotting the Differences between Child–Child and Child–Adult Interactions  85

of information, rather than being the recipient. Philp et al. (2013) point out that these results illustrate the complexity of factors involved in interactional exchanges. Iwashita (2001) carried out a study with learners of Japanese as a foreign language paired in groups of similar and mixed proficiency. While she found no significant differences in the types of negotiation moves, she did note that there were a high number of confirmation checks (consisting of other-repetitions of part of their interlocutors’ sentences) in all groups. The author suggests that, for lower level students, this is the easiest strategy, as they do not need to produce language themselves. Research Questions

The present study intends to explore the differences in the interactions of 8-year-old child learners of English with a pre-A1 to A1 level of competence. The children performed two similar communicative tasks that consisted of narrating a story to an interlocutor in order to help him/her build it by selecting and ordering a set of pictures. Every child performed the task in two dyad types: first, the child narrated the story to a teacher and then, the same child narrated a different story (with a similar level of difficulty) to a level- and age-matched peer. The present study analyses the production of these children as they are working as storytellers. Consequently, our study formulates the following research questions: (1) How do children interact when their interlocutor is an age- and level-matched peer? (2) How do children interact when their interlocutor is a proficient adult speaker? Based on the literature presented above, we expect to find quantitative and qualitative differences in both interactional modes. In general, and in line with research in the interactionist framework, we expect that our children will be able to successfully interact and use NoM strategies in both dyad types. Also, repetitions are expected to be the most common strategy, while conversational adjustments, in particular comprehension checks, will be rather scarce. As for the L1, they will probably make little use of L1 words (García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2015) but L1 transfer might be frequent in their productions (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017). If our results are in line with those from adult studies, we may predict that child learners will negotiate less frequently with the adult expert than with their level-matched peer (Pica et al., 1987), although the fact that the children are the information holders when interacting with the adult proficient speaker will favour negotiation (Yule & MacDonald,

86  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

1990). Finally, if our results are in line with Oliver (2008), we expect to find repetitions of partners’ utterances (other-repetitions) less frequently in the child–child pairings. The Study Participants

Twenty children, 11 girls and 9 boys, and 1 adult participated in the present study. All children taking part were studying their Year 3 course (mean age 8.5 years) at a primary school in Navarre (Spain). They had been studying EFL in the school for six  years at the time of the data collection. The proficiency of spoken English among the children in this study was based on the school’s internal assessment records in the subject (EFL) and their performance in official diagnostic tests carried out by the local administration the previous year. Neither high- nor low-performing students were included in this study. This means that all the children were level matched. Their level could be described as beginner (pre-A1/A1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages). The adult speaker, one of the authors of this chapter, is a proficient speaker of English and an experienced English teacher. He had had no contact with the children before the data collection and he spoke English to them at all times. The task

Each child had to perform two similar tasks. The tasks consisted of two five-picture stories that each child narrated to their partner. They narrated one story to the proficient adult speaker (referred to as Task 1, T1) and, one week later, they narrated a different story to a level- and age-matched peer (hereafter referred to as Task  2, T2). This design entails two different participant roles, ‘narrators’ and ‘story builders’. The children analysed in the present study acted as narrators in both tasks. The story builders were given eight jumbled-up pictures that included the images in the story plus three distractor pictures. Both interlocutors had to talk to each other so that the story builders could arrange the story chronologically and leave out the three distractor pictures. In the next task, roles were swapped and stories changed. A screen was placed between the students in order to minimise non-verbal communication. All students were filmed and voice-recorded using an integrated webcam and a voice recorder. The story in T1 was ‘The Snowman’ and the stories in T2 were ‘On a Rainy Day’ and ‘The Toy Shop’. T2 required two stories, since otherwise the students would have remembered the story when roles were reversed (the stories are included in the Appendix) (Table 4.1).

Spotting the Differences between Child–Child and Child–Adult Interactions  87

Table 4.1  Tasks in the present study Story-based picture placement task Day 1 Task 1 (T2) The Snowman

Day 2

Student narrates the story to the adult proficient speaker

Task 2 (T2) On a Rainy Day The Toyshop

Student narrates the story to an age- and level-matched peer

The task was unfamiliar and completely new to the students. However, the suitability of the stories had been checked through the application of similar tasks in one section of the diagnostic evaluation of primary education bilingual schools in Navarre in 2013 and 2014 with 616 Year 2 students. The tasks included a spot-the-difference referential task (Yule, 2013) framed within a storytelling format. This was done with the purpose of promoting interaction (Pica et  al., 1993). Also, bearing in mind that ‘with information gap tasks, care must be taken not to create a test which tests general problem-solving ability more than language fluency’ (Underhill, 1987: 32), attention was paid to designing a task that could not be done without the exchange of linguistic information, while at the same time attempting to promote a type of discourse other than factual, even though the subjects in this study had a low level of spoken English (pre-A1/A1). The three distractors contained only subtle differences when compared to the pictures that should be used to build the stories. In addition, there were several possibilities to rearrange the pictures into a logical story, so as to make sure that the story builder could not infer the real order without needing the help of the narrator. Table  4.2 features a description of the task(s). Table 4.2  Description of the tasks Story-based picture placement task Roles of the participants

Narrator

Story builder

Description

Without showing their partner their pictures, they must narrate/describe a story in order for their peers to place pictures of the story in the right order and leave the distractor pictures aside.

Type

Mixed: Information gap task + storytelling

Flow of information

Two-way

Exchange of information

Required

Outcome

Closed: The participants finish when the story builder arranges the story chronologically

Language

Open: Language may vary significantly

Without showing their partner their pictures, they must interact with the narrator in order to place the story in the right order and leave the wrong distractor pictures aside.

88  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

Data coding and analysis

The participants’ performance was directly observed and video-recorded (total recorded Time 2: 49:19) by one researcher. In order to examine the negotiations, and following previous studies (Oliver, 1998), the following NoM strategies were coded: clarification requests, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, acknowledgments, self-repetitions and other-repetitions.1 These strategies were subsequently classified according to the main communicative functions they perform: preventing breakdowns, confirming successful communication and repairing misunderstandings (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017). We illustrate each category with an example from our data. Note that we have excluded those categories that did not appear in the present database. Due to the small sample size, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank non-parametric test (a non-parametric test that is an equivalent alternative to a matched-pairs t-test) to analyse differences within the same population. The significance level was fixed at p = 0.05. All analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 24. (i)

Preventing communication breakdowns: The interlocutor wants to make sure their partner has understood. This function includes comprehension checks and mere self-repetitions to reinforce the message. (1) Child A: In one picture there is a boy that has… the…. The mouth with… This. You understand?    [Comprehension check] (2) Student A:  The snow and the scarf. Researcher: That’s very good. And how does the story finish, Iranzu? Student A: The story finish that the children put the, the hat, the nose and the scarf to the snowman and they are, they are happy.   [Self-repetition]

(ii)

Confirming successful communication: The interlocutor wants to let their partner know that they have understood. This category includes expressions such as ‘ok’, ‘yes’, ‘I know’ which express the speaker’s comprehension of what their partner has said in order to let them know that they could move on in the conversation (acknowledgments), as well as other-repetitions. (3) Child A: Erm… the… are two pictures… are two pictures the same. One, the… first picture it ha, the boy it’s sad and the girl is sad, and the second is with the… with the… with the mouth a little bit… erm… a little bit… straight. Child B: Yes, is that.    [Acknowledgment]

Spotting the Differences between Child–Child and Child–Adult Interactions  89

(4) Researcher:  Erm… is the girl sitting down or not? Student:  The girl and the boy are sit down. [Other-repetitions] Answers to comprehension checks were not included as ‘acknowledgments’, since the ‘confirmation of comprehension’ function was carried out by the check itself: (5) Researcher: Yes! The girls are jumping happily because mum has brought them a cat. Alright? Student A:  Yes. (iii) Repairing communication breakdowns: The interlocutor has not (totally or partially) understood what their partner said and asks for clarification. It comprises clarification requests and confirmation checks. (6) Child A:  A little bit sleep… sleepy... and… and… Child B:  Can you repeat? [Clarification request] (7) Child A:  Who is in the picture? Child B:  Who? [Confirmation check] Also, as the learners shared the same L1, its influence was also examined. We identified two broad categories of L1 influence in their conversations: L1 words and L1 structures. We illustrate both types with examples from the current database. L1 Words (8) Student A: In the… in the… how do you said… carro [Spanish word for ‘trolley’]? [Translation request] (9) Student B: Erm… Sunny? O sea [Spanish for ‘I mean’]… There are very… Ah!    [Automatic expression] Structural Transfer (10) Researcher:  What’s the girl doing? Student A:  Is putting [subject pronoun is not obligatory in Spanish] … the eyes… on a… (11) Student B: I can see a car grey [Spanish word order noun + adjective] with a two, with a daddy, one girl and one boy. The analysis of each strategy and of the L1 elements was carried out considering the total number of strategies the participants used divided by the total number of utterances.

90  Part 2 – Forms and Functions of L2 Classroom Input

Results

The total number of strategies classified into types and functions is presented in Table 4.3. Because time on task varied, analyses of the test transcript data are reported as percentages rather than instances. As Table  4.3 shows, in both interaction modes examples of all NoM strategies were found with the exception of confirmation checks, which were very scarce in the child–child dyads and non-existent in the child–adult pairs. Repetitions were the most frequent strategy, whereas clarification requests, confirmation checks and comprehension checks (conversational adjustments) and acknowledgments remained fairly scant. When investigating the differences between both modes, interaction strategies were found to be significantly more present in child–child interactions (z  =  –2.417b, p  =  0.016). Children resorted more often to confirmations of communication, followed by prevention of communication breakdowns when the child performed the task with an adult. The opposite applied during child–child interactions: the main function displayed was breakdown prevention, followed by confirmation of communication. In both modes, repairing communication breakdowns was extremely rare, and differences were not significant (z  =  –1.642b, p = 0.101). Statistically significant differences were noted in breakdown prevention strategies. These were higher in child–child interactions (z = –3.483b, p