Annotated Bibliography - Achiever Papers

Reading – Annotated Bibliographies (20 points, due February 16, 2021): Choose four (4) articles based on topics that interest you from your reading in the course text Sheltered Content Instruction: Teaching English Language Learners with Diverse Abilities by Echevarria and Graves. Refer to class topics and modules for listing of topics to choose from.

Each Annotated Bibliography should include the article citation in APA style, a summary of the content, and a reflection to personal practice. Each Annotated Bibliography should be a maximum of one-page double spaced. The Annotated Bibliographies should be of good academic quality and integrity and adhere to APA standards. Guidelines and an example of an Annotated Bibliography is provided in class. Refer to the Annotated Bibliography Template found under Course Content. The entire assignment consisting of four (4) articles should be submitted as one document in Blackboard by the due date.

Special Series

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 1–5
Copyright C© 2005, The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

Learning Disabilities in English Language Learners: Identifying the Issues

Peggy McCardle
National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, NIH, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Joan Mele-McCarthy
Office of Special Education & Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education

Laurie Cutting
Johns Hopkins University

Kathleen Leos and Tim D’Emilio
Office of English Language Acquisition, U.S. Department of Education

America’s non-English-speaking student population is di-
verse, multicultural, multilingual, and academically chal-
lenged. Although the students bring a wealth of culture, tra-
dition, diverse languages, and rich heritage into our class-
rooms, they are also the student group with the highest drop-
out rate, lowest achievement scores, largest mobility rate,
and highest poverty (U.S. Department of Education, 2004;
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2004b). The challenge for
non-English-speaking students, or English language learners
(ELLs), is not only overcoming the language barrier, but also
overcoming low expectations and low academic achievement.
Therefore, there is a great need to better understand how to
best teach ELLs; even more challenging is to sort out how
to identify and teach ELLs who have learning disabilities
(ELL/LD). The focus of this special issue is to examine these
complex issues within a research context. The articles are
an outgrowth of a symposium on ELL/LD that took place
in October 2003, the goal of which was to begin to iden-
tify research priorities for ELL/LD. The U.S. Department
of Education and the National Institutes of Health jointly
organized this symposium, which was also supported by
several other agencies and organizations.1 The introduction

The assertions and opinions contained herein represent those of the au-
thors and of their symposium participants as recorded and interpreted by
the authors; they should not be taken as representing official policies of the
NICHD, NIH. OSERS, OELA, or the U.S. Departments of Health & Human
Services and Education.

Note that Dr. Cutting participated in the symposium planning, imple-
mentation, and the writing of this article during her tenure as a Society for
Research in Child Development fellow at the NICHD.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Peggy McCardle, National Insti-
tute of Child Health & Human Development, 6100, Executive Boulevard,
Suite 4805, Rockville, MD 20852-7510. Electronic inquiries may be sent
to pm43q@nih.gov.

provides a brief overview of the context for the symposium,
as well as available federal data on the number of ELLs in
the United States and the services they receive; the rest of the
special issue is devoted to articles by symposium participants
on the specific research topics and approaches to studying
ELL/LD.

ELL/LD IN THE UNITED STATES: FACTS
AND FIGURES

According to the Census 2000 Brief (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 2004b), nearly one in five Americans speaks a
language other than English at home and the proportion of
language-minority2 individuals in the United States grew by
nearly 50 percent during the past decade. Of the language mi-
nority individuals in the United States, the Hispanic commu-
nity is the largest, exceeding 39.4 million (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 2004a).

Given the dramatic increase in language-minority indi-
viduals in the United States over the past decade, it is not
surprising that non-English-speaking students are the fastest
growing subgroup of children among public school popu-
lations, with an annual increase of approximately 10 per-
cent. In fact, the number of students designated limited
English proficient (LEP)3 in grades K-12 increased by 72
percent from 1992 to 2002 (Donovan & Cross, 2002; U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2003). Fur-
ther, while in 1992 only 15 percent of U.S. teachers had
one or more LEP students in their classrooms, by 2002
that figure had risen to 43 percent (Zehler, Fleischman,
Hopstock, Stephenson, Pendzick, & Sapru, 2003). Cur-
rently, there are approximately 5.5 million students attend-
ing U.S. public schools whose native or first language is not

2 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

English. Of the students whose native language is not En-
glish, 80 percent speak Spanish. The other 20 percent of
language-minority students represents a total of 440 diverse
languages. Vietnamese is the second most prevalent lan-
guage spoken, totaling about 4 percent of language-minority
students.

The increase in the ELL population in U.S. schools
presents a particular challenge for the school systems, as the
academic achievement of students who are culturally, linguis-
tically, and ethnically diverse historically has not kept pace
with that of their White, middle-class peers. The National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has demon-
strated that there is a large achievement gap between minor-
ity students, many of whom are ELLs, and White students.
In 2003 only 15 percent of Hispanic students, 37 percent
of Asian/Pacific Islander students, and 16 percent of Amer-
ican Indian/Alaska Native students in fourth grade read at
the proficient or above levels, in contrast to 41 percent of
White students. All of the above figures are based on assess-
ments administered with accommodations (U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).
These figures are gaining increased focus as the No Child Left
Behind Act (PL 107–110, January 2002) requires all states
to consider the academic achievement levels of all student
groups separately, including ELLs, and mandates that the ed-
ucational needs of all students be addressed.

Just like their non-language minority peers, some ELL
students qualify as having a disability as defined by the Indi-
viduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997). ELLs
who do not easily acquire the English language or do not
perform well academically after several years of instruction
in both language acquisition and academic content are often
referred for special education services. However, ELLs who
qualify under IDEA must have at least one of the impair-
ments specified under IDEA and, because of that condition,
need special education and related services.

Until recently, the prevalence of LDs in children with ELL
in the public school system had been unknown. Despite the
fact that these estimates are somewhat compromised because
neither a method for accurate identification nor a consistent
definition of LDs across states and school districts exists, the
figures available do offer some sense of the magnitude and
complexity of this important but neglected issue. National
data reveal that ELLs are underrepresented overall on special
education rosters, meaning that a smaller percentage of ELLs
are receiving services than would be expected, given the pro-
portion of the overall population that they represent (U.S. De-
partment of Education, 2003; Zehler & Fleischman, 2003).
Specifically, while data on LEP students in special education
were not readily available because many districts do not rou-
tinely identify these students as a distinct subgroup, through
the concerted efforts of many school district personnel and
those conducting a descriptive study for the U.S. Department
of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition, a
high response rate was obtained, and accuracy was confirmed
through cross-referencing information with school personnel
and student files (Zehler & Fleischman, 2003). Thus, we can
have confidence that the estimates are accurate insofar as
they report the number of students currently being served in

special education. However, a frequently recurring interview
comment was that district personnel found it challenging to
distinguish language differences from disability as the source
of academic difficulties for ELLs. They reported not having
the tools, procedures, or qualified staff to adequately identify
these students.

Despite these limitations, the study estimated that, over-
all, there were 357,300 LEP students designated as requir-
ing special education services in grades K-12 in school year
2001–2002, representing 9 percent of all LEP students in
U.S. public schools, compared to an overall 13.3 percent of
children enrolled in U.S. public schools in 2000–2001 (U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services, 2002).

The data further indicate that, in school year 2001–2002,
an estimated 4,774 school districts, out of the approximately
6,500 school districts sampled, reported providing special ed-
ucation services to at least one LEP student. However, out of
the total number of students who were identified for and re-
ceived services across the 4,774 districts, the majority was
concentrated in 3.4 percent of the districts. More specifically,
this small proportion of districts (3.4 percent) served 57 per-
cent of the LEP special education population, while most dis-
tricts (more than half, or 55 percent) served only 2.6 percent
of the LEP special education population. Further, the highest
concentration of LEP students receiving special education
services was in urban areas.

It is clear that issues involved in identifying ELLs with
LDs and providing services to them are complex. The ma-
jority of students are concentrated in specific areas, which
means that teachers and specialists with specific expertise
should be able to be recruited and fully employed; however,
the areas of concentration—urban—often offer less attrac-
tive employment opportunities and conditions. On the other
hand, despite the concentration of numbers of students in a
small proportion of districts, few, if any, school districts will
not have to deal with the special issues of ELL students, and
when very few such students are found, the cost and logistics
of obtaining individuals with appropriate expertise to serve
them can be daunting.

Further complicating the picture is the fact that, while ELL
students appear to be underrepresented overall on special ed-
ucation rosters, ELL students tend to be overrepresented in
certain special education categories: Speech-Language Im-
pairment, Mental Retardation, and Emotional Disturbance.
Adding to the complexity of this picture is the fact that the
percentage of ELL students who receive special education
services in urban localities surpasses the national special ed-
ucation percentages for students who speak English as a first
language (Donovan & Cross, 2002). This highlights the need
for better tools and methods for accurate identification of
those with special needs.

Another important issue is teacher preparedness to both
identify and instruct LEP students with special education
needs. Zehler and Fleishman (2003) noted a lack of qual-
ified instructional staff available to provide special educa-
tion services to LEP students. They found that 24.4 percent
(729, 603) of all U.S. public school teachers worked with
at least one LEP special education student in 2001–2002.

MCCARDLE ET AL.: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES 3

However, based on educational background and certification,
three-quarters of all districts report a deficit in the number
of teachers qualified to serve these students. Those teachers
working with the students were more likely to have training
specific to special education than to LEP intervention. Over-
all, 60 percent of the teachers whose primary responsibility
was special education and who worked with at least three
LEP students had received a median of only 3 hours of train-
ing specific to LEP education, compared to a median of 40
hours of training in special education for such teachers. It is
thus reasonable to assume that these teachers would be more
likely to fail to recognize language differences and to assume
children struggling in school would benefit from special ed-
ucational services; this could lead to overreferral of students
for special education in those schools.

While there are few data on changes over time in the num-
ber of ELLs with disabilities, there are some data to suggest
that there has been an increase. In 2002 the National Research
Council (Donovan & Cross, 2002) reported that from 1987 to
2001, the proportion of students with disabilities for whom
English was not the primary language spoken in the home
had risen from 3.3 percent to 14.2 percent; concrete data on
the identification, services received, and progress of the stu-
dents were sparse, and many of these increases were consis-
tent with the increases in the proportion of Hispanic students
in general in public education (U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
2002). However, the National Longitudinal Transition Study
2 (NLTS-2) (Wagner, Cameto, & Newman, 2003) reported
changes in the racial/ethnic backgrounds and language-use
demographics among students with disabilities, which par-
allel the data in the NRC report. There was a four-fold in-
crease in the proportion of youth who did not use primarily
English at home—a greater increase than seen in the gen-
eral population during that reporting period 1987–2001. The
proportion increased from 3 percent of youth with disabili-
ties who did not use primarily English at home in 1987 to
14 percent in 2001. It is interesting to note that this reflects
only Spanish speakers; children who speak primarily other
languages are underrepresented in NLTS and NLTS-2 be-
cause those implementing the study could not interview in
all languages.

While states annually report data on minority students with
disabilities to the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S.
Department of Education, given that the methods of identifi-
cation and referral criteria vary from state to state and even
in some cases between districts within states, there is reason
to question the quality, consistency, and therefore the use-
fulness of the data obtained in establishing more accurate
prevalence estimates. There are many reasons for the paucity
of specific and useful information regarding this particular
group of students, including the difficulty in disentangling
language learning from learning difficulties. What little data
we do have reveal an apparent paradox in the appropriate
identification of ELLs with LDs. Some ELLs with LDs are
assumed to have only language-learning difficulties while
other ELLs with learning difficulties due to language differ-
ences are assumed to have LDs. Thus, many ELLs may be
either over- or underidentified as having a LD that qualifies
for special education services under IDEA.

Because appropriate classification, identification, and
intervention methods have not yet been established for
ELL/LDs, there are problems both in identification and in
assessment/measurement of students in the U.S. educational
system whose native language is not English. Therefore, it
will be important for researchers examining these critical is-
sues to independently assess and categorize ELL students
in general and ELL special education students, rather than
relying on school-identified samples. Indeed, how to iden-
tify and assess the ELL/LD population is one of the fun-
damental research questions that must be answered in order
to know how to best serve them. Nevertheless, given that a
large proportion of these students are enrolled in a very small
number of districts, research on the identification and clas-
sification of learning difficulties in these students is highly
feasible.

TOWARD A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR ELL/LD

While little is known about the identification and treatment of
learning disabilities in ELLs, there is a substantial knowledge
base about the identification, assessment, and intervention
of learning disabilities in native English-speaking students.
Therefore, it is important to explore how we can build upon
this knowledge to inform future work with ELL students. We
must consider what methodologies can be used to determine
the best ways of distinguishing between learning disabilities
and language differences that appear as these students are
learning English. Researchers must delineate the critical steps
needed to accomplish these goals.

The goal of the symposium that took place in October
2003 was to bring together researchers, practitioners, policy
makers, and university educators to consider the current state
of knowledge about the identification, classification, and in-
tervention for learning disabilities in ELLs. This group was
brought together to discuss the gaps in current knowledge
and to provide information to inform a national agenda for
both research and practice in this important area.

This special issue of LDR&P is based on the presenta-
tions, interactions of the participants, and discussions at that
symposium. This introduction provides a brief summary of
the available federal data on the number of ELLs and ELLs
with LDs identified by the school systems in the United States
and the services they receive. The next four articles focus on
approaches to research. The article by Wagner, Francis and
Morris addresses the importance of classification research to
identifying learning disabilities, developing a definition of
learning disability, building on research methods and find-
ings that have addressed these issues in monolingual pop-
ulations, and discussing the added complexities that must
be taken into account in such research aimed at ELLs. The
second article, by Demmert, addresses cultural issues that
must be considered in research and assessment. The third
and fourth articles address neuroimaging: Pugh, Sandak,
Frost, Moore, and Mencl discuss functional magnetic res-
onance imaging (fMRI) and its use in imaging the brains of
successful and dyslexic readers, while Simos, Billingsley-
Marshall, Sarkari, Pataraia, and Papanicolaou discuss use of
magnetoencephalography (MEG) in imaging the brains of

4 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

bilingual individuals. Together these articles explain the two
prominent neuroimaging techniques used to document the
brain–behavior link in reading and reading disabilities, with
attention to how they are being applied and might be ap-
plied in the future to studies of language and learning in ELL
individuals.

The articles on approaches to research are followed by
four articles on research implications from current work. The
first, by Lipka, Siegel, and Vukovic, presents information on
bilingual reading research in Canada and other nations; de-
spite differences between U.S. bilinguals and their educa-
tional situations and opportunities, there are also similari-
ties, and much can be learned from these studies. The article
by August, Carlo, Dressler, and Snow and that by Vaughn,
Mathes, Linan-Thompson, and Francis address studies being
conducted at present in the United States. These articles are
meant to illustrate the types of studies that are needed to help
us understand the differences in the process of learning to
read for native English speakers and ELLs and to examine
the efficacy of interventions to improve the reading and lan-
guage knowledge of ELLs at risk for LD. Finally, the article
by McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, and Leos, the three federal
representatives who organized and coordinated the October
2003 symposium, presents the research agenda that was de-
veloped through the symposium and through responses to
the symposium summary. The research needs are essentially
those that were developed in the symposium and from in-
put obtained at the Office of English Language Acquisition
Summit in December 2003, at a special session held for this
purpose.

Given the great need for research in this area, it is impor-
tant that teachers, education administrators, and researchers
be open to working with each other as they seek methods
to more accurately distinguish those students whose learning
difficulties stem from language needs and those who truly re-
quire special education services in addition to language ser-
vices. They must collaborate on the development and testing
of effective whole-class, as well as small-group, instructional
approaches and interventions for both groups of students.
Building bridges between the research and education prac-
tice communities is crucial to more accurate identification
of and provision of language intervention and special educa-
tion services to U.S. students whose native language is not
English. Such collaborations are also crucial to the develop-
ment of better, more effective teaching methods, more effec-
tive special education interventions, and more fruitful teacher
training and professional development programs, which will
equip teachers to better identify, teach, and treat our English
language learning students, both with and without special
education needs.

NOTES

1. Co-sponsors for the October 2003 symposium in-
cluded NICHD, OELA, OSERS, and (alphabetically)
American Federation of Teachers, American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association, Council for Excep-
tional Children, International Dyslexia Association, In-

ternational Reading Association, National Center for
Learning Disabilities, National Education Association,
and the National Institute for Literacy.

2. “Language minority” is a term used to describe those
who are native speakers of a language other than the
native language of the majority population, in the U.S.,
English. For purposes of this article, the term is in the
U.S. essentially equivalent to the term “English lan-
guage learner.”

3. The term “limited English proficient” is used where
that is the language specified in laws and regulations
cited; otherwise the term “English language learner” is
used.

REFERENCES

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in
special and gifted education. National Research Council; Commit-
tee on Minority Representation in Special Education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press. Available at http://www.ed.gov/about/
reports/annual/osep/2002/index.html.

IDEA. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997). 20 U.S.C.
Chapter 33, as last amended by The Individuals with Disabilities Edu-
cation Act Amendments of 1997 P.L. 105-17 (June 4, 1997). Available
at http://www.edlaw.net/service/ideacont.html.

P.L. 107-110, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, is accessible
at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/resabout/nclb/2 legislation.html. TITLE
III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Im-
migrant Students. (For the HTML version, visit the U.S Depart-
ment of Education http:/www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.
html).

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2004a). Annual Estimates of the Pop-
ulation by Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the
United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003. Retrieved on Septem-
ber 7, 2004 from http:/www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-
EST2003/NC-EST2003-03 .

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2004b). Language use and English speak-
ing ability: 2000. Retrieved on March 16, 2004 from http:/www.
census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29 .

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-
tics. (2004). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The
Nation’s Report Card, Reading 2003 Major Results. Retrieved on
September 7, 2004 from http:/nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
results2003/.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2003). OCR Elemen-
tary and Secondary School Survey. Retrieved on March 25, 2004 from
http:/205.207.175.84/ocr2000r/.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Reha-
bilitative Services. (2002). Annual Report to Congress on the Im-
plementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
various years, and unpublished tabulations. (Table was prepared
April 2002.) Retrieved on September 14 2004 from http:/nces.ed.
gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt055.asp.

Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (2003). Youth with disabilities: A
changing population. A report of findings from the National Longitudi-
nal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Zehler, A. M., & Fleischman, H. L. (2003). The Descriptive Study of Ser-
vices to LEP Students and LEP Students with Disabilities. Office of En-
glish Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement for LEP Students. Arlington, VA: Development Asso-
ciates, Inc.

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G.,
Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services
to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Volume I: Research
report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Education, OELA. Arlington,
VA: Development Associatesc, Inc.

MCCARDLE ET AL.: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS: IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES 5

About the Authors

Peggy McCardle is Associate Chief, Child Development and Behavior Branch, Center for Research for Mothers and Children,
at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). She also serves as Director of the branch’s research
program in Language, Bilingual, and Biliteracy Development and Disorders, which includes three interagency-funded research
networks: the Biliteracy Research Network; the Adult Literacy Research Network; and the new Adolescent Literacy Research
Network. She also serves as liaison to the National Reading Panel, is on the steering committee of the National Literacy Panel
for Language Minority Children and Youth, and leads or serves on various interagency working groups.

Joan Mele-McCarthy is a senior policy advisor to the Assistant Secretary in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS) at the U.S. Department of Education. Her work in OSERS includes policy and special projects involving
children who have disabilities and the professionals who serve them. She works closely with the Assistant Secretary in matters
concerning the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

Laurie E. Cutting is in the Department of Developmental Cognitive Neurology at the Kennedy Krieger Institute and is an
assistant professor of Neurology and Education at the Johns Hopkins University. She is also a research affiliate at Haskins
Laboratories. Her research interests are focused on brain-behavior relationships in the areas of reading and reading disabilities,
as well as ADHD and Neurofibromatosis Type 1.

Kathleen Leos is the Associate Deputy Under Secretary and Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Department of Education, No
Child Left Behind-Title III, Office of English Language Acquisition. In this capacity, Ms. Leos oversees Title III regulation and
policy development, interpretation and codification, technical training and dissemination to the states, DC and Puerto Rico of
the NCLB legislation for all English Language Learner students in U.S. public, private, and charter schools.

Timothy D’Emilio is an education research analyst at the U.S. Department of Education. He is the Program Officer for the
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA), and was
the Contract Officer’s Representative on the “Descriptive Study of Services to Limited English-Proficient (LEP) Students and
LEP Students with Disabilities,” cited in this article.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50–57
Copyright C© 2005, The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

The Critical Role of Vocabulary Development for English Language Learners

Diane August
Center for Applied Linguistics

Maria Carlo
University of Miami

Cheryl Dressler and Catherine Snow
Harvard University

English language learners (ELLs) who experience slow vocabulary development are less able to
comprehend text at grade level than their English-only peers. Such students are likely to perform
poorly on assessments in these areas and are at risk of being diagnosed as learning disabled. In
this article, we review the research on methods to develop the vocabulary knowledge of ELLs
and present lessons learned from the research concerning effective instructional practices for
ELLs. The review suggests that several strategies are especially valuable for ELLs, including
taking advantage of students’ first language if the language shares cognates with English;
ensuring that ELLs know the meaning of basic words, and providing sufficient review and
reinforcement. Finally, we discuss challenges in designing effective vocabulary instruction for
ELLs. Important issues are determining which words to teach, taking into account the large
deficits in second-language vocabulary of ELLs, and working with the limited time that is
typically available for direct instruction in vocabulary.

This article highlights the need for sustained attention to
the vocabulary development of English language learners
(ELLs), reviews the research on means to develop the vocab-
ulary knowledge of ELLs, presents lessons learned from the
research, and describes several important issues that should
be considered in the development of practices to build vo-
cabulary knowledge in this group of students.

Past models of reading considered vocabulary knowledge
an important source of variation in reading comprehension,
particularly as it affects higher-level language processes such
as grammatical processing, construction of schemata, and
text models (Adams & Collins, 1977; Chall, 1987). Skilled
readers can tolerate a small proportion of unknown words in a
text without disruption of comprehension and can even infer
the meanings of those words from sufficiently rich contexts.
However, if the proportion of unknown words is too high,
comprehension is disrupted (Carver, 1994). More recently,
vocabulary has taken a more central role in models of read-
ing as research uncovers its influence on earlier reading and
reading-related skills including phonological, orthographic,
and morphosyntactic processes (Anglin, 1993; Carlisle &
Nomanbhoy, 1993; Muter & Diethelm, 2001; Verhallen &
Schoonen, 1993; Wang & Geva, 2003).

National data confirm that there are large and persistent
gaps between the reading performance of language-minority
and English-only (EO) children. Fourth-grade performance
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Requests for reprints should be sent to Diane August, Center for Applied
Linguistics 4646 40th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016-1859. Electronic
inquiries may be sent to daugust@msn.com.

reading test shows a 22–29 point scale score advantage
for children living in homes where a language other than
English was never used compared with children who lived in
homes where a language other than English was always used
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

ELLs who experience slow vocabulary development are
less able to comprehend text at grade level than their EO
peers, and they may be at risk of being diagnosed as learn-
ing disabled, when in fact their limitation is due to limited
English vocabulary and poor comprehension that results in
part from this limitation. A recent report funded by the U.S.
Department of Education underscores this possibility (Devel-
opment Associates, 2003). The report refers to a large city
school district where:

the key issues faced in identification of Special Educa-
tion LEP students is the shortage of credentialed person-
nel. In particular, there is a shortage of bilingual special
educators and bilingual school psychologists who can par-
ticipate in the assessment process. Early identification of
students is especially problematic in the district since teach-
ers often do not have the expertise to distinguish a learning
problem from a delay in acquiring English language skills
(p. 32).

The report also indicates that in most school dis-
tricts, achievement and content area tests (83.8 percent of
school districts sampled) or oral proficiency tests in English
(73 percent of districts) were used as one source of informa-
tion for assigning services to special education LEP students.
Of the 11 sources of information used to make decisions about
instructional services, six sources directly assessed English

AUGUST ET AL.: VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT FOR ELLs 51

literacy or English oral language proficiency skills (achieve-
ment/content tests in English, oral proficiency tests in En-
glish, writing samples in English, teacher ratings of English
proficiency, and literacy tests in English) and one indirectly
assessed English literacy (aptitude tests in English) (p. 32).

LIMITED VOCABULARY OF ELLs

There have been dramatic increases in the number of ELLs
in U.S. schools. Since the 1990–1991 school year, the ELL
population has grown approximately 105 percent, while the
general school population has grown by only 12 percent. In
2000–2001, an estimated 4,584,946 ELLs were enrolled in
public schools, representing approximately 9.6 percent of the
total school enrollment in pre-kindergarten through grade 12
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).

Students reading in their first language have already
learned on the order of 5,000–7,000 words before they begin
formal reading instruction in schools (Biemiller & Slonim,
2001). However, this is not typically the case for second-
language learners when assessed in their second language.
For example, Umbel, Pearson, Fernandez, and Oller (1992)
tested the receptive vocabulary of Hispanic children in Miami
in both English and Spanish. The 105 bilingual first-graders,
of middle to high socioeconomic status relative to national
norms, were divided according to the language spoken in their
homes (English and Spanish or Spanish only). Both groups
performed near the mean of 100 in Spanish. Even though
the group from bilingual homes scored more than one stan-
dard deviation higher in English than the Spanish only group,
both groups were significantly below the mean of the norm-
ing sample in English, even when the socioeconomic status
of the English learners was higher than that of the norming
sample.

Knowing a word implies knowing many things about the
word—its literal meaning, its various connotations, the sorts
of syntactic constructions into which it enters, the morpho-
logical options it offers and a rich array of semantic asso-
ciates such as synonyms and antonyms (see Nagy & Scott,
2000 for a review). These various aspects are related to the
depth of word knowledge, which is as important as learning
many words (breadth of word knowledge). Second-language
learners have been shown to be impaired in depth of word
knowledge, even for frequently occurring words (Verhallen
& Schoonen, 1993).

Cross-sectional data collected on fourth-grade Spanish-
speaking and EO students in four schools in Virginia,
Massachusetts, and California corroborate that ELLs have
limited breadth of vocabulary, and also indicate they lack
depth of vocabulary knowledge as well (August et al., 1999).
To assess breadth of vocabulary, students were tested indi-
vidually on the L form (pretest) and M form (posttest) of
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R). The
results confirmed data reported by Umbel et al. (1992): that
there is a large gap in the breadth of vocabulary between
ELLs and EO speakers and that the gap does not diminish
over the course of the year (Table 1).

TABLE 1
Means for ELLs and Native Speakers in Breadth of Vocabulary as

Measured by the Peabody Test (Receptive Vocabulary) English
Version, Standard Scores

Fall Spring

Group Mean N Mean N

English language learners 76.16 106 75.03 63
English only 110.41 205 115.45 84

This study also examined how depth of ELL vocabu-
lary knowledge compares to that of native English speak-
ers. Two tasks examined the child’s understandings of the
multiple meanings of words, one indication of depth of word
knowledge. The first of these was a polysemy comprehension
task. A sentence judgment task was used, in which students
were to decide whether sentences such as the following made
sense:

“We were growing sheep last year”
“Their love for each other grew”
“The boy grew two inches”
“My teacher wants the homework to grow?”

These sentences contained a number of polysemous words
(i.e., those with multiple meanings such as “grow”) and the
student’s task was to say whether the usage made sense in
English. The data once again indicated a gap in the scores
of EOs and ELLs (Table 2). The gap might in fact be larger
because the EO children were close to ceiling (16) in the
spring.

The second task was a production task in which students
were asked to write as many meanings as they could think
of for the words, “bug,” “ring,” “light,” and “hand.” Their
responses were coded with more weight given to meanings
that were more removed from the core meaning. For example,
“a bug in a computer program” is a relatively remote use of
the word “bug,” whereas “an insect” is the core meaning.
Unfortunately, this test was not administered in the spring.
In the fall, ELLs scored approximately half as well as their
EO peers (M = 5.04 for 49 ELLs; M = 10.03 for 132 EO
students.).

In summary, previous research indicates that ELLs know
fewer English vocabulary words than monolingual English
speakers, but in addition, know less about the meaning of
these words.

TABLE 2
Means Correct for ELLs and Native Speakers in Depth of

Vocabulary as Measured by the Polysemy Comprehension Task

Fall Spring
Group Mean N Mean N

English language learners 13.10 109 12.94 32
English only 14.69 203 15.05 43

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234833425_Vocabulary_Knowledge_and_Reading_Comprehension_in_English_Language_Learners_Final_Performance_Report?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249237203_Lexical_Knowledge_of_Monolingual_and_Bilingual_Children?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21650959_Measuring_bilingual_children’s_receptive_vocabularis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232518465_Estimating_root_word_vocabulary_growth_in_normative_and_advantaged_populations_Evidence_for_a_common_sequence_of_vocabulary_acquisition?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

52 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

RESEARCH BASE FOR DEVELOPING
METHODS TO BUILD VOCABULARY IN ELLs

Transfer of Cognate Knowledge

Second-language acquisition research has identified transfer
as an important process involved in the acquisition of a sec-
ond language. Transfer is defined as “the influence resulting
from similarities and differences between the target language
and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps
imperfectly) acquired” (Odlin, 1989, p. 27). One striking sim-
ilarity between Spanish and English is the large number of
cognate pairs the two languages share. These offer the possi-
bility for transfer to occur for a meaningful number of words.
Holmes and Guerra Ramos (1995) characterize cognates as
vocabulary items in two different languages that are similar
both orthographically and semantically. They consider the
existence of cognate vocabulary to be crucially important,
stating that cognates account for from a third to as much as
half of the active vocabulary of an average educated person.
Nash (1997) estimates this active vocabulary to range from
10,000 to 15,000 words.

There have been several investigations of cognate transfer
in English reading comprehension and vocabulary inferenc-
ing skills. Most recently, Dressler (2000) investigated cognate
awareness in a sample of fifth-grade Spanish-speaking ELLs
who had been taught to search for cognate relationships as a
strategy in reading English text. The students who had been
taught the strategy were more successful in inferring meaning
for (untaught) cognates than a control group, but there was
variability in the application of this knowledge source among
cognates, with the degree of phonological transparency be-
tween cognates playing an important role in fifth-grade ELLs’
ability to detect a cognate relationship. Connections between
pairs that are more phonologically transparent (amorous–
amoroso) were more easily perceived than the connections
between pairs that are opaque (obscure–oscuro) on the basis
of sound. In addition, since upper-grade ELLs vary widely
in their ability to read in Spanish, it seems important to con-
sider linguistic information all Spanish speakers, regardless
of their level of native- or home-language literacy, may ac-
cess in identifying cognate pairs, that is, the spoken forms of
the words in question.

In another study involving elementary grade students,
Garcı́a (1991) found that fifth- and sixth-grade Spanish-
speaking ELLs did not understand the meanings of English
words that were cognates to familiar Spanish words, and
failed to recognize relationships between cognate pairs that
shared a high degree of orthographic and semantic overlap.
Jimenez, Garcı́a, and Pearson (1996), on the other hand, found
that sixth- and seventh-grade Latino bilingual students who
were proficient in reading English frequently and successfully
used their knowledge of Spanish in inferring meaning for
English cognates. Durgunoglu, Nagy, and Hancin-Bhatt
(1993) also investigated cognate awareness in ELLs’
English reading comprehension. They found that while stu-
dents’ awareness of cognate relationships was varied and lim-
ited, the transfer role of that limited awareness was important
to second-language reading. Finally, Hancin-Bhatt and Nagy
(1994) sought to determine whether or not cognate recog-

nition abilities followed a developmental trend. They found
that, from grade 4 to grade 8, students’ recognition of cog-
nates increased quite rapidly.

A second, indirect type of information that potentially fa-
cilitates transfer results from the systematic relationships be-
tween Spanish and English suffixes, as in the regular cor-
respondences between the English {ity}, {ing}, and {ly}
and Spanish {idad}, {a/endo}, and {mente}, respectively.
Hancin-Bhatt and Nagy (1994) investigated Spanish–English
bilinguals’ use of morphological knowledge in native- and
second-language cognate recognition. Specifically, they stud-
ied the extent to which students in grades 4–8 recognized sys-
tematic relationships between suffixes in English and Span-
ish. The authors found that students more easily recognized
cognate stems in suffixed words (e.g., amicably) than noncog-
nate stems in suffixed words (e.g., shortly), suggesting that
cross-language transfer may play a role in the learning of
English derivational morphology rules.

In sum, review of the literature suggests that (1) knowledge
of the cognate relationships that exist between Spanish and
English is a powerful example of positive transfer in that this
knowledge has been shown to facilitate English reading com-
prehension; (2) the extent to which cognate relationships are
perceived is related to the degree of semantic, orthographic,
and phonological overlap they share; (3) English morpholog-
ical analysis is initially learned through cognates; and (4) the
ability to recognize cognates develops with age.

Effective Vocabulary Instruction

Given the importance of vocabulary to oral and written lan-
guage comprehension (NICHD, 2000), it is astounding that
in the past 25 years there have been very few quasiexper-
imental or experimental studies focused on English vocab-
ulary teaching among elementary-school language-minority
children. This is in contrast to a wealth of research on vocab-
ulary learning among monolingual English speakers, enough
to justify the inclusion of vocabulary as a key component of
reading instruction in the report of the National Reading Panel
(NICHD, 2000). The National Reading Panel found over 45
experimental intervention studies focused on vocabulary.

Perez (1981) reported a study of the vocabulary learning
of 75 language-minority Mexican American third-graders.
The children received 20-minute daily oral instruction in
word meanings, focusing on compound words, synonyms,
antonyms, and multiple meanings for about 3 months. One
group received instruction in pronunciation of the words and
memorization of definitions. A second group used the same
list of words and focused on making semantic maps with
the words, and making predictions of word meanings. A
third group developed a matrix showing the relationships
among the words and predicted word meanings. A fourth
group completed the same chart as the third group, as well
as completing cloze sentences. The children in all groups
were asked to complete written recalls about the social stud-
ies chapter on the second and third days of the lessons and
again 4 weeks later. They also completed multiple-choice vo-
cabulary tests. The group that constructed relationship maps
and completed cloze sentences outperformed the group that
worked on pronunciation and memorization of definitions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250055159_The_Reading_Strategies_of_Bilingual_Latinao_Students_Who_Are_Successful_English_Readers_Opportunities_and_Obstacles?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

AUGUST ET AL.: VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT FOR ELLs 53

The former group also outperformed the pronunciation and
memorization group on text recall. This study shows that ac-
tive processing of word meanings leads to greater recall and
understanding of word meanings, but it was only a brief learn-
ing trial using one list of words, so its long-term implications
cannot be assessed.

Another vocabulary study with ELLs examined the ef-
fectiveness of procedures for presenting words to first-grade
Spanish dominant students (Vaughn-Shavuo, 1990). In this
doctoral dissertation, children were randomly assigned to two
groups. Both groups received vocabulary instruction during a
30-minute daily English as a Second Language (ESL) class.
One group worked on learning words that were presented
in individual sentence contexts. The other group worked on
words presented in meaningful narratives, dictated their own
sentences using the target words, and examined picture cards
that illustrated the word meanings. During 3 weeks of in-
struction, 31 words were presented to each group. By the end
of the training, the latter group, whose instruction was more
elaborated than the first group, showed better ability to use
the English vocabulary than did the control group (21 words
learned vs. 9).

Carlo et al. (2004) developed, implemented, and evalu-
ated an intervention designed to build breadth and depth of
word knowledge and reading comprehension in 254 bilingual
and monolingual children from nine fifth-grade classrooms
in four schools in California, Virginia, and Massachusetts.
The intervention, which consisted of 15 weeks of instruction,
was organized around the topic of immigration; the curricu-
lum relied on a variety of text genres including newspaper
articles, diaries, firsthand documentation of the immigrant
experience, historical accounts, and fiction. Instruction was
delivered for 30–45 minutes 4 days a week. Every fifth week
was devoted to review of the previous 4 weeks’ target words.
Students’ classroom teachers were trained by the researchers
to deliver the instruction. In accordance with research indicat-
ing words are best learned from rich semantic contexts, target
vocabulary words were selected from brief, engaging reading
passages. A relatively small number of vocabulary items were
introduced each week (12); the words were those that stu-
dents at this level were likely to encounter repeatedly across
texts in different domains. Although there were relatively few
words introduced each week, activities helped children make
semantic links to other words and concepts and thus attain
a deeper and richer understanding of a word’s meaning as
well as learn other words and concepts related to the target
word. In keeping with research-based best practice previously
cited, the lessons also taught students to infer meanings from
context and to use roots, affixes, cognates, morphological re-
lationships, and comprehension monitoring.

Although there were no treatment gains on the PPVT, the
ELLs improved on several measures of vocabulary and com-
prehension. Students did better in generating sentences that
conveyed different meanings of multimeaning words, in com-
pleting cloze passages, in tests of knowledge of word mean-
ings, and on measures of word association and morphological
knowledge. On a cloze test, used to evaluate comprehension,
students showed significant improvement, but the impact on
comprehension was much lower than on word learning. It is
clear from these results that this multifaceted training led to
improved knowledge of the words studied.

A recent study to develop breadth and depth of vo-
cabulary in ELLs involved 293 Spanish-dominant limited
English proficient third-grade students enrolled in eight el-
ementary schools in two school districts in El Paso, Texas
(Calderón et al., in press). Both the experimental and control
students had been instructed in Spanish for reading, language
arts, and content areas since kindergarten. The students had
been identified by their schools as “ready to begin their tran-
sition into English.” Over the course of approximately 23
weeks, vocabulary was taught as one component of a 90-
minute reading block. It was taught in two contexts—through
decodable books and through children’s literature. To build
word knowledge through decodable texts, DVDs were used to
preview the vocabulary. The DVDs contained skits that illus-
trated key vocabulary that appeared in the decodable books.
In addition, 30 minutes per day of oral language activities
revolved around grade-level children’s literature.

This second venue provided the primary method for build-
ing children’s vocabulary knowledge. Teachers pretaught vo-
cabulary, developed vocabulary through reading and dis-
cussing each book, and reinforced vocabulary through oral
language activities that occurred after the story had been
read. Children in the control group participated in Reader’s
and Writer’s Workshops. The Reader’s Workshop was a daily
forum for focused attention to reading. In guided reading,
shared reading, and independent reading, students worked
with their teacher and with other students to hone their de-
coding skills, increase their fluency, and monitor their com-
prehension. In book discussion and activities to build vo-
cabulary and enrich their comprehension, students improved
their understanding of texts, learned to make inferences and
connections about texts, and became more competent and
confident readers. The Writer’s Workshop set the stage for
teaching and learning about writing. The workshop format
established a daily time block focused on writing. The em-
phasis was on the writing process, which mimicked the stages
of writing that expert writers use: from generating ideas to
getting thoughts down on paper or on the computer, from
drafting to soliciting and incorporating comments, and from
revising to polishing for clarity and correctness. The writing
process culminated when students published and presented
finished pieces to their classmates.

Children in both conditions were pretested in the fall
and posttested in the spring using four subtests of the
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised (WLPBR;
Woodcock, 1991) in both Spanish and English: picture vo-
cabulary, letter-word identification, word attack, and passage
comprehension. After adjusting for the initial pretest dif-
ference, the experimental group outperformed the control
group on three of the four measures: word attack with an
effect size of +0.21, passage comprehension with an effect
size of +0.16, and picture vocabulary with an effect size
of +0.11.1

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE RESEARCH

This section describes lessons learned from the research that
might be useful in developing future interventions to build
the vocabulary of ELLs. It is important to keep in mind that
each intervention discussed in the previous section consisted

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250055375_Closing_the_Gap_Addressing_the_Vocabulary_Needs_of_English-Language_Learners_in_Bilingual_and_Mainstream_Classrooms?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

54 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

of a variety of strategies. Thus, it is difficult to know whether
certain strategies in an intervention were more effective than
others. Nonetheless, it is possible to formulate some con-
clusions based on this body of research. First, it is appar-
ent that the instructional practices used in the cited studies
build on a number of vocabulary instructional practices that
have been effective with EO learners (Beck & McKewon,
2001; Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Beck, McKeown,
& Omanson, 1987; Beck, Perfetti, McKeown, 1982; Craik
& Tulving, 1975; Stahl, 1999; Stahl & Clark, 1987; Stahl &
Fairbanks, 1986). These strategies include providing defini-
tional and contextual information about each word’s meaning;
actively involving students in word learning through talking
about, comparing, analyzing, and using the target words; pro-
viding multiple exposures to meaningful information about
each word; as well as teaching word analysis. Second, there
appear to be several strategies that may be especially impor-
tant for ELLs. They are addressed in the following section.

Take Advantage of Students’ First Language

One method of building vocabulary is to capitalize on stu-
dents’ first language knowledge if this language shares cog-
nates with English. For example, the Vocabulary Improve-
ment Project (VIP) (Carlo et al., 2004) taught students to
draw on their cognate knowledge as a means of figuring out
the meaning of new words in English. In a study designed
to assess the extent to which students in the VIP used their
knowledge of cognates in inferring word meaning, Dressler
(2000) found that cognate performance depended to some ex-
tent on the characteristics of cognate pairs. These characteris-
tics included (1) the degree of phonological transparency be-
tween the cognates, and (2) the degree of orthographic overlap
shared by the cognate pair. The findings of this study suggest
that while literacy in Spanish would provide students with
access both to orthographic as well as phonological sources
of information about cognate relationships, it is possible for
students to draw connections between cognate pairs on the
basis of sound alone, so that students who are not literate,
but are orally proficient in Spanish are likely to benefit from
instruction in cognate awareness as well as those who are
literate in Spanish.

Teaching Spanish-literate children to take advantage of
their cognate knowledge is a powerful tool because many
English words that are cognates with Spanish are high-
frequency Spanish words, but low-frequency English words.
Thus students are likely to know the words in Spanish (con-
cept and label) but lack the English label. Moreover, many
of these words are what Beck, McKewon, and Kucan (2002)
label Tier 2 words. Tier 2 words include words that have
importance and utility; they are characteristic of mature lan-
guage users and appear frequently across a variety of do-
mains. They have instructional potential (words that can be
worked with in a variety of ways so that students can build
rich representations of them and their connections to other
words and concepts, and words for which students already
have conceptual understanding). These are words for which
students understand the general concept but provide precision
and specificity in describing the concept (examples include

coincidence/coincidencia, industrious/industrioso, and fortu-
nate/afortunado).

August, Carlo, and Calderon are presently conducting a
study to determine whether students have to be at a certain
developmental level to take advantage of cognate knowledge
in their first language. The experimental study builds on our
knowledge of transfer as well as on effective vocabulary in-
struction. A total of 160 ELLs in the third grade have been
recruited from two schools in the Miami-Dade County Pub-
lic School District. They are not new arrivals to the United
States but are still supported by the district with English lan-
guage development classes. In addition, the students are liter-
ate in Spanish; they receive sustained and systematic Spanish
language arts instruction for approximately 3 hours a week
throughout their elementary school years. Next year, the same
number of fifth-grade students from the same schools will be
recruited.

Each year, 16 teachers, eight at each school, participate
in the study; half are assigned to the treatment condition and
half are assigned to the control. Each of the conditions (third
and fifth grade) involves 6 weeks of instruction, delivered
four times per week for 1 hour after school. Students in the
treatment condition are presented with instruction that devel-
ops cognate recognition strategies and morphological anal-
ysis strategies. This instruction is presented via three the-
matic units (nine lessons per unit) focused on exploration
of Antarctica, exploration of outer space, and exploration of
coral reefs. Students in the control condition are presented
with an adaptation of a commercially available program; it
includes five thematically organized units meant to develop
comprehension strategies and vocabulary.

The effect of the interventions will be measured with re-
spect to curriculum-specific vocabulary outcomes (English
vocabulary mastery test, a Spanish assessment of deriva-
tional morphology, and an English assessment of derivational
morphology), general vocabulary outcomes (English and
Spanish WLPB Picture-Word and Listening Comprehen-
sion), and reading outcomes (Spanish and English WLPB
Letter-word and Passage subtests, and a Sentence Verifica-
tion Technique measured at the end of third and fifth grade).
The main analyses will focus on evaluating differences in per-
formance on each of the outcomes as a function of condition
and controlling for individual differences prior to instruction.

Ensure ELLs Know the Meaning of Basic Words

A second instructional practice that is important for ELLs is
learning the labels for many words that EO students already
know. Many of these words are what Beck and colleagues
(2002) label Tier 1 words. They define Tier 1 as “mostly ba-
sic words—clock, baby, happy—rarely requiring instruction
in school” (p. 16). However, for ELLs, these words do re-
quire instruction; moreover, it is not so straightforward to
teach these words. A conceptual framework developed to
guide instruction of these words (Calderon et al., in press)
was predicated on four dimensions: concreteness (ability to
be shown or demonstrated), cognate status, depth of word
meaning, and utility. As is apparent from the examples that
follow, Tier 1 words, or basic words, are not unidimensional.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232540440_The_Effects_of_Long-Term_Vocabulary_Instruction_on_Lexical_Access_and_Reading_Comprehension?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232487566_Depth_of_Processing_and_the_Retention_of_Words_in_Episodic_Memory?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250184513_The_Effects_of_Participatory_Expectations_in_Classroom_Discussion_on_the_Learning_of_Science_Vocabulary?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242718780_Text_Talk_Capturing_the_Benefits_of_Read-Aloud_Experiences_for_Young_Children?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249797772_The_Effects_of_Vocabulary_Instruction_A_Model-Based_Meta-Analysis?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

AUGUST ET AL.: VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT FOR ELLs 55

For example, a Tier 1 word might be butterfly. This is a word
that ELLs may not know, but it can be easily taught by point-
ing to a picture of a butterfly during text discussion. Another
Tier 1 word might be bug. Words like bug (insect) or march
(move like a soldier) may be easily instructed during text dis-
cussion by pointing to a picture of a bug or marching in place,
but because the words are polysemous, they merit further in-
struction to build students’ knowledge of multiple meanings.
There are some Tier 1 words that cannot be demonstrated
and are not polysemous but students will need to know them
also (e.g., uncle). A simple explanation of the word’s mean-
ing during the story reading will suffice or if the teacher and
students are bilingual, a translation is sufficient. Idioms and
everyday expressions (e.g., “make up your mind”; “let’s hit
the books”; “once upon a time”) are also Tier 1 words and
teachers will need to explain the word meaning to students.
Some Tier 1 words are cognates (family/familia; preparation/
preparación); the cognates in this category consist of words
that are high-frequency words in Spanish and English; they
do not require substantial instruction because students know
the word meanings in Spanish. (The teacher merely states the
English cognate and students provide the Spanish cognate or
the teacher provides the English cognate and students said
both the English word and Spanish cognate.) False cognates
also need to be pointed out by the teacher and the correct
translation given (examples of words that are false cognates
are: rope/ropa; embarrased/embarazada). Finally, words that
appear often in text across content areas or are key to un-
derstanding a passage can be considered high utility words.
Teachers should ensure students know these words; if they
do not, comprehension of the text is disrupted.

Review and Reinforcement

A third instructional practice that ELLs particularly benefit
from is review and practice. One way to review and reinforce
vocabulary is through read-alouds. Read-alouds have been
shown to speed up lexical acquisition for younger second-
language learners acquiring Dutch as a second language
(Appel & Vermeer, 1998). This method has also proved
promising with language-minority students acquiring En-
glish in the United States (Calderon et al., in press). As with
teaching basic words, different methods are called for dur-
ing the read-aloud depending on the four dimensions of the
word described in the previous section: concreteness, cognate
status, depth of word meaning, and utility. During reading,
concrete words can be demonstrated; for cognates, teachers
can tell students the cognate in Spanish or ask students for
the cognate. Key words that have been pretaught can be re-
inforced through questions that require students to use and
understand the words. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002)
defined Tier 3 words as words students are unlikely to know,
but are also words that are not frequently used across a va-
riety of domains. For Tier 3 words, teachers can provide a
definition in Spanish if the word cannot be demonstrated or a
simple explanation given in English. Specialized Tier 3 words
(isotope, continent) may require preteaching to build concept
knowledge and then reinforcement through discussion during
text reading.

Teacher-directed language development activities that fol-
lowed the read-alouds were also used to build oral language
proficiency as well as to review and reinforce word mean-
ing for the words that were instructed through the read-aloud
(Calderon et al., in press; Carlo et al., 2004). The activities
were crafted to conform to the particular words the story
provided because different stories lent themselves to differ-
ent kinds of activities. For example, a story that used many
locative prepositions was used to teach them. Other activities
reviewed and reinforced words that had been taught through
the read-aloud; students were required to use the words in
story retells, story mapping, or dramatization. For older chil-
dren, literature logs helped reinforce word meaning.

Because of the large gap in vocabulary development be-
tween ELLs and EO students and the limited time available
for teacher-directed instruction, student-directed reinforce-
ment activities were an important part of the intervention
work (Calderon et al., in press; Carlo et al., 2004). Examples
included using tapes in Spanish to reinforce English word
and story meaning; providing activities to help students lis-
ten for and use words outside of the language arts class (e.g.,
in Word Wizard students listen for or look for the target words
instructed in class and bring examples into the classroom to
be shared), and involving parents in building word knowl-
edge (in the first language) through interview questions and
word lists that were sent home.

CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING EFFECTIVE
VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

A challenge encountered in designing vocabulary interven-
tions for ELLs concerns the selection of target words for
instruction. In the United States, there are no reliable es-
timates of the breadth of vocabulary of Spanish-speaking
ELLs upon school entry or of the magnitude of their vocabu-
lary growth over a school year. Results from current research
(Miccio, Tabors, Páez, Hammer, & Wagstaff, in press) sug-
gest that Spanish-speaking children attending Head Start and
kindergarten show about 2.6 points growth per year on the
Woodcock Picture Vocabulary Test—a growth rate well be-
low that needed to bring them to parity with EO classmates.
But these growth rates provide no information about the cat-
egories of words children are acquiring. For example, some
words such as concrete nouns may be relatively easy to ac-
quire, whereas less imageable words, words that represent
relationships, and verbs with complex argument structures
may be much more difficult to acquire. Research on English
monolinguals is the only knowledge source available for con-
jecturing which types of words the children are likely to know,
to need, and to be able to learn (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001).
However, for ELLs whose first language shares cognates with
English, some words that are difficult for EO students will not
be for literate ELLs; many high-frequency words in Spanish
are low-frequency words in English.

The selection of words for instruction is not a trivial mat-
ter. Given the multiple demands on instructional time, it is
imperative to focus on words children are unlikely to learn
on their own through exposure to English oral discourse; it
is also important to focus on words children will encounter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232853470_Speeding_up_Second_Language_Vocabulary_Acquisition_of_Minority_Children?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

56 SPECIAL SERIES: LEARNING DISABILITIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

frequently in text and oral language. A promising point of
departure for selecting words is found in inventories of vo-
cabulary knowledge of elementary aged monolingual English
speakers. Biemiller and Slonim (2001) have found evidence
for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition for EO stu-
dents. They studied root word vocabulary in two normative
samples—an English-speaking, wide socioeconomic range
sample, and an advantaged sample. They estimated that in
second grade, the mean normative vocabulary was 5,200 root
words, increasing to approximately 8,400 by fifth grade. Dur-
ing grades 3–5, the lowest quartile of students added about
three root words a day, whereas the highest quartile added
about 2.3 words a day. However, by fifth grade, children in
the lowest quartile had only reached average fourth grade
level because they has such a small vocabulary in second
grade.

A second challenge relates to the large deficits in second-
language vocabulary of ELLs and the limited time for di-
rect instruction. It is critical to develop creative methods to
expose ELLs to words in ways that develop and reinforce
word meaning throughout the school day as well as in out-
of-school settings. Examples of methods that expose chil-
dren to more words as well as reinforce the words children
have already learned include the use of technology, additional
scripted books purposefully crafted to reinforce word mean-
ings, games for student/student practice using picture cards
and games that provide incentives for students to listen for
new words or previously taught words outside of the vocab-
ulary lesson, and word walls to display the highly imageable
or most concrete words.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, although vocabulary is critically important to
comprehension and ELLs lag behind their English-speaking
peers in depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge, there
has been very little experimental research in the past 25 years
that investigates the development of vocabulary in language-
minority students acquiring English as a societal language.
There is a need for additional research to determine if there is
a set of words that should be taught to ELLs, how the list dif-
fers according to first-language backgrounds, and the order
in which words should be taught. Moreover, there is a need
to test the effectiveness of specific methods of vocabulary in-
struction with this population. We hope that this article will
help guide and stimulate additional research on vocabulary
development and other linguistically based interventions that
can facilitate the reading and educational process for ELL
students. Further, we hope that, with sound interventions to
develop vocabulary and comprehension in ELLs, fewer stu-
dents will be diagnosed as learning disabled, based on low
performance in these domains.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the support of the National
Institutes of Child Health and Development Grant #P01 HD-
39530 for support of our cognate work and the Institute for

Education Sciences Award # R306F60077-97 for the support
of our work on the VIP.

NOTE

1. The difference between the experimental and control
group was marginally significant on picture vocabulary
(F = 3.042, p = 0.08).

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1977). A schema-theoretical view of reading.
Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek & Newman.

Anglin, J. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10).

Appel, R., & Vermeer, A. (1998). Speeding up second language vocabulary
acquisition of minority children. Language and Education, 12, 159–
173.

August, D., Carlo, M., Lively, T., Lippman, D., McLaughlin, B., & Snow, C.
(1999). Enhancing vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension
in English language learners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Beck, I., & McKewon, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of
read-aloud experiences for young children. Reading Teacher, 55, 10–
20.

Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New
York: Guilford Press.

Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Omanson, R. (1987). The effects and use of di-
verse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 147–163). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, I., Perfetti, C., & McKeown, M. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabu-
lary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521.

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth
in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common se-
quence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(3), 498–520.

Calderon, M., August, D., Slavin, R., Duran, D., Madden, N., & Cheung, A.
(in press). Bringing words to life in classrooms with English language
learners. In E. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching & learning
vocabulary: Bringing words to life. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carlisle, J., & Nomanbhoy, D. (1993). Phonological and morphologi-
cal awareness in first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 177–
195.

Carlo, M., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C., Dressler, C., Lippman, D.,
Lively, T., & White, C. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocab-
ulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream
classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188–215.

Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a
function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 413–437.

Chall, J. (1987). Two vocabularies for reading: Recognition and meaning. In
M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Craik, F., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of
words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104,
268–294.

Development Associates. (2003). The descriptive study of services to
LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (OELA Re-
port EDOO-CO-0089). Retrieved July 16, 2004 from http://www.
devassoc1.com/reports.htm.

Dressler, C. (2000). The word-inferencing strategies of bilingual and mono-
lingual fifth graders: A case study approach. Unpublished qualifying
paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-
language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(3), 453–465.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231824535_Phonological_and_Morphological_Awareness_in_First_Graders?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280141411_Percentage_of_Unknown_Vocabulary_Words_in_Text_as_a_Function_of_the_Relative_Difficulty_of_the_Text_Implications_for_Instruction?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278927844_Cross-Language_Transfer_of_Phonological_Awareness?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291319717_Two_vocabularies_for_reading_Recognition_and_meaning?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

AUGUST ET AL.: VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT FOR ELLs 57

Garcı́a, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test perfor-
mance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 26(4), 371–392.

Hancin-Bhatt, B., & Nagy, W. E. (1994). Lexical transfer and second lan-
guage morphological development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15(3),
289–310.

Holmes, J., & Guerra Ramos, R. (1995). False friends and reckless guessers:
Observing cognate recognition strategies. In T. Huskin, M. Haunes, &
J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Jimenez, R. T., Garcı́a, G. E., & Pearson, D. P. (1996). The reading strate-
gies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers:
Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–
112.

Miccio, A., Tabors, P., Páez, M., Hammer, C., & Wagstaff, D. (in press).
Vocabulary development in Spanish-speaking Head Start children of
Puerto Rican descent. In J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J.
MacSwan (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Sympo-
sium on Bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills
and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual
population. Language Learning, 51(2), 187–219.

Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P.
B. Mosenbach, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research, vol. III (pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nash, R. (1997). NTC’s dictionary of Spanish cognates thematically orga-
nized. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The Nation’s re-
port card. Retrieved September 7, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The condition of education.
Retrieved July 16, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Insti-
tute of Child Health and Human Development.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influences in language
learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Perez, E. (1981). Oral language competence improves reading skills
of Mexican American third graders. Reading Teacher, 35(1), 24–
27.

Stahl, S. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
Books.

Stahl, S., & Clark, C. (1987). The effects of participatory expectations in
classroom discussion on the learning of science vocabulary. American
Educational Research Journal, 24, 541–556.

Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction:
A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56,
72–110.

Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Mea-
suring bilingual children’s receptive vocabularies. Child Development,
63(4), 1012–1020.

Vaughn-Shavuo, F. (1990). Using story grammar and language experi-
ence for improving recall and comprehension in the teaching of ESL
to Spanish-dominant first-graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.

Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1993). Vocabulary knowledge of
monolingual and bilingual children. Applied Linguistics, 14, 344–
363.

Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling performance of Chinese ESL chil-
dren: Lexical and visual-orthographic processes. Applied Psycholin-
guistics, 24(1), 1–25.

Woodcock, R. W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery-revised,
English and Spanish forms. Chicago: Riverside Publishing.

About the Authors

Diane August is Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, DC, directing a large federally
funded study investigating the development of literacy in ELLs and Staff Director for the National Literacy Panel on Language
Minority Children and Youth. She has been a Senior Program Officer at the National Academy of Sciences and study director
for the Committee on Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited English Proficient and Bilingual Students,
worked as a Grants Officer for the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and was Director of Education for the Children’s Defense
Fund.

Marı́a S. Carlo is Assistant Professor in the Teaching and Learning Program at the School of Education of the University
of Miami. She is a psychologist studying bilingualism in children and adults. Her research focuses on the cognitive processes
that underlie reading in a second language and on understanding the differences in the reading processes of bilinguals and
monolinguals. She earned a PhD in Psychology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Cheryl Dressler is a literacy consultant whose research interests have focused on the development of vocabulary knowledge,
including orthographic and morphological knowledge, both in children who are native and nonnative speakers of English. She
is currently developing a program of vocabulary instruction for children in kindergarten and first grade.

Catherine Snow is the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She has carried out research
on the development of literacy and related language skills among children from low-income families and language-minority
children. She chaired the National Research Council Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children,
and the RAND Reading Study Group, which produced the report called Reading for Understanding.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231992524_Spelling_performance_of_Chinese_ESL_children_Lexical_and_visual-orthographic_processes?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227644291_The_Contribution_of_Phonological_Skills_and_Letter_Knowledge_to_Early_Reading_Development_in_a_Multilingual_Population?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49176602_Factors_Influencing_the_English_Reading_Test_Performance_of_Spanish-Speaking_Hispanic_Children?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229078346_Language_Transfer_Cross-Linguistic_Influence_in_Language_Learning?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232508884_Lexical_Transfer_and_Second_Language_Morphological_Development?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-1e3730a97835bcbabe4db5624c507592-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNzQ5NjQyMTtBUzoxMDQ4NzU1MzQ4NDgwMDdAMTQwMjAxNTY4NDM3OA==

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
IN A GLOBAL WORLD

PRACTICES, ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website
under the Series tab.

Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website
under the e-book tab.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
IN A GLOBAL WORLD

PRACTICES, ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

LAP TUEN WONG
AND
ADITI DUBEY-JHAVERI
EDITORS

New York

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or
otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.

We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse
content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication‘s page on Nova‘s website and locate the
―Get Permission‖ button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title‘s permission
page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN.

For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact:
Copyright Clearance Center
Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: info@copyright.com.

NOTICE TO THE READER
The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied
warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for
incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book.
The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or
in part, from the readers‘ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government
reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of
such works.

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In
addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property
arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject
matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a
competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED
BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF
PUBLISHERS.

Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

English language education in a global world : practices, issues and challenges / Editors: Lap Tuen Wong, and Aditi
Dubey-Jhaveri (Centennial College, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China).
pages cm. — (Languages and Linguistics)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-63483-497-1 (hardcover)
1. English language–Study and teaching–Foreign speakers. 2. English language–Globalization. 3. Applied
lingusitics. I. Wong, Lap Tuen, editor. II. Dubey-Jhaveri, Aditi, editor.
PE1128.A2E4855 2015
428.0071–dc23
2015027286

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

CONTENTS

Preface ix
List of Contributors xi
Part I – The Major Theoretical Paradigms in English Language Education
and their Implications in a Global World 1
Chapter 1 Standard English, English Standards: Whose Standards
are They in English Language Education? 3
David Nunan
Chapter 2 English Language Education and Globalisation: An Applied
Linguistics Framework 13
Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar
Chapter 3 ESL vs EFL Learners: The Benefits of Combining Language
Acquisition and Explicit Instruction Approaches 25
Claude Goldenberg and Ken Romeo
Chapter 4 Learner Autonomy in the Eastern and Western Contexts 35
Wen-Cheng Hsu
Chapter 5 EFL Teachers‘ Professional Learning Needs: Working
with Multimedia and The Cloud 47
Shirley O’Neill
Chapter 6 English Teachers As Moral Agents: Behind the Facade of English
As a Lingua Franca 61
Hangyan Lu
Chapter 7 Influence of Language Background on English Reading
Comprehension Skills: Cross-Language Transfer Effects 69
Amir Sadeghi and John Everatt
Chapter 8 Deconstructing ‗Mono‘-Lingualism: Considerations of Value
for ‗English‘ ‗Language‘ Education in a Global Setting 81
Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Contents vi
Chapter 9 Examining Globalisation As a Guiding Paradigm in English
Education 91
Barrie Barrell
Chapter 10 The Dilemma of Matching Learning Styles and Teaching Styles
in English Language Classrooms 99
Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri and Lap Tuen Wong
Part II – The Practices of English Language Education in the Selected Parts
of the World 113
Chapter 11 Exporting Trained Tesol Professionals, not just Native Speakers:
A Case Study of Georgia State University 115
Kris Acheson and Justin Taylor
Chapter 12 Faculty Perceptions of ESL Students‘ Academic, Linguistic,
and Cultural Preparedness and Effective Teaching Practices 125
Alana Hoare and Jim Hu
Chapter 13 Language Policy and Practice in Multilingual Britain: Perspectives
from Mainstream and Complementary Linguistically-Diverse
Classrooms 137
Androula Yiakoumetti
Chapter 14 ELT Practice in Australia Across Three Sectors: State Education,
Migrant Education, and ELICOS 147
Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
Chapter 15 An Undergraduate Tesol Practicum in a New Zealand University 161
Moyra Sweetnam Evans
Chapter 16 The Practices of English Language Teaching in Postcolonial India 173
Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel
Chapter 17 A Critical Evaluation of Current Practices of English Language
Teaching in Singapore 183
Chitra Shegar
Chapter 18 Towards a Breakthrough in the Deadlocked English Language
Education in Japan 193
Hiroshi Hasegawa
Chapter 19 The Shifting Focus of English Teaching for Undergraduate Non-
English Major Students: Reforms and Practices at Tsinghua
University in China 203
Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang
Chapter 20 Reflection in Practice: Practical Considerations in the Development
of English for Academic/Specific Purposes Materials in Hong Kong 217
Ken Lau

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Contents vii
Part III – The Issues and Challenges of English Language Education in the
Selected Contexts 227
Chapter 21 English Language Education in the United States: Past, Present
and Future Issues 229
Peter De Costa and Kongji Qin
Chapter 22 English Language ‗Education‘ or ‗Industry‘? Bridging Parallel
Discourses in Canada 239
Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado
Chapter 23 English Language Education at University: Trends and Challenges
in Teaching and Learning Academic Discourse in the UK 251
Aisling O’Boyle
Chapter 24 The Issues and Challenges of Teaching English As a Second
Language in Western Australia: A Focus on Students with
African Refugee Backgrounds 261
Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver
Chapter 25 English Language Teaching in New Zealand: Against All Odds? 273
Diane Johnson
Chapter 26 English Language Education in India: Contemporary Issues 285
Helen Boyd Toraskar
Chapter 27 Seeking Commonality in Diversity: Challenges in Designing
and Delivering an Innovative Academic English Language
Writing Course at the National University of Singapore 295
Mark Brooke
Chapter 28 Formal English Education in Japan: What Causes ‗Unsuccessful‘
English Language Learning? 307
Masanori Matsumoto
Chapter 29 Profiling Chinese EFL Learners in Relation to Their Vocabulary
Learning Strategy Use 317
Xuelian Xu
Chapter 30 The Political and Economic Challenges of English Language
Education in Hong Kong 333
Arthur McNeill
Index 341

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

PREFACE

With English becoming the world‘s foremost lingua franca, the pressure to improve
English language education (ELE) has been steadily increasing. Consequently, the nature of
ELE has changed drastically in the last decade. This has not only brought about a number of
changes in the way English is taught and learnt, but it has also led to various innovative
practices around the world. Furthermore, unlike traditional forms of ELE, which have been
discussed primarily in a foreign or second language setting, this volume focuses on the
teaching and learning of English worldwide.
As a result, this edited book titled English Language Education in a Global World:
Practices, Issues and Challenges aims to shed light on the new theoretical and
methodological developments in the field of ELE as well as the major issues and difficulties
faced by practitioners in different parts of the globe. In view of the disparities in the
pedagogical practices across the world, the book hopes to provide an in-depth and
comprehensive overview of the theoretical paradigms, practices and challenges within the
field of ELE.
Broadly speaking, this edited collection is designed to enable scholars to gain easy access
to multiple perspectives about ELE and to provide them with holistic and up-to-date
information about the latest trends in this area of specialisation within ten selected contexts,
namely: the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, Japan, China
and Hong Kong. These contexts have been carefully selected, as they represent some of the
most influential frameworks and advanced models of ELE internationally.
The thirty chapters in this collection are divided into the following three parts to aid
information searching and to facilitate ease of reading:

 The major theoretical paradigms in ELE and their implications in a global world
– This section includes the theoretical debate about the use of ‗standard‘ English
and the need for deconstructing a ‗mono-lingual‘ conception of English in a
diverse but increasingly interconnected world; the application of an applied
linguistics‘ framework to ELE; the advantages of combining natural acquisition
of English with explicit instruction approaches; the different perspectives on
learner autonomy; the role of new technology in ELE; the significance of
English language teachers as transmitters of moral values; the influence of
students‘ language backgrounds on their English reading comprehension; and the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri x
reasons for the lack of clarity regarding the necessity of matching learning styles
with teaching styles in English language classrooms.
 The practices of ELE in selected parts of the world
– This part of the book focuses on the best teaching practices in ELE in varied
contexts and critically evaluates these practices. It examines the measures taken
to reform ELE, the changes made to ELE curriculum and practicum, and the
factors taken into consideration for development of English language teaching
materials. This section also emphasises the requirement of training English
language educators rather than relying on their native-speaking proficiency,
assesses the relevance of English education in postcolonial contexts, and
highlights the importance of language policy in contributing to good practices.
 The issues and challenges of ELE in the selected contexts
– The chapters under this section present the past and present issues in the field as
well as the problems that are likely to surface in the future with regard to ELE.
Prime among the pitfalls discussed are complications arising due to economic
and political concerns, and difficulties emerging as a result of cultural
differences and diversity in general.

However, despite focusing on ELE in ten different parts of the globe, this book is not
merely for scholars interested in these specific regions. Instead, it is equally insightful for
those who are keen on understanding, experimenting with or adopting similar pedagogical
frameworks in their own countries. By drawing readers‘ attention to an array of practices and
issues within ELE, the book intends to highlight that there is no single perfect method for
ELE to be successful. It advises practitioners in the field not to rely on a fixed model and
recommends them to keep themselves abreast with the advancements and progress made in
the area so as to modernise their classrooms and enhance their practices.
Lastly and most importantly, the editors of this book would like to express their heart-felt
gratitude to Nova Science Publishers and to the contributors for their generous support, all of
which have helped towards achieving its realisation.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Kris Acheson (PhD) currently serves as Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate
Studies in the Department of Applied Linguistics at Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA,
USA. An award-winning instructor, curriculum designer and study abroad director, Kris is
interested in all things cultural and linguistic, including intercultural competency
development and assessment; ethnicity/race, gender, and class; and communicative silences.
Her research can be found in journals such as Communication Theory, Communication
Yearbook, the Foreign Language Annals and Race, Gender & Class.
Barrie R. C. Barrell (PhD) is Professor of Secondary English Education in the Faculty
of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland where he supervises graduate and
doctoral students working in the areas of visual literacy, media and English education. Born in
London, England, educated at The City University of New York, the University of New
Brunswick and the University of Toronto, his interests include conceptualising public school
curricula and pedagogies for a rapidly changing digital age. He lives on the edge of the North
Atlantic creating digital texts that combine his writing, drawing, poetry and photography.
Mark Brooke (EdD) is Lecturer at the Centre for English Language Communication at
the National University of Singapore. He has published in several internationally-reviewed
journals in areas such as the sociology of sport, content and language integrated learning,
teacher training, discourse analysis, qualitative methodology, learner-centred pedagogy and
educational policy-making. For five years, before his move to Singapore, Mark was at the
Hong Kong Institute of Education in the Department of English Language Education where
he offered courses on pedagogical grammar, discourse analysis and vocabulary studies. He
has a Licentiate Diploma in TESOL from Trinity, an MSc in TESP from Aston, UK and an
EdD from Durham, UK.
Michael Carey (PhD) has taught and conducted research within linguistics since 1992 in
the fields of TESOL, pronunciation, academic writing, language assessment and preparation
for the IELTS. He has worked across all sectors of the English language teaching profession
in Australia: secondary English education, private and university based ELICOS, and the
AMEP. He is currently a Lecturer in Education (TESOL and language and literacy) at the
University of the Sunshine Coast. His role includes coordination of Secondary Education
programmes and Master‘s courses in TESOL. He also supervises a number of Master‘s and
PhD research students in various fields of linguistics.
Peter De Costa (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics and
Languages at Michigan State University, where he teaches on the Ph.D. Program and the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri xii
MATESOL Program in Second Language Studies. Peter‘s primary area of research is the role
of identity and ideology in second language acquisition (SLA), though he also conducts
research on other issues in applied linguistics, including English as a lingua franca, critical
classroom discourse analysis and culturally relevant pedagogy for immigrant ESL learners.
Much of his current work focuses on conducting ethical applied linguistic research, scalar
approaches to language learning and language learning and emotions.
Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri (PhD) is a Lecturer in the Centre of Applied English Studies at the
University of Hong Kong. Her research interests lie in the fields of new literacies,
multimodality, systemic functional linguistics and appraisal theory, and journalism education
for second language learners of English. With eleven years of tertiary teaching experience,
she has published more than 20 journal articles / book chapters / edited books; served as a
reviewer for journals such as Journalism Studies, Visual Communication Studies, and Global
Communication and Social Change; and received three grants for conducting educational
research in Hong Kong. She received the Outstanding Teacher Award from HKU SPACE
Community College in 2007 and was later awarded the Postgraduate Fellowship by the
University of Hong Kong in 2008.
Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel (PhD) is a poet, a critic, a short story writer and an
aphorist. He has authored three volumes of poetry, an edited volume Critical Perspectives on
American Literature, a critical study The Indian Imagination of Girish Karnad, two textbooks
titled English and Communication Skills and English and Soft Skills, and a book called
English Language Teaching in India. He has taught English at Tripura University and Anna
University. Currently, he is a Professor of English in the Department of Humanities and
Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India.
Moyra Sweetnam Evans (PhD) has taught ESL at all levels (beginner to advanced) and
to all ages (preschoolers to mature adults). She has taught linguistics and English language
and literature to undergraduates and postgraduates. She has trained second language teachers
in South Africa and New Zealand, has run a language school in New Zealand and has been
involved in teacher development programmes for language teachers for many years. She is a
Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
where she co-ordinates a TESOL minor, trains prospective ESL teachers and supervises
postgraduate research students in second-language teaching, bilingualism and reading.
John Everatt (PhD) is a Professor of Education at the University of Canterbury, New
Zealand. He received his PhD from the University of Nottingham and has lectured on
education and psychology programmes at universities in New Zealand and the UK. His
research focuses primarily on literacy acquisition and developmental learning difficulties, and
his current work is investigating the relationship between literacy and language by
considering the characteristics of different scripts and how these might lead to variations in
learning/acquisition particularly among those from multiple language backgrounds.
Jeffrey Gil (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in ESOL/TESOL at Flinders University,
Australia. He obtained his PhD degree from Griffith University for a thesis on the use and
status of English and English language education in China. Jeffrey is currently involved in the
development, teaching and administration of ESOL and TESOL topics at undergraduate and
postgraduate levels. He has also taught English as a foreign language and applied linguistics
at university level in China. Jeffrey has published several refereed journal articles and book
chapters on applied linguistics topics, including English as a global language and the global
use and status of Chinese.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

List of Contributors xiii
Claude Goldenberg (PhD) is a Professor of Education at Stanford University where he
teaches courses on the education of language minority students. Goldenberg taught middle
school in San Antonio, Texas, and first grade in a bilingual elementary school in Los Angeles.
He has conducted research and published in the areas of literacy development and academic
achievement among English language learners, home-school connections, and processes and
dynamics of school change.
Martin Guardado (PhD) is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and the
Academic Director of the English Language School in the Faculty of Extension at the
University of Alberta. His research interests include English for academic purposes, TESL
and technology, and heritage language development. His work has appeared in edited books
and journals such as Computers and Composition, The Canadian Modern Language Review
and TESOL Quarterly.
Hiroshi Hasegawa (PhD) is a Lecturer in the School of Education at Curtin University
in Western Australia. He teaches undergraduate units relating to Japanese language and
culture, as well as supervises postgraduate students and students on teaching practicum. His
main research interests include second/foreign language education, ethics in education, and
ICT-led educational reform and enhancement. He has a Graduate Diploma in Education
(Language Teaching), Master of Education Studies (LOTE), Master of Education (TESOL)
and a PhD in Education. He has extensive teaching experience from primary to tertiary level
and has served on various types and levels of examination panels and committees in charge of
the production of the tertiary entrance examination.
Alana Hoare holds a Master of Education degree from Thompson Rivers University,
British Columbia, Canada. Her background consists of teaching at an elementary school;
providing career education for adults with special needs; and instructing adult ESL students.
These experiences have provided the inspiration for research in academics and ESL
education. Currently, Alana is a Continuing Education Coordinator at Thompson Rivers
University. Her research interests include faculty perceptions of ESL students‘ academic,
linguistic, and cultural preparedness and effective teaching practices; language problems in
ESL writing; and ESL student preparedness for transitioning into academics and academic
faculty response.
Wen-Cheng Hsu (PhD) obtained two master‘s degrees (MA in English Language
Teaching and MA in Life-long Education) and a PhD degree in TESOL from the University
of Nottingham in the UK. His teaching experience spans more than 15 years across different
levels and cultures. Before joining Xi‘an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, a Sino-British
university in China as an EAP tutor, he had taught EAP and TESOL-related courses to
English and non-English majors in Taiwan and the UK for 8 years. His research interests
include learner autonomy, vocabulary acquisition, motivation and other psychological
attributes related to language education.
Jim Hu (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Thompson Rivers University, British
Columbia, Canada, where he teaches TESL certificate courses and English for academic
purposes. Earlier, he taught English in China. His research interests include second language
academic writing, writing problem treatment, pedagogical grammar, second language
development theories and applications, and qualitative research methods. He has published in
journals such as English Quarterly, TESL Canada Journal, Canadian and International
Education, and The Qualitative Report, and is a frequent presenter at conferences including
TESOL International Conventions. His research has received support from Social Sciences
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri xiv
and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Diane Johnson (PhD) is the Convenor of the General and Applied Linguistics
programme in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Waikato in New
Zealand. She has published a number of articles on issues in language teaching and learning
and has conducted a variety of pre- and in-service, teacher-training seminars both in New
Zealand and abroad. She has been a principal writer of National Curriculum Guidelines
documents for the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Her research interests are centred on
language teaching methodology, language teaching materials development, curriculum and
syllabus design, language-teacher training, and discourse analysis as it relates to language
teaching.
Ken Lau (PhD) is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Applied English Studies, the
University of Hong Kong. Ken has extensive experience in designing and writing materials
for EAP and ESP courses, particularly those for engineering students. He has a wide range of
research interests including assessment of reflection, English as a Lingua Franca and written
discourse analysis. Currently, with David Gardner, he is working on a study which profiles
the English learning experiences and use of English among the first-year students at an
English-medium university.
Meihua Liu (PhD) is currently an Associate Professor of English at the Department of
Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, China. Her research interests mainly
include EFL teaching and learning in the Chinese context, reticence and anxiety, language
attitudes and motivation, EFL writing, and learners‘ study abroad experiences. She has been
publishing widely on these issues in internationally refereed journals.
Hangyan Lu (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at
Centennial College, Hong Kong. Her teaching and research focus on English academic
writing, literacy practice and identity, and morality of English teaching. Her PhD was a
narrative inquiry into the construction of gendered identities in the reading practices of
university students studying English in Sweden and in China respectively. She is also
interested in the ethics of care in the general field of higher education.
Masanori Matsumoto (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in Applied Linguistics at Bond
University in Australia. He graduated from Kyoto University of Foreign Studies in Japan and
completed his doctoral study at University of South Australia. His primary research interest is
in second language learners‘ motivation, especially in the learners‘ cultural/linguistic
backgrounds and their influences on the learners‘ perceptions of various factors that may
affect their motivations for target language learning. He has published research articles in
several international journals and presented papers in a number of international conferences.
Arthur McNeill (PhD) is Director of the Center for Language Education and Associate
Dean of Humanities and Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology. He is also Honorary Professor at the Northeastern University in China. He has
served as director of several university English language centres, including the Chinese
University of Hong Kong and the Universities of Surrey, Sussex and Dundee in UK. His
academic interests include second language acquisition, vocabulary, language awareness and
curriculum development and he has published numerous academic articles, chapters, books
and textbooks. He holds a PhD in applied linguistics from the University of Wales, UK.
Noah Mbano (PhD) is an academic at Curtin University. He has taught English as a
second language (ESL) in Intensive English language centres for many years across remote
and metro Western Australia. He started his lecturing career at Curtin University before
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

List of Contributors xv
accepting a position at the University of Southern Queensland where he worked from 2012
till re-joining Curtin University in December 2014. His research interests are in applied
linguistics and TESOL with a special focus on the teaching of English as a second language to
refugee background students.
Robyn Najar (PhD) is an Associate Professor and Head of ESOL/TESOL at Flinders
University, Australia. She has spent over 30 years working in ESOL/TESOL and has, for over
ten of these years, worked outside of Australia teaching English as a foreign language (EFL),
training teachers and developing programmes, curriculum and materials ‗in situ‘. Today, she
is involved in the development and teaching of programmes in Australia and in Asia. She
teaches applied linguistics in graduate programmes; and across Asia is involved in teacher
development and EFL programme delivery. Robyn is also a keen researcher in the areas of FL
teaching and learning, teacher efficacy, academic writing and strategic competencies in
foreign language teaching and learning.
David Nunan (PhD) is Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics at the University of
Hong Kong and President Emeritus of Anaheim University, California. He has published over
100 scholarly books and articles on curriculum development, research methods, language,
culture and identity and teacher education. He is one of the world’s leading textbook authors
with sales in excess of five billion copies. In addition, he was the recipient of The Heinle
TESOL International Lifetime Achievement Award in 2003 and received The James E. Alatis
Award for outstanding and extended service to TESOL in 2015.
Aisling O’Boyle (PhD) is a Lecturer at Queen‘s University Belfast. She has taught in a
number of educational contexts in the UK, Europe and Asia. She teaches and supervises
master‘s and doctoral students in TESOL. Her research interests are in spoken educational
discourse and the analysis of language data in educational contexts. She is particularly
interested in the application of research in corpus linguistics to education and academic
discourse. She is also interested in approaches to qualitative research and has carried out
fieldwork in a range of educational, work-based and interdisciplinary contexts, working with
students and educational practitioners.
Rhonda Oliver (PhD) is Professor of Education at Curtin University. She is an active
researcher and her work has appeared in a number of international journals. She has an
extensive publication list and strong track record in language and education research. Her
research focuses on studies of second language acquisition including large scale studies on
international and indigenous university students, and on migrant and aboriginal children
acquiring English as a second language/dialect.
Shirley O’Neill (PhD) is Associate Professor of Language and Literacies Education and
Coordinator of the Applied Linguistics Discipline Group in the School of Linguistics, Adult
and Specialist Education at the University of Southern Queensland. Her research focuses on
teacher cognition and classroom discourse, TESOL/literacy pedagogies, assessment, student
capacity building, and service learning. Her book Teaching English as a second language,
Oxford University Press, with A, Gish is widely used in pre-service teacher education in
Australia and internationally; other recent publications include: Go TESOL, Contemporary
Literacy Series 1: The language teacher professional, Adam House Press; and Book Chapter:
School leadership and pedagogical reform: Building student capacity, IGI Global.
Nick Pilcher (PhD) is based in the School of Marketing, Tourism and Languages at
Edinburgh Napier University (UK). He is a Lecturer and Programme Leader for the MSc in
Intercultural Business Communication (with TESOL) His research interests centre around
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri xvi
education, language and qualitative research methods. He has published and contributed to
articles published in journals such as Qualitative Research, Psychology of Music, Teaching in
Higher Education, Quality in Higher Education, and International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, and also the books Researching Chinese Learners and Researching
Intercultural Learning (both edited by Lixian Jin and Martin Cortazzi).
Kongji Qin is a PhD Candidate in the Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher Education
Program in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University. Kongji‘s
research focuses on the language and literacy development of English learners (ELs), EL
students‘ identity negotiation and EL teacher education. One strand of his research examines
how EL students negotiate their identities inside and outside classrooms, and how the process
of their identity negotiation shapes their learning experiences. A second strand of his research
focuses on how pre-service teachers develop their knowledge, skills and dispositions to work
with EL students.
Kendall Richards is based in the Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Creative
Industries at Edinburgh Napier University (UK). He is a Lecturer in academic support,
retention, progression and widening access for international, mature and direct entrants. His
research interests are in education as social justice and language. He has presented globally at
the European Society of Research in the Education of Adults and the 4
th
Perspectives and
Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin, and has published in International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education and elsewhere such as in Researching Intercultural Learning
(edited by Lixian Jin and Martin Cortazzi).
Ann Robertson has over 20 years‘ experience in TESOL, and has taught in the Adult
Migrant Education Program at TAFE and a range of General and Academic English programs
at the University of the Sunshine Coast. She currently works as an Associate Lecturer in
Communication in the Faculty of Arts and Business.
Ken Romeo (PhD) is the Academic Technology Specialist for the Stanford Language
Center, where he works with the director, and the instructional and administrative staff. In
addition to teaching in the English for Foreign Students Program, he is responsible for a wide
range of technology initiatives, including formative and summative assessment system
development and implementation. Previously, he taught English in China and Japan for many
years and then completed a doctoral at Stanford University in Educational Linguistics, with a
focus on foreign language learning.
Amir Sadeghi (PhD) is a Lecturer of TESOL. He received his PhD from the University
of Canterbury in New Zealand where he was awarded the UC Doctoral Scholarship. Amir is
interested in language and literacy development in English language learners, focusing on
how oral language skills are acquired and how they relate to literacy outcomes. He is
currently focusing on reading development in English among first- and second-language
learners, and considering aspects of transfer from first to second language in the domains of
language and literacy.
Chitra Shegar (PhD) was an Assistant Professor at the English Language and Literature
Department of National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore from 2004 to 2014. Her areas
of specialisation are language acquisition, language teaching methodology, literacy
instruction and teacher professional development. She has successfully served as a Principal
Investigator for two literacy projects funded at SG$250,000 and has published articles on
literacy in several international journals. She has also been invited to conduct workshops and
seminars for teachers in Singapore and internationally in countries such as Australia, India,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

List of Contributors xvii
Indonesia, Malaysia and Boston. Currently, she is the Director of Reading Edge Academy and
advises several schools and other educational institutions on literacy projects facilitating
pedagogical shifts in literacy instruction practices.
Justin Taylor is a 2014 graduate of the Georgia State University undergraduate
programme in Applied Linguistics. As part of his Bachelor‘s degree, he participated in a study
abroad TEFL practicum programme in China and completed an international internship with
Education First in Shanghai. After graduation, Justin taught English in China for a year, but
has recently returned to the US to teach English as a second language (ESL). His research
interests include student development, critical discourse analysis in and out of the classroom,
and identity construction and performance.
Helen Boyd Toraskar (EdD) is an Associate Professor at Centennial College, Hong
Kong, teaching courses on language and communication. She has extensive teaching
experience at the tertiary level in the area of English language teaching and learning in Hong
Kong. She has coordinated English courses and has experience in syllabus design, course
material development and assessment for young adults. Helen has received the HKU SPACE
Community College Staff Performance Award (2002) and Outstanding Teacher Award (2012).
Her academic interests include EFL teaching expertise, EFL teaching and learning and
pedagogical content knowledge. She has conducted research on EFL teaching expertise and
the professional development of EFL teachers from a sociocultural perspective.
Rika Tsushima is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education
at McGill University, specialising in second language assessment. For her Master‘s degree,
she researched the influences of university entrance examinations on classroom teaching and
testing practices in Japanese high schools. Her current research interests include formative
assessment in ESL classrooms at the tertiary level, summative use of formative tests and
heritage language maintenance in interlingual families.
Lap Tuen Wong (PhD) is an Associate Professor of English and Applied Linguistics and
the Major Coordinator of the BA Programme in Language and Communication at Centennial
College, Hong Kong. He has extensive teaching experience at the tertiary level and has
published papers in academic journals on topics relating to second language teaching and
learning and community college education in Hong Kong. His research interests include
needs analysis of second language learners, language teaching methodology, critical discourse
analysis (CDA) and post-secondary education in Asia. He was awarded the Sir Edward Youde
Memorial Fellowship in 2001 and received the Outstanding Teacher Award from HKU
SPACE Community College in 2006. Lap Tuen has also served as an Honorary Professor in
the Australia Asia Research and Education Foundation.
Wai Lam Heidi Wong is a PhD Candidate in the College of Education at the University
of Canterbury, New Zealand. She gained her Bachelor of Education in English Language
Education with First Class Honours from the University of Hong Kong. She is now teaching
English for academic purposes (EAP) and business English at post-secondary colleges in
Hong Kong. Her research interests include learning styles and teaching styles, second/foreign
language education, and the teaching of EAP.
Xuelian Xu (PhD) received her MA in English Language Teaching and PhD in Applied
Linguistics from the University of Nottingham in the UK in 2001 and 2007 respectively.
Before her study in the UK, she taught English at the tertiary level for four years in China.
Right after completing her PhD, she worked as Assistant Professor of English at Macau
University of Science and Technology in Macau. Currently, she is an EAP tutor in the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri xviii
language centre in Xi‘an Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou, China. Her main research
focus is on vocabulary acquisition, motivation and learner autonomy.
Androula Yiakoumetti (PhD) is an Applied Linguist at Oxford Brookes University
whose research focuses on regional and social variation within linguistic systems and, more
specifically, on the implications of such variation for education. She is interested in
sociolinguistic aspects of linguistic variation and works within the research fields of
multidialectism and multilingualism, second-language acquisition and development, and
language-teacher development. Her publications span a variety of language issues including
bidialectism, language attitudes, learning English as a foreign language, language policy and
practice in an era of super-diversity, and language-teacher training. She is the editor of
Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education (2012, Peter Lang) and
Multilingualism and Language in Education: Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Perspectives
from Commonwealth Countries (2015, Cambridge University Press).
Weimin Zhang (PhD) is currently a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Tsinghua
University, Beijing. He has taught EFL in China and ESL in the United States for more than
20 years. He holds an MA in English language teaching from the University of Nottingham,
UK and a doctorate in applied linguistics from Georgia State University, USA. His research
interests include EFL teaching and learning, EFL teacher education, genre theory and EAP
writing, and language attitudes.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

PART I

THE MAJOR THEORETICAL PARADIGMS
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS IN A GLOBAL WORLD
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

STANDARD ENGLISH, ENGLISH STANDARDS:
WHOSE STANDARDS ARE THEY IN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE EDUCATION?

David Nunan
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China and
Anaheim University, CA, USA

ABSTRACT

The emergence of English as a global language has brought many changes to the
ways in which the English language is perceived and used. It is adopted in local contexts,
and is adapted to those contexts. Always in flux, it presents multiple faces. English can
no longer be seen as the preserve of Inner Circle countries such as Britain or the United
States, and local versions of English are vying with more traditional varieties in many
parts of the world. Spanglish, Chinglish, Singlish, and other varieties are now well
established as communicative media in the contexts in which they have evolved.
This has caused controversy. Local varieties are derided and, in some countries, there
is an official attempt to stamp them out. In Singapore, for example, the government has
established the English Language Institute of Singapore whose brief is to discourage the
use on Singlish and promote the use of standard English, particularly in schools and
educational institutions. In Hong Kong, the ‗falling standards of English‘ debate is a
perennial one. Government agencies, the business world, and educational institutions are
calling for the promotion of ‗Standard English‘ in areas such as international business,
education, diplomacy, the media and so on.
The purpose of this chapter is to look at the place of English in a globalised world, to
examine, not only the impact of English, but also the impact on English of its emergence
as the dominant language of communication in many contexts around the world. In the
process, I review the concepts of Standard English, and English standards, and address
the question of whose standards are we talking about anyway with regards to the teaching
and learning of English? In the final part of the chapter, I will present several criteria for
judging whether or not a particular variety passes muster as a standard language.

Keywords: Globalisation, language standards, standard languages, World Englishes
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

David Nunan 4
THE EMERGENCE OF ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE

English is not the most widely used language in the world. However, it is arguably the
most powerful and influential. Power and influence are determined, not by the sheer number
of users, but by the issue of who uses it, for what purposes in what contexts.
Consider the following vignettes:

 In Latin America, KPMG Latin America determines that English will be the official
language of communication within the corporation.
 In Thailand, Chinese and Thai engineers collaborated on the construction of a dam
through the medium of English.
 In the Philippines, the Pope addresses the faithful in English.
 In Southern China, a Hong Kong accounting firm carries out a company audit,
collecting the data through Mandarin and Cantonese, but presenting the written
report in English.
 In Brazil, a leading agricultural export firm hires employees who are fluent in
English and trains them as accountants, rather than hiring accountants and training
them in English.
 In Korea, several key universities mandate English as the medium of instruction in
subjects such as technology and engineering.

These are just a few examples of the global reach of English in business and international
trade, politics, the media and education. Crystal (1997) argues that the emergence of English
as a global language happened comparatively quickly over a fifty year period in the second
half of the Twentieth Century,

In 1950, any notion of English as a true world language was but a dim, shadowy,
theoretical possibility, surrounded by the uncertainties of the Cold War, and lacking any
clear definition or sense of direction. Fifty years on, and World English exists as a
political and cultural reality. How could such a dramatic linguistic shift have taken place
in less that a lifetime? And why has English, and not some other language, achieved such
a status? (Crystal, 1997, p. ix)

The basis for this emergence was provided by colonisation and trade. Jenkins (2009)
traces the spread of English through two diasporas. The first of these occurred from the early
Seventeenth Century through to the 1790s when Britain created an empire that spanned the
globe, colonising North America, Australia and New Zealand. This diaspora involved the
spread of L1 varieties of English as the dominant language. The second diaspora occurred
from the 1790s to the 1850s through trade and migration to Africa, Asia and the Pacific and
resulted in the widespread use of English as a second language alongside local languages.
The global spread and current dominance of English was not an inevitability and will
certainly change at some time in the future. Pennycook (2010) points out how different the
global linguistic map would look today if Germany had defeated Britain and the former
Soviet Union in the Second World War.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Standard English, English Standards 5
Although somewhat dated now, the best-known model of the spread of English is
Kachru‘s (1992) English Circles model. Kachru distinguishes between ‗inner‘, ‗outer‘ and
‗expanding‘ circle countries. The ‗Inner Circle‘ countries are those where English is a first
language. They include the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand. The ‗Outer Circle‘ encompasses countries where English is widely used alongside
local languages. They include Ghana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippine,
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Zambia. In ‗Expanding Circle‘ countries, English is used as a
foreign language, so this circle encompasses the rest of the world. China, Egypt, Indonesia,
Israel, Japan, Korea, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, USSR, and Zimbabwe are examples of
‗Expanding Circle‘ countries.

LANGUAGE VARIATION

As it spread around the world and was used as a lingua franca for trade and other
purposes, different varieties of English began to emerge. (Language variation is important for
an understanding of language standards. If languages did not vary, there would be no need for
standardisation.) People adapt language for their own purposes. In ‗Inner Circle‘ countries,
variation is evident in different accents and dialects, which reflect differences in the physical
location and social status of the speakers. In Outer Circle and, to a certain extent Expanding
Circle countries, where English was used for purposes of trade, and other basic forms of
communication, English melded with local languages, leading to the development of pidgins
and creoles. Here is a typical exchange:

Proprietor: Hullo, how you? Long time no see. Sit it. Beer you want? Coca-Cola?
Customer: Doe wan. Coffee have?
Proprietor: Kopi have. Two dollar only. Latte? Cap?
Customer: Latte, how much?
Proprietor: Same-same, two dollar. You wan eat? French fry?
Customer: No need. McDonald already breakfast.
Proprietor: You wan look-see menu.
Customer: No need, too fat already, aiyeeah! (Vittachi, 2010, p. 218)

Although it uses non-standard forms, and dispenses with some grammatical features such
as plurals and possessives altogether, the conversation is perfectly comprehensible. It has
been stripped down to its basics to meet the communicative needs of its users, who have
discarded redundant features such as plural and third person ‗s‘. It also reflects aspects of
other languages. ‗Long time no see‘ is a literal translation of the Cantonese ‗ho loi, mmh
geen‘.
I have mentioned four concepts that are important in describing language variation:
accents, dialects, pidgins and creoles. In the rest of this section, I will give a brief account of
these four concepts, which can provide valuable insights for students and teachers of English.
Accent refers to variations in pronunciation. Among native speaking varieties of English,
accents reflect geographical and socioeconomic differences. Some accents have more status
than others. This does not reflect an inherent superiority of one accent over another, but the
social status and political influence of the users. In non-native speakers of English, accents
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

David Nunan 6
usually reflect features of the speaker‘s first language. Dialects differ in terms of their
grammar and vocabulary. They also reflect geographical and socioeconomic differences.
When two or more languages come into contact, speakers of the languages usually use a
combination of the languages. This happened in Asia when Europeans began trading and used
combinations of, for example, English, Chinese and Malay. The hybrid form of
communication involves simplified grammatical forms and combinations of the languages in
contact as we saw in the conversation between the food vendor and the customer. Over time,
the hybrid form develops a degree of codification, that is, it has its own phonological and
morphosyntactic rules, and becomes known as a pidgin. The emergence of a single linguistic
repertoire is referred to as ‗translanguaging‘ and ‗translingual practice‘ (Canagarajah, 2013;
Garcia & Li, 2014).
With further passage of time, the pidgin may become the first language of a speech
community in a particular geographical region. When this happens, it becomes known as a
creole. In other words, a creole is a pidgin that has evolved into a language in its own right
through becoming the first language for a particular speech community. Creolisation is thus a
two-stage process that occurs over a couple of generations. It exists, not only in Outer and
Expanding Circle countries, but also in Inner Circle countries such as the United Kingdom
and the United States. Jenkins (2009) provides a detailed description of London Jamaican, a
creole spoken largely, although not exclusively in London, and Ebonics or African-American
Vernacular English (AAVE).
These variations in English had, and continue to have, serious repercussions for their
speakers around the world. In the United Kingdom, until comparatively recently, access to
certain occupations and institutions was restricted to speakers of a dialect known as Received
Pronunciation (RP). For example, it was impossible to obtain employment as an announcer on
the BBC unless one spoke RP. In the United States there was controversy over the use of
Ebonics in schools. (In 1996, there was an outcry in Oakland, California, when the school
board decreed that Ebonics could, and should, be used as a medium of instruction.) In
Singapore, as I have mentioned, there are attempts to eradicate Singlish as a medium of
instruction and communication in the classroom.
Varieties of English persist and continue to evolve for various reasons: they enable to
people to communicate efficiently, they act as a membership-marker for sociocultural groups,
and they act as an exclusionary device for non-members of those groups. Attempts by
governmental agencies to impose one version of English (or any other language) have not
been particularly successful in the past and are unlikely to be so in the future. Paradoxically,
the success of English in its linguistic colonisation, has only speeded up the process of
diversification. Speakers shape English to fit their communicative purposes in an astonishing
and creative ways, blending it with their first languages as well as other languages, in social,
educational, and commercial contexts.
Varieties of English evolved to suit the needs of local communities. Mastery of a given
variety was a marker of membership of that community. Not only was one able to claim
membership of a given community, one could also exclude those who did not speak that
variety. As prestige varieties emerged, not speaking that variety meant exclusion from
potential access to the wealth and power possessed by the community speaking that variety.
However, there were problems with language variation, not the least of which was the fact
that users of one variety sometimes had difficulty communicating with each other. There was
a need for some form of standardisation.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Standard English, English Standards 7
Interestingly, recognition of the need to standardise language for certain purposes first
arose in relation, not to spoken, but to written language. The need to standardise written
language, particularly spelling emerged with the widespread development of literacy that
came with the invention of the printing press. Prior to this time, writers could spell words
pretty much as they wished. William Shakespeare spelled his name in at least six different
ways: Willm Shaksp, William Shakespe, Wm Shakspe, William Shakspere, Willm Shakspere,
William Shakspeare. Interestingly, he never spelled his name in the standardised form that we
use today.
Not having a standardised system of spelling made things easy for the writer, but difficult
for the reader. With the development of standardised spellings, the situation was reversed.
The reading process became less of an interpretive burden, but the writing process was made
more difficult.

STANDARD ENGLISH AND ENGLISH STANDARDS

So, problems, imagined or real, with language variation, led to calls for some form of
standardisation of English within educational systems. This did not mean tinkering
linguistically with one particular variety, knocking it into shape, as it were, until it fitted some
set of criteria for acceptability. As Jenkins (2009, p. 33) points out:

Standard language is the term used for that variety of a language which is considered
to be the norm. It is the variety held up as the optimum for educational purposes and used
as a yardstick against which other varieties of the language are measured.

The question arises however, considered by whom? Who gets to say which variety is to
be privileged? Generally speaking, the variety that emerges is that spoken by the speech
community holding the greatest political power and wealth. In China, for example, Putonghua
evolved from the variety spoken in the imperial court in Beijing where political power
resided. It later had to fend off competition from Guandonghua, a southern dialect favoured
by the Kuomintang, which it managed to do. In Britain, Received Pronunciation, is widely
considered as the standard accent, although it is spoken by only a tiny minority of the
population (3% according to Trudgill, 1999), an educated minority holding wealth and
political power. A standard language entails standards and language standards are the rules
that codify a particular variety. A speaker wishing to attain the status of a speaker of that
variety must conform to these rules. Because languages are constantly changing, the rules
themselves change over time as they are conditioned by historical and social factors. If you
compare speeches by the Queen of England on her inauguration with those she makes today,
you don‘t have to be a phonologist to hear the difference. She doesn‘t sound like a Welsh coal
miner, but she doesn‘t sound like the girl who became Queen. When it comes to language, we
are all standing on shifting sands. ‗Thou shalt not‘ today becomes ‗Well, maybe it’s OK‘
tomorrow. So far, in this relatively brief piece, I have sketched the emergence of English as a
global language. I have described the fragmentation that inevitably occurs when people use a
language for the purposes of communication in communities where it is the main medium of
communication and in contexts where it sits beside a range of other languages, and, in this
section, have described forces that have attempted to pull it back together. I have addressed
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

David Nunan 8
the questions ‗What is Standard English?‘ and ‗Whose standards are they, anyway?‘ Before I
move on to write about where I think English is today, and where it might be going in the
future in terms of its relevance for education, I want to make a few comments about the
question ‗Who decides?‘ In countries that are physically and culturally far apart such as China
and France, government committees proscribe and prescribe. Over a hundred years ago in
China, a Commission on the Unification of Pronunciation was convened to standardise
pronunciation. The first step there towards a national language was the Dictionary of National
Pronunciation (國音詞典). In other places, the influence was more subtle. No governmental
body in Britain dictated that RP should be the ‗official‘ pronunciation standard. Those who
wanted to ‗pass‘ as members of the ruling elite took steps to acquire the accent. The
Australian linguist, Denise Murray (2010, p. 166), tells of travelling to Britain in the 1960s
and looking for work as a secondary school teacher. She tells the following story:

Twice I did get an interview, but was told, ‗We don‘t accept teachers with an
Australian accent. We want to teach British English.‘ As a very stubborn Aussie, I
thought, ‗I‘m going to sound just like the Queen and see if they refuse me then!‘

ENGLISH TODAY

Who Uses English Today?

In looking at who uses English today, it is clear that native speakers of English can no
longer claim ownership of the language. According to Graddol (2006), a survey of tourists
using English to communicate found that native-English speaker (NES) to native-English
speaker communication in English-speaking countries constituted 4% of interactions; NES to
NES in non-English speaking countries constituted 12% of interactions; non-native speakers
of English to NES constituted 10% of communications. The vast majority (74%) of
interactions mediated through English were NNES to NNES. If the data are reliable, three-
quarters of the people around the world who use English as tourists are non-English speakers
communicating with other non-English speakers. There is no reason to think that the
percentage would vary much if a similar survey were conducted in other contexts such as the
world of international business. The demands on NNES to use English in their daily work is
growing rapidly. In a major survey of more than 25,000 employees in multinational
companies conducted in the mid-2000s, responses on the question ‗English is critical for my
job‘ rose, over an eighteen-month period, from just over 50% to 80% (Nunan, 2006). That
said, it needs to be noted that the NS / NNS distinction is becoming increasingly problematic.
Many people have a complicated history with English, and it is not always easy to identify
who is using it as a native or non-native speaker.

Singapore: A Snapshot

To illustrate some of the current issues surrounding English in the world today, and to
provide a segue into the next section, in which I propose criteria for standard languages that
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Standard English, English Standards 9
can be used in educational settings, I want to provide a snapshot of English in Singapore.
Why Singapore? In short, Singapore is a treasure-trove for applied linguists interested in
issues to do with English education and globalisation. Here, the local and the global mesh. In
terms of governmental policy, it has been used as a social ‗glue‘ to pull together a citizenry,
almost half of whom were born outside the country and who speak a wide range of languages.
Four are official languages: English, Malay, Tamil and Chinese (Putonghua, which eclipsed
Hokkien). Of these, English is the dominant language, and one which is promoted by the
government, which also encourages people to learn Putongha.
A local creole, Singlish, is also widely used in the community. The government has made
concerted efforts to discourage the use of Singlish. In 2000, it launched the ‗Speak Good
English‘ campaign to promote Standard Singaporean English, and in 2011, it launched the
English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS). The aim of ELIS is stated as follows:

The institute aims to drive excellence in the teaching and learning of the English
language in Singapore schools to raise the general command of both spoken and written
English among all our students. It will play a key role in providing in-service professional
development for both English language and English-medium teachers, by developing
their competency and offering a range of courses that cater to the learning needs of
teachers. (Ministry of Education, 2011)

Prior to the official launch of ELIS, I was commissioned to act as academic advisor to the
body. At an initial meeting with the Minister for Education, I asked what would count as
‗success‘ for ELIS. Her reply was instant and unequivocal: ‗That all teachers and students in
Singapore schools would use Standard Singaporean English, and that Singlish would
disappear.‘
During the two years that I worked with the ELIS group, I had the opportunity of talking
informally with secondary school teachers and students. The teachers (these were subject
matter teachers rather than English teachers) were aware of government and ministry
concerns over the use of Singlish, but said that using the creole in class was important
because it provided a means of showing solidarity with and bonding with the students.
Students I spoke with said that Standard Singaporean English was ‗uncool‘. One student told
me privately that while she preferred SSE, she would be ostracised by her friends if she did
not use Singlish.
It is no secret that the government would be more than happy if Singlish were to
disappear altogether. However, that is not going to happen, and attempts to suppress varieties
such as Singlish is likely to have the opposite effect. The Singapore experience carries with it
several clear messages. The first is the need, within multilingual societies, to recognise and
value a range of accents, dialects, and even pidgins and creoles. The varieties of a language,
be it English or any other language, will serve different purposes for different groups. One
mark of an educated person is their mastery of a range of registers and dialects and a
knowledge and ability to deploy these appropriately, to know which is appropriate for a
coffee shop or hawker stall, and which is appropriate for a classroom or boardroom.
Languages constantly change, morph and mutate and, unfortunately die. However, they
cannot be legislated out of existence. They die when there are not enough speakers of a
variety left who want to keep them alive by using them.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

David Nunan 10
In the next section, I will look at what we can learn from the Singapore experience, and,
in the process, suggest some criteria for standard languages.

CRITERIA FOR STANDARD LANGUAGES

In this final section, I will discuss three criteria for the promotion of standard versions of
a language. These are intelligibility, appropriateness and effectiveness. Skilled users of a
language will have mastery of these three criteria. They will be comprehensible, they will be
able to tailor their message to the situation, and they will achieve their communicative goal.
Intelligibility has to be the first criterion measure for a standard language. It is impossible
to engage in any interaction with another person if you and the person you are attempting to
communicate with are mutually incomprehensible. As Bob Dylan sings in his song ‗Blowin‘
in the wind‘, ‗You can‘t criticise what you don‘t understand‘.
Creoles such as Singlish prosper because they simultaneously include and exclude. When
in Singapore, I struggle to comprehend utterances such as ‗He talk cock, la!‘ However, when
a friend, who is driving me from the campus back to my hotel says ‗Please wait a minute. I
have to go to the office to take my keys.‘, I know exactly what she means, even though, in my
dialect, I would say ‗get‘ rather than ‗take‘ my keys.
Appropriateness is the second criteria. When we use language, we tailor our message
according to what the message is about, to whom we are address the message and the mode of
communication – spoken versus written, face-to-face versus telephone etc.
A skilled user of a language will have a range of registers, accents and dialects to craft a
message that is appropriate according to these key variables. The notion of the ‗resourceful‘
speaker is increasingly being used to describe such language users (Pennycook, 2012).
The third criterion is effectiveness. Ultimately, there are three reasons for using language.
We use it to obtain goods and services, we use it to socialise, and we use it for pleasure and
enrichment. A skilled, or resourceful, user of a language is one who can achieve their
transactional, interpersonal and aesthetic goals through language.
In order to fulfil these criteria in different settings, students can be encouraged to be
proficient in both: Creole English (e.g., Singlish) and Standard English.
Despite resistance, the use of creoles, especially during early years of education, can help
children acquire literacy more easily because of their familiarity. At the same time, the use of
Standard English can enable students to make themselves understood in more international
settings. There is no reason why students should not be perfectly capable of functioning
effectively in both forms of English.

CONCLUSION

Earlier in the chapter, I reproduced a brief conversation between the proprietor of a food
stall and a customer. The two interlocutors use a non-standard variety of English effectively
for transactional and interpersonal purposes.
As interactions between non-native English speakers continue to increase, English itself
will be transformed by its new owners.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Standard English, English Standards 11
Far from being a sign of pathology, the emergence of pidgins and creoles is a sign of
health. However, if it is to remain an effective tool for education, business, and diplomacy,
the maintenance of standard versions of the language will also be crucial.

REFERENCES

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global English and cosmopolitan relations.
London: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2014). Tranlanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes. London: Routledge.
Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. 2
nd
edition. Urbana IL.:
University of Illinois Press.
Ministry of Education. (2011). English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS) to play key
role in strengthening the teaching and learning of English. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2011/09/english-language-institute-of-singapore-
launch.php
Murray, D. (2010). Changing stripes: Chameleon or tiger? In D. Nunan, & J. Choi (Eds.)
Language and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity (pp. 164-169).
New York: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (2006). The GlobalEnglish pedagogical approach: The evolution of technology
and value of online English language learning. San Francisco: Global English
Corporation.
Nunan, D. (2013). What is this thing called language? Second Edition. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pennycook, A. (2010). The future of English. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of World Englishes (pp. 673-688). London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (2012). Language and mobility. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Trudgill, P. (1999). The dialects of England. London: Blackwell.
Vittachi, N. (2010). A short course in Globalese. In D. Nunan, & J. Choi (Eds.), Language
and culture: Reflective narratives and the emergence of identity. New York: Routledge.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
AND GLOBALISATION: AN APPLIED
LINGUISTICS FRAMEWORK

Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar
Flinders University, Australia

ABSTRACT

Globalisation is one of the most talked about phenomena of recent times and has had
an impact on every sphere of life. However, applied linguistics (AL) has been slow to
engage with the trend. This chapter attempts to locate globalisation within an AL
framework, and in doing so address globalisation as a language-based issue. It starts by
tracing the development of AL as a discipline focused on the study of language-based
issues in society, and then articulates how globalisation can be viewed in these terms.
This exploration reveals that there is shared concern related to the global spread of
English and its use in educational institutions in many parts of the world. On the one
hand, it is perceived as a means to access knowledge, employment, education and stature,
while on the other, it can seem to jeopardise the status of other languages and the cultures
associated with them. This chapter looks at South Korea, China and Japan to understand
how countries are working to manage the impact of English as a global language. Based
on these examples, it concludes that by contextualising globalisation we create
opportunity to define it as a language-based issue and in doing so, suggests guidelines for
the way in which AL is conducted.

Keywords: Applied linguistics, China, globalisation, Japan, South Korea

INTRODUCTION

The word ‗globalisation‘ first appeared in the 1960s and only began to be commonly used
in the 1980s (Robertson, 1992; Waters, 2001). Although there are many definitions of
globalisation, and a multitude of differing views of the phenomena, its stages and
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar 14
consequences (Held, 2004; Held, McGrew, Glodblatt, & Perraton, 1999; Scholte, 2000;
Wiseman, 1998), there is a general agreement that globalisation refers to increasing,
expanding and deepening interconnections across the world (Gray, 2002; Held, 2004).
McGrew (1992) summarises globalisation as:

the multiplicity of linkages and interconnections that transcend the nation-states (and
by implication the societies) which make up the modern world system. It defines a
process through which events, decisions and activities in one part of the world can come
to have significant consequences for individuals and communities in quite distant parts of
the globe. Nowadays, goods, capital, people, knowledge, images, communications, crime,
culture, pollutants, drugs, fashions, and beliefs all readily flow across territorial
boundaries (pp. 65-66).

Globalisation has also become a central issue in a range of academic disciplines. Much
work has been carried out in sociology (Giddens, 1990; Robertson, 1992), politics (Held,
2004; Holton, 1998), economics (Ohmae, 1990) and cultural studies (Hopper, 2007;
Tomlinson, 1999), for example, and several general surveys of globalisation have also been
produced (Held et al. 1999; Scholte, 2000; Waters, 2001). However, despite globalisation‘s
prevalence and pervasiveness, AL has not engaged with it to the same extent as these
disciplines, nor has it made a concerted effort to define globalisation as one of the discipline‘s
areas of concern. To be specific, while work on globalisation has been conducted by applied
linguists, and there is work from closely related disciplines which could be interpreted as
relevant to AL (see for example Block & Cameron, 2001; de Swaan, 2001; Fischer, 1999;
Maurais & Morris, 2003; Ostler, 2005), a key shortcoming is that there are few explicit
attempts to problematise globalisation within the disciplinary boundaries of AL and arrive at
explicit statements about how to approach it.
In an attempt to address this gap, this chapter reviews the development of AL and then
articulates how globalisation can be viewed in such terms. This exploration reveals that the
dominance of English presents governments, communities and individuals with the dilemma
of utilising the language to access knowledge, employment, education and stature, while at
the same time preserving their first language and culture. The chapter then discusses this
dilemma through the examples of South Korea, China and Japan. Finally, the chapter
concludes that in order to contribute to the management of this dilemma, AL should adopt an
approach that contextualises it within specific communities.

FROM LANGUAGE TEACHING TO LANGUAGE-BASED ISSUES:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AL

AL has gone through various developments and changes since its beginnings, evolving
from a discipline primarily concerned with language teaching to one focused on the study of a
multitude of language-based issues in society (Grabe, 2002; Kaplan, 2002). Today, AL is
usually regarded as an independent discipline concerned with ‗the theoretical and empirical
investigations of real-world problems in which language is a central issue‘ (Brumfit, 1995,
p. 27). While debate regarding AL‘s scope, status, development and future does continue,
most applied linguists can agree on the basic definition and character of the discipline
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education and Globalisation 15
(Kaplan, 2002). Today AL is a thriving discipline, having its own academic positions,
academic departments, and national and international journals and associations (Davies &
Elder, 2004). The efficacy in viewing globalisation as a language-based issue means its
language implications can be highlighted, and these implications can in turn be explored and
understood in ways which have direct relevance to those affected by them.

FRAMING THE ISSUE: LANGUAGES IN GLOBAL
AND LOCAL CONTEXTS

Held et al. (1999) note that certain languages are diffusing across increasingly large areas
of the world and as already mentioned, this is most notable in the case of English, and this has
far reaching consequences, which Tonkin (2003) explains:

Seismic shifts in the political and economic organisation of the world are producing
seismic shifts in language use. Problems long recognised by epidemiologists of language
decline as afflicting small languages are now increasingly besetting major languages like
French, German and Russian as the cultural force of English erodes their position (p.
324).

In order to understand the situation of languages in today‘s globalising world, the concept
of context is crucial. In this chapter, context is viewed from two perspectives. One is the
larger global context and the other is that of specific local settings. These two contexts are not
independent, but rather act upon each other to create specific interpretations of the dilemma
raised by English as a global language (Hopper, 2007).
The global context of languages is outlined by de Swaan (2001):

It is multilingualism that has kept humanity, separated by so many languages,
together. The multilingual connections between language groups do not occur
haphazardly, but, on the contrary, they constitute a surprisingly strong and efficient
network that ties together–directly or indirectly–the six billion inhabitants of earth. It is
this ingenious pattern of connections between language groups that constitutes the global
language system (p. 1).

At the bottom of this system are the world‘s many small languages, called peripheral
languages. Peripheral languages constitute 98% of the world‘s languages and are used by
under 10% of the population of the world. Often these languages have no written script, are
passed on orally and rely on people remembering them rather than recording them (de Swaan,
2001).
At the next level, connecting peripheral languages are central languages. There are about
100 central languages in the world and they are acquired as second languages by speakers of
peripheral languages, thus enabling speakers of different peripheral languages to
communicate with one another. Central languages are often national or official languages and
are used in politics, courts, education systems, television, textbooks and newspapers. Around
95% of the world‘s population uses a central language (de Swaan, 2001).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar 16
Occupying a still higher level are supercentral languages. These languages serve as
vehicles of international communication. Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi,
Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Swahili are supercentral languages. This
group contains the most widely used languages in the world, with some having over 100
million speakers. Supercentral languages allow communication over vast distances and
connect speakers of central languages to each other (de Swaan, 2001).
At the centre of the system is English, the hypercentral language. English is the one
language that ‗connects the supercentral languages with one another and that therefore
constitutes the pivot of the world language system‘ (de Swaan, 2001, p. 6). This is reinforced
by Tsui and Tollefson (2007), who highlight that English, along with technology, is an
essential tool for interacting in the world. It is not surprising then that English has spread so
widely and competence in the language has become so desirable.

DEFINING THE ISSUE: THE DILEMMA OF ENGLISH
AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE

This situation, however, has particularly significant consequences for countries in which
English is not a first language. Notably, it requires such countries to implement programmes
of English language education if they are to participate at a global level, and as an aside to
this, to ensure the continued maintenance of their own languages and associated cultures. An
understanding that English is not a purely technical tool, but rather carries with it culture,
values and ideas, is essential. This being the case, the question thus arises: how do
governments and practitioners, often applied linguists, conduct their work in situ, enabling the
use of English to benefit the community and country, and yet minimising its negative impact?

ILLUSTRATING THE ISSUE: ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
IN SOUTH KOREA, CHINA AND JAPAN

In this section we examine the dilemma of English as a global language in three distinct
contexts: South Korea, a relatively small, developed country with a largely linguistically and
ethnically homogeneous population; China, a huge, diverse, rapidly developing country
which is becoming increasingly important in world affairs; and Japan, a developed country in
the process of recovering from serious economic difficulties.

South Korea

Since the beginnings of its economic development in the 1970s and 1980s, Korea‘s
interconnections and interactions with the rest of the world have increased rapidly, and many
of these, such as the hosting of the 1986 Seoul Asian Games and the 1988 Seoul Olympic
Games, have highlighted the need for English language proficiency as a tool for engaging
with the global community (Shim, 1999; Shim & Baik, 2004; Song, 2001). From the 1990s
onwards, this perception has strengthened as English has become closely associated with the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education and Globalisation 17
government‘s segyehwa or globalisation program (Song, 2001; Yim, 2007). In practical
terms, the Korean government has instigated a number of reforms aimed at improving its
population‘s proficiency in English. In 1997, the government declared that mandatory English
language education would begin in Grade 3, a measure of some significance given that
previously English had only been taught as an extracurricular activity in elementary schools
and was not part of the formal curriculum until secondary level (Shim & Baik, 2004; Yim,
2007). This reform was accompanied by a number of others, including large scale teacher
training programs, the introduction of an English language requirement for graduating
university, and the increased hiring of native English speakers to teach English and other
subjects in the country‘s universities (Yim, 2007). Many local governments have also built
‗English villages‘, or towns where only English is to be spoken (Park, 2009). Alongside these
government initiatives, there is also a burgeoning private sector, offering additional
opportunities to acquire English through English-medium kindergartens, after school or after
hours classes and online courses (Park, 2009; Shim & Baik, 2004). As a result of these
reforms, literally millions of Koreans have been exposed to English through the education
system and other means, and the language has come to play a major role in their lives (Shim,
1999; Shim & Baik, 2004).
An equally important goal of segyehwa which has direct relevance to the dilemma
described in this chapter is the building of a strong sense of Korean national identity. English
language education is also supposed to serve this purpose, as the Korean government believes
English can be used as a tool to present and promote Korean culture to the world (Yim,
2007). Yim (2007) reports, for example, that the most commonly used textbooks at secondary
school level have been deliberately designed to contain much content related to Korean
culture, such as the Korean family, Korean values, traditional Korean games and Korean
food, and to promote messages such as the greatness (even the superiority) of Korean culture.
This Korean cultural content is also designed to counter perceived undesirable influences
from Western, and particularly American, culture such as the growing popularity of Western
junk foods and forms of entertainment among Korean young people (Yim, 2007). In this
sense, English language education is conceptualised as a vehicle for both the opening of
Korea to the world and the maintenance of Korean cultural identity (Yim, 2007).
As hinted above, however, Korea‘s approach to English has not been without tensions
regarding Korean language and culture. One prominent example of such a tension is the
debate of the late 1990s surrounding calls from some Koreans for English to become the
country‘s second official language due to its perceived value at the national level as a tool for
international competitiveness, and at the individual level as a tool for higher education,
economic mobility and prestige. This proposal was greeted with strong criticisms. In
particular, Korean nationalists asserted that ‗a national language is not just a tool for
communication and business, but the nation‘s soul and identity‘ (Yim, 2007, p. 41). Another
example is the concern raised over the increasingly common practice of parents sending very
young children overseas to learn English, often alone or accompanied only by their mother.
This practice, known as chogi yeongeokyoyuk or early English education, is motivated by
parents‘ beliefs that English can only be learnt in an environment free from the influence of
the Korean language and presence of Korean speakers. In light of these developments, several
doctors and academics have expressed deep concerns over the affects on children‘s academic,
psychological, social and first language development, and the Korean government stepped in
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar 18
to make study abroad for very young elementary and secondary school students illegal in
2000 (Park, 2009).
These instances clearly demonstrate an understanding of the cultural force that
accompanies language – in this case embracing English enthusiastically, even within a
consciously Korean cultural framework – could undermine what it means to be Korean.

China

China‘s efforts to learn English on a national level have always centred on the principle
of zhong xue wei ti, xi xue wei yong, or ‗Chinese learning for fundamental principles, Western
learning for practical application‘. According to this view, English is a utilitarian tool which
can be learnt as a means to access science, technology, education, international stature and so
on, without accepting the cultural force of the language, while Chinese is for the essence or
the ‗soul‘ of the nation, that is, a conduit to develop identity, character, morals and values
(Adamson, 2004; Jin & Cortazzi, 2004; Ross, 1993).
Today, China has the largest number of English language learners in the world (Jin &
Cortazzi, 2004). At the national level, China sees English as essential to its reform and
opening up, modernisation, economic development and acquisition of international stature,
while for individuals proficiency in English is a key to education, employment and overseas
travel (Adamson, 2004; Jin & Cortazzi, 2004; Lam, 2005). China‘s view that it must also
participate in globalisation in order to achieve these goals has added further impetus to
English language learning, and much activity has taken place in recent times (Lam, 2005;
Zhou & Ross, 2004). Among the steps taken by the government to improve English language
proficiency are: beginning English language education in Grade 3 (Grade 1 in some cities
such as Beijing), declaring that certain university subjects should be taught through the
medium of English, providing English courses for police, taxi drivers and others in the lead
up to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, and engaging in strong English teacher recruitment
ahead of the 2010 Shanghai World Expo (Gil, 2005; Lam, 2005; Zhou & Ross, 2004).
China‘s private sector has also experienced significant growth, with many new schools
opening all over the country, offering a diversity of courses, teaching approaches and learning
experiences (Lai, 2001). In keeping with the zhong xue wei ti, xi xue wei yong principle,
China has consistently developed English language curricula which seek to encourage
patriotism, appreciation of Chinese culture, and loyalty to the Chinese state (Adamson, 2004).
Despite such efforts, however, the expansion of English language teaching is not seen as
an unambiguously positive development. Zhou Guoqiang, the deputy dean of Shanghai
Jiaotong University‘s foreign languages college, has expressed the opinion that China‘s
foreign language learning campaign has ‗overheated and needs to be cooled‘ (quoted in
‗Chinese intellectuals rebel against foreign language tests‘, 2004), and there is evidence to
suggest this view is shared by many in government and society. For example, in 2004, the
Shanghai Education Commission banned the city‘s kindergartens from teaching in English
only and ruled that only those kindergartens deemed to be qualified to do so would be
allowed to offer English courses as an extracurricular activity. This strong response was
prompted partly by concerns over the lack of qualified English teachers and appropriate
teaching material, but also by the belief that Chinese should be the major focus of education
at this level and that too much English at an early age could have negative effects on future
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education and Globalisation 19
language learning (‗English-only teaching not allowed for kids‘, 2004). Although not
specifically mentioned, the Commission‘s actions could also be interpreted as illustrative of
concerns over the moral and social development of individuals.
It is clear, within the Chinese context that English has a place in terms of global
communication, whereas Chinese is perceived as the vehicle through which culture, values,
and a shared national identity are developed and maintained. The belief China holds that it
can limit the impact of English to a ‗language only‘ effect is contrary to its experience with
English language education, which has, in reality, brought with it a host of cultural challenges
which may eventually undermine the traditional bases of the cultures and identities of China.

Japan

Japan has approached the teaching and learning of English with an attitude of English for
international understanding. This is closely associated with Japan‘s kokusaika
(internationalisation), which sees English as vital for accessing technology, education, global
markets and participating in international policy development. The Ministry of Education has
responded to kokusaika through various reforms and developments in English language
teaching, including allocating more time in the school curriculum to English instruction;
providing in-service training for teachers; increasing the number of native speakers of English
(as teacher‘s helpers in the school system) in programmes such as the JET programme; and
giving more consideration to communicative outcomes (Honna & Takeshita, 2004). However,
this does not imply a diminishing of Japanese identity, but rather, as Hashimoto (2009) points
out, yet another way in which Japan is promoting a concept of ‗Japaneseness‘ (p. 36) within
the international community.
This approach is put into practice through curriculum documents at all levels of
education, in which those things non-Japanese are defined as being ‗foreign‘, and ‗foreign‘ is
represented by English. It is noteworthy that the concept of globalisation is typified by an
international community that is distinct from Japan. Within this view, English is seen as a tool
and foreigners treated as resources to be utilised, learners are seen as a group rather than
individuals, and English proficiency is presented as something to be ‗owned‘ like an asset that
generates wealth and profit. Regulation and control of English is the position adopted by the
government in an effort to maintain cultural independence in a globalising world. For
example, teaching English as foreign language (TEFL) has been subject to conditions and
restrictions on the grounds that it has the potential to damage and threaten Japanese culture
and tradition (Hashimoto, 2007). Materials and textbooks have been designed with the
purpose of developing English proficiency, and therefore contributing to the nation‘s
economic success, while at the same time forming and maintaining a Japanese national
identity within a globalising world.
All three of these cases are examples of countries grappling with the dilemma of English
as a global language. However, governments in these countries have been quick to recognise
the paradox. On the one hand, English is potentially a danger to local language and culture;
however, on the other, individuals cannot be denied opportunity to acquire English and the
benefits it brings. Mindful of this, how then do applied linguists involved in the teaching and
learning of English as foreign language conduct their work?

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar 20
RESPONDING TO THE ISSUE: SUGGESTIONS
FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS

It has long been recognised that applied linguists ‗should approach problems of human
language and communication from a socially-committed perspective and contribute their
expertise where relevant to a qualitative improvement in people‘s lives‘ (Markee, 1990, p.
317). As Bygate (2005) rightly points out, however, formulating meaningful and practical
responses to language-based issues is a difficult task. This certainly applies to the dilemma of
English as a global language and the task is further complicated by the fact that suggesting a
standardised solution to this dilemma is not possible, because, as described above, its nature
varies from one context to another. Instead, this chapter suggests a general orientation AL can
take towards this dilemma, an orientation which can then be adapted and applied in specific
ways in specific contexts. The essence of this orientation is that applied linguists need
competencies that go beyond expertise in language in order to carry out their work (Cook,
2005; Gerdts, 2004; Grabe, 2002;). Cook (2005) explains the importance of this:

good applied linguists need more than scientific knowledge of a reified object of
study – they also need to know how to weigh personal and local factors, to engage
tactfully with those affected by policy decisions, to be ethical, to know the practical and
legal constraints on action, to respect the views and interests of the non-expert or those
with a different but relevant expertise. The ethics of any applied science should be to
negotiate a solution, not impose one (p. 295).

For applied linguists working on the dilemma of English as a global language, we suggest
the competencies they require are: (a) understanding and appreciating the nature of local
settings; (b) engaging with participants in local settings; and (c) developing solutions catered
to local settings.
Work along these lines has in fact been carried out in the contexts discussed in this
chapter. Li (2001), for example, describes how teachers in South Korea have attempted to
implement the government‘s new English curriculum, while Lam (2002; 2005) describes how
the language learning experiences of Chinese learners have been influenced by changes in
government policy towards English, and Kikuchi and Browne (2009) document teaching
practice in Japanese classrooms from the learner‘s perspective, following the recent reforms
undertaken by the government. We argue, however, that such work needs to go one step
further by making the dilemma of English as a global language explicit and attempting to
generate appropriate solutions to this dilemma.
In an illustration of such an approach, Gil (2005; 2006) explores the impact of English as
a global language on China‘s language situation. One significant theme to emerge from this
exploration is that there is a strong desire among members of ethnic minorities to learn
English, but they are hampered in their efforts to acquire it in an additive manner due to lack
of educational resources in many minority areas and a centralised curriculum and educational
policies which place limits on the expression of minority cultural identity. While accepting
the reality that English language education must operate within these constraints, he argues
that the design and development of English courses for minorities should proceed from a
thorough understanding of the social, cultural and economic characteristics of each minority
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education and Globalisation 21
area and that the local knowledge and perspectives of teachers, learners and others play a vital
role in this process.
In another example, Najar (2008) reports on the early findings of a two-week EFL
teacher training programme in which it became clear that teachers are less influenced by
government policy than by concerns in their immediate situations. An exploratory practice
approach was incorporated into the programme along with a strong element of critical
reflective practice. The purpose of the study was to gain insight into teachers‘ perspectives on
FL teaching and learning within a globalising world. Three key points emerged from the
study: (a) teachers‘ beliefs and prior knowledge systems determine what they understand
about teaching; (b) their teaching will reflect their understandings and reconstruction of any
given information, rather than being a mirror image of it; and (c) teacher learning often occurs
in response to difficulties teachers face in their practice, which they interpret and seek to
overcome in ways compatible with their context. Therefore, what constitutes ‗good teaching
and learning‘ is determined by not a standardised set of rules generated by external bodies
such as government, professional organisations and the like, but by teachers‘ immediate
needs. Hence the need to engage with local participants in our attempts to develop solutions
to the dilemma posed by English as a global language through an AL framework.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has discussed globalisation from an AL perspective. It has shown how
globalisation can be viewed as a language-based issue with particular emphasis on the global
spread of English. These issues were then explored through the examples of South Korea,
China and Japan, demonstrating that the key issues are shared, but their manifestations differ.
As applied linguists approaching these issues, an approach which is centred on contextually
based understandings seems to be the most appropriate. Cook (2005) aptly reminds us that
AL ‗is at its best when it understands and respects the interests of all involved, building into
its models other factors than linguistic expertise, though without losing its integrity or the
courage to state its opposition to particular courses of action where appropriate‘ (p. 296). It is
hoped that by adopting the approach outlined in this chapter, AL will be at its best when
dealing with the language-based issues associated with globalisation.

REFERENCES

Adamson, B. (2004). China’s English: A history of English in Chinese education. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2001). Globalization and language teaching. London:
Routledge.
Brumfit, C. J. (1995). Teacher professionalism and research. In G. Cook & G. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 27-41). Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Bygate, M. (2005). Applied linguistics: A pragmatic discipline, a generic discipline? Applied
Linguistics, 26(4), 568-581.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar 22
Chinese intellectuals rebel against foreign language tests. (2004, April 12). People’s Daily
Online. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200404/
12/eng20040412_140069.shtml
Cook, G. (2005). Calm seas or troubled waters? Transitions, definitions and disagreements in
applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 282-301.
Davies, A., & Elder, C. (2004). General introduction to applied linguistics: Subject to
discipline? In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 1-
15). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
de Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the world: The global language system. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
English-only teaching not allowed for kids. (2004, March 16). China Daily. Retrieved August
17, 2009, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/16/content_
315062.htm.
Fischer, S. R. (1999). A history of language. London: Reaktion Books.
Gerdts, D. B. (2004). Beyond expertise: The role of the linguist in language revitalization
programs. In N. Ostler (Ed.), Endangered languages: What role for the specialist?
Proceedings of the Second FEL Conference 25-27 September 1998, Edinburgh, Scotland
(3rd ed.) (pp. 13-22). Bath: The Foundation for Endangered Languages.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gil, J. (2005). English in China: The impact of the global language on China’s language
situation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Griffith University – Brisbane.
Gil, J. (2006). English in minority areas of China: Some findings and directions for further
research. International Education Journal, 7(4), 455-465.
Grabe, W. (2002). Applied linguistics: An emerging discipline for the twenty-first century. In
R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 3-12). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Gray, J. (2002). False dawn: The delusions of global capitalism. London: Granta.
Hashimoto, K. (2007). Japan‘s language policy and the ‗lost decade‘. In A. B. M. Tsui & J.
W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 25-36).
Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Hashimoto, K. (2009). Cultivating ‗Japanese who can use English‘: Problems and
contradictions in government policy. Asian Studies Review, 33(1), 21-42.
Held, D. (2004). Global covenant: The social democratic alternative to the Washington
Consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Glodblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics,
economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holton, R. J. (1998). Globalization and the nation-state. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Honna, N., & Takeshita, Y. (2004). English education in Japan today: The impact of changing
policies. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia
today: Changing policies and practices (pp. 195-220). Singapore: Eastern Universities
Press.
Hopper, P. (2007). Understanding cultural globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2004). English language teaching in China: A bridge to the future. In
H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today:
Changing policies and practices (pp. 119-134). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education and Globalisation 23
Kaplan, R. B. (2002). Where to from here? In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
applied linguistics (pp. 509-515). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kikuchi, K., & Browne, C. (2009). English educational policy for high school in Japan: Ideals
vs. reality. RELC Journal, 40(2), 172-191.
Lai, E. (2001). Teaching English as a private enterprise in China. English Today, 17(2), 32-
36.
Lam, A. (2002). English in education in China: Policy changes and learners‘ experiences.
World Englishes, 21(2), 245-256.
Lam, A. S. L. (2005). Language education in China: Policy and experience from 1949. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Li, D. (2001). Teachers‘ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in
South Korea. In D. R. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language
teaching: A reader (pp. 149-166). London: Routledge.
Markee, N. (1990). Applied linguistics: What‘s that? System, 18(3), 315-323.
Maurais, J., & Morris, M. A. (Eds.). (2003). Languages in a globalising world. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McGrew, A. (1992). A global society? In S. Hall, D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity
and its futures (pp. 61-116). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Modiano, M. (2001). Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT Journal, 55(4),
339-346.
Najar, R. L. (2008). Contextualising English as a foreign language teacher training: A China
study. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference Papers
Collection: NAJA08512.
Ohmae, K. (1990). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy.
New York: Harper Business.
Ostler, N. (2005). Empires of the word: A language history of the world. New York: Harper
Collins Publishers.
Park, J. (2009). ‗English fever‘ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today,
25(1), 50-57.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.
Ross, H. (1993). China learns English: Language teaching and social change in the People’s
Republic. New Haven: Yale University Press. Routledge.
Scholte, J. A. (2000). Globalization: A critical introduction. Houndmills: Macmilllian.
Shim, R. J. (1999). Codified Korean English: Process, characteristics and consequence. World
Englishes, 18(2), 247-258.
Shim, R. J., & Baik, M. J. (2004). English education in South Korea. In H. W. Kam & R. Y.
L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and
practices (2nd ed.) (pp. 241-261). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Song, J. J. (2001). North and South Korea: Language policies of divergence and convergence.
In N. Gottlieb & P. Chen (Eds.), Language planning and language policy: East Asian
perspectives (pp. 129-157). Surrey: Curzon.
Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tonkin, H. (2003). The search for a global linguistic strategy. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris
(Eds.), Languages in a globalising world (pp. 319-333). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Jeffrey Gil and Robyn Najar 24
Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language policy and the construction of national
cultural identity. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture,
and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 1-21). Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Waters, M. (2001). Globalization (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Wiseman, J. (1998). Global nation? Australia and the politics of globalisation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yim, S. (2007). Globalization and language policy in South Korea. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W.
Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 37-53).
Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Zhou, M., & Ross, H. A. (2004). Introduction: The context of the theory and practice of
China‘s language policy. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (Eds.), Language policy in the People’s
Republic of China: Theory and practice since 1949 (pp. 1-18). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

ESL VS EFL LEARNERS:
THE BENEFITS OF COMBINING LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION AND EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION
APPROACHES

Claude Goldenberg and Ken Romeo
Stanford University, CA, USA

ABSTRACT

This chapter summarises research and emerging theory on English language
education in two language contexts: on the one hand, English as a second language,
where learners are speakers of a language other than English and are in an English-
speaking context such as the US or the UK; on the other, English as a foreign language,
where English is the target language but not the predominant language of the society. We
consider some questions related to similarities and differences in teaching English in
these two contexts, for example: What is the role of instruction? This is a question that
invokes one of the most influential approaches to second language acquisition (SLA) of
the past generation, i.e., Krashen‘s natural approach. What instructional roles do specific
aspects of instruction play, such as the use of feedback or communicative language
teaching (CLT)? What is the role of the teacher in an increasingly complex language-
learning world where ‗global English‘ poses additional challenges to English learners and
teachers? We conclude with thoughts about some of the changes that might be underway
in approaches to L2 instruction, where the optimal goal might not necessarily be for
learners to acquire native-like proficiency but instead for them to attain desired levels of
communicative competence using a range of linguistic and nonlinguistic (e.g., gestural)
resources. The role of the teacher might be especially critical here. Rather than trying to
find the right language teaching methods to teach instructors, perhaps we should instead
focus on helping teachers identify key issues in English language education – whether in
English as a second or foreign language – and equip them with a wide range of concepts
and techniques, drawing from various theoretical perspectives, which they can use and
adapt for different learners, circumstances, and contexts.

Keywords: Global English, foreign language teaching, second language teaching
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Claude Goldenberg and Ken Romeo 26
INTRODUCTION

In a remarkable little book published nearly a decade ago, David Graddol (2006) pointed
out the following trends and likely scenarios involving teaching, learning, and using English
worldwide:

 a large increase in the number of people learning English worldwide, likely to peak
at two billion around 2020;
 ages and needs of English learners will change and become more complex: ‗many
ages and many needs‘ (p. 14);
 loss of relevance of native English speakers and native-speaker norms as English
becomes part of basic education in many countries;
 bi- and multilingualism becoming the norm with the ebbing of the economic
advantage of English, and monolingual English speakers facing ‗a bleak economic
future‘ (p. 14);
 declining influence of English on the Internet with other languages ‗now
proliferating.‘ (p. 14)

Paradoxically, English is becoming both more and less important worldwide: more
because in many parts of the world, and of course in the English-speaking world, English
proficiency is a basic skill and simply expected; less because with so many English speakers,
the comparative advantage of English proficiency per se is declining. The emerging ‗global
English‘ poses additional challenges to English language teachers, as they seek to address the
many different needs of English learners both in and outside of predominantly English-
speaking societies. This is the context in which we situate our chapter.

LEARNERS

As Graddol (2006) points out, even though English is currently the most commonly
studied foreign language, as the emphasis on English decreases, the importance of learning
and maintaining other languages will increase. For this reason, language learning will
continue to be an important part of global education, whether the target language is English or
some other. Efforts to advance the field are therefore crucial for improving teaching and
learning of non-native languages generally. Certainly, each target language has unique
characteristics that require special pedagogical approaches. But, here we focus on some of the
key differences for learners in English as a ‗second‘ language environment and learners in
English as a ‗foreign‘ language environment. Traditionally, this distinction implies that
‗second language‘ learning is done in a location where the target language is commonly
spoken for the purpose of living in that environment, for example, Moroccan immigrants to
England learning English. In contrast, ‗foreign language‘ learning – for example, Japanese
businessmen in Japan learning English – is done where the target language is much less
common. As a result, second language learners have much more access to the target language
than do foreign language learners. Of course this accessibility varies widely for foreign
language learners based on location and the target language. In the United States, for
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ESL vs EFL Learners 27
example, learners of Russian or certainly Spanish have many more opportunities than learners
of Kinyarwanda, even though both are learning ‗foreign languages.‘ For receptive skills, the
defining difference between ‗second‘ and ‗foreign‘ language learning is in opportunities for
exposure, a condition that has changed dramatically with the spread of Internet access and the
general increase in accessibility to foreign media outlets. Nonetheless, without careful
selection of materials, or the guidance of a teacher, learners might not approach resources in
an effective or at least optimal way. There is also no guarantee that second language learners
actually do have adequate learning opportunities. It is possible that the circumstances of
second language learners‘ lives (e.g., living in a neighborhood that predominantly comprises
speakers of the first language) can limit their access to the target language, so that formal
learning opportunities, including the guidance of a teacher, are likely to be helpful for them as
well. While it is possible for foreign language learners to benefit from conversations with
both native speakers and non-native speakers (teachers, peers), it is more difficult to have
these conversations in situations where the outcome genuinely matters (aside from grades or
marks on a test), which is typically not the case in classroom situations created to permit
practicing the target language. Online conversations are possible, but current technical
limitations on video and audio quality, and again, an outcome that is actually important, still
limit the possibility of improvement for most learners without experience online and a
relatively high proficiency level to overcome limitations in the media. Writing in the target
language is a much more realistic possibility, and online discussion forums and blogs are
places where this could happen. Unfortunately, there is often a link between the risk of failure
and the pressure a learner feels: finding a situation where the incentive not to fail is large, but
where the learner does not feel too much pressure, can be quite difficult.
The ethical implications of participating in online discussions are also open to debate.
Some teachers might argue that putting students in a ‗real‘ situation increases their motivation
to participate and opportunities to learn from their own successes and failures. On the other
hand, some point out that the classroom must be a safe place for learners to experiment and
make mistakes, and so requiring them to participate in ‗real‘ discussions online, especially
when using their real names, might not be acceptable. This debate is not as relevant in a
second language learning situation, since these learners have far more opportunities for face-
to-face interactions, which are not open to the entire Internet and are not archived, or even
reviewable. In a foreign language learning context, learners have fewer face-to-face
opportunities and therefore a much larger percentage of their interactions with speakers of the
target language are likely to be via the Internet.

PEDAGOGY1

Learning vs Acquisition

One of the fundamental issues in how we learn second or foreign languages (henceforth,
L2) is whether they can be taught or must be acquired. This might seem like a purely

1
Much of this section was originally published as Goldenberg, C. (in press, 2015). What do we know about second
language acquisition in instructed settings? In G. Valdés, K. Menken, & M. Castro (Eds.), Common core and
ELLs/emergent bilinguals: A guide for all educators. Philadelphia: Caslon.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Claude Goldenberg and Ken Romeo 28
academic distinction, but it has real consequences for how we think about and help promote
L2 development. If we assume that L2s can (or should) be taught, then we focus on
curriculum and instruction designed to teach specific aspects of the language (e.g.,
vocabulary, syntax, morphology, phonology, pragmatics) and how learners should combine
these aspects to promote competent use of the target language. If, however, we assume that
L2s must be acquired, then we focus much less (if at all) on curriculum and instruction and
much more on providing students with opportunities that will give them ample and
meaningful exposure to and use of the language. A third possibility is that L2s are learned
through some combination of learners being taught and also having ample opportunities to
acquire L2 proficiency. Existing research does not provide sufficient basis for determining the
most effective methods of L2 instruction with total confidence, but there is considerable
evidence that providing instruction, in some form, is more beneficial than not providing it
(Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010).
In the current educational climate, where English instruction is such a prominent topic in
many countries, readers might find it difficult to conceive that three decades ago ‗Does
second-language instruction make a difference?‘ (Long, 1983) was a viable question. A
dominant view (then and for some time after and still among some in the field) was Krashen‘s
(1982) ‗monitor‘ hypothesis, which proposed that formal instruction is of limited utility for
second-language acquisition. Instead, according to this view, a large amount of exposure to
comprehensible input in authentic communicative contexts is critical. This hypothesis states
that although second-language instruction might help learners follow some rules, language
forms, and the like, this type of learning is not very useful for language acquisition – that is,
being able to speak and understand a language in natural conversations and authentic contexts
in contrast to learning and being able to apply rules of the language in contrived situations. A
review published 30 years ago of studies comparing second-language instruction with second-
language exposure (Long, 1983) concluded that instruction indeed aided second-language
learning for learners of various ages and levels. There are undoubtedly benefits to exposure –
that is, living, working, and going to school with speakers of a target language; in fact, it is
probably impossible to attain a high level of proficiency without such learning opportunities.
But second language instruction has added benefits.
Norris and Ortega‘s (2000) meta-analysis revisited this question as follows: how effective
is second-language instruction overall and in comparison with exposure and communication
with speakers of another language? The review found that focused second-language
instruction designed to teach specific aspects of the language is more effective than
conditions that do not provide focused second-language instruction (including exposure only,
minimally focused instruction, or minimal exposure). Students who received focused second-
language instruction made more than five times the gains of students who did not (Norris &
Ortega, 2000, p. 468).
However, there are several limitations of this meta-analysis with respect to its
applicability to some instructional contexts. First, of the 79 studies Norris and Ortega (2000)
reviewed, nearly four-fifths involved college-age or adult learners; only 6 percent involved
high school students, 13 percent middle or junior high school students, and 1 percent – just
one study – involved elementary school. Second, most (59%) were conducted in foreign-
language instructional contexts and fewer than a third (29 percent) in second-language
instructional contexts, that is, where students are learning the dominant societal language and,
presumably, have more opportunities for exposure outside of instructional settings. Third, the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ESL vs EFL Learners 29
great majority of the studies were of short duration. The average ‗treatment‘ lasted just over
four hours and was more laboratory-like than a long-term, classroom-like situation. Finally,
most studies were narrow in scope focusing on teaching a specific feature of language such as
verb tenses, adverb placement, relative pronouns, or wh-questions.
Thus, the most robust conclusions from this meta-analysis – that the most effective way
to help older second-language learners learn a language form or rule in the short term is to
teach it explicitly – is of somewhat limited utility in other contexts. We do not know
empirically whether a semester or a year or multiple years of such instruction on a scope and
sequence of language forms and rules would actually produce higher levels of second-
language proficiency in young learners than some other approach – for example, one
emphasising language acquisition in more authentic and communicative contexts – also
sustained over time. So the fundamental challenge posed by Krashen to instructed second
language learning has not been fully resolved in favor of either the learning or the acquisition
perspective.
But while the ‗learning perspective‘ has a limited experimental base, the ‗acquisition
perspective‘ has nothing even comparable, since attempts at instructing and facilitating L2
learning based on an acquisition perspective have not, to our knowledge, been evaluated.
Moreover, and despite necessary caution in drawing analogies between language instruction
and literacy instruction, comparable findings have emerged about the value of explicit
instruction in English reading skills to L2 English learners (see August & Shanahan, 2006;
Genesee et al., 2006) in contrast to providing them with opportunities and exposure intended
to promote literacy acquisition without adequate instruction.
A review of the L2 instruction literature suggests the following guidelines – in addition to
the fundamental one that providing instruction, in some form, is more beneficial than not
providing it – for teaching English as an L2,
2
instruction should:

 explicitly teach forms of English (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, morphology, functions,
and conventions);
 emphasise academic language as well as conversational language;
 incorporate reading and writing, but emphasise listening and speaking;
 integrate meaning and communication to support explicit teaching of language;
 plan and deliver instruction with specific language objectives in mind;
 maximise use of English; the primary language should be used strategically;
 include interactive activities among students, but they must be carefully planned and
carried out;
 provide students with corrective feedback on form; and
 attend to communication and language-learning strategies.

Aspects of Instruction

There are several examples of specific instructional components teachers can use that
might be more or less relevant for different L2 learning contexts. For example, it is likely that

2
See Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) for the full set of guidelines, aimed primarily at English as a
second language contexts in the U.S. elementary and secondary schools.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Claude Goldenberg and Ken Romeo 30
feedback would carry much more weight for foreign language learners because of the lack of
situations that provide immediate feedback. Second language learners have more opportunity
for direct interactions with more fluent speakers in situations where the result matters to them,
so the result can provide powerful feedback about their language use. In instructed
environments, the constructed situations of a classroom have less immediacy, so feedback
from a peer or teacher would give them an opportunity to find pathways for improvement.
Both of these situations assume learners who are motivated to improve their ability to
communicate in the target language. On the other hand, feedback in a second language
environment could be a powerful impetus for improvement if it is directly related to outside-
the-classroom language usage. This unique opportunity requires some way of capturing that
usage so that feedback can be given: reflective learners who recall their experiences are
probably the best option, but video and audio technology is also a possibility. Discussions of
feedback often include the topic of form and how much to focus on it. Lightbown and Spada
(2008) note that it is more often native speaker teachers of English who rely on a focus on
form. They imply that while there is nothing inherently wrong with the approach, utilising a
variety of approaches–some of which are less focused on form–is probably the most effective
method to meet the needs of a particular group of students at a particular moment in their
learning.
Another example has to do with what has come to be known as communicative language
teaching (CLT). Many in the field of language teaching have recognised the need for a shift
away from strict adherence to CLT towards what May (2014) calls a ‗multilingual approach‘
that takes into account the realities of most learners. This approach argues that
communication is too narrowly defined in CLT, and calls for a fundamental shift away from a
paradigm centered on L2 learners acquiring native-like proficiency, to one that more directly
addresses the emerging communicative proficiencies of L2 learners. Their proficiency should
not be judged strictly on how close their abilities are to native speakers because in most cases,
such a goal is for all practical purposes both unattainable and unnecessary. On the contrary,
learners are often able to make skillful use of their limited proficiency according to the
situation they are in, sometimes incorporating their L1 or non-linguistic cues. May and others
argue that this ability to communicate effectively, albeit in a non-native way, should not be
ignored in language learning situations.
Calls for such a broadening of the horizon go back at least to Prabhu (1990), who argued
for a reconsideration for what a ‗best‘ method would be, and appealed to teachers‘ ‗sense of
plausibility.‘ Kumaravadivelu (1994) moved this idea forward, sketching out ten
macrostrategies for the ‗postmethod condition.‘ His argument mentioned, but did not include
specifically, activities or ‗microstrategies‘ for individual teachers and classrooms, reflecting
the daily realities of many teachers. Lochland (2013) gives an example of procedures for one
particular environment, teaching English in Japan, but interestingly categorises them into a
‗situated pedagogy‘ that addresses many of the particular characteristics of the learners, their
academic approach, and their environment. For example, he proposes that teachers urge
Japanese learners, who often rely on the teacher as the sole target language model, to seek out
other examples independently, especially on the Internet. Given the characteristics of learners
or groups of learners in specific local contexts, the methods he lists are likely to be effective
in working with the specific population that he is addressing. Perhaps even more importantly,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ESL vs EFL Learners 31
the ‗situated pedagogy‘ approach he suggests is one that teachers could reasonably employ in
a wide range of situations.
From another perspective, while CLT assumes less communication outside the
classroom, a multilingual approach assumes more communication outside the classroom. May
(2014) takes a similar approach as others who have found CLT lacking, arguing that
researchers and teachers need to include all of the linguistic abilities that learners have,
including how they construct meaning with the limited resources and how they include their
own native language when necessary. Canagarajah (2014), in the same volume, shows how,
in other parts of the world, specifically Africa, using more than two or three languages is
quite common, and no one really expects ever to approach native-speaker levels in any of
them. Speakers are able to communicate effectively by using aspects of other languages they
know rather than solely relying on one or another language. In general, however, it is also
difficult to imagine how proficiency would be measured in such a multilingual approach.
Clearly, it is not a binary function, and proponents of this approach give no real paradigm for
discussing how learning a language would be assessed. At the very least, one new dimension
– how the learner uses L1 – must be added to any assessment, which complicates things
considerably. Nonetheless, perhaps this complication is exactly the point we should attend to:
language use is nothing but complicated for learners, and we must at least begin to attempt to
recognise and understand this complexity from the learner‘s perspective.

TEACHERS

Similarly, the effectiveness of key aspects of language instruction varies. As noted above,
for foreign language teachers, careful guidance is the key to making best use of the many
opportunities for comprehensible input. If teachers can choose the right audio / video media at
the right time for each student, it is quite possible that students will be both challenged and
motivated. If a teacher knows the student‘s interests, it is possible to choose a topic, but it is
also important to consider the comprehensibility of the media. Unfortunately, many
guidelines for receptive skills closely follow paradigms for productive skills (American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012) and do not address unique
characteristics of media such as rate of speech, grammatical complexity, lexical
characteristics, and discourse level qualities that influence the difficulty level of L2 learners
such as concreteness and context. While it is possible (but not easy) to design media that have
certain grammatical or lexical features, the goal of most language instruction is to prepare
students to interact with authentic media, i.e., media produced for genuine communicative
intent rather than for instructional purposes. Authentic media by its nature usually have more
complex linguistic features that can be difficult for L2 learners to use productively. Much
more research is needed in this area in order to give teachers tools for selecting media that is
appropriate for their students. Similarly, assessing the output of learners is not a simple task,
but paradigms such as the ACTFL proficiency guidelines (American Council on the Teaching
of Foreign Languages, 2012) can be very accessible and accurate tools for classroom
teachers. Training is available in many places, and it is likely that greater access would give
teachers powerful tools to help their students. Interestingly, in some of the SLA literature, this
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Claude Goldenberg and Ken Romeo 32
type of organic assessment is used as a benchmark for other more quantitative methods (see
Norris & Ortega, 2009).

Role of the Teacher

Just as technology has changed the way everyone interacts with language, it has
fundamentally changed the landscape for teachers. Regarding receptive skills, it is possible
that Internet resources could be a major supplement, perhaps even a replacement, to a paper
textbook and oral input from a more proficient speaker. Moreover, textbooks that include
multimedia carry a higher price, a disincentive to teachers and students. Furthermore, media
included with textbooks are often not the most current. However, while most teachers have a
good sense for how useful these resources could be, when they bring them to the classroom,
they are essentially creating their own curricula. It is possible that non-expert teachers would
not be so good at this challenge. One possible need in both pre-service teacher education and
in-service professional development would therefore be to address the challenge of teachers‘
creating their own curriculum. Regarding productive skills, there is a lack of immediacy when
working in an online environment. On the other hand, the same tools that deliver the
opportunity for interaction also bring the possibility for recording and delivery of teacher/peer
review and feedback. While face-to-face interaction was the main means for providing
immediacy, it is now possible to record, reflect, share and get feedback on spoken and written
interactions through the use of interactive digital technologies.
Both Lightbown & Spada (2008) and Norris & Ortega (2009) point to the effectiveness of
an eclectic approach to both teaching and measurement. If all approaches have some validity,
and are in fact necessary, the teacher‘s role is crucial. From another perspective, Prabhu
(1990) and Kumaravadivelu (1994) point to the importance of the decisions a teacher makes
based on the students in the classroom. Expert teachers can use their observations and
experience to make these decisions (Berliner, 1986), but it would be very useful for new
teachers to gain some insight into the factors surrounding the best mix of approaches for a
given learner or group of learners. The goals and limitations of the course, resources
available, and freedom to adjust the curriculum are key elements, but to a large extent, it is
likely that the insights of expert teachers will be the best guide. The most important factors
relate directly to the characteristics of the students as individuals and as a group, including
class dynamics and local, cultural factors such as opportunities for using the L2. Eliciting
motivation, while at the same time moving forward with the curriculum, is a difficult balance
that usually cannot be prescribed by any quantifiable data in real-time teaching situations.
It would also be useful to broaden the discussion of how teachers and researchers of
foreign languages can contribute to the pedagogy and study of second languages and vice
versa. The first step is to recognise some of the similarities and differences of the endeavors, a
step which will show how some of the gaps can be filled, both programmatically in policy
and practically in the classroom. For example, attention to linguistic detail and the importance
of practice and face-to-face interactions are common to both second and foreign language
learning. However, there are key differences in the opportunities for those interactions and
their immediacy. Productive areas for cooperation between teachers in a wide range of
situations might be addressing common needs, such as the circumstances surrounding the
qualities of audio/video media, exploiting obvious opportunities like language exchanges, and
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ESL vs EFL Learners 33
sharing techniques, especially those that use technology. However, perhaps the most
important step is to begin to make more connections between the fields of ESL and EFL in
order to collaborate on teaching techniques, resources, and research methods and results.
While there are certainly differences among learners related to age, experience, and
environment, there are also many similarities that allow elements to be shared. In both fields
it is crucial to foster reflective, empowered teachers, who are skilled at observing and
understanding their students, while at the same time maintaining a firm grasp on not just
realistic end-goals for instruction, but also achievable and motivational short term goals, even
down to the level of activities. At the very least, each teacher needs to make re-assessment of
the milieu of students, with respect to their resources, habits, and expectations.

CONCLUSION

Although Graddol‘s (2006) book paints a picture that was likely to be somewhat alarming
to readers in the UK and other parts of the world where mainly English is spoken, the facts
and figures he cites were probably no surprise to those it was about: English learners in
countries where English is taught as a foreign language, specifically those in Asia. He notes
the large number of learners of English in China alone, far more than the learners of all
languages other than English in the US (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages, 2011; MLA, 2009), clearly indicates just how huge this effort to teach languages
has become. International travel and business, not to mention opportunities to study in other
countries, mean that a significant portion of the world‘s population will be engaged in
learning a second, third, or even more languages at some point in their lives.
The other side of this globalisation is that it brings opportunities for collaboration that can
possibly advance the field of language teaching. Shifting the focus from learners‘ attaining
‗native-like proficiency‘ to the realities and language needs of all kinds of learners could help
us identify common challenges and innovative solutions. A global discussion might allow us
to move beyond a narrow selection of applicable research results so that we can build a larger
corpus of findings that can be mined for broad guidelines. Finally, a broader understanding of
how language learning changes under different conditions could help teachers move from
using one-size-fits-all textbooks to media and methods that are chosen to fit the specific
circumstances of their students. By working across subfields among educators around the
world concerned with expanding linguistic repertoires, we can find ways not only to improve
students‘ learning everywhere but also advance humanity‘s ability to communicate on a
global scale.

REFERENCES

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2011). Foreign language
enrollments in K-12 public schools: Are students prepared for a global society?
Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReportSummary2011 No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Claude Goldenberg and Ken Romeo 34
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency
guidelines 2012. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-
manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report
of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berliner, D. (1986). In search of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Canagarajah, S. (2014). Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone.
In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual
education (pp. 78-102). New York: Routledge.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2009). Enrollments in languages other than English
in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.mla.org/pdf/2009_enrollment_survey
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English
language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a
Foreign Language.’ London: British Council.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for
second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2011). How languages are learned (3
rd
ed.). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Lochland, P. (2013). Moving beyond communicative language teaching: A situated pedagogy
for Japanese EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 261-273.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research.
TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359–82.
May, S. (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual
Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
May, S. (2014). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S.
May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education
(pp. 7-31). New York, NY: Routledge.
Norris, J., & Ortegal L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Prabhu, N. (1990). There is no best method – Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language development
instruction. In D. Dolson & L. Burnham-Massey (Eds.), Improving education for English
Learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 21-81). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

LEARNER AUTONOMY IN THE EASTERN
AND WESTERN CONTEXTS

Wen-Cheng Hsu
Xi‘an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China

ABSTRACT

Learner autonomy has become an educational goal and a field of its own in language
education. Literature on learner autonomy in English language learning, however has
been mostly, if not all, dominated by and interpreted from Western perspectives, no
matter where autonomy is referred to and exercised – in the East or in the West. Yet,
despite more than three decades of development and the popularity of learner autonomy
among practitioners to date, there has been little discussion as to how this concept has
developed.
This chapter sets out to give an overview of the definitional development of learner
autonomy in the West, and then shift to the Eastern concept of autonomy from a
historical, philosophical and cultural perspective, where a distinction is drawn between
genuine autonomy and pseudo autonomy. The Western approach of learner autonomy
pertains to genuine autonomy while the Eastern approach embraces both types of
autonomy. Such a categorisation will help us look at the notion of learner autonomy from
a more holistic view, thereby contributing to the theoretical understanding and daily
practice of autonomy in different contexts and among different groups of learners.
This new interpretation of autonomy for the Eastern and Western contexts shall
reshape the current understanding of autonomy (mainly from Western views), and
enable practitioners to see autonomy from different angles. This has implications for
theory-building and practice of autonomy not only for Eastern but also Western
practitioners who promote autonomy in any context around the globe.

Keywords: Learner autonomy, genuine autonomy, pseudo autonomy, English language
learning

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wen-Cheng Hsu 36
INTRODUCTION

To date, learner autonomy (LA) has established itself as a field of its own in second
language education (Schmenk, 2005). It has even become a buzz word among practitioners in
English language education around the world. The past three decades have witnessed a huge
number of publications on the description and practice of LA. A close inspection reveals that
the bulk of the works have been written by Western scholars such as Benson (2001; 2011),
Dam (1995), Little (1996), and Sinclair, McGrath and Lamb (2000). The majority of works
have been involved with the practice and applications of LA, such as Ravindran (2000),
Cotterall (1995), Little, Ridley, and Ushioda (2002), Smith (2003), and Reinders (2010).
Nevertheless, there has been little detailed and in-depth discussion on the origin, concept, and
exercise of LA in Eastern and Western contexts from historical, philosophical or cultural
perspectives respectively, although some scholars have tried to make a connection between
Confucian philosophy and LA, such as Pierson (1996). Moreover, it should be noted that the
‗mainstream‘ idea of autonomy widely discussed and implemented by practitioners around
the world can be taken as ‗the Western approach‘ of autonomy ingrained in liberal-humanistic
ideology, i.e., freedom and individualism (Lindley, 1986). Such an approach has actually
been prevailing and dominating in the Eastern Confucian-heritage cultures as well, and its
practice has produced mixed results. Holliday (2003) argued that such an approach may carry
an superior ideology of ‗native-speakerism‘ and ‗cultural relativism‘. It presupposes that
native speakers (mainly of English) are superior in autonomy and cannot expect other cultures
to exercise it as well as them because autonomy is rooted in and de facto a well-established
part of their culture, which they have exercised as civilians and social beings for centuries.
Autonomy has also been thought to be associated with some philosophical thoughts, i.e.,
positivism, humanism, constructivism, and even critical theory (Benson, 1997).
Consequently, different interpretations and definitions of autonomy have emerged. According
to the Western notion of autonomy, the trigger of autonomy is from inside the individual; it is
a capacity or willingness to take on responsibility for one‘s own learning. In contrast, the
Eastern approach of autonomy tends to focus not only on individual goals but also collective
expectations, i.e., glorifying the family and the community. The locomotive of such learning
can be generated from inside the individual or forced by the surrounding environment. In
general, there are similarities and differences between the two approaches exercised and
promoted by practitioners and learners in different contexts. This chapter will give a detailed
discussion regarding the theory and practice of the two types of autonomy in the two different
contexts. The next section will first examine the definitions and different interpretations of LA
from the perspectives of Western scholars.

THE WESTERN APPROACH

Despite more than three decades of evolvement, and the tremendous attention given by
language practitioners and even government policy makers, literature on LA still seems to be
in its infancy in that there is no consensus on what actually underlies the very construct of
LA, although much practice has been carried out to promote autonomy in language learners
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Learner Autonomy in the Eastern and Western Contexts 37
and even teachers. This section will describe the evolvement of LA from its onset into the
language education field.
Indeed, the notion of LA in language learning is multi-faceted (Benson, 2001; 2011). A
general consensus on what it means or implies does not exist (Raya, 2006). In early eighties,
pioneers of LA, such as Holec (1981) adopted a definition from Concise Oxford Dictionary,
describing autonomy ‗as an ability, a power or capacity to do something‘ (p. 4), and thereby
LA is ‗the ability to take charge of one‘s own learning. This ability is not inborn but must be
acquired either by ―natural‖ means or (as most often happens) by formal learning, in a
systematic, deliberate way‘ (p. 3). Holec went on to indirectly introduce the notion of
‗responsibility‘ and ‗decision-making‘ claiming that ‗to take charge of one‘s learning is to
have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this
learning‘ (Holec, 1981). Subsequently, in the late eighties, responsibility seemed to be ‗the
flavour of the month‘. For example, Dickinson (1987) argued that autonomy is ‗complete
responsibility for one‘s learning, carried out without the involvement of a teacher or
pedagogic materials‘ (p. 11). Likewise, Boud (1988) stated that ‗the main characteristic of
autonomy as an approach to learning is that students take some significant responsibility for
their own learning…‘ (p. 23). Meanwhile, autonomy was also perceived as a process of
decision-making by Hunt, Gow and Barnes (1989), who defined it as a ‗decision-making
process involved in identifying problems and making relevant decisions for their solution
through access to sufficient sources of information‘ (p. 209).
In the early nineties, Legutke and Thomas (1991) took a holistic perspective, viewing
autonomy as the three previously-mentioned elements (i.e., capacity, responsibility and
decision-making process) in that they defined autonomy as ‗the ability to assume
responsibility for one‘s own affairs [and]…the ability to act in a situation in which he [the
learner] is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the
implementations of the decision‘ (p. 270). This period also saw another element added to
autonomy, i.e., attitudes, which was proposed by a learner training advocate, Wenden (1991),
who assumed that autonomous learners have attitudes that enable them to use acquired
strategies and knowledge about learning confidently, flexibly, appropriately and
independently of a teacher. Other individual attributes, such as beliefs, motivation, learning
styles, and confidence, were gradually incorporated into learner training for developing LA
(see for example, Brown, 2002; Cotterall, 1995; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; Scharle & Szabo,
2000; Wenden, 1991). The mid-nineties saw one of the most important elements, i.e.,
willingness, which was explicitly embraced by some key figures in the field. For example,
Dam (1995), citing the famous ‗Bergen definition‘ claimed:

Learner autonomy is characterised by a readiness to take charge of one‘s own
learning in the service of one‘s needs and purposes. This entails a capacity and
willingness to act independently and in co-operation with others, as a socially responsible
person (p. 1).

Since then, a number of practitioners, e.g., Littlewood (1996) and Sinclair (2000), regard
‗capacity‘ and ‗willingness‘ as two of the most important ingredients in developing LA.
Willingness, according to Littlewood (1996), consists of motivation and confidence. Ushioda
(1996) also coined ‗willingness‘ as intrinsic motivation, a psychological attribute of
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wen-Cheng Hsu 38
individuals. Learners‘ psychological mechanisms, such as motivation are thus deemed as
components of autonomy.
However, in the late nineties, a ‗radical‘ and ‗critical‘ deviational note, which emphasised
the political and social-cultural dimensions of autonomy, was introduced to the literature by
Pennycook (1997). He voiced against what he called the fossilisation of the ‗psychologised,
technologised, and universalised concept‘ (p. 35) of LA at that period. Based upon critical
theory, he defined autonomy as ‗the foundation of human dignity and the sources of all
morality‘, and through ‗struggle‘, the ‗voice‘ of the learner, oppressed by socio-cultural
constraints, can be heard (Pennycook, 1997). In other words, autonomy is seen as the right to
learn and the individual freedom from socio-cultural constraints.
In the past 10 years, although a good number of studies have been done, e.g., by Reinders
(2010) and Lamb (2011), there have been no particular additional interpretations of LA.
However, there has been an emphasis on the teachers‘ part in terms of how to promote LA in
their students, and how to advance their professional repertoire as a practitioner for LA and as
an independent agent who exercises LA (e.g., McGrath, 2000; Kennedy & Pinter, 2007).
Despite various interpretations of LA, we seem to be able to conclude that the one shared
underlying premise of all Western scholars is that autonomy exists in individuals, and such a
force that triggers the action to take full control of one‘s learning, can be from within
individual themselves. They are willing to take the necessary actions to actualise their
individual rights, freedom or fulfil their individual goals as an individual and a social being.
In other words, autonomy is triggered by an internal desire, a driving force from within. This
is typical of the Western approach of LA, which can be coined as ‗genuine autonomy‘ as
compared to another type of LA, pseudo autonomy, triggered by external force. The Eastern
approach of LA, in contrast, can involve both versions, genuine autonomy and pseudo
autonomy. The following section will introduce the Eastern approach of LA.

THE EASTERN APPROACH

In contrast with the West, the seeds of LA germinated much earlier in the East, which can
be traced back to Confucian times, twenty-five centuries ago. Besides, when the Western
world started to embrace liberal-humanistic thought of autonomy in the eighteenth century
(Lindley, 1986), LA, as disguised in a form of self-learning had long been implemented in
China implicitly since the Confucian times and extensively since the introduction of the
Imperial Exam in the Sui Dynasty (A.D. 541 – 618). A number of Chinese philosophers and
educators have implemented or promoted ‗autonomy‘ implicitly or explicitly, and considered
individual differences, learner training, rights to learn, self-learning, etc. They mainly pertain to
the Confucian school of thought, i.e., Confucius (551 – 479 B.C.) and Chu Hsi (A.D. 1130 –
1200).
The notion of genuine autonomy was not only ingrained in Confucius‘ thoughts, but also
externalised in his teaching doctrine, as demonstrated in his own teaching philosophy as well
as his own practice of scholarship:

I do not open up the truth to one who is not eager to get knowledge, nor help out
anyone who is not anxious to explain himself. When I have presented one corner of a
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Learner Autonomy in the Eastern and Western Contexts 39
subject to any one, and he cannot from it learn the other three, I do not repeat my lesson
(Analects X). (Legge, 1998, p. 197)
Confucius also encouraged active involvement in conscious and constructive thinking in
learning and despised aimless elaboration on thoughts without reference to the subject matter,
as indicated in a dialogue with his students:

He who learns but does not think is lost; he who thinks but does not learn is in great
danger (Analects XV). (Shi, 1992, p. 56)

Self-motivated learning and critical thinking is thus a manifestation of genuine autonomy.
Such a tradition characterised by discourse and debate on learning related to questions such as
why learning is significant, and how it is to be carried out (Lee, 1996, p. 27), is characteristic
of a high level of genuine autonomy. As for the Confucian concept of LA, it can be
understood with the interconnected concepts of ‗self learning‘, which is ‗learning for the sake
of one‘s self… and taking responsibility for oneself‘ (Kim, 2000, p. 120). Confucius portrays
his own lifelong development as a continuing learning agent in his words as follows:

At fifteen, I had my mind bent on learning. At thirty, I stood firm. At forty, I had no
doubts, and at fifty, I knew the decrees of Heaven (Analects II). (Legge, 1998, p. 146)

Such an example of life-long learning with clear long-term goals and determination, to a
certain extent, sets a good example for self-directed learning in the field of adult education,
where learners carry out learning under their own direction (Benson, 2001). This concept of
self-learning coming from within or intrinsic motivation can be seen as genuine autonomy.
The other philosopher that promoted the concept of genuine autonomy is Chu Hsi (A.D.
1130 – 1200). Following Confucian basic tenets, fifteen centuries later, he re-compiled and
edited Confucian dialogues (from Confucius and his disciples) into the ‗Four Books‘, and
made Confucius‘ ideas of genuine autonomy more explicit. Chu Hsi thus claimed:

If you are in doubt, think it out by yourself. Do not depend on others for
explanations. Suppose there was no one you could ask, should you stop learning? If you
could get rid of the habit of being dependent on others, you will make your advancement
in your study. (Chiang, 1963, p. 90, as cited in Pierson, 1996, p. 52)

The above has, indeed, manifested a good number of characteristics of genuine
autonomy, i.e., being active, self-motivated, critical-constructive, self-dependent and
responsible for own learning. In addition, other concepts, such as individual differences and
constructive learning, are also related to the broad concept of LA. These notions have directly
influenced the attitudes of the Chinese citizens towards taking on responsibility for learning,
extending to their learning of English.
Another type of autonomy that has also been externalised and manifested by the ordinary
Chinese citizens for more than fifteen centuries is to pass the imperial exam and glorify the
family and relational community. Such autonomy can be coined as ‗pseudo autonomy‘, as it
is driven by external force, not initiated from inside the individual. In ancient China, a village
was originally formed through kinship or a relational bond; it was a unit, which survived, operated
and functioned on its own, both economically and politically (i.e., implicit social rules). There
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wen-Cheng Hsu 40
were acceptable and recognisable behaviours or implicit regulations operating among the strongly
connected community. Such a type of autonomy, stemming from collectivism, is sometimes
represented in the form of ‗collective face‘ (Salili, 1996, p. 149) for group reputation. Members of
the group had to obey the implicitly self-established social expectations, in the sense that they
would not lose their collective face and thus maintain the group harmony. In other words, such a
collective autonomy underlies the harmonious operation of the small society as a kinship or
relational group. Moreover, for fifteen decades, since the Sui Dynasty (A.D. 541 – 618), youths
especially from lower social classes would be dedicated to self-studying to pass the Imperial Exam
so as to bring fame and glory to their families (Lee, 1996). Such a mode of independent learning
was partly attributed to an external force from the relational members in the community, which is
a representation of pseudo autonomy.
To conclude, LA, particularly as it relates to English language learning, is not just a
Western concept, but a deep-rooted concept ingrained in the Confucian philosophy and his
lifelong practice. It has also been exercised by Confucius disciples as well as ordinary
Chinese citizens for long. In contrast with the West, the seeds and exercise of LA geminated
almost two thousand years earlier in China under the influence of Confucius and then his
disciples throughout history. Confucian philosophy as well as his life was implicitly and
explicitly embedded within the concept of genuine autonomy, which was also performed by
the believers and educators of the Confucian school for the purposes of attaining self-
actualisation and self-perfectibility to achieve sagehood (Lee, 1996), which emphasises a
moral dimension of autonomy. However, self-learning triggered by extrinsic motivation has
also been exercised by the ordinary Chinese people for centuries to improve self and
collective self (i.e., family and relational groups). The individual has no alternative but to
regulate his/her own behaviour and decide whether to conform to the imposed social and cultural
norms or not. Such a reactive response is characteristic of pseudo autonomy.

IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

Genuine Autonomy vs Pseudo Autonomy

Genuine autonomy and pseudo autonomy comprise two ways in which autonomy
manifests itself. While genuine autonomy should be given priority in developing autonomy
for long-term benefits, pseudo autonomy may sometimes be even more desirable and easily
developed in a collectivist and exam-oriented context for short-term purposes. In other words,
pseudo autonomy does not necessarily have a negative meaning. These two types of
autonomy are not value-laden; different types excel in different contexts and operate for
varying purposes and needs.
Learners with genuine autonomy can take full control over his/her own set of personal
beliefs and value system, and have not only a realisation and awareness of the factors in
relation to him/herself as an active and responsible social agent, but also the ability to take
full charge of his/her learning. Thus, genuine autonomy in a sense is similar to what
Littlewood (1999) termed ‗proactive autonomy‘, or what Dörnyei (2005) termed ‗the ideal
self‘ (an attribute triggered by intrinsic motivation for self-realisation). Thus, this ‗autonomy
from within‘ is the Western approach of LA. Pseudo autonomy, in contrast, is triggered by
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Learner Autonomy in the Eastern and Western Contexts 41
external force. Such autonomy is therefore triggered by a duty to fulfil collective goals or
expectations of a relational group. Pseudo autonomy, therefore, in a motivational perspective,
is similar to what Dörnyei (2005) termed ‗ought to self‘, as it is duty-bound, an attribute or
responsibility that one believes one ought to take on. However, both types of autonomy can
play an equally important role for learning English.

Implications and Applications in English Language Learning

Given the different interpretations of LA, some implications can be drawn. Although the
definitions of LA vary among scholars, and different contexts may exercise different types of
autonomy and learners may even exercise varying levels of LA at different times or occasions.
Be it in the form of attribute, attitude, right or freedom, autonomy is a benign notion that is
expected not just from teachers but also from the learners themselves. Also, regardless of the
type of LA that is exercised, as long as it can bring positive results in acquiring a command of
English, for instance through the manifestation of actual behaviours in carrying out tasks that
contribute to better learning outcomes, any kind of LA, be it genuine or pseudo, needs to be
encouraged.
To promote genuine autonomy, it is important to equip learners with metacognitive
knowledge (Flavell, 1979), or knowledge about learning or learning to learn (Ellis & Sinclair,
1989). This includes 4 aspects of knowledge: 1) knowledge of learners themselves, 2)
knowledge of the subject matter, 3) knowledge of external factors, and 4) knowledge of the
learning process (Sinclair, 2000). The first type of knowledge includes an understanding of all
the psychological attributes, such as learning styles, aptitude, attitude, motivation, etc. In
terms of English learning, the second type of knowledge is about meta-language of English
and macro aspects of English, which include the difference between spoken or written
grammar, different genres, registers, etc. The third type includes knowledge about the whole
learning environment. It can be as small as to be confined to the physical layout of the
classroom, or as large as any aspect of culture, micro or macro. The micro aspect includes
peer influence, teacher‘s teaching style and classroom culture, while the macro dimension can
further expand to include the exam culture or the typical Chinese culture with a utilitarian
motive to pass exams through persistent effort. The final type of knowledge, simply put, can
refer to the application of learning strategies to English learning, such as metacognitive
strategies, social-affective strategies, cognitive strategies, etc. Learning strategies are specific
behaviours that learners consciously employ to make their learning more autonomous,
effective, and enjoyable (Oxford, 1990). As for pseudo autonomy, it can be developed
through an awareness of the responsibilities and duties a learner is expected to have for their
family, a relational group, or even a country. It can be transformed into genuine autonomy
once learners have developed a genuine willingness to pursue collective goals or fulfil group
duties.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wen-Cheng Hsu 42
Autonomy in English Language Education in the Global Context:
A Global Phenomenon, a Contextualised Practice

With LA as an integrated goal of education for many countries and the superior status of
English as the main medium of communication around the globe, LA within the context of
English language learning seems to have attracted more attention from governments and
practitioners around the globe than any other topic in the field. Developing LA is becoming a
common and universal practice for English learning across all levels of English education
around the globe. Nevertheless, although LA has established itself as a field of its own and its
practice has become somehow legitimate in many language classrooms, it is not easy to
promote LA. One of the main underlying causes is the definitional fuzziness of LA, which
has caused some confusion among researchers and professionals in their practice. This is
however hard to solve, as it is inherent in the notion of LA itself, which is context-specific
and context dependent (Sinclair, 1997). Therefore, in the global world, if we were to
understand the very complex nature of autonomy, and expect to benefit from its practice, we
will have to situate LA in our own context, looking at LA as a localised notion and domestic
practice. The most appropriate version of autonomy for learners to develop should be
embedded in the discrete features of their local culture. As practitioners, we will be more able
to make sense of autonomy if we could construe LA as the one we and our students
consciously or subconsciously exercise inside and outside the English classroom in our daily
practice and learning. For example, apart from the understanding of metacognitive knowledge
in English language learning, and the role of English in a given context, for promoting LA in
the Confucius-heritage culture, we may need to take more into account the role of persistent
effort and family influence on English language learning. In addition to these, we will also
need to give more consideration to the influence of micro cultures prevailing inside and
outside the English classroom (e.g., peer influence, teachers‘ teaching styles, learners‘
existing learning approaches). In contrast, in Occidental cultures, we will first need to look
into students‘ willingness and freedom of choice because these notions associated with LA
are deeply ingrained in the West.
Currently, an array of materials for developing learner autonomy in English language
learning are available in the market (e.g., Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; Scharle & Szabo, 2000). The
majority of these materials were developed by Western scholars, which inevitably focus on
the development of the Western approach or style of autonomy. Teachers need to be aware of
this, and perhaps modify the materials to meet their learners‘ ethnical characteristics so that
they can develop the type of LA that best suits their students.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has provided an overview of the epistemological, philosophical, and social-
cultural notions of autonomy, and the practice and operation of LA in Eastern and Western
contexts. As we can see, the notion of autonomy is too complex to be subsumed into one
single construct, although some consensuses can be reached among scholars. For example,
autonomy is the capacity to take on responsibility for one‘s own learning. Autonomy has now
become an integrated goal and a common practice inside and outside the language classroom.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Learner Autonomy in the Eastern and Western Contexts 43
It has even become a requirement for teachers themselves (i.e., teacher autonomy) to become
more effective and (self-) justifiable while promoting autonomy in their students. To promote
autonomy effectively, it is useful to be aware of the distinction between genuine and pseudo
autonomy. Genuine autonomy is an inherent benign concept in the West, which originated
from liberal-humanist thought. Such autonomy is initiated from within and learners of this
type can take actions out of their willingness and for their own right. In contrast, pseudo
autonomy is triggered by external force. Such learners are more likely to achieve immediate
results. The Eastern approach of LA tends to embrace both types of autonomy, genuine and
pseudo. Although genuine autonomy may appear superior to pseudo autonomy, pseudo
autonomy may be even more effective in exam-oriented contexts, such as that of China,
Japan, and Taiwan. It is hoped that such a distinction can help English language teachers to
promote autonomy among their students in various contexts in this global world.

REFERENCES

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow, Essex:
Pearson Education.
Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller
(Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 18-34). London: Longman.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow, Essex:
Pearson Education.
Boud, D. (Ed.). (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning. New York: Kogan Press.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 49(3),
219-227.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English. Cambridge: CUP.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental
inquiry. American psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamum.
Holliday, A. (2003). Social autonomy: Addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In D.
Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives (pp. 110-127). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hunt, J., Gow, L., & Barnes, P. (1989). Learner self-evaluation and assessment – a tool for
autonomy in the language learning classroom. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Language teaching
and learning styles within and across cultures (pp. 207-217). Hong Kong: Institute of
Language in Education, Education Department.
Kennedy, J. & Pinter, A. (2007). Developing teacher autonomy through teamwork. In A.
Barfield & S. Brown (Eds.) Reconstructing autonomy in language education: Inquiry and
innovation (pp. 209-221). Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wen-Cheng Hsu 44
Kim, K. H. (2000). A Confucian perspective of self-learning. In G. A. Straka (Ed.),
Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptional considerations (pp.
109-126). Berlin: Waxmann.
Lamb, T. (2011). Fragile identity: Exploring learner identity, learner autonomy and
motivation through young learners‘ voices. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
Special Issue 14(2), 68-85.
Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the
Confucian tradition. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural,
psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25-41). Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Legge, J. (1998). The Chinese classics (I & II): Confucian analects, the great learning, the
doctrine of the mean, and the works of Mencius. Taipei: SMC Publishing.
Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom.
London: Longman.
Lindley, R. (1986). Autonomy. London: Macmillan.
Little, D., Ridley, J., & Ushioda, E. (2002). Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign
language classroom. Dublin: Authentic.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied
Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.
McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner
autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 100-110). Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.),
Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 35-53). London: Longman.
Pierson, H. (1996). Learner culture and learner autonomy in the Hong Kong Chinese context.
In R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or, & H. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in
language learning (pp. 49-58). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Ravindran, R. (2000). Towards learner autonomy: Evolution in practice — the certificate in
independent language learning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner
autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 60-71). Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education.
Raya, M. (2006). Autonomy support through learning journals. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders
(Eds.), Supporting independent language learning (pp. 123-140). Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang GmbH.
Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of
independent language learning skills. Australia Journal of Teacher Education 35(5), 40-
55.
Salili, F. (1996). Accepting personal responsibility for learning. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs
(Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 86-
105). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Scharle, A., & Szabo, A. (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner
responsibility. Cambridge: CUP.
Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly 39(1), 107-118.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Learner Autonomy in the Eastern and Western Contexts 45
Shi, J. (Ed.). (1992). Selected readings from famous Chinese philosophers. Taipei: Shu-Lin
publishing Co.
Smith, R. (2003). Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-) appropriate methodology. In D.
Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives (pp. 129-146). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sinclair, B. (1997). Learner autonomy: The cross-cultural question. IATEFL Newsletter, 139, 12-
13.
Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner autonomy and its development in the teaching of English to
speakers of other language (TESOL). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham.
Sinclair, B., McGrath, I., & Lamb, T. (2000). (Eds.). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy:
Future directions. London: Longman.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall International.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

EFL TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING NEEDS:
WORKING WITH MULTIMEDIA AND THE CLOUD

Shirley O’Neill
University of Southern Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT

This chapter examines the current opportunities that are available for enhancing
language learning through digital communication technologies in terms of multimedia
and use of multimodal texts, and the potential for language learning through the CLOUD.
Working with multimedia and the CLOUD are explored in the context of English as a
foreign language (EFL), teachers‘ professional learning needs, relevance to the principles
of second language acquisition, changing demands on learners and the potential to
improve languages pedagogy and learning outcomes in the current globalised world. It
reports recent research into two samples of EFL teachers‘ perceived professional learning
needs and presents a series of three vignettes that demonstrate how multimedia and the
CLOUD are facilitating language teaching and learning. Through exploring a deep
approach to multimedia language instruction it identifies those features that are most
enabling of students‘ language learning and the reasons why. It attempts to challenge
both the teacher and the learner to reconceptualise the 21
st
century language learning
space through its provision of insights into the benefits of the CLOUD in its potential to
have a dramatic impact on creating language learning communities, developing
intercultural literacy and supporting communicative interactions in English as a foreign
language.

Keywords: CLOUD language learning, digital communication technologies, EFL pedagogy,
EFL teacher professional learning, multimediated language learning

INTRODUCTION

The availability of digital communication technologies (DCTs) and the Internet to
support language learning is not new for many people around the world. In many countries
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Shirley O‘Neill 48
people have risen to the occasion to embrace the opportunities provided by the rise in
technology, its mobility and the Internet. The current generation Y (McCrindle, 2012) is
described as being ‗digital natives‘ (Prensky, 2001), those who have not known any other
world than the current, where they are connected 24/7 and ‗living virtual lives‘. While this
has created a serious new division in the world, between those who have access to the Internet
for learning (Boyle, 2013) versus those who do not, it has created a demand for language
teachers to become literate in its pedagogical use (Atmanegara & Agustina, 2013;
Hismanoglu, 2012; Li & Walsh, 2011; Mndzebele, 2013), and understand the digital-native
learner (Franco, 2013; Thompson, 2013).
Coupled with this major shift in resource base are the implications for second language
acquisition. Given the new horizons for communicative interactions within the global
community of EFL learners, this chapter investigates how DCTs and CLOUD technology are
being used to learn English as a foreign language; how these relate to second language
acquisition and the implications for EFL teachers‘ professional learning needs.

Literature Review

Currently, a brief Google search will show the breadth of applications and related
acronyms in use regarding digital communication technologies (DCTs) e.g., CALL, MALL,
and CSMC.
It also provides evidence of emerging related concepts and metaphor e.g., digital native,
digital citizenship, digital colonist, and the Proteus effect (Yee & Bailenson, 2007), as well as
the language that has arisen among its ‗in group‘ of global users e.g., blogging, googling,
phishing, skyping, texting, tweeting.
Riley (2012) argues for two broad types of product [using such technology]:

1. The traditional computer-based technologies (things you can typically do on a
personal computer or using computers at home or at work); and
2. The more recent and fast-growing range of digital communication technologies
(which allow people and organisations to communicate and share information
digitally).

While both of these products are necessary, it is the DCTs that have provided a
springboard to the potential enhancement of language learning. These include mobile phones,
tablets and ipads, blogs, wikis and Skype, Facebook and Twitter.
All of these technologies operate in the ‗CLOUD‘. They rely on the user having access to
the Internet to participate and interact with content, programs, services and people.
This demand to be engaged in their use, to dialogue, is central to their potential to
improve language learning.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology‘s (NIST, 2011) working definition of
cloud computing states ‗it is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand
network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources . . . [with] five essential
characteristics of: on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid
elasticity or expansion, and measured service‘.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

EFL Teachers’ Professional Learning Needs 49
As Al-Zoube (2009, p. 58) notes:

Many applications can all be done inside a web browser, while the software and files
are housed in the cloud . . . it is very easy to share content created with these tools, . . .
collaborating on its creation and distributing the completed work . . . anywhere the
Internet can be accessed.

The world has reached a point where the virtual space of the CLOUD can bring the
global EFL community together to provide the much-needed opportunity to communicate in
English for real life meaningful purposes. This can be in real time, synchronously, as well as
asynchronously.

Pedagogical Considerations

Blake (2013) cautions that it should not be assumed that using digital technologies will
automatically be effective for language learning. He discusses the importance of teachers
adapting their web-based lessons into an appropriate framework ‗which puts the negotiation
of meaning at the centre of its implementation‘ (p. 40).
He cites Dubreil (2006, pp. 252-256) as pointing out that given the teacher knows how to
take advantage of the medium, then L2 students need to become researchers on the web,
interpreters of culture, and careful notetakers of cross-cultural differences.
Teachers and students have immediate access to visual and spoken resources, and
opportunities to collaborate in the L2. Kessler (2013) also reinforces how the use of social
and new media in collaborative language learning practices promotes students‘ engagement.
Tochon (2012) notes the potential of DCTs to provide audio and video to connect to digital
communities, facilitate situated learning support and learner autonomy, assist teachers to plan
and monitor progress, and through video games help develop a scientific mind set (citing
Steinkuehler & Duncan, 2008).
Levy (2007) shows how such technologies can improve the learning and teaching of
culture. Through his analysis of e-mail, chat, discussion forum and Web-based project
learning experiences he has developed a pedagogical framework for culture learning that is
applicable to the use of DCTs. This framework illustrates where five facets of culture relate to
each project‘s use of technologies, pedagogical techniques and strategies. These facets are
culture as elemental, culture as relative, culture as group membership, culture as contested,
and culture as individual (variable and multiple). He concludes that:

Synchronous communication is potentially useful in providing a real-time interactive
environment to help learners become more aware of how meaning is derived from
context, moment by moment, during each communicative event. Reflection alone is not
enough. Students also need to ‗read‘ how culture is communicated through language, and
how to recognise norms of interpretation and patterns of use. Overall, culture learning
will derive from interactive exchanges that allow for action and reflection that encourage
a ‗dialogue‘ in the learner‘s mind between the broader generalisation and individual
instance (p. 121).

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Shirley O‘Neill 50
Examining DCTs in even more depth, Motteram (2013, pp. 23-24) addresses how, ‗these
technologies offer learners the opportunity to engage in activities that produce
comprehensible output and where meaning has to be negotiated‘. While he acknowledges
Krashen‘s (1981; 1985) second language acquisition theory‘s focus on comprehensible input,
he notes that Swain (1985) found it necessary for learners to engage with the language and
feedback to develop productive skills. It is the productive skills therefore, that the new
language learning paradigm of the digital world has the capacity to improve.

Multimedia and Multimodal Texts

Multimedia offers a wide variety of ways of presenting information through digital
technologies. A multimedia presentation may integrate writing, graphics, audio, animation
and video through the use of computer hardware and educational software. As opposed to the
traditional monomedium book, multimedia involves the use of more than one medium to
communicate. Compared with the traditional textbook approach (Ingram, Kono, O‘Neill, &
Masako, 2008), where there is little opportunity to use English in a purposeful manner,
accessing the CLOUD learning environment adds a new stimulating dynamic and changes the
paradigm for language learning. Yet, at the same time, it presents new challenges for teachers
and students. Firstly, it requires them to have access to the CLOUD and the digital resources.
Then they need to be skilled in their use. While ‗digital‘ natives may have acquired these
skills naturally as part of growing up with access to this virtual world, the need for teachers to
both acquire these skills and to understand how digital technologies can be used in EFL
pedagogy continues to be a concern (Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Hismanoglu, 2012; Li &
Walsh, 2011; Towns & Loo, 2012).
Pegrum (2000) argues that EFL/ESL teachers who have focused on the communicative
approach have always created learning experiences to bring the outside world into the
classroom. She sees their role as coordinators of inside and outside activities, with the aim of
‗short circuiting the slow process of natural discovery and making arrangements for learning
to happen more easily and more efficiently than it does in natural surroundings‘ (as cited in
Taylor, 1994, para. 21).
With the advent of DCTs the ‗outside‘ world has become the virtual world that offers
instant access to virtual reality (Reeves & Nass, 1996). This has led to the emphasis on
multimedia and multimodal texts. Moreover, teachers and students are able to create their
own content and share them with their peers, thus stimulating English language use. A further
strength is that everything that occurs in the CLOUD has the potential to be recorded and so
revisited at any time, which can add to the power of pedagogy and deepen language learning
(Tochon, 2014).
Mayer and Sims (1994, pp. 389-390) describe multimedia learning as occurring when
students use two or more formats.
They define multimodal as referring to the integration of different modes of text that are
used to create meaning. They point out that they are not just electronic texts but include
‗photographs, magazines, electronic magazines, electronic books, mobile web, hyperlinks,
video, twitter [and] blogs‘. When learners engage in virtual language learning communities
they are able to interact with a wide range of multimedia and multimodal texts that have the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

EFL Teachers’ Professional Learning Needs 51
potential to cause them to practise their language skills both in and outside class time, and
while on the move.

New Skills and Cognitive Considerations

Based on the move from monomodal, print-based texts to multimodal texts Serafini
(2012, p. 27) reconceptualises the notion of the reader as a reader-viewer and points out that
learners need new skills to produce and consume multimodal texts, such as skills needed to
‗navigate, design, interpret, and analyse texts in new and more interactive ways … [which]
require different strategies for navigating and comprehension.‘ O‘Neill, Geoghegan, and
Petersen (2013) noted that as educators give priority to address DCTs‘ research has drawn
attention to the differences in cognitive demands for the role of reader-viewer, and their use
has created a new metalanguage.
As Wang (2013) points out, the traditional monomodal texts, which are typically written
texts, are static and tell the information in a linear way.
In contrast, multimodal texts show the information in a non-linear, hierarchical and
interactive way.
They may be written with graphics, sound, and animation with hyperlinks to explore
different aspects more deeply, and involve use of more than one sense.
New types of texts require different conceptualisations and a different way of thinking.
Walsh (n.d., p. 2) cites Kress (1997; 2003) who differentiates between cognitive demands
required for reading and viewing. He points out that in written texts, words rely on the ‗logic
of speech‘, which involves time and sequence, but multimodal texts processing involves the
‗logic of the image‘ and presentation of ‗space and simultaneity‘. She highlights how Kress
and Van Leeuwen (2001) have shown that schools foster the ‗logic of writing‘ whereas
contemporary children‘s life experiences are grounded in the ‗logic of the image‘ and the
‗logic of the screen‘. This focus on screen technology is currently under scrutiny since early
research suggests that it may result in children having shorter attention spans
(Greenfield, 2012).
O‘Neill, Geoghegan, and Petersen (2013) explored some of these cognitive differences in
an examination of sample texts.
They likened the impact of digital technology and access to the Internet to the creation of
Huxley‘s (1932) ‗soma‘ like world. Not unrelated to Oliver‘s (2012) reference to ‗computers
and handsets . . . becoming an extension of body and mind, creating a Cyborg-like
population‘, their substitution of ‗mobile phone‘ for the drug ‗soma‘, highlights the power
and addiction of technology:

‗But it’s terrible,‘ Lenina whispered. ‗It’s awful. We ought not to have come here.‘
She felt in her pocket for her soma [mobile phone] – only to discover that, by some
unprecedented oversight, she had left the bottle [it] down at the rest-house. Bernard’s
pockets were also empty. Lenina was left to face the horrors of Malpais [life? school?]
unaided.‘(p. 95)

Interestingly, their analyses of monomodal and multimodal texts suggest a greater
cognitive load when processing linear written texts compared with that required when
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Shirley O‘Neill 52
clicking on the various aspects of a hierarchy of layers on a web page. For instance, it is
quicker to pick and choose information on web pages compared with having to read larger
chunks of information page by page to make meaning.

Teacher Professional Learning and Dialogic Pedagogy

Blake (2013, p. 123) cites Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi (2002, p. 110) as observing that
‗language teachers frequently incorporate into the curriculum only those technologies that
they use outside the school environment in their own personal lives, despite whatever
preservice and inservice training course they have received.‘ Teachers are seen as being slow
to rise to the challenge of change, as he states, ‗the tendency is to use new technologies to fit
curriculum practice rather than transforming practice through the application of a new
technology.‘ Thus, when one considers how today‘s students are likely to be using more
technologies in their personal lives than their teachers, there will undoubtedly be a lag in most
language programmes in their ability to fully embrace the benefits of DCTs. It is much more
cognitively demanding to plan and use a map to outline one‘s journey than enter an address
into the GPS and listen to follow instructions.
The way that teachers engage in a dialogue with students and choose language to scaffold
their learning has been shown to have a significant impact on teaching effectiveness both in
the language classroom (O‘Neill & Gish, 2014; Tarasat & O‘Neill, 2012; Walsh, 2006) and in
regular schooling (Blaise & Nuttall, 2010; Culican, 2005; Edwards-Groves & Hardy, 2013;
Geoghegan, O‘Neill, & Petersen, 2013). Through the analysis of ‗classroom‘ interactive
dialogue, using Culican‘s (2005) Scaffolding Interactional Cycle that makes explicit the
teacher‘s cognitive moves of prepare, identify, and elaborate/affirm, one can examine the
quality of pedagogy.
This approach to the study of teaching effectiveness is not new (Heap, 1985; Louden et
al., 2005) but it is being increasingly recognised as the most valuable strategy to gain insight
into ways of improving pedagogy. It also reflects the notion of the constructivist classroom
where students have a voice in their own learning (Lodge, 2005). It makes explicit the
difference between the traditional teacher-centred pedagogy and that, which is student-
centred. The latter operates in a more democratic environment (Mayer, 2012), where students
can be more independent in their learning. It is important for teachers to be able to self-
monitor their talk and, as Blaise and Nuttall (2010) emphasise that teachers need to learn to
‗notice‘ the way the dialogue they create affects students‘ learning. Geoghegan, O‘Neill, and
Petersen (2013) cite Van Es and Sherin (2002) who emphasise that teachers need to think ‗in
the moment‘ if they are to effectively guide classroom dialogue to scaffold learning. Table 5.1
provides an example of the application of the scaffolding interactional cycle to the beginning
of a reading lesson.
Thus, professional learning of teachers in terms of understanding how their moment-to-
moment talk influences students‘ learning is another area of need. Walsh (2006), who worked
with experienced ESL teachers to analyse their recordings of classroom dialogue, identified
thirteen features of teacher talk.
These included three forms of scaffolding in learning (reformulation, extension and
modeling), referential questions, seeking clarification, direct repair, extended wait time,
teacher echo and extended learner turn-taking. He states, ‗it is the schemata, mental
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

EFL Teachers’ Professional Learning Needs 53
representations of classroom experiences and events, which are critical to both understanding
and being able to verbalise that understanding‘ (p. 133).
The teacher-student/s dialogue that emerges around the ESL learning experiences
therefore, is a vital part of understanding the effectiveness of learning (O‘Neill, 2013).

Table 5.1. Sample dialogue and application of the scaffolding
interactional cycle

Mr. Hammond has been working with his Year 3 ESL class on a theme of farm animals and growing
one‘s own food. He introduced the theme through reading and dramatising aspects of the fairy tale Jack
and the Beanstalk (adapted from O‘Neill & Gish, 2008, p. 157).
Mr. Hammond was reviewing part of the story with the children. Together they read the following,
which was presented on the white board.

One day in the middle of spring Jack and his mother found they didn’t have any food or money.

Jack’s mother said, ‘We are in terrible circumstances Jack. I have to make a big decision that will have
serious consequences. We will have to sell Daisy. You will have to take her to the markets and sell her so
we can buy some food’.

Line number Scaffolding Interactional
Cycle (SIC)
Comment
Mr Hammond: The first part
of the first sentence tells us
when this happened.
When was that Abbas?

Prepare
Identify
Utility talk explaining the purpose of
the sentence and tests comprehension
of ‗Spring‘.
3. Abbas: It was in the middle
of Spring Sir.
Identify Lesson structure based on extract of
familiar story displayed on the board.
Mr Hammond: Yes well done!
That’s right.
5. Let‘s circle that. The
season was Spring and they
should have had new crops
growing on their farm.
Affirm

Elaborate
Circles key words and explains and
clarifies meaning of Spring.
Mr. Hammond: Then it tells
us about Jack and his
mother‘s problem.
What was the problem?
Prepare

Identify
Prompts the children to check their
ability to infer from the text.
Transcript 2 (Total transcript © S. O‘Neill & A. Gish, 2009) after O‘Neill, S. & Gish, A. (2008).
Teaching English as a second language. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

English As Foreign Language Teachers’ Perceived Professional Learning
Needs

As different countries across the world begin to have access to stable Internet to support
teaching EFL communicatively, it is valuable to explore their views on their professional
learning needs.
Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show the results of a small-scale comparative Likert type survey of
teachers in language schools in the Middle East (O‘Neill & Maleki, in press).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Shirley O‘Neill 54
It was found that these teachers were of the opinion that mostly they needed professional
learning related to creating tasks that caused students to communicate with each other in
English. Interestingly, both groups reported their students preferred to use social networking
strategies to talk to English speaking friends, and their students used the Internet to learn
English. To a lesser extent, the teachers saw their students as preferring to play computer
games to learn English.
In general, the teachers rated highly their need to know about the current issues and
topics in TESOL.
While the majority in the Tehran group needed to know more about using multimodal
texts in language learning and how to address dilemmas in pedagogy, curriculum and policy,
the teachers from Ankara did not rate the same level of need.

Table 5.2. EFL teachers’ views of their professional learning needs

(Rating out of 10)
I need to find out more about . . .

Ankara
Mean
N=30
Tehran
Mean
N=100
Creating tasks that cause students to communicate with each
other in English.
8.4 8.63
Current issues and topics in TESOL. 7.6 7.67
Using multimodal texts in language learning. 5.25 8.16
Addressing dilemmas in pedagogy, curriculum and policy. 5.03 8.35

Table 5.3. EFL students’ preferences when learning English

(Rating out of 10)
My students prefer to learn English by . . .

Ankara
Mean
N=30
Tehran
Mean
N=50
Talking to English speaking friends on Skype and e-mail and
Facebook.
9.85 8.04
Using the Internet in English. 7.83 7.7
Playing computer games in English. 6.08 7.32

VIGNETTES OF PRACTICE

Three vignettes of practice are presented to provide insights into current uses of DCTs
that rely on teachers working through the CLOUD.

Use of the CLOUD in International Language Exchange and Service
Learning

Denise (pseudonym), a high school teacher in an Asian country is a leader in the use of
digital technology to foster high school students‘ EFL learning and more recently Australian
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

EFL Teachers’ Professional Learning Needs 55
students‘ learning of Chinese. For more than a decade she has connected students to language
learning communities online, using a flexible platform that supports synchronous group
discussion (voice and chat), and the sharing of mono- and multimodal texts, through direct
links to the Internet. This system records all activities so that participants can reflect on the
written and verbal dialogues that transpire, to reinforce their learning. It is a locked site in the
CLOUD that requires a user name and password. Initially, Denise began this work as an
extra-curricular activity where students were volunteers. They participated in a range of
English language learning activities that included working on projects with other EFL
students in a neighbouring country. This required collaboration using the English language
for both students and teachers. Each annual initiative culminated in the two groups meeting
face-to-face to present their collaborative projects. In recent years, Denise has made
connections in Australia where her high school students are able to connect with students
learning Chinese. In this context they are able to use their English language but at the same
time support their Australian counterparts Chinese language learning. She and her students, a
different group each year, are committed to service learning, which brings mutual benefits.
Again, this language exchange program (O‘Neill, Shing-Chen, Li, Kagato, & Quinlivan,
2005) culminates with them visiting Australia to be immersed in the English language and
culture and to work face-to-face to support and motivate Australian students learning
Chinese. Students are currently creating their own short Chinese language learning videos
accessible on Youtube for their Australian peers. The students are empowered through being
able to use a variety of digital tools to create multimodal texts and share them for real life
purposes.

Multimediated Language Testing through the CLOUD

The Global English Test of Proficiency for All on the Web (GETPAW) is a multimedia
assisted online test of English that relies on the CLOUD and DCTs. Developed in Taiwan as a
national test (NETPAW) funded by the Ministry of Education, it was a key ‗E-era Manpower
Development Project, one of ten projects under Challenge Year 2008 – Important Projects for
National Development‘ (O‘Neill, 2012, p. 129). It is able to test all four macro skills but
candidates must pass listening and reading before moving on to the productive skills. It is
benchmarked to the first five levels of the common European Framework of Reference (Chen,
Chang, & Chuang, 2007). The test draws upon a large multimedia resource base, and it can be
taken anywhere in the world at any time, where there is a computer with Internet access.
Candidates interact through a microphone and headphones to view stimulus images and video
clips, and listen to spoken texts in a format similar to media player. They ‗remain in control
of their participation by being able to start, pause and stop the audio as well as restart and
listen to the talk again. This allows the testee to skim the choice of answers and also play the
talk again to check‘ (O‘Neill, 2012, p. 131). The test is available now in China, the Middle
East and US.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Shirley O‘Neill 56
Multimediated Language Learning through the CLOUD

David, a high school student in Taiwan is able to take advantage of a variety of digital
technologies for learning EFL. He has joined a well established online service that uses
interactive multimedia to assess his level of proficiency before linking him into the specially
designed, interactive multimedia learning resources. This system integrates software
technology and language pedagogy and is based on Web 2.0 Concepts and Advanced Speech
Technologies. It provides for learners of Chinese as well (Lin & Chang, 2009; Lin, 2009).
Once into the system, the learner is able to interact with peers. The pedagogical approach is
described by Lin (2010), who states:

I am especially interested in the similarity between the ‗Web 2.0 Concept‘ of the
Internet and the ‗Communicative Approach‘ of language pedagogy. Both emphasise
participation. And both emphasise more on production than on perception. I strongly
believe that the integration of ‗Web 2.0 Concept‘ and ‗Communicative Approach‘ will
lead to effective language learning.

Value is added through teachers being able to receive homework results via mobile
phone, giving students feedback. David uses a Tablet PC and Smart phone to access through
his school‘s wifi and home Internet. He finds the social networking style of operation
motivating.

CONCLUSION

Through this exploration of the use of multimedia and CLOUD technology for English as
a foreign language education, it is clear that today‘s digital communication technologies are
being embraced by teachers and learners alike. Although there are concerns raised in relation
to the possibility of the impact of screen technology requiring the brain to function in a
different way (Greenfield, 2012), and the possibility of health risks because of portable
devices emitting radio frequency radiation (Tochon, 2012), the tide has not been stemmed. On
the contrary, the education, pedagogical and assessment benefits seem to far outweigh the
seemingly invisible areas of criticism and concern. When we use the CLOUD we access it
through a variety of service tools. We do not see the service platform and infrastructure; we
do not see the radiation. No doubt users see first hand the convenience, the instantaneous
access to knowledge and people, and the possibility of personalising learning. There is a
global virtual world that now supports education, business, industry and health to name
only a few.
From the perspective of language teachers and language learners, DCTs and the CLOUD
have the capacity to more effectively engage students in learning a language. They have
spawned a platform for building the capacity of language teachers to teach and the capacity of
language learners to learn, thereby building social capacity and empowerment (O‘Neill,
2015). Students have the opportunity to bridge the traditional pedagogical gap since the
CLOUD is an open door to use English to communicate and make meaning. This can happen
in a wide range of ways through live chat/Skype, e-mail, Facebook and Twitter and the like.
They have access to numerous tools to create and share project work, including multimedia
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

EFL Teachers’ Professional Learning Needs 57
with hyperlinks. It is motivating in its ability to support and integrate listening, speaking,
reading, writing and viewing skills. Students with very limited English ability, who would not
traditionally dare to take the risk of trying to communicate in their L2, are easily caught up in
the need to text, blog, e-mail, Facebook, Youtube and create images and video clips.
Multimedia is significant for second language acquisition because it can provide more
powerful input for language learners, and importantly, empower them to create and produce
more output.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that language teachers need to ensure that they
understand how to utilise DCTs and the CLOUD to enhance their practice. They need to be
authentic users of these technologies in their daily lives to help them make the mental shift to
embrace the new pedagogical paradigm in their work. They need to adopt a social
constructivist philosophy where students are expected to interact and participate in a more
democratic ‗classroom‘ where teachers are mindful of being able to tailor their pedagogical
talk to effectively scaffold students‘ learning. The greatest challenge is that in EFL contexts
that have traditionally relied upon a textbook, and continue with a high stakes examination
system, the ‗outside‘, accessible via the CLOUD, will remain in students‘ outside lives and
will not be brought into the ‗language classroom‘ to stimulate and enrich language learning.

REFERENCES

Al-Zoube, M. (2009). E-learning on the cloud. International Arab Journal of E-technology,
1(2), 58-64.
Atmanegara, Y., & Agustina, S. (2013). Web-based resources in EFL learning: An
enhancement of students‘ digital literacy. Advances in Language and Literary Studies,
4(2), 117-123.
Blaise, M., & Nuttall, J. (2010). Learning to teach in the early years classroom. South
Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Blake, R. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language. (2
nd
ed.).
Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Boyle, J. (2013). Great online resources for ESL/EFL teachers. A selection of Internet tools
that can be highly useful to teachers of English as a second (or foreign) language.
Retrieved from http://www.emergingedtech.com/2013/07/8-great-online-resources-for-
esl-efl-teachers/
Chen, F., Chang, T., & Chuang, Y. (2007). Using NETPAW to advance senior high school
students‘ English acquisition in the context of the common European framework. World
Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, UICEE, 6(2), 1-11.
Culican, S. J. (2005). Troubling teacher talk: The challenge of changing classroom discourse
patterns. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for
Research in Education, University of Western Sydney, NSW. Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2005/cul05592
Dubreil, S. (2006). Gaining perspective on culture through CALL. In L. Dicate & N. Arnold
(Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign
language teaching (pp. 237–268). San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Shirley O‘Neill 58
Edwards-Groves, C., & Hardy, I. (2013). ‘Well, that was an intellectual dialogue!‘: How a
whole-school focus on improvement shifts the substantive nature of classroom talk.
English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(2), 116-136. Retrieved from
http://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2013v12n3art7
Franco, C. (2013). Understanding digital natives’ learning experiences. Rev. Bras. Linguist.
Apl., 13(2), 643-658.
Fu, I., Chuang, Y., Fu, S., & Beasley, R. (2012). Implementing cloud technology of
NETPAW at I-Shou University. The APAMALL Higher Education Journal of Language
Learning Technologies, 2(1). 91-119.
Geoghegan, D., O‘Neill, S., & Petersen, S. (2013). Metalanguage: The ‗teacher talk‘ of
explicit literacy teaching in practice. Improving Schools, 12(2), 119-129.
Greenfield, S. (2012). Business beware: Technology shortcuts brain power. Retrieved from
http://www.afr.com/p/national/work_space/business_beware_technology_shortcuts_RCK
2ypNIDBeVs2JylvAqUN
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311-326.
Heap, J. L. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons.
Curriculum Inquiry, 15(3), 245-279.
Hismanoglu, M. (2012). Prospective EFL teachers’ perceptions of ICT integration: A study of
distance higher education in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 185–196.
Huxley, A. (1932). Brave new world. London: Chatto & Windus.
Ingram, D. E., Kono, M. O‘Neill, Shirley, & Sasaki, M. (2008). Fostering positive cross-
cultural attitudes through language teaching. Teneriffe: PostPressed.
Kessler, G. (2013). Collaborative language learning in co-constructed participatory culture.
CALICO Journal, 30(3), 307-322.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Los
Angeles: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Kress, G. (1997). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated
communication: The potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen.
Sydney, Allen & Unwin.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Routledge
Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new technologies. Language Learning &
Technology, 11(2), 104-127.
Li, L., & Walsh, S. (2011). Technology uptake in Chinese EFL classes. Language Teaching
Research, 15(1), 99-125.
Lin, L. (2009). Why even a three-year-old kid can speak English, but I cannot, Business
Weekly Publications, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, L. (2010). Keynote speaker profile comment. First International Conference on
Leadership in Pedagogies and Learning, Stuartholme School, Toowong, Queensland,
Australia, August. Retrieved from http://www.pedagogy.org.au/Resources/
PastandFutureSpeakers132/DrYiJingLin-119/
Lin, Y., & Chang, C. (2009). A Chinese language-learning platform based on Web 2.0
concepts and advanced speech technologies. Paper presented at the 6th International
Conference on Internet Chinese Education, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 654-659.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

EFL Teachers’ Professional Learning Needs 59
Lodge, C, (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student
participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 125-146.
Louden, W., et al. (2005). In teachers’ hands: Effective literacy teaching practices in the
early years of schooling. Retrieved from http://inteachershands.education.ecu.edu.au/
index.php?page=43
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words?
Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 389-401.
Mayer, S. J. (2012). Classroom discourse and democracy: Making meanings together.
Critical pedagogical perspectives. New York: Peter Lang.
McCrindle, M. (2012). Generations defined: 50 years of change over five generations.
Retrieved from http://mccrindle.com.au/resources/whitepapers/McCrindle-Research_
ABC-01_Generations-Defined_Mark-McCrindle
Mndzebele, N. (2013). Teachers‘ readiness in using ICT in the classroom: The case of a
developing country. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,
3(4), 409-412. Retrieved from http://www.ijiet.org/papers/309-JR122
Motteram, G. (Ed.). (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language
teaching. London: British Council.
NIST. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing. Retrieved from
http://www.profsandhu.com/cs6393_s13/nist-SP800-145
Oliver, J. (2012). What does it mean to be a digital native? Retrieved from
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/04/business/digital-native-prensky/
O‘Neill, S. (2012). Implementing NETPAW’s test of English proficiency in Australia: A case
study. Language Learning Technologies: An International Online Journal, 2(1), 121-144.
O‘Neill, S. (2013). Activating the ‗language for learning‘ through schoolwide pedagogy: The
case of MacKillop school. Improving Schools, 12(2), 107-118.
O‘Neill, S. (2015). School leadership and pedagogical reform: Building student capacity. In
K. Beycioglu & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), Multidimensional perspectives on principal
leadership effectiveness (pp. 103-131). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
O‘Neill, S., & Gish, A. (2014). The language teacher professional. Brisbane: Adam House
Press.
O‘Neill, S., & Maleki, A. (in press). EFL teachers perceived professional development needs.
In S. O‘Neill & A. Maleki, Advances in TESOL for 21
st
century practitioners. V. 1:
Leaders, learners and strategies. Brisbane: Adam House Press.
O‘Neill, S., Geoghegan, D., & Petersen, S. (2013). The literacy demands of multimodal texts:
Deepening literacy learning or a new era of somatic dumbing down? Brave New World,
English and literacy teaching for the 21st century, AATE & ALEA Joint National
Conference, QUT, Brisbane 4 – 7 July, 2013.
O‘Neill, S., Shing-Chen, N., Li, S., Kagato, T., & Quinlivan, L. (2005). Students‘ and
teachers‘ perceptions of the Asian-Pacific Exchange Program. In D. Cunningham & A.
Hatoss (Eds.), An international perspective on language policies, practices and
proficiencies (pp. 261-283). Belgravia, Vic: Federation Internationale des Professeurs de
Langues Vivantes (FIPLV).
Pegrum, M. (2000). The outside world as an extension of the EFL/ESL classroom. The
Internet TESOL Journal, 1(8). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Pegrum-
OutsideWorld.html
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Shirley O‘Neill 60
Pim, C. (2013). Emerging technologies, emerging minds: Digital innovations within the
primary sector. In G. Motteram (Ed.), Innovations in learning technologies for English
language teaching (pp. 15-42). London: British Council.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television
and new media like real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, J. (2012). ICT – What is it? ICT, business & technology. Retrieved from
http://www.tutor2u.net/business/ict/intro_what_is_ict.htm
Serafini, F. (2012). Reading multimodal texts in the 21
st
century. Research in the Schools,
19(1), 26-32.
Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530-543.
Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language
learning. Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-
assisted-language-learning
Tarasat, H. S., & O‘Neill, S. (2012). Changing traditional reading pedagogy: The importance
of classroom interactive talk for year one Malay readers. International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, 7(3), 239-261.
Taylor, D. (1994). Inauthentic authenticity or authentic inauthenticity? TESL-EJ, 1(2).
Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume1/ej02/ej02a1/
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches
to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12-33.
Tochon, F. V. (2012). Research on the possible implications of multimedia language
education with iPad or Tablet PC. The APAMALL Higher Education Journal of
Language Learning Technologies, 2(1). 31-60.
Tochon, F. V. (2014). Help them learn a language deeply. Wisconsin: Deep University Press.
Towns, S. G., & Loo, D. B. (2012). Current issues in the development of multimedia
language learning software for mobile devices: Platforms to reach Thai university
students. Paper presented at AsiaCALL 2011 International Conference.
Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers‘
interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
10(4), 571–596.
Walsh, M. (n.d.). Reading the visual and multimodal texts: How is ‘reading’ different?
Retrieved from http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/northernadelaide/files/links/Reading_
multimodal_texts
Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal, 60(2), 133-141.
Wang, K. (2013). Showing or telling a story: A comparative study of public education texts in
multimodality and monomodality. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 136.
Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-
representation on behaviour. Human Communication Research, 33, 271-290.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

ENGLISH TEACHERS AS MORAL AGENTS:
BEHIND THE FACADE OF ENGLISH
AS A LINGUA FRANCA

Hangyan Lu
Centennial College, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT

Language teaching is a profession of values; this deserves due attention especially in
an era when English has become the global language and is used for communication
more by non-native speakers – that is, English is being used as a lingua franca (ELF) –
than by native speakers.
This chapter is such an attempt by re-contextualising and re-examining Johnston‘s
(2003) three fundamental categories of moral dilemmas in English language teaching,
namely, the dilemma of pedagogy, the dilemma of teacher-student relations, and the
dilemma of beliefs and values.
The examination of perceptions and practices of ELF-informed pedagogy reveals
incongruent answers to pedagogical questions like ‗how acceptable are acceptable ways
of writing and speaking?‘ The examination of the teacher-student relations focuses on the
delicate balance English language teachers need to strike between authority and solidarity,
and unfolds special challenges teachers might need to face with their authoritativeness
when ELF-informed pedagogy is under implementation. The examination of beliefs and
values revolves around the concept of professionalism in English language teaching, and
shows the different English language teaching realities that might sway teachers‘
commitment to professionalism. Underlying all the dilemmas are profound moral
dynamics that go to the heart of language teachers‘ understanding of themselves as
teachers and human beings. Most of the time, there are no absolutely right or wrong
decisions, or absolutely moral or immoral decisions. But there are moral or indifferent
decisions. The former, being decisions made with teachers‘ agency, is the kind of
decision to be respected and valued.

Keywords: English as a lingua franca, moral dilemmas, pedagogy, teacher-student relations,
professionalism
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hangyan Lu 62
INTRODUCTION

With the global spread of English to the point of non-native speakers far outnumbering
native speakers, there has been an ‗English as a lingua franca (ELF)‘ movement over the past
15 years or so. Falling within the World Englishes paradigm, the ELF movement recognises
the legitimacy of the communicative English varieties used by speakers with different native
languages and cultures and presents their emerging linguistic features as innovating and
accommodating in the ‗new globalinguisitc [. . .] situation of the 21
st
century‘ (Dewey &
Jenkins, 2010, p. 76). Yet, behind the facade of legitimate varieties of English as a lingua
franca, English language teachers have to confront unique moral dilemmas due to the inherent
conflict between the equal legitimacy ideal and the value-laden nature of language teaching in
practice. Teaching is fundamentally a moral activity; it often involves crucial yet difficult and
ambiguous beliefs and decisions about what is right and good to do. It is probably more so in
language teaching as teaching a new language often involves teaching the culture and
worldviews of people who speak that language. In a project that investigated languages-other-
than-English teachers‘ beliefs and practices of teaching a foreign language, ‗moral dimension‘
stood out as a domain in which the language teachers claim to be particularly active
(Mangubhai, 2007). Within the moral domain, three elements of teachers‘ moral concerns
have been identified. While the first two (‗everyone has worth‘ and ‗don‘t hurt the feelings of
others‘) could be anticipated quite commonly among teachers of various subjects, the third
one (‗tolerance of differences‘) is considered to be particularly evident among language
teachers. Having been exposed to alternative worldviews themselves, language teachers could
be more aware of the existence of differences and more ready to tolerate differences.
This moral concern over ‗tolerance of differences‘ in Mangubhai‘s (2007) analysis can be
much more complex when it comes to the teaching of English as a lingua franca where
differences are entailed not just in the associated cultures and worldviews, but also in the
form and structure. However, among the extensive discussions documented about the
pedagogical implications of ELF, the moral dimension is scarcely touched upon. Yet, teachers
are supposed to be moral agents. In other words, an awareness of the moral dimensions of
teaching and of the moral consequences of alternative courses of action is crucial for teachers‘
effective decision-making in their daily work routine. This chapter explores the moral
dilemmas English language teachers are faced with in ELF contexts.
The issue is addressed by following Johnston‘s (2003) framework of three fundamental
categories of moral dilemmas in English language teaching, namely, dilemmas of pedagogy,
dilemmas of teacher-student relations, and dilemmas of beliefs and values. The framework
was put forward over a decade ago when ELF movement had just started and there was very
little discussion over pedagogical and educational implications of ELF. But, it is so far
probably still the most comprehensive examination of the moral dimensions of English
language teaching.

ELF AND THE DILEMMA OF PEDAGOGY

The term ‗lingua franca‘, often used interchangeably with ‗language of wider
communication‘ (Berns, 2013), has its basis in business communication between Europeans
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Teachers As Moral Agents 63
and Arabic speakers. Gradually, the term has been extended to communication demands in all
walks of life, including education, to mean a language ‗used habitually by people whose
mother tongues are different in order to facilitate communication between them‘ (United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1953). Today, English is being
taught almost globally as a compulsory subject in schools and being increasingly adopted as a
working language in higher education in Europe and elsewhere outside the English-speaking
world.
With a long-standing emphasis on communication, one of the top objectives in English
language teaching from ELF perspective is to enhance students‘ intercultural communicative
competence. Also, the historical context of EFL which shows the increase in the number of
people interacting with others in English as a language other than their native language, led to
a fundamental change of attitude toward equal legitimacy of different varieties of English,
and downplayed the importance of native-speaker norms. Pedagogically, teachers are
encouraged to expose students to different varieties, especially those relevant to students‘
authentic language-using contexts.
There has been encouraging news from research on the integration of ELF perspective on
English teaching practice. For example, in terms of teacher awareness of ELF, Dewey (2012)
conducted a survey among a cohort of MA students enrolled in programmes related to
English language education in UK, and found that students could demonstrate not just
awareness but also a sophisticated understanding of ELF and related issues. In terms of
teaching-related materials, Chan (2014) examined the implied pronunciation target in Hong
Kong‘s English language education by looking into the written curriculum, exams and
textbooks. He found inclusion of Hong Kong English phonological features in localised tasks
in all three types of materials, although the commercial textbooks were found to be relatively
lagging behind in this respect due to commercial or marketing reasons.
However, there are concerns and incongruities when it comes to teacher implementation
of the integration. The most unsettling aspect of this might be the ever-changing nature of
ELF in authentic communication which runs counter to formal teaching within certain time
and space boundaries. When communication takes place in real life situations, mutual
intelligibility is the objective. However, this can be too dynamic and subjective to be
workable in pedagogic terms. For mutual intelligibility to be ensured or enhanced, knowledge
about varieties is crucial. There are always practical difficulties involved in encapsulating
diversity of English in the classroom and in assessment. Also, it is highly likely that teacher
will teach and assess students‘ performance on the basis of their own familiarity with
different varieties (Jenkins, 2014). It is thus not surprising that when Dewey (2012) examines
the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of ELF (in the dimensions of ‗correctness‘,
‗acceptability‘ and ‗intelligibility‘) and actual pedagogic practices (in the dimension of
‗importance to correct‘), substantial discrepancies were found. For sentences unequivocally
rated by teachers as highly intelligible but very incorrect, an apparent unpredictability was
observed in teachers’ ratings with regard to ‗acceptability‘ and ‗importance to correct‘.
Another concern expressed as an explanation for the discrepancies between teachers‘
perceptions and pedagogic practices is the institutional sanction (Dewey, 2012). The ELF-
informed pedagogy that students have experienced in language education programmes does
not seem to be codified at the wider university level, as the participants observed. This is fully
corroborated in Jenkins‘s (2014) study of documents on English language policies and
practices accessed from 60 websites of international universities. The lack of indicators that
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hangyan Lu 64
can demonstrate the institutions‘ acceptance of the sociolinguistic reality of English prompts
Jenkins (2014) to describe the environment as ‗depressing‘ (p. 119).
In Johnston‘s (2003, p. 145) discussion of dilemmas in pedagogy, he posed a question
regarding process versus product: How do I socialise learners into accepted ways of writing
and speaking while at the same time nurturing their ability to express themselves in ways
authentic to themselves? This seems to be easily answered with an ELF mindset: English
teachers should cast off the traditionally constructed concept of ‗accepted ways of writing and
speaking‘ and nurture students‘ intercultural communicative skills and accommodation skills
without losing linguistic features ‗authentic to themselves‘. However, as studies have shown,
this requires much more than an attitude shift on the language teachers‘ side. It also requires
the institutional sanction of the ELF ethos, and maybe students‘ collaboration, which will be
elaborated on in the next section. Before that is accomplished, language teachers will still be
faced with the dilemma of process versus product-focused pedagogy, in an even more
complicated ELF-informed version: shall I, and how do I explain to learners the
problematicality of the so-called ‗accepted ways of writing and speaking‘ in the global world
today while at the same time convince and make room for students to learn the ‗accepted
ways of writing and speaking‘ in the currently still norm-oriented academy?

ELF AND THE DILEMMA OF TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONS

Teacher-student relations have been constantly put at the core of the morality of teaching
by educational moralists (Noddings, 1984; Tom, 1984). On one hand, teachers want to
assume authority so that students can respect teachers and take what teachers teach seriously.
On the other hand, teachers are also human beings who would like to build solidarity with
students as equal human beings with individual emotions and desires. Johnston (2003, pp.
103-106) illustrated this dilemma of ‗solidarity and authority‘ by citing a telling case of an
early-career language teacher documented in Barcelos‘s (2001) article and expressed his
conviction that the dilemma stays with all teachers in all stages of their career. In this section,
I further explore the solidarity and authority dilemma by examining the changing perspectives
on good language learners and good language teachers in the field of language education.
At the time when language acquisition research was under heavy influence of cognitive
science, researchers‘ perspective on good language learners focused on learner characteristics
and their effects on language learning as mental processes from input to output. Normativity
in both input and output was preferred, usually that in standard British or American English.
Those who were believed to have good aptitude, motivation and learning strategies and
achieved a standard level were deemed as good language learners (Rubin, 1975). Language
teachers were instructed to pay more attention to ‗what is going on inside the good language
learner‘ and ‗establish procedures to train others to use these or similar procedures to acquire
a second language‘ (Rubin, 1975, p. 49) to the standard level. Native-speaker (NS) English
teachers were deemed superior to non-native-speaker (NNS) English teachers, with NS being
one indicator of normativity and authority. NNS English teachers would normally struggle to
reach for that native standard, no matter to what degree they could, so as to obtain an
authoritative status as much as possible.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Teachers As Moral Agents 65
More recently, there has been an increasing interest in applying social sciences
methodologies in language learning research, which situates language learning in specific
social, cultural and historical contexts (Norton & Toohey, 2001). The context per se is seen as
playing a pivotal role rather than being a background factor that influences learners‘
individual attributes. Numerous studies following this conceptualisation have shown that
learning a language is more than learning its structures and meaning in the input, and
developing fluency, accuracy and complexity in the output; it is also a matter of acquiring and
developing new identities (e.g., Chik, 2014; Lu & Luk, 2014). Good language learners then
are those who understand how their situated identities facilitate or constrain their access to the
target language and how they can exert agency in making use of available resources to their
favor. Correspondingly, a good teacher is supposed to collaborate with other teachers,
researchers and students to explore how identities can be shaped and reshaped to facilitate
language learning in and out of classrooms (Dagenais, 2013; Johnson & Golombek, 2002).
With multiple identities being brought to the front, the teacher-student relations are
compounded by taking on multiple dimensions. For example, how to strike a balance between
the identity as authoritative language maintainer and as a solidarity-seeking human being
becomes a difficult but important moral question that teachers have to figure out on their own.
Under the ELF paradigm, great importance is attached to viewing both teachers and
students as language users, using a common language for mutually intelligible
communication. This greater value, which is put on the language user identity above other
identities, seems to help answer the authority versus solidarity dilemma. For instance, in a
multicultural classroom where mutual intelligibility in the use of English is focused on, both
teachers and students are supposed to make accommodations and learn from the experience.
The importance of gaining solidarity clearly triumphs teacher authority in this scenario. While
this might enhance the self-confidence and self-esteem of language students and teachers,
especially NNS (Braine, 2013); the ‗mutual intelligibility‘ standard can be too slippery for
teachers to feel safe. Unless the language teacher would like to be led by the nose by students,
he or she would feel their role undermined or authority threatened or even paralysed, as
Dewey (2012) found in his investigation of some English teachers who were already well
informed of the pedagogy of ELF. As a result, English teachers – NS and NNS – might again
be faced with a need to fight for authority.

ELF AND THE DILEMMA OF BELIEFS AND VALUES

Finally, whether and to what extent an individual English teacher will fight for authority
or not, in an ELF context heavily depends on their internalised beliefs about and values
attached to professionalism in English language teaching.
Language teachers have not always started teaching as a profession. When English
teaching started for missionary or colonisation purposes, it was not regarded as a profession
that required specialised skills and training and offered a high level of job satisfaction with
high social status and high salary. ‗Out of professional concern over a lack of a single, all-
inclusive professional organisation‘ for teachers of English to speakers of other languages,
TESOL International Association was established in U.S. in 1966 (Alatis, n.d.). But even
since then, there has been a feeling of ambivalence among English language teachers.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hangyan Lu 66
Results from surveys among in-service and pre-service teachers of English revealed a
general lack of institutionalised career structure for English language teachers (Center for
British Teachers, 1989; McKnight, 1992, as cited in Johnston 1997). Given this picture, the
survey participants were vague about their aspirations and suffered from low status and low
compensation. Similar situations can also be discerned in the governance of English language
teaching in postsecondary institutions. There is still a common line of demarcation between
university-wide English language courses, which are usually taught by language instructors or
lecturers, and within-faculty content-based courses, which are generally handled by
professoriate faculty staff.
Results from interviews with in-service teachers, on one hand, corroborate the general
picture presented by survey results; and on the other hand, remind us of teachers‘ individual
agency in response to their similar understandings about dim professional prospects (Johnston,
2003). After interviewing many teachers about professionalism, Johnston stated that although
many systems do not recognise language teachers‘ professionalism, the overwhelming
majority still see themselves ‗militantly‘ (p. 107) as professionals, or at least would like to.
Then there were a minority of teachers who, as a way to protest the ‗cheat-off‘ (p. 109),
consciously refused to act like a professional.
The moral question regarding English teachers‘ professionalism that Johnston (2003, p.
146) posed—How can I reconcile the identity of being a professional with the realities of
ELT [English language teaching] in most countries and contexts?—still remains hardly
touched upon from the ELF perspective. It might be due to the developing nature of ELF
movement. But, there has been research or discussion about the realities of English language
teaching in different countries and contexts, which can inform English teachers when they
have to make their own decisions about their implementation of professionalism. For example,
English language teaching in academia has gained some momentum pertaining to the teaching
English as a lingua franca (Chan, 2014; Dewey, 2012), but generally ‗―the Englishisation‖ of
HE [higher education] is still very much a matter of ―native Englishisation‖‘ (Jenkins, 2014, p.
119). On the contrary, the private English language teaching sectors outside academy seem to
be more ready to welcome the ELF realities. A recent British Council report titled ‗The
English Effect‘ (2013) fully recognises the globalisation of English and presents the English
language skills for intercultural communication as the main incentive and a life-changing tool
for learners, with no indication of valuing only standard English. Another study on business
English as a lingua franca in two multinational corporations found a common ‗efficiency-
governed notion of appropriateness concerning the use of English‘ (Ehrenreich, 2009, p. 138).

CONCLUSION: ENGLISH TEACHERS AS MORAL AGENTS

The assertions that, given the number of non-native English speakers far outnumbering
native English speakers, equal legitimacy is to be given to all varieties of English have a
strong ancestry in the market-oriented efficiency-driven business world. But in the field of
English teaching, it is all too easy to exaggerate the importance of communicative efficiency
or expediency. Besides teaching communicative skills, language teaching is also a value-
laden activity. The teaching and learning of English is constantly accompanied by the
teaching and learning of ideas and ideologies and the formation of new identities. And when
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Teachers As Moral Agents 67
identity formation is involved, how many daily decisions do we make on the basis of
efficiency and expediency, compared with those guided by human traits such as gut feelings,
emotions, intuitions, and morality?
Of course, it is important to raise English teachers‘ awareness of the ELF reality, to equip
teachers with a better understanding of where they stand. But at the end of the day, in dealing
with the dilemmas like how acceptable is acceptable in students‘ ways of writing and
speaking, how authoritative is comfortable in teacher-student relations, and how professional
is desirable given the incentives accessible, English language teachers are dealing with
profound moral dynamics that go to the heart of their understandings of themselves as
teachers and as human beings. Most of the time, there are no absolutely right or wrong
decisions, or absolutely moral or immoral decisions. But, there are moral or indifferent
decisions. The former, being decisions made with teachers‘ agency, is the kind of decision to
be respected and valued. The latter, being decisions made ‗with an absence of concern when
individuals are likely to drift on impulses of expediency‘ (Kwo, 2010, p. 329), is the last kind
of decision to resort to.
In the ‗Afterword‘ of Jenkins‘s (2014, pp. 208-210) book on the politics of English as a
lingua franca in the international university, she presented two scenarios—one with NNS PhD
students finally choosing to ‗play safe‘ by writing in a native English style and one with an
‗optimistic ending‘ of the diction in a job advertisement being changed from native speaker to
expert speaker—and a final comment: ‗But as I say: you choose.‘ When I shared these two
scenarios with a colleague who was an NNS English teacher for more than a decade and
finished her PhD thesis in English education two years ago, interestingly, her response made
me feel more optimistic than my reading of the book. She said, ‗I do not know which I would
like to choose, but I am happy about your sharing because it makes me think.‘

REFERENCES

Alatis, J. E. (n.d.). The early history of TESOL. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/about-
tesol/association-governance/tesol’s-history/the-early-history-of-tesol
Barcelos, A. M. (2001). The interaction between students’ beliefs and teacher’s beliefs and
dilemmas. In B. Johnston & S. Irujo (Eds.), Research and practice in language teacher
education: Voices from the field (pp. 77-97). Minneapolis, Minn.: Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition.
Berns, M. (2013). Lingua franca and language of wider communication. In C. A. Chapelle
(Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.
Braine, G. (2013). Non-native-speaker English teachers. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.
British Council. (2013). The English effect. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org
Center for British Teachers. (1989). Pilot study of the career paths of EFL teachers. Reading,
UK: Author.
Chan, J. (2014). An evaluation of the pronunciation target in Hong Kong’s ELT curriculum
and materials: Influences from WE and ELF? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca,
3(1), 145-170.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hangyan Lu 68
Chik, A. (2014). Constructing German learner identities in online and offline environments.
In D. Abendroth-Timmer & E.-M. Hennig (Eds.), Plurilingualism and multiliteracies:
International research on identity construction in language education (pp. 161-176).
Berlin: Peter Lang.
Dagenais, D. (2013). Identities and language teaching in classrooms. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.),
The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.
Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 141-170.
Dewey, M., & Jenkins, J. (2010). English as a lingua franca in the global context:
Interconnectedness, variation and change. In M. Saxena & T. Omoniyi (Eds.),
Contending with globalization in world Englishes (pp. 72-92). Bristol; Buffalo:
Multilingual Matters.
Ehrenreich, S. (2009). English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations – Exploring
business communities of practice. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua
franca: Studies and findings (pp. 126-151). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of
academic English language policy. London: Routledge.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Teachers’ narrative inquiry as
professional development. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, B. (1997). Do EFL teachers have careers? TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 681-712.
Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kwo, O. (2010). Teachers as learners: A moral commitment. In O. Kwo (Ed.), Teachers as
learners: Critical discourse on challenges and opportunities (pp. 313-333). Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Lu, H., & Luk, J. (2014). ‘I would study harder if I was a girl’: gendered narratives of low-
achieving male and high-achieving female EFL learners. Journal of Language, Identity,
and Education, 13(1), 1-15.
Mangubhai, F. (2007). The moral and ethical dimensions of language teaching. Australian
Journal of Education, 51(2), 178-189.
McKnight, A. (1992). ‘I loved the course, but… ‘ Career aspirations and realities in adult
TESOL. Prospect, 7(3), 20-31.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 35(2), 307-322.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-
50.
Tom, A. (1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1953). The use of
vernacular languages in education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0000/000028/002897EB

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE BACKGROUND
ON ENGLISH READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS:
CROSS-LANGUAGE TRANSFER EFFECTS

Amir Sadeghi
1,2
and John Everatt
2
1
Islamic Azad University, Iran
2
University of Canterbury, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Reading is encompassed jointly by a language and the writing system that encodes
that language (Perfetti, 2003). In the early stages of learning to read, children must learn
to map letters (graphemes) onto sounds (phonemes) so that they can decode and
recognise words. However, the ultimate goal of reading is to understand the message
conveyed by the text and those skills involved in understanding text may be identical to
or analogous with those involved in understanding oral language. The influence of
language on reading, therefore, cannot be established simply through the study of strings
of spoken phonemes and how these relate to written symbols. Investigations of common
and potentially divergent understanding processes are also needed. This is equally
important when considering readers from various language backgrounds, such as those
acquiring knowledge in more than one language. It is crucial to understand how language
background influences reading comprehension skills in an individual‘s second
language (L2).
This chapter considers the relationship between literacy and language with the aim of
informing models of English reading acquisition in children from different language
backgrounds which will support the development of appropriate instructional practices.
The initial part of the chapter briefly outlines issues related to development of reading
comprehension skills in English speakers. This provides a background to discuss
potential cross-linguistic transfer effects that might influence reading strategies employed
by children from multilingual backgrounds, when attempting to read in English. Such
strategies will influence the learning of literacy, and performance on measures of reading,
in an L2. An understanding of the underlying cognitive-linguistic skills subject to
language transfer/interaction will inform the development of reading assessment
measures and teaching/intervention practices.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Amir Sadeghi and John Everatt 70
Keywords: Reading skills, bilingual/multilingual learners, second language learners, cross-
linguistic comparisons

INTRODUCTION

In the globalisation era, English has increasingly become important as an international
language (Crystal, 2003; Smith & Nelson, 2006) providing a channel for people from various
language backgrounds to interact and exchange commodities, including thoughts,
internationally. As a result, in many countries all over the world, students are taught English
through compulsory programmes at educational institutions. Migration has also led to the
increasing number of children and adults from various language backgrounds living and being
educated in English speaking countries. Therefore, acquiring English as an additional
language has become an important goal for many individuals. In terms of educational
achievement, this means that acquiring English reading and writing skills are also vital. In
particular, reading skills are crucial for educational attainment since accessing a curriculum
typically involves reading books or similar written materials. However, learning to read is a
complex process involving psychological, linguistic, sociocultural, and educational
components.
While basic research on reading in a first language (L1) has led to the development of a
range of influential models that have increased our understanding of reading acquisition
processes and barriers, research on learning to read in a second or additional language (L2)
has traditionally focused on pedagogy to enhance classroom teaching, leading to a dearth of
theoretical research and accompanying models (Koda, 1994). Hence, the influence and
development of underlying cognitive-linguistic skills within L2 readers from various
language backgrounds has yet to be understood fully. Furthermore, considering the fact that
the languages that a person may know (i.e., first language, second language, etc.) are in the
same mind, those languages must interact with each other at some level rather than
functioning in isolation (Cook, 2003). Therefore, the complexity of language transfer and the
underlying skills that might develop differently in children from non-English language
backgrounds need to be determined to increase awareness among educators, curriculum
developers, and test authors.

A SIMPLE FRAMEWORK OF COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC
SKILLS OF READING

Comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading and is more than a simple matter of
recognising or understanding individual words. All models of reading comprehension
acknowledge the active role of readers to build up a mental representation of what they have
read (Cain & Parrila, 2014; Frost, 2012). Successful comprehension of a text, therefore, will
involve a range of factors including (i) comprehension skills at the word, sentence and text
level, (ii) the integration of general world knowledge, (iii) an appreciation of text structure,
(iv) individual motivation and interest, and (v) metacognitive abilities. In other words, a
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Influence of Language Background on English Reading Comprehension Skills 71
process that integrates a range of sources of information, from lexical features through to
world knowledge seems essential for text comprehension (Snowling & Hulme, 2007).
Most children start learning to read from a fairly young age. The vast majority of these
children will develop their oral language skills prior to school entry, and many will also
acquire a familiarity with print in advance of formal reading instruction. Most models of first
language reading acquisition indicate that an important initial stage in the development of
literacy involves learning how to map the written form onto the speech sounds of their
language (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012). However, as these decoding skills develop, so too do
many other aspects of reading, such as the learning new vocabulary and text comprehension
processes. To provide a better understanding of the processes involved in reading
comprehension, many theoretical models of reading comprehension have been proposed
(Kintsch, 1998). However, a relatively simple model that has been used to consider reading
comprehension across languages is the simple view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986;
Hoover & Gough, 1990; Tunmer & Chapman, 2012) and the present chapter will use this
model as a framework to discuss cross-language interactions.
The simple model of reading separates variables pertaining to reading success into two
general components. The first component involves skills related to printed word recognition
or decoding, and comprises the visual orthographic, visual phonological and visual
morphological mapping skills that are needed to productively derive word meanings from
print representations.
Hence, reading comprehension can be considered as a process of making meaning from
script by encoding the written form of the language (orthography) through a combination of
graphic symbols that map onto the language. In many languages, decoding can be
accomplished by ‗sounding out‘ words and skilled word recognition may be a process of
decoding isolated words quickly, accurately, and silently. However, the extent to which word
recognition can be considered as simply using letter-sound relationships will vary with the
transparency of the orthography: with lower levels of transparency, letter-sound relationships
become less consistent, so simple decoding processes will become unreliable.
The second component in models such as the simple model of reading involves
vocabulary, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. This component is often termed
linguistic comprehension to show the close relationship between these processes in reading
and analogous processes in oral language understanding. Linguistic comprehension is known
as ‗the process by which given lexical (i.e., word) information, sentences and discourses are
interpreted‘ (Gough & Tunmer, 1986, p. 7).
Consistent with its importance, those oral language processes that make up linguistic
comprehension are highly predictive of, and important for, reading comprehension (Adlof,
Catts, & Little, 2006). As an example, a typical English reader with no understanding of the
Italian language may make a good job of decoding written Italian words into a spoken form
but, since he/she cannot understand what they have decoded, reading comprehension will not
occur.
Among English language learners, oral proficiency in English is considered crucial to
students‘ academic success, and positive relationships have been demonstrated between
students‘ oral proficiency and reading achievement (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, &
Christian, 2005).
The simple view of reading has also provided a framework by which to consider the roles
of linguistic comprehension and decoding skills in the development of reading
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Amir Sadeghi and John Everatt 72
comprehension and as causes of atypical literacy development. For example, the level of
variability in reading comprehension explained by language understanding and word
decoding measures changes with experience.
Although significant relationships between measures of decoding and reading
comprehension can be found in the early years of a child‘s literacy development, this
correlation decreases as the child matures and measures of oral language comprehension
become more highly correlated with reading comprehension (Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005).
This argues for word recognition influences on reading comprehension to be more confined to
early reading development, and suggests that later developing reading comprehension
problems may be due to reasons other than word decoding. Indeed, there are many cases
where poor reading comprehension levels have not been associated with poor decoding (see
Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Spooner, Gathercole, & Baddeley, 2006).
Aaron, Joshi, and Williams (1999) studied 198 students in grades 3, 4 and 6 and reported
that about 8% of the students had either lacked sufficient decoding skills or linguistic
comprehension skills. They also found that another 8% of the students had problems in both
decoding and listening comprehension (see Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006, for a review).
Based on this framework, cross-language influences on reading comprehension may have to
be considered at these two levels (i.e., word recognition, decoding components versus
linguistic comprehension, oral language understanding components) in order to develop
reliable and efficient assessment practices (see Everatt et al., 2013) and more effective
methods of supporting learning (see examples in Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008; Clarke,
Snowling, Truelove, & Hulme, 2010).
Theoretical implications of the simple view of reading have been explored across a range
of languages. A meta-analysis conducted by Florit and Cain (2011) assessed the usefulness of
the simple view of reading as a framework to understand languages that varied in their
consistency in the relationship between letters and sounds (i.e., orthographic transparency).
Although they considered that this simple framework was applicable across languages, they
reported that accurate decoding ability was more important in early reading in less transparent
orthography, such as English (Share, 2008), whereas language comprehension produced
larger effects with more transparent orthographies, suggesting that the way in which
processes interact may also be determined by orthographic features.

CROSS-LANGUAGE TRANSFER

The variety of orthographies and language typologies that may influence reading
development and reading theories has also led to a growing body of research on bilingual and
second language learners aimed at identifying potential cross-language factors that will play a
role in successful reading acquisition. Cross-language influences have also been termed cross-
language interaction or transfer effects. In applied linguistics, the term transfer refers to skills
in L2 being very similar or bearing traceable features of L1 (Odlin, 1997, 2005). In
psychological research, transfer is usually defined as a statistical correlation between skills in
L1 and L2, which is taken as indicative of some levels of interaction between the two
languages (e.g., Wang, Cheng, & Chen, 2006; Wang, Ko, & Choi, 2009; Wang, Perfetti, &
Liu, 2005). Given that transfer, and/or interactions, between L1 and L2 occur, learning to read
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Influence of Language Background on English Reading Comprehension Skills 73
and write in one language would be predicted to facilitate (or interfere with) learning to
read/write in another language. For example, skills in one language may support relative
weaknesses in a second (see discussions in Bialystok, McBride-Chang, & Luk, 2005) leading
to differences in observed performance in assessments of the skills, or related skills, or to the
development of practices that train skills in one language with the aim that these will support
skills in a second. This means that both models of reading acquisition, as well as practices to
support literacy learning, will need to take account of these interactive effects in their
explanations of behaviour and their predictions of outcomes (see findings in Lipka & Siegel,
2007). Whereas the concept of transfer in L2 learning has been generally accepted, there is
little known about how skills transfer from one language to another (Koda, 2007).
Among cognitive-linguistic skills involved in reading, phonological awareness has been
found to account for substantial variance in the reading (particularly as part of the word
decoding components of reading) across a range of languages (see Geva & Siegel, 2000;
Smythe et al., 2008; Ziegler et al., 2010), including languages, such as Chinese, that have
writing systems that do not code for phonemes (e.g., Cho & McBride-Chang, 2005; McBride-
Chang & Kail, 2002). Phonological awareness is defined as an individual‘s awareness of the
phonemic (sound) structure of words and is the cognitive-linguistic skill that has been most
studied in terms of cross-language transfer effects in reading (see Adesope, Lavin, Thompson,
& Ungerleider, 2010; Kuo & Anderson, 2012; Melby‐Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011). In contrast,
relatively fewer reading-based research has considered those skills more associated with
linguistic comprehension (though see also Sadeghi, Everatt, McNeill, & Rezari, 2014; Sparks,
Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach, 2012). As part of work aimed at investigating cross-language
influences in processes that go beyond the decoding of individual works, morphological
awareness will be discussed as an area of language-literacy related skills that might lead to
transfer effects and may support processing at linguistic understanding as well as word
recognition.
Morphological awareness is defined as an individual‘s ‗conscious awareness of the
morphemic structure of words and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure‘
(Carlisle, 1995, p. 194). It is assumed to help readers to recognise morphological units which
may enable the reader to map the written form onto internal representations of language.
Consistent with its potential usefulness in reading, measures of morphological awareness
have been found to be reliable predictors of reading independent of phonological awareness
(Carlisle & Katz, 2006; Ku & Anderson, 2003; Mahfoudhi, Elbeheri, Al-Rashidi, & Everatt,
2010; McBride-Chang et al., 2005; Verhoeven & Carlisle, 2006). The function of
morphological awareness goes beyond semantic information because it also provides
information on phonological and syntactic information. For example, the past tense
morpheme –ed which is pronounced in three different ways, as in walked ([t]), visited ([əd]),
and called ([d]), can be explained by morphological rules but not by phoneme-grapheme
correspondences. Morphological awareness should support the reader to identify familiar
meaningful units in unfamiliar words, potentially enabling them to infer lexical units during
comprehension (Kieffer, Biancarosa, & Mancilla-Martinez, 2013; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012a,
2012b). This suggests that morphological awareness can facilitate reading beyond the initial
stages of learning to read; an area which requires more investigations especially among L2
readers. For example, morphological awareness may support bilingual children with reduced
vocabulary to bootstrap their language skills when looking for word meanings (Droop &
Verhoeven, 2003), which should help the expansion of vocabulary in L1 and L2 (Ku &
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Amir Sadeghi and John Everatt 74
Anderson, 2003). Additionally, given that morphological awareness can be used explicitly to
support the interpretation of text containing unfamiliar items in one language, this skill has
the potential to be used in any language in which morphology is represented in its written
script.
A number of studies have reported that morphological awareness significantly predicts
reading variance in L1 and L2 (Jeon, 2011; Jeon & Yamashita, 2014; Ku & Anderson, 2003;
Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006), and that morphological skills predict reading
comprehension levels among second language learners (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Kieffer et
al., 2013; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010; Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, 2008; Wang et al.,
2006; Wang et al., 2009). To examine whether morphological awareness can cross from
reading in one language to reading in another, Bindman (2004) investigated English learners
(aged 6 to 10) of Hebrew and assessed their morphological and syntactic skills after
controlling for age and vocabulary. Relationships between morphological awareness in the
two languages were reported, suggesting that morphological awareness is a language general
skill.
Deacon, Wade-Woolley, and Kirby (2007) provided evidence that morphological
awareness shows the potential to transfer between English as an L1 and French as an L2.
They demonstrated that morphological awareness skills in French accounted for significant
variance in French word identification scores of grade 1 to grade 3 immersion students as
well as in the English word identification skills of grade 1 and 2 students. Additionally, Wang
et al. (2006) studied the role of morphological awareness in the acquisition of reading skills in
children learning to be literate in Chinese and English. They investigated Chinese primary
school children (grades 2 to 4) who were learning English as an additional language and
found similar levels of contribution of morphological skills in reading and vocabulary in both
Chinese and English. Wang et al. (2006) also reported relationships between English
morphological awareness and Chinese reading comprehension; and similar evidence (see
Koda, 2005; Koda, Takahashi, & Fender, 1998) can be found in studies comparing
morphological skills among English second language learners from similar or very different
orthographic backgrounds, such as Korean (an alphabetic orthography) and Chinese (a more
logographic orthography).
However, the transfer of skills that might influence literacy development from one
language to another is not without its controversy. Relationships found between skills in two
languages may be due to factors other than transfer effects as suggested in this chapter (see
discussions in Bialystok, Majumder, & Martin, 2003; Dodd, So, & Lam, 2008; Kuo &
Anderson, 2012). For example, current data have indicated that the acquisition of cognitive-
linguistic skills in children learning to speak and read in two languages is influenced by a
range of factors such as language proficiency and age of acquisition, previous experience of
the ‗first‘ language and its orthography, the learning context within which the languages are
being acquired, as well as similarities between the two languages/orthographies. Each of these
may determine whether transfer effects occur or not – or may influence interactions between
languages and orthographies. Such cautionary possibilities have been proposed for
morphological awareness as much as other skills. For example, Arabic and English have been
argued to implement different morphological processes (Saiegh-Haddad & Geva, 2008).
When Farran, Bingham, and Matthews (2012) looked for transfer effects between Arabic and
English, they found no evidence for morphological skills to cross between these two
languages, leading them to propose that cross-linguistic transfer of morphological awareness
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Influence of Language Background on English Reading Comprehension Skills 75
may depend on the similarity of the morphological systems of the two languages although
this contrasts with the results for English and Chinese discussed above. Furthermore, in
research investigating the production of written text by Arabic adolescents learning English as
a second language, Elshikh, Everatt, and Elbehri (in preparation) found that text coherence
was related to syntactic awareness in both English and Arabic. The relationship between
syntactic processing and morphology, particularly in Arabic, suggests that such skills may
transfer between English and Arabic, but that their specific influence on literacy may require
further investigation. Therefore, further research is needed to specify such influences and
inform theories of, and practices aimed at supporting, acquisition.

CONCLUSION

The main conclusion that can be derived from such cross-language, second language and
multilingual research is that there are a range of cognitive-linguistic processes, including
morphological awareness, that may support the development of reading across languages. A
child with good morphological awareness in one language may be able to use this awareness
to acquire similar skills and better levels of reading attainment in a second language.
It may also be the case that the use of morphological awareness training, linked to
literacy and language development, will support the literacy development of second language
or multilingual children, particularly as part of intervention procedures aimed at supporting
those showing evidence of reading difficulties.
Findings from research investigating morphological awareness interventions with
monolingual children has produced encouraging results (e.g., Apel, Brimo, Diehm, & Apel,
2013; Apel & Diehm, 2014; Kirby et al., 2012; Nunes, Bryant, & Olsson, 2003; Vaughn et
al., 2012) and may provide new directions for research aimed at informing current models of
second-language reading development as well as learning support practices.

REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 120-137.
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational
Research, 80(2), 207-245.
Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include
a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(9), 933-
958.
Apel, K., Brimo, D., Diehm, E., & Apel, L. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention
with kindergartners and first- and second-grade students from low socioeconomic status
homes: a feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2),
161-173. No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Amir Sadeghi and John Everatt 76
Apel, K., & Diehm, E. (2014). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergarteners
and first and second grade students from low SES homes: A small efficacy study. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 65-75.
Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is
there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 27-44.
Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and
learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 580-
590.
Bindman, M. (2004). Grammatical awareness across languages and the role of social context:
Evidence from English and Hebrew. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of
Children’s Literacy (pp. 691-709). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J. M., Miles, J., . . .
Hulme, C. (2008). Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an
oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 49(4), 422-432.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability:
Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42.
Cain, K., & Parrila, R. (2014). Introduction to the special issue. Theories of Reading: What
we have learned from two decades of scientific research. Scientific Study of Reading,
18(1), 1-4.
Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading acheivement. In L. B.
Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189-209). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlisle, J. F., & Katz, L. A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of
derived words. Reading and Writing, 19(7), 669.
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor
comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 49(2), 278-293.
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and
reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between
language and reading disabilities (pp. 23-36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cho, J. R., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Correlates of Korean Hangul acquisition among
kindergartners and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(1), 3-16.
Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children‘s
reading-comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological
Science, 21(8), 1106-1116.
Cook, V. (2003). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In V. Cook (Ed.),
Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 1-18). Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Deacon, S. H., Wade-Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. (2007). Crossover: The role of morphological
awareness in French immersion children’s reading. Developmental Psychology, 43(3),
732-746.
Dodd, B. J., So, L. K. H., & Lam, K. K. C. (2008). Bilingualism and learning: The effect of
language pair on phonological awareness abilities. Australian Journal of Learning
Difficulties, 13(2), 99-113.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Influence of Language Background on English Reading Comprehension Skills 77
Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and
second-language learners Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78-103.
Elshikh, M., Everatt, J., & Elbehri, G. (in preparation). Predictors of Arabic and English
skills.
Everatt, J., Sadeghi, A., Grech, L., Elshikh, M., Abdel-Sabour, S., Al-Menaye, N., . . .
Elbeheri, G. (2013). Assessment of literacy difficulties in second language and bilingual
learners. In D. Tsagari & G. Spanoudis (Eds.), Assessing L2 students with learning and
other disabilities (pp. 27-44). UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Farran, L., Bingham, G., & Matthews, M. (2012). The relationship between language and
reading in bilingual English-Arabic children. Reading and Writing, 25(9), 2153-2181.
Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of
alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553-576.
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
35(05), 263-279.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 10(4), 363-385.
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent
development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12(1), 1-30.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial
and Special Education (RASE), 7(1), 6-10.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127-160.
Jeon, E. H. (2011). Contribution of morphological awareness to second-language reading
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(2), 217-235.
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-
analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160-212.
Kieffer, M. J., Biancarosa, G., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). Roles of morphological
awareness in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking language minority learners:
Exploring partial mediation by vocabulary and reading fluency. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 34(4), 697-725.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012a). Development of morphological awareness and
vocabulary knowledge in Spanish-speaking language minority learners: A parallel
process latent growth curve model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(1), 23-54.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012b). Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness
in the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish, Filipino, and
Vietnamese speakers. Language Learning, 62(4), 1170-1204.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade-Woolley, L., & Parrila, R.
(2012). Children‘s morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing,
25(2), 389-410.
Koda, K. (1994). Second language reading research: Problems and possibilities. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 15, 1-28.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Amir Sadeghi and John Everatt 78
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second
language reading development. Language Learning, 57(1), 1-44.
Koda, K., Takahashi, E., & Fender, M. (1998). Effects of L1 processing experience on L2
morphological awareness. Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of Language, Literatures in
English and Cultural Studies, 35, 57-85.
Ku, Y.-M., & Anderson, R. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and
English. Reading and Writing, 16(5), 399-422.
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2012). Effects of early bilingualism on learning phonological
regularities in a new language. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 455-
467.
Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). The development of reading skills in children with English
as a second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(2), 105-131.
Mahfoudhi, A., Elbeheri, G., Al-Rashidi, M., & Everatt, J. (2010). The role of morphological
awareness in reading comprehension among typical and learning disabled native Arabic
speakers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 500-514.
McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J.-R., Liu, H., Wagner, R. K., Shu, H., Zhou, A., . . . Muse, A.
(2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and
morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second
graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 92(2), 140-160.
McBride-Chang, C., & Kail, R. V. (2002). Cross-cultural similarities in the oredictors of
reading acquisition. Child Development, 73(5), 1392-1407.
Melby‐Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2011). Cross‐linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding,
phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis of the correlational
evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 114-135.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond
phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134-147.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning morphological and phonological spelling
rules: An intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 289-307.
Odlin, T. (1997). Language transfer: Cross-linguistics influence in language learning (6th
ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Odlin, T. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts?
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 3-25.
Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(1),
3-24.
Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Kiefer, H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish-
speaking English language learners: Within and cross-language effects on word reading.
Reading and Writing, 23(3-4), 337-358.
Sadeghi, A., Everatt, J., McNeill, B., & Rezari, A. (2014). Text processing in English-Persian
bilingual children: A bilingual view on the simple model of reading. Educational and
Child Psychology: Bilingualism and Language Diversity, 31(2), 46-57.
Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Geva, E. (2008). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness,
and reading in English–Arabic bilingual children. Reading and Writing, 21(5), 481-504.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Influence of Language Background on English Reading Comprehension Skills 79
Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The
perils of overreliance on an ‘outlier’ orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584-
615.
Smith, L., & Nelson, C. (2006). World Englishes and issues of intelligibility. In B. Kachru, Y.
Kachru & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 428-445). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Smythe, I., Everatt, J., Al-Menaye, N., He, X., Capellini, S., Gyarmathy, E., & Siegel, L. S.
(2008). Predictors of word-level literacy amongst grade 3 children in five diverse
languages. Dyslexia, 14(3), 170-187.
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (Eds.). (2007). The sience of reading: A handbook. Oxford:
Blackwell publishing.
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2012). Do L1 reading achievement
and L1 print exposure contribute to the prediction of L2 proficiency? Language
Learning, 62(2), 473-505.
Spooner, A. L. R., Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2006). Does weak reading
comprehension reflect an integration deficit? Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2), 173-
193.
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary
knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
45(5), 453-466.
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Leroux, A., Roberts, G., Denton, C., Barth, A., & Fletcher, J. (2012).
Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently
inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515-525.
Verhoeven, L., & Carlisle, J. F. (2006). Morphology in word identification and word spelling.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(7), 643-787.
Wang, M., Cheng, C., & Chen, S.-W. (2006). Contribution of morphological awareness to
Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 542-
553.
Wang, M., Ko, I. Y., & Choi, J. (2009). The importance of morphological awareness in
Korean–English biliteracy acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2),
132-142.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese–English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-
language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97(1), 67-88.
Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., . . . Blomert, L. (2010).
Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language
investigation. Psychological Science, 21(4), 551-559.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 8

DECONSTRUCTING ‘MONO’-LINGUALISM:
CONSIDERATIONS OF VALUE FOR ‘ENGLISH’
‘LANGUAGE’ EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL SETTING

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards
Edinburgh Napier University, UK

ABSTRACT

Traditionally, language speakers are categorised as mono-lingual, bilingual, or
multilingual. It is traditionally assumed in English language education that the ‗lingual‘ is
something that can be ‗fixed‘ in form, written down to be learnt, and taught. Accordingly,
the ‗mono‘-lingual will have a ‗fixed‘ linguistic form. Such a ‗form‘ differs according to
a number of criteria or influences including region or ‗type‘ of English (for example,
World Englishes) but is, nevertheless, assumed to be a ‗form‘. ‗Mono-lingualism‘ is
defined and believed, traditionally, to be ‗speaking one language‘; wherever that
language is; or whatever that language may be. In this chapter, grounded in an individual
subjective philosophy of language, we question this traditional definition. Viewing
language from the philosophical perspectives such as those of Bakhtin and Voloshinov,
we argue that the prominence of ‗context‘ and ‗consciousness‘ in language means that to
‗fix‘ the form of a language goes against the very spirit of how it is formed and used. We
thus challenge the categorisation of ‗mono‘-lingualism; proposing that such a
categorisation is actually a category error, or a case ‗in which a property is ascribed to a
thing that could not possibly have that property‘ (Restivo, 2013, p. 175), in this case the
property of ‗mono‘. Using this proposition as a starting point, we suggest that more time
be devoted to language in its context and as per its genuine use as a vehicle for
consciousness. We theorise this can be done through a ‗literacy‘ based approach which
fronts the context of language use rather than the language itself. We outline how we
envision this working for teachers, students and materials developers of English language
education materials in a global setting. To do this we consider Scotland‘s Curriculum for
Excellence as an exemplar to promote conscious language use in context.

Keywords: ‗Mono‘-lingualism, literacy-based approach, language form
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards 82
INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we propose that the concept of ‗mono‘-lingualism is a category error ‗in
which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property‘ (Restivo,
2013, p. 175) in that it is not possible to ‗fix‘ the language as a ‗mono‘; single, form. Using
this proposition as a starting point, we suggest that more time be devoted to language in its
context and as its genuine use as a vehicle for consciousness. We theorise this can be done
through a ‗literacy‘ based approach which fronts the context of language use rather than the
language itself. The first section of the chapter explores logical, theoretical, and philosophical
considerations which we believe bring into question the concept of ‗mono‘-lingualism given
language‘s relationship to individual consciousness. In the second section we describe a
literacy-based context for English language teachers, students and materials developers that is
grounded in language‘s relationship to consciousness. We outline how we envision this
working for teachers, students and materials developers of English language education
materials in a global setting. To do this we consider Scotland‘s Curriculum for Excellence as
an exemplar.

DECONSTRUCTING ‘MONO’-LINGUALISM

The Oxford dictionary defines the adjective ‗monolingual‘ as being ‗(of a person or
society) speaking only one language‘ and ‗(of a text or conversation) written or conducted in
only one language‘ and as a noun ‗a person who only speaks one language‘ with
monolingualism being the derivate (Oxford Dictionaries Online, 2014). Arguably, however,
in terms of ‗English‘, there are a number of different ‗types‘ of English spoken globally;
Australian; South African; Singaporean; British; North American and others (cf. Kachru,
2006). It would thus seem logical to say there is more than one ‗English‘. Taking any of these
‗Englishes‘ apart further, each regional society can be seen to have a particular range of
‗Englishes‘ within it (Hughes, Trudgill, & Watt, 2013) even to the granularity of city size
(Labov, 2006). Further, the ‗English‘ used by different socioeconomic groups, governmental
organs, children, teenagers, adults, different regions, and many other sub-groups varies
(Trudgill, 2000). It would again seem logical to say there is, within a single country, more
than one ‗English‘, thus contesting the existence of a ‗mono‘-lingual English.
The proponents of a World Englishes (Jenkins, 2003) support this concept of multiple
‗Englishes‘ , and in turn, argue that classroom materials and teaching should reflect this
(Matsuda, 2003). In contrast, however, many textbooks of English language still teach a
standard form, or say they are based on a ‗standard‘ form of English, for example, British
English, although they often include regional accents for the purposes of exposure, which are
used in recognised tests such as the Cambridge Advanced English test (Cambridge ESOL,
2014). It has been argued by many that a form of English exists and is teachable. This is
supported by much linguistic theory; Saussure‘s focus on the ‗form‘ of the language
(Saussure, 1959) is underpinned by Chomsky‘s innate parameters (Chomsky, 1972),
ostensibly present in all individuals to help them acquire the form and structure of their
specific ‗language‘: in this chapter, ‗English‘. There is, thus, in linguistics, a key formalist,
structuralist vein that sees language as form (Voloshinov, 1986) and although language
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Deconstructing ‗Mono‘-Lingualism: Considerations of Value … 83
differs in specific ‗form‘, for example according to whether someone is a French, or English
speaker, it is, nevertheless said to have ‗form‘. Thus, many linguistics research streams show
that although a number of ‗forms‘ exist, it is nevertheless the case that they are all ‗forms‘.
However, often considered to be opposed to these ‗form‘ based theories are those in the
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) school of thought (Halliday & Hasan, 1989). The SFL
school argues that, in contrast to being innate, language is rather developed environmentally
according to its function within a system (Young, 2013). Traditionally, these two schools are
thought of as being diametrically opposed in the sense that for the form focused innatists
(Chomsky, 1972; Saussure, 1959) the language comes from the inside whereas for the SFLs
(Halliday & Hassan, 1989) the language comes from the outside. They are thus considered to
be very different (Young, 2013). Nevertheless, we argue here, that the innatist and SFL
schools are in fact similar in the sense that they both hold assumptions that something
‗fixable‘ and ‗definable‘ is being ascertained (innatists) or is ascertainable (SFL). Thus, in
terms of World Englishes, or regional accents, for the innatists there is a built-in neurological
capacity to develop this and the innate parameters set to it, whereas for the SFLs the
information is encoded from the outside in. Nevertheless, the ultimate idea underlying either
approach is that of language as a form or system. In this way we argue they are similar.
Hence, from both perspectives, although both can be said to underpin a deconstructed idea of
mono-lingualism in the sense that they theoretically support the existence of different
languages, a ‗fixed‘ system or form of language can be learned. In this sense then, although
there is a multitudinous group of possible strains of a ‗language‘ there is still an ideal to aim
for, to teach, and to learn.
However; philosophically, it may be possible to argue that language is not fixed even
within these groups. If this argument can be made, it can then be further concluded that these
possible ‗strains‘ themselves cannot be isolated because they do not exist, and assumption of
their existence constitutes a category error in the sense ‗in which a property is ascribed to a
thing that could not possibly have that property‘ (Restivo, 2013, p. 175). Indeed, after
publication of his dictionary Dr Samuel Johnson realised that trying to ‗fix‘ the language was
folly given language‘s mutability (Mullan, 2010). With regard to this mutability, we believe
there are a number of key questions related to the idea of ‗mono‘-lingualism. The question
remains as to precisely how is the language mutable? More importantly, is the language itself
mutable, and is it mutable for an individual speaker? For a ‗form‘ based abstract objectivist
such as Saussure, over a period of time a language changes, but for an individual speaker it
does not. It thus changes diachronically in itself but each individual speaker retains a
synchronous ‗form‘ of speech. Voloshinov
1
(1973) cites the example of this being similar to
Caesar writing his letters with a fully formed and non-malleable language whilst the language
around him had to be diachronically changing over time. This then allows more ‗system‘
based SFL researchers to come to the language and find the ‗system‘ of the language through
studying its functions (Swales, 1990). We believe an appropriate visual analogy is of
someone stepping onto an escalator: although the escalator is continually moving, the person
stays on a fixed step. Or do they? What if they receive a text message telling them they need
to be somewhere faster than they had thought? Or what if they drop something? In either case
this would be an interaction between the world and their situation and they would need to

1
We use the name Voloshinov in the text here but also recognise (Morris, 2009) that these works may have been
written pseudonymously by Bakhtin.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards 84
move from their step and, provided they were conscious of what was happening around them,
react to this change in their environment. In other words, if the dialogue between their
situation and their environment triggers a change in their thought, or consciousness, then they
may react to it; the context for their action could change. We use this visual analogy to
illustrate our theory that the same happens with language: if the context changes, the person‘s
use of language, and the language itself changes: they start using a different language because
the language in the new context is different. For Voloshinov (1973), consciousness is
constituted by language, and it is in dialogue (or dialogicality according to Bakhtin (2010))
between users of the language that expression of conscious thought and action is constituted.
This gives an individual, subjective malleable quality to language and it is exactly this quality
of language, its flexibility and chameleon-like nature that makes it useful: ‗what is important
for the speaker about a linguistic form is not that it is a stable and always self-equivalent
signal, but that it is an always changeable and adaptable sign. That is the speaker‘s point of
view‘ (as cited in Morris, 2009, p. 33) For Bakhtin too, ‗we hear those words only in
particular individual utterances, we read them in particular individual works, and in such
cases the words already have not only a typical, but also (depending on the genre) a more or
less clearly reflected individual expression, which is determined by the unrepeatable
individual context of the utterance‘ (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 88).
For Dr. Samuel Johnson, it was impossible for the dictionary to ‗fix‘ the language given
its mutability, for Bakhtin and Voloshinov, this mutability is dependent on the context of the
word‘s usage. For Bakhtin, a word had many different meanings, or heteroglossia (Bakhtin,
2010) according to its context. To put a word into a dictionary was to neutralise it, so that
although it could be recognised through its common features, it is only its usage that will
allow it to be understood because ‗the use of words in live speech communication is always
individual and contextual in nature‘ (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 88). Yet, as Voloshinov emphasised,
the ability to recognise a word should never be confused with understanding it: ‗The process
of understanding is on no account to be confused with the process of recognition. These are
thoroughly different processes‘ (Voloshinov, 1973, as cited in Morris, 2009, p. 33). The
process of understanding was fully dependent on the context, and the consciousness of the
individual using the word. Thus, the language itself when used reflected consciousness and
individual context, and thereby was unique to each individual.
Such variety in contexts and usage is also something that Ludwig Wittgenstein touched
upon. For Wittgenstein, there were three factors of: human beings, world-setting, and
language that underpinned any unit of meaning (Finch, 1995), and that ‗the whole, consisting
of language and the actions into which it is woven is ―the language-game‖‘ (Wittgenstein,
1953, Philosophical Investigations (PI), Number 7). By ‗game‘ was meant the activity being
performed, whether this be writing a letter, or phoning a friend, and their variety is so vast as
to exclude any commonality: Wittgenstein notes that ‗these phenomena have no one thing in
common which makes us use the same word for all, – but they are related to one another in
many different ways. And it is because of this relationship, or relationships, that we call them
all ―language‖‘. (Wittgenstein, 1953, PI Number 65). Crucially, and resonant of the work of
Bakhtin and Voloshinov, the context is fundamental for Wittgenstein, and which dictates the
language used. ‗For a large class of cases – though not for all – in which we implore the word
―meaning‖ it can be defined thus: the meaning of the word is its use in the language‘
(Wittgenstein, 1953, PI Number 43).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Deconstructing ‗Mono‘-Lingualism: Considerations of Value … 85
Thus, ‗mono‘-lingualism, we argue, does not hold weight as a concept when
deconstructed. Not only are there numerous ‗Englishes‘ according to region, and within
regions, but, regardless of whether language is viewed as innately formed, or formed from the
environment, the ‗English‘ itself is mutable for the individual according to the context, and
expression of individual consciousness, of its usage. We also argue that this changes over
time. The recognition of signs of the language may help speakers and users, but the
understanding will depend totally on the context. We therefore conclude, that the dictionary
definition referred to for ‗mono‘-lingual as describing someone who speaks one language is
unacceptable given the variety and mutability in any supposed ‗one‘ language, in this case the
English language.
What then, does this mean for all our grammar ‗rules‘, our ‗rules‘ for 1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd

conditional, for all our grammar guides on modals, pasts, futures? What we believe it means
is that these are very useful; but are only guides (cf. Jones and Waller‘s (2011) critique of
categorising the four conditionals). In answer to the oft-asked student question ‗But we need
to know the grammar, what‘s the grammar?‘ we reply ‗You will know the grammar as much
as you, or anyone, possibly can, if you see these, and use these, as a guide.‘ Similarly to the
question about the grammar, we also advocate in response to the question ‗What does this
word mean?‘ the dictionary as a guide, but emphasise that the meanings of words in the
dictionary, and in the glossaries at the back of books, are also guides, and that here the
meanings of words are neutral and need to be contextualised. Such an answer may mean that
students (and teachers and curriculum-developers) feel they are missing something and have
lost the surety and tangibility of the solid reference point. Yet, rather than being something
which is a ‗loss‘, we argue that the recognition and embracing of this as a paradigm is both
enlightening and, crucially, enriching for the language. In other words, it brings the language
to life. We now, in the second section of this chapter, suggest that the context we believe
should help create this ‗life‘ for English language education in a global setting. Based on our
above deconstruction of ‗monolingualism‘ we conclude that the language is used by
individuals as their own language in their own context, and to show their own consciousness
(Voloshinov, 1973). For this context, we advocate a literacy-based context, one that we
believe far more successfully creates the context for the individual to use language to express
their own consciousness, in the form of thoughts.
We argue that a literacy-based approach stimulates critical engagement with real-life
issues and necessitates the expression of thoughts through language. Linguistic determinists
and relativists (Whorff, 1956) such as Sapir and Whorff argue that language either determines
or is related to developing thought (cf. Nisbett, 2004).
We agree that language is related to thought, but, based on the above deconstruction,
argue that the angle or approach of the linguistic determinist stance is from a false direction.
Language, we believe, is connected to thought in the sense that it is connected to the
expression of thoughts; of consciousness. In this sense it allows for the expression of thoughts
about real-life issues in a dialogic context.
Thus, when people hear language and it has an effect on their thought, it is because a
person hears input, processes it, and uses it in the form of an expression of consciousness.
The individual decides themselves consciously whether to accept the message the language
conveys, and decides whether to accept its thought concepts delivered, or to reject them, and
consciously expresses these thoughts through the use of the patina of language. We argue that
a literacy-based approach provides the context and environment for the language to be used in
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards 86
this way, and we outline what we define a literacy based approach to be, and what it consists
of and how it can be used in English language teaching in a global setting below.

A ‘LITERACY’ BASED CONTEXT FOR ‘ENGLISH LANGUAGE’
TEACHING

We argue that genuine language use is only present when language use by individuals is
connected to, and constitutive of, consciousness. In this section of the chapter, we extend this
argument to English language teaching and contend that a literacy based context for English
language teaching, learning, and materials development provides this. We argue such a
literacy-based context provides the motivation for, and reason for, learners to use the English
language, as it is identical to how they use any language. We argue that such a context be
used alongside existing grammar and lexical resources as guides. As an example of a literacy
based syllabus, we draw on Scotland‘s Curriculum for Excellence. Underpinning the Scottish
Curriculum for Excellence‘s English language syllabus is a literacy based approach in which
the language structure is secondary to, and a service to, the literacy, stimulation and
constitution of consciousness (cf. Voloshinov, 1973).
The Curriculum for Excellence describes its own rationale for an approach to the
development of literacy as follows: ‗experiences and outcomes promote the development of
critical and creative thinking as well as competence in listening and talking, reading, writing
and the personal, interpersonal and team-working skills which are so important in life and in
the world of work‘ (Scottish Government n.d., p. 20). This description we believe to directly
constitute consciousness, as we describe above (cf. Bakhtin, 2010; Voloshinov 1973). This is
underpinned by the Scottish government‘s definition of literacy: ‘the set of skills which allows
an individual to engage fully in society and in learning, through the different forms of
language, and the range of texts, which society values and finds useful’ (Scottish
Government, n.d., p. 20, italics in original).
The Scottish government then goes on to note the importance of critical literacy, noting
that ‘Children and young people not only need to be able to read for information: they also
need to be able to work out what trust they should place on the information and to identify
when and how people are aiming to persuade or influence them‘ (Scottish Government, n.d.,
p. 20). We argue this also applies to materials for adults.
In terms of what all this means for teachers, the curriculum notes a number of strategies.
We list a number of these here in some detail and occasionally add comments in italics in
square brackets:
Throughout education, effective learning and teaching in literacy and English will
involve a skilful mix of appropriate approaches including:

 the use of relevant, real-life and enjoyable contexts which build upon children and
young people‘s own experiences
 effective direct and interactive teaching…
 harnessing the motivational benefits of following children and young people‘s [and,
we add, adults] interests through responsive planning
 collaborative working and independent thinking and learning
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Deconstructing ‗Mono‘-Lingualism: Considerations of Value … 87
 making meaningful links for learners across different curriculum areas [or, we
believe, news areas for adults]…
 frequent opportunities to communicate in a wide range of contexts, for relevant
purposes and for real audiences within and beyond places of learning
 the development of [or, we add, use of] problem-solving skills and approaches
(Scottish Government, n.d., p. 125)

Thus, here again, there are many recommendations for activities. In terms of what the
focus could be, this would very much depend on the age group of the people studying.
Whatever that age, however, the main focus is still very much on the importance of the
context to make the language alive so that language use constitutes consciousness.
For materials developers the Scottish Government recommends a number of types of
‗texts‘. The Curriculum for Excellence notes that, ‗the definition of ―texts‖ needs to be broad
and future proof: therefore within Curriculum for Excellence, a text is the medium through
which ideas, experiences, opinions and information can be communicated. …’ (Scottish
Government, n.d., p. 127, italics in original) Such texts can be multimodal in nature and may
consist of many different types. The Curriculum for Excellence lists a large number of these:
‗novels, short stories, plays, poems, reference texts, the spoken word, charts, maps, graphs
and timetables, advertisements, promotional leaflets, comics, newspapers and magazines,
CVs, letters and emails, films, games and TV programmes, labels, signs and posters, recipes,
manuals and instructions, reports and reviews, text messages, blogs and social networking
sites, web pages, catalogues and directories‘ (Scottish Government, p. 127). We would
envision with children, and younger learners that the types of focus for material could be
similar and perhaps even complementary to the focus of materials in other subjects they are
studying at school. For adults, we envision the focus on current events, books in the form of a
book club type of approach, or in any of the contexts of study that the adults themselves
prefer. We envision such contexts being suggested by the adult group, the teacher then going
away and researching the topic and finding materials in English that could work with the
topic. We do not envision the technical aspects of classroom management or approach to be
much different from what it currently is, nor do we envision this approach to completely
replace the existing status quo. Rather, we see it working alongside with and synergistically
to the status quo. We see the aspects and focus we suggest here as being one in which the
language learnt in the status quo type (i.e., mainstream ESL or EFL) classes is then drawn on
to use language in the same way it is used in genuine language use – to constitute
consciousness through dialogue.
What, then, is the difference between such an approach and something such as a
conversation club? Firstly, and most importantly, a key difference is in the focus and goal of
the topics: the goal in the literacy based approach is to be critical, and to develop and work
with literacy based facets as described above. This then, may include a historical topic or a
novel as context, for example a theme for S3 / S4 (14-16 year old) students in 2014, in
conjunction with the 100
th
anniversary of the beginning of the ‗First World War‘, was a cross-
disciplinary approach to looking at the First World War and presenting the theme in any
mode they wanted.
To do this, their language use must constitute conscious expression of critically informed
thought. Secondly, a literacy based approach draws on the grammar and vocabulary taught in
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards 88
status quo type classes as a guide and is not, as a conversation club would be, something that
simply gives ‗fluency‘ practice. Thirdly, it is, as we have shown above, underpinned by a
theoretical and philosophical grounding that shows that genuine language is alive and
conscious, and the literacy based approach, therefore, aims towards language being used for
what every language is used for, rather than trying to work towards the category-error of
‗mono-lingualism‘; a concept which we argue above does not exist. We believe that an
acceptance of the view that the concept of ‗mono‘-lingualism does not exist will liberate
teachers, students and developers from the pressure of seeking to reach the unattainable
pinnacle of an English ‗mono-lingual‘ ideal. Further, we believe that to teach, participate in,
and develop, classes that focus on language as consciousness makes the process and
experience of learning the language come to life, because that is how language is used.

CONCLUSION

We argued above that the concept of ‗mono-lingualism‘ is a category error in the sense
that it is a concept ‗in which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that
property‘ (Restivo, 2013, p. 175). We argued that this was the case given the huge variety in
English, but more importantly, in the sense that the reason for such variety is that language
constitutes individual consciousness. We argued that language is consciousness (Voloshinov,
1973), and as such individual, formed through dialogue (Bakhtin, 2010), which cannot be
fixed and written down in an ideal ‗form‘ (contra. Chomsky 1972; Halliday & Hasan, 1989;
Saussure, 1959) to be taught and learnt. As such, all grammar rules and glossaries are, we
argued, best used as guides. We argued these guides be used to teach the language alongside a
literacy based approach, given the literacy based approach‘s aim is to stimulate
consciousness. We drew on the example of the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence and its
approach to literacy and language development. In effect, we see that the fundamental
conclusion from our deconstruction of ‗mono-lingualism‘ is that language is related directly
to consciousness and, by dint of this, we need to have tasks that raise consciousness. We
believe that literacy-focused tasks will do this, and that the technical and grammatical aspects
of the language should be provided as guides. Fundamentally, we believe that to teach,
participate in, and develop, classes that focus on language as consciousness makes the process
and experience of learning the language come to life, because that is how language is used.

REFERENCES

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres andother late essays. Trans. Vern W. McGee. Ed.
Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
Cambridge ESOL. (2014). Cambridge English teaching support. Retrieved from
https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/exams/generalenglish/ket/faqs
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Finch, H. L. (1995). Wittgenstein. Element: Rockport, Massachusetts.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Deconstructing ‗Mono‘-Lingualism: Considerations of Value … 89
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a
social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, A., Trudgill, P., & Watt, D. (2013). English accents and dialects: An introduction to
social and regional varieties of English in the British Isles. Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. Psychology Press.
Jones, C., & Waller, D. (2011). If only it were true: The problem with the four conditionals.
ELT Journal, 65(1), 24-32.
Kachru, B. B. (2006). The English language in the outer circle. In K. Bolton, & B. Kachru
(Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics (pp. 241-255). London:
Routledge.
Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York city. Cambridge
University Press.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an international
language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729.
Morris, P. (Ed.). (2009). The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev,
Voloshinov. Bloomsbury Academic.
Mullan, J. (2010, August 6). The folly of preserving English in aspic. G2 Magazine,
Guardian, p. 3.
Nisbett, R. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently…
and why. Simon and Schuster.
Oxford Dictionaries Online. (2014). Definition of ‘mono-lingual’. Retrieved from
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/online
Restivo, S. P. (2011). Red, black, and objective: Science, sociology, and anarchism. Farnham,
Surrey: Ashgate.
Scottish Government. (n.d.). Curriculum for excellence. Retrieved from https://
www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/all_experiences_outcomes_tcm4-539562
Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge
University Press.
Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. Penguin UK.
Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of Language. Harvard University
Press.
Whorf, B. (1956). The relation of habitual thought and behaviour to Language. In J. B.
Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf
(pp. 134-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Young, L. (2013). Systemic Functional Linguistics. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 625 – 637). London: Routledge.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 9

EXAMINING GLOBALISATION AS A GUIDING
PARADIGM IN ENGLISH EDUCATION

Barrie Barrell
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

ABSTRACT

Guiding the construction of many English language arts (ELA) curriculum
documents is an economic discourse grounded in a particular vision of globalisation and
accompanying 21
st
century skill sets. This chapter interrogates globalisation as a guiding
paradigm for English language arts decision makers along with information and
communication technologies (ICTs). What emerges is a view of rapidly changing
technologies that are embedding in our vibrant discipline. These changing technologies
allow us to engage with English in new and creative ways where students are not only
consumers of new texts, but also producers.

Keywords: Globalisation, ICTs, knowledge economy, ELA education

INTRODUCTION

Natasha Tsakos (2012) captures the essence of what is taking place this century in
English education when she writes,

There is a revolution. It’s a human and technological revolution. It is motion and
emotion. It’s information. It’s visual. It’s musical. It’s sensorial. It’s conceptual. It’s
universal. It’s beyond words and numbers. It’s happening, the natural progression of
science and art. Finding each other to better touch and define the human experience.
There is a revolution in the way that we think, in the way that we share, and the way that
we express our stories, our evolution. This is a time of communication, connection and
creative collaboration (p. 29).

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Barrie Barrell 92
It would be foolish to think that Shakespeare, were he alive today, would be stuck using
pen and paper to engage with the human condition given the enormity of the technological
tools at our disposal. Digital technologies are the new instrument for both composing and
engaging with a variety of texts and media. Under various national English language arts
curricula guidelines, English teachers are expected to ask students to read and create works
that combine print, images, video and sound into multi-layered textual constructions. These
multilayered compositions deeply support notions of learning in the 21
st
century. They are
representative of a shift away from print to digital demonstrations of learning, creativity and
engagement.
In first world countries, newly minted English teachers can expect to see their classrooms
equipped with reasonable amounts of technology. The proliferation of handheld devices
complement the standard issue Smart board, desktop and laptop computers. Printers and other
hardware round out the modern English classroom. Soon digital books and textbooks will
replace traditional books saving school boards a huge expense and saving students the
physical stress of lugging kilos of books back and forth to school. Key in this new digital
world is the fact that students now have the ability to be producers and publishers as well as
consumers of knowledge and information. To be clear, this is new territory for a generation of
English teachers raised on literary criticism, linguistics, essays, note taking and paper and
pencil tests and assignments.
While the revolution expressed by Tsakos may fit very well with our gut feelings about
the rapid evolution of our discipline, this is not what seems to be guiding the writing of
curricula documents. Two key phrases keep cropping up for engaging students with various
new technologies in the English classroom: globalisation and 21
st
century skills and skill sets.
A heavy economic discourse is used to justify the path our discipline is taking. Mastering
certain ‗literacies‘ (digital or otherwise) and obtaining certain skills sets are being
foregrounded over traditional literary and textual constructions and engagements. What
follows is an examination of globalisation, and any accompanying skills, as a guiding
paradigm for making progress in English education.

RETHINKING GLOBALISATION AS A GUIDING PARADIGM
FOR ENGLISH EDUCATION

As expressed by businesses, espoused by economic theorists and enunciated in the
popular press, globalisation is fundamentally about social, cultural and economic change.
Change to our national identities, habits of consumption, modes of communication, patterns
of investment, deliveries of health care and even the waging of war, are all features of
globalisation. Often framed within an economic competitive discourse, globalisation demands
each nation state remain flexible to change while plugging into a web of transnationally
circulated ideas, economic systems, language, media and capital. The life-blood of
globalisation is a myriad of integrated technologies connected through and by the Internet.
For those at the top of the economic ladder globalisation is about supplying more goods and
more services to broader markets through, what Drucker (1969) called in the 1950s and 60s,
knowledge workers or as Reicher (1992) identified in The Work of Nations, knowledge
manipulation workers (p. 171).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Examining Globalisation As a Guiding Paradigm in English Education 93
Transnational corporations have an insatiable need for flexible knowledge workers.
Workers who come armed with a new conception of the basics: an understanding of team
work, an ability to communicate through a variety of new media, an ability to use digital
technologies to solve complex industrial and commercial problems and a command of
multiple literacies. Transnational corporations with their global information and
communication networks are re-engineering their networked structures, research and
development procedures, delivery routines and manufacturing and service systems in order to
do greater business in an interconnected world.
The demand for knowledge workers is based on an understanding that corporations have
downloaded greater production and service responsibilities to their frontline workforce while
at the same time placing a greater emphasis on teamwork to solve complex problems within
networked environments. Frontline workers now have easy access to global information,
corporate data and resources. Worker flexibility is already a mainstay of many institutions in
finance, insurance and manufacturing where teams of teams are assembled to solve particular
client problems or to devise new products and services. Once solutions are found or particular
products designed, the institutions dissolve the team of workers only to reassemble them into
new teams made up of different players ready to take on projects that demand different skill
sets and worker attributes. Whether a civic, corporate or business enterprise, one common
requirement of knowledge workers stands out: an ability to cooperate in interdisciplinary
teams, using various information and communications technologies to solve complex
problems that may require specific knowledge of computer algorithms or coding. Guiding this
work is a just-in-time mentality where solutions and products are brought immediately to
market. In these environments there is an understanding that solutions to problems come from
cooperation and organisational nimbleness. This way of engaging with work is markedly
different from traditional linear forms of organisational engagement.
This chapter recognises that globalisation has numerous negative consequences and
outcomes. Capital can flow off shore and away from government, community and municipal
tax coffers. Poorer countries are put at a disadvantage if they lack a networked infrastructure.
Environmental damage gets rationalised as a ‗cost of doing business.‘ Goods and services get
outsourced in a race to the bottom through lower and lower bids. Women, children and
impoverished workers get exploited. Labour unions get weakened. Companies become ‗too
big to fail.‘ And the dominant discourse of consumption and growth subsumes local cultures
and languages. Although this chapter does not focus on debating the merits and demerits of
globalisation, it does highlight that globalisation is a complex notion that cannot be cherry
picked for the purposes of building national English curricula by insisting that students need
to be taught some vague notion of ‗21
st
century skills‘ cloaked in an economic discourse. The
world of work is changing, but we need to be cognisant of the fact that it will change even
more by the time our elementary students complete secondary school and that different skills
sets will probably be needed at that time.
Bound within the notion of globalisation is a closely held assumption that a rapidly
changing world requires systemic changes to the way we go about educating our young. In
the United States of America, efforts to streamline the common curriculum continue to grow.
In Canada, this narrative is postulated on a belief that an increase in the demand for
knowledge workers is building a critical mass strong enough to begin destabilising the staid
educational status quo. It is also postulated that globalisation, with its heavy reliance on the
Internet and information and communication technologies (ICTs), is causing increasing
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Barrie Barrell 94
numbers of teachers and administrators to take a second look at the underlying tenets of
public schooling and begin experimenting with alternative teaching methodologies and
curriculum arrangements that centre on the embedding of ICTs directly into disciplines and
within praxis. It is of utmost importance here to question whether the use of ICTs are being
conceptualised simply as tools or, more importantly, are envisioned as a way to engage with
living and evolving disciplines. ICTs allow students and teachers to work at the cutting edge
of disciplines. What we do need to acknowledge is that exponential growth in computing will
continue to accelerate and affect each of the disciplines as computers and humans begin to
merge. For English education, the grammars that bind computing and communications will
need to be understood and reconceptualised.
Adopting globalisation as a guiding paradigm for educational work has led to schools
investing heavily in technology. Caught by the economic discourse intertwined in
globalisation, Canadian educational communities responded by rushing to find additional
funding for school computers and parents sought out various ways to raise more and more
money for new equipment and software. Superintendents and principals push for the forging
of partnerships with local businesses in order to gain access to their technologies and get their
old computers. As policy solutions become technologised, simple notions of access subsume
the fundamental reasons for engaging with ICTs in the first place.
The very critical point here is that a chosen course of action becomes fixed within the
problem itself. For example, computer literacy has become analogised to basic literacy and
visions of future success for students. Thus, connectivity, software upgrades, computing
skills, wireless networks and issues of access to ICT becomes paramount in the minds of
policymakers and the educational communities. By shifting the focus of attention away from
the underlying structures that may have caused a literacy problem or a digital divide in
society in the first place, a technological solution is promulgated. By focusing attention on a
‗technological fix‘ (Light, 2001, p. 711) as the solution to issues of literacy, the underlying
purposes for engaging with ICT or the social issues surrounding literacy get lost. Writing
about a technological solution redefining a problem, Light (2001) states that access to
technology has not guaranteed much in the past. There is ‗the shaky causal inference that
closing one gap would close another‘ (p. 715). It is still not clear that the existence of ICT in
schools advances student performance within disciplines. The social and cultural dynamics of
the class, the personalities of teachers, differences in academic subjects and the organisation
of the school, all combine to make it difficult to expect or find a uniform effect
(see Cuban, 1986).

EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IN COMPUTING

ICTs and their accompanying applications are now invaluable tools to most university,
civic and business endeavors. From nanotechnology to biotechnology, from robotics to
computer-aided designs, from the use of synthesisers in the production of music to animated
film-making, and from census databases to voting tabulations, ICTs are essential for the
completion of both routine and complex creative expressions, calculations, predictions,
procedures and diagnoses. The technologies that sustain globalisation are profound and will
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Examining Globalisation As a Guiding Paradigm in English Education 95
continue to advance even if Moore‘s Law, the on going doubling of computer power every
two years, was to dramatically slow in the coming decades.
While globalisation is a shifting term, the computing power of ICTs continues to grow at
a reasonably and predictable pace. It is important for those who work in our discipline to have
some understanding of the future of computing. An understanding of ICT‘s exponential
growth gives a vantage point from which to begin to understand what digital environments
will be accessible to students in the coming decade. As fragile as Moore‘s law might be, it has
correctly measured the integrated circuit growth and computing costs over the last fifty years.
With some accuracy, we can project the future of computing for the graduating class of 2026.
Just as transistors and integrated circuitry replaced the shrinking vacuum tubes, we can
reasonably expect miniaturisation to move on towards the atomic and molecular levels before
it pushes up against the ultimate limits of Moore‘s Law. Kurzweil (2014) invites us to see that
the information that once fitted inside a building now fits in our pocket by way of a cell
phone, and will fit in a blood cell within twenty-five years. Kurzweil also invites us to
consider the coming singularity, a point in time when ultra intelligent machines surpass
human intelligence and possibly begin designing their own machines. Non-biological
intelligence will match human intelligence in the coming decades as a part of exponential
growth in computing. The key question is how will this transform English education and not
simply at the skills level?
Kurzweil (2014) points to the fact that the telephone was adopted in about fifty years and
that cell phones were adopted in about eight. The rate of exponential growth forms the
backbone of technological evolution. Thus, the chance for miniaturisation and emergence of
invisible technologies become greater. Exponential growth allows us to see the possibilities of
reverse engineering in biology, greater work with nanobots, the expansion of human
intelligence and an increase in human life expectancy. For those who work in the humanities,
the impact of exponential growth on creativity, expression and what it means to be human,
will demand new engagements and discussion in the English classrooms. Exponential growth
in computing will allow students to engage, explore and examine new literary works in novel
and exciting ways. Their research on texts can be deeper and go further because of these
digital applications. Their ability to construct new works through programmes like iBooks
mean new genres will appear. One can imagine poetry and images combined into new forms
expressing engagements with nature or cities.
To infuse ICTs into English for the purposes of communicating more effectively or to
engage with the human condition or to show the beauty of the creative imagination is one
thing. To be pressured into using specific technologies for the purposes of producing skilled
workers for globalised companies is something else. Part of the work of English teachers is
about expressing the creative imagination with the implements at hand. To foreground the
tools is not a wise idea in a world where technologies change and digital tools get rapidly
replaced by new ideas, applications and operating systems. There are also critical questions
English teachers might ask about technology based on their professional understanding of the
broader issues of technology integration. How will access to new technologies overcome poor
schools? Who is benefitting from closed-ended technological engagements? What is lost or
gained by moving into virtual spaces for large portions of the school day? Will there be long-
term residual effects of engagements with particular emerging technologies? What are the
specific types of engagements with technology that benefit the student‘s own intellectual,
imaginative and critical capabilities?
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Barrie Barrell 96
In 2001, Light reminded us that ‗historically, powerful political and commercial interests
have shaped the ultimate forms and uses of technology‘ in public schools (p. 726). Teachers
and policymakers need to be mindful of these facts as corporate pressures for engaging
technology build. If an economic imperative demands the learning of particular skill sets then
we need to be cautious of their real and lasting value to our students given the shelf life of
some technologies. In addition, before having students of English migrate en masse into
digital environments and virtual worlds, it is important to ask what is being given up, what
particular values are being lost and what advantage to human performance is gained?
Teachers of English are struggling to move the use of new technologies towards the creative
and imaginative application of these powerful new tools.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has demonstrated that using globalisation as a guiding paradigm in English
education is fraught with problems. An economic discourse is not the place to begin building
new visions for English education. Globalisation does not mean that we should be cherry
picking reasons to do particular things or to teach particular skills in the English classroom.
However, globalisation does give us a vision of how people are engaging with the world as
they work, communicate and create. It does show us the importance of technology in all our
lives. ICTs are an important part of the work of each discipline in the world. Rather than
looking to globalisation for warranted reasons to build curricula, the use of technology within
living and evolving disciplines gives us all we need to know provided we understand they
will rapidly change and shift within a students‘ twelve years of schooling.
Undoubtedly, ICTs will continue to change. We should not worry about the current
innovations and applications because they will change as exponential growth in computing
continues. Any cursory examination of elementary and secondary students‘ use of technology
demonstrates, time and time again, that linear ICT curriculum expectations constantly break
down. Students leapfrog the current computer-skill requirements to get done what they need
to do to represent their knowledge and understandings. What we can take from globalisation
is the changing nature of how we work. The ability to work well with groups, in teams and
with large interconnected digital communities is going to be with us for some time.
Of course, curricula change that will allow high school graduates to make their way in an
integrated knowledge economy needs to be a part of our vision. Any thinking that just
concentrates on generic ‗21
st
century skills‘ acquisition is doomed to failure. To gain the
appropriate skill sets, knowledge and attributes to compete in global economic environments
will be gained by learning from good examples provided by those who currently mimic how
people work within vibrant disciplines. We cannot condone technologies being used to bolster
old pedagogies.
Technologies can be used to bring about a revolution in both English education and
schooling. With the digital tools and resources now available to teachers and students, schools
can be made even more exciting places to be. After all, education is not about the technology,
but where the technology can take students and how it can help them engage with the world.
Given what we know about information and communication technologies it is fun to ponder
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Examining Globalisation As a Guiding Paradigm in English Education 97
what will it mean for a child entering school now to be considered literate in twelve years and
what will their engagements and digital compositions in the English language arts look like?
Technology has a way of advancing that can render equipment and previously gained
skills and technical knowledge irrelevant (e.g., IBM key punching machines, Telex machines,
eight track tape players, five and half inch floppies, zip drives, Logo, spirit duplicators). Light
(2001), as a historian of technology, comments, ‗the digital divide discourse, banks on the
assumption that computers, the Internet, and other emerging technologies will persist in a
form and with content relevant to educators‘ broad goals. Historical studies of technological
change indicate this is not a safe assumption‘ (p. 719).

REFERENCES

Cameron, M., & Barrell, B. (2001). Integrating robotics into a grade 2 classroom: Making
space for Robert. In B. Barrell (Ed.), Technology, teaching and learning: Issues in the
integration of technology (pp. 183-196). Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. New York:
Harper & Row.
Hammett, R., & Barrell, B. (2002). Digital expressions: Media literacy and English language
arts. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Kurzweil, R. (2012). As humans and computers merge… immortality? Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-july-dec12-immortal_07-10/
Kurzweil, R. (2014). Get ready for hybrid thinking. Retrieved from. https://www.ted.com/
talks/ray_kurzweil_get_ready_for_hybrid_thinking
Light, J. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 709-733.
Reich, R. (1992). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21
st
century capitalism. New
York: Vintage Books.
Smith, D. (2006). Trying to teach in a season of great untruth: Globalization, empire and the
crisis of pedagogy. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Tsakos, N. (2012). A multimedia theatrical adventure. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/
talks/natasha_tsakos_multimedia_theatrical_adventure

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 10

THE DILEMMA OF MATCHING LEARNING STYLES
AND TEACHING STYLES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
CLASSROOMS

Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri

and Lap Tuen Wong
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China, and
Centennial College, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT

In English language classrooms, students use different approaches to carry out
English learning tasks. Language learning styles, which generally refer to learners‘
preferred modes of language learning, have been widely researched and discussed in the
fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology. Understanding
the learning style preferences of students can help teachers cope with students‘ course-
related learning difficulties and ultimately help alleviate their frustration levels. Another
important concept is teaching styles, which refers to teachers‘ classroom behaviour based
on their teaching beliefs, is commonly associated with learning styles in language
education research. Many educationalists (Giles, Ryan, Belliveau, De Fritas, & Casey,
2006; Razak, Ahmad, & Shad, 2007) point out that teaching style is vital for providing
students with good learning experiences and improving students‘ academic outcomes.
A number of researchers (Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992; Peacock,
2001; Reid, 1987) suggest that learning styles and teaching styles should be matched in
order to enhance students‘ learning motivation. However, some other scholars (Giles et
al. 2006; Razak, Ahmad, & Shad, 2007; Soliven, 2003) advocate that this may limit
students‘ opportunities to develop their learning styles. This chapter first provides an
overview of theories and models related to learning styles and teaching styles in English
language classrooms. It then discusses the controversial relationship between learning
styles and teaching styles in SLA literature. The final part of the chapter concludes with
educational implications for enhancing learning experiences in English language
classrooms.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri and Lap Tuen Wong 100
Keywords: English language education, learning styles, teaching styles

INTRODUCTION

Individual differences are extensively studied in the area of second language acquisition
(SLA) (Cook, 2008; Dornyei, 2005; Ellis, 2008). Learning styles constitute one of the
important areas that need further exploration when studying individual differences. In general
psychology, the term learning styles refers to learners‘ preferred general approach towards
learning, which includes the process of absorbing, processing and retaining new information.
In SLA research, the term language learning styles refers to language learners‘ preferred
general approach to language acquisition. A plethora of ESL and EFL research studies
(Cornett, 1983; Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1979; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; Oxford & Ehrman, 1993)
show that students learn more effectively if teachers can identify students‘ language learning
styles and design teaching activities which can cater for students‘ learning style needs. It is
also believed that successful learners should be able to learn in several different ways by
developing their learning styles (Reid, 1998).
When exploring learning styles in language classrooms, another important concept
teaching styles also has to be discussed. Teaching style is commonly defined as teachers‘
teaching behavior based on their own beliefs and philosophy and is not restricted to a
teaching method or a technique. Many researchers (Giles et al. 2006; Heimlich & Norland,
2002; Razak, Ahmad, & Shad, 2007; Soliven, 2003) point out that teaching style can
influence students‘ learning styles and is vital for providing students with good learning
experiences and improving students‘ academic outcomes.
In English language education an ongoing topic of debate has revolved around the
relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in classroom learning. Style theorists
have different views towards the effectiveness of matching/mismatching learning styles and
teaching styles in the language classroom. Some researchers believe that matching learning
styles with teaching styles can provide students with an affective learning environment and
enhance language learning. In contrast, some argue that avoiding introducing new teaching
styles may limit students‘ opportunities to further develop their learning styles.
This chapter will first examine the nature of learning styles and teaching styles with
reference to different definitions and theoretical models. As most of the learning style and
teaching style models in SLA are derived from the field of general psychology, this chapter
will review the concepts and theoretical models from both SLA and general psychology
literature. Understanding the conceptual base of learning and teaching style models from
general psychology can help us explore the nature of learning and teaching styles in English
language classrooms. Next, the chapter will discuss the relationship between learning styles
and teaching styles in those language classrooms. The final section will provide practical
pedagogical implications by integrating style theories in English language education.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Dilemma of Matching Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in English … 101
LEARNING STYLES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Language learning styles are defined in different ways and a number of learning style
theoretical models are proposed by different language learning researchers. Oxford (2003)
defines learning styles as learners‘ preferred approach when learning a subject, acquiring a
language, or solving a problem. Reid (1998, p. ix) refers to it as ‗internally based
characteristics, often not perceived or consciously used by learners, for the intake and
comprehension of information‘. Although she points out that learning styles are stable and do
not change despite the learning environment, she adds that new styles can be acquired and the
old styles can be adapted with time.
The terms learning style and cognitive style are sometimes used interchangeably in some
research studies. But, it is necessary to differentiate between the terms learning style and
cognitive style in order to avoid confusion and contradiction. Dornyei (2005) and Rayner
(2000) distinguish learning style from cognitive style by focusing on the stability of
processing information in different situations. While cognitive style is defined as a stable way
of processing information, which is related to inherent, affective, physiological and
behavioural factors, it is emphasised that learning styles can change with experience or
situation and can also be potentially trainable (Cassidy, 2004; Holec, 1987; Little &
Singleton, 1990). Liu and Ginther (1999) compare cognitive styles and learning styles and
conclude that learning styles are more related to practical educational applications than
cognitive styles. This chapter, therefore, focuses on learning style research, which can provide
practical implications for educationalists.
As most of the language learning style theoretical models have their origins in general
psychology, this section outlines some of the influential learning style models from both
general psychology and SLA literature. Examining the learning style models from both fields
is essential for exploring the nature of learning styles in English language classrooms.

(i) Curry’s Onion Model

Curry (1983; 1987) proposes a theoretical framework of learning behaviour and uses the
onion metaphor to illustrate different layers of the construct. According to the model, the
outer layer ‗instructional preference‘ refers to learners‘ preference of learning environment. It
is described as the most observable, lowest level of stability and the most easily influenced
layer. Curry points out that this layer is the most unstable in the learning style arena as it
directly relates to learning environments, learner expectations, teacher expectations and other
external features. The second layer is ‗social interaction‘, which refers to learners‘ preferred
choice for social interaction in learning. The next layer, which is the more stable one, is
‗information processing‘ or in other words the learners‘ intellectual approach to processing
information.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri and Lap Tuen Wong 102
(ii) Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

David Kolb‘s (1984)‘s experiential learning theory aims at explaining the interaction
between the human developmental stages, learning processes and experiences. Similar to
Curry‘s Onion Model, it focuses on the transaction between internal characteristics and
external circumstances, and between personal knowledge and social knowledge. He outlines a
four-stage learning cycle that a learner will experience to different degrees: experiencing,
reflecting, thinking and acting. The four-stage learning cycle may vary according to learners‘
learning styles and the learning contexts. Learners generally show preference towards one of
the stages at the most basic level. The preferred learning stage then determines learners‘
preferred learning styles according to Kolb‘s learning style inventory, which was proposed to
assess individual learning preferences on the basis of four modes of learning. Kolb and Kolb
(2005) further explain that life experiences, the demands of the environment and hereditary
make-up can contribute to the development of learning style preferences.

(iii) Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning Styles

Dunn and Dunn (1992) define learning styles as ‗a biological and developmental set of
personal characteristics that make identical instruction effective for some students and
ineffective for others‘ (p. 4). The Learning Style Inventory, a popular self-reporting
questionnaire for analysing the instructional and environmental preferences of students, was
developed by Dunn, Dunn, and Price (1975). The learning style instrument was mainly used
for analysing English native speakers‘ learning styles. It includes five main
aspects/characteristics related to learning styles: (1) environmental factors (light, sound,
temperature and design); (2) emotional factors (structure, persistence, motivation and
responsibility); (3) sociological factors (pairs, peers, adults, self and group); (4) physical
(perceptual strengths – auditory, visual, tactile, kinaesthetic, mobility, intake and time of
day); and (5) psychological (global-analytic, impulsive-reflective and cerebral dominance).
Dunn and Dunn (1992; 1993; 1999) explain that individuals usually are affected by only
between 6 to 14 elements of the 21 elements. The specific preferences then contribute to the
learning styles of the individuals.

(iv) Oxford’s Learning Style Categories

Oxford, Ehrman, and Lavine (1991) define language learning styles as the learning
approaches students use in second/foreign language learning. They divide learning styles into
four interrelated aspects: cognitive, affective, physiological and behavioural, and emphasise
the correlation between learning styles, learning strategies and cultural background of
individuals. Learning styles and learning strategies are believed to be influenced by cultural
needs and values. Oxford et al. (1991) comment that the most significant learning styles for
ESL/EFL learning includes (1) global and analytic; (2) field-dependent and field-independent;
(3) feeling and thinking; (4) impulsive and reflective; (5) intuitive-random and concrete
sequential; (5) closure-oriented and open; (6) extroverted and introverted; and (7) visual,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Dilemma of Matching Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in English … 103
auditory and hands-on (tactile and kinaesthetic). They associate each of the style dimensions
to a set of learning strategies or behaviours in ESL/EFL setting.

(v) Reid’s Perceptual Learning Styles

Reid (1987) uses the term ‗perceptual learning styles‘ to describe the ‗variations among
learners in using one or more senses to understand, organise and retain experience‘ (p. 89). To
measure learning styles, Reid designed the Perceptual Learning Styles Questionnaire for
higher intermediate or advanced second/foreign language learners. She explains that modality
strength may occur in a single channel, for example, auditory, or may involve two or more
channels, such as kinaesthetic, visual and tactile. She also adds that ESL students from
different educational and cultural backgrounds can differ significantly in their learning style
preferences. Other variables, such as length of time spent in an English-speaking country and
level of education, may be related to various learning styles preferences too.
Regardless of different definitions and models proposed by style theorists, they all share
an important common theme namely that learning styles are stable in nature and resistant to
change in a short period of time but they can be altered in the long term when they interact
with external factors. It can be concluded that learning styles are not static and students can
be influenced by their teachers in the long term. This further reveals that teaching styles can
affect students‘ learning styles when learners interact with teachers for a long period of time.
The next section will explain the concept of teaching styles in classroom learning.

TEACHING STYLES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Language teaching style is defined as a set of teaching techniques which share the same
goals and beliefs of language teaching and learning (Cook, 2008). Teachers use different
techniques in various ways within a particular teaching style. Like language learning styles,
most of the language teaching style theories and models originated from general psychology.
It is important to examine the concept of teaching styles from both fields of SLA and general
psychology. In general psychology, teaching styles are an instructor‘s implementation of
philosophy, beliefs, values, and attitudes towards the exchange of teaching and learning
(Grasha, 1996; Jarvis, 2004). It has been pointed out that teaching styles are multi-
dimensional (Grasha, 1996). These styles can affect how teachers present information,
interact with students, manage classroom tasks and supervise coursework. Conti (1998) adds
that teaching styles persist regardless of the teaching conditions. However, Cornett (1983)
argues that although teachers have a general overall style, it does not mean ‗they cannot add
to or modify that style as circumstances warrant‘ (p. 28). She explains that modifications of
teaching style can create a more successful experience for both learners and teachers.
Heimlich and Norland (1994) suggest that teaching style is ‗the product of facets‘ of teachers‘
life. This may include teaching and learning experience, educational background, personal
likes and dislikes, and cultural background.
Grasha (1994) identifies the following five teaching styles: expert, formal authority,
personal model, facilitator and delegator. His goals of developing a conceptual model of
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri and Lap Tuen Wong 104
teaching style were to explore the stylistic qualities that college teachers possessed and to
offer suggestions for when and how to employ them. He later developed a five-point Likert
scale Teaching Style Inventory (1996) to investigate teachers‘ teaching styles and found that
teachers with higher academic ranks tend to associate with the expert and formal authority
styles. In addition, teachers tend to use the facilitator and delegator styles when teaching
higher-level classes. His research also shows that the formal authority style can be more
commonly found in foreign language classrooms, when compared with other academic
disciplines, such as mathematics and computer science. He concludes that teaching styles can
be influenced by several factors such as learning goals, type of course, teacher‘s educational
background, level of studies and academic discipline.
In the field of SLA, Cook (2008) divides second/foreign language teaching styles into six
categories: academic (i.e., focuses on grammatical explanation and translation), audiolingual
(i.e., emphasises teaching the spoken language through dialogues and drills), social
communicative (i.e., focuses on teaching language for meaningful communication between
people), information communicative (i.e., focuses on exchange of information), mainstream
EFL (i.e., combines academic and audiolingual styles) and others (i.e., using humanistic
methods). She developed a short questionnaire for teachers to quickly identify their language
teaching styles.
Compared to learning styles, teaching styles have less well-developed theoretical models
in literature. There is also little research investigating different variables related to language
teachers‘ teaching styles, for example, language teachers‘ educational and cultural
backgrounds. The main reason for this cannot be identified in literature. Nevertheless, it
cannot be denied that teachers‘ teaching styles can be influenced by different factors, such as
teachers‘ educational and cultural backgrounds, teaching experience and learning experience,
although it is generally believed that teaching styles are mainly based on teachers‘ teaching
philosophy and beliefs. In addition, teachers‘ personal beliefs and teaching philosophy may
change as they gain more teaching experience. Similar to the nature of learning styles,
teaching styles may be stable in the short term, but may change after a long period of time
when teachers have more exposure to different teaching situations. It is possible that in the
long term, teaching styles can also be influenced by students and their learning styles.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHING STYLES AND LEARNING STYLES
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS

In style research, there are basically two main arguments about the relationship between
teaching styles and learning styles in classroom learning. Some researchers suggest that
learning styles and teaching styles should be well matched in order to enhance students‘
motivation of learning. On the contrary, opponents of the ‗matching theory‘ argue that
students may lose the opportunity to be exposed to unfamiliar teaching styles if teachers try to
match their teaching styles with students‘ learning styles, which in turn may adversely affect
their development of new learning styles.
Numerous second/foreign language research studies on learning styles (Reid, 1987;
Carbo & Hodges, 1988; Nelson, 1995; Kinsella, 1995; Hyland, 1993; Tudor, 1996) have
shown that students taught in preferred learning styles were more motivated to learn and more
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Dilemma of Matching Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in English … 105
able to achieve greater success than those taught in instructional/teaching styles different from
their preferred styles. It was also found that when knowledge is further reinforced through
students‘ secondary preferences, students‘ learning is further enhanced (Kroon, 1985). On the
contrary, when mismatches between teaching styles and learning styles occur, students‘
language learning may be adversely affected (Cotazzi, 1990; Jones, 1997; Littlewood, Liu, &
Yu, 1996, Oxford et al. 1992; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987; Stebbins, 1995; Tuan, 2011). Reid
(1996) asserts that matching language teaching styles and language learning styles can help
provide equal educational opportunities to students in language classroom and build their self-
awareness. In addition, Peacock (2001) contends that matching students‘ learning styles and
teachers‘ teaching styles can motivate students to work harder in and outside the classroom.
On the other hand, Oxford and Lavine (1992) argue that in reality it is difficult to match
all dimensions of teachers‘ teaching styles with students‘ learning styles. Deliberate
mismatching allows learners to develop compensation skills for dealing with situations where
style conflicts exist, such as in the business world when dealing with different people.
However, asking teachers to adopt an unfamiliar style may result in reduced teaching
effectiveness. Additionally, Felder (1995) proposes that teaching styles preferred by learners
may not be the best for their learning as this may reduce the opportunity for students to
extend their learning styles, which are necessary for their future development. Some
(Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Vermunt & Verschaffel, 2000) advocate that ‗constructive
friction‘ achieved by adopting a wide variety of teaching approaches can avoid boredom and
push students to be more responsible for the content, process and outcomes of their learning.
Kolb (1984) believes that the aim of mismatching is to allow students to experience
challenges in order to promote their personal growth and creativity.
Faced with the two contrasting views towards the ‗matching theory‘, a number of
researchers (Melton, 1990; Oxford et al. 1992; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987; Willing, 1988)
conclude that adopting a multi-style approach in classroom can accommodate different
learning styles of students and help learners extend their learning styles. Claxton and Maurrell
(1988) discuss the benefits and drawbacks of matching teaching and learning styles. They
suggest that matching is appropriate for teaching poorly prepared or new college students to
reduce their learning anxiety. However, mismatching allows students to learn in new ways,
but it ‗should be done with sensitivity and consideration for students, because the experience
of discontinuity can be very threatening‘ (p. 1).
The arguments put forth by both sides seem to contradict each other while the multi-style
approach seems to be more practical for diverse classrooms. However, the multi-style
approach cannot solve the anxiety problem faced by less prepared students. In English
language classrooms, less proficient language learners may become frustrated when they have
to confront the language barrier and at the same time be expected to get accustomed to
unfamiliar teaching styles which may make them uncomfortable. Since the key factors that
demotivate students have been identified as teachers‘ personalities and teaching styles (Jones,
2006), some degree of scepticism towards a multi-style approach may be necessary.
In fact, most of the matching/mismatching theorists assume that learning styles are static
in nature. They generally agree that teachers should have a good awareness of students‘
learning styles and adapt (either matching or mismatching) their teaching styles in order to
cater for learners‘ needs. However, as stated earlier in this chapter, most of the literature
suggests that both learning styles and teaching styles are stable in the short term, but can be

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri and Lap Tuen Wong 106

Figure 10.1. The relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in English language
classrooms

altered when they interact with external factors in the long term. This suggests that both
learning styles and teaching styles might change when learners and teachers interact with
each other for a long period of time. It is also possible that learning styles and teaching styles
influence each other during the interaction. Figure 10.1 illustrates some possible scenarios in
the language classroom.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Dilemma of Matching Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in English … 107
The figure shows that learning styles and teaching styles may not be congruent at the
beginning. But both teaching styles and learning styles may change when they interact with
different external factors such as the cultural environment and educational experiences. At the
same time, learning styles and teaching styles may change when they interact with each other.
However, it should be noted that the flexibility of learning styles is based on a number of
factors. In English language classrooms, these may include learners‘ English language
proficiency, cultural beliefs, motivation and personality. For instance, confident learners with
higher language proficiency and motivation might be more open to developing their learning
styles and accepting unfamiliar teaching styles. In contrast, weaker students may have to put
extra effort in overcoming the language barrier as well as the unfamiliar teaching style. The
less proficient learners who might suffer from low self-esteem may not want to take the risk
of developing or changing their learning styles and face greater challenges as compared to
proficient learners. Similarly, if cultural context is taken into account, Chinese students may
prefer teacher-centred teaching styles and feel anxious when they are given choices in
designing and implementing their own learning. In traditional Chinese culture, many learners
expect teachers to be authoritative. Sometimes, it may therefore be difficult for learners to
change their cultural expectations when they have been educated in a given cultural context
for a long period of time. In addition, teachers must be amenable to changing their teaching
styles when they find that some of their styles are not effective in language classrooms,
particularly when they note that their students might be experiencing difficulties in accepting
their teaching styles. Their teaching styles may also be subject to gradual change when they
gain more teaching experience. Certainly, many factors combine together to contribute
towards different teaching styles. When both learners and teachers change their learning
styles and teaching styles, it is possible that the learning styles and teaching styles might
eventually become similar. After a certain period of time, both learners and teachers in a
particular classroom, have the potential to develop new sets of learning styles and teaching
styles which are more in congruence.
Matching learning styles and teaching styles may limit learning opportunities, but
mismatching can cause anxiety. It seems that both sides have drawbacks which language
teachers want to avoid. The new framework proposed in this chapter might be useful in
addressing the matching/mismatching dilemma highlighted by style theorists. This framework
suggests that researchers should focus more on increasing the flexibility of learning styles.
Most of the style literature states that time can change one‘s learning style, but very few
studies explore why some learners can develop their learning styles quickly when they are
exposed to different external factors and why they become more willing to accept unfamiliar
teaching styles, while others take longer and are less willing to adapt themselves to different
teaching styles. Similarly, several studies investigate the factors that influence learning styles,
but very few explore how learners face and react to unfamiliar teaching styles. To solve the
dilemma posed due to matching/mismatching learning styles and teaching styles, language
teachers should find sensible ways to provide maximum opportunities for learners to develop
their learning styles without causing them unnecessary anxiety. The latter can be achieved by
minimising the factors which reduce the flexibility of learning styles in language classrooms.
When learners are given more room for flexibility in accepting new teaching styles, then they
can further develop their learning styles.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri and Lap Tuen Wong 108
IMPLICATIONS FOR INTEGRATING LEARNING STYLES
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS

This chapter suggests that the flexibility of learning styles and the ability to accept
unfamiliar teaching styles differ among English language learners. Mismatching may cause
anxiety to some learners, but may help them develop their learning styles and risk-taking
ability. Matching learning styles with teaching styles can build an affective language learning
environment, but it has the disadvantage of reducing the opportunities available to learners to
develop new learning styles. To provide students with enjoyable learning experiences and
maximise their academic outcomes, teachers should adopt a flexible approach in different
classrooms.
Teachers should first understand their students‘ ability to accept unfamiliar teaching
styles. Before deciding how to integrate learning styles in language classrooms, they should
consider the following aspects of individual students: English language proficiency,
personality, learning motivation and cultural background.
For example, less confident students who lack motivation and have low English language
proficiency may feel frustrated when they find that their teachers‘ teaching styles do not
match well with their own learning styles. Additionally, students from different cultural
backgrounds may feel threatened when they find that some teaching styles clash with their
own cultural beliefs. When teachers find that learners have relatively low flexibility in
accepting new teaching styles, they should first maximise the factors which can improve their
flexibility.
Among the four aspects suggested, motivation can be controlled most easily by teachers
in language classrooms. Teachers should first ensure their learners are motivated by means of
positive reinforcement. When students are motivated to learn, they start to develop self-
esteem and become more willing to accept new challenges, including that of adapting to
unfamiliar teaching styles.
Teachers, therefore, should provide a supportive learning environment and encourage
students to be intellectual risk-takers before introducing unfamiliar teaching styles. They
should also have good cultural understanding and ensure that all students from different
cultural backgrounds have equal learning opportunities in English language classrooms.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has reviewed the literature on learning styles and teaching styles, and
discussed the controversial relationship between the two styles in English language
classrooms. It has also suggested ways of integrating the two styles and provided implications
of the study for English language teachers.
One of the greatest challenges in language teaching is the need to maximise learning
outcomes while accommodating learner diversity. Many scholars recommend teachers to be
flexible and adapt their teaching styles to cater for learners‘ needs.
This chapter suggests that English language teachers should encourage students to be
flexible too in order to overcome new academic challenges. Only by being motivated to
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Dilemma of Matching Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in English … 109
accept new ways of learning and willing to be intellectual risk-takers, can they enhance their
opportunities for learning in English language classrooms.

REFERENCES

Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning styles strategies can help students at risk.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 20(4), 55-58.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models and measures.
Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444.
Conti, G. J. (1998). Identifying your teaching style. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning
methods (pp. 73-84). Malabar, FL: Krieger: Publishing Company.
Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.
Cornett, C. E. (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles.
Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. In B.
Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom (pp. 54 – 65). London: Modern
English Publications / the British Council.
Curry, L. (1983, April). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED235185
Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention
to psychometric standards. Learning Styles Network.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning
styles. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning
styles: Practical approaches for grades 7 – 12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1999). The complete guide to the learning styles inservice system.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975). The learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price
Systems.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1979). Identifying individual learning styles. In Student
learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 39-54). Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English: A course in learner training.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Felder, R. R. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention:
Instructional methods and student responses to them. Journal of Engineering Education,
84(4), 361- 367.
Giles, J., Ryan, D. A. J., Belliveau, G., De Fritas, E., & Casey, R. (2006). Teaching style and
learning in a quantitative classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(3), 213-
225.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Wai Lam Heidi Wong, Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri and Lap Tuen Wong 110
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by
understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers.
Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 17-25.
Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. N. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: managing learning or managing to learn. In A.
Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learning strategies and language learning (pp. 145-157).
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hyland, K. (1993). Culture and learning: A study of the learning style preferences of Japanese
students. RELC Journal, 24(2), 69-91.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice. London:
Routledge.
Jones, B. A. (2006). Practice to theory to practice: Sharing my story. In K. Bradford-Watts, C.
Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.) JALT2005 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Jones, N. B. (1997, April). Applying learning styles research to improve writing instruction.
Paper presented at RELC Seminar on Learners and Language Learning, Singapore.
Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners. In J. Reid (Ed.),
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp.170-194). Boston: Heinle.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory – Version 3.1: 2005
technical specifications. Haygroup: Experience Based Learning Systems Inc.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kroon, D. K. (1985). An experimental investigation of the effects on academic achievement
and the resultant administrative implications of instruction congruent and incongruent
with secondary, industrial arts students’ learning style perceptual preferences
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John’s University, New York.
Little, D. & Singleton, D. (1990). Cognitive style and learning approach. In R. Duda & P.
Riley (Eds.), Learning styles (pp.11-19). Nancy, France: University of Nancy.
Littlewood, W., Liu, N. F., & Yu, C. (1996). Hong Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and
proficiency in spoken English. RELC Journal, 27(1), 70-88.
Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (1999). Cognitive styles and distance education. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/
~distance/ojdla/fall23/liu23.html
Melton, C. D. (1990). Bridging the cultural gap: A study of Chinese students’ learning style
preferences. RELC Journal, 21(1), 29-47.
Nelson, G. (1995). Cultural differences in learning styles. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in
the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 3-18). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (Iral), 41, 271-277.
Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine, R. Z. (1991). Styles wars: Teacher-student style conflicts
in the language classroom. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990s for college
foreign language programs (pp. 1-25). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R., Holloway, M., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles: Research
and practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom.
System, 20, 439-456.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Dilemma of Matching Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in English … 111
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Rayner, S. G. (2000). Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning: Profiling
learning performance. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International perspectives
on individual differences, Volume 1: Cognitive styles (pp.115-177). Westport: Bergin &
Garvey.
Razak, N. A., Ahmad, F., & Shah, N.P. (2007). Perceived and preferred teaching styles
(methods) of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) students. e-BANGI: Jurnal Sains Sosial
dan Kemanusiaan, 2(2). Retrieved from http://journalarticle.ukm.my/1542/
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-
111.
Reid, J. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Soliven, S. R. (2003). Teaching styles of high school physics teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.hiceducation.org/EduProceedings
Stebbins, C. (1995). Culture-specific perceptual-learning-style preferences of postsecondary
students of English as a second language. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the
ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 108-117). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Tuan, L. T. (2011). EFL learners‘ learning styles and their attributes. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences, 2(2), 299- 320.
Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centeredness as language education. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.
Vermunt, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2000). Process-oriented teaching. In R. J. Simons, J. van der
Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 209 – 225). Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide, Australia: National
Curriculum Resource Centre.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

PART II

THE PRACTICES OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
EDUCATION IN THE SELECTED PARTS
OF THE WORLD
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 11

EXPORTING TRAINED TESOL PROFESSIONALS, NOT
JUST NATIVE SPEAKERS: A CASE STUDY OF
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Kris Acheson and Justin Taylor
Georgia State University, GA, USA

ABSTRACT

This chapter is a call to arms for universities, particularly those in English-speaking
countries, to further professionalise the field of TESOL/TEFL by developing more and
better TEFL teacher training programmes at the undergraduate level. After identifying the
problems of insufficient skilled labour and unchecked teacher attrition in English
language classrooms around the world and exploring the perspectives of new TEFL
teachers through narratives of their experiences in the classroom, we present an argument
of best practices based on a case study of Georgia State University, emphasising not only
the development of more undergraduate coursework in TEFL preparation but also the
initiation of study abroad practicum experiences, international internship programmes,
and cooperative education models that provide students with much-needed experience
living and teaching abroad before they enter the TEFL industry.

Keywords: Undergraduate TEFL training, skilled labour, teacher attrition, native English
speakers, teaching abroad

INTRODUCTION

In an ever more globalised world, English is a prominent lingua franca and thus an
important foreign language in the school systems of many countries. For several decades
now, millions of native English speakers have therefore left their own countries and found
themselves as a part of a newly global industry: Teaching English as a Foreign Language
(TEFL) (Paul, 2000; Whittaker, 2003). In response, TESOL/TEFL has also grown into a
professional field, complete with professional organisations (e.g., TESOL International
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Kris Acheson and Justin Taylor 116
Association, American Association for Applied Linguistics, International Association of
World Englishes, etc.), university degree programmes (i.e., primarily graduate degrees in
TESOL, Applied Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and other related fields) and
professional certifications (e.g., TEFL, CELTA, etc.). Yet, despite this development,
TESOL/TEFL as a profession has been unable to break the most damaging cycle in the TEFL
industry, that is, the recruitment of untrained native speakers followed by extraordinarily high
attrition rates.
Current options for training in TEFL exist in many forms, from short to long-term, both
in class and online, and with certification or a degree. However, many employers hiring
TEFL teachers continue to prioritise native English-speaker status over formal and extended
training in language pedagogy and classroom management. In 2010, Selvi completed an
analysis of three months of postings from two popular online job boards, finding a total of 70
job postings on TESOL‘s professional job board, careers.tesol.org, and 462 on Dave‘s ESL
Cafe‘s informal, international job list, eslcafe.org/joblist. The first of these is sponsored by a
professional organisation in the field and caters to career–teachers with formal training, while
the second is an immensely popular resource site for a broader spectrum of EFL/ESL
programmes and teachers around the world. In Selvi‘s analysis, 60% and 75% of the postings,
respectively, advertised for native English-speakers. A similar search conducted in February
of 2015 for this chapter showed significant growth since 2010, with the Dave‘s ESL Cafe list
more than tripling in size. Moreover, the boards have diverged over the past five years – the
content and rhetoric of the ads are now strikingly different from each other. The recent search
on careers.tesol.org yielded 104 job listings around the world, 90 of them for full-time
employment, 20 at the BA level and 54 at the MA level, and only 5 specifying a requirement
for a ‗near-native‘ or ‗native-like‘ speaker. In contrast, the search on eslcafe.com/joblist
returned 1,617 job listings, only 586 of which were full-time, with 514 at the BA level
(usually, in any field) and only 53 requiring an MA (in a related field), and 442 of them
prioritising or demanding native speaker status. This means that in the past five years, the
percentage of ads specifying native speaker status has moved from 60% to less than 5% on
TESOL‘s job board, and from 75% to 27% on Dave‘s ESL Cafe. Although the percentage of
ads recruiting native speakers has decreased on both boards, the actual number of this type of
ad has dramatically increased on Dave‘s site, from 127 in 2010 to 442 in 2015. Clearly, given
the disparities in size between these two job boards and the differences in their position
requirements, the professional field has not yet caught up with the TEFL industry in terms of
matching supply to demand, nor does the industry seem to have accepted some of the
foundational premises of the profession. For example, being a native speaker of a language
does not constitute qualification to teach that language.
The trend of native speaker recruitment is especially evident in upcoming economic
powerhouse countries such as China, Japan and the UAE, all of which are determined to enter
the global economy of English-speakers by embedding English extensively in their school
systems (Vaughn, 2013). With public demand so high for English lessons, it is common in
these contexts for both public and private schools to hire native English speakers as a ‗status
symbol‘ to lend credibility and prestige to their institutions, as well as to draw in more parents
and children (Árva & Medgyes, 2000; Rueker & Ives, 2014). It is thus generally easy for
native English speakers to enter the TEFL industry, even with little to no teacher training or
prior experience. These untrained, transient teachers demoralise trained professionals;
furthermore, the recruitment of under-trained teachers for TEFL classrooms across the globe
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Exporting Trained Tesol Professionals, not just Native Speakers 117
hurts students most of all, as it results in language instruction that is not nearly as effective as
it could, and in fact should, be (Mullock, 2009; Johnston, 1997).
Maley (1992) discussed the ‗permeability‘ of the TEFL field, maintaining that the ease
with which people can slip in and out of the profession is in part due to the prevalence of
short-term contracts. This permeability may continue to be perpetuated by the very discourse
within the field, as many sites recruiting inexperienced native speakers emphasise the benefits
and adventure of a short stint abroad (Rueker & Ives, 2014), many new recruits acknowledge
from the outset that they don‘t intend to stay (Mullock, 2009), and even long-term expatriate
teachers often talk of leaving (Johnston, 1997). In the decades since Maley‘s work, this
permeability has continued, with contracts typically signed for a year or less, legions of fresh
recruits continually joining the ranks, and the average length of career remaining extremely
short. This last issue, attrition, is truly severe, with only a third of TEFL teachers staying
abroad for more than a year and only 10% staying at the same school for three years
(International TESOL Academy, 2012). For the sake of comparison, while attrition rates
among teachers in school systems in the US and UK are not ideal, they are certainly less
troubling than TEFL figures: after five years more than half of domestic teachers are still
teaching (Kyriacou & Kune, 2007; National Commission on Teaching and America‘s Future,
2003).
As will be explored in the narrative section of this chapter below, many native-speaker
teachers enter the TEFL industry motivated more by a desire to travel rather than a desire to
teach (Tsutsumi, 2013). Not surprisingly, it is teachers with formal training and a strong
desire to teach who experience the most satisfaction in their career and stay in the field the
longest (Mullock, 2009; Tsutsumi, 2013). This evidence argues well for further
professionalisation of the TEFL industry in order to counteract the current cycle at two points:
1) to increase the supply of trained labour to better meet the global demand for English
teachers and 2) to decrease the attrition rate of new instructors (or conversely, increase the
length of their careers).
In the section below, we turn to perspectives not given extensive voice in the academic
discourse, the perspectives of new TEFL instructors who have recently moved abroad to enter
this industry. After listening to their stories, we explore solutions to the troubling issues
illustrated in their narratives by describing an exemplary training programme – the
undergraduate programme in Applied Linguistics at Georgia State University – which
actively works to counter both an untrained workforce and high attrition rates.

TALES FROM THE FIELD: THE PROBLEM OF
‘JUST NATIVE SPEAKERS’

In this section, we use both primary data (ethnographic and auto-ethnographic) and
secondary data (insight offered by participants in relevant published qualitative research) to
inform creative non-fiction narratives describing the experiences of two types of new TEFL
teachers. – native speakers without extensive teacher training and graduates of TEFL
preparation undergraduate programmes. We placed them side by side below so that they
unfold parallel to each other, for the sake of contrast. Although the narratives are presented in
first person, as if written by two individuals (Sam and Pat), they are in fact aggregate stories,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Kris Acheson and Justin Taylor 118
or compilations of the experiences of multiple people. As phenomenological accounts, they
do not represent the ‗truth‘ of any one person‘s life nor essentialise all experiences into these
two ‗types‘, but instead illustrate patterns by articulating experiences that are common in this
context. Sam is an example of an untrained native English speaker, whereas Pat represents a
trained TEFL professional. The composite narratives are designed to illustrate key issues for
new teachers entering the field: finding and applying for their first jobs, their initial reactions
to training and students, their self-perceived efficacy as new teachers, intercultural
interactions with their coworkers, and their mid-contract reflections.

Sam

‘Are you a native English speaker? Do you want to see
the world? Are you interested in learning new
languages and cultures? If so, you should consider
teaching English abroad!’

I read through the email from my career centre with a
spark of interest. I had graduated with a BA in
International Economics over a year ago but was
having difficulty starting my career. Instead, I was
substituting at my old high school. While I’d never seen
myself as a teacher, it seemed like something I would be
willing to do short-term for such great perks. If I found
a teaching job abroad, I would be able to travel like I’d
always wanted. How hard could it be to teach English?
After all, I had spoken it my whole life. Plus, the email
said there was an online training course to teach me
what I needed to know.

I read the email over once more then followed the link
to the application website: ‘Teach in China, the Land of
Duck, Dumplings, and Dragons!’. There were a ton of
positive reviews – teaching sounded like a lot of fun! I
was so excited to be heading out on a grand adventure
to China.
~
It was Day One of classes at the Chinese high school
where I had been assigned. My two week TEFL training
programme when I reached China had given me a
general idea of what to expect; they taught me some
theories about how people learn languages, and gave
me some advice about putting together lessons. I also
realised in my first Chinese lesson yesterday that
education is different here from what I’m used to. Do
my students feel in English class like I did trying to
figure out Chinese? Yikes! In truth I still wasn’t sure of
what my students would be like, or what exactly I was
going to do with them. I was really nervous. How could
I make it through my fifty minutes – every day! –
without making a fool of myself? I hoped introductions
would be enough to get me through the first few classes.
~

Pat

‘Pat, I know you were thinking about heading overseas.
There’s a job opening at a Chinese school one of our
alumni worked at – I think you should check it out. They
pay well, and I think you’d be well-qualified.’

I was meeting with my academic advisor, discussing my
career options. I was close to finishing my Bachelor’s
degree in Applied Linguistics; my studies had given me
opportunities to develop many skills and to learn from
extraordinary teacher practitioners. Now, as I
approached the end of my programme, alumni were
supplying my cohort with valuable information about
schools they’d worked at and heard about. While I was
also conducting my own job search, I was relieved that
they were able to provide firsthand accounts about
schools in countries around the world.

‘Thanks for letting me know about the opening. I did my
study abroad and teaching practicum in China, you
know – I’d love to go back and teach there. So, where
do I send my application?’
~

Day One: I was happy to finally be in front of my own
classroom because, to be honest, the TEFL training
required for my visa application was a bore. I wondered
why I had to participate when I already had a degree
preparing me for this work. I also wondered how they
expected any new teachers to remember the training at
the breakneck pace they were running through
everything: one day for phonology and another for
classroom management. One thing that made me feel
good, though, was that our instructor immediately
recognised how comfortable I was in front of the
classroom and how knowledgeable I was about
linguistics. Now I was even more confident that my
training would see me through, especially since the
alumnus who had worked here before me had given me
a realistic idea of what to expect. Already, I had
outlined a curriculum for the semester and planned for
the first week.
~

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Exporting Trained Tesol Professionals, not just Native Speakers 119
I was halfway through my first semester when I realised
that the internet was my best friend. The first time I
tried to answer a student’s question about grammar, I
was surprised at how much trouble I had explaining the
way we use English. I’d hardly ever thought about why
I say something; I only knew that it was the right way to
do it. Yet it wasn’t difficult to see how dissatisfied my
students were with such a vague answer. I was worried
my students wouldn’t respect me much. Not only that,
but it was really frustrating how quiet the students were.
I had always heard that Chinese students were
hardworking, but they only ever did their work if I told
them exactly what to do. It was as if they didn’t know
how to think for themselves. I tried to remember what
my foreign language teachers did back when I was a
student…
~
I had come to the realisation that my local Teaching
Assistants, who were supposed to help me adjust to life
in China, were actually no help at all. They barely
talked to me unless I kept prodding them and, whenever
they were with another TA, they just talked in Chinese –
they didn’t even look at me, like I didn’t exist. When
they did talk to me, their English was so broken that I
could barely understand them, and I wasn’t really sure
if they understood half of what I said. I tried repeating
myself, slowly, but they still just looked at me with blank
faces.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, trying to ask them about
manoeuvring through all of China’s convoluted systems
led nowhere. They could never answer my questions
about different policies, but instead just insisted on
doing everything for me. Even when I asked them to go
to the bank, where I just wanted some help translating,
they took charge and made me feel more like an
inconvenient tagalong. When I asked them about what
had been said, I could tell they only gave me the
minimum information – there had to be more, they had
talked to the manager for almost an hour! Their
unfriendliness was certainly not very good motivation
for me to stick with the free Chinese lessons provided by
the school; I decided it’s just not worth it for me to
learn Chinese. I wouldn’t be here long enough to really
master it, anyway.
~

My first semester was over. I couldn’t believe I had
made it; I also couldn’t believe I still had six months left
in my contract. I was tired and homesick. Even though I
was finally starting to get a grasp of what I was
supposed to be doing, I wasn’t sure I liked teaching. Yet
I still wasn’t really ready for my adventure to be over.
Maybe, I thought, I’d stay for one more year. It might
be better at a different school. After that, though, I was
going home to get on with my real life. I just hoped my
international experience would help me find a job when
this was all over.
I was only halfway through my first semester when I
realised that, because I had covered grammar and
sound systems in such depth throughout my coursework,
it was easy to answer, or even anticipate, student
questions. I could see my students starting to open up to
me and growing more comfortable with speaking. Now,
that was a real challenge at first – getting them to speak
up in class. I knew the Chinese education system was
very test-oriented, so I had to adjust my teaching style
and gradually get the students used to more
communicative tasks. Fortunately, I had had an
opportunity to discuss this very issue with a native
Chinese professor of English during my study abroad
practicum course, and she had given me many useful
suggestions.
~

I was amazed at the helpfulness of my Teaching
Assistants. There were a lot of small
miscommunications scattered throughout our
conversations, but by rephrasing my statements and
asking questions about theirs, I could almost always
grasp their meaning. It was common for the TAs to
switch to Chinese amongst themselves, but I knew I
couldn’t begrudge them that – why should they speak in
English for me, when I had taken little initiative to be
conversational in the local language? My training was
also helpful in this situation, as it had taught me how
easy it is for expatriates to fall prey to feeling purposely
excluded.

Besides, they still did their best to help me with any
issue, big or small, and their inside knowledge of the
culture helped me get through many bureaucratic
hoops. My undergraduate studies had included research
on countries we might teach in, so I was aware of
China’s policies before I came, but handling them in
person was more difficult than it sounded! Even just
going to the bank could be difficult: unless I went to a
main branch, there were often few employees who spoke
English. Yet the TAs were willing to go with me any day
of the week so I could avoid such an inconvenience. I
thought them very considerate hosts, and found myself
hoping I would be here long enough to develop real
friendships with them.
~

My first semester seemed to end almost as soon as it
started. I was proud of myself and my students and
looking forward to seeing them after the holiday. I knew
I wanted to keep teaching. I didn’t think I’d stay at this
same school for more than a few years, though, despite
the decent pay and my good experiences here. Maybe
after spending a few years in China I could try a
different part of the world, and perhaps eventually I
would look into MA programmes, so that I would be
eligible to teach at the university level in China or back
home in the US.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Kris Acheson and Justin Taylor 120
A CALL TO ARMS FOR UNIVERSITIES:
A CASE STUDY OF GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The narratives above illustrate the stark contrast between the ways that untrained and
trained recruits often experience living and working abroad. Perhaps even more importantly,
they also demonstrate how proper TEFL training provides foreign teachers both with
strategies to teach language and with skills to negotiate intercultural communication inside
and outside of the classroom. These insights suggest a solution to the damaging cycle of
recruitment of untrained teachers and subsequent high attrition rates: universities must accept
more of the responsibility to prepare TEFL teachers for what they will encounter in this
industry abroad.
Sufficient training for more new teachers would continue the process of professionalising
the TEFL industry by providing qualified professionals to help meet the global demand for
English teachers. It is vital that such training expose new TEFL recruits to the native speaker
fallacy (Canagarajah, 1999; Phillipson, 1992); as these teachers enter the TEFL industry they
would help to spread the idea that it is their training that qualifies them to teach, not their
native-speaker status. Additionally, such training should promote the idea that international
teachers are not touring an exotic or mysterious Other (Rueker & Ives, 2014), but rather are
engaging with a culture as deep and complex as their own. New teachers would then be more
likely to become ambassadors for their countries and encourage student learning by
incorporating local cultures into the classroom instead of dismissing them as inferior or
inappropriate.
However, this vision is currently far from reality. With the exception of graduate
education for professionals more fully committed to this profession, private companies rather
than universities have primarily been the ones to take responsibility for training new TEFL
teacher recruits, both at home in their English-speaking countries before departure and in-
country when they arrive for their expatriate stay. Often, these programmes are for-profit
gimmicks that meet the minimum visa requirements for their respective host countries instead
of serious or extensive professional training provided by experts in the field (Rueker & Ives,
2014). What is desperately needed is a commitment by universities around the world to
develop more extensive training at a lower level – that is, undergraduate rather than graduate
– so that such training is more accessible to the large contingent of new teachers who are
entering the profession with only an undergraduate degree.
According to linguistlist.org, which provides a relatively comprehensive list of
university programmes in linguistics, there are very few institutions in countries where
English is a main or official language with undergraduate degrees in TEFL teacher
preparation. There are only 13 undergraduate programmes in the US on this list:

Only four public universities in the US offer residential BA programmes in Applied
Linguistics, including Georgia State University, Portland State University, University
of California at Los Angeles and Queens College.
Ashford University has a BA in Applied Linguistics that is entirely online.
Some religious institutions such as the Moody Bible Institute and Mid Atlantic Christian
University also have undergraduate programmes in Applied Linguistics.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Exporting Trained Tesol Professionals, not just Native Speakers 121
Six other US universities also offer BA programmes in Linguistics, which may or may
not include an option for an applied focus and training in pedagogy; these include
Georgetown University, Ohio University, Purdue University and the University of
Oregon, among others.

In other countries from which native English speakers are heavily recruited as TEFL
teachers, there are even fewer listed universities: Canada has four programmes on the list
(Carleton University, Briercrest College, Brock University and the University of Victoria),
the UK offers two (Cardiff University and the University of Edinburgh), and Australia and
New Zealand each list only one (Flinders Univeristy and Victoria University of Wellington,
respectively). Not surprisingly, English-speaking countries are exporting mostly native
speakers to the TEFL industry, rather than trained professionals – there are very few places
for native speakers to receive extensive training, short of committing to a master‘s degree
programme. Clearly, the need exists for more and better programmes (that is, not just online
and short-term TEFL certification programmes). But what should these programmes look
like? This section outlines some basic tenets in answer to this question, using Georgia State
University‘s (GSU) undergraduate degree as an exemplar.

A SOLID FOUNDATION OF LINGUISTIC AND
PEDAGOGICAL COURSEWORK

At GSU, students earning a bachelor‘s degree in Applied Linguistics with TEFL
certification build a strong foundation of theoretical knowledge with required technical
coursework such as AL 3021: Introduction to Linguistics (linguistic analysis of language at
the level of sound, word, sentence, and discourse), AL 3041: Second Language Acquisition
(theories of language acquisition and interlanguage analysis of oral and written production of
language learners) and AL 3101 English Grammar in Use (descriptive study of grammar
based on corpus studies, with pedagogical applications). These courses provide students with
skills to analyse language, vocabulary for talking about language, and techniques for
explaining language use to learners.
Equally important in students‘ preparation for TEFL teaching, however, is the practical
skill development in pedagogy and classroom management that occurs in the TEFL
coursework: AL 3051 TEFL I: Methods and Approaches and AL 4161 TEFL II: Practicum
and Classroom Practices. Through guided observation of language instruction, seminar-style
discussions of classical and contemporary pedagogical research, microteaching and written
reflections, each course in this series provides students with classroom-based experience in
language teaching; they have opportunities to grow more comfortable managing a class full of
students, to practice teaching techniques and reflect on their success, to evaluate student
performance and provide effective feedback, to research which pedagogical approaches
would be most appropriate for different contexts around the world, to plan and implement
lessons and to discuss the varying roles of teachers and students in classrooms in different
cultures.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Kris Acheson and Justin Taylor 122
EXPERIENCES BEYOND THE CLASSROOM

The undergraduate programme at Georgia State University is built on the premise that
‗signature experiences‘ beyond the classroom are a vital component of career preparation. For
Applied Linguistics students, the emphasis on signature experiences means preparing students
not just to teach language, but also to live and work abroad.
Knowledge about world cultures is already embedded in many of the courses that
Applied Linguistics majors take – courses such as AL 2102 Languages of the World and AL
3031 Language in Society, as well as the TEFL teaching methods series, which continually
reinforce the idea that methods, materials, assessments, and other classroom behaviours must
be carefully chosen with the cultural context in mind. The focus on culture and intercultural
competency woven throughout the undergraduate programme culminates in the senior
capstone ‗Critical Thinking through Writing‘ courses. Students have a choice of two CTW
courses: AL 4151 Communication across Cultures and AL 4241 Senior Seminar. The former
develops theoretical knowledge of cultural differences, positive attitudes towards culturally
different others, and skills for discovering a new culture through ethnographic research
projects with unfamiliar cultural groups. The latter provides a service learning experience
where students volunteer in ESL classes serving local refugee communities and reflect on
their intercultural interactions as well as their teaching experiences. Both courses encourage
students to apply what their programme has taught them in real-life situations and build
important skills for adapting across cultures.
Moreover, GSU‘s Applied Linguistics programme is on the cutting edge of TEFL teacher
preparation in their commitment to sending students abroad before graduation. The
undergraduate programme has active student exchange agreements with several foreign
universities, faculty-led study abroad programmes that take students to other countries for
TEFL practicum and intercultural communication courses, an international internship
programme, and, coming in 2016, a cooperative education programme where students spend
six months in paid teaching positions abroad before returning to complete their undergraduate
degrees. All of these programmes provide students with experience living and teaching
abroad prior to graduation, with the intent that such exposure to their future career will help
them build valuable skills and make strategic networking connections before entering the job
market, give them more realistic expectations of life abroad and, ultimately, increase the
success and length of their careers in the TEFL industry.

CONCLUSION

We have undertaken this writing project with the hope that it will function as a call to
arms for universities in English-speaking countries around the world to commit to exporting
trained TEFL professionals, and not just native speakers. By describing the continued issues
of the heavy recruitment of untrained or minimally trained native-speaking teachers and the
excessive attrition rates in the TEFL industry, illustrating the differences between the
experiences that untrained and trained teachers often have abroad, and describing the best
practices for TEFL teacher preparation in a case study of Georgia State University‘s
undergraduate programme in Applied Linguistics, we have laid out a road map for the further
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Exporting Trained Tesol Professionals, not just Native Speakers 123
development of the TESOL/TEFL profession towards better meeting the demands of the
TEFL industry. Clearly, what is called for are more opportunities for students to train more
extensively at the undergraduate level for careers teaching English abroad.
The only way to improve the quality of the TEFL workforce is to dramatically increase
the hiring pool of qualified TEFL instructors, which cannot happen without more, and more
extensive, academic programmes. Without such new opportunities for training, neither the
industry‘s attrition rates nor the profession‘s goal of effective global English language
instruction can be accomplished.
From our perspective, these pragmatic concerns are only the beginning, though. For,
when English-speaking countries are exporting TEFL teachers who have been adequately
prepared to enter this profession (rather than just native speakers), only then can the native
speaker fallacy be thrown into question in the industry, as it has already in the profession
(Canagarajah, 1999; Philipsen, 1992). Only then might race, citizenship, native-speaker status
and other troubling ‗qualifications‘ hold less sway in hiring and compensation practices
(Rueker & Ives, 2014; Selvi, 2010).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Teacher training programmes, especially those which include international components,
are not born without considerable labour. Several colleagues and friends deserve
acknowledgement for the roles they played in developing the international practicum and
internship programmes of Georgia State University‘s Applied Linguistics progarmme,
including Louise Gobron, Senior Lecturer at GSU, and Dr Xueying Wu, Associate Professor
at Shanghai University in China. These programmes were also made possible by grants and
student scholarships from Georgia State University‘s Office of International Initiatives.

REFERENCES

Árva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native speakers in the classroom. System,
28, 355-372.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the ‗native‐speaker fallacy‘: Non‐linguistic roots,
nonpedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non‐native educators in English language
teaching (pp. 77‐92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
International TESOL Academy. (2012). How large is the job market for English teachers?
Retrieved from http://internationalteflacademy.com/faq
Johnston, B. (1997). Do EFL teachers have careers? TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 681-712.
Kyriacou, C., & Kunc, R. (2007). Beginning teachers‘ expectations of teaching. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23(8). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.002
Maley, A. (1992). An open letter to ‗the profession‘. English Language Teaching Journal, 46,
96-99.
Mullock, B. (2009). Motivations and rewards in teaching English overseas: A portrait of
expatriate TEFL teachers in South-East Asia. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL,
24(2), 4-19.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Kris Acheson and Justin Taylor 124
National Commission on Teaching and America‘s Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge
to America’s children. 9. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org
Paul, N. (2000, August 22). …as demand for English draws more Americans abroad.
Christian Science Monitor, 18.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reuker, T., & Ives, L. (2014). White native English speakers needed: The rhetorical
construction of privilege in online teacher recruitment spaces. TESOL Quarterly. doi:
10.1002/tesq.195
Selvi, A. F. (2010). All teachers are equal, but some teachers are more equal than others:
Trend analysis of job advertisements in English language training. WATESOL NNEST
Caucus Annual Review, 1, 156-181.
Trent, J., & Gao, X. (2009). At least I‘m the type of teacher I want to be: Second-career
English language teachers‘ identity formation in Hong Kong secondary schools. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 253-270.
Tsutsumi, R. (2013). Investigation of EFL teachers‘ career and motivation at universities in
Japan. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 23-37.
Vaughan, R. (2013, March 8). International schools seek English speakers to satisfy global
boom. The Times Educational Supplement, 8.
Whittaker, M. (2003, April 25). The gift of tongues. The Times Educational Supplement, 1.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 12

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF ESL STUDENTS’
ACADEMIC, LINGUISTIC, AND CULTURAL
PREPAREDNESS AND EFFECTIVE
TEACHING PRACTICES

Alana Hoare and Jim Hu
Thompson Rivers University, Canada

ABSTRACT

This chapter reports on a research study concerning faculty perceptions of English-
as-a-second-language (ESL) students‘ linguistic and cultural preparedness for academic
studies at a Canadian university. It considers implications for current teaching practices
and recommends ways in which academic faculty and the institution can better support
ESL students. The research questions were: (a) How do teachers in the undergraduate
programs perceive the linguistic and cultural preparedness of ESL students in their
courses? (b) What are effective teaching practices instructors can employ in the academic
programs to support ESL students? and (c) What are the factors involved in the success
of ESL students in their undergraduate courses?
Based on the study results, we offer implications for teaching and provide
recommendations to improve the quality of instruction around the following themes:
online resources (e.g., Moodle for courses); communication and relationship-building
(e.g., group work, marks for participation, and office hour conferencing); time
constraints; language and cultural support services; and admission requirements.
Furthermore, we suggest ways to improve policy and practice in institutional and faculty
development.

Keywords: Academic literacy, ESL students, faculty perceptions

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Alana Hoare and Jim Hu 126
INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the gaps in English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students‘
academic skills and how academic faculty and institutions can better support ESL students.
Research has shown dramatic differences between English for academic purposes (EAP) and
academic disciplines in environments, instructional approaches, and faculty expectations
(e.g., Benedetti et al., 2012; Hyland, 2013; Leki & Carson, 1997) and reported on the
challenges and needs of ESL students in academic programs (e.g., Hu, 2010; Intersegmental
Committee, 2002; Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). Little research has explored the transition of ESL
students into undergraduate programs; furthermore, only limited research has investigated how
academic instructors can adapt to better meet the needs of ESL students. This chapter
attempts to begin filling those gaps.

LITERATURE REVIEW

To better understand the complexities involved in ESL students‘ success in academics,
we reviewed research on ESL students‘ linguistic skills in academics, admission
requirements, intercultural communication, support services, and academic needs and
motivation of ESL learners.
To maintain high standards for all university students, the admission process must be
based on fair and accurate judgement of students‘ academic preparedness. Current admission
requirements for ESL students include Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL),
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and Accuplacer test scores, among
others. However, Schmit (2012) argues that these tests lack a ‗direct method for determining
whether or not prospective students‘ previous experience of educational practice or culture
has prepared them for the approaches to study required of students in [Canadian] universities‘
(p. 1). Some researchers argue that many international students have not acquired the
language proficiency needed for enrolment in academic courses, and a lack of cultural
background knowledge hinders their comprehension of textbooks especially in social sciences
(see Hirsch, 2006).
Culture plays a role in education where philosophical and cultural beliefs differ in a
diverse classroom. For example, traditional Chinese education is characterised by
memorisation and repetition whereas Western education is generally a process of questioning,
problem solving, and critical thinking (Holmes, 2004; Huang & Brown, 2009). In many
Chinese classrooms, ‗children are expected to show effort, be respectful of knowledge and
authoritative sources, and demonstrate behavioural reform. Student-teacher interpersonal
relationships are hierarchical‘ (Holmes, 2004, p. 296). There is a significant value placed on
adherence to group norms and retaining harmony among social groups. Contrastingly, the
Western model is more direct and explicit. The learning is ‗holistic, interactive, cooperative
and diversified emphasising critical thinking, real time evaluation, hands-on experience and
overall education quality‘ (Holmes, 2004, p. 296).
ESL students have unique linguistic and cultural needs, which are often overlooked after
completion of high school English or EAP training. They often lack independent strategies for
advancing their English language proficiency (Cheng et al., 2004). Zhu and Flaitz (2005)
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Faculty Perceptions of ESL Students‘ Academic, Linguistic, and Cultural … 127
revealed that ESL students perceived language needs in listening, essay writing, and group
work. More specifically, students expressed difficulties in listening to long lectures while
‗simultaneously juggling listening and note-taking; understanding special terminology; and
understanding idiomatic expressions and classroom procedures‘ (Zhu & Flaitz, 2005).
ESL students also deal with inconsistencies in instructor practices as a lack of
collaboration amongst faculty members in and across departments often exists (Arkoudis &
Tran, 2010; Cheng et al., 2004; Giridharan & Robson, 2011; Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). The
breakdown of grading and the percentages going towards content versus language varies due
to a ‗lack of guidance to assist lecturers in their efforts to teach international students and a
lack of clear policy guidelines at a systemic level‘ (Arkoudis & Tran, 2010, p. 170).
Ultimately, many factors affect the overall success of ESL students transitioning into
first-year academics, including student motivation, instructors‘ teaching practices,
institutional language support, and cultural awareness of classmates, faculty, and ESL
students themselves. However, little research has explored the transition of ESL students into
undergraduate programs or investigated how academic instructors can adapt to better meet the
needs of ESL students.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Our study sought to determine the academic preparedness of ESL students transitioning
into academic studies at a Canadian university and instructor strategies to better meet the
needs of these students. The research questions were:

(1) How do teachers in the undergraduate programs perceive the linguistic preparedness
of ESL students in their undergraduate courses?
(2) What are effective teaching practices instructors can use in the academic programs to
support ESL students?
(3) What are the factors involved in the success of ESL students in their undergraduate
studies?

METHODOLOGY

Participants

We recruited eight faculty members from the following areas: Arts, Business and
Economics, Communications and New Media, and Tourism. Experience ranged from two to 22
years of teaching at post-secondary institutions with a minimum of 15 ESL students enrolled in
their current course(s). Such qualifications ensured that the participants had adequate experience
teaching ESL students and understood the complexities involved. Table 12.1 outlines the
background information about the participants.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Alana Hoare and Jim Hu 128
Procedure

A 60-minute interview was conducted with each participant with a guide to maintain
focus and yet allow exploration. The interviews took place during Summer 2012 and Fall
2012.
Table 12.1. Faculty participants: Background information

Participant Highest
academic degree
Academic rank # of years teaching
at post- sec.
institutions
Approx. # of ESL
students currently
taught
Course Gender
A MFA Sessional 5 27 TMGT 1— Female
B PhD – English Sessional 15 60 ENGL 1— Female
C PhD – English Sessional 2 16 ENGL 1— Male
D MFA Sessional 5 45 ENGL 1— Female
E MA Sessional 3 35 ECON 1— Male
F MFA – English Associate
Professor
22 15 ENGL 1— Female
G MA Lecturer 12 15 ENGL 1— Female
H PhD –
Philosophy
Lecturer 4 32 CMNS 1— Male

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, we present a theoretical analysis and practical implications of some
findings of this study and relate them to relevant theories in the literature. We applied an
inductive, interpretive approach to the data analysis (Hu, 2009).

Academic Writing Skills

The demands on ESL students in academics go beyond language proficiency to academic
reading, independent and Internet research, group work and presentations, and writing
following discipline-specific genre conventions (Roessingh & Douglas, 2012). In many cases,
poor academic writing skills have been the key factor in ESL students‘ failure rate
(Giridharan & Robson, 2011; Olivas & Li, 2006). We asked the participants what ESL
students should do to prepare for their course. They felt many ESL students have problems
with motivation, essay structure, citations, grammar and mechanics, classroom etiquette,
socialising and working with native English-speaking (NES) students. They recommended
students take risks by socialising with domestic students (e.g., joining a club or team) and
staying abreast of current events by reading newspapers and online news regularly (see also
Hu, 2010). For example, Participant D suggested, ‗Read the newspapers, The Guardian, New
York Times, and The Globe and Mail. Practise reading about ideas and current events.
Practise forming opinions.‘ The participants also raised concerns about late assignments,
inadequate qualifications (i.e., improper wording) and writing skills, and lack of familiarity
with Canadian academic standards and regulations. They expressed a need for stricter
plagiarism guidelines due to signs of cheating.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Faculty Perceptions of ESL Students‘ Academic, Linguistic, and Cultural … 129
Assignments

Research shows a lack of collaboration amongst faculty members in and across
departments resulting in a discrepancy of grading practices (Arkoudis & Tran, 2010; Cheng et
al., 2004; Giridharan & Robson, 2011; Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). We asked the faculty: What are
your requirements and/or expectations for written assignments? Written assignments
included summaries, research essays (arguing and supporting a thesis), persuasive letter
writing, quizzes and exams. Two participants responded:

I don‘t crack down on grammar and spelling as long as I can understand…. (Participant
A)
I mark down for grammatical mistakes. In ENGL 1—, I have to grade ESL [and NES]
students on a level playing field. (Participant B)
I use holistic grading: Content (depth, sophistication, vocabulary, diction), organisation,
citations (quotation, paraphrasing, summary) and language use (grammar and mechanics). If
in one area there is a failure to meet basic course requirements, then F is the result.
(Participant G)

The standards for marking and assignment criteria vary greatly. This is confusing for ESL
students who struggle with essay writing formats and structures. Often, ESL students follow
the structure and writing forms of journal articles and textbooks (Cheng et al., 2004). Some
students write drafts in their first language (L1) in order to find the right words to formulate
ideas. This can lead to difficulties in translation, particularly when students lack appropriate
English vocabulary to express themselves clearly. Some students resort to copying as a
learning method as practised in their home country but are accused of plagiarism.
Teaching practices play a crucial role in the success of ESL students. Instructors should
clearly articulate course assignments and ensure students‘ understanding (see also Hu, 2000).
For example, a student‘s essay may be filled with facts and generalisations while the
instructor expects a deeper analysis.
Regarding ESL students‘ assignment submissions, we asked the faculty to comment on
punctuality. Five participants confirmed that their ESL students were reliable in submitting
assignments on time. Three, however, expressed concerns. For example, Participant A replied,

Some students do and some don‘t…. All the big assignments are on the course outline but
some are not. I think sometimes the ESL students don‘t know they have to hand in an
assignment. They don‘t always pick up what I‘m saying.

Grading

It is not uncommon for ESL students to fail and retake first-year courses to fulfil
programme requirements. Due to higher failure rates among ESL students in comparison with
NES students, some studies have found that students will revert to ‗course shopping‘
(Roessingh & Douglas, 2012, p. 92) as a survival strategy (i.e., taking courses deemed easy to
pass to counter a low GPA). Additional coping strategies include prioritising readings and
assignments; this also includes reading only abstracts and conclusions (Holmes, 2004).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Alana Hoare and Jim Hu 130
Below, the faculty shared their failure rates of ESL students. Some faculty believed that
due to drop-out rates, they might not have an accurate picture of failure rates.
Table 12.2 indicates a range of failure rates from 0% to 50%. The faculty suggested
possible reasons for these varying numbers:

Referencing [or citation] has gone from a one-hour discussion to a two-week discussion
[with enrolment of ESL students], especially in the summer. I usually either allow a rewrite or
give a zero on an assignment but I never kick them out. I fail four students per summer term
because of this reason. (Participant C)
Failure due to not completing assignments. Usually if ESL students complete
assignments, then they can get a passing grade. I allow re-writes. (Participant D)

Table 12.2. Breakdown of ESL student failures

Faculty Course Failure rates of ESL students
A TMGT 1 – – – 1-2 ESL students per semester
B ENGL 1 – – – 7-8 ESL students per course in summer semester
C ENGL 1 – – – 0
D ENGL 1 – – – 1-2 ESL students per course
E ECON 1 – – – 50% of ESL students per course
F ENGL 1 – – – 50% of ESL students per course
G ENGL 1 – – – 0-1 per course
H CMNS 1 – – – 0 (1-2 drop-outs per course)

Referencing, not-completing assignments, and attendance were believed to be chiefly
responsible for failure rates. The variance in rates across sections shows a lack of
collaboration amongst instructors and standardised assessment systems.

Culture

Students‘ cultural competence can either positively or negatively affect their success in
academics (Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). We asked the faculty to comment on potential language and
cultural challenges of ESL students. Some responses were:

ESL students have problems understanding the connotative meaning of language. They
also have problems with sayings [idioms]. (Participant A)
Asian students have difficulty participating due to their educational experiences. They
tend not to ask questions in front of other students. On one assignment, all of the Asian
students failed in the same way [made the same mistake] because they asked each other rather
than the teacher. (Participant G)
Asian students and plagiarism: The concept seems foreign to them. It takes a lot of work
to make them understand. I have failed students because of plagiarism. This is a constant
problem that we discuss within the department. You fail students because of poor language
skills, so they seek out illegitimate help. (Participant F)

Research shows that ESL students are often reluctant to participate in class discussions
due to a combination of cultural influences and a lack of confidence in English (Bifuh-Ambe,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Faculty Perceptions of ESL Students‘ Academic, Linguistic, and Cultural … 131
2009; Holmes, 2004; Rubenstein, 2006). However, Western teachers expect students to ask
questions to clarify meaning and extend knowledge. We asked the faculty if, generally, they
felt their ESL students appeared confident in answering questions orally in English. The
faculty noted that the majority of ESL students were reluctant to participate orally. Many ESL
students do not feel confident in English to share ideas, fearing that they will make mistakes
and lose face. However, some Canadian academic instructors see the students as lazy,
disrespectful, or unprepared for class. Other possible reasons for the students‘ challenges
include respect for print and authority (Hu, 2001) and respect for the teacher. The study
findings support other research that suggests Chinese students are reluctant to change source
language, challenge the teacher or interrupt a lecture to ask a question or offer a comment
(Huang & Brown, 2009).

IMPLICATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Implications for Theory

Research has shown that ESL students are behind their NES counterparts in terms of
post-secondary academic success due to second language (L2) incompetency (Roessingh,
1999; Roessingh & Douglas, 2012). Therefore, we recommend allowing ESL students to
conduct research in L1. Hu (2003) discovered that it was not uncommon for Chinese graduate
students studying sciences and engineering at a Canadian university to plan their writing and
generate ideas in L1. If ESL students have obtained content knowledge in L1, it might be
easier to recall in L1 (Hu, 2003). Translation can be used as a tool to generate ideas for
content writing. The tendency towards copying directly from sources is also part of the
process of learning in an L2; however, ESL students need to be taught to cite properly when
completing academic assignments.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Online Resources
ESL students need more time to process questions, formulate ideas and translate those
ideas into English. Online discussion, which allows thoughtful consideration and idea
formulation, is ‗a major liberating factor‘ (Campbell, 2007, p. 40) for ‗ESL students [who]
have ideas but not enough time‘ (Holmes, 2004, p. 40). We recommend using Moodle or the
like to allow students better access to course materials, resources, lecture notes, and
assignment instructions.

Communication
International students often feel alienated from domestic students (Zhai, 2004). There are
many reasons for encouraging interaction, including: improving ESL students‘ language and
communication skills, providing opportunities to understand Canadian culture, and increasing
cultural understanding and awareness (Friesen, 2012; Hu, 2000 & 2009; Wiltse, 2008).
Jackson (2002) suggested the use of small groups to serve as a ‗rehearsal for the full-class
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Alana Hoare and Jim Hu 132
case discussions‘ (p. 71) or as an opportunity to practise discussing the content and forming
ideas in English with the support of classmates in a small, less intimidating setting.
We recommend encouraging ESL students to communicate with their instructors on a
regular basis. By scheduling one-on-one conferences, instructors can address students‘
questions, discuss learning goals, provide interactive feedback, review grades, and build
teacher-student rapport (Eckstein, 2013; Hu, 2000). Rubenstein (2006) also suggests that ‗if it
appears that a student is struggling, rather than waiting for them to seek help, it may be
advisable to request, even insist, that he or she schedule a private consultation to discuss the
situation‘ (p. 440).
In this study five participants gave participation marks ranging from 1-15% of the final
grade. Participation involved: small group discussion, feedback from the group to the whole
class, answering questions orally, attendance, and respectable behaviour (e.g., not texting
unless permitted). For ESL students struggling with written assignments, participation marks
could be a useful tool to encourage communication through participation and bolster grades.

Time
The faculty raised the concern of ESL students not having enough time to complete
exams and assignments thoughtfully and with detail in comparison with their NES peers. One
solution would be to allow ESL students more time to complete exams. For instance, in
Alberta, ‗in keeping with regulations for other learners with exceptional needs… the ESL
students were allowed double the time scheduled to write the English 10 exam‘ (Roessingh,
1999, p. 81).
It is important to consider why students may take longer to complete an exam. Some
exams can be literature dense. Research affirms that ESL students need extra time to process
questions and develop answers (Jackson, 2002; Leki & Carson, 1997; Roessingh, 1999;
Teemant, 2010; Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). University textbooks are especially challenging for ESL
students simply due to the high density of low-frequency words. Laufer (1992) described the
threshold of vocabulary comprehension at 98% to allow for an accurate understanding of
academic information while Lightbown and Spada (2012) claim that in order to successfully
guess the meaning of a new word in a text, a reader usually needs to know 95% or more of
the other words (p. 64). While ESL students are often taught skimming and scanning
strategies in their EAP courses, ‗strategies taught in the context of short paragraphs don‘t
automatically transfer to the context of extensive reading‘ (Zhu & Flaitz, 2005). We
recommend that instructors give students major assignments early to allow students plentiful
time to prepare and set assignment due dates early in the semester to enable instructors time
to give early feedback which can influence students‘ future writing.

Language Support Services
Relevant studies have shown that international students have a higher rate of difficulty
adjusting to university life in comparison with domestic students (Olivas & Li, 2006; Zhai,
2004). Reasons include fast-paced lectures, two-way interaction between instructors and
students, more assignments and student presentations, and more speech requirements (Zhai,
2004). As a result, international students require extra support services in order to ease the
transition into academics. Zhai (2004) recommended that universities improve orientation
programmes by highlighting support services available to international students and creating
activities and groups for students to increase interaction between international and domestic
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Faculty Perceptions of ESL Students‘ Academic, Linguistic, and Cultural … 133
students. Orientation should be a continuous process in which mentors maintain contact with
international students throughout their university experience abroad.
We recommend that the university invest in quality language support services run by staff
with degrees in linguistics, TESL, composition, and the like (Woodward-Kron, 2007).
Furthermore, we suggest flexible lengths of time for appointments at the service centre such
as 20, 30, and 50 minutes as needed. Additionally, we recommend offering sheltered
academic courses and adjunct courses. A sheltered academic course occurs when ‗the teacher
takes into consideration students‘ English-language skills and modifies the delivery of
instruction through slower speech, giving information verbally as well as visually, and the use
of controlled vocabulary while at the same time striving for academically rigorous
instruction‘ (Echevarria & Graves, 1998, p. 35). In comparison, adjunct courses involve an
ESL course linked to a content area course. Students are enrolled in both courses
concurrently. The courses share the same content base and complement each other in terms of
jointly coordinated assignments. A key feature of the design is the coordination and
collaborative planning between the ESL instructor and the content area instructor. The benefit
of these types of programmes is that students‘ learning needs are placed above course content.

Admission Requirements
As of 2014, the requirement for ESL students to gain direct entry into academic
programmes at the university under study was an iBT TOEFL score of 88 or higher with no
band below 20 or an IELTS score of 6.5 or higher with no band below 6.0. These exams test
listening comprehension, structure and written expression, reading comprehension and short
composition. Despite meeting the requirements, ESL students will likely still have difficulty
understanding idiomatic language, quick/reduced pronunciation, and specialised vocabulary;
expressing themselves orally; and writing academically.
We recommend that the minimum TOEFL and IELTS scores be raised and that IELTS
‗academic‘ instead of ‗general‘ scores be requested. IELTS‘ use of a limited range of numeric
scores (e.g., 6.5 vs 88 on TOEFL) creates room for inaccuracy; thus, IELTS test scores may
not be an accurate measurement of students‘ ability to perform well in all types of academic
or disciplinary writing. While raising the test scores may help separate students with linguistic
competence, it does not directly prepare ESL students to write successful academic
assignments. Thus, bridge courses are necessary to help prepare ESL students for various
types of academic written assignments as well as other academic course requirements.

Further Research

The current study has limitations. Firstly, the findings are focused primarily on
undergraduate ESL students; more research needs to explore the success of ESL students
throughout their entire undergraduate and graduate experiences at the university.
Secondly, further research needs to compare the success of ESL students across the
disciplines and to look at how faculties and departments deal with their ESL populations. Due
to the voluntary nature of participation in this research project, the data are only
representative of four different disciplines: Arts, Business and Economics, Communications
and New Media, and Tourism. A more diverse group of academic disciplines and feedback from
both sessional and tenured faculty would better enrich the data.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Alana Hoare and Jim Hu 134
Finally, further research should be conducted to gain perspectives of EAP faculty and
language support staff including the Writing Centre instructors, academic advisors and
international student advisors. Such data would be valuable to gain a better understanding of
the potential language and cultural support which can be made available to ESL students.
Furthermore, future research could explore possible collaborative relationships between EAP
faculty, support staff, and academic faculty to better help ESL students throughout their post-
secondary education.

REFERENCES

Arkoudis, S., & Tran, L. (2010). Writing blah, blah, blah: Lecturers’ approaches and
challenges in supporting international students. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 169-178.
Benedetti, M., Xiao, T., Nishida, Y., Szabo, A., &. Barajas, L. (2012, March). Faculty and
student perceptions of international students’ language needs. Paper presented at the
International TESOL Convention, Philadelphia, PA.
Bifuh-Ambe, E. (2009) Literacy skills acquisition & use: A study of an English language
learner in a US university context. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 3(1), 24-
33.
Campbell, N. (2007). Bringing ESL students out of their shells: Enhancing participation
through online discussion. Business Communication Quarterly, 7(1), 37-42.
Cheng, L., Myles, J., & Curtis, A. (2004). Targeting language support for non-native English-
speaking graduate students at a Canadian university. TESL Canada Journal, 21(2), 50-71.
Eckstein, G. (2013). Implementing and evaluating a writing conference program for
international L2 writers across language proficiency levels. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 22, 231-239.
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (1999). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English-language
learners with diverse abilities. TESL-EJ 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-
ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume4/ej14/ej14r7/
Giridharan, B., & Robson, A. (2011). Identifying gaps in academic writing of ESL students.
Enhancing Learning: Teaching and Learning Conference 2011 Conference. Retrieved
from http://www.curtin.edu.my/tl2011/ download/papers/refereed/Identifying%20gaps%
20in%20academic%20writing%20of%20ESL%20students
Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (2006, Spring). What do reading comprehension tests mainly measure?
Knowledge. American Educator. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/newspubs/
periodicals/ae/spring2006/hirschsb.cfm
Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication:
Ethnic Chinese students in a New Zealand university. Business Communication
Quarterly, 67(3), 29-307.
Hu, J. (2000). The academic writing of Chinese graduate students in sciences and
engineering: Processes and challenges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Hu, J. (2001). An alternative perspective of language re-use: Insights from textual and
learning theories and L2 academic writing. English Quarterly, 33(1&2), 52-62.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Faculty Perceptions of ESL Students‘ Academic, Linguistic, and Cultural … 135
Hu, J. (2003). Thinking languages in L2 writing: Research findings and pedagogical
implications. TESL Canada Journal, 21(1), 39-63.
Hu, J. (2009). Discovering emerging research in a qualitative study of ESL academic writing.
The Qualitative Report, 14(4), 629-664.
Hu, J. (2010). Faculty perceptions of Chinese graduate students‘ communication challenges in
the disciplines. Canadian and International Education Journal, 39(3), 59-80. Retrieved
from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cie-eci/vol39/iss3/6/
Huang, J., & Brown, K. (2009). Cultural factors affecting Chinese ESL students’ academic
learning. Education, 129(4), 643-653.
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253.
Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges.
(2002). Academic literacy: A statement of competencies expected of students entering
California’s public colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://www.academicsenate.
cc.ca.us/ icas.html
Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations.
System, 30, 65-84.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. Arnaud & H.
Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics. London: MacMillan.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experience of ESL
students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 39-69.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2012). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Olivas, M., & Li, C. (2006). Understanding stressors of international students in higher education:
What college counsellors and personnel need to know. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
33(1), 217-222.
Roessingh, H. (1999). Adjunct support for high school ESL learners in mainstream English
classes: Ensuring success. TESL Canada Journal, 17(1), 72-86.
Roessingh, H., & Douglas, S. (2012). Educational outcomes of English language learners at
university. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 42(1), 80-97.
Rubenstein, I. (2006). Educational expectations: how they differ around the world:
Implications for teaching ESL college students. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 30, 433-441.
Schmitt, D. (2012, November 13). UK universities failing to bridge culture gap for foreign
students. Guardian Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/education/
2012/nov/13/international-student-testing-culture-gap
Teemant, A. (2010). ESL student perspectives on university classroom testing practices.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 10(3), 89-105.
Wiltse, L. (2008). The in-between crowd: Contrasting representations of minority language
students. Language and Literacy, 10(2). Retrieved from
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/langandlit/article/view/9774
Woodward-Kron, R. (2007). Negotiating meanings and scaffolding learning: Writing support
for non-English speaking background postgraduate students. Higher Education Research
and Development, 26(3), 253-268.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Alana Hoare and Jim Hu 136
Zhai, L. (2004). Studying international students: Adjustment issues and social support.
Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 11(1), 97-104.
Zhu, W. & Flaitz, J. (2005). Using focus group methodology to understand international
students‘ academic language needs: A comparison of perspectives. TESL-EJ, 8(4).
Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej32/a3.html

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 13

LANGUAGE POLICY AND PRACTICE IN
MULTILINGUAL BRITAIN:
PERSPECTIVES FROM MAINSTREAM
AND COMPLEMENTARY
LINGUISTICALLY-DIVERSE CLASSROOMS

Androula Yiakoumetti
Oxford Brookes University, UK

ABSTRACT

Britain is linguistically rich. In addition to major indigenous languages (Welsh,
Gaelic, Irish Scots, Ulster Scots, Manx and Cornish), it is estimated that at least another
300 languages are spoken by ethnic minority groups. The recent era of globalisation and
transnationalism has undoubtedly made Britain even more linguistically diverse. Even
though Britain may be one of the most multilingual settings in the world, its official
language policy promotes just one linguistic variety, standard English. There is no
official teaching provision for speakers of English as an additional language in state-
funded mainstream schools. Provision for teaching of ethnic minority languages lies
outside mainstream schools and is seen as the responsibility of minority communities
themselves. This chapter investigates teaching provision associated with English as an
additional language and ethnic minority languages and argues for reconsideration of
language policy. It suggests that future provision should be informed by current and
ongoing research on language acquisition and development which provides clear
empirical evidence that multilingualism is an asset for both the individual and the society.
Effective pedagogies for multilingual speakers are currently underdeveloped:
translanguaging pedagogies are put forward as potentially holding the key to successful
language education.

Keywords: English as an additional language, ethnic minority languages, language
education, linguistic diversity, translanguaging

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Androula Yiakoumetti 138
INTRODUCTION: ENGLISH AND GLOBALISATION

Globalisation is undoubtedly linked to English because English is a truly global language:
when L1 and L2 speakers are taken together, English is the language with the greatest number
of speakers. ‗English‘ here is used as an umbrella term which incorporates (i) the various
varieties employed by native speakers of the language (such as standard and nonstandard
varieties of American, Australian, British, Canadian, Indian, and Singaporean English), (ii)
English-lexified creoles (such as those spoken as first languages by many Indigenous people
in Australia), and (iii) various varieties employed by speakers who use English as a foreign or
global language. As English continues to spread, concerns about it threatening diversity –
both linguistic and cultural diversity – abound (Phillipson, 1992, 2003; Skutnabb-Kangas,
2000). Some researchers (e.g., Mohanty, 2006, 2010) argue that the all-powerful English
pushes other languages into positions of relative weakness. Others (e.g., House, 2003; McKay
2012; Yiakoumetti, 2014) argue that English can continue to spread in a manner that
preserves linguistic and cultural diversity worldwide as long as the value of multilingualism is
concomitantly affirmed.
At this point, it is worth spelling out what it means to be bi/multilingual. I view
multilingual speakers‘ repertoire as their defining language feature. Their collective repertoire
(rather than separate competencies for each language) is what characterises multilingual
speakers. Repertoire building, as opposed to total mastery of each and every language, should
thus be at the heart of language pedagogies for multilingual/emergent multilingual speakers.
As Canagarajah (2011) notes, the above explanations accord well with translanguaging, a
neologism that has recently attracted considerable academic interest. (Translanguaging
practices/pedagogies are discussed later in detail.)
This chapter aims to investigate the role of English as an additional language (EAL) as
well as the teaching provision of ethnic minority languages in multilingual Britain. This
investigation concerns both mainstream and complementary education. Mainstream education
refers to state-funded schooling. Complementary education refers to schooling conducted
outside the state sector. This type of schooling is mainly for ethnic minority children and
usually takes place on weekends. It is argued that, when monolingual language-learning
models are forced onto bilingual/emergent bilingual learners, there is bound to be a partial
loss of the less dominant minority language. However, when multilingualism is promoted and
translanguaging practices are embraced, linguistic and cultural diversity is bound to flourish.

MULTILINGUALISM IN BRITAIN

Britain is immensely multilingual and linguistic diversity has always served as Britain‘s
defining characteristic. However, during the recent era of globalisation and transnationalism,
linguistic diversity ‗has assumed new proportions‘ (Edwards, 2011, p. 27). Although precise
numbers are unknown, it is estimated that at least 300 languages are spoken in England
(Edwards, 2011). All it takes to comprehend the extent of linguistic diversity in Britain is to
walk down the streets of both urban centres and rural areas: one can instantly hear a plethora
of ethnic minority languages. Classrooms around the country are also increasingly
multilingual with some having very few native speakers of English. Although such
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Language Policy and Practice in Multilingual Britain 139
classrooms form the minority, they are nevertheless a telling reality. It is estimated that 18.1%
of primary pupils and 13.6% of secondary pupils are EAL speakers: this means that there are
over one million EAL children in UK classrooms today (NALDIC, 2013).
Britain may be one of the most multilingual settings in the world yet its official language
policy is disturbingly anachronistic. Put mildly, there is disregard for true multilingualism.
Discourses around multilingualism tend to promote monolingualism or, at best, to support
types of bilingualism and bilingual educational provision which favour certain languages
based on their perceived status. Provision for teaching of ethnic minority languages lies
outside state-funded mainstream schools and is very often seen as the responsibility of
minority communities themselves.

LANGUAGE PROVISION FOR EAL SPEAKERS IN
BRITISH MAINSTREAM AND COMPLEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Drawing on a range of sources such as official educational policy statements, government
reports, practitioner publications, and academic research, Costley (2013) identifies three
phases in policies and approaches to EAL over the past 60 years. These are (i) EAL and
assimilation, (ii) EAL and withdrawal, and (iii) EAL and mainstreaming. As she explains, the
1950s marked the beginning of the first phase (i.e., EAL and assimilation), as this was the
period in which Britain‘s migrant population (mainly from Commonwealth countries) began
to significantly increase. During this period, EAL learners were essentially treated the same
as mother-tongue learners. In other words, no acknowledgement was made regarding the fact
that EAL children were operating in a foreign language (i.e., English) in the classroom. The
aim was to assimilate the newcomers into their new place of stay (Derrick, 1977). The second
phase (i.e., EAL and withdrawal) saw withdrawal classes as the solution to the ‗problems‘
posed by an increase in EAL speakers. Withdrawal was welcome by those who wished for
classes to become monolingual and monocultural, as they once used to be (i.e., prior to
increased migration). Withdrawal was also welcome by those who believed that EAL
speakers would learn English faster such that they would subsequently fully participate in
mainstream classes (Townsend, 1971). The third phase (i.e., EAL and mainstreaming) saw
the creation of the Swann Report.
The Swann Report, ‗Education for All‘ (DES, 1985), was a major governmental report on
linguistic and ethnic diversity in education (which primarily focussed on people of Caribbean
and South Asian descent). An emphasis on language-education provision for all children
regardless of language background was at the heart of the report. Withdrawal practices were
deemed unacceptable and linguistic variation in the classroom began to be viewed as a
positive feature which would enrich classrooms. However, and crucially, the report stressed
that schools were not permitted to conduct lessons in any other language: Standard English
was the official language of schooling. As Rampton et al. (2007) neatly put it, the Swann
Report ‗looked no further than the British nation-state‘ (p. 418). The prospects for developing
international activities, world markets, and benefitting from the unique skills and perspectives
of UK nationals derived from the diaspora of other nations were simply not addressed.
Instead, the focus was placed on local services. Migrants‘ linguistic and cultural identities
were not viewed as valuable resources for society. Ethnic minority groups were expected to
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Androula Yiakoumetti 140
overcome any linguistic and cultural disadvantage by fully participating in the nation-state.
For the language teaching, that meant that minority-language speakers had to be taught
English as a second language in the mainstream classroom without any provision through the
medium of languages other than English. Three years after the Swann Report, the Education
Reform Act (1988) was put into place with the basis that EAL provision was not mandatory.
This change further weakened the perceived status of minority ethnic groups and their
languages. In addition, the rejection of educational provision through the medium of minority
languages was further reiterated in National Curriculum reports. Today, EAL is not a
recognised curriculum entity in England despite classrooms throughout the country being
incredibly linguistically diverse.
Fortunately, the fact that linguistic diversity has been peripheral to and unrepresented in
formal educational practices, has not stopped minority communities from promoting
multilingualism. In the last 30 years, there has been relentless voluntary commitment to the
teaching of community languages by minority communities themselves (Kempadoo &
Abdelrazak, 2001). It has been estimated that there are over 3000 complementary schools in
the UK which offer language instruction in over 80 languages (CILT, 2009). In addition,
sociolinguistic and educational linguistic research on EAL and minority-language teaching
and learning has witnessed heightened activity (Hall et al., 2002; Wei & Wu, 2009).
Globalisation and technological advancement have led researchers to re-evaluate the
potentially significant contribution that multilingual speakers can offer to local, regional,
national and global stages simply by virtue of their linguistic hybridity and mobility.
Redirection away from the concept of nation-state has thus started: indeed, it is abundantly
clear that our era of heightened interconnectivity between people demands such redirection.
Researchers have recognised the significance of the complementary sector in promoting
multilingualism and have investigated practices in these schools by focussing on linguistic,
cultural, and social issues (Creese et al., 2006, 2008; Francis et al., 2008; Kenner et al., 2007;
Wei, 2006, 2011). Findings suggest that the flexible bilingual pedagogies evident in some
classrooms can support conceptual transfer between languages and the development of
metalinguistic skills (Anderson & Macleroy, 2015). (For a review of ways in which
complementary schools support learning, see Maylor et al., 2010.) Finally, the efforts of the
National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum (NALDIC) in raising the
profile of EAL learners should be noted here. NALDIC ‗has been a powerful force in
lobbying the Government for recognition of the distinct language learning needs and
trajectories of EAL learners‘ (Costley, 2014, p. 286).
Unfortunately, the wonderful work carried out by community groups and researchers has
not significantly influenced the official governmental policy which still promotes standard
English and seems unmoved to avail itself of the many advantages of multilingualism.

LANGUAGE EDUCATION: A SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUE

Language and language education are no doubt political issues. It is essential therefore to
consider how social policy and concerns shape provision for EAL students and how such
provision may impact social structures in return.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Language Policy and Practice in Multilingual Britain 141
As we saw in the previous section, EAL students have been taken into mainstream
classrooms since the mid-1980s in an effort to minimise racism and to enable migrants to
access educational provision. Despite the intended equality surrounding EAL education for
children, EAL language pedagogy within the mainstream curriculum has never been fully
developed (Leung, 2005). Leung (2005) attributes this lack of development to the fact that
EAL mainstreaming is ‗more about student participation in a common curriculum and much
less about integrating the specialist pedagogic concerns of EAL-minded language teaching
into the mainstream curriculum‘ (p. 98). The lack of an EAL pedagogy has direct implications
on the way EAL children are taught and assessed. Various studies on EAL assessment
practices demonstrate that teachers assess EAL students‘ performance in English alone (and
not in their mother tongues) and unjustifiably attribute underachievement in English
performance to the fact that children are bilingual (Leung, 1999; Leung & Teasdale, 1997). In
other words, teachers apply native-speaker assessment principles when assessing EAL
students. Such practice puts EAL students at a disadvantage and, in turn, propagates
inequality.
Concerns have been raised regarding the effect of the increasing number of EAL students
on the academic attainment of native English-speaking students. The perception of the British
media is that the rapid increase in the number of EAL pupils has put teachers under strain.
Geay et al. (2013) thus raise the question as to whether non-native speakers have a
detrimental influence on their native-speaking peers. Drawing on data from primary schools,
they conclude that there is no association between the presence of EAL pupils in the
classroom and the attainment of the English-speaking pupils. Using the Dutch educational
landscape as their vantage point, Ohinata and va Ours (2013) also attained similar results:
they did not find strong evidence of negative spill-over effects from the presence of
immigrant children on the academic performance of the native Dutch students. These
empirical studies clearly demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief, the EAL student
population does not pose a threat to the attainment of the native-English student population.

ENGLISH AND OTHER LANGUAGES IN BRITISH EDUCATION:
THE WAY FORWARD

Britain‘s multilingualism is an undisputed asset. Multilingualism has direct implications
for intercultural relations, business, and academia. It facilitates working, studying, and
travelling internationally as well as trading and investing in the global market. However, as
noted earlier, the value of multilingualism is not well appreciated in some cross-sections of
society. A partial failure to acknowledge the benefits of multilingualism for both the
individual and society is reflected in the fact that the study of languages in British schools has
witnessed a decline in recent years (Board & Tinsley, 2014). Appropriate pedagogies for the
teaching of EAL and community languages that would reignite interest in languages are thus
urgently needed (Taylor, 2013).
As already noted, translanguaging refers to multilingual speakers‘ utilisation of all the
languages in their repertoires to communicate. Scholars of translanguaging view the
discursive practices of multilinguals as dynamic and flexible in that they utilise all of their
languages concurrently as opposed to isolating each of them. As Canagarajah (2011) explains,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Androula Yiakoumetti 142
translanguaging is a social practice because speakers ‗shuttle‘ between their languages and
those of their interlocutors to co-construct meaning (p. 5). Translanguaging potentially has a
very positive role to play in multilinguals‘ language education. There is thus much to
recommend the priority development of translanguaging pedagogies as tools for the growth of
multilingual students‘ translanguaging proficiency. Currently, the pedagogical aspect of
translanguaging is underdeveloped and there exists a definite research gap regarding the
creation of translanguage teaching strategies (Canagarajah, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2010;
Hornberger & Link, 2012). Admittedly, it is probably more straightforward to understand
multilinguals‘ translanguaging practices in social life (e.g., in urban youth encounters and the
Internet) than it is to teach translanguaging. Canagarajah (2011) addresses the implications of
translanguaging for the academic prospects of multilingual students and is entirely justified in
his statement that ‗we cannot say that anything goes and allow students to adopt any registers
and conventions they want in academic writing‘ (p. 23). I consider that it is high time for
language education to embrace the natural practices of multilingual speakers by allowing their
practices into the classroom and subsequently developing them further via appropriate
translanguaging pedagogies.
It is worth noting that, even when language-policy discourse purports to be inclusive, in
practice, it often remains staidly faithful to the monolingual standard English ideology. Even
though the language of the school is standard English, a social dialect, the majority of English
speakers grow up speaking some form of a nonstardard dialect with a regional accent
(Williams, 2007). This means that British classrooms are not only linguistically diverse but
are also dialectally diverse. Unfortunately, these nonstandard dialects have no role in
education. Although the marginalisation of regional dialects is outside the scope of this
chapter, it is worth emphasising that a future language policy ought to reconsider the richness
and variety of regional English in addition to the variety of languages present in today‘s
British schools. Should policy makers choose to reconsider their view on the various varieties
of English, there certainly exists a substantial body of research on the potential benefits that
incorporation of nonstandard English varieties in education can bring about (Cheshire, 1982;
Edwards, 1983; Trudgill, 1975).

CONCLUSION

Language-policy makers in Britain need to urgently reconsider language learning and
teaching provision. Any future provision should be informed by current research on language
acquisition and development. This research provides clear empirical evidence that
multilingual speakers have better metalinguistic reasoning and increased cognitive reserve
(Beardsmore, 2008; Bialystok et al., 2009). As Rampton et al. (2007) state, ‗if/when state
education opens up to multilingualism, it will find a substantial body of research to engage
with‘ (p. 435). Any meaningful future language policy in Britain should not disregard the
vital role of community languages in benefitting British society.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Language Policy and Practice in Multilingual Britain 143
REFERENCES

Anderson, J., & Macleroy, V. (2015). Rethinking multilingualism: Trajectories in policy,
pedagogy and research in the UK. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Multilingualism and
language in education: Sociolinguistic and pedagogical pespectives from Commonwealth
countries (pp. 243-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beardsmore, H. B. (2008). Multilingualism, cognition and creativity. International CLIL
Research Journal, 1(1), 4-19.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Green, D., & Gollan, T. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89-129.
Board, K., & Tinsley, T. (2014). Language trends 2013/14: The state of language learning in
primary and secondary schools in England. Berkshire: British Council.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and
pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1-28.
Cheshire, J. (1982). Dialect features and educational conflict in schools. Educational Review,
34(1), 53-67.
CILT. (2009). Partnership in language and culture: A toolkit for complementary and
mainstream schools working in partnership. London: CILT.
Costley, T. (2014). English as an additional language, policy and the teaching and learning of
English in England. Language and Education, 28(3), 276-292.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A
pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103-115.
Creese, A., Barac, T., Bhatt, A., Blackledge, A., Hamid, S., Li Wei, . . . Yagcioglu-Ali, D.
(2008). Investigating multilingualism in complementary schools in four communities.
Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Creese, A., Bhatt, A., Bhojani, N., & Martin, P. (2006). Multicultural, heritage and learner
identities in complementary schools. Language and Education, 20(1), 23-43.
Derrick, J. (1977). Language needs of minority children. Windsor: NFER.
DES. (1984). Education for all. Swann Report. London: HMSO.
Edwards, V. (1983). Language in multicultural classrooms. London: Batsford Educational.
Edwards, V. (2011). Globalization and multilingualism: The case of the UK. Intercultural
Communication Studies, 20(1), 27-35.
Francis, B., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2008). British-Chinese pupils’ identities, achievement and
complementary schooling: Executive report. London: Roehampton University.
Geay, C., McNally, S., & Telhaj, S. (2013). Non-native speakers of English in the classroom:
what are the effects on pupil performance? The Economic Journal, 123, 281-307.
Hall, K. A., Ozerk, K., Zulfiqar, M., & Tan, J. E. C. (2002). ‘This is our school’: Provision,
purpose and pedagogy of supplementary schooling in Leeds and Oslo. British
Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 399-418.
Hornberger, N. H., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in
multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261-278.
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Androula Yiakoumetti 144
Kempadoo, M., & Abdelrazak, M. (2001). Directory of supplementary and mother-tongue
classes. London: Resource Unit for Supplementary and Mother-tongue Schools.
Kenner, C., Ruby, M., Gregory, E., Jessel, J., & Arju, T. (2007). Intergenerational learning
between children and grandparents in East London. Journal of Early Childhood
Research, 5(3), 219-243.
Leung, C. (1999). Teachers’ response to linguistic diversity. In A. Tosi & C. Leung (Eds.),
Rethinking language education: From a monolingual to a multilingual perspective (pp.
225-240). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Leung, C. (2005). English as an additional language policy: issues of inclusive access and
language learning in the mainstream. Prospect, 20(1), 95-113.
Leung, C., & Teasdale, T. (1997). What do teachers mean by speaking and listening: A
contextualised study of assessment in the English National Curriculum. In A. Huhta, V.
Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio & S. Louma (Eds.), New contexts, goals and alternatives in
language assessment (pp. 291-324). Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.
Maylor, U., Glass, K., Issa, T., Kuyok, A., Minty, S., Rose, A., & Ross, A. (2010). Impact of
supplementary schools on pupils’ attainment: An investigation into what factors
contribute to educational improvements. London: DCSF.
McKay, S. L. (2012). English as an International Language, multilingualism and language
planning. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Harnessing linguistic variation to improve education
(pp. 97-114). Bern: Peter Lang.
Mohanty, A. K. (2006). Multilingualism of the unequals and predicaments of education in
India: Mother tongue or other tongue? In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas & M. E. Torres-
Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: Language in education and
glocalisation (pp. 262-283). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mohanty, A. K. (2010). Languages, inequality and marginalization: Implications of the
double divide in Indian multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 205, 131-154.
NALDIC. (2013). EAL statistics: The latest EAL facts and figures.
Ohinata, A., & van Ours, J. C. (2013). How immigrant children affect the academic
achievement of native Dutch children. The Economic Journal, 123, 308-331.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London:
Routledge.
Rampton, B., Harris, R., & Leung, C. (2007). Education and speakers of languages other than
English. In D. Britain (Ed.), Language in the British Isles (pp. 417-435). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and
human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taylor, F. (2013). Multilingual Britain. Windsor: Cumberland Lodge.
Townsend, H. E. R. (1971). Immigrant pupils in England: The LEA response. Windsor:
NFER.
Trudgill, P. (1975). Accent, dialect and the school. London: Arnold.
Wei, L. (2006). Complementary schools, past, present and future. Language and Education,
20(1), 76-83.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Language Policy and Practice in Multilingual Britain 145
Wei, L. (2011). Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code- and mode-
switching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. Modern Language
Journal, 95(3), 370-383.
Wei, L., & Wu, C. J. (2009). Polite Chinese children revisited: Creativity and the use of
codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 193-211.
Williams, A. (2007). Non-standard English and education. In D. Britain (Ed.), Language in
the British Isles (pp. 401-416). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yiakoumetti, A. (2014). Language education in our globalised classrooms: Recommendations
on providing for equal language rights. In M. Solly & E. Esch (Eds.), Language
education and the challenges of globalisation: Sociolinguistic issues (pp. 13-32).
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 14

ELT PRACTICE IN AUSTRALIA ACROSS
THREE SECTORS: STATE EDUCATION,
MIGRANT EDUCATION, AND ELICOS

Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia

ABSTRACT

This chapter outlines three sectors of English language teaching provision in
Australia and critiques the current policies of its institutions that impact quality and
effectiveness in the practice of English language education in Australia. Despite being
dwarfed in terms of population density compared to other anglophone countries,
Australia has contributed substantially to the international English language education
industry; in English language provision to international students it ranks fourth in the
world. However, in contrast to its many successes in providing quality English education
services, due largely to its stringent regulation and a history of intellectual capital
investment in applied linguistics in past decades, it now faces many issues in a climate of
global economic uncertainty. Economic rationalism influences policy decisions in
education to an unprecedented level and globalisation has changed the face of English
language teaching in such a way that Australia, a largely monolingual anglophone nation,
but with a diverse and rich multicultural heritage, has failed to keep pace with widespread
current conceptions of English as an international language and in some aspects, quality
is being compromised.

Keywords: Australian English language teaching practice, state schools, migrant education,
ELICOS

INTRODUCTION

Descriptions of Australia generally commence with an outline of its geographical,
political and ethno-cultural composition. It is no less important to commence a description of
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
English language education in Australia with these same factors, since they underpin
Australia‘s unique position with regards to its provision of English language education for
both domestic and international students within state schools, migrant education programmes,
private colleges and universities.
Australia is an island continent situated at the southern tail end of the Asian region, but
unlike other countries in the Asian region its population of approximately 23.3 million is
culturally diverse, with Australians claiming ancestry from over 300 different nationalities
(ABS, 2011). It is also linguistically diverse, but the only recognised national language is
English. In 2011, 81% of Australians aged five years and over spoke only English at home
while 2% did not speak English at any time. The most common languages spoken at home,
other than English, (Table 14.1) were Mandarin (1.7%), Italian (1.5%), Arabic (1.4%),
Cantonese (1.3%) and Greek (1.3%). There are also 75 surviving indigenous languages out of
an estimated 400 plus languages that preceded colonisation.
The variety of English used in education, government, the courts, broadcasting and trade
is referred to as Standard Australian English (SAE) by the national dictionary The Macquarie
Dictionary (2009). Outside of this standardised description, Australian English in use has a
marked dialect and vernacular, comprising sociolects ranging from broad to cultivated
varieties, as well as several ethnocultural Australian dialects such as Lebanese Australian
English (Clyne et al., 2001) and Australian Aboriginal English (Butcher, 2008). However,
despite these social and ethnocultural differences, Australian English is relatively
homogeneous in terms of regional variation compared to other anglophone countries such as
Britain and the United States of America (Cox, 2012).

Table 14.1. Top 10 languages spoken at home in Australia: Australian census data 2011

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011).

Since the end of World War II, Australia‘s migration and refugee programme has evolved
in accordance with the political, social and economic priorities that reflect the government
policy of the day shifting Australia from a colonial outpost of Britain to one of the most
multicultural societies in the world (Spinks, 2010). Australia has swung between
assimilationist and multiculturist approaches to the management of immigration and diversity
(Chiro, 2014), but language policy has been dominated by what Clyne (2005) describes as the
‗monolingual mindset‘ of first language English speakers. The election of a conservative
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ELT Practice in Australia Across Three Sectors
government in 2013 has meant the reinforcement of an assimilationist view of migration and
an economic rationalist view on the provision of education services. The term ‗economic
rationalism‘ implies a willingness to support market forces, competition and privatisation of
Government-initiated projects (Whitwell in Brett et al., 1994, pp. 232-233).
Proficiency in SAE is tied to the ability of refugees and migrants to assimilate into
Australian society and contribute productively to the Australian economy. However, this
promotion of assimilationism as a way of increasing social cohesion, national security and
economic development is at odds with the cross-border flows of capital, technology, services
and people which characterise globalisation (Chiro, 2014). In the globalised economy,
education is Australia‘s third largest export industry, worth A$15 billion (DFAT, 2014).
Australia‘s stable economic and political system, high standard of living and internationally
competitive quality tertiary education sector makes it a popular destination for international
students to study English or attain a degree with English as the language of instruction.
This tension between the forces of assimilation/standardisation and inclusion/
diversification has also been represented in English language teaching. Following on from the
critics who have pointed to the costs of linguistic hegemony and homogenisation (e.g.,
Pennycook, 1994, 1998; Phillipson, 1994), English language teaching has been influenced
ideologically by the concept of English as an international language (EIL). EIL is a concept
which postulates that ‗mother-tongue varieties of English are not necessarily considered
appropriate targets either for learning or for communicating in countries where English is
used for cross-cultural or cross-linguistic communication‘ (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p.
196). Due to their estimated 75 to 80 percent majority as users of English (Crystal, 2008),
non-native speakers (NNS) are increasingly acknowledged as legitimate shareholders in the
English language and thereby are deserving contributors to the conversation of what English
is, and how it should be taught.
EIL acknowledgement predominates in English as foreign language (EFL) and culturally
and linguistically diverse (CALD) English language contexts where English is used as a
Lingua Franca in NNS to NNS interactions, such as between the language groups of Europe,
or Asia, which use English as the common language of communication. In Australia, where
English is the dominant language of communication, EIL is yet to inform language teaching
policy and practice in university settings, and by extension in the private language teaching
sector, but EIL and bilingual support are acknowledged as an important factor determining
social interaction and integration experienced by language learners in the Australian Migrant
Education Program (AMEP) (Murray, 2005; Yates, 2011).
At a time in Australia‘s history when diversity is acknowledged and accommodated in
civil society in other ways, such as for disabilities, socio-economic status and indigenous
heritage, it is unusual that tolerance and accommodation of English language diversity is not
reflected in most institutional policies and the traditional structuralist nativist view of English
proficiency is still held by many ELT practitioners in Australia. In contrast, proponents of a
more humanistic social interactionist conceptualisation of ELT argue that English ‗needs to
be taught as a pluricentric language in Australia, focusing on developing learners‘
intercultural communication skills and meta-cultural competence‘ (Sharifian, 2014, p. 35).

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
STATE SCHOOLS

In the primary and secondary education sectors, Australia provides an example of how
the effects of colonialism, voluntary and forced migration, and globalisation create complex
demands on education systems. Within the Australian schooling system, students whose first
language is a language or dialect other than English and who require additional support to
assist them to develop proficiency in English are most commonly referred to as English as an
additional language or dialect (EAL/D) students (e.g., ACARA, 2014a; ACTA, 2014).
However, this category includes a diverse range of students, including: Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander students whose first language is an Indigenous language or Aboriginal English;
overseas and Australian-born students whose first language is a language other than English;
students with a refugee background; and international students from non-English speaking
countries. The heritage of these students is correspondingly diverse in terms of their
linguistic, cultural, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds and the ways their complex
histories and backgrounds impact on their acquisition and learning of the SAE variety of
English language and literacy (ACARA, 2014a).
Adding to this complexity is the political interplay between the federal government and
state governments in standardising and funding education. Under the Australian constitution,
responsibility for education rests with the states; therefore, in terms of provision for EAL/D
students, all Australian states and territories have in place their own specialist EAL/D
resources and curriculum frameworks that are used for planning and programming for EAL/D
learners as well as for tracking, monitoring and reporting on their progress in learning SAE
(ACARA, 2014a). Language assistance is most typically provided through school-based or
visiting ESL teachers who work with classroom teachers to assist EAL/D students with their
transition to the new language and culture. In areas of high demand, some schools have
special ESL units and/ or provide an intensive English language programme.
However, despite the state-based nature of education delivery, the past three decades
have seen Australia introduce a number of reforms, culminating in a national curriculum
produced by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and
national standardised testing via the National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy
(NAPLAN) (Savage & O‘Connor, 2014). On the face of it, the Australian Curriculum
initiative provides strong emphasis on equity and access for all students by rejecting the
notion of an alternative curriculum for specific student cohorts while promulgating the need
for differentiated levels of support so as to ensure that all students have a fair chance to
achieve the student achievement standards for each subject and year of schooling (ACARA,
2012). It is acknowledged that EAL/D students ‗may require additional time and support,
along with teaching that explicitly addresses their individual language learning needs‘
(ACARA, 2012, p. 21). Accompanying support documents provide examples of teaching
strategies supportive of EAL/D students and describe expected learning progressions in
listening, speaking, reading, and writing for students with beginning, emerging, developing,
and consolidating levels of English across stages of schooling from kindergarten to Year 10
so that teachers can map students‘ progression onto curriculum specified standards (2014a;
2014b).
However, while this goal of achievement through differentiated support appears to
position EAL/D students for success, those with TESOL experience have criticised both the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ELT Practice in Australia Across Three Sectors
underlying philosophy, and the implementation, of these reforms. As Kibler, Valdés, and
Walqui (2014) state, standards-based reform in settings such as Australia takes as its default
monolingual, English-speaking student populations. This underlying ‗monoglossic
perspective‘ means that not only are standards formulated and assessed monolingually, but
that the emergent bilingualism of EAL/D students is viewed not as a strength but as a
deficiency to be remediated (Flores & Schissel, 2014). This view is at odds with the growing
consensus in the fields of TESOL, applied linguistics, and SLA, that community and
individual language practices are better understood through a multilingual or plurilingual lens
in which language is described in more global, fluid, and dynamic ways (refer to Kibler,
Valdés, & Walqui, 2014, for a brief outline of the literature).
There are corresponding concerns that the production of ‗errors‘ which are a part of the
natural evolution of EAL/D students‘ language development will be interpreted as failure
against English as a first language standards (Hammond & Derewianka, 1999) and
remediated through mainstream literacy interventions, using materials and approaches
developed on the basis of a shared spoken language and culture which cannot be assumed for
the ESL learner (Creagh, 2014). Such concerns are particularly significant in schools with
Indigenous children from creole-speaking backgrounds since teachers and education officials
may view creole not as a distinct language but as a deficient version of SAE (Wigglesworth &
Billington, 2013).
Ironically, however, with the advent of the new standardised testing regime, this problem
of the ‗failing ESL student‘ has not eventuated; instead the data suggests that EAL/D students
are outperforming their first language English counterparts (Creagh, 2014). This anomaly is
due to the breadth of students captured by the Languages Background Other Than English
(LBOTE) category under which NAPLAN results are differentiated (Creagh, 2014); the
LBOTE category captures students where ‗either the student or parents/ guardians speak a
language other than English at home‘ (ACARA, 2013, p.6). The LBOTE category, therefore,
is ineffective in differentiating between the very diverse cohorts of EAL/D students in terms
of first language literacy, English language proficiency, and cultural, socioeconomic and
educational background. In the current political climate in which the Australian government
is rationalising its expenditure to ameliorate a crippling budget deficit, such skewed test data
could be used to justify further cuts to ESL support programmes (Creagh, 2014).
Rather than further cut ESL support programmes, the new standards require new teacher
knowledge, practices and resources (Kibler, Valdés, & Walqui, 2014), especially given the
growth in the number of students requiring high levels of support (e.g., Windle & Miller,
2012). The depth and breadth of knowledge required of teachers with regards to curriculum
content, effective learning practices and language and literacy development necessitates a
lifelong learning pathway (Hammond, 2014). It is, therefore, worrying that a recent survey by
the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA) of 200 EAL/D primary and
secondary school teachers working in a range of EAL/D contexts throughout Australia
revealed three areas of immediate concern: reduced systemic support for EAL/D provision;
insufficient consideration of EAL/D learners; and underestimation of the demands of learning
an additional language/dialect (ACTA, 2014). Educational standardisation and economic
rationalism pose serious challenges to the effective teaching of EAL/D learners whose diverse
needs require differentiated, specialist support.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Table 14.2. CSWE Certificate I learning outcomes mapping with IOTY

Source: Australian Migrant Education Program Research Centre (AMEPRC).

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ELT Practice in Australia Across Three Sectors 153
MIGRANT ENGLISH EDUCATION

The Australian Migrant Education Program (AMEP) was established in 1948 following
an influx of European migrants and refugees post-World War II. The AMEP ‗assists migrants
to learn foundation English language and settlement skills to enable them to confidently
participate in Australian society‘ (Aust. Gov. AMEP, 2014), through a voluntary programme
which provides up to 510 hours of free English language tuition in the first five years of
settlement in Australia. The AMEP is currently administered by the Department of Industry,
and contracts a mixture of government funded and private providers to deliver the programme
in each of the seven Australian states and one territory under the regulation of the National
ELT Accreditation Scheme (NEAS).
The flagship programme of the AMEP are the Certificates I – IV in Spoken and Written
English (CSWE). CSWE provides a national curriculum framework to develop the spoken
and written English language, literacy and numeracy skills of beginner, post-beginner,
intermediate and advanced learners of English. CSWE is delivered face to face, by distance
and online and includes a course book and audio series called It’s Over to You (IOTY, 2003,
[revised 2008]), an Assessment Task Bank which contains moderated assessment tasks for
CSWE 2003 and CSWE 2008, and mapping documents for assessment (CSWE Mapping
documents, 2014). The CSWE curriculum is student-centred and needs-based (Nunan, 1988)
and includes an initial focus on learning strategy development. Assessment is competency-
based and outcomes are associated with functional language topics. For example, Table 14.2
depicts the mapping of CSWE certificate I learning outcomes to teaching and assessment
provided in IOTY. The learning outcomes are categorised under learning strategy and level,
and functional competencies relate to a specific topic that has relevance for day-to-day
survival in Australian society). Each proficiency level contains outcomes for learning strategy
development and the four macroskills, with greater time focus on the productive skills of
speaking and writing.
A longitudinal qualitative study sponsored by the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship
1
is being finalised currently to explore the relationship between patterns of
language use and language learning in the AMEP among migrants in their first few years of
settlement in Australia. The aim of this project was to follow newly arrived migrants over a
12-month period of their settlement in Australia in order to find out how they use English and
how closely their engagement with English in the AMEP matched these communicative
needs. The main interim findings of phase one of this study were that:

…participants were very satisfied with their experiences on the program, which seemed to not
only address their needs in general, but also to offer social support and information at a crucial
period in their settlement. They reported that the program assisted them not only to make
progress in English, but also to learn about life in Australia and develop many of the skills that
they needed for settlement. This suggests that there was generally a good level of fit between
the participants‘ needs and the topics provided in the AMEP (Yates, 2010, p.87).

1
Recently, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship was renamed the Department of Immigration and
Border Protection by the current government, reflecting this government‘s protectionist stance on immigration.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
The AMEP, like the state school sector, is greatly affected by the perspectives on
immigration and citizenship held by the government of the day. With the election of a
conservative government in 2013, it can be expected that an economic rationalist policy will
increasingly inform the management, funding, and overall purpose of providing migrants with
an English language education, and by extension the human and material resources for
learning and teaching. In line with the current government‘s budget reform agenda, at the
time of writing, the Department of Industry is undertaking an independent evaluation of the
programme. The evaluation is examining current funding arrangements, the quality of
programme outcomes, as well as programme appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency
(Aust. Gov. AMEP, 2014). It remains to be seen if the evaluation takes into consideration the
socially inclusive and supportive benefits of the former AMEP programmes in its reforms, or
if an assimilationist ‗get them work ready‘ approach to migrant English education is adopted.

ELICOS

Learning English is a global industry worth an estimated US$11.5 billion. It is Australia‘s
third largest export industry, with Australia ranking as the fourth most popular English
language study destination after the UK, USA and Canada (English Australia, 2014a). This
English language industry is commonly known in Australia as ELICOS (English Language
Intensive Courses for Overseas Students), and is the largest of Australia‘s international
education sectors in terms of the numbers of new international students commencing courses
each year. In 2013, there were 147,828 ELICOS students, representing growth of 21% on
2012 (English Australia, 2014b). Unsurprisingly, given Australia‘s location, the top source of
students for ELICOS was the Asia Pacific region (64%), with 17% of students from China,
and Japan, and students from South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam also well-
represented (Department of Education, 2014a).
Students are attracted to Australia as a study destination for a variety of reasons,
including proximity, safety, affordability, a welcoming Australian community, the potential
for migration and access to quality institutions and courses (English Australia, 2012). The
industry is highly regulated to protect the sector. The Tertiary Education Quality and
Standards Agency (TEQSA) has regulatory responsibility under the TEQSA Act and the
Education Services for Overseas Students ESOS Act for university ELICOS providers, and
the Australian Skills and Quality Authority (ASQA) for the regulation of non-university
ELICOS providers (TEQSA, n.d.). Many ELICOS providers also remain members of the
former major industry regulator, the National English Language Teaching Accreditation
Scheme (NEAS) which provides another level of quality assurance through an annual audit of
member organisations against eight standards dealing with centre management and
marketing, staff qualifications, curricula, facilities and resources. Arguably, this highly
regulated approach is paying dividends: a 2011 survey by English Australia of almost 9000
students revealed a high degree of student satisfaction with their ELICOS experience, with
the greatest satisfaction (with levels of over 89%) expressed for all aspects of teaching,
feedback, assessment, personal support from teachers, and course content (English Australia,
2012).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ELT Practice in Australia Across Three Sectors 155
ELICOS courses typically focus either on developing learners‘ general English skills
(‗General English‘) or on English for Academic Purposes (EAP). General English attracts
young people on visitor or working holiday visas, whereas EAP students are more often on
student visas preparing for tertiary education in the university or vocational education and
training (VET) sectors. In 2013, 33% of ELICOS students immediately continued on to
university study and 21% moved immediately to VET (Department of Education, 2014b).
ELICOS centres generally offer two alternative pathways into tertiary education: one via
formal, standardised, high stakes English proficiency tests such as IELTS (International
English Language Testing System) and TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), the
second via in-house, internally assessed and university-contextualised EAP (English for
Academic Purposes) programmes. There has been some debate as to which of these pathways
offers a better preparation for tertiary study (Dyson, 2014). The findings of Birrell (2006) that
34% of ‗onshore‘ international students who were granted permanent residence in 2005-6 did
not achieve an overall IELTS score of 6.0 at the end of their course of study raised questions
about the adequacy of in-house pathway programmes. The associated media coverage led to
moves within the ALL (Academic Language and Learning) profession (e.g., Barthel, 2007)
and government (e.g., DEET, 2008) to establish a policy framework which would ensure that
universities developed the English language proficiency of international students and English
as an additional language (EAL) students (Dyson, 2014). The resulting policy documents –
Good Practice Principles for the English language proficiency of international students in
Australian universities (AUQA, 2009) and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
Threshold Standards (TEQSA, 2011) require the higher education provider to ensure ‗that
students who are enrolled are sufficiently competent in the English language to participate
effectively in the course of study and achieve its expected learning outcomes‘ (TEQSA,
2013).
Since 2009, universities have been occupied, with various degrees of commitment, with
the task of adopting the Good Practice Principles. The interpretation of these principles is
currently determined unilaterally by each university (Arkoudis, Baik, & Richardson, 2012) in
response to TEQSA academic audit requirements to report on key indicators that all their
students are achieving their academic potential, including high levels of English proficiency
(Lane, 2012). In response, tertiary institutions, government agencies such as the Australian
Council of Educational Research (ACER) and applied linguists (Dunworth, 2009; Ransom,
2009; Read, 2008, 2013) have developed post entry language assessments (PELA) to identify
those students who are likely to struggle to meet the language demands of their degree
programme and should be encouraged or required to enhance their academic language skills.
A practical outcome of these efforts is a web-based resource called Degrees of
Proficiency, available at www.degreesofproficiency.aall.org.au, which has been developed
from a project conducted by an inter-university team funded by a federal government Office
for Learning and Teaching grant (Dunworth et al., 2013). The resource was established to
provide Australian universities with tools that will assist in the development of an
institutional strategy to develop students‘ English language capabilities.
PELAs are a double-edged sword; they are welcomed by those who understand the need
to identify students with difficulties in the use of English in the tertiary education context and
propose intervention strategies, but there are problems with the construct validity of PELAs
(Dunworth, 2009; Read, 2014). Participants in Dunworth‘s survey of university stakeholders
primarily expressed concerns about the ‗assessment tools, whether PELAs should be
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
integrated into a disciplinary context, about the impact of PELAs on students, particularly if
they are to be compulsory, and about the resource implications for their institutions‘ (2009, p.
7).
PELAs are also a predictable inconvenience for the executive of universities, who may
see them as an obstacle to maintaining the bottom line and student numbers, and an affront to
the professionalism of their institution. The logic is that if we, the university, have graduated
these students, then they do have the requisite skills and knowledge, including academic
language and literacy. However, when students become customers and universities compete
to attract students, the predictable consequences are slippage in standards due to practices
such as ‗soft marking‘ to maintain student satisfaction, especially for full-fee paying
international students (Martin, 2002), and lowering English proficiency scores for
internationals to allow entry to more students (Anyanwu, 2004; Birrell 2006). These practices
inevitably impact on the ability of students to cope with their studies and ultimately, the
quality of graduates and their contribution to the knowledge economy.

REFERENCES

Arkoudis, S., Baik, C., & Richardson, S. (2012). English language standards in higher
education: From entry to exit. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.
Aust. govt. AMEP. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.industry.gov.au/ skills/AssistanceFor
Individuals/AdultMigrantEnglishProgram/Pages/default.aspx
Anyanwu, J. C. (2004). Challenges and prospects of internationalisation in Australia’s G08
and universities of technology. IDP. Retrieved from http://aiec.idp.com/uploads/
pdf/thur%20-%20Dr%20Chika%20Anyanwu. pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Australian Commonwealth Government. (2011)
Cultural diversity in Australia, Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
abs@.nsf/lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013
Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA). (2014). State of EAL/D in Australia
2014: Draft Report September 2014. Retrieved from http://tesol.org.au/files/files/
453_Draft_ACTA_2014_Survey_Report_V1_September_2014
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). The shape of
the Australian curriculum. Version 4.0. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_
resources/the_shape_of_the_ australian_curriculum_v4
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). Data
catalogue information on ACARA: Key datasets for potential data request applicants.
Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/ _resources/Data_Catalogue
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2014a). English as
an additional language or dialect teacher resource: Overview and EAL/D learning
progression. Retrieved from http:// www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/EALD_
Overview_and_Advice_revised_February_2014
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2014b). Student
Diversity: EAL/D Teacher Resource. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.
edu.au/StudentDiversity/EAL-D-Teacher-Resource
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ELT Practice in Australia Across Three Sectors 157
Australian Education International (AEI). (2014b). Research snapshot: Study pathways of
international students in Australia. Retrieved from https:// aei.gov.au/research/research-
papers/Documents/Study%20Pathways% 202014_1
Australian Migrant Education Program Research Centre (AMEPRC). Australian
Commonwealth Government. Retrieved from http://www. ameprc.mq.edu.au/
docs/ioty_cswe_mapping/cswe_i/CSWE_Stage_1_mapping
Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2009). Good practice principles for English
language proficiency for international students in Australian universities. Retrieved from
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/127066/201108260004/www.auqa.edu.au/files/otherpublic
ations/good%20practice%20principles%20for%20english%20language%20proficiency%
20report
Barthel, A. (2007). Alex Barthel: Are tertiary students competent in English? Lingua Franca
RN, Saturday 24 February 2007 3.45PM. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/
radionational/programs/linguafranca/alex-barthel-are-tertiary-students-competent-
in/3393204
Bianco, J. L. (2002). ESL in a time of literacy: A challenge for policy and for teaching.
TESOL in Context, 12(1), 3.
Bianco, J. L. (2010). Multicultural education in Australia: evolution, compromise and
contest. IALEI Singapore, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.intlalliance.org/fileadmin/
user_upload/documents/Conference_2010/NP-AU
Birrell, B. (2006). Implications of low English standards among overseas students at
Australian universities. People and Place, 14(4), 53-64.
Butcher, A. (2008). Linguistic aspects of Australian Aboriginal English. Clinical linguistics
& phonetics, 22(8), 625-642.
Chiro, G. (2014). Cultural and linguistic diversity in Australia: navigating between the Scylla
of nationhood and the Charybdis of globalisation. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 11(3), 334-346.
Clyne, M. (2005). Australia’s language potential. Sydney: UNSW Press.Crystal, D. (2008).
Two thousand million? Updates on the statistics of English. English Today, 24(1), 3-6.
Cox, F. (2012). Australian English pronunciation and transcription. Cambridge University
Press.
Creagh, S. (2014) National standardised testing and the diluting of English as a second
language (ESL) in Australia. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(1), 24-38.
CSWE Mapping Documents. (2014). Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.
ameprc.mq.edu.au/resources/cswe_2008/ioty_mapping_cswe_2008
Department of Education. (2014a). Research snapshot: International students in the ELICOS
sector in 2013. Retrieved from https://www.aei. gov.au/research/Research-Snapshots/
Documents/ELICOS%20Regional% 20Market%20Survey%202013
Department of Education. (2014b). Research paper: Study pathways of international students
in Australia. Retrieved from https://aei.gov.au/ research/research-papers/Documents/
Study%20Pathways%202014_1
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2008).
Review of Australian Higher Education Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia. Retrieved from http://gellen.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Higher_
Educatio_ Review
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). (2014). Australia’s trade at a glance.
Retrieved from http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/australias-trade-at-a-glance/top-goods-
services.html
Dunworth, K. (2009). An investigation into post-entry English language assessment in
Australian universities. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 3(1), 1-13.
Dunworth, K. (2013). Degrees of proficiency: Building a strategic approach to university
students’ English language assessment and development. Retrieved from
http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/ID11-2048_Dunworth_Report_2013
Dyson, B. (2014). Are onshore pathway students prepared for effective university
participation? A case study of an international postgraduate cohort. Journal of Academic
Language & Learning, 8(2), 28-42. Retrieved from http://journal.aall.org.au/
index.php/jall/article/ viewArticle/294
English Australia. (2012). Maximising the ELICOS student experience. Retrieved from
http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/visageimages/about_us/our_industry/understanding_
our_industry/00_Maximising_Experience_Report
English Australia. (2014a). English Australia fact sheet: Global language travel.
Retrieved from http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/visageimages/about_us/our_industry/
understanding_our_industry/01_FS_Global_ELT_2012
English Australia. (2014b). English Australia fact sheet: ELICOS industry statistics 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/visageimages/about_us/ our_
industry/understanding_our_industry/02_FS_ELICOS_Industry_Statistics_2013
Flores, N., & Schissel, J.L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a
heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454-479.
Hammond, J. (2014). An Australian perspective on standards-based education, teacher
knowledge, and students of English as an additional language. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3),
507–532.
Hammond, J., & Derewianka, B. (1999). ESL and literacy education: Revisiting the
relationship. Prospect, 14(2), 24-38.
Hammond, J. (2012). Hope and challenge in the Australian curriculum: Implications for EAL
students and their teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35, 223–240.
Kibler, A., Valdés, G., & Walqui, A. (2014). What does standards-based educational reform
mean for English language learner populations in primary and secondary schools?
TESOL Quarterly, 48, 433–453.
Lane, B. (2012). National regulator sharpens focus on English language standards. The
Australian. Retrieved from http://www. theaustralian. com.au/higher-education/national-
regulator-sharpens-focus-onenglish-language-standards/story-e6frgcjx-1226455260799
Martin, B. (2002). Dilemmas of defending dissent: the dismissal of Ted Steele from
the University of Wollongong. The Australian universities review, 45(2), 7-17.
Retrieved from: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=940672013936607;
res= IELHSS
Murray, D. E. (2005). First language support in adult ESL in Australia. National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research for the AMEP Research Centre. Retrieved
from http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/research_reports/teaching_in_action/ First_
language_support
National English Accreditation Scheme (NEAS). (2014). NEAS quality endorsement and
ASQA. Retrieved from http://www.neas.org.au/neas-quality-endorsement-and-asqa/
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

ELT Practice in Australia Across Three Sectors 159
NSW Department of Education and Training. (2004). English as a second Language:
guidelines for schools. Retrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/
student_serv/equity/comm_rela/d04_23_ESL_Guidelines
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner centered curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London:
Longman.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1994). English language spread policy. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language, 107(1), 7– 24.
Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2012). English as a
Second Language (ESL)/English as a Second Dialect (ESD). Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/parents/school-life/support-services/esl.html
Ransom, L. (2009). Implementing the post-entry English language assessment policy at the
University of Melbourne: Rationale, processes and outcomes. Journal of Academic
Language and Learning, 3(2), 13–25.
Read, J. (2008). Identifying academic language needs through diagnostic assessment. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 180–190.
Read, J. (2013). Issues in post-entry language assessment in English-medium universities.
Language Teaching, 48(2), 1-18.
Reilly, B. (2013). Australia as Southern Hemisphere Power. Australian Strategic Policy
Institute Strategic Insights, 61. Retrieved from https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/
strategic-insights-61-australia-as-a-southern-hemisphere-
power/SI61Sthn_hemisphere_power
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language teaching and
Applied Linguistics (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Ross, J. (2012, 25 July). Door `open to shonks’ as NEAS sidelined. The Australian, p. 31.
Savage, G. C., & O‘Connor, K. (2014). National agendas in global times: curriculum reforms
in Australia and the USA since the 1980s. Journal of Education Policy, 30(5), 1-22.
Sharifian, F. (2014) ‗Teaching English as an international language in multicultural contexts:
Focus on Australia‘. In R. Marlina & R. A. Giri (Eds.) The pedagogy of English as an
international language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers and students (pp. 35-46).
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Spinks, H. (2010). Australia’s migration program. Retrieved from http://www.
aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/austmigration
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2013). Quality assessment:
English language proficiency. Retrieved from www. teqsa.gov.au/sites/…/
EnglishLanguageProficiencyQATerms x
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2011). Higher education
standards framework (Threshold standards). Australian Government. Retrieved from
http://www.teqsa.gov.au/higher-education-standards-framework
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (n.d.). TEQSA and the
regulation of ELICOS. Retrieved from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/ sites/default/files/
FAQs_TEQSAandTheRegulationOfELICOS
Whitwell, G. (1994) ‘Economic policy’ in. In J. Brett, J. Gillespie, & M. Goot (Eds.),
Developments in Australian politics (pp. 202-216). Melbourne: Macmillan Education.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Michael Carey and Ann Robertson
Wigglesworth, G. & Billington, R. (2013). Teaching creole-speaking children: Issues,
concerns and resolutions for the classroom. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
36(3), 234–249.
Willcoxson, L., Cotter, J., & Joy, S. (2011). Beyond the first year experience: The impact on
attrition of student experiences throughout undergraduate degree studies in six diverse
universities. Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 331–352.
Windle, J., & Miller, J. (2012). Approaches to teaching low literacy refugee background
students. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(3), 317-333.
Yates, L. (2010). Language training and settlement success: Are they related? Sydney:
AMEP Research Centre. Retrieved from http://www.ameprc. mq.edu.au/docs/
LanguageTrainingSettlement_
Yates, L. (2011). Interaction, language learning and social inclusion in early settlement.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 457-471.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 15

AN UNDERGRADUATE TESOL PRACTICUM
IN A NEW ZEALAND UNIVERSITY

Moyra Sweetnam Evans
University of Otago, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

This chapter discusses the role of filming, evaluation and feedback in a semester-
long TESOL teacher trainee practicum which is a component of a New Zealand Bachelor
degree TESOL minor and also of a graduate diploma in second language teaching offered
by a linguistics programme. Both are offered by the linguistics section within a
department of English and Linguistics.
Teacher training as part of a university programme throws up a number of
challenges. If the course is not under the auspices of an education faculty, students cannot
be absent from campus for extended practice teaching in local schools, because of their
commitments to lectures in other faculties. Nevertheless students still have to acquire
teaching skills which require observation, practice, repetition, feedback and importantly,
time for reflection.
In the practicum outlined here, attempts have been made to meet these challenges in
a variety of ways. Opportunities are provided for weekly observations of experienced
teachers at a university-owned language school and for weekly teaching of a group of
international teenagers on an exchange year at a local polytechnic. Students are filmed as
they take their turns at practice teaching and multiple avenues of feedback are afforded
throughout the semester
Feedback from the students demonstrates that they value the community of trust and
camaraderie in the class as they engage in the joint construction of collective knowledge
and skills which they will transfer to their own future practices as teachers of English to
speakers of other languages.

Keywords: Teacher trainee practicum, reciprocal peer evaluation, self-evaluation, filming,
reflection

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Moyra Sweetnam Evans 162
INTRODUCTION – CONSTRAINTS ON A TESOL PRACTICUM

In English-speaking countries, TESOL teacher training programmes are typically
accommodated within one of three college or university divisions – English, linguistics or
education. Such programmes are also offered by polytechnics, education colleges or private
language schools. If the training is provided by a language school, teacher trainees have
immediate access to classes to observe and teach. In education colleges and education
divisions of tertiary institutions, students are conventionally allocated blocks of time during
which they visit local schools, allowing them to observe the teaching of relatively large
numbers of lessons and to teach classes themselves. In some cases co-operating teachers
supervise trainees, advising and guiding them during their practice teaching stints. Lecturers
from the institutions in which they are enrolled observe their teaching.
Challenges to the structuring of a TESOL practicum come from inside and outside one‘s
own university. Students cannot be absent from campus for extended practice teaching at
local schools, because of their commitments to lectures in other faculties. Furthermore, a
TESOL qualification does not in itself provide a pathway to registration as a teacher within
the state educational system and thus no co-operation can be expected from the state school
system.
As is the case in similar institutions, the language school attached to the university at
which the TESOL course described here is taught, is run as a profit-making business and
cannot accommodate the approximately twenty-four students in the course for extended
periods of observation. Practice teaching cannot take place in the language school in which
the fee-paying international students and not a group of trainee TESOL students are the
priority of the management. Because of the tight schedule on which the language school runs,
the TESOL students are discouraged from having pre- or post-observation discussions with
the teachers. While it might have proved easier to share the observation load with private
language schools in the city, a prevailing attitude amongst university colleagues precludes
this, on the basis that such schools might benefit by using such university connections in their
own self-promotion and advertising.

OUTLINE OF THE TESOL PRACTICUM

In the practicum outlined here, attempts have been made to overcome these problems in a
variety of ways. Opportunities are provided for twenty-four TESOL students to observe
experienced teachers at the university-owned language school each week and to take turns
teaching a group of international teenagers on an exchange year at a local polytechnic each
week. In this way, one institution is not overwhelmed with TESOL students for a whole
semester and competing language schools are not involved in the same programme. Students
are filmed as they take their turns at practice teaching and multiple avenues of feedback are
afforded throughout the semester.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

An Undergraduate Tesol Practicum in a New Zealand University 163
OBSERVATIONS

Over the semester students in the practicum observe approximately ten one-and-a-half to
two hour classes at the university-owned language school during the thirteen-week semester,
the schedule being worked around vacations and designated test weeks.
In the course of the semester students observe classes taught at different levels (from
beginner to advanced). They observe different types of classes, namely general English, test
preparation (for IELTS, TOEFL and TOEIC), English for academic purposes, business
English and classes in a language laboratory and computer room. Using observation
guidelines (Appendix A), students discuss their observations with their observation partners
before writing them up for submission as part of their overall assessment for grades for the
practicum.

PRACTICE TEACHING

The polytechnic class has between fifteen and twenty teenage learners from an
engineering high school in Japan, who are housed in year-long homestays with New Zealand
families, and attend classes in general English, English for specific purposes, mathematics
and engineering. Each teaching practice session lasts for two hours during which three
TESOL students teach twenty-five-minute classes each. There is a maximum of twenty-four
TESOL practicum students in the class.
Those TESOL students who are not teaching use peer teaching observation sheets
(Appendix B) to observe their classmates teaching. As the lecturer and co-ordinator of this
course, I write down my observations during the lessons. The practice teaching sessions are
filmed by a professional camera operator from the university media unit, who also edits the
films and makes them accessible to students via the web-based learning platform, Blackboard.
The teaching is scaffolded in a variety of ways. Students have passed a prerequisite
second-year TESOL paper and some have taken a third-year advanced TESOL course, so
they have prior knowledge about second language teaching. They have taught their peers and
given classroom presentations, for all of which they received peer and lecturer feedback. I
give students a lesson planning template and a list of tips to use while teaching, both of which
draw on their previously-acquired knowledge. Students are not required to teach original
lessons and are free to adapt published material, providing they do not infringe any copyright.
In their planning for the lessons they will teach, students are free to ask for my assistance
and comments. Some of them bring along the class materials they intend using and I go over
the proposed lesson with them and make suggestions. Sometimes they may be intending to
cover too large an area in the twenty-five minutes they have at their disposal, or they plan too
many activities, have too much material or do not know quite how to start the lesson. I might
suggest a lead-in and some way in which they can activate the background knowledge of the
learners and adapt the materials they intend using. I might also suggest suitable materials or
tasks for a specific theme. This helps students to be more prepared and more relaxed about
teaching.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Moyra Sweetnam Evans 164
TIME-TABLING

The course starts with an administrative session in which the course structure is explained
and observation partners are chosen. The very first class has a specific ice-breaking activity
(speed partner finding) and plenty of time (two hours) for students to meet and get to know
one another. Students also have a meet and greet session with the learners at the polytechnic,
usually a day or two before they first teach them. Perhaps the student who commented below
missed one of those classes, or perhaps more is required to reduce their nervousness.

 Could do more getting to know the class, it might help with the nerves when it comes
to the teaching

Observations at the language school start in the second week of the semester. The
practice teaching generally begins in the third week of the semester when the polytechnic re-
opens. In the lecture times before observation and teaching start, I show films of previous
TESOL students teaching, of professional teachers teaching and discussing their classes and
of TESOL classes filmed on Youtube. In other two-hour periods during the semester in which
there are no observations or teaching sessions (because of vacations or tests at the other
institutions), feedback sessions take place in the assigned university lecture rooms.

LEARNING, FEEDBACK, EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

Learning in this practicum stems from observation, practice, self-evaluation, peer
evaluation, feedback and discussion. There are no lectures. In a teaching practicum students
need to acquire soft skills and there is thus very little theoretical input in this course. A
prescribed text (Richards & Farrell, 2011) provides weekly readings linking prior learning to
practical teaching. Practicum students do not need to acquire a body of static knowledge or to
engage with theory and research. They need skills to interact with other people, which are not
only often difficult to evaluate and to measure, but also difficult to teach (Yakura, 2009).
Opportunities for experiential learning and the co-construction of skills help to promote the
development of these skills. Students accept that different teaching and learning strategies are
appropriate at different times, and appreciate opportunities to put into practice what they have
learned in theory:

 The practical part (was best), all of the theory is well and good but you need
experience too, so the teaching was great.
 Good opportunity to use our knowledge.

The guided discussions of teaching film clips in the first weeks ease students into the
teaching and observations and give them useful practical tips. Students comment:

 I thought the videos were quite useful. One thing in particular I found useful was
seeing the different ways a classroom can be arranged (desk-wise).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

An Undergraduate Tesol Practicum in a New Zealand University 165
 Was good to go through a few videos, gave us an idea of what a good/bad teacher
was like and what we should be trying to do in our lessons.
 I think they were good to get an idea of what to expect later in the course. They
prepared us well for the practice teaching.

In feedback sessions during the semester, students discuss classes they have observed,
their own practice teaching and their own learning during the course, including the
development of teaching skills. Student feedback suggests that they appreciate opportunities
to share their thoughts and also that these opportunities might be increased:

 The feedback sessions are always good and it’s always interesting what everyone has
to say and it also allows us to voice our opinions.
 They are good but there have only been a few, so would maybe nice to have a couple
more just for feedback and discussion

In one of the last feedback periods, students learn a final skill required by teachers when
they mark and grade one of their own assignments (a reflective paper). The whole class
generates a memorandum, and then each assignment is marked by two separate students and
the marking is discussed in groups. General feedback is that students appreciate spending
some time on this often-neglected skill:

 marking … was enjoyable and offered good pointers.
 … marking … was particularly useful as it is not something I’ve had experience
with in the past and I knew it can be tricky.

No grades are given for practical teaching. Skills are developed gradually throughout the
semester. If grades were assigned, the first student to teach would almost automatically
receive a grade lower than the last one. As has been pointed out in the education methodology
research, it is generally not considered useful to assess soft skills in terms of competitive
grades, measuring students against one another (Yakura, 2009). Because the course carries
university credit, grades are assigned for a variety of written submissions, including the
planning of the practice lesson, a self-evaluation of the lesson, a peer evaluation (of another
student‘s lesson), comments on observations carried out at the language school, a final
reflective paper and a curriculum design project for those students taking this course at
honours level. A journal is kept on weekly readings assigned from the prescribed text.
There are several avenues of evaluation in this course. Feedback is a core component and,
with observations and practice teaching, forms the basis for the students‘ learning. Although
the evaluation of the students‘ practice teaching is formative only and not for gate-keeping
purposes, it nevertheless provides essential feedback for the students. The students‘
acquisition of teaching skills is essentially experiential, arising in large part from trial and
error. They learn from their own mistakes and successes and those of their peers, from peer
feedback, lecturer feedback and feedback from the learners they teach.
Self-evaluation allows students to reflect on their own teaching (Lee & Wu, 2006). Being
key to good teaching, self-reflection is a useful skill to acquire early on in one‘s teaching
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Moyra Sweetnam Evans 166
career. It is essential in guiding students in adjusting their beliefs about teaching and learning.
Students acknowledge the benefits of self-evaluation:

I think it’s a good idea. I liked that we got marked on that and not our teaching, it takes a
lot of the stress off.
A good way of re-evaluating myself in language teaching. A good practice that helped me
to explore my problems.
A good way to reflect on the lesson.
It was good to review my teaching and compare it to what I’ve learned before.
I find it very helpful to actually sit down and write out my thoughts in order to collect
them, so having to do a self-evaluation and think carefully about what I learnt from
teaching a lesson was certainly a good exercise.
It was only when I wrote my self-evaluation that I could perceive avoidable mistakes I
had made. It allowed me to be more critical about my teaching.

Each week the students have to post comments on the Blackboard discussion board on
their peers‘ teaching. Their instructions are to include useful and constructive comments on
the lessons. They are requested to refrain from giving facile compliments or making
unconstructive, negative comments. Tactful suggestions to address perceived weaknesses are
acceptable. Peer evaluation provides useful formative effects on learning (Lee & Wu, 2006).
Students comment:

Each (student) had different views so I found … things I didn’t notice about my teaching
…
Having to think critically about the teaching of others is useful, and having to do this
once a week probably kept me engaged in the learning process over the semester.
Was interesting to read what my peers thought and helped me work on giving positive
and constructive feedback.

Peer evaluation can be difficult to do and students require encouragement for them to
appreciate its benefits:

Somewhat daunting to begin with and I often forgot to do them if I didn’t do it straight
after class.

One student probably required more information about the usefulness of peer evaluation.
In future feedback sessions, I will address such concerns:

I’m not sure about how much use these were. Are my classmates really competent judges
of teaching at this stage? Were they honest with their critiques?

My observations on each student‘s teaching are posted as PDF files on Blackboard and
are available to the whole class. I comment on the strengths of the lesson and make
suggestions for any improvements required. Even though I am as positive as I can be, some of
the students have told me that they find my comments overwhelming at times. Nonetheless,
the consensus is that students learn a great deal from this feedback. Some students initially
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

An Undergraduate Tesol Practicum in a New Zealand University 167
feel a bit voyeuristic when reading my criticisms of their peers‘ teaching, yet admit that they
learn from these too. An addition of a section ‗Comments for all TESOL students‘ in which I
try to put a positive spin on weaknesses in a lesson and also highlight strengths in a lesson,
has proved to be popular:

I liked them because they were detailed and useful for the future. I liked the comments to
the other TESOL students.
This was the most important evaluation. Very detailed and useful comments. Even
comments for the rest of the class to learn from ….
I like that we got to see everyone’s and I also liked that they offered positives, negatives
and general comments for all students. This definitely helped with my learning.

I receive a weekly email from the permanent English teacher of the international learners,
containing the written comments the international learners make about the teaching. This is
also posted on Blackboard. The TESOL students generally find these useful and informative
although, as may be expected from learners with low English competence, these comments
are short:

… helpful, if too short. It did give me a sense of how they felt throughout the lesson and
that was reassuring.
It is good to know whether they understand our class.
Useful to see how class actually felt about the lessons we gave.

USING FILM IN THE TESOL PRACTICUM

The Benefits of Filming Student Teaching

Films of students teaching are made available on Blackboard each week. The films are
also backed up and retained on the website where they form a corpus of materials for future
practicum students. Students have the freedom to view the films in their own time (cf. Fill &
Ottewill, 2006). Some students add the films to their job application portfolios.
The most obvious benefit of student teaching films is that they provide a permanent
record of what would otherwise be an ephemeral course activity. This allows for extended
observations beyond normal lecture times for students who have limited time for classroom
observation. Films allow for multiple viewing and re-viewing of students‘ own teaching and
that of their peers. Students are able to observe the lessons taught by previous students and
read the related lecturer and peer comments. An additional audience is provided by future
students who will view the films.
Multiple viewing opportunities allow for critical reflection and opportunities for students‘
own teaching beliefs to be shaped. Self-evaluation based on viewing films of oneself teaching
promotes reflection and the changing of teacher beliefs (Lee & Wu, 2006). Students can see
their own strengths and weaknesses. They can see how their teaching skills and those of their
peers develop over time. They are able to revisit their own teaching after reading lecturer and
peer comments. In this way, teacher trainees have opportunities to focus their attention and
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Moyra Sweetnam Evans 168
their learning on different elements in separate viewings, e.g., voice, gestures, interactions
with students, explanations, instructions, questioning, eliciting responses, student reactions
and so on. Aspects of teaching that are sometimes overlooked can be focussed on at leisure.
The camera operator is specifically requested to focus on both the teachers and the
learners during filming and not to edit out any awkward elements in the class – such as
situations in which students do not respond to teachers‘ questions, periods when students are
off task and chatting to one another in their first language, instances of miscommunication
and misunderstanding between the teachers and the learners, and so on. This allows for both
the successful and the less successful features of the lessons to be available for later analyses
by the students. Individuals can pick up on their own weaknesses and also on those elements
of their communication and teaching which seem to work well.
While viewing the films, students sometimes notice the actions and reactions of the
learners that a nervous apprentice teacher might miss while teaching. For the TESOL students
(and the lecturer) seated at the back of the class, who are not always able to see the faces of
all the learners, the films provide opportunities to see how the learners react to the teaching of
the other students. Cross-cultural and other communication problems which might have been
missed or unresolved while teaching, can be observed on the films, as may non-verbal
communication cues.

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS WITH FILMING STUDENT TEACHING

Using film in the teaching practicum is not all plain sailing. Teaching videos can be
difficult to analyse without guidance on classroom observation (Lewis & Anping, 2002) and
on how to analyse films (Yakura, 2009). Various education researchers and methodologists
(Lewis & Anping, 2002) have discussed lists of categories to focus student attention when
observing lessons. I scaffold my students‘ observations by providing them with commentary
sheets and general guidelines (see Appendices A and B. Students also have weekly comments
from me and their peers as a basis for directing their focus and critical reflection when they
view themselves on film. They have links on Blackboard to assist them when viewing
themselves on film, for example Mitchell (n.d.) aimed at public speakers and others aimed at
teachers (South Windsor Schools, n.d.; Catapano, n.d.).
Filming can promote performance anxiety in students being filmed. Teaching a class with
an additional audience of peers, the lecturer, the regular class teacher and the camera
operator, is not easy. I try to make the whole situation as non-threatening as possible. The
first students I ask to teach are those doing the course at honours level. These students often
have some teaching experience and are frequently older. The next students who are asked to
teach are those who have some teaching experience. The remaining students enter their names
into time-slots which suit them, so they essentially volunteer to teach when they feel ready to
do so. Each week the students negotiate amongst themselves who will be the first of the three
to teach. Once students have watched their peers teaching and being filmed and watched the
films of others (including those of students in previous years), their anxiety is decreased and it
becomes easier to overcome ‗stage shock‘ (Yakura, 2009). Student feedback indicates that,
despite the initial anxiety, they value the filming of their own teaching:
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

An Undergraduate Tesol Practicum in a New Zealand University 169
The films were very useful to self-reflect on your own teaching and see how others could
perceive you. They were a little daunting at the time of being filmed.
It is a good way to see what I teach even though it is very embarrassing if we watch it for
the first time.
They were a painful but invaluable tool for self-evaluation.

I take measures to protect the privacy of the students and learners. Only those students
currently signed up for the class are able to access the films.. They agree not to copy or
distribute films of anyone else except themselves. The international learners all sign consent
forms agreeing to being filmed and have written consent for this from their parents in Japan.
The films are essentially for individual viewing, but I sometimes show snippets of very good
teaching strategies to a class in following years, but never the whole film and never sections
dealing with awkward moments or less than excellent teaching.
Despite my best efforts, students do still find aspects of the course challenging. However,
their comments suggest that these are challenges they can live with and learn from and I have
not as yet scared anyone out of my practicum course.

CONCLUSION

The whole filming and teaching experience seems to be a bonding one for the students.
The class becomes a responsive and functioning unit. Students have to learn the name of
everyone else in the class, because they have to comment on everyone else‘s teaching. There
is constant reciprocal feedback amongst TESOL students who come to understand that they
are developing teaching skills as they go along and that they are learning from their own
teaching and the teaching of the others. The teaching skills are essentially socially constructed
as the whole class of students builds a communal set of expertise on which they all draw
individually. Students value the co-operation which this requires:

A really special factor of (the course) was … the lessons with different activities and
assessments designed to encourage students to support, challenge and look out for
each other. Thus by the end of each semester (we) had a class of ‘best friends’ who
helped and cared for not only individual success but the success of the classmates
and the whole group.

REFERENCES

Catapano, J. (n.d.). A technique for self-reflection: Video recording. Retrieved from
http://www.teachhub.com/technique-self-reflection-video-recording
Fill, K., & Ottewill, R. (2006). Sink or swim: Taking advantage of developments in video
streaming. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(4), 397-408.
Lee, G. C., & Wu, C. C. (2006). Enhancing the teaching experience of pre-service teachers
through the use of videos in web-based computer-mediated communication (CMC).
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(4), 369-380.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Moyra Sweetnam Evans 170
Lewis, M., & Anping, H. (2002). Video-viewing tasks for language teacher education. RELC
Journal, 33(1), 122-136.
Mitchell, O. (n.d.). How to survive watching yourself on video. Retrieved from
http://www.speakingaboutpresenting.com/nervousness/survive-watch-video/ Added to
Blackboard for this course 14 July, 2013.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. & Farrell, T. (2011). Practice teaching: A reflective approach. Cambridge
University Press
South Windsor Schools. (n.d.). Watching yourself on videotape. Retrieved from
http://www.southwindsorschools.org/uploaded/documents/technology/vtr/WatchingYour
selfonVideotape
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, C. C., & Kao, H. C. (2008). Streaming videos in peer assessment to support training pre-
service teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 44-55.
Yakura, E. K. (2009). Learning to see: Enhancing student learning through videotaped
feedback. College Teaching, 57(3), 177-183.

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Guidelines for Classroom Observations

While you are observing the class, make notes on some of the features below. Some
features will be more relevant in some lessons than in others. For each lesson you observe,
select at least one feature from each grouping.

1. The teacher
 teacher-initiated
o questions
o elicitation
o prompting
o instructions
o wait time after questions and instructions
o feedback (verbal)
o non-verbal behaviour
o error correction
 teacher monitoring of
o student learning
o student comprehension
o fluency and accuracy
 teacher provision for
o different learning styles
o opportunities for real communication
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

An Undergraduate Tesol Practicum in a New Zealand University 171
o motivation of students
 different teacher roles in the classroom

2. The lesson
 timing and pacing of the lesson
 observable lesson objectives
o linguistic objectives
o non-linguistic objectives
 materials used in the lesson
 lesson structures
o beginnings
o endings
o lesson phases and transitions
 tasks set during the lesson
 pre-task activities
 post-task activities
 integration of four modes of communication
 recycling of grammatical structures

3. The classroom
 seating arrangements
 type of furniture
 grouping of students
 the general classroom environment
 available learning aids

4. The students
 student engagement with
o teacher
o other students (peers)
o materials
o tasks

(Based on Wajnryb, 1992)

Appendix B – Peer Teaching Observation Sheet

Name of teacher: ………………………………………………………………………………

Name of observer: …………………………………………………………………………….

Date: ……………………………………………………………………………………………….

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Moyra Sweetnam Evans 172
Planning yes no
1. There was evidence of effective lesson planning and preparation
2. The lesson was logically sequenced
3. The activities were suitable for the level and competence of the learners
4. The teacher had a discernable (unstated) linguistic objective
5. The activities were related to the objectives of the lesson
6. There was a clear non-linguistic goal for learner activities
7. There were a variety of activities appropriate for different learning styles
8. Opportunities were provided for practising all language modes
Presentation
9. The lesson was well-paced
10. Instructions were brief and clear
11. Materials were effectively integrated into the lesson
12. Learner talk was maximised and teacher talk was minimised
13. Learners‘ spoken contributions were elicited successfully by the teacher
14. Learner errors were effectively monitored and dealt with appropriately
15. The teacher spoke clearly and loudly enough for everyone to hear
16. The teacher used appropriate English language and pronunciation
17. The teacher appropriately developed the learners‘ awareness of the L2
culture

Planning yes no
Interpersonal dynamics
18. Genuine communicative interaction took place
19. The teacher demonstrated awareness of individual learners‘ learning
needs

20. The teacher made a conscious effort to pay attention to all learners
equally

21. The teacher praised and encouraged the learners sincerely
22. The teacher used gestures, actions and/or humour to liven up the class
Class management
23. The class started and ended on time
24. The seating arrangement was appropriate for each activity
25. The writing on the board was legible and well-organised
26. Effective use was made of audiovisual aids
27. The teacher maintained an atmosphere that was conducive to learning
Overall comments

(Based on Nunan & Lamb, 1996)

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 16

THE PRACTICES OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
IN POSTCOLONIAL INDIA

Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India

ABSTRACT

In postcolonial India, English is used in the socio-political spheres as a link, library,
and career language. It functions as a major language of administration, commerce, and
media, keeps the northern and southern states united, and helps students get their
education as well as jobs. It is supported by the Government of India and the States to
varying degrees but the ambivalent attitude to English is a cause of concern for the best
and also the worst state of English teaching. Grammar translation method, Structuralist
method and Communicative method have done their rounds of promise of mastery of
English in different forms like General, Technical and Business English through
government and private schools and colleges with the support of the British Council, the
United States Information Service, and commercial establishments. Consequently,
English has emerged as an industry with a huge potential to generate money and also
emancipate socially disadvantaged people of postcolonial India.

Keywords: Beyond methods, English as a second language, English for specific purposes,
English in India, English language teaching, postcolonial India, technical English

INTRODUCTION

India became an independent country on 15
th
August 1947 and adopted the Constitution
of the Republic of India on 26
th
January 1950. Like other liberated nations, India too took on
the identity of a postcolonial nation. The political umbilical cord was cut giving birth to a new
state and yet the socio-cultural, especially the ambivalent linguistic emotional bond with
England and English, could not be eliminated completely. With the rise of the United States
of America as a superpower, the liberalisation of Indian economy in the 1990s, and after 1980
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel 174
the new creative outburst of novelists like Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy, India became
a powerhouse of postcolonial theory and practice, including the commercial enterprise of
English language teaching (ELT). The aim of this chapter is, then, to examine how English is
being taught in the postcolonial contemporary India.

ENGLISH IN INDIA

English in India is a paradoxical phenomenon. It is not an Indian language because it
came from England in the 16
th
century with her traders and missionaries. It is an Indian
language now because it has been in India for more than five centuries and is used by about
10% of the Indian population for a variety of purposes, including commerce, education,
employment and creative writing. After the Indian independence, English was expected to be
replaced by Hindi. But it did not happen for various reasons. Primarily, the South Indian
States did not like the imposition of Hindi on them. Especially, Tamil Nadu went ahead with
major anti-Hindi agitations in 1965. Similarly, the North Indian States did not relish the
imposition of English on them. These two forces of anti-Hindi and anti-English sentiments
did not allow a workable language plan for India, although the Three Language Formula was
implemented across India lackadaisically. In course of time, however, the utilitarian value of
English has continued to increase with global and local job opportunities, social mobility, and
better means of living. As Rukmini Baya Nair (2012) observes, English has developed ‗from
being modestly conceptualised as a ‗link‘ and ‗library‘ language to a language of ‗liberation‘
symbolising access to power, glamour, and money even amongst the most deprived sections
of the society‘ (p. 119). In fact, the conflicting social and political beliefs and practices of the
Indian society have supported the expansion of English considerably.
Realising the value of English for India, more than 50 English Language Teaching
Institutes (ELTIs) were established across India, starting with the first one in Allahabad in
1956. A Central Institute of English (CIE) was established in 1958 at Hyderabad. Regional
Institutes of English were set up in 1963 in Bangalore and Chandigarh. Paradoxically, as
English gained importance, it also lost its sheen when the CIE was transformed into Central
Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL) in 1972 and later English and Foreign
Languages University (EFLU) in 2007. Subsequently several state governments like those of
West Bengal and Tamilnadu also set up their own State Institute of English (SIE). Some of
the SIEs have been closed down for want of government support in course of time. Most
Departments of English in Indian Universities and some postgraduate colleges have a course
on English language teaching (ELT) and undertake research works in ELT. Reflecting the
influence of postcolonial theory, quite a few departments have changed their names to
Department of English Studies or Cultural Studies. In all these efforts, collaborations with the
British Council and the United States Information Service have contributed to improving the
‗standards‘ of English for the masses. Initially, the primary motive was to train a large
number of English teachers for schools and colleges, but then recent history reveals that
training turned into teaching and then a degeneration set in which has since become
unstoppable. Although English appears to promise job, social status, and social mobility, a
majority of students and teachers tend to view English as a subject to be passed with
minimum marks. Actual proficiency is not aimed at nor tested. Teachers of Science,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Practices of English Language Teaching in Postcolonial India 175
Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and other subjects care little for accurate and fluent
communication in English. This indifferent attitude has infected English teachers too. No
foreign power like Britain and the US can arrest the damage but they are in the field because
they have considerable economic and political interest. To protect their commercial interest,
they continue to help India with approaches, methods and techniques imported from the
foreign soil.

METHODS

Initially English was taught through the grammar translation method until the early
twentieth century. When the British Council came into picture, ELT was molded into the
British and American structuralist-oral-situational (SOS) method in the 1960s. Ironically, the
save our soul (SOS) cry of the Indian government for English was shut up by the
Communicative Approach in the 1980s, which firmly believed that both teachers and students
could become competent users of English. The functional approach to English has not been
effectively functional. Where is the problem? Tickoo (2012) identifies two serious blunders in
the course of ELT in India. The first one is not taking a question raised by a participant from
Kerala regarding lack of space for the creativity of the teacher in the structural approach. The
second is the deliberate suppression of C J Dodson‘s bilingual approach to language teaching
by the English men and the British Council. In an interview with Pushpinder Syal (2012),
Tickoo asserts that ‗the mother tongue is a great support, a major and as yet untapped
resource in learning the second language and that a transfer of skills takes place during this
learning‘ (p. 60). But then mother tongue was considered a serious interference and the
monolingual approach of the British Council was promoted to the detriment of both the
mother tongue and English. Even the concept of group work often employed in the
Communicative Approach is a failure as proved by the Bangalore Project, spearheaded by
Prof N S Prabhu and his team. What Prof Prabhu noticed was that students were not willing
to participate in the class activities that the Communicative Approach hoped to happen in the
classroom. Culturally, India is a conservative and hierarchical society in which youngsters are
expected to obey and listen and learn from teachers and not to express themselves. In fact, if
teachers do not teach the subject through the lecture method, the teacher is not respected by
students and society. Thus both students and teachers are caught in a vicious circle. If a
teacher is able to make his or her students speak or write on their own in the class, then he or
she can very well be called a magician. This is also attested in the language classrooms both
at the school and college level today. These lapses have done serious damage to the
essentially multilingual environment of Indian ELT.

BEYOND METHODS

While analysing the language matrix of teachers, learners, curriculum, syllabus, materials
and methods, Richards (1990) devotes an entire chapter to the status of methods in language
teaching. The chapter title ‗Beyond Methods‘ clearly suggests that a method-oriented
teaching of English may not help achieve the goal of language teaching. Initially, there was a
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel 176
belief that an effective method could solve all language teaching problems. Then there was an
attempt to find a supermethod. Methods after methods came and made some noise. None of
them really have worked, contrary to expectations. The serious problem with such a method-
oriented teaching was that, to quote Richards, ‗teachers cannot be trusted to teach well‘ (p.
37). Therefore, he seems to adopt an approach to strengthening teachers and learners through
an understanding of what happens in the teaching and learning process that will be useful for
creating suitable conditions of learning. In the context of literary criticism, T. S. Eliot (1921)
states, ‗There is no method except to be very intelligent.‘ (p. 10). Similarly, Harold Bloom
argues (1987), ‗There is no best method except yourself‘ (p. 67). Each individual teacher has
to discover his or her own method to suit his or her students year after year. S. P. Dhanavel‘s
book English Language Teaching in India: The Shifting Paradigms exemplifies this beyond
method practice in the Indian context.

TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH TEACHING

When the noise of methods died down due to their inability to bring about any dramatic
change in the English skills of students across educational institutions and the country, a new
development took place in the field of information and communication technology (ICT).
Incidentally, ICT may not be useful without a different form of natural ICT: intelligence,
creativity and thinking. For each, and every, problem in Indian ELT there was a solution from
ICT for both schools and colleges. Whether it is lack of skills among English teachers, large
classes, mixed ability classes, rural or urban classes, English or career skills, everything was
made available through language independent software like HighClass or language dependent
software like Globarena or Rosetta Stone or Clarity, stand alone CDs, etc. In this context, the
report of Seemita Mohanty from the National Institute of Technology, Rourke, is relevant.
She clearly emphasises (2009), ‗The key point to make is that CALL without an effective
teacher may not work; the teacher continues to occupy an important, indispensable space in
classrooms which deploy computer-assisted work‘ (p. 66). If there is an effective teacher of
English, nothing matters, not even the classroom, the syllabus, the textbook, the examination,
etc. Effective teachers will ensure competence in English or at least enthusiasm for English in
their students. It is the utmost duty of society and the government to produce quality teachers
of English and encourage them to enable students to master English for bringing about a
social transformation in India.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF ENGLISH

In ELT, three kinds of English are noticeable in India as it is elsewhere: General English
in schools, and arts and science colleges; Technical English in engineering and polytechnic
colleges; and Business English in commerce and management colleges. These different kinds
of English are supposed to quicken the process of mastering English for use in a particular
field. But the foundation of English is the same in all kinds of English. Except for some
differences in vocabulary and sentence structures, English is the same in all of them. This is
an artificial divide which has not yielded good results.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Practices of English Language Teaching in Postcolonial India 177
General English in Schools

General English is the most popular form of English offered in schools from first
standard to twelfth standard. It usually has one or two textbooks and a workbook for each
standard. In the case of State Boards, there is a common textbook and a supplementary reader.
As far as the Central Board is concerned, a wide variety of textbooks based on the syllabus of
National Council of Education, Research and Training (NCERT) are available from different
publishers. It is left to the school authorities to recommend any book they prefer. Whether the
schools follow the State or Central board, the school management plays a vital role in
providing learning opportunities for students.
What happens in the classroom follows a common pattern. The prescribed book is the
Holy Bible for both teachers and students. Teachers have plans to complete the portions on a
three quarters basis during a year. As for the lessons, which usually consist of poetry, prose,
drama, newspaper articles, stories – some original and some adapted versions – teachers teach
them and prepare the students for a series of tests and then the quarterly, half-yearly and
finally the annual examination. Besides the textbook, students have a class notebook, a test
notebook, and an essay writing notebook. Reading comprehension, short answers, long
answers – both in paragraph and essay form – spellings, synonyms, antonyms, homonyms,
verbs, adverbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections,
tenses, active voice and passive voice, transformation of sentences, infinitive, gerund, verbal
noun, converting texts into charts or charts into texts, etc., are the staple diet of every English
class from first to last.
As a result of the indifferent attitude to English at school level, three groups of students
come out of schools: extreme proficiency, medium proficiency and low proficiency students.
The first group of students from CBSE and urban schools has good knowledge of English.
They can speak and write in English well and they can pursue their education in English
anywhere. Similarly, the second group of students from State Board and urban matriculation
schools also manages to read, write and speak in English, although a chunk of students may
not have enough confidence in speaking. Though they study all their subjects through English
as the medium, they do not have the habit of using English for daily communicative purposes.
In contrast, the third group of students from State Board government semi-urban and rural
schools rarely gets a chance to master English. Whatever the school, or whoever the teacher,
those students who are determined to learn English succeed in their efforts. Dr A. P. J. Abdul
Kalam, the 11
th
President of India, is a good example of a student who overcame all
difficulties, including English language barrier to rise in life, not only in his profession but
also in public life. Other students suffer but their desire to learn English burns bright. If they
fail in life, they take all efforts to ensure that their own children learn English.

General English in Arts, Commerce, and Science Colleges

At the college level, General English is taught to students of arts, science and even some
commerce students. In South India, especially in Tamilnadu, English is offered over a period
of two years in four semesters for 400 hundred marks in most undergraduate courses. Well-
known pieces from anthologies of Prose, Poetry, Short Story, and One Act Plays are
commonly found in these courses. They are accompanied by a number of linguistic and
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel 178
rhetorical written exercises for students to carry out in the class as a preparation for their end-
of-semester examinations. Although some kind of reading activity may be there in the class,
the class work is generally focused on examination preparation. These are usually familiar to
students as they have done them in their schools. Some teaching and learning of English may
take place in the class but the general trend among students is to use guide books for passing
the examination. The fact that they have to learn English for using them in real life situations
for communication does not enter their minds until they start searching for jobs.

Technical English in Engineering Colleges

When the concept of English for specific purposes (ESP) reached the Indian shores in the
early 1980‘s, A J Herbert‘s The Structure of Technical English, which was published in 1965,
was used as a textbook. In course of time, however, various textbooks have come into the
market in response to the local needs and also to the general climate of Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) that was sweeping across the country. What happened then was a
mix of both ESP and CLT as can be seen in textbooks like English Communication (1978)
from Technical Teachers Training Institute, Chennai, and English for Engineers and
Technologists (1990) from Anna University, published by Oxford University Press, Madras,
and Orient Longman, Madras, respectively. However, in practice, Technical English has
gradually watered down to General English as can be seen in recent English textbooks for
engineering students. With the pressure from industries pitching English as a component of
major employability skills, English has taken a different shape known as Business English,
although business English is more suitable for the syllabus of Commerce and Management
courses. This unsatisfactory situation has led to the assessment of the impact of ESP in India
through conferences and seminars.

Business English

Teaching of Business English in India is very popular. It was felt that those students who
studied Commerce and Management courses would enter business-related fields, so they
required a different kind of training in English which is ideally business English. This kind of
business English concentrates on both oral and written communication. However, written
communication receives more attention than oral communication. Different kinds of letter
writing and document preparation are given importance. Further, conducting examination for
this course is easy and has some kind of evidence for the rationale behind awarding marks to
answer scripts. Oral communication focuses on face-to-face personal meetings and group
meetings as well as telephone conversations. Oral tests are generally avoided. Instead written
tests on oral communication are given. Perhaps, this is one of the major reasons for poor
speaking ability of students coming out of colleges.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Practices of English Language Teaching in Postcolonial India 179
Call Centre English

Gupta and Mehra (2006) consider workplace communication skills and discuss a specific
form of Business English in the context of call centre operations in India. Although India is
touted as a land of English speaking environment, two managers from the US were not
impressed with the quality of English spoken in India. As a result of a specific requirement of
call centres, professionals were selected and then trained by language trainers. It is at this
juncture, that is, immediately after the liberalisation of Indian economy in 1991, that a special
breed of language trainers came into existence. Until then, English requirements were taken
care of by English teachers inside or outside the class. Some coaching centres were also
supplementing the requirement. However, that was not adequate to meet the global standards
of communication across countries. Accent training became a focal point. It meant that
students had to reduce the native accent from various languages of India. Another issue was
appropriate language. What students learn in English classrooms is bookish English for
examinations. In addition to grammatical competence, students were required to develop
some amount of strategic competence to communicate well in social and professional
contexts. Further, certain basic principles of communication like understanding from another
person‘s point of view, clarity, relevance, etc. were woefully missing from the classroom
teaching of English. Therefore, Gupta and Mehra (2006) argued for a functional language
which would help students to communicate in working environments, especially in a call
centre.

REMEDIAL COURSES

A course meant to address the problems in a particular subject is called a remedial course.
After completing this course, students are expected to catch up with the rest of the students
and become like other students in their ability to understand and use their knowledge at a
particular level. In the case of English at the tertiary level, such remedial courses are run for
first year college students when they begin their study. Students are identified for this purpose
through a written test or selected based on their English marks in their higher secondary class
or selected students based upon own decision to enrol in these courses if they think they need
extra help. The selection process varies from college to college. Depending on the number of
students, one or many teachers are assigned the task of remedial teaching. Sometimes there
may be a common course material or each teacher may individually choose to do anything
suitable for a particular group of students. Usually some basic concepts of grammar, spelling,
vocabulary, pronunciation, tense, sentence structures, certain set phrases and expressions,
which are normally expected to be known are taught and tested. These courses are conducted
in the evenings after class hours or on weekends. Nowadays these are extended to include
some postgraduate students also.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel 180
PARALLEL INSTITUTES

English is taught not only in mainstream schools and colleges but also in private coaching
centres in every nook and corner of the country. These centres range from one-man, one-
room, and a black board to international organisations such as the British Council and the US
Consulate with native speakers, air-conditioned classrooms, multimedia facilities, attractive
course materials and so on. In South India, Veta Academy, for one, is a good example of
indigenous effort to impart the benefits of learning English to students, housewives, office-
goers, etc. It started as a small tuition centre but then gradually expanded to the whole of
Tamilnadu and then to other parts of the country. It also offers spoken English through
distance mode and television channels. It has emerged as a more popular institute of English
among the public than the former Central Institute of English, and the present EFLU in
Hyderabad.

SPOKEN ENGLISH CENTRES

Spoken English courses are quite popular throughout India. Apart from the metropolitan
cities and district head quarters, even small towns have coaching centres for Spoken English.
The strangest thing that is happening is that even people, who do not know English set up
shops, employ some person to teach English grammar and basic conversation skills, which
may not have anything to do with actual conversations in English. Some fashionable institutes
may have a few computers, an LCD projector and a video camera to show films like My Fair
Lady or Mind Your Language sitcom shows, and then have some activities in spoken English.
At times some video recording may be done to play back an individual performance for
discussion with a view to improving on certain aspects of body language and pronunciation.
Those students who are able to get rid of their fear of standing in front of an audience and
speaking in English pick up the language but the rest continue to suffer from an inferiority
complex.

COMPUTERS AND SPOKEN ENGLISH CENTRES

In India, computer literacy and English language skill go together for the purpose of
getting jobs in both private and government sectors or establishing small shops for typing and
printing jobs. Therefore, a few computer centres also run spoken English courses on their own
with their staff or use some free or proprietary materials, which include both books and
software materials for providing resources for learning English.

PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT AND SPOKEN ENGLISH CENTRES

Yet another development in English language teaching is the combination of personality
development and learning of English. A few enterprising individuals have started institutes
for personality development of students with a focus on memory techniques, brain
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Practices of English Language Teaching in Postcolonial India 181
development, attention to studies, and general grooming. This kind of institute is very useful
for students from rural and socially and economically weaker sections of the society.

THREE AVATARS OF ENGLISH

In contemporary postcolonial India, English has taken three avatars, namely
communication skills, soft skills, and employability skills. Every student from every school
and college needs these skills for employability, for education today has come to mean
employment. Up until higher secondary education students are trained in English, then, when
they come to the first year of their college, communication skills receive attention. When they
go to the second or third year, it is soft skills, of grooming of students more in line with
personality development, which draws attention. When they go to the third year, they get
training in employability skills with a specific focus on résumé writing, group discussion and
interview skills. The division of avatars is arbitrary, which is used for the purpose of different
emphases that English gets in different educational institutions, depending on their
compulsion to find placement for their students. Of course, the compulsion and social
expectation is very high in the case of engineering colleges, compared to arts and science
colleges. Whatever the institution may be, it is the English teacher who is called upon to
achieve this target.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the practice of teaching English in postcolonial India is a complex
commercial enterprise in which stakeholders from different walks of life play their roles for
multiple reasons. The one predominant characteristic of this practice is the abundant faith that
the people of India have in the ability of the English language to elevate them to a higher
level of social life with a job and a better lifestyle. The fact that a temple has been constructed
for the English goddess in the Hindi heartland of Uttar Pradesh is a clear evidence of their
belief in the emancipatory role of English. Although political issues continue to bog down
English in the quagmire of linguistic sensationalism, English has emerged as a clear choice
for the common people who hope to achieve social mobility.

REFERENCES

Bloom, H. (1987). ‗Harold Bloom.‘ In I. Salusinszky (Ed.), Criticism in society (pp. 45-72).
New York: Routledge.
Eliot, T. S. (1921). The sacred wood: Essays on poetry and criticism. New York: Alfred A
Knopf.
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Anna University, (1990). English for
engineers and technologists. 2 Vols. Madras: Orient Longman.
Dhanavel, S. P. (2012). English language teaching in India: The shifting paradigms. New
Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Senkamalam Periyasamy Dhanavel 182
Gupta, R., & Mehra, P. (2006). Speaking versus communicating in business English.
Language in India, 6(3), 1-10.
Herbert, A. J. (1965). The structure of technical English. London: Longman.
Mohanty, S. (2009). Digital language labs with CALL facilities in India: Problems and
possibilities. Reflections on Language Teaching, 1, 65-72.
Nair, R. B. (2012). Bringing English into the 21
st
century: A view from India. International
Journal of Language, Translation, and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 103-122.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Syal, P. (2012). Interview of M. L. Tickoo. Language and Language Teaching, 1(1), 60-65.
Technical Teachers Training Institute. (1978). English communication. Madras: Oxford
University Press.
Tickoo, M. L. (2012). Indian ELT at sixty plus: An essay in understanding. Teacher Plus
(May-June).

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 17

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF CURRENT PRACTICES
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN SINGAPORE

Chitra Shegar
National Institute of Education, Singapore

ABSTRACT

Singapore‘s consistently noteworthy performance in international literacy tests such
as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) demonstrates that it has
a comprehensive English Language Curriculum infused with robust pedagogical practices.
However, insights gained from classroom observations and investigations show that there
is scope for improvement in several aspects of language pedagogy pertaining to
curriculum design as well as language teaching practices. There are also discrepancies
between the articulated English Language Curriculum and enacted pedagogy. In view of
this, this chapter aims to shed light on some of these discrepancies as well as language
teaching practices that potentially undermine Singaporean students‘ ability to further
enhance their language proficiency. The final part of the paper concludes with
suggestions for improvement of current language teaching practices in Singapore.

Keywords: Language teaching, current practices, Singapore, evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Singapore is a multicultural society comprising 74.3% Chinese, 13.3% Malays, 9.1%
Indians and 3.3% Others (Singapore Department of Statistics, Population Trends 2014).
When Singapore attained self-rule from Britain in 1959, 4 languages were selected, namely
English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil, and given the status of ‗official languages‘. English,
selected for economic reasons, served as a ‗working language‘ while the other three official
languages were selected for political reasons to give representation to the three distinct major
ethnic groups (Cheah, 2002, p. 66) in a multilingual city state.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Chitra Shegar 184
In 1966, the government adopted a bilingual education policy (Dixon, 2005, p. 26) to
ensure that both the learning of the English language and the mother tongue firmly anchored
in institutionalised schooling. Under the bilingual policy, all primary and secondary students
are required to study English as the first language even though the language is not native to
the country state or the predominant home language for the majority of students (Dixon, 2005,
p. 25). In addition, they are required to offer a mother tongue (i.e., Mandarin, Malay or Tamil)
as a second language. The mother tongue selected by individuals should be as close as
possible a reflection of the father‘s ethnic heritage, but it need not be in alignment with the
language spoken at home.
The aim of the bilingual education policy is to nurture Singaporeans into bi-literates who
are proficient in English and their mother tongue, be it Mandarin, Tamil or Malay. The two
languages have distinct roles to play. The English language serves a variety of functions. In
the local context of the country, it is a language utilised for inter-ethnic communication (Lee,
2000) among the various cultural and ethnic groups. But at a global level, it serves not only as
an international language facilitating communication, but the language for achieving success
and excellence in a knowledge-based economy driven by advancements in science and
technology. Mother tongue was promoted to counter the western influences that came with
learning English. Requiring Singaporeans to learn their mother tongue also safeguarded their
identity and prevented cultural erosion.
The bilingual policy which required the learning of English and a second language in
reality led to the learning of one or both languages which were not spoken at home. Since
these languages were proclaimed as official languages for economic and political reasons
with little consideration of whether they were home languages, the foundation of these
languages were not robust. Therefore, The Ministry of Education in Singapore became
responsible for fostering its effective acquisition through institutionalised learning.

OBJECTIVES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SYLLABUS
AND TEACHING APPROACHES

The English language syllabus produced by the Ministry of Education (Singapore) is the
main document that describes English language teaching in Singapore. According to the
English Language Syllabus 2010, the objective of ELT upon pupils‘ completion of
Secondary education is as follows.
Pupils should be able to:

‘Listen, read and view critically and with accuracy, understanding and appreciation a
wide range of literary and informational/ functional texts from print and non-print sources‘
‘Speak, write and represent in internationally acceptable English (Standard English) that
is grammatical, fluent, mutually intelligible and appropriate for different purposes, audiences,
contexts and cultures.‘
‘Understand and use internationally acceptable English (Standard English) grammar
and vocabulary accurately and appropriately as well as understand how speakers/ writers put
words together and use language to communicate meaning and achieve impact.‘
(English Language Syllabus, 2010, p. 121)
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

A Critical Evaluation of Current Practices of English Language … 185
To achieve the above objectives, teachers are required to use a combination of first and
second language teaching methods (The English language Syllabus, 2010, p. 8). Second
language teaching methods, which involve explicit language instruction, are expected to
develop students a strong foundation in grammar, vocabulary and language skills. First
language methods with its emphasis on rich language and a holistic approach to language
learning can provide a linguistic environment where the strong foundation skills in language,
grammar and vocabulary can be furthered developed through use of the language.
In addition to the above methods, according to the English Language Syllabus (2010),
teachers are also to be guided by the Six Principles of EL teaching and learning namely,
contextualisation, learner-centredness, learning-focused interaction, integration, process
orientation and spiral progression. Contextualised language teaching entails that teachers
teach linguistic items such as grammar, vocabulary, etc. not in isolation or in a random
fashion but in a systematic fashion in alignment with a text-type or thematic focus. In
designing the instructional activities, teachers need to keep in focus the learning outcomes
and take an integrative scaffolded process approach to teaching so that there is gradual
transfer of skills to the students. To cater to the needs of students with differing abilities,
teachers are required to carry out differentiated instruction informed by pupil diagnostic
assessment information. In addition, spiral progression is advocated in teaching linguistic
items and skills to ensure effective learning through regular revisits and reinforcement.
In addition to the above guiding principles, teachers are required to employ teaching
processes known as ACoLADE which is an abbreviation for ‗raising awareness‘, ‗structuring
consolidation‘ ‗facilitating assessment for learning‘ ‗enabling application‘, ‗guiding
discovery‘ and ‗instructing explicitly‘ in developing their instructional programmes and
activities.

SINGAPORE STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN PISA AND PIRLS

The syllabus document described above conveys the investment that the MOE has made
to ensure the effectiveness of English language instruction. Its efforts have certainly not been
in vain as demonstrated by the results obtained by the students in internationally reputable
exams which are described below.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) carries out a
Programme for International Assessment (PISA) annually with the aim of examining and
comparing how well education systems around the world are equipping their students with
essential skills that would assist them in participating and excelling in modern societies. The
assessment is conducted on 15 year olds in the areas of Science, Mathematics and Reading. In
Singapore a total of 5369 representatives of 15 years olds in the population participated in
PISA 2012. These students were randomly selected from a variety of public and private
schools. Their performance in reading which measures the students‘ ability to ‗construct,
extend and reflect on the meaning of what they have read across a wide range of continuous
and non-continuous texts‘ (PISA Assessment and Analytic Framework, 2003) showed that
Singaporean students ranked third in reading skills assessment obtaining a score of 542 on a
1000 point scale. The OECD average score was 496 (OECD, 2013).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Chitra Shegar 186
The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is an international
literacy test that is conducted every five years on grade four students aged 9 years. The test
provides information on students’ performance in reading achievement as well as PIRLS
international benchmarks (Mullis, Martin, Foy & Drucker, 2012). In PIRLS reading
assessment students are rated as having ‗advanced‘ ‗high‘ ‗intermediate‘ ‗low‘, and ‗did not
meet benchmarks‘. When students are categorised as ‗low‘ in the reading assessment, it
indicates that they are able to locate and retrieve explicitly stated facts in a given texts. A
student, who scores ‗advance‘ however, is able to ‗integrate ideas and evidence across a text‘
and ‗distinguish and interpret complex information from different parts of a text‘.
Overall, Singapore has been improving in its PIRLS reading achievement scores since
2001 when the score obtained was 528. This score increased to 558 in 2006 to 567 in 2011.
The results obtained in 2011 also indicate that 24% of its students reached advanced internal
benchmark, which was the highest among the participating countries, 38% scored a high level
of proficiency in reading but 38% of the students were in the low or intermediate levels of
proficiency.
Apart from the above results, other significant results such as the Primary School Leaving
Examination (PSLE), the General Certificate of English O level and A level English results
also bear testimony to the high levels of English language proficiency attained by the
students.
In the 2013 PSLE results, above 95% of students passed their English Language exams
scoring between grades A*- C. As far as the G.C.E O level exams are concerned, the number
of students who have passed English Language have increased over a 10 year period. In 2003,
84% passed English but this rose to 88% in 2012. In the G.C.E. ‗A‘ Level exams, the
percentage of students who passed General Paper or Knowledge of Inquiry increased from
87% in 2003 to 91% in 2012.
The above results clearly indicate that Singapore is performing well in the instruction of
the English language. However, it appears that there is still scope for further improvement.
Snapshots taken from the English language classroom, when critically examined, conveys the
loopholes as discussed in the section that follows.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHING IN SINGAPORE

The Conflicting Roles of English in Singapore and Its Impact on Language
Proficiency Development

Though the government had the bilingual education policy as the visible language
planning policy so that Singaporeans would be proficient in both English and their mother
tongue, ‗invisible language planning‘ (Pakir, 1994, 2003) was also at work, driven by forces
of social interaction, personal progress and ethnic identity. This resulted in the evolution and
use of two different varieties of English in Singapore that is Standard English and Singlish, a
localised form of Singapore English. Since language acquisition thrives with functional
usage, there was an increased use of Singlish. Though the government as well as the Ministry
of Education (MOE) do not endorse the use of Singlish, especially in educational settings,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

A Critical Evaluation of Current Practices of English Language … 187
(Silver, Hu, & Masakazu, 2002, p. 136), there is continued use of this register for a variety of
reasons. A key reason is that it is a marker of Singaporean identity (Sng, 1998). Singlish also
flourished because parents started communicating with their children in English even if they
were not fully proficient in it as they saw it as the key to future success of their children. A
further impetus for the rise of Singlish was the change in English Language Syllabus from
1985 to 1991 where Active Communicative Teaching was adopted to encourage pupil
participation and interaction during lessons. Since a large number of Singapore students have
Singlish in their speech repertoire, Singlish is often used for interaction during lessons which
accounts for its robust presence in the classroom (Rugdy, 2008). Given that languages are
acquired not only through explicit instruction but also implicitly (Long & Robinson, 1998),
the strong presence of Singlish is detrimental rather than conducive to the development of
Standard English and accounts for why even educated individuals are unable to use Standard
English in formal settings as illustrated in the excerpt below:
Context of interaction:
In the excerpt below, the teacher having read a story book, is discussing with the
students, how they should be dealing with problems that they encounter.

Student When I don‘t know how to do ah, I write anyhow. Then I get correct.
Teacher So Don, what are you going to do with your problem now? Is Don going to
sit there cry or think of ways?
Student Sit there and cry.
Teacher Okay, what I want you all to do is. This is such a small problem. Just
because you are not happy you start to cry ah. Is that the way when you
grow up.
Students No
Teacher Can I, like Mrs. Leong, if today, somebody scold me, so I sit there in the
staff room and cry is it?

Though the teacher depicted in the above transcript is trained to teach English, the
inadvertent intrusion of Singlish in the course of her story book discussion is evident. The
utterances of the students also show that Singlish is also pervasive in their speech repertoire
despite the formal educational setting.
It can be argued that the pervasiveness of Singlish among Singaporeans serving as a
detriment to the acquisition of Standard English has come about because of the conflicting
roles that English has been positioned to play in the country. One the one hand, English has
been promoted to give Singaporeans a headstart in the knowledge-based economy. On the
other hand, it is meant to be an identity marker as well as a language that ‗facilitates bonding
among the different ethnic and cultural groups‘ (English Language Syllabus, 2010). These
conflicting roles placed on English are likely to lead to a tug of war between the use of the
Standard versus Singlish. It is also to be expected that the social agenda is likely to prevail
over the educational or political agenda as language is inherently social in nature and
function.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Chitra Shegar 188
The Discrepancy between the Articulated and Enacted Curriculum

According to the English Language Syllabus 2010, teachers are required to use a
combination of first as well as second language methods in classroom language instruction.
Given the existence of Singlish and that English is not the native tongue of Singaporeans, the
concurrent use of first and second language teaching methods is a sensible approach to take.
But as it is played out in the curriculum, the emphasis appears to be second language methods
with a predominant reliance on worksheets. Though extensive reading , a first language
instructional method, is incorporated into the syllabus and is evidently present in schools in
the form of Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR) or Sustained Silent Reading
(SSR) programmes, its implementation has neither been rigorous nor effective (Shegar, 2007,
Wolf & Bokhurst-Heng, 2006). A key reason for its failure is that such programmes are
conducted as ‗optional‘ extras conducted outside the curriculum and not an integral part of the
English language curriculum (Yu, 1983). The extensive reading programme is also
unsuccessful because students are not taking to reading for pleasure but read school related
texts to perform well in school exams (Bokst-Heng & Pereira, 2008; Majid & Tan, 2007).
Another first language method that is adopted for language instruction in Singapore
schools is a holistic approach to language teaching. This requires that the various linguistic
skills of speaking , reading, listening, writing, viewing and representing as outlined in the
syllabus are to be taught in an integrative manner and not as ‗products‘ to be disseminated but
as ‗processes‘ to be acquired. It also stipulated in the syllabus that that these linguistic skills
are to be instructed in a scaffolded manner. According to Gibbons (2002, p. 10), scaffolding
refers to ‗a special kind of help that assists learners to move toward new skills, concepts or
levels of understanding‘ and as ‗is a temporary assistance by which a teacher helps a learner
know how to do something so that the learner will later be able to complete a similar task
alone‘. To achieve this teachers need to design their skills instruction ‗as a sequence of
increasingly difficult tasks in which each constitutes a scaffold for the next‘ (Cazden, 2001)
until the outcome is achieved. In such lessons planning at the level of both macro-scaffolds
and micro-scaffolds (Hammond, 2001) should be present and teachers need to be adept at
using both hard and soft scaffolds (Saye & Brush, 2002). However, the itemisation of the
various skills into components in the English language syllabus as well as the number of
linguistic components to be instructed in each grade level (English Language Syllabus, 2010),
exacerbated by time constraint lends itself to language instruction that is teacher dominated
(Vaish & Shegar, 2009) piece meal rather than integrative and product rather than process
oriented (Sam, Chegar, & Teng, 2005). Scaffolded instruction is present but in a limited form
where hard scaffolds are incorporated but not soft or spontaneous scaffolds (Vaish & Shegar,
2009). This hampers students‘ progress towards fluent use of the standard form in extended
interaction.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

A Critical Evaluation of Current Practices of English Language … 189
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCED ENGLISH LANGUAGE
INSTRUCTION IN SINGAPORE

The promotion of English both as a language for economic advancement as well as an
identity marker that keeps Singaporeans distinct in the English speaking world, has led to the
evolution and use of two different varieties of English in Singapore: Standard English and
Singlish. However, policy planners and educators have not been adequately convincing about
the need for the use of the two varieties in distinct domains. Educators have also not been
vigilant in their gatekeeping so that the use of only Standard English is in the formal
educational setting of the language classroom. If educators encourage, emphasise and enforce
the use of Standard English, and stop condoning the use of Singlish especially in classroom
interactions, the language proficiency of students is likely to get even better.
To ensure that students are proficient in both the receptive and productive skills of the
English language as proposed in the syllabus, a reformulation of the syllabus is required. The
reformulated document clearly needs to illustrate how language is to be taught in a skill-based,
in integrative and scaffolded manner. Since the acquisition of language is a process rather
than a product to be disseminated, the time required to nurture linguistic skills has also to be
factored into the syllabus.
Given that English enjoys the status of First Language in Singapore, but the language is
not native to the state, it is necessary that first language methods such as extensive reading
have primacy over second language teaching methods. Though the syllabus attempts to foster
this by using texts as the macro structure within which all the micro linguistic elements are
taught, it appears that this is not sufficient, as texts are often limited and do not offer much
access to extended discourse in Standard English. To redress this, what is required is a strong
language arts curriculum that would form the core of the English Language curriculum.
Extensive reading also needs to be instituted as an integral part of the language curriculum
where students are encouraged and nurtured to be avid readers through good children‘s
literature. This is likely to increase the exposure of students to Standard English so that its
acquisition can be enhanced with ease.

REFERENCES

Bokst-Heng, W., & Pereira, D. (2008). Non-at-risk adolescents‘ attitudes towards reading in a
Singapore secondary school. Journal of Research in Reading, 3(3), 285-301.
Cheah, Y. M. (2002). English language teaching in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 22(2), 65-80.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Dixon, Q. L. (2005). Bilingual education policy in Singapore: An analysis of its sociohistorical
roots and current academic outcomes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 8(1), 25-47.
Gibbons, P. (1998). Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language.
Language and Education, 12(2), 99–118.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Chitra Shegar 190
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language
learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth: Heineman.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a
content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273.
Hammond, J. (Ed.). (2001). Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy
education. Australia: PETA.
Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world to first: The Singapore story 1965-2000. New York:
Harper Collins.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Majid, S., & Tan, V. (2007). Understanding the reading habits of children in Singapore.
Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences, 45(2), 187-198.
Ministry of Education. (2008). English language syllabus 2010 primary & secondary.
Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/english-language-and-
literature/files/english primary-secondary-express-normal-academic
Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Press release 10-year trend of educational performance 2002-
2013. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/ media/press/files/2013/11/chart-c3-c5-10-
year-trend-of-educational-performance
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international
results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,
Boston College.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 Results.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa
Pakir, A. (1994). Education and invisible language planning: The case of English in
Singapore. In T. Kandiah & K. Kwan-Terry (Eds.), English language planning: A
Southeast Asian contribution (pp. 158–181). Singapore: Centre for Advanced Studies
and Times Academic Press.
Pakir, A. (2003). Language and education: Singapore. In J. Bourne & E. Reid (Eds.), World
yearbook of education: Language education (pp. 267–279). London, UK: Kogan Page
Publisher.
PISA 2012 results. (2013) Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/news/
datablog/2013/dec/03/pisa-results-country-best-reading-maths-science
PISA assessment and analytical framework. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.
com/news/datablog/2013/dec/03/pisa-results-country-best-reading-maths-science
Sam, C., Shegar, C., & Teng, P. H. (2005). English language pedagogical practice:
Preliminary description of Singaporean English language classrooms. (CRPP Technical
Paper, Unpublished report.) Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice,
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues
in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 77–96.
Shegar, C. (2009). Technical report: School-based reading innovation project. CRP CS18/05.
Silver, R., Hu, G., & Masakazu, L. (2002). English language education in China, Japan and
Singapore. Springer.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

A Critical Evaluation of Current Practices of English Language … 191
Singapore Department of Statistics. (2014). Population trends. Retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/population_and_popula
tion_structure/population2014
Sng, F. (1998, November 16). Let‘s speak up for Singlish. The Straits Times, p. 44.
Vaish, V., & Shegar, C. (2009). Asian pedagogy: Scaffolding in a Singaporean English
classroom. In Silver, R., Goh, C., & Alsagoff, L. (Eds.), Acquisition and development in
new English contexts: Evidence from Singapore (pp. 75-90). London: Continuum.
Wolf, J., & Bokst-Heng, W. (2009). Independent variables that impact literacy and
reading habits. Retrieved from http://www.nie.edu.sg/ research-projects/independent-
variables-impact-literacy-and-reading-habits
Yu, V. (1993). Extensive reading programs – How they best benefit the teaching and
Learning of English. TESL Reporter, 26(1), 1-9.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 18

TOWARDS A BREAKTHROUGH
IN THE DEADLOCKED ENGLISH LANGUAGE
EDUCATION IN JAPAN

Hiroshi Hasegawa
Curtin University, Australia

ABSTRACT

Influenced by current global social climate, the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) in Japan is encouraging many educational
institutions in both the public and private sectors to introduce English as the predominant
foreign language in Japan. As a policy maker, the Japanese government‘s actions and the
implications on the education system, however, have met with public criticism. The main
criticism is that the policy reform has been driven largely by an intermingling of social
and political factors rather than by the need to improve people‘s proficiency in English.
This chapter makes three prime suggestions, from a socio-political perspective rather than
a strategic one, for making the MEXT‘s initiatives more effective. (1) A shift in Japan‘s
current national policy towards English as a foreign language, (2) the creation of
opportunities to examine learners‘ oral and simultaneous communication abilities, and (3)
the reassessment of professional development for teachers especially in the area of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The aim of this chapter is to create a critical
awareness of the MEXT‘s English Education Reform Plan corresponding to
Globalization.

Keywords: English education reform, MEXT, language policy, oral and simultaneous
communication, Communicative Language Teaching

INTRODUCTION

Regardless of where you are in the world, it is more common than ever for people to
share and exchange information, products and even cultures via information technologies.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hiroshi Hasegawa 194
This phenomenon of borderless integration, is generally described by the term ‗globalisation‘.
This term has been adopted widely into Japanese vocabulary as ‗gurobaru-ka‘. It is directly
linked to the reformed English curriculum in Japan. Despite age and background, many
Japanese people are being influenced largely by this rhetoric, and are reconceptualising the
purpose of learning English, which could be simply to pass a written examination to more
practical reasons corresponding to globalisation. The discussion on the importance of English
as a medium of communication in Japan focuses on the need for drastic reform to the English
education policies. The upcoming 2020 Olympics in Tokyo has also assisted the current
emphasis on performance aimed at improving the English standards of Japanese nationals.
The current movement could be referred to as the greatest ever English (learning and
education) boom in Japan.
Because of the current global social climate, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT) is actively encouraging educational institutions in both the
public and private sectors to introduce English as a predominant foreign language in Japan.
They are also making significant changes in the English curriculum (Hosoki, 2011). MEXT
has implemented drastic reform to its English education policy, aimed at enhancing ‗…
English education substantially throughout elementary to lower/secondary school upon
strengthening English education in elementary school in addition to further advancing English
education in lower/upper secondary school‘ (MEXT, n. d.). This action by MEXT has
motivated many educational institutions to not only meet the mandatory requirements but also
add a few more voluntarily. Some primary schools have had mandatory English lessons since
2011 for students in the 5
th
and 6
th
grades, prior to the students‘ entrance into junior high and
senior high schools, where most of them introduce English as a foreign language subject. In
the higher education sector, academically reputable national universities, such as Tokyo and
Kyoto Universities, have decided to increase the numbers of lectures conducted solely in
English as the medium of instruction (‗Kyoudai, eigo,‘ 2013). At Keiko University, one of the
most prestigious private universities in Japan, for example, an entire course in the Faculty of
Environment and Information Studies has been offered in English since 2011. Furthermore,
the Faculty of Economics will follow this lead in 2016 (‗Keiodai keizaigakubu,‘ 2014). These
kinds of initiative involving English as a primary medium for communication is a prelude for
extending the use of English beyond the formal education system into the public/private and
group/personal sectors. Major Japanese companies, such as Nissan, Sharp, Rakuten, and
UNIQLO are now encouraging employees to increase their fluency in English and to be able
to use it as the official language in their work places (Kurokawa, 2013).
The Japanese government‘s actions and their subsequent implications on the education
system, however, have met with public criticism. The main reason for this is that the English
language education policy reform has been driven largely not by the need to improve people‘s
proficiency in English but by an intermingling of social and political factors such as those
associated with Japan‘s international relations and its role in the globalised society
(Seargeant, 2008). This chapter makes three prime suggestions, primarily from a socio-
political rather than a strategic perspective, for making the MEXT‘s initiatives more effective.
The first is the shift in Japan‘s current national education policy towards English as a foreign
language. This is based on the fact that, in theory, Japanese people believe that it is vitally
important to learn English, while in reality, a majority of them use English in only an
extremely limited way. The second is the creation of opportunities to assess learners‘ oral and
simultaneous communication skills. Targeting students, the MEXT should re-evaluate what is
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Towards a Breakthrough in the Deadlocked English Language Education … 195
missing currently in English classes with regard to evaluating their communicative abilities,
rather than focusing on practices such as newly devised methodologies and/or effective
approaches. The third is the reassessment of professional development for teachers in the area
of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). This is needed because the MEXT‘s
theoretical argument does not necessarily reflect teachers‘ practical communication skills in
English, even though they are indispensable to CLT and are being promoted in the current
English teaching environment. Most teachers are not currently sufficiently trained to meet
with the expectations of the MEXT‘s reforms. There are broad gaps between what is expected
of teachers and their actual teaching in practice. The aim of this chapter is to create a critical
awareness of the MEXT‘s English Education Reform Plan corresponding to Globalization.

SHIFT IN JAPAN’S CURRENT POLICY TOWARDS FOREIGN
LANGUAGE EDUCATION

English education has been introduced systematically in Japan since 1854, i.e., the same
year the Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed with the United States. After going through
various stages of transformation, English was established as one of the mainstream school
subjects in Japan during the Meiji Era (1868-1911) (Hosoki, 2011). English has been
positioned in schools as a subject to study for written examination purposes since then, but
not as a communication tool (Seargeant, 2009). This has led to the Hosoki‘s (2011) view that,
‗Communicative English skills were not necessarily the means to achieve success in Japanese
society‘ (p. 208), which, in fact, still prevails widely. It is natural for people to acknowledge
that the fundamental aim of learning (not mastering) English should be for students to obtain
basic and sufficient academic knowledge appropriate to their age group and needs. This can
be said for other school subjects such as mathematics and science; learning these does not
mean that all students have to obtain the level of expert knowledge needed to be professional
mathematicians and scientists. If this view point is to be accepted, the MEXT‘s theory, which
proposes that Japan needs English to cope in the age of globalisation, is unrealistic since it
disregards the fact that the majority of people in Japan do not require (or even see the need
for) English as a communication tool during their daily activities (Kubota & McKay, 2009).
Furthermore, when and if required, they can seek assistance from others (such as
professionals).
Numerous discussions have been centred around the assumption that English education is
important, but the extent of this importance has not yet been determined in a clear and
rigorous way. Japanese people‘s current use of English has not yet been scrutinised, and has
not been addressed in any official documents produced or published by MEXT. This lack of a
persuasive national policy about English could be the key reason why there is still an unclear
and unconvincing national perspective on how Japanese people‘s English use should/could
develop. When considering the development of a realistic national policy, it is important to
look at the future role of English in Japan. Currently in Japan, English is considered as one of
many foreign languages. The possibility of it becoming an official language for Japan was
considered by the Japanese government in 2000 (Cabinet Public Relations Office, 2000), but
it was never implemented because of strong criticism (Iino, 2000 & 2002; Hashimoto, 2002,
as cited in Seargeant, 2008).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hiroshi Hasegawa 196
In explaining the role of English in different countries, Kachru (1992) described a model
consisting of three concentric circles; (1) the Inner Circle, (2) the Outer Circle, and (3) the
Expanding Circle. Circle (1) includes countries such as the United States, the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, in which English is used as the first/primary
language. Circle (2) incorporates countries using English as their official language, such as
India, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Singapore. Circle (3) consists of countries in which
there is no history of English having been used as the official language but where it is
sometimes employed as a medium of communication. These countries include Japan, South
Korea, China, Russia and most European countries. Even so, the Japanese government seems
to be encouraging Japanese students to become more communicatively fluent users of
English, as if Japan expects to be in Circle (2). Circle (2) consists of countries which have
more opportunities for people to encounter English in their daily lives. If the English
curriculum standardised by MEXT is indeed based on an expectation that future Japanese
students should be achieving at the same level as their counterparts in the Outer Circle
countries, this expectation must be declared more openly, prior to any further curriculum
shifts or policy changes. Unless the goal is clearly stated, there seems to be little sense in the
MEXT‘s current attempts to establish achievement goals for students that are beyond the
English requirements of the majority of Japanese people.
While the promotion of students‘ communicative competence has often been put forward
in discussions about English education in Japan, the MEXT fails to consider the theory that a
communicative skill-based language syllabus should be aimed at students who are already
practising communicative skills (Breen & Candlin, 1980, as cited in Seargeant, 2008). If the
target for Japan is to move into the second circle of the English language model, then it is
necessary to establish the appropriate environment for students to do so before developing a
communicative language syllabus for English education in Japan. In light of Japan‘s current
level of official use of English, this kind of environment does not exist; the grammar-
translation method still prevails in Japan. Therefore, transparency of this political stance may
lead to clarification of the Japanese people‘s understanding about the role of English in
Japanese society, which in turn would enable MEXT to implement further reforms.
Consequently, this may influence people‘s attitudes towards English expressed in the mass-
media, and assist to accelerate opportunities for people to access English in Japan in their
daily lives, for example by broadcasting Japanese-original TV programmes in English or by
showing subtitles. On the other hand, if MEXT opts to take the stance of Japan remaining in
the third circle of the model, this should be stated explicitly, and there would be no need to
alter the current English curriculum.

OPPORTUNITIES TO EXAMINE LEARNERS’ ORAL
AND OTHER SIMULTANEOUS COMMUNICATION ABILITIES

Many people are doubtful about whether they can achieve their desired level of English
proficiency due to the currently insufficient English education curriculum and teaching
approach in Japan. To address this, MEXT has been attempting to establish a solid,
systemised teaching policy as part of the English education reform. MEXT has noted the
expected English learning outcomes as follows:
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Towards a Breakthrough in the Deadlocked English Language Education … 197
Enrich English education throughout each stage in elementary, lower/upper secondary
schools and improve students‘ English ability (aim to pass Grade 2 or above in the Test in
Practical English Proficiency, score over 57 in the TOEFL iBT test, etc.).
Examine [students‘] English abilities by utilizing external language exams and expand
the utilization of such exams [measuring] all four skills[,] for university entrance[,] [both] the
Test in Practical English Proficiency and TOEFL. (MEXT, n.d.)

Seeking evidence of students‘ achievements requires MEXT to investigate their English
abilities through appropriately designed assessment tasks. MEXT recommends that students
take two external examinations, the Test in Practical English Proficiency, also commonly
known as EIKEN in Japan, and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Due to
the fact that TOEFL is taken mostly by university students/graduates, EIKEN has become the
most popular English proficiency test in Japan. (According to Eiken Foundation of Japan
(n.d.-b), over two million people take the tests each year.) EIKEN consists of seven different
grades ranging from 5 (lowest) to 1 (highest), including two grades Pre-2 and Pre-1;
examinees are required to select one grade level (or more if they wish) and take the
appropriate test. Official test information indicates that the Grade 3 level of the EIKEN meets
the MEXT benchmark for junior high school graduates and Grades Pre-2 or 2 meet the
requirements for high school graduates (Eiken Foundation of Japan, n.d-a.). EIKEN appears
to be appropriate as a tool for assessing students‘ English proficiency, but it does have one
drawback. While MEXT initiatives (seem to) support the improvement of all four
macroscopic skills of communication (listening, speaking, reading and writing), not all
EIKEN grades involve an interview. For example, the EIKEN Tests Grades 4 and 5 do not
include interviews. Since these grades tests are the first tests most junior high school students
(or graduates) will take, the use of an interview in EIKEN Grades 4 and 5 seems to be a
natural consequence of MEXT‘s decision to focus on communication in English, and this
should be requested by MEXT to the Eiken Foundation of Japan (Nihon Eigo Kentei Kyokai
in Japanese). However, this positive consequence is disrupted by the links between the two
sectors. EIKEN was established and is run by the Eiken Foundation of Japan, which is a
public interest incorporated foundation, and is backed and supported by MEXT (Eiken
Foundation of Japan, n.d-a.). In other words, MEXT (or other ministries of the Japanese
government) are not able to get involved directly in determining the content of the EIKEN
system or in developing the strategic plans to enable students to become communicatively
competent English language users by the time they graduate from high school. As a result, all
MEXT can do is just to make recommendations that school students use EIKEN to measure
their English ability ‗… upon strengthening English education in elementary school in
addition to further advancing English education in lower/upper secondary school‘ (MEXT,
n.d.).
MEXT concentrates specifically on the reform of the English education system in
primary, junior high and senior high schools in Japan, focusing on the improvement of all
four macroscopic skills, listening, speaking, reading and writing. The EIKEN tests, being
external in nature, are not set up in conjunction with or officially by MEXT, and therefore
may not be reliable. Even though the four macroscopic skills can be assessed by the above-
mentioned tests (apart from the fact that EIKEN introduces interviews only from the level of
Grade 3 or higher), the assessment of students‘ listening and speaking skills has habitually
been neglected in most schools in Japan. There are a variety of contributing factors, such as
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hiroshi Hasegawa 198
Japanese English subject teachers‘ insufficient English proficiency/ability and the large
amount of time required to test each student individually. Most importantly, however,
students‘ (and examiners‘) lack of sufficient external motivation justifies the need for schools
to assess students‘ listening and speaking skills (e.g., a lack of an interview process in English
for entrance into senior high school, or from high school into university). The assessment of
students‘ achievement can be divided into two types: formative and summative. The
predominant assessment style in Japan is summative assessment which, in most cases, is a
written examination. Written English examinations focus on the integration of reading and
grammar due to the emphasis on them in the afore-mentioned entrance examinations (Iino,
2002), and these have commonly been the only type of assessment tool used in Japan.
Typically, schools in Japan do not conduct any internal (or simultaneous) conversation or oral
testing. Because students generally take the summative assessment very seriously, it would be
worthwhile to implement the mandatory use of listening and speaking (aural/oral)
examinations in order to encourage the improvement of their actual English communication
skills. These listening and speaking assessments are still manageable for MEXT and they
deserve more attention. In fact, the inclusion of compulsory listening and speaking
assessments for the summative assessment of English is required (in mid-term as well as end-
of-term examinations). When organising the interviews/examinations, it is essential to have
assessment criteria/rubrics available as well as a marking key, which is also issued to
students. Considering the gaps in the current English curriculum in Japan, it is crucial now to
implement consistent and cohesive strategies at each stage of the school term/year.

REASSESSING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
FOR TEACHERS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING (CLT)

The current Japanese education environment in Japan for English is not conducive to
developing English as a communication tool (Kubota & McKay, 2009). This is the case not
only for school students, but also for the local Japanese teachers of English. As part of
MEXT‘s strategies, however, English subject teachers in junior and senior high schools are
encouraged to show evidence and demonstrate their English capability by taking an external
examination. These examinations may include, ‗… passing Grade pre-1 in the Test in
Practical English Proficiency (EIKEN), scoring over 80 in the TOEFL iBT test or achieving
equivalent scores‘ (MEXT, n.d.). However, most teachers do not know how or do not have
access to support to maintain or improve their English skills, especially unsatisfactory
communicative English skills (Sato, 2002), so it is difficult to achieve this standard. This, in
turn, results in a low quality of English interactions with their students. In response to this
issue, MEXT highlights the need to nurture the English education of leaders and the need to
improve English teachers‘ teaching skills. However, the improvement of their English ability
and communication proficiency has not yet been addressed. Local English teachers in Japan
are professional teachers, yet it needs to be taken into account that they are also English
learners. While MEXT may be directing too much attention to the improvement of the
students‘ English abilities and the Japanese English subject teachers‘ teaching abilities, any
clearly defined strategic planning for the latter to improve their English proficiency has
somehow fallen behind.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Towards a Breakthrough in the Deadlocked English Language Education … 199
An adequate English teacher should have ability to set examples, as well as, provide
suitable models for students to follow. These two possibly deficient aspects are the reasons
underpinning MEXT‘s plan to recruit and promote the hiring of native English speakers as
Assistant Language Teachers (ALT). The Japanese government, for example, has introduced
the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) programme and allocates native language speakers to
schools. These individuals are perceived as the authentic model of language and
representative of the society from which they come (Seargeant, 2009). According to the
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (n.d.-b), this programme ‗… is aimed
at promoting grass-roots international exchange between Japan and other nations‘. As
explained above, the Japanese government has never stated that English is Japan‘s officially
designated second language, hence English is not the only target language for this
programme. Therefore, the programme naturally attracts native speakers of various languages
from all over the world. The placement of participants of the JET programme is organised by
local government organisations (contracting organisations) all over Japan. In other words, ‗…
every imaginable locality, including large cities, small and medium-sized towns, and rural
farming and fishing villages‘ (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, n.d.-
a), have the opportunity to participate in this scheme. The financial assistance and attitudes
from the contracting organisations may largely influence the availability of ALTs in schools
and their weekly teaching loads. As a result, some ALTs are located individually in particular
schools. Some schools simply appoint ALTs through temporary employment agencies, while
others do not use this type of service. Despite the fact that there is no guarantee of ALTs
compensating for the insufficient English abilities of English subject teachers, many students
prefer the team-teaching and find it valuable (Johannes, 2012).
One of the limitations of ALTs as native English speakers is that they do not necessarily
hold teaching qualifications/licenses from their home countries, and they quite often have no
previous teaching experience at all. Moreover, even ALTs with teaching
qualifications/licenses and teaching backgrounds are not permitted to teach alone in the
classroom in Japan if they do not have a teaching license issued in Japan. Hence their lessons
have to be conducted by team-teaching with (at least) one other qualified teacher. Effective
team-teaching requires unique skills and strategies (e.g., Benoit & Haugh, 2001; Mahoney,
2004), so it can be problematic even for qualified Japanese English subject teachers
(Hasegawa, 2008) and perceived in a more negative light by many (Tonks, 2014).
Furthermore, these ALTs are allocated to schools in order to promote English, particularly
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), although the teaching practicum does not usually
require the teachers to practise these teaching methods during their practicum period (Iino,
2002). This indicates the English subject teachers‘ lack of practical familiarity with the CLT
as well as various oral demonstrations and performance.
As for the use of CLT in the Japanese curriculum, English textbooks need to pay more
attention to this approach. Textbooks play a significant role in Japanese schools; teachers
consider them to be reliable and depend on them as they are MEXT approved. However, the
teaching manuals are not fully focused on CLT, which creates a dilemma for teachers
(Browne & Wada, 1998, as cited in Seargeant, 2008). The most commonly utilised English
textbooks for secondary schools published since 2006, have been edited in response to the
MEXT‘s promotion of communicative skills (Keio Research Center for Foreign Language
Education, n. d.). Despite this fact, many Japanese English subject teachers are not actually
trained to use them for this purpose with their ALT. In other words, the MEXT now needs to
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hiroshi Hasegawa 200
establish systemised professional development and training opportunities, targeting both
groups of people, Japanese English subject teachers and ALTs with no teaching experience or
licenses/qualifications, to teach them how to teach CLT efficiently. Even if this occurs
successfully, the MEXT‘s challenge with regard to this professional development should be
to move beyond effective team-teaching skills to effective and functional team-assessment
skills. In the case of the school testing systems, including mandatory oral interviews in the
mid- and the end-of-term examinations, as discussed above, the responsibility to organise
these, falls upon the local teachers themselves, including the need to develop tips and
strategies to act as co-examiners with the ALTs if they are not confident English users
themselves. This points to the need to establish clear guidelines with key assessment
criteria/rubrics for local teachers and teacher-ALT pairs.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has presented a strong argument that there are issues remaining to be
addressed in order for a positive change to be made to enhance the English achievement
levels in Japan. These issues need to be prioritised and policies put in place before any major
reform of the English curriculum itself can take place. The steps that have been suggested
here may be implemented more effectively if the university entrance examinations and
courses are reformed first, so that they focus more on individuals‘ actual communicative
competence in English. This could potentially have two effects. The first is that Japan may
come to regard itself as an ‗Outer Circle‘ country, i.e., Circle (2), in terms of Kachru‘s (1992)
English language model, described earlier in this chapter, thus using English as its official
second language. The second potential outcome may be the introduction of a mandatory oral
English testing programme into the curriculum at all grade levels. This will be justifiable if
the entrance examinations for school and tertiary institutions include aural/oral performance
evaluations. Both of these outcomes would have implications on the introduction of CLT.
Nevertheless, to be successful, the professional development of English subject teachers is
essential. In other words, the key to the breakthrough for the improvement of English ability
will not be achieved through the Japanese government‘s theoretical educational reforms
alone, but through their ability to adapt to the current English education system.

REFERENCES

Benoit, R., & Haugh, B. (2001). Team teaching tips for foreign language teachers. The
Internet TESL Journal, 7(10). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Benoit-
TeamTeaching.html
Breen, M., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of communicative curriculum in language
teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89-112.
Browne, C. M., & Wada, M. (1998). Current issues in high school English teaching in Japan:
An exploratory survey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(1), 97-112.
Cabinet Public Relations Office. (2000). Japan’s goals in the 21st Century. Retrieved from
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/report/htmls/ 1preface.html
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Towards a Breakthrough in the Deadlocked English Language Education … 201
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations. (n.d.-a). Thinking about joining the
JET Programme. Retrieved from http://www.jetprogramme.org/e/aspiring/index.html
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations. (n.d.-b). Welcome to the JET
programme. Retrieved from http://www.jetprogramme.org/e/ introduction/index.html
DOI 10.1007/s10993-007-9079-y
Educational Testing Service. (2014). Test and score data summary for TOEFL iBT Tests.
Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_ unlweb
Eiken Foundation of Japan. (n.d.-a). EIKEN grades. Retrieved from
http://www.stepeiken.org/grades
Eiken Foundation of Japan. (n.d.-b). Overview of the EIKEN tests. Retrieved from
https://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/en/eiken-tests/overview/
Eiken Foundation of Japan. (n.d.). Timeline. Retrieved from http://stepeiken.org/history-and-
purpose
Hasegawa, H. (2008). Non-native and native speakers‘ perceptions of a team-teaching
approach: Case of the JET programme. The International Journal of Language, Society
and Culture, 26, 42-54.
Hashimoto, K. (2002). Implications of recommendation that English become the second
official language in Japan. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), Englishes in Asia: Communication,
identities, power and education (pp. 63-74). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED481306 #page=69
Hosoki, Y. (2011). English language education in Japan: Transitions and challenges. Kyushu
International University Kokusai Kankei Gakuronshuu 6(1&2), 199-215. Retrieved from
http://www.kiu.ac.jp/ organization/library/memoir/img/pdf/kokusai6-1_2-006hosoki
Iino, M. (2000). A discourse analysis of discussions promoting English as an official second
language in Japan. Journal of Liberal Arts, 109, 77-87.
Iino, M. (2002). Japan country report: Language and English education in Japan. In R. Elaine
Silver, G. Hu, & M. Iino (Eds.), English language education in China, Japan, and
Singapore (pp. 79-98). Retrieved from http://www.nie.edu.sg/nie_cma/attachments/
topic/147e7c6cb6ZG/Silver_Monograph
Johannes, A. A. (2012). Team teaching in Japan. TEFLIN Journal, 23(2), 165-182. Retrieved
from http://journal.teflin.org/index.php/teflin/article/ viewFile/299/245
Kachru, B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English
across cultures (pp. 355-365). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Keio Research Center for Foreign Language Education. (n.d.). What is the problem of English
education Japan? Presenting a case study for corpus-based analysis of English
textbooks. Retrieved from http://www.flang.keio.ac.jp/webfile/AWC/AWC2007/
UG1_RU
Keiodai keizaigakubu ni akinyuugaku o shinsetsu, jyugyou wa eigo, 16nen kara [Faculty of
Economics at Keio University takes students in Autumn in 2016. The classes taught in
English]. (2014, April 18). Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from http://www.asahi.com/
articles/ ASG4K3V65G4KUTIL017.html
Kubota, R., & McKay, S. (2009). Globalisation and language learning in rural Japan: The role
of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 593-619.
Kurokawa, M. (2013). Going global: English proficiency and business competitiveness in
Japan. Penn State International Affairs Review. Retrieved from http://psiareview.org/
2013/12/15/going-global-english-proficiency-and-business-competitiveness-in-japan/
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Hiroshi Hasegawa 202
Kyoudai, eigo deno jyugyou sanwari ni nijyuunen madeni, ryuugakusei mo baizou [Kyoto
University increases lessons taught in English by 30%. Number of international students
expected to double]. (2013, November 29). Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from
http://www.asahi.com/articles/OSK201311260016.html
Mahoney, S. (2004). Role controversy among team teachers in the JET programme. JALT
Journal, 26(2), 223-244. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/jj/
2004b/art5
Ministry of Education, Cultural, Sports, Science and Technology. (n.d.). English education
reform plan corresponding to globalization. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/
english/topics/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/1343591_1
Sato, K. (2002). Practical understanding of communicative language teaching and teacher
development. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching (pp.
41-81). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Seargeant, P. (2008). Ideologies of English in Japan: The perspective of policy and pedagogy.
Language Policy, 7(2). 121-141. Retrieved from http://download-v2.springer.com/static/
pdf/556/art%253A10.1007%252Fs 10993-007-9079-y ?token2=exp=1429414712~acl
=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F556%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs10993-007-9079-
y *~hmac=39558f91eff963f78094fb9d74b5180f0cb5fdd5610366f00fb881385646927
5
Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and evolution of a global
language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Tonks, B. (2014). ESL team teaching in the Japanese context. The International TEYL
Journal. Retrieved from http://www.teyl.org/article12.html

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 19

THE SHIFTING FOCUS OF ENGLISH TEACHING
FOR UNDERGRADUATE NON-ENGLISH MAJOR
STUDENTS: REFORMS AND PRACTICES AT TSINGHUA
UNIVERSITY IN CHINA

Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang
Tsinghua University, China

ABSTRACT

This chapter first describes the English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching reform
framework developed by Tsinghua University, featuring a shift of teaching focus from
English for general purposes (EGP) to English for general academic purposes (EGAP) for
undergraduate non-English major students, and then reports the results of two surveys on
the effect of the reform from students‘ perspectives. 616 and 1,101students participated in
surveys 1 and 2 respectively. The results show that more than half of the students in both
of the surveys tended to be satisfied with the EGAP courses they took and the textbooks
they used. This suggests that the reform is acceptable and consistent with its objective.
Thus, it may be practised in other similar institutions of higher education.

Keywords: English for general purposes, English for general academic purposes, non-English
major students

INTRODUCTION

Since China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO), English has attained such an
important status in the country that many high school students, especially those in big cities
such as Shanghai and Beijing, are (fairly) competent in General English by the time they
graduate (Cai, 2004; Zhang, 2005). To keep up with this development, the new College
English Curriculum Requirement (2007) specifies that entry-level college students should be
able to use English in a well-rounded way and that the advanced-level students should be able
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang 204
to use general academic English in appropriate situations. However, the current situation in
English education in most tertiary institutions is still based largely on repeating what was
previously taught in schools. This not only demotivates thousands of English as a foreign
language (EFL) learners at university, but also fails to meet what is stipulated by the
Requirement (Cai, 2004, 2009, 2010; Dai, 2001). Therefore, a reform from general to
specific/academic English or English for specific/academic purposes (ESP/EAP) is called for
within the Chinese context (Cai, 2010; Cai & Liao, 2010; Han, 2007; Zhang, 2005; Zhang,
Zhang, & Liu, 2011). This situation coupled with the fact that English has become the leading
language in the academic field (Flowerdew, 1999) prompted Tsinghua University, a pioneer
in this area for years, to take the initiative in reforming its English education for
undergraduate non-English major students. This chapter describes the reform framework
recently developed by the university, which shifts the EFL teaching focus from English for
general purposes (EGP) to English for general academic purposes (EGAP), as envisioned by
many educators, college EFL instructors and learners in China. To test the effect of the
reform, two surveys with a focus on students‘ perspectives on EGAP reading and writing
courses, which form the core of the reform, were conducted. The results of these surveys are
reported in this chapter.

THE REFORM AT TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY

As a highly prestigious university in China, Tsinghua has a great responsibility to train
students to be able to function as both professionals and proficient users of English in day-to-
day and academic situations. A series of surveys of students‘ needs in various disciplines by
the second researcher coupled with a careful examination of the University‘s development
objective and the i + 1 input theory (Krashen, 1982) and language learning principles (Ellis,
1994) have led to the formulation of a multi-channel, individualised, multi-level, and sub-
serial English teaching and learning framework, which shifts the focus of English teaching
from general to general academic English to undergraduate non-English major students at
Tsinghua, as shown in Figure 19.1 (Zhang, Zhang, & Liu, 2015). ‗Multi-channel‘ means that
students take different English courses according to their specific needs or interests;
‗individualised‘ refers to individualised courses (e.g., English courses for exceptional students)
and individualised after-class consultations (e.g., Academic English Writing Consulting
Centre); ‗multi-level‘ means English courses are taught according to students‘ English
proficiency levels; and ‗sub-serial‘ is concerned with grouping English courses into two series
– English skills courses and English-related quality courses. Thus the purpose of English
education at Tsinghua is to develop students‘ overall language proficiency, enhance their
ability to use academic English to communicate with the world in oral and written forms,
train their language-related humanistic quality, and facilitate their major study through
English learning.
As the core element of English education at Tsinghua, general academic English courses
are further divided into two groups: general academic English reading and writing courses 1 –
4 and listening and speaking courses 1 – 4 (Figure 19.2). Reading and writing courses are
designed according to genre, namely expository, argumentative, literature review, and

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Figure 19.1. English teaching system for non-English major students at Tsinghua
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang 206
discourse genres, while listening and speaking courses are taught according to students‘
English proficiency levels which are determined by their placement test scores upon entering
the University. Generally, the higher the level, the more challenging the nature of the course.

Figure 19.2. General academic English course system at Tsinghua

To develop students‘ general and academic English abilities, academic reading skills
(e.g., note-taking), academic writing skills (e.g., summarising, avoiding plagiarism), academic
vocabulary, knowledge of academic English vs colloquial English recur in reading and
writing courses 1 – 4; academic English listening and speaking skills (e.g., retelling &
summarising, debating), and language skills (pronunciation & intonation, presentation skills)
are covered in all listening and speaking courses. Meanwhile, each course at each level has its
own specific focus.
At the forefront of the reform, general academic English reading and writing course
textbook series 1 – 4 was compiled to practically implement the reform, since reading and
writing are considered two most important skills in EAP at the university. During the process
of compiling the textbooks, the compilers followed the common procedure such as that of
doing needs analyses, selecting authentic materials, meeting the objectives of the teaching
syllabus, and developing learners‘ learning abilities (Breen & Candlin, 1987; Hamp-Lyons,
2011; Jordan, 1997; Wen, 2002). The textbooks also aim to serve as a self-learning platform
to help students learn general academic English better (He, 2003). The textbooks were piloted
for use for two academic years (4 semesters) starting in the autumn term of 2011 and were
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Shifting Focus of English Teaching for Undergraduate Non-English … 207
finally published in 2013. Each textbook has 8 units and covers 8 topics. Each unit focuses on
a specific writing development skill related to the specific genre of the book. Unlike teaching
and learning in traditional classrooms, which often focus on grammar, vocabulary, and
understanding texts word by word and sentence by sentence, this new series focuses on text
structure, the illustration and support of the main idea, and on reading and writing more
effectively (i.e., reading and writing skills) in the academic form, with much less focus on
vocabulary and grammar.

THE STUDY

All first-year students, upon entering the university, take the English Placement Test
which places them into different band groups (1 – 4, the higher the band, the higher the
English proficiency). Normally, around 40% are placed into the band 2 group, 30% in the
band 1 group, and the rest in the other two groups, with the fewest in the band 4 group. For
freshmen, bands 1 and 2 students must start their English learning with the expository or
argumentative reading and writing course, bands 3 and 4 students are advised to choose
literature review and project-based reading and writing course respectively and are in fact free
to choose any of the four courses. As they complete one course, they continue to take the
more challenging one. In order to test the effect of the teaching and learning of general
academic English reading and writing courses 1 – 4, a survey with both closed- and open-
ended questions was administered to the students of each course (sometimes excluding course
4 students because of the small number of learners) at the end of each term since 2011.
Based on the results, some modifications and changes were continuously made into the
versions to be used in the following term. The results reported in this chapter are of two
surveys done in the autumn term of 2012 and spring term of 2013 respectively, which used
the same questionnaire.

Participants

616 and 1,101 freshmen taking general academic English reading and writing courses 1-4
in 2012 and 2013 respectively filled in the questionnaire, among whom, 341 and 495
answered the open-ended questions respectively, as shown in Table 19.1.

Table 19.1. Information about the participants

Year No. of the participants Course 1 Course 2 Course 3 Course 4
2012 616/341 215/161 245/107 156/73 0/0
2013 1101/495 525/233 370/146 144/64 62/52
Note: The first number = The number of survey respondents.
The second number = The number of open-question respondents.
Course 1 = Expository reading & writing.
Course 2 = Argumentative reading & writing.
Course 3 = Literature review reading & writing.
Course 4 = Project-based reading & writing.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang 208
The Surveys

All the participants answered the 25-item questionnaire (Perceptions towards EGAP
Reading and Writing Course), which was designed by the researchers in the two surveys.
With reference to Bruce (2011), Jordan (1997) and McDonough and Shaw (1993), the
questionnaire was used to cover the following dimensions: (1) selected materials, (2) writing
skills, (3) after-text tasks, (4) difficulty level of the course, (5) effect of the course on English-
learning, (6) course instructors, and (7) overall evaluation of the course. All the items were
placed on a 7-point Likert scale, with values of 1 – 7 assigned to the seven descriptors
(ranging from ‗Strongly Disagree‘ (1) to ‗Strongly Agree‘ (7) respectively). In addition, there
were 4 open questions about their ideas towards the course (i.e., materials selected, writing
development skills, after-text tasks, and classroom teaching).

Survey Results

As previously described, all the descriptors of each item were assigned values of 1 – 7
respectively. Consequently, a score of 6 – 7 on an item is implicative of strong agreement, a
score of 4 – 6 means agreement, and a score of below 4 suggests (strong) disagreement. To
protect their privacy, a number was assigned to each participant for reporting their responses
to open-ended questions.

(i) Perceptions towards Selected Materials (PSM)
PSM had 5 items (1 – 5), covering genre, quality and topic coverage related to the
selected materials. As presented in the Appendix, students of courses 1 – 3 in 2012 scored
from 4.96 to 6.01 and those in courses 1 – 4 in 2013 scored from 5.15 to 6.58 on the five
items respectively, far exceeding the item midpoint 4.
This suggests that more than half of the students of each course in both surveys believed
that the course textbook covered a wide variety of topics (item 3), the selected materials were
of the same genre (item 1), of high quality (item 2), interesting (item 4), and well-suited for
students of different disciplines (item 5).
This finding was confirmed by the students‘ responses to the open-ended questions. As
seen in Table 19.2, more than 50% of the participants of each course (except course 3) in both
surveys who answered the open questions maintained that the textbook they used covered
various topics and the selected materials were up-to-date and of high quality.
The following are some typical comments: ‗the materials are on different topics, and the
texts are interesting and informative. I learn more than English from the texts‘ (No. 13, course
1, 2012); and ‗the materials are novel and substantial‘ (No. 989, course 4, 2013).
Meanwhile, the students proposed a number of suggestions on the materials used in the
textbooks. Students of survey 1 reported that some texts were too long and too discipline-
specific and thus should be replaced and that it would be better to have more up-to-date and
interesting materials. Survey 2 participants suggested selecting more interesting, more up-to-
date and less difficult materials, and covering more topics, as shown in Table 19.2.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Shifting Focus of English Teaching for Undergraduate Non-English … 209
Table 19.2. Comments on selected materials

Course 1 Course 2 Course 3 Course 4
Comments
(1)The materials
cover a wide variety
of topics (48/29.8%;
84/36%),
(2) The materials
are good (98/60.9%;
144/61.8%).
(1) The materials are
novel
and interesting
(73/68.2%; 104/71.2%),
(2) The materials are
clearly structured and
cover various topics
(62/57.9%; 82/56.2%).
(1) The materials are at
the right difficulty level
(24/32.9%; 23/36%),
(2) The materials are
good and involve
various topics
(22/30.1% 20/31.3%).

The materials are
good and involve
various topics (0;
33/63.5%).
Suggestions
(1) More topics
should be covered
(22/23.7%;
20/8.6%),
(2) Some texts have
too many strange
words (25/15.5%;
20/8.6%),
(3) Materials can be
more up-to-date
(16/9.9%; 8/3.4%),
(4) Materials can be
more interesting
(8/5%; 4/1.7%).
(1) Some texts have too
many strange words
(30/28%; 37/25.3%),
(2) Some stories could be
used (8/7.5%; 15/10.3%),
(3)Some texts are
difficult (10/9.3%;
8/5.5%),

(1) More topics should
be covered
(8/11%;3/4.7%),
(2) Some texts are too
difficult (6/8.2%;
/4.7%),
(3) Materials can be
more interesting
(8/11%;3/4.7%)，
(4) Some texts have too
many strange words
(7/6.6%; 3/4.7%),
(5) There should be a
vocabulary list (3/4.1%;
3/4.7%).
(1) More topics
should be covered
(0; 14/26.9%),
(2) Some texts are
too difficult (0;
4/7.7%),
(3) Materials can be
more interesting (0;
4/7.7%）,
(4) Some materials
should be updated
(0; 4/7.7%).

(ii) Perceptions towards Writing Development Skills (PWDS)
Two items (6 – 7) implicative of the presentation of the skills related to a specific writing
genre were covered in PWDS. As presented in the Appendix, students of courses 1 – 3 in
2012 scored from 4.99 to 5.33 and those in courses 1 – 4 in 2013 scored from 5.34 to 6.37 on
the two items respectively, far above the item midpoint 4. This shows that more than half of
the participants of each course in both surveys held that genre-related writing development
skills‘ materials presented in the textbook were clear (item 6) and systematic (item 7).

Table 19.3. Students’ Comments on Writing-developing Skills

Course 1 Course 2 Course 3 Course 4
Comments
This part is clear, specific,
and systematic (63/39.1%;
96/41.2%).
This part is very
instructive
(57/53.3%;
85/58.2%).
This part is clear,
specific, and
systematic
(43/58.9%;
40/62.5%).
This part is clear,
specific, and
systematic (0;
33/63.5%).
Suggestions
(1) More writing training is
needed (15/9.3%; 16/6.9%),
(2) More examples are
needed to illustrate a writing
skill
(16/9.9%; 8/3.4%).
More genre-
related words,
phrases and
sentence
structures are
needed (9/8.4%;
4/1.7%).
This part is too
long (8/11%;
3/4.7%).
There is some
repetition in this part
(0; 4/7.7%).

This was highly consistent with the respondents‘ answers to the open-ended questions.
As shown in Table 19.3, generally more than 50% of the students of each course in both
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang 210
surveys (except course 1) reported that the materials on the development of writing skills
presented in their textbook were clear, specific and systematic. For example, ‗the writing
skills section is really good, developing progressively from one unit to the following‘ (No.
201, course 2, 2012). Meanwhile, some students hoped that more writing-related examples
and tasks could be included in the textbook.

(iii) Perceptions towards After-Text Tasks (PAT)
As presented in the Appendix, students of courses 1 – 3 in 2012 scored from 4.89 to 5.27
and those in courses 1 – 4 in 2013 scored from 5.31 to 5.61 on the two PAT items
respectively, all above the item midpoint 4. This suggests that more than half of the students
of each course in both surveys believed that the after-text tasks were reasonably (item 9) and
systematically (item 8) designed.
This finding was further supported by their responses to the open-ended questions. Table
19.4 shows that more than 42% of the students of each course held that the after-text tasks
were reasonable, focused and at the right difficulty level, as evidenced by the following
excerpt, ‗the after-text tasks check our understanding of the texts and writing skills and train
us to use the skills in practical writing‘ (No. 723, course 2, 2013).

Table 19.4. Comments on after-text tasks

Course 1 Course 2 Course 3 Course 4
Comments
The after-text tasks
are good (87/54%;
138/59.2%).

(1) The after-text tasks
are focus-specific
(56/52.3%; 87/59.6%),
(2) They are at the
right difficulty level
(48/44.8; 61/41.8%).
The after-text tasks are
reflective of the unit
focus (42/57.5%;
40/62.5%).
The after-text tasks
are specific, focused
and in different forms
(22/42.3%).
Suggestions
(1) The after-text
tasks should be in
more different forms
(22/13.7%;
20/8.6%),
(2) Some after-text
tasks are repetitious
and needed to be cut
(9/5.6%; 4/1.7%).
(1) Some after-text
tasks are lengthy and
dull (23/21.5%;
26/17.8%),
(2) Some writing
tasks‘ requirements
are not clear (9/8.4%;
8/5.5%).
(1) The number of the
tasks should be reduced
(9/12.3%; 3/4.7%),
(2) More explanation is
needed for some tasks
(10/13.7%; 3/4.7%),
(3) The presentation and
design of the tasks
should be more
systematic (10/13.7%;
3/4.7%).
(1) More after-text
tasks are needed（0;
4/7.7%),
(2) Tasks on
vocabulary and
grammar are needed
(0; 4/7.7%),
(3) The after-text
tasks should be in
more different forms
(0; 4/7.7%).

(iv) Perceptions towards the Difficulty of the Course (PDC)
PDC had 3 items (10 – 12) implicative of the difficulty level of a specific course. As
presented in the Appendix, students of courses 1 – 3 in 2012 scored from 4.72 to 5.63 and
those in courses 1 – 4 in 2013 scored from 4.79 to 5.67 on the three items respectively, all
higher than the item midpoint 4. This indicates that more than half of the students of each
course in both surveys believed that the course was around their English proficiency level
(item 10) and at the right difficulty level (item 11). It also shows that the course was
challenging (item 12) to more than one third of the students in courses 1 – 2 and more than
half students in courses 3 – 4 respectively in both studies.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Shifting Focus of English Teaching for Undergraduate Non-English … 211
(v) Perceptions of the Effect of the Course on Their English-Learning (PECEL)
PECEL had 4 items (13 – 16) implicative of the effect of the course students took to learn
English. As presented in the Appendix, students of courses 1 – 3 in 2012 scored from 4.44 to
5.83 and those in courses 1 – 4 in 2013 scored from 4.91 to 5.55 on the four items
respectively, far exceeding the item midpoint 4. This indicates that, in both surveys, more
than half students in courses 1 and 4 and more than one third of the students in courses 2 and
3 believed that the course made them realise how to learn English (item 13) and developed
their ability to self-learn English (item 14). Meanwhile, more than half students of all the
courses except course 2 in both surveys confided that the course enhanced their interest (item
15) and confidence (item 16) in English.

(vi) Perceptions towards the Course Teachers (PCT)
PCT had 2 items (17 – 18) implicative of whether the teachers were qualified for the
courses. As presented in the Appendix, students of courses 1 – 3 in 2012 scored from 5.83 to
6.21 and those in courses 1 – 4 in 2013 scored from 5.99 to 6.69 on the two items
respectively, far exceeding the item midpoint 4. This implies that more than half of the
students of each course in both surveys believed that their teacher was qualified for the course
(item 17) and the teaching focus was consistent with that of the textbook (item 18).
Students‘ responses to opened-ended questions further confirmed the finding, as
evidenced by the following excerpts, ‗the teaching of my course is proper and reasonable,
focusing on discourse understanding, including text structure and important words‘ (No. 703,
course 2, 2013), and ‗the teacher is very experienced, clearly points out the key points and
encourages us to be confident‘ (No. 956, course 3, 2013). Nevertheless, some students
reported that more time should be assigned for grammar, vocabulary, listening and speaking
in class.

(vii) Overall Evaluation of the Course (OEC)
OEC had 7 items (items 19 – 25) indicative of the participants‘ overall evaluation of the
course they took. As presented in the Appendix, students of courses 1 – 3 in 2012 scored from
5.14 to 5.88 and those in courses 1 – 4 in 2013 scored from 5.33 to 6.50 on the 7 items
respectively, far higher than the item midpoint 4. This suggests that more than half of the
students of each course in both surveys maintained that the course was practical (item 19) and
necessary (item 20), enabled them to be familiar with a specific academic English discourse
genre (item 22), and improved their ability to read (item 24) and write (item 23) English of
that genre. Thus, they reported liking (item 21) and benefiting from the course (item 25).
Their responses to the open-ended questions also showed that they considered the course
they took to be practical, necessary, challenging and useful. However, because ‗the other
courses take up too much time, little is left for English‘ (No. 885, course 3, 2013), and thus
their learning of English was adversely affected. To help them learn English better, some
students hoped that more classes per week should be offered.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang 212
DISCUSSION

As revealed in the present study, survey 2 results were generally better than those of
survey 1, which might be attributed to the fact that some modifications and changes were
made in the textbooks and course instruction based on survey 1 results. Even so, the two
surveys yield consistently similar results: more than half of the students of each course
(strongly) believed that the textbook covered a variety of topics, the texts were of the same
genre and of high quality, the writing development skills presented in each unit were clear
and progressive, the after-text tasks were good, the course was at the right difficulty level, the
teachers were qualified, and that the course they took enabled them to read and write
academically better in English in a certain genre, benefited them (a lot) and improved their
self-learning ability and enhanced their interest in learning English. These findings clearly
show that this academic English reading and writing course textbook series was well
designed, with carefully selected materials which were progressively presented, and thus met
students‘ needs and provided a self-learning environment for students (He, 2003; Wen, 2002).
They were therefore not only consistent with the teaching aim of developing students‘
academic English reading and writing abilities as specified in the reformed curriculum, but
also with the principles for compiling textbooks (Breen & Candlin, 1987; Bruce, 2011; Jordan,
1997).
Meanwhile, students of all courses in both surveys voiced some suggestions on different
parts of the textbooks they used (i.e., selected materials, writing skills, after-text tasks, and
classroom teaching). This implies that more work is needed to improve the quality of the
textbooks and classroom teaching. Moreover, some students proposed that vocabulary and
grammar should be more emphasised in both textbook presentation and classroom teaching,
and that the selected materials should be more interesting. This suggests that they might still
feel more comfortable with traditional general English which normally focuses more on
grammar and vocabulary. Evidently, further orientation is needed to help them become more
aware of the aim and importance of general academic English. Meanwhile, greater work is
needed from the compilers and course instructors to make the textbook and classroom
teaching both more academic and interesting.
The findings of the present study confirm that EGAP teaching and learning in college is
feasible, which is consistent with Shu and Chen‘s (2009) research in showing that, as long as
EGAP courses were well designed (e.g., learning objectives were clear, materials were well
chosen, teachers were qualified, etc.), teaching and learning EGAP could not only meet
students‘ needs but also yield good results. However, during the process of EGAP teaching
and learning, more issues will emerge and thus more research is called for to make it more
effective.

CONCLUSION

This chapter describes the framework designed to reform English teaching from EGP to
EGAP to undergraduate non-English major students at Tsinghua University. To test the
impact of academic English reading and writing courses 1-4, the core elements of English
education and the reform at the university, this chapter also reports the results of two surveys
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Shifting Focus of English Teaching for Undergraduate Non-English … 213
on students‘ perceptions about the courses and corresponding textbooks compiled for the
purpose. The results revealed that more than half the students of each course in both surveys
were (highly) satisfied with the textbook and course. This clearly suggests that it is acceptable
to shift the focus of English education from general English to general academic English,
which may better meet students‘ needs, and that it is feasible to compile a series of academic
English course textbooks based on students‘ needs. Thus, the reform and the findings reported
in this chapter may shed light on other institutions of higher education in China that plan to
reform their English education as well.

REFERENCES

Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (1987). Which materials? A counselor‘s and designer‘s Guide.
In L. E. Sheldon (Ed.), ELT textbooks and materials, problems in evaluation and
development (pp. 13-28). London: Modern English Publications in Association with the
British Council.
Bruce, I. (2011). Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes. NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cai, J. (2004). ESP and the direction of China‘s college English teaching. Foreign Language
World, 2, 22-28.
Cai, J. (2009). From uniform to individualized – A review of 30 year college English
education. China University Teaching, 3, 82-85.
Cai, J. (2010). Factors affecting the shift of the focus of college English teaching in China.
Foreign Languages Research, 2, 40-45.
Cai, J., & Liao, L. (2010). EAP vs. ESP – The orientation of college English. Foreign
Language Education, 6, 47-50.
College English Curriculum Requirement. (2007). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Dai, W. (2001). On further improving English language learning in China: Suggestions and
consideration. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 7, 1-2.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 243-264.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). English for academic purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (vol. 2) (pp. 89-105). Taylor &
Francis/ Routledge.
Han, J. (2007). EAP: College English education reform and bilingual teaching. Higher
Education Exploration, 6, 24-25.
He, L. (2003). Self-learning and the ability to self-learn. Foreign Language Teaching and
Research, 4, 287-289.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT. Blackwell: Cambridge
and Mass.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Meihua Liu and Weimin Zhang 214
Shu, D., & Chen, S. (2009). Factors contributing to the success of the UNNC EAP model and
the implications for college English teaching in China. Foreign Language World, 6, 23-
29.
Wang, H., & Wang, T. (2003). Interfaces between bilingual teaching and EFL teaching.
Foreign Language World, 1, 26-31.
Wen, Q. (2002). Principles for compiling textbooks for English major students. Foreign
Language World, 1, 3-7．
Zhang, J. (2005). Specialization of public English teaching and publicness of specialized
English teaching. Foreign Languages and their Teaching, 11, 28-31.
Zhang, W., Zhang, W., & Liu, M. (2011). EFL teaching reform for non-English majors in
Tsinghua University: From EGP to EAP. Foreign Languages Research, 5, 11-14.
Zhang, W., Zhang, W., & Liu, M. (2015). Constructing an integrated English education
system at a Chinese research-oriented university. Modern Foreign Languages, 38(1), 93-
101.

APPENDIX

Students’ Perceptions towards General Academic English Reading and Writing Course

Year Course 1 Course 2 Course 3 Course 4
2012
2013
N = 215
N = 525
N = 245
N = 370
N = 156
N = 144
N = 0
N = 62
Year Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1. The materials selected for the
textbook are of the same genre.
2012
2013
5.50
5.74
1.67
1.97
5.63
5.91
1.09
1.25
5.90
6.13
1.39
1.18

6.58

.90
2. The texts selected for the textbook
are of high quality.
2012
2013
5.24
5.62
1.43
1.34
5.42
5.60
1.41
1.23
5.54
6.08
1.22
.95

6.24

1.02
3. The textbook covered a wide
variety of topics.
2012
2013
5.67
5.96
1.13
1.28
5.63
5.90
1.44
1.23
6.01
6.28
1.06
1.06

5.60

1.47
4. The topics covered in the textbook
are interesting.
2012
2013
4.96
5.46
1.42
1.47
5.28
5.33
1.44
1.35
5.40
5.79
1.34
1.30

5.15

1.52
5. The materials selected for the
textbook suit students of different
disciplines.
2012
2013
5.25
5.52
1.39
1.48
5.16
5.57
1.56
1.44
6.0
6.08
1.28
1.22
0
5.60
0
1.35
6. The writing development skills
presented in each unit in the
textbook are clear.
2012
2013
4.99
5.34
1.45
1.50
5.15
5.52
1.24
1.36
5.33
5.56
1.47
1.40

6.34

.94
7. The writing development skills in
the textbook were systematically
presented.
2012
2013
5.01
5.41
1.55
1.45
5.24
5.37
1.13
1.32
5.20
5.51
1.66
1.39

6.37

.89
8. The after-text tasks were
systematic.
2012
2013
5.13
5.51
1.45
1.34
5.09
5.48
1.25
1.23
4.89
5.46
1.78
1.48

6.10

.95
9. The after-text tasks were
reasonable.
2012
2013
5.06
5.39
1.41
1.34
5.27
5.31
1.82
1.28
5.10
5.61
1.57
1.23

6.13

1.05
10. The course suits my English
proficiency level.
2012
2013
5.46
5.59
1.31
1.40
5.28
5.46
1.40
1.32
5.31
5.62
1.38
1.25

6.13

1.11
11. The course is at the right
difficulty level.
2012
2013
4.89
5.49
1.69
1.42
4.87
5.55
1.76
1.36
5.45
5.67
1.34
1.19

5.97

1.19
12. The course is challenging. 2012
2013
4.72
4.79
1.37
1.52
4.94
4.81
1.64
1.37
5.63
5.13
1.40
1.26

5.92

1.25
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Shifting Focus of English Teaching for Undergraduate Non-English … 215
13. The course makes me realise
how to learn English.
2012
2013
5.30
5.05
1.29
1.50
4.74
4.92
1.99
1.39
4.44
4.98
1.89
1.39

5.53

1.30
14. The course develops my ability
to self-learn English.
2012
2013
5.21
5.14
1.40
1.52
5.41
4.93
1.46
1.45
5.22
5.07
1.56
1.52

5.53

1.42
15. The course enhances my interest
in English.
2012
2013
5.09
5.05
1.37
1.05
5.83
4.91
1.28
1.42
5.03
5.13
1.40
1.40

5.55

1.26
16. The course enhances my
confidence in English.
2012
2013
4.93
5.23
1.49
1.59
5.56
5.00
1.37
1.48
5.20
5.19
1.43
1.41

5.39

1.35
17. The teacher is qualified for the
course.
2012
2013
5.89
6.14
1.23
1.33
6.01
6.17
1.21
1.27
6.11
6.30
1.65
1.15

6.69

.84
18. The teaching focus is consistent
with that of the textbook.
2012
2013
5.83
5.99
1.44
1.35
6.21
6.19
1.13
1.16
5.99
6.10
1.25
1.14

6.63

.85
19. The course is practical. 2012
2013
5.24
5.50
1.33
1.45
5.14
5.62
1.54
1.96
5.88
6.03
1.40
1.15

6.39

.88
20. The course is necessary. 2012
2013
5.62
5.62
1.32
1.43
5.24
5.64
1.37
1.29
5.78
6.07
1.21
1.17

6.50

.82
21. I like the course. 2012
2013
5.33
5.58
1.37
1.51
5.39
5.44
1.47
1.42
5.54
5.83
1.45
1.27

6.32

1.00
22. The course enables me to be
familiar with a specific academic
English genre.
2012
2013
5.31
5.33
1.55
1.43
5.44
5.37
1.21
1.24
5.56
5.77
1.65
1.41

6.34

.85
23. The course improves my ability
to write English of a specific genre.
2012
2013
5.23
5.44
1.55
1.43
5.55
5.49
1.19
1.24
5.67
5.84
1.46
1.30

6.37

.81
24. The course improves my ability
to read English of a specific genre.
2012
2013
5.33
5.69
1.25
1.13
5.67
5.99
1.09
1.14
5.66
5.83
1.34
1.30

6.43

.79
25. I benefit from the course. 2012
2013
5.31
5.74
1.90
1.42
5.24
5.78
1.40
1.30
5.66
6.01
1.92
1.11

6.50

.78

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 20

REFLECTION IN PRACTICE:
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH
FOR ACADEMIC/SPECIFIC PURPOSES
MATERIALS IN HONG KONG

Ken Lau
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT

The instrumental value of reflection or reflective practice has been recognised in
professional training and preparation, yet its relevance to language enhancement and the
development of academic literacies appears largely unexplored. Drawing primarily on my
own classroom practice and my experience developing English for academic purposes
(EAP) and English for specific purposes (ESP) curricula, this chapter contextualises
reflection within the field of English enhancement. Specifically, it identifies tools for
integrating reflection into the process of developing and implementing EAP/ESP
materials. The rationales behind the integration of reflection, the nature and modalities of
reflection, the inputs that facilitate reflection and the assessment of reflection are
scrutinised and illustrated with examples taken from courses offered by the Centre for
Applied English Studies at the University of Hong Kong, where I work. The conclusions
are also informed by two reflection-related research projects that solicited views from
both students and teachers on the perceived usefulness of reflection in our curricular
context and the challenges of evaluating reflection.

Keywords: Reflection, reflective practice, materials development, EAP/ESP

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Ken Lau 218
INTRODUCTION

The capability to reflect on actions taken or decisions made, in a split second or in post-
mortem, is, among other competencies, a ‗defining characteristic[s] of professional practice‘
(Lau, 2013, p. 691). The adoption of reflective practices is the basis of professional
preparation and growth in fields as diverse as health sciences, social work and teaching.
However, although there are abundant studies on the applications and outcomes of integrating
reflection into professional training programmes, relatively little attention has so far been paid
to its relevance and value for language enhancement. In this chapter, I tease out the methods
for integrating reflection into development for English enhancement courses, and illustrate
these methods with examples from the courses offered by the Centre for Applied English
Studies (CAES) at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), where I work. In addition to
‗reflecting‘ my own experience as a course developer and classroom practitioner, the
suggestions provided herein are informed by the findings of two research projects, one
focusing on students and the other on teachers. The reflection project on students (RPS)
focused on understanding students‘ perceptions of reflection in English enhancement. The
reflection project on teachers (RPT) solicited teachers‘ views on the integration of reflection
into English courses, with a particular focus placed on the challenges of assessing and
evaluating reflection.

CONTEXT

The major role of CAES has been to offer English enhancement and academic literacy
courses to all of the undergraduates in our university. The Centre enrols around 9,000
students every year. Each course is developed by a coordinator or a course team and delivered
by teachers who may or may not have participated in the course development processes. HKU
students are normally required to take two CAES‘ courses as part of their graduation
requirements. Except for the foundational English course, which focuses on the generic
linguistic skills required of university students, all of the other courses are discipline-specific,
targeting the particular language needs of the students‘ academic/professional fields. For
example, law degree students are required to take a legal essay course, whereas journalism
students take a course focusing on genres such as the hard news story and non-fiction
narratives. Despite the diversity of courses offered, reflection is prevalent and used in a range
of courses across disciplines. Taking the academic year 2012-13 as an example, out of the 47
English courses offered to our undergraduate students, nearly half of them (20 courses) had
reflection integrated into the course in one form or another. The widespread presence of
reflection provides sufficient grounds for identifying good practices and challenges.
Our teaching practice is very much research-informed. Two reflection-related projects
provided useful insights into the why, what, when and most importantly the how of
integrating reflection into our courses. In the RPS project, student participants were asked to
respond to two questionnaires, one at the beginning and one at the end of a course that had a
reflection component, to trace their perceptual changes, if any. The response rates for the pre-
and post-course questionnaire survey were around 50% and 35% respectively.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Reflection in Practice 219
Nine students also volunteered to participate in follow-up interviews to elaborate on their
responses to the questionnaires. In the RPT project, in addition to the content analyses of
reflection materials used in 12 courses, nearly half of CAES‘ teachers participated in semi-
structured, individual interviews to share their experiences in developing and/or teaching
reflection-integrated courses.In the following sections, I highlight the points that merit
attention in the process of developing and implementing reflection-integrated EAP/ESP
materials. Rather than viewing the integration of these considerations as a linear process, the
process should be considered a cyclical one that underlies every step of the design and
implementation.

RATIONALE BEHIND REFLECTION

Although the instrumental value of reflection for learning has generally been recognised,
it is risky for materials developers to simply assume that inserting reflective activities
necessarily results in performance improvement. A lack of clarity not only undermines the
potential benefits, but threatens the validity of assessment (to be discussed later). Therefore,
the rationales behind the integration of reflection need to be articulated clearly to students and
teachers, especially those with little or no experience, to prevent it from being perceived as
merely a ‗―bolt on‖ extra and something that ―has to be done‖ for the purpose of assessment‘
(Sandars, 2009, p. 692 as cited in Stokes & Welland, 2013). Reflection, according to Samway
(2006, p. 126), ‗can provide teachers with insights into a multitude of important issues‘ that
may pertain to subject knowledge, classroom dynamics, process of learning and assessment.
However, these issues need to be further contextualised within the realm of English
enhancement.
More specifically, how reflection can be leveraged and exploited to achieve specific
goals of language enhancement should be made explicit. Ideally, we would like to see signs
that students are making generalisations and are able to transfer the skills to other relevant
contexts, as shown in this extract from a post-course interview with an RPS interviewee (see
Lau, 2013 for a detailed discussion):

I think that this is a learning process. If you want to improve, of course you cannot just
look forward, you need to look back…so that I can recognise the problem and find any way to
improve. Because I should be the master of my learning, and only I know myself best.

At the very least there should be an indication that the participants understand the
relevance of reflection for English enhancement, as is seen in the following quotation from
one of the RPS interviews:

Because reflection is what helps you to understand yourself more; because you have done
your preparation, you have done 100% and you think your presentation is the best, but some
other people may think that you have some other areas to improve. Therefore I think reflection
is useful for yourself to improve.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Ken Lau 220
A DICHOTOMY: REFLECTION AS PROCESS VS
REFLECTION AS PRODUCT

Over the years, there have been various attempts to characterise the nature of reflection.
Schön (1983) popularised the concepts of ‗reflection-in-action‘ and ‗reflection-on-action‘.
Simply put, reflection-in-action occurs while performing an individual activity or task and the
effect is immediate. Intended for long-term benefits and improvement, reflection-on-action
occurs after the completion of an activity or task (Ghaye, 2010). Schön‘s work was based on
the premise that theories introduced in professional preparation are not sufficient for dealing
with real life practice, which is often ‗messy‘ and ‗indeterminate‘. Professionals constantly
evaluate and re-evaluate situations and apply creative solutions to problems in a way that
complements the objective and scientifically based ‗technical rationality‘ (p. 21).
Subsequent researchers expanded on these concepts and came up with other relevant
terms such as reflection-for-action and reflection-with-action (see, for example, Langer,
2003), which focus more on change or improvement. Despite the wide range of existing
terms, the best way to conceptualise the nature of reflection in our courses appears to be to
consider it as a dichotomy, i.e., reflection as process vs reflection as product (Salmon, 2006).
This distinction is crucial, particularly in our case, as it has implications for the design and
implementation of reflection materials. Reflection as product suggests that reflection is a one-
off action. Some of our courses require students to reflect on their project or course learning
experience, usually towards the end of the semester. For example, social sciences students
who take a professional communication course are required to reflect on their interviews with
professionals and to consider how the experience may affect their future career goals. In
contrast, reflection as process encompasses multiple reflection opportunities over the length
of a course and the effects of reflection on subsequent tasks. For example, in one of our
technical communication courses for engineering students, course participants have to deliver
three technical presentations over a 12-week period. In addition to their on-the-spot
presentation performance, students are required to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses
and look for ways to improve their next presentation. The multiple-loops that connect the past
with the future are a characteristic of reflection as process.

MODALITY OF REFLECTION

Another consideration is the modality of reflection. Reflection reified as writing has been
the most common modality. Journals/diaries, essays and records/logs are the common forms
of written reflection (see, for example, Samway, 2006 for a list of written reflection types and
explanations). However, other modalities of reflection are available and are growing in
importance (Mantle, 2010). Verbal reflection provides opportunities for others to probe and
prompt for deeper and more critical reflection. Stretching the modality continuum even wider,
reflection can be reified in a diagrammatic form in which students exercise their creativity to
realise their thoughts through visual graphics (see, for example, Tokolahi, 2010). This is
illustrated by our medical students, who take an English course to equip themselves with the
linguistic skills needed for the problem-based learning (PBL) adopted by their disciplinary
curriculum, have to reflect and capture their understanding of PBL at a particular stage by
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Reflection in Practice 221
drawing pictures. A teacher of the course justified the adoption of such a modality in the
following way:

PBL is after all an approach to transform students‘ learning and let them see they have
changed in this way or that way… Jenny Moon [a leading figure in reflection] talks about
standing back. We think the picture can help with the standing back. The pictures would move
students away from recycling words that have been put to them when PBL was first
introduced so they will not come up with something they have heard before. The picture will
create some sort of distance.

The choice of modality of reflection depends very much on the nature of the course and
the anticipated outcomes. We should recognise the merits and limitations of each of these
modalities of reflection. For example, written reflections provide more substantial evidence of
students‘ thought processes, but lack the immediate sounding board provided by verbal
reflection. Drawing-based reflections overcome the limitation of linear thought processes and
allow multiple perspectives to be presented as a coherent whole, and yet if this is built into the
materials, time needs to be set aside for a dialogic communication or presentation.

INPUT FOR REFLECTION

It was mentioned earlier in this chapter that we should not assume that reflection is
always valued. In a similar fashion, we should not assume that tertiary learners possess
reflective skills simply because they have higher intellectual abilities. They need to be
equipped with the cognitive and linguistic tools that underlie reflection. Two common tasks
used as input are the provision of exemplars and engaging students in consciousness-raising
activities (Ellis, 2002). The first one is self-explanatory and does not require much
illustration. Commonly used in grammar teaching, consciousness-raising activities can be
used to induct students into reflective thinking by providing them with opportunities to
generalise rules about what constitutes a good reflection.
Figure 20.1 is an excerpt from materials that aim at alerting learners to the importance of
going beyond the surface description level to the deep critical level. The logs are engineering
students‘ reflections on their self-directed learning experience. These students looked for
resources and ways to improve their presentation performances. More specifically, they
articulated the relevance of the resources selected and the way they made use of them to
address the weaknesses identified in their presentations. Comparing these reflection logs,
students should be able to see the varied degree of criticality: reflection log A is not at all
critical, as the writer merely describes what actions he took; reflection log B is a much better
reflection, showing the connection between reviewing the past action and planning for the
future; reflection log C goes even further by specifying the strategies to be adopted in the next
presentation based on the options available and the weaknesses identified in the previous
performance. The criticality is also shaped by the writer‘s own critical dialogues leading to
his/her own clarifications such as ‗By more conversational, I mean…‘, ‗In other words, …‘
and the presence of evaluative adjectives such as systematic and robotic, which imply self-
appraisal.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Ken Lau 222
The following are three students‘ reflection logs. In pairs, discuss the following questions.

Which reflection entry do you think has the highest degree of reflection and which one has the lowest?
Explain your reasons.
Highlight all of the verbs in these three samples. Can you categorise them? On what basis do you
categorise them? Can you come up with more examples of verbs for each category?

Reflection Log A
I watched one of the clips about Reinventing the School Lunch presented by Ann Cooper. I watched the
clip two times from the beginning to the end and then I focused attention on the part in which the
presenter added her personal experience to the presentation using strong links and transitions between
points and sentences. I then jotted down the usual phrases used to signal transitions and will use the
relevant ones in my next presentation.

Reflection Log B
I realised that good presenters have clear transitions between points. They made use of intonation to
signal transition between points. However, in the presentation I did before, I only read the materials
written on the PowerPoint slides without attempting to signal a transition from one point to another. I
relied very heavily on reading from the PowerPoint slides and so I wasn’t able to present the details as
they were listed on the slides. I also became more aware of the fact that strong transitions between points
would make the whole presentation atmosphere more interesting. It can draw the audience’s attention. I
believe that this is what a professional presenter should do. After watching those video clips, I
understood that I should not write the whole script on paper. I have learnt useful skills from these
professional speakers’ delivery of their presentations. These are the skills that I need to learn and imitate
in my future presentations.

Reflection Log C
I believe a reason why I wasn’t able to establish audience rapport is my lack of eye contact. On a website
on public speaking tips (redirected from the CAES homepage), it says that by making eye contact, I will
be able to relate to my audience, which will help to get my message across. It suggests that I may also
nod occasionally. If I get nods back, it shows that that person may agree with what I have just said.
Personally, I believe the audience gets bored if my presentation is very systematic and robotic. I think it
will help if I smile more. By smiling, I will make the audience more relaxed and it allows them to be more
engaged with my presentation. In addition, to further establish audience rapport and maintain audience
interest, I intend to create a more conversational style for my individual presentation. By more
conversational, I mean I will use more phrases like have you wondered? And why do you think so?, etc.
In other words, I can try to put myself in the position of the audience and perhaps imagine what they are
thinking. By doing so, there will be more connection between the audience and me.
Figure 20.1. Consciousness-raising activities for teaching reflection

After demonstrating degrees of criticality, the different linguistic resources that construe
reflection need to be made accessible to learners. This can be done by asking them to
highlight and compare the verbs used in the three reflection logs. Students then become aware
that only action verbs (e.g., watched, jotted down) are used in the first log, whereas a
combination of action (e.g., use, nod) and cognitive verbs (e.g., believe, think) are found in
reflection log C. Students can also be encouraged to brainstorm more examples for each
category of verbs with their peers in class.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Reflection in Practice 223
ASSESSMENT OF REFLECTION

Equally as important as the points addressed above is the thorny issue of assessment of
reflection. The issue is complicated by the nature of our courses and the students we teach.
A constant debate in the assessment of reflection is the question of ‗to be or not to be‘.
Most concerns over assessing reflection are due to the subjective nature of the task, which
seems to go against traditional epistemological beliefs of assessment as objective and
positivistic (Stewart & Richardson, 2000). However, many of those who believe that
reflection should be assessed have devised robust frameworks for assessing reflection: three
to seven levels of reflection have been proposed to assess the quality of reflection, with
various degrees of inter-coder reliability (see Dyment & O‘Connell, 2011, for a summary of
these assessment frameworks). However, these frameworks have been developed mainly for
students taking content/disciplinary subjects, and they do not entirely fit our context. As our
courses emphasise linguistic competence and most of our students are working in their second
language, language proficiency is a potentially overriding (or sole) factor of assessment. The
following extracts from interviews with two teachers participating in the RPT project show a
very interesting disparity in the emphasis on language when assessing reflection:

I try not to really focus much on it [the language]. According to the criteria it‘s a very
small part. It‘s under the category of ‗other‘. We are also told by the course co-ordinator that
style and language are very flexible because it is informal. (T1)

Cannot assess the content; that means when you assess students‘ reflective writing, you
only focus on the language, not the content. (T2)

The complications come down to a very basic yet fundamental question: what are we
assessing when we assess students‘ reflections? To answer this question, it is useful to
conceptualise the assessment of reflection as a continuum, with reflective genre at one end
and reflective practice at the other. Reflective genre assessments focus on the different
modalities and how well the students master the language of reflection. Reflective practices,
according to Ghaye (2010, p. 1), ‗help us understand the links between what we do (what we
can call our practice) and how we might improve our effectiveness (by developing our
practice)‘. To operationalise this definition in the process of materials development, some
form of change needs to be realised and demonstrated for assessment purposes. Very few of
the courses I analysed fall at either end of this continuum, they are somewhere in-between.
Specifically, when we are assessing students‘ reflections, not only do we need to consider
how well the students write in their reflections (which is always the means or tool we rely on
in grading students), but we also need to consider the improvement in their linguistic skills. If
we accept this argument, then it is better to adopt reflection as a process rather than as a
product when designing and implementing materials. This coincides with one of RPS‘s main
findings: most of the students believed that reflection leads to improvement (Lau, 2013; see
also Lau, forthcoming). The following teacher‘s interview excerpt from the RPT project also
succinctly lends support to this proposition:

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Ken Lau 224
this one [a course with reflection as process], it seems that to me it‘s relatively easy. I can
look for evidence showing strengths and weaknesses, so if they only give me a general
statement without any elaboration and evidence, that cannot be called a higher level of
reflection. The other courses like…,they have the kind of product reflection that means they
do it at the end of the course so it‘s not during, not throughout, the whole course
semester…some can write very well, very in-depth reflection but it‘s very hard to tell the
process that particular student has experienced so that makes it [assessment] difficult. (T3)

In practical terms, students should be given chances to demonstrate how they progress by
such means as multiple drafting of essays or recycling of skills taught (such as oral
presentation skills).

CONCLUSION

Although many academics and researchers value the fluid, subjective and dynamic nature
of reflection, some view it as having inherent limitations that could undermine its usefulness
as a learning resource. In this chapter, I have highlighted a number of practical considerations
that are crucial to the integration of reflection into English enhancement materials: the
rationales behind the integration, the nature and modalities of reflection, the inputs that
facilitate reflection and the assessment of reflection. If we take these considerations into
account during materials development, it would, in my view, make the materials more robust
while at the same time strengthen the potential for successful language enhancement in our
context.

REFERENCES

Dyment, J. E., & O‘Connell, T. S. (2011). Assessing the quality of reflection in students‘
journals: A review of research. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 81-97.
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching – practice or consciousness-raising. In J. C. Richards &
W. A. Renandya (Eds.) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current
practice (pp. 167-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ghaye, T. (2010). Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A practical guide for
positive action (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.
Langer, A. M. (2003). Forms of workplace literacy using reflection-with-action methods: A
scheme for inner-city adults. Reflection Practice, 4(3), 317-333.
Lau, K. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of an out-of-class reflection component in a
technical communication course by tracing participants‘ perceptual changes. Reflection
Practice, 14(6), 691-704.
Lau, K. (forthcoming). Assessing reflection in English enhancement courses: Teachers‘ views
and development of a holistic framework. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education.
Mantle, M. (2010). An exploration of the maturation of PGCE student teachers‘ ability to
reflect, using a range of reflective strategies to identify possible stages of development.
Research in Education, 83, 26-35.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Reflection in Practice 225
Salmon, R. (2006). Assessing reflective learning: Precepts, percepts and practices.
Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 97-104.
Samway, K. D. (2006). When English learners write (Vol. 9). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sandars, J. (2009). The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE guide no. 44. Medical
Teacher, 31, 685-695.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. USA: Basic
Books, Inc.
Stewart, S., & Richardson, B. (2000). Reflection and its place in the curriculum on an
undergraduate course: Should it be assessed? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 25(4), 36-380.
Stokes, J., & Welland, R. (2013). The pedagogic potential of student reflections: Can
reflection be more than learning? Paper presented at the CELC Symposium 2013,
National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Tokolahi, E. (2010). Case study: Development of a drawing-based journal to facilitate
reflective inquiry. Reflective Practice, 11(2), 157-170.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

PART III

THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
IN THE SELECTED CONTEXTS
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 21

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
IN THE UNITED STATES: PAST, PRESENT
AND FUTURE ISSUES

Peter De Costa and Kongji Qin
Michigan State University, MI, USA

ABSTRACT

The growing English language learner segment of the student population in the US
has had to negotiate assimilationist (monolingual) and pluralist (multilingual) views of
the role of linguistic and cultural diversity in schools. As observed by de Jong (2013),
both assimilationist and pluralist discourses have historically been reflected in US
language policies. English language education in the US is further complicated by the
absence of a centralised education system, with the education of English language
learners largely directed by court cases, federal and state legislation, and voter initiatives
(Wright, 2010). Thus to better understand issues which have shaped and continue to
shape the US English language education landscape, this chapter explores three key
educational policies: the Bilingual Education Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the
Common Core State Standards. Following a description and critique of these policies,
suggestions on how to engage with emergent issues to enhance the learning experiences
of English language learners are provided.

Keywords: English language learners, Bilingual Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act,
Common Core State Standards

INTRODUCTION

In the decade between 1997-1998 and 2008-2009 school years, the number of English
language learners (ELLs) in public schools in the United States increased by 51% (Samson &
Collins, 2012; see also The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011).
With close to 6 million ELLs enrolled in public schools, it is important to note that ELLs do
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Peter De Costa and Kongji Qin 230
not constitute a homogenous group of students. Further, this growing segment of the student
population has had to negotiate assimilationist (monolingual) and pluralist (multilingual)
views of the role of linguistic and cultural diversity in schools. As observed by de Jong
(2013), both assimilationist and pluralist discourses have historically been reflected in US
language policies. English language education in the US is further complicated by the absence
of a centralised education system, with the education of ELLs largely directed by court cases,
federal and state legislation, and voter initiatives (Wright, 2010).
1
Thus to better understand
issues which have shaped and continue to shape the US English language education
landscape, this chapter is framed against three key educational policies: the Bilingual
Education Act, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, and the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). Following a description and critique of these policies, we provide
suggestions on how to engage with emergent issues to enhance the learning experiences of
ELLs.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT

In 1968 the Bilingual Education Act was passed and entered into federal law as Title VII
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act provided grants to school
districts and other eligible entities, through a competitive grant process, for developing
bilingual programmes for ELLs (Wright, 2010). Since 1968, the ESEA has undergone six
reauthorisations, which took place against an evolving backdrop that sought to provide
equitable access to education. Importantly, it is the language of instruction which has been
strongly contested and much debated in court cases and legislation (Billings, Martin-Beltrán
& Hernández, 2012).
The two decades after the implementation of the Bilingual Education Act saw much
development of bilingual education for ELLs. Through federal legislation and court cases
(mainly the 1974 Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols and the 1981 case Casta eda v.
Pickard), policy makers and educators created language policies that valued students‘ home
cultures, languages, and prior experiences in instruction and supported bilingual programmes
which capitalised on ELL students‘ cultural and linguistic strengths in developing their
English language proficiency and knowledge in content area subjects (Ovando, 2003).
However, in the late 1990s, due to the rise of conservatism and assimilation discourse in
US society, opposition to bilingual education in the US gained momentum, and diverse
groups of opponents increased their attack on the policies and practice of teaching ELLs
through their native languages, which influenced public opinion towards bilingual education
(Lawton, 2012; Martin, 2014; Ovando, 2003; San Miguel, 2004). Advocates of conservatism
maintain that unifying language and culture helps protect and preserve the idealised nation-
state, and that immigrants should be integrated to the ‗melting pot‘ as quickly as possible.
Several states passed laws that abandoned bilingual programmes in favour of English
immersion programmes for ELLs (San Miguel, 2004). In June 1998, a divided Californian
electorate voted to mandate English-only instruction for ELLs in their public schools by

1
Contrary to popular assumption that English is the official language of the US, the founding fathers never declared
any language as an official language, and the US constitution has never been amended to declare English as
the official language (Wright, 2010).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education in the United States 231
passing Proposition 227. Other states like Arizona and Massachusetts also passed similar
assimilative legislation, requesting that schools use only English in instruction for ELLs (de
Jong, 2013). The promotion of English-only instruction for ELLs thus threatened cultural and
linguistic diversity. In spite of these assimilationist and conservative measures, a variety of
programmes for ELLs continue to exist in the US (see Table 21.1). These programmes can
broadly be described as being subtractive (i.e., at the expense of the ELL‘s first language) or
additive (i.e., in addition to the first language) in nature.
Two models of bilingualism – monoglossic and heteroglossic – undergird bilingual
education programmes. According to García (2009), while a monoglossic view of bilinguals
and bilingual education considers each language as one separate entity and privileges one
language over the other language, a heteroglossic view maintains that bilinguals‘ use of their
languages cannot be strictly separated because both languages are always present, and
educational practices and policies should capitalise on and maximise the social and cognitive
benefits of bilingualism.

Table 21.1. Programmes for English language learners
(based on Freeman & Freeman, 2011, pp. 168-169)

Type of Programmes Description Language
Result
1. English immersion

ELLs are taught with mainstream students and given
no special services.
Subtractive
2. Structured English Immersion

ELLs are taught only in English and teachers are
trained to make the input comprehensible.
Subtractive
3. ESL pullout traditional
instruction

ELLs are given support. They are taught basic
vocabulary and language structure and then
integrated into English instruction.
Subtractive
4. ESL pullout or push-in content
instruction

ELLs are given 2-3 years ESL content support
services and then integrated into all-English
instruction.
Subtractive
5. Early-exit or transitional
bilingual education

ELLs receive a portion of their content instruction for
2-3 years and then integrated into all-English
instruction.
Subtractive
6. Late-exit or maintenance
programmes

ELLs receive content instruction in both L1 and L2
for 4-6 years.
Additive
7. Bilingual dual-language
education (one-way and two-
way)
ELLs and native speakers of English learn language
through content in both English and the first language
of the English learners.
Additive

For example, ethnolinguistic studies have shown that emergent bilingual students switch
between their different languages inside and outside classrooms to negotiate meaning (e.g.,
Paris, 2011; Rampton, 1995). A heteroglossic view of bilingualism thus promotes the
translanguaging practices of bilinguals, and regards such practices as mobilising essential
linguistic resources in an increasingly globalised world.
In light of this difference, García (2009) has challenged US educators to take a
heteroglossic view of dynamic bilingualism (i.e., where bilinguals use their languages for a
variety of purposes and in a variety of settings). Her call is consistent with that of Suárez-
Orozco and Suárez-Orozco (2009), who urged ‗more schools to implement dual-language
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Peter De Costa and Kongji Qin 232
programmes that … prepare competent bilingual speakers, immigrant and native alike‘ (p.10).
As noted by Genesee et al. (2006), extensive research has shown that ELLs who participate in
dual language programmes achieve equal, if not higher, levels of English language reading
and writing skills than ELLs in English-only programmes when evaluated on standardised or
state-mandated tests of literacy. Interestingly, while two-way immersion programmes have
been on the rise among bilingual education programmes (Center for Applied Linguistics
[CAL], 2009), a combination of sociopolitical factors has led to an overall reduction in the
number bilingual education programmes over the past 20 years. One primary reason behind
this reduction was the introduction of the NCLB Act.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB)

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the NCLB Act of 2001 into law.
As the reauthorisation of the 1994 ESEA, NCLB virtually repealed the former Bilingual
Education Act, and launched the era of highly restrictive and assimilative language policies
on ELL education in the US (Crawford, 2008; Hakuta, 2011). In contrast to previous
language policies from the 1970s to the 1990s under the Bilingual Education Act, Title III of
the NCLB – the section that mandates federal policies for the education of ELLs – shifted the
focus of ELL education to the development of ELLs‘ English language proficiency through
English-only instruction. This federal legislation also brought increasing accountability
measures upon schools and school districts, holding them accountable for ensuring that ELL
students‘ make ‗adequately yearly progress‘ in their development of English language
proficiency and core academic content knowledge.
Admittedly, NCLB is not without flaws, a point which will be elaborated on shortly.
Often overlooked, however, are some of its positive dimensions. First, as noted by Hamayan
and Field (2012), it endorsed an ethos of shared responsibility among educators; instead of
being the sole responsibility of the ESL or bilingual specialist, improving instruction and
achievement for ELLs became the mutual responsibility for all educators. Second, every state
in the US had to develop English language proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments,
individually or in collaboration with other states. Third, ELLs had to be identified and their
ELP level specified with attention to their listening, speaking, reading, and writing levels.
Fourth, with the passing of NCLB, all teachers and administrators working in US public
schools had to demonstrate competencies or demonstrate credentials in ELL education,
thereby contributing to the emergence of more qualified faculty and staff.
Although NCLB has been recognised as a federal language policy that featured greater
inclusion of ELLs in its policy mandates and brought the needs of ELLs into spotlight, it has
also been heavily criticised for its negative impact on ELL education. Scholars contend that
by promoting English-only instruction for ELL education, the federal government has
promoted an assimilative discourse that disregards the cultural and linguistic assets ELLs and
immigrant students bring into their classroom (Crawford, 2008; de Jong, 2013). Other
criticisms of NCLB include the short timeframe allowed for ELL students to develop their
English language proficiency and limited funding for capacity-building activities. Due to
accountability pressures, rapid teaching of English subsequently became the trend. For
example, Arizona mandated ‗one-year‘ English immersion programmes for ELLs (Lawton,
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education in the United States 233
2012), against established research which has indicated that it generally takes four to seven
years for ELLs to develop their English language proficiency (Goldenberg, 2008; Hakuta,
2011). Title III also significantly reduced the funding for teaching training, research and other
support services, limiting the funding for these capacity-building activities to only 6.5 percent
of its total budget (San Miguel, 2004).
Relatedly, NCLB‘s push for greater accountability has exerted strong pressure on schools
and school districts in regard to ELL achievement, which in turn has impacted the way
curriculum and instruction for ELLs are organised. As observed by Ovando, Combs and
Collier (2006), pedagogical emphasis shifted from supporting programmes that use some
form of native language instruction to solely focusing on ‗English acquisition and academic
achievement in English – not the cultivation of bilingualism‘ (p. 68). Other critics (e.g.,
Garcia, Lawton, & De Figueiredo, 2012) have argued that the sharp focus on English-only
instruction is problematic because studies have shown that such instruction is not an effective
approach to closing the achievement gap between ELLs and non-ELLs. For example, Losen
(2010) and Garcia et al. (2012) reported that English-only instruction implemented under
Proposition 203 in Arizona had not improved ELLs’ academic achievement. The major
reasons seem to be that such instruction segregated ELLs from their mainstream counterparts,
thereby denying them access to valuable social relations which could potentially contribute to
their academic achievement. Further, the English-only instruction model also tends to
mainstream ELLs early and mainstream classroom teachers are generally not adequately
prepared to assist ELLs in learning both content and language. Next, and in contrast to the
monolingual bias underpinning NCLB, reviews of previous research (e.g., Goldenberg, 2008;
The ELL Working Group, 2010) have revealed that the development of ELLs‘ native
language proficiency can contribute to the development of their English language proficiency.
According to Goldenberg (2008), language learners transfer some of their first language skills
and competencies, such as phonemic awareness, decoding skills, and comprehension
strategies, to their learning of English. Additionally, ELLs‘ development of native language
and knowledge of their native culture can build their self-esteem, confidence, and school
identities, which in turn contributes to their learning of the English language and subject
content knowledge.
As mentioned, NCLB has had an immense impact on bilingual education programmes,
resulting in their widespread termination. This problem has been exacerbated by schools
resorting to a monolingual approach and teachers adopting the practice of ‗teaching to the test‘
to enhance students‘ ability for testing. In fact, the accountability measures propagated by
NCLB have also come under fire because the tests used to evaluate ELLs‘ have been deemed
to be invalid as most of the tests are designed for native English speaking students (Menken,
2008).
Overall, the high stakes testing advanced by NCLB has prompted education scholars such
as Lawton (2012) to assert that NCLB replaced the liberalism of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act with neoliberalism. Such a neoliberal and high stakes agenda has
persisted with the Obama administration, which in 2010 awarded funding to selected states
through a grants competition programme called ‗Race to the Top.‘ Taken together, anti-
bilingual education mandates and the accountability demands of NCLB and Race to the Top
have generated new pressures on ELLs and their teachers – pressures which the most recent
policy, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), attempts to alleviate.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Peter De Costa and Kongji Qin 234
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS (CCSS)

In June 2009, the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors
Association announced that they would be working together to establish a set of common
standards for states (TESOL International Association, 2013). The CCSS grew out of a
concern that US K-12 curriculum lacked rigour. Reading tests under NCLB, for example,
were viewed as failing to measure real thinking skills or rich content knowledge. Thus, a
primary objective of the CCSS is to make the US competitive in today‘s global economy and
its goals are internationally benchmarked to emulate high-performing systems abroad. To
date, all but five states (Alaska, Virginia, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas) have agreed to
adopt the new standards. As observed by Valdés, Kibler, and Walqui (2014), the standards
‗will also fundamentally impact the already omnipresent assessment and accountability
system for students, schools, districts, and states‘ (p. 5) (see also Kibler, Valdés, & Walqui,
2014).
To help develop English language proficiency standards which correspond to the CCSS,
the Council of Chief State School Officers released an English language proficiency
development (ELPD) framework in September 2012. Many states have begun revising their
ELPD standards and it is anticipated that these states will benefit from the guidance afforded
by the new set of ELP standards, which correspond to the CCSS and the Next Generation
Science Standards, put out by the Council (CCSSO, 2014). Based on this framework, Duguay
et al. (2013) anticipate three major shifts in instruction: greater emphasis in language and
literacy across content instruction, greater use of informational (nonfiction) text, and a focus
on argumentation. To its credit, the CCSS does bring with it several promising possibilities.
First, it has drawn much needed attention to the content areas for all students. ELLs, in
particular, stand to benefit from language-focused instruction in content classrooms. Second,
greater interdisciplinary instruction and closer collaboration between ESL and content
teachers may emerge as a consequence of the simultaneous attention to content and language
(Duguay et al., 2013). Third, and in the vein of greater collaboration, the CCSS could force
colleges within and across states to agree on what it means to be ‗college ready‘, as they work
alongside K-12 educators to help underprepared students (Nelson, 2013).
Like preceding policies, however, the CCSS is also open to criticism. First, ELLs are
susceptible to academic struggles as they have to grapple with double the work – they need to
learn content concepts at the same time as they develop language skills. Interviews with
teachers in New York City, for example, revealed that nonnative speakers are encountering a
harder time with math because the new curricula require greater use of word problems
(Baker, 2014). Next, and perhaps a more deep-rooted problem associated with the CCSS are
the assumptions underpinning it. As Rolstad (2014) reminds us, the standards which
foreground thinking and analytical skills stress ‗the development of academic language often
as a cognitive prerequisite to successful engagement of school subject matter‘ (p. 4). In
reality, however, as asserted by Bunch (2014), the ability to use academic English is not a
prerequisite for understanding academic content. More importantly, as Wiley and Rolstad
(2014) point out, the philosophy of education underlying the CCSS ignores decades of
literacy research which has emphasised the importance and value in the ideological
orientation to literacy, and re-establishes an autonomous orientation to literacy, that is, one
which ‗generally assume[s] that the mismatch [between home and school] results in cognitive
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education in the United States 235
limitations in the readiness of some language minority and lower-class children for basic
literacy and formal education‘ (p. 41). In sum, like its predecessors, the CCSS is not without
its shortcomings. How these shortcomings, and the shortcomings associated with the policies
discussed earlier, can be addressed is discussed briefly next.

CONCLUSION

In this section, we offer several suggestions on how to engage with the issues discussed
in this chapter. Importantly, we recognise that multiple approaches, some of which may
overlap, need to be adopted. On a pedagogical level and in keeping with research evidence
that demonstrates the benefits of maintaining additive approaches to bilingualism (e.g.,
García, 2009; Genesee et al., 2006; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009), we recommend
(1) developing policy guidelines for ELLs who exit their bilingual/ESL programmes, and (2)
ensuring that ELLs‘ academic language development will receive continued support in the
standard curriculum classroom after they exit these programmes. Further, in line with
Freeman and Freeman‘s (2011) call to develop an intercultural orientation at school, we (1)
advocate a view of language as a resource, and (2) propose minority community member
involvement in the school through parent education programmes. Third, we support greater
collaboration between ESL and content teachers so that instruction is delivered in such a way
that the ELL students achieve high-level content and language instruction. One proven
research-based approach is the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) model,
which allows ELLs to develop oral language proficiency while building academic English
literacy skills and content area knowledge (Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2012). Such a method
should be modified in conjunction with the CCSS. At the same time, educators ought to
capitalise on the excellent resources developed by professional organisations such as
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL, www.tesol.org/), the Center
for Applied Linguistics (CAL, http://www.cal.org/), the International Foundation for
Research in English Language Education (TIRF, http://www.tirfonline.org/), the National
Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, www.ncte.org), the International Reading
Association (IRA, www.ira.org), and the National Association for Bilingual Education
(NABE, www.nabe.org). By working with these resources, educators can develop their own
specific theory about language, language learning, and language teaching while also keeping
abreast with contemporary understandings of second language acquisition (SLA) and the
multilingual realities of ELLs (Valdés, Kibler, & Walqui, 2014). It is important to remember
that ELLs are capable of making progress in learning English and academic content. What
they need, however, is sound instruction customised to their linguistic and academic strengths
and needs (August & Shanahan, 2006). This objective can only be realised through a
concerted effort.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Peter De Costa and Kongji Qin 236
REFERENCES

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report
of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, A. (February 2, 2014). Common core curriculum now has critics on the left. New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/ 17/nyregion/new-york-early-
champion-of-common-core-standards-joins-critics.html?_r=0
Billings, E. S. , Martin-Beltrán, M., & Hernández, A. (2010). Beyond English development:
Bilingual approaches to teaching immigrant students and English language learners.
National Society for the Study of Education, 109(2), 384-413.
Bunch, G. C. (2014). The language of ideas and the language of display: Reconceptualizing
‗academic language‘ in linguistically diverse classrooms. International Multilingual
Research Journal, 8, 70-86.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2009). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion programs
in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2014). English language proficiency (ELP)
standards. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/ Resources/Publications/
English_Language_Proficiency_(ELP)_Standards_.html
Crawford, J. (2008). The Bilingual Education Act, 1968-2002: An obituary. In Advocating for
English learners: Selected essays (pp. 124–127). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
de Jong, E. J. (2013). Policy discourses and U.S. language in education policies. Peabody
Journal of Education, 88(1), 98–111.
Duguay, A., Massoud, L., Tabaku, L., Himmel, J., & Sugarman, J. (2013). Implementing the
common core for English learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners: Sheltered instruction observation protocol (4
th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2011). Between worlds: Access to second language
acquisition (3
rd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Garcia, E. E., Lawton, K., & De Figueiredo, E. H. D. (2012). The education of English
language learners in Arizona: A history of underachievement. Teachers College Record,
114, 1–18.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21
st
century: A global perspective. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English
language learners: A synthesis of empirical findings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and
does not—say. American Educator, 8–23, 42–44.
Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights
research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 163–174.
Hamayan, E., & Field, R. B. (Eds.) (2012). English language learners at school: A guide for
administrators. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education in the United States 237
Kibler, A., Valdés, G., & Walqui, A. (2014). What does standards-based educational reform
mean for English language learner populations in primary and secondary schools?
TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 433–453.
Lawton, S. B. (2012). State education policy formation: The case of Arizona‘s English
language learner legislation. American Journal of Education, 118(4), 455–487.
Losen, D. (2010). Challenging limitations: The growing potential for overturning restrictive
language policies and ensuring equal educational opportunity. In P. C. Gandara & M.
Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies
(pp. 195–215). New York: Teachers College Press.
Martin, J. (2014, April 19). Republicans see political wedge in Common Core. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/us/politics/republicans-see-
political-wedge-in-common-core.html
Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy.
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Nelson, L. A. (2013). Common core curriculum for K-12 could have far-reaching effects on
high education. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/
2013/05/03/common-core-curriculum-k-12-could-have-far-reaching-effects-higher-
education#sthash.gf6WDmWq.dpbs
Ovando, C. J. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and
current issues. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 1–24.
Ovando, C. J., Combs, M. C., & Collier, V. P. (2006). Bilingual & ESL classrooms: Teaching
in multicultural contexts (4
th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Paris, D. (2011). Language across difference: Ethnicity, communication, and youth identities
in changing urban schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. New York, NY:
Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Rolstad, K. (2014). Rethinking language at school. International Multilingual Research
Journal, 8, 1-8.
Samson, J. F., & Collins, B.F. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English
language learners. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
San Miguel, G. (2004). Contested policy: The rise and fall of federal bilingual education in
the United States, 1960-2001. Denton, Tex.: University of North Texas Press.
Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2009). Educating Latino immigrant students in
the twenty-first century: Principles for the Obama administration. Harvard Educational
Review, 79(2), 327-340.
TESOL International Association (2013). Overview on the common core state standards
initiatives for ELLs. Alexandria, VA: Author.
The ELL Working Group. (2010). Improving educational outcomes for English language
learners: Recommendations for the reautherization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/topics/
ell/ELL-Working-Group-ESEA
The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (2011). The growing numbers
of English learner students, 1998/00-2008/09. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Valdés, G., Kibler, A., & Walqui, A. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals:
Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International
Association.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Peter De Costa and Kongji Qin 238
Wiley, T. G., & Rolstad, K. (2014). The common core state standards and the great divide.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 8, 38-55.
Wright, W. (2010). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory,
policy, and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 22

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ‘EDUCATION’
OR ‘INDUSTRY’? BRIDGING PARALLEL DISCOURSES
IN CANADA

Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado
McGill University, Canada, and University of Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT

In the context of a global trend towards the internationalisation of higher education, a
growing number of public educational institutions and private providers are offering
English language education programmes for international students in Canada. In response
to rapidly declining government funding, higher education institutions are intensifying
their international student recruitment efforts as well as expanding their English language
offerings. At the same time, the Canadian government is increasingly framing
international education as a key to its future prosperity and targeting international
students as potential immigrants upon graduation. This state of affairs generates
discursive tensions and provides the conditions for the creation and mobilisation of a
variety of somewhat parallel discourses (business, academic, political) that do not always
engage in mutual dialogue and collaboration. In this chapter, we describe the contextual
realities in this regard and engage with some of the key areas of contention. We argue, for
instance, that all of these views need to engage in productive conversation and work in a
complementary manner. We take the position that stakeholders on all sides of this
common endeavour need to work synergistically in order to address the needs and goals
of students in an ethical and academically sound manner while striving to achieve the
goals of the institutions that attract them.

Keywords: international students, internationalisation, higher education, English language
education, ESL, ELT, discourses, academic capitalism, commodification, immigration,
Canada

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado 240
INTRODUCTION

There is a critical debate within academic circles today about the growing trend towards
the commodification of education at all levels (Giroux & Myrsiades, 2001; Guardado, 2012;
Lewis, 2008; Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005). As part of this conversation, English language
teaching (ELT) is increasingly being recognised as a major source of economic revenue for
English speaking countries (Anchimbe, 2006). The number of educational institutions
offering English language programmes for international students has experienced rapid global
growth in the past few years. Depending on the needs of the target learner population, ELT
programmes are designed and provided in different forms by a wide range of organisations
such as local-level public schools, post-secondary institutions, private education services
providers, and other organisations. In concert with the phenomenon of English as an
academic lingua franca (Mauranen, Hynninen, & Ranta, 2010), universities in English
speaking countries are operating entrepreneurial activities in this area more than ever before.
Canada is not an exception and is in fact one of the leaders in this expanding ELT market, and
as a result, it has become increasingly important to gain a better understanding of the
complexities of the language education industry.
Nevertheless, in academic discourses of English as a second language (ESL) education,
issues related to the administration, marketing, recruitment, and promotion of language
education tend to be downplayed due to their relatively indirect influence on everyday
classroom practices. Language education scholars sometimes view this type of discourse as a
form of sell-out and thus as distasteful and even unethical. Despite a number of legitimate
concerns surrounding the increasing corporatisation of ELT at Canadian universities, this way
of thinking, we argue, is antiquated, unrealistic and impractical. It is a hindrance to the
development of the best possible experiences for international students. ELT programme
managers, marketers, and recruiters, on the other hand, may see the academic discourse as
unnecessarily cautious, complicated, and even a barrier to recruitment. We contend that both
of these views are simplistic and counterproductive.
Indeed, with the abundance of literature on the role of ELT programmes to promote the
internationalisation of higher education (e.g., Harman, 2004), many critical pedagogues and
other scholars argue that it is time to generate a more active discussion of what some of them
term ‗academic capitalism‘ (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997) and ‗edubusiness‘ (Luke, 2010) in the
field of English language education. Inspired by these critical perspectives on the rapidly
changing climate of ELT worldwide, the present chapter aims to help stimulate dialogue
between the business and academic communities by highlighting some of the rationale and
unique ways in which Canada is developing its own path and plan for attracting international
students. This plan is being undertaken through various initiatives to strategically brand
‗Canadian education‘ (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2014)
(hereafter DFAIT) and thus enhance its appeal in the context of an increasingly competitive
academic, business, and immigration enterprise. In this chapter we take the position that
stakeholders on both sides of this common endeavour need to work synergistically in order to
address the needs and goals of students in an ethical and academically sound manner while
striving to achieve the goals of the institutions that attract them.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language ‗Education‘ or ‗Industry‘? 241
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AS PART OF CANADA’S
POLITICAL AGENDA

Recognising the valuable contribution of international students to the broader society,
Canada has been promoting supportive attitudes towards international education (see, for
example, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2012) (hereafter CIC). In fact, Harper‘s
government recently proclaimed that it aims to double the number of international students in
post-secondary education by 2022, raising it to 450,000. This is part of the government‘s
announcement to launch its comprehensive International Education Strategy (Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2014, January 15). This strategy builds on at
least two key reports: Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration (Citizenship and
Immigration Canada, 2012) and International Education: A Key Driver to Canada’s Future
Prosperity (Advisory Panel on Canada‘s International Education Strategy, 2012). Both of
these documents contain discourses that strongly encourage the federal government to
strengthen its international education strategy and aggressively pursue the recruitment of
international students. Specifically addressing these points, the Annual Report to Parliament
on Immigration states:

International students bring with them new ideas and cultures that enrich the learning
environment within Canadian educational institutions. International students are well prepared
for the Canadian labour market and integrate more quickly into Canadian society since they
have Canadian educational credentials and have spent several years interacting with Canadian
students in their post- secondary institutions. (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2012, p.
21)

In this example of current official discourse, Canada recognises that the presence of
international students on university campuses enriches society at large in many ways. While
underscoring the benefits of cultural diversity and internationalisation that they bring into
Canadian classrooms, the statement illustrates Canada‘s perspectives on international students
as ideal immigrants. This point is particularly relevant in cases where international students
remain in Canada upon their university graduation and join the workforce. In a sense,
extending this argument, education in Canada is being employed as an immigration strategy –
as a cultural and linguistic Canadianisation process – to prepare international students for the
Canadian job market.
In addition, this multi-goal agenda suggests that Canada not only prepares and then
attracts new Canadians through education, but also reveals that these international students
are already making a major economic contribution to the country. For instance, another recent
report prepared for DFAIT (Roslyn Kunin & Associates, 2012) (hereafter RKA), Economic
Impact of International Education in Canada – An Update, revealed that international
students contributed more than $8 billion to the Canadian economy in 2010, up from $6.5
billion in 2008. Furthermore, the international education services that Canada provides to
China, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia – which constitute the top source countries for
international students – make up more than 10% of Canada‘s total exports to these countries.
Given that these data unquestionably suggest that international education is contributing to
the Canadian economy in such a substantial manner, there should be no doubt about the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado 242
potential contribution that ELT education can make in the Canadian context – financially,
socially, culturally, and in other ways – through a concerted national effort.

THE ELT INDUSTRY IN CANADA

Owing to the widespread belief that a high proficiency in academic English is one of the
essential keys to success in higher education (Andrade, 2006; Zeegers, 2004), most
universities in English speaking countries and elsewhere now offer English for academic
purposes (EAP) courses, not only to students aspiring to enter degree programmes, but also to
students already in these programmes. Canadian universities are certainly no exception to this
trend. Prior to entering their degree programmes, many arriving international ESL students
enrol in intensive programmes such as these and some students concurrently take EAP
courses during their actual academic studies. In this chapter, we refer to these students as
international ESL students to differentiate them from domestic francophone ESL students and
international students from anglophone countries. Leading the internationalisation of higher
education, Canada has been attracting many international ESL students who seek a Canadian
degree as well as those who aspire to improve their English language skills and to obtain an
intercultural experience through short-term programmes. The document, Economic Impact of
International Education in Canada – An Update (RKA, 2012), revealed an average of 7%
international student growth per year between 2000 and 2010 and in some years, the growth
was over 10%. Enrolment at the university level accounted for over half of the total number
of international students in Canada at the end of the reported ten-year period. This DFAIT
document also reports that according to a survey conducted in 2010 by Languages Canada,
1

whose membership consists of 154 institutions – a combination of private and public post-
secondary non-credit language programmes – it is estimated that 136,906 students were
registered in language training institutions in Canada (the data include both English and
French). The data indicate that out of this number, at least 110,157 students (nearly 81%)
were on short-term programmes of under six-months (the length of some programmes was
not reported in detail) (RKA, 2012). Specifically in ELT, based on the Languages Canada
data, the report shows the significant economic impact of short-term ESL students on the
country. The report excluded students whose stay was over six months, but if accurate data on
the entire ESL population were available, surely a much more significant economic effect
would be revealed. Although this report does not include information about students enrolled
in ELT programmes for over six months, the international students in these short-term
language-learning programmes reportedly contributed about $455 million in GDP, 10,780
jobs, and $48 million in government tax revenue, which, combined, constitutes a significant
boost to the Canadian economy. Just to illustrate a segment of the industry contributing to the
current trend, we use some data from the English Language School at the University of
Alberta. The School includes general English language courses for students who have not yet
officially declared their intention to enter a degree programme and whose English language
proficiency is still not high enough to apply. The School also offers credit-bearing EAP
courses for international students on an academic path. The majority of students in the EAP

1
Languages Canada is an organisation that represents Canada‘s two official languages, English and French, and
regulates the teaching of these languages in the public and private sector.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language ‗Education‘ or ‗Industry‘? 243
courses are in a Bridging Program designed to conditionally admit students who are
academically strong, but whose English proficiency can benefit from further development.
Students taking EAP courses as part of the Bridging Program already enjoy the institutional
privileges of degree programme students. It is interesting to note that over the past four years,
enrolment in the non-EAP language courses has experienced a decline of approximately 20%
in total (close to 7% per year). By contrast, enrolment in the EAP Program has increased by
53% over the same period (an average of 17% growth per year). The trends in the English
Language School at the University of Alberta may be similar to those at other Canadian
institutions. Evidently, there is growing interest in post-secondary education among
international ESL students, a trend that aligns well with the policies of the Canadian
government in support of the promising ELT industry in this country. It should be noted that
while official documents have reported on the considerable economic impact of ESL students
in Canada, comprehensive and accurate data on this sector is not available. Clearly, there are
several key aspects of this economic activity that warrant further and more in-depth
examination, such as the economic contribution of ESL students both long- and short-term
(excluding French learners in Quebec, for increased analytic clarity), programme types,
institutional characteristics, and demographic differences.

BRANDING CANADA AS AN IDEAL DESTINATION
FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

As mentioned above, the government has expressed a strong political commitment to
branding Canadian education in order to boost the economy by increasing the number of
highly-skilled, Canadian-trained workers. Across Canadian institutions, linguistic, cultural,
and ethnic diversity are some of the common selling phrases used in marketing materials. By
way of illustration, an ESL student from the University of Toronto offers the following
testimonial:

I looked at schools in several countries in my search for the best English program and
settled on Canada because of its cultural diversity and friendliness to newcomers. (University
of Toronto, 2014)

In the literature, this country has been portrayed as a popular destination for international
students to study the English language. Aside from multiculturalism, more practical reasons
have been highlighted as motivations for coming to study in Canada. For example, Fryer
(1996) and Takayama (2000) investigated the perspectives of Japanese ESL students in Metro
Vancouver, a west-coast, metropolitan city in British Columbia, and reportedly the most
common destination for Asian ESL students. Takayama described the popularity of the city
for Japanese students as arising from its safety, spectacular scenery, and more direct access to
Japan. Lee and Wesche (2000) analysed Korean students‘ main reasons for choosing Canada
as a study destination, citing relatively low tuition fees and living costs compared to other
countries. Similarly, Moon (2005) stated that appealing points of a Canadian study experience
for Korean students are ‗a safe and secure environment in the schools, community, towns and
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado 244
cities, along with the availability of a relatively high quality of facility [sic] and programs in
the educational institutions‘ (p. 142).
Even though the Canadian international education strategy already draws on some of
these factors and research findings, it would do well to highlight understated factors, such as
the high academic standards, and more affordable educational and living costs. More
importantly, it is also clear that increasing funding and other support for a broader research
agenda in this area of national importance should be a priority. Indeed, understanding the
‗push-pull factors‘ that influence international students‘ decision-making processes (Mazzarol
& Soutar, 2002) could benefit from more comprehensive research across Canadian
educational institutions, and particularly, in ELT programmes. This research, no doubt, would
better guide post-secondary institutions in their efforts to attract international students to their
campuses, as well as better inform the federal government of adjustments needed in their
international education policies and thus, better leverage its brand to more effectively attract
international students. As well, more explicit discussion of the terminological – and
ideological – commonalities and distinctions between attracting and retaining students as
‗learners‘ and as fee-paying ‗customers‘ would help engage in a more open and productive
dialogue among stakeholders.

EXPANDING THE ELT INDUSTRY

The ELT ‗industry‘ discourse has emerged – or at least intensified – in the last decade
and a half. However, there is currently a rapid movement worldwide to expand this sector as
an industry and further consolidate it within university campuses. This process of
consolidation is occurring through the development of ‗foundation‘ and ‗pathways‘
programmes and the establishment of international colleges. Post-secondary institutions have
pursued this endeavour in the past decade through at least two emerging models: partnering
with private providers or establishing their own entities, both of which offer international ESL
students a mixture of credit and English language courses. In Canada, as well as elsewhere in
the world, this is taking place in the context of parallel forces and interests affecting higher
education. For instance, Canadian higher education institutions have traditionally been
heavily subsidised by operating grants from provincial governments (these are responsible for
higher education in Canada). These grants, at least as high as 78% of the total budget in the
late 1980s (Steele, 2010), have been decreasing rapidly, initiating a significant transformation
in Canadian higher education as these institutions scramble to make up the shortfall via
alternative revenue streams.
This rapid fiscal change is perhaps one of the main catalysts for the current trend to
establish dedicated educational entities that will attract international ESL students in the
Canadian context. Both private-provider and in-house models are represented in Canada.
Several Canadian universities have partnered with private-sector education companies in
recent years. For instance, the Australia-based education corporation, Navitas, partnered with
Simon Fraser University in 2006 to establish Fraser International College and with the
University of Manitoba in 2007 to open the International College of Manitoba. Navitas and
other education corporations have engaged in high-level negotiations with several other
Canadian universities, including McMaster University, the University of Windsor, the
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language ‗Education‘ or ‗Industry‘? 245
University of Calgary, and the University of British Columbia, among others. This corporate
model has received substantial criticism and coverage in the higher education media as a form
of outsourcing higher education, compromising academic standards, and a range of other
concerns voiced by faculty associations, students, and other stakeholders. While bridging and
pathways programmes that promised students a ‗soft landing‘ (Redden, 2010, August 4) have
existed in Canada for some time, full-fledged international colleges have only recently
become a high priority for universities. The University of British Columbia, for instance,
established Vantage College in May 2013 and welcomed its first cohort of close to 200
2

students in fall 2014. In the coming years, Vantage College is likely to be but one of many
institutions of its kind as the trend of corporatisation in Canadian ESL education continues.
Although pathways and bridging programmes are increasingly offering international
students the opportunity to earn credits towards their degrees while working to meet the
English language proficiency requirements to be fully admitted into their programmes, the
emerging international colleges promise students up to a full-year of university credit while
improving their English language skills. Thus, educational enterprises such as the
international colleges are universities‘ attempts to design attractive academic packages to
more coherently market their services to international students and centralise their operations.
In the face of decreasing government support for the successful operation of post-secondary
institutions, these are being forced to compete with each other in the international education
marketplace. English language programmes in general, and EAP in particular, are of central
relevance to these educational – and financial – enterprises. Indeed, from an academic
perspective, these are perhaps the key areas where the success of these colleges may be
measured given that international students are expected to learn academic content at a first
year level in a language they are not yet proficient in – while also developing the language.

CHALLENGES IN PROVIDING QUALITY ESL EDUCATION

Business Challenges

English Language programmes in Canadian higher education, which used to serve local
students as remedial or developmental programmes, have morphed into major entrepreneurial
projects for universities (Eaton, 2006; Eaton & Goddard, 2008). An evolving challenge, as
Eaton and Goddard‘s (2008) study of a university-based ELT programme revealed, may be
the mismatch between the ELT programmes as revenue-generating units and the lack of
legitimacy and resources for these programmes as businesses within Canadian universities.
She found that within a particular institution, the programme administrators who held
advanced degrees in applied linguistics did not feel comfortable engaging in marketing
without professional training in business. Eaton‘s study raised the question of whether – and
to what extent – universities recognise and support ELT programmes in a way that is
commensurate with the economic contribution they make to the institution.
Given that the above scenario may continue to be the case at this and other institutions, it
has become increasingly important to gain a better understanding of the complexities of the
language education sector. For instance, in terms of the business side of English language

2
S. Zappa-Hollman, personal communication, January 22, 2015.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado 246
education, there are many key issues that would benefit from more attention from the
scholarly community. Themes that should be discussed in ESL education contexts include the
factors that influence international student mobility and the choice of destination countries
and programmes (Kirsch, 2014; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002), as well as the implementation of
ethical recruitment practices. For example, Robison (2007) pointed out that many institutions
have begun using commercial third-party recruitment agents, which sometimes involves
unethical recruitment practices. Using an online survey, Kirsch (2014) investigated
international educators‘ views on the use of recruitment agents in the United States and
reported a variety of challenges, namely in terms of misinformed students, unprepared
students, and document fraud.
Additionally, it would serve both the business as well as the academic side of language
education to advance research that explains international ESL students‘ decision-making
factors to study abroad. It would be informative to know how those students were recruited,
why they chose the particular country, city, institution, and programme, as well as other
information of relevance to recruitment strategies. From a pedagogical perspective, this
would help better understand the background of the students present in our classrooms, and
from a marketing perspective, it would be possible to strategically direct recruitment
resources. Other questions that would be important to investigate include those related to
recruitment agents and issues of brand confusion, misleading information, incomplete
disclosure, and parental unawareness of foreign educational systems, to mention just a few.
While educators tend to shy away from the argument of education for profit (Luke,
2010), it is important that the ELT community face the current reality that many programmes
are designed and implemented to generate profits. For instance, Kinoshita (2001) studied
young Japanese female students‘ perceptions of Canada and Canadians and reported that
those ESL students felt that they were treated as ‗cash-rich foreigners‘ during their homestay
experiences (p. 102). In this regard, the customers – students – were not satisfied with the
quality of the product they paid for, a finding that should be seen as a key implication for the
improvement of this field. When formulating and implementing business policies, ELT
institutions need to consider the quality of their service, and increasingly, the academic and
research expertise of ELT scholars will need to contribute to these aspects of the sector. A
sound contribution in this area can only be made if the academic and business counterparts
work collaboratively.

Educational Challenges

The most crucial role that the ELT scholarly community can play is the further
advancement of pedagogy—not only the enhancement of classroom practice, but also the
reconstruction of the role that ESL education plays in the broader society. For example,
Myles and Cheng (2003) have claimed that it is time for universities to reconsider how they
frame international education. As one of the current issues that the field needs to be aware of,
the authors pointed out that ‗most of the EAL programs in Canada tend to offer courses to
only non-native English speaking students‘ (p. 260). Takayama (2000) similarly reported that
the lack of enough exposure to Canadian culture frustrated Japanese ESL students in sharp
contrast to their expectations. Capitalising on the nature of language learning (e.g., using
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language ‗Education‘ or ‗Industry‘? 247
language in real life situations), English language programmes have ample opportunity to
take on a leadership role in linking international education to society.
In Eaton and Goddard‘s (2008) study at a Canadian university, the lack of legitimacy of
ELT programmes within the same institution was brought up as a problematic issue. Even
within the university, the administrators perceived that the programme was not bestowed with
an equal status compared to other academic units. Thus, universities need to do a better job of
raising awareness of the role of their ELT units among the broader university community. It
has been pointed out recently that the structure, operation, and contribution of university-
based ELT programmes is a key area of research that is missing in the United States
(Thompson, 2012), which is also true for Canada. It is our contention in this chapter that
research on these university academic units across Canada focusing on a variety of aspects,
such as their internal structure and operation, the collective expertise they possess, and the
key role they play – fiscally and academically – would help clarify misunderstandings and
possibly increase awareness about their contributions to these institutions.
Likewise, insufficient understanding towards differences that international students bring
to campus have been reported in the literature (e.g., Frey & Roysircar, 2006). While the
government promotes educational internationalisation depending on foreign students, some
controversial attitudes from stakeholders in higher education question the feasibility and the
quality of these initiatives. For example, an online opinion piece written by two Canadian
university educators (Friesen & Keeney, 2013) (which prompted a heated discussion in the
comments section) brought to light a small but telling example of the kind of intolerance and
prejudice that many international ESL students often face on Canadian campuses, and as the
piece showed, some of these sentiments are publicly expressed by professors. There seems to
be a view towards non-English speaking students – who have been accepted by the institution
by fulfilling the established English language proficiency requirement – as ‗simply
unprepared for the rigours of the university classroom‘ (p. 2) only because their language
ability as well as their interactional and learning style depart from those of native English
speakers. While the lack of readiness in the academic environment is also true for local
students, such criticism reveals that some educators are themselves unprepared for the rigours
of teaching the diverse classrooms that the internationalisation of their campuses invariably
entails.
It becomes clear, then, that ELT practitioners and researchers need to be more involved in
different aspects of the internationalisation movement in Canada. Scholars can play an
influential role in raising awareness of the myths and realities surrounding international
education on and off campus. There is a discursive – and possibly also ethical – mismatch in
the principles underlying education in viewing international students as a source of
institutional revenue and potential taxpaying Canadians, on the one hand, and treating them as
aliens who are expected to eventually go back to their own countries, on the other.

CONCLUSION

In policy documents, Canada recognises and supports the recruitment of international
students as valuable educational and economic contributors. As a leading centre of
international education, Canada has accumulated much knowledge in this regard, which may
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado 248
be readily transferable to other contexts. However, there is a disjuncture in how the
contributions of international ESL students – and their existence for that matter – are still
largely invisible to the broader society. While the government is officially advancing a policy
that targets international students as future Canadians, for this to be sustainable, it is
necessary to ensure that the quality of the education offered to these students is preserved so
that Canadian institutions continue to be appealing to them. Indeed, in this context, the
boundaries between international students and local students seems to be increasingly
obscure, given that international students are now being seen as new Canadians in transition.
For these benefits from international ESL students to continue, it is crucial to develop a
discourse bridge – or at least a dialogue – between several intertwined but somewhat separate
sectors: language education, higher education, business, and immigration. In order to
implement appropriate support services for students‘ successful experiences in a foreign
country, practitioners and researchers in English language education need to keep up-to-date
with political and economic agendas behind the global trends of international education.
Facilitating dialogues in government, ELT, and the ELT industry would enhance our ability
to share relevant knowledge among multiple educational communities and stakeholders – an
essential piece of the puzzle in building more considerate and effective ELT programmes.

REFERENCES

Advisory Panel on Canada‘s International Education Strategy. (2012). International
education: A key driver of Canada’s future prosperity. Retrieved from
http://www.international.gc.ca/education/assets/pdfs/ ies_report_rapport_sei-eng
Anchimbe, E. A. (2006). The native-speaker fever in English language teaching (ELT):
Pitting pedagogical competence against historical origin. Linguistik online, 26(1/06), 3-
14.
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment
factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2012). Annual report to Parliament on immigration.
Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/annual-report-2013
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (2014). Canada’s
international education strategy: Harnessing our knowledge advantage to drive
innovation and prosperity. Retrieved from http://international.gc.ca/global-markets-
marches-mondiaux/education/index.aspx?lang=eng
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (2014, January 15). Harper
government launches comprehensive international education strategy. Retrieved from
http://international.gc.ca/global-markets-marches-
mondiaux/education/index.aspx?lang=eng
Eaton, S. E. (2006). Business with words: Language programs that generate revenue and
impact communities. Retrieved from ERIC Collections:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511632
Eaton, S. E., & Goddard, J. T. (2008). Revenue-generating language programs at Canadian
post-secondary institutions: Emerging themes from a documentation analysis. Paper
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language ‗Education‘ or ‗Industry‘? 249
presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE). from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511632
Frey, L. L., & Roysircar, G. (2006). South Asian and East Asian International students’
perceived prejudice, acculturation, and frequency of help resource utilization. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34(4), 208-222.
Friesen, N., & Keeney, P. (2013, August 7). Internationalizing the Canadian campus: ESL
students and the erosion of higher education. University Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.universityaffairs.ca/internationalizing-the-canadian-campus.aspx
Fryer, C. G. H. (1996). The perceptions of female Japanese students on homestays and
learning English in Greater Vancouver. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Giroux, H., & Myrsiades, K. (Eds.). (2001). Beyond the corporate university: Culture and
pedagogy in the new millenium. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Guardado, M. (2012). Toward a critical multilingualism in Canadian classrooms: Making
local inroads to a cosmopolitan identity. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 151-165.
Harman, G. (2004). New directions in internationalizing higher education: Australia’s
development as an exporter of higher education services. Higher Education Policy, 17(1),
101-120.
Kinoshita, A. (2001). Negotiating identities: Experiences of Japanese female students in
Vancouver homestay settings. Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Kirsch, E. M. (2014). The use of agents in international student recruitment: International
education professionals‘ opinions. Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/
capstones/2635/
Lee, K., & Wesche, M. (2000). Korean students’ adaptation to post-secondary studies in
Canada: A case study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(4), 637-689.
Lewis, M. (2008). Public good or private value: A critique of the commodification of
knowledge in Higher Education—A Canadian perspective. In J. E. Canaan & W. Shumar
(Eds.), Structure and agency in the neoliberal university. New York: Routledge.
Luke, A. (2010). Educating the ‘Other’: Standpoint and the internationalisation of higher
education. In V. Carpentier & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Global inequalities in higher
education: Whose interests are you serving? (pp. 43-65). London, UK:
Palgrave/Macmillan.
Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N., & Ranta, E. (2010). English as an academic lingua franca: The
ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3), 183-190.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). ‘Push-pull’ factors influencing international student
destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82-90.
Moon, Y.-s. S. (2005). Economic and social assessment of the impact of Asians to the
Canadian education industry. International Area Studies Review, 8(2), 135-154.
Myles, J., & Cheng, L. (2003). The social and cultural life of non-native English speaking
international graduate students at a Canadian university. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 2(3), 247-263.
Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Knowledge in the marketplace: The global
commodification of teaching and learning in higher education. In P. Ninnes & M.
Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy
and policy (pp. 37-52). Dordrecht: Springer.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Rika Tsushima and Martin Guardado 250
Redden, E. (2010, August 4). Privatized pathways for foreign students. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2010/08/04/pathways
Robison, J. E. (2007). Ethical considerations in the use of commercial agents in international
student recruitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri.
Roslyn Kunin & Associates. (2012). Economic impact of international education in Canada –
An update. Retrieved from http://www.international.gc.ca/education/report-
rapport/economic-impact-economique/index.aspx?lang=eng
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Steele, K. (2010). The changing Canadian PSE landscape. In J. Black (Ed.), Strategic
enrolment intelligence (pp. 27-50). London Ontario, Canada: Academica Group.
Takayama, K. (2000). Study abroad as contested space of global and local discourses:
Japanese male students’ study abroad experiences in Vancouver. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Thompson, A. S. (2012). Intensive English programs in the United States: An overview of
structure and mentoring. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 211-232.
University of Toronto. (2014). University of Toronto English Language Program. Retrieved
from http://english.learn.utoronto.ca/
Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: A path analysis of academic
achievement in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 35-56.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 23

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION AT UNIVERSITY:
TRENDS AND CHALLENGES IN TEACHING AND
LEARNING ACADEMIC DISCOURSE IN THE UK

Aisling O’Boyle
Queen‘s University Belfast, UK

ABSTRACT

This chapter discusses English language education at university and highlights a
number of trends and their associated challenges in teaching and learning academic
discourse. Academic discourse refers to the ways in which language is used by
participants in academia. It encompasses written discourse, from article and book
publishing, PhD theses to course assignments; spoken discourse, from study groups,
tutorials, conference presentations to inaugural lectures; and more recently, computer-
mediated discourse, from asynchronous text-based conferencing to academic blogs. The
role of English language educators in preparing students and academics for successful
participation in these academic events, or the academy, in English is not to be
underestimated. Academic communication is not only vital to an individual‘s success at
university, but to the maintenance and creation of academic communities and to scientific
progress itself (Hyland, 2009).
This chapter presents an overview of academic discourse and discusses recent issues
which have an impact on teaching and learning English at university and discusses their
associated challenges: first, the increasing internationalisation of universities. Second, the
emergence of a mobile academe in its broadest sense, in which students and academics
move across traditional geopolitical, institutional and disciplinary boundaries, is
discussed. Third, the growth of UK transnational higher education is examined as a trend
which sees academics and students vicariously or otherwise involved in English language
teaching and learning. Fourth, the chapter delves into the rapid and ongoing development
in technology assisted and online learning. While responding to trends can be difficult,
they can also inspire ingenuity. Furthermore, such trends and challenges will not emerge
in the same manner in different contexts. The discussion in this chapter is illustrated with
examples from a UK context but the implications of the trends and challenges are such
that they reach beyond borders.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Aisling O‘Boyle 252
Keywords: Academic discourse, university language, higher education, teaching and
learning, language teaching

INTRODUCTION

English language education takes place at higher education institutions across the globe.
English language education at university can be situated in foreign language departments with
a focus on English as a discipline, often incorporating, the study of English language,
linguistics, literature and culture. In the UK, English language education at university
typically takes place within specialised university language centres which teach English for
academic purposes to current or prospective students, or in joint ventures between a
university and the private sector. Terms used to describe this type of English language
education at university are English for academic purposes (EAP) or English for specific
purposes (ESP) (Hewings, 2001; Johns, 2012). Such English language courses vary in
relation to whether or not they are credit-bearing or fee-charging and distinctions are made in
relation to preparing students for participation in university through a pre-sessional course or
facilitating students or academics ongoing participation in academic contexts through in-
sessional courses. In addition to classes, individual needs are responded to on a one-to-one
basis, typically through writing tutorials. As an area of research, EAP is closely aligned to the
study of academic discourse, which seeks to shed light on the complexities of language use in
universities. It is an active and fruitful area of study worldwide; with recent special issues of
journals in EAP in Europe and ESP in Asia (Cheng & Anthony, 2012). This chapter presents
an overview of research in academic discourse and then discusses recent issues which have an
impact on teaching and learning English at university. First, the increasing
internationalisation of universities and UK universities in particular, is considered. Second,
the emergence of a mobile academe, in its broadest sense, in which students and academics
move across traditional geopolitical, institutional and disciplinary boundaries is presented and
discussed in relation to the issues it raises for English language education at university. Third,
the growth of transnational higher education is studied as a trend which sees academics and
students vicariously or otherwise involved in English language teaching and learning. Fourth,
the rapid and ongoing development in technology assisted and online learning is examined in
relation to English language education and discussed in relation to how teachers can prepare
students and academics for the growing demands of new forms of academic discourse.
Although the discussion is positioned from a UK context the implications of the trends and
challenges are such that they reach beyond geographical borders.

ACADEMIC DISCOURSE AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Academic discourse refers to the ways in which language is used in academia:

[it] is at the heart of the academic enterprise; it is the way that individuals collaborate
and compete with others, to create knowledge, to educate neophytes, to reveal learning
and define academic allegiances (Hyland, 2009, p. 2)
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education at University 253
It is important to consider that while English language education at university certainly
prepares students for such events as lectures, seminars, tutorials, assignments and readings,
which dominate student academic life, academic discourse is not only concerned with how to
understand a lecture or write an essay. In the study of genre (Swales, 1990), academic writing
is conceptualised as a communicative event situated within a discourse community with
shared goals (e.g., Belcher, 2009; Hyland, 2005, 2008; Swales, 2004). More generally,
academic discourse is concerned with how language is used in particular contexts to enable
particular ways of thinking, to embody disciplinary knowledge, practices and perspectives,
and to enact particular social and institutional roles. Therefore, the role of English language
educators in preparing students and others for successful participation in these academic
events in English is not to be underestimated.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, research in academic discourse using
datasets of real university language emerged (e.g., Biber et al., 2002; Simpson et al., 2002;
Thompson & Nesi, 2001). They did so for a number of reasons, including the need to better
understand the language of university teaching and learning for a diverse and growing student
population. Such datasets and research can be usefully drawn upon to support English
language educators in their role, preparing and developing students for participation in
academic life. For example, using the corpus of British Academic Spoken English, Thompson
(2006) shows patterns of vocabulary use in economics lectures in a UK university. Similarly,
Basturkmen (1999) discusses features of spoken interaction observed in postgraduate
seminars at a UK university, with a view to implementing these findings in EAP classrooms.
Across disciplines, findings from evidence-based studies show how language use in
academia varies with context. Biber et al., (2002) demonstrate that regardless of the event
(i.e., a lecture or a seminar), or the subject discipline (i.e., chemistry or history), the greatest
variation in language use at university is accounted for by the mode of production; i.e., speech
or writing. EAP classes in the UK tend to offer English language education focused on these
skill-based distinctions such as academic writing or listening skills.
Although seminar skills classes are offered, academic writing classes feature more
prominently, which are undoubtedly viewed as more valuable or holding higher stakes. This
is reflected in the greater amount and availability of classes and materials for academic
writing compared to those for seminar or tutorial skills.
Surprisingly, this may not be a reflection of need, as students report seminars as one of
the most challenging academic events in which to participate (Kim, 2006). In the era of new
media discourse, new modes of academic discourse are evolving by means of computer-
mediated communication (e.g., Coffin, Hewing, & North, 2012; Luzón, 2011). The evolution
of new academic discourse practices will bring challenges for English language education.
In academia, knowledge is transformed from that of the everyday experience to the
scientific. This shift is evident in the technical and abstract use of language (Hyland, 2009)
which varies according to discipline (Poos & Simpson, 2002; Schachter, Christenfeld,
Ravina, & Bilous, 1991; Schachter, Rauscher, Christenfeld, & Crone, 1994).
In each discipline, there is a specialist language to be acquired as part of learning
disciplinary knowledge (Woodward-Kron, 2008). In science and engineering, texts contain
technical vocabulary, whereas in arts and humanities there is a less restricted vocabulary but
it is used in more abstract ways (Martin, 1993; Woodward-Kron, 2008). However, it would be
erroneous to assume that specialist language refers to vocabulary only. Poos and Simpson
(2002) examine the use of hedging devices across different subject disciplines.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Aisling O‘Boyle 254
Hedging expressions indicate stance and the degree of assertiveness with which the
speaker/writer wishes to communicate. Poos and Simpson (2002) show that speakers in Arts
and Humanities subjects use more hedging devices in interaction than those in Physical and
Engineering sciences, which demonstrates not only that the language used signals knowledge
but also how that knowledge is to be operated upon within the discipline.
Disciplinary differences in language use also reflect a discipline‘s preferred style of
teaching; e.g., a higher level of interaction found in business classes than natural science
classes and indicates which type of learning activity the particular university discipline favors.
Consequently, natural science and engineering classrooms show more features of situated
dependence than other disciplines, illustrative of their reliance on physical demonstrations,
reference to visual displays or other physically present material (Biber et al., 2002). In
general, regardless of whether the variation is significant in terms of mode, or tentative in
terms of university discipline, these studies illustrate that which Groom (2005, p. 257) notes
to be the ‗genre-specific purposes and discipline-specific practices‘ of university life. It
demonstrates how academic discourse socialises, inducts, and acculturates students and others
into the accepted ways of the particular discipline and disciplinary identities. As Hyland
(2012, p. 3) notes, ‗learning to use recognised and valued patterns of language not only
demonstrates competence in a field but also displays affinity and connections.‘ This is
significant not just for novices learning their way but also for established academics who seek
to traverse disciplinary boundaries (Thompson, 2014).
The significance of research in academic discourse and its impact for English language
educators at university is that it provides the evidence for the kind of quality research-led
teaching expected of global universities and offers opportunities to investigate and develop
the specific practices which teachers can use to inform and help students prepare for and
engage with these academic events and face new challenges.

INTERNATIONALISATION OF UK UNIVERSITIES

For a range of economic, social, political and cultural reasons, a ‗knowledge-based
society‘ has emerged, which positions knowledge and creativity as valuable assets (European
Commission, 2002). This emphasis on the power of knowledge and its necessity for the
workplace and contemporary society is acknowledged globally. Increasing levels of
competition in a ‗competitive and dynamic-knowledge-based economy‘ (Lisbon European
Council, 2000) require greater numbers of people to obtain higher levels of formal education
to secure employment. In the UK, such trends are evidenced by increasing numbers of
students who are attending universities despite restrictive costs. There has been an increase in
the number of undergraduate and postgraduates from the turn of the 21
st
century (Higher
Education Statistics Agency, 2000/1: 1.9 million; 2012/3: 2.3 million).
Demand for higher education beyond state boundaries and global demand for
international higher education is apparently set to increase from over 2 million in early 2000
to 5 million in 2025 (British Council, 2006, p. 63). Higher education systems across the world
have undergone recent change and development to attract international students and
internationalising universities is seen as a key element of policy agendas worldwide (Brooks
& Waters, 2011).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education at University 255
The concept of internationalisation, while much debated and contested (Turner &
Robson, 2008), features heavily in the contemporary arena of UK higher education. It is
perhaps most noticeable in agendas which strive to increase the number of international
students in the UK and develop international perspectives at UK universities, through for
example, an internationalisation of the curriculum. Since the new millennium, there has been
a general trend of increase in the number of students from outside the UK studying at UK
universities and the UK remains one of the top destinations for international students
(Universities UK, 2012). With increasing demand for higher education and potentially
increasing numbers of international students attending universities in the UK, how will ELE
at university develop over the next period?
Within the UK, university language centres and associated private partners see an
increase in the number of students attending their pre-sessional and preparation courses for
academic language skills (British Council, 2006). However, this demand may also come from
within the universities themselves as academics with an increased number of international
students on their courses begin to seek support for developing their students‘ academic skills
in English.
Indeed, as many proficiency ratings and test scores fall short of what is required within an
academic course, subject specialists make work with language specialists to make evident and
support the acquisition of the specialist language of the discipline. It seems therefore, that
there may be some potential for more contact and collaboration with subject and language
specialists, though as we shall see in the next section, this is not without its difficulties.
English language educators, by the nature of their discipline have a wealth of experience in
dealing with classroom diversity, intercultural groups and managing different styles of
interaction and participation. This expertise seems vital for all teachers and academics
involved in supporting international students.

MOBILITY

The emergence of a mobile academe in which students and academics move across
traditional geopolitical, institutional and disciplinary boundaries, is a trend which poses many
questions about how students and academics are prepared for traversing such spaces and how
they realise their ‗subjective awareness of global opportunities‘ (Rizvi, 2009).
In a European context, the Bologna Agreement sought to establish comparability across
European Higher Education Institutes in order to facilitate mobility of students and academics
and, indeed, the promotion of linguistic diversity (Räisänen and Fortanet, 2008). Such
movement can bring the language needs of learners to the fore. Crawford Camiciottoli (2010)
reports on a study designed as a ‗pre-departure‘ course to prepare Italian students for
movement between English-medium universities to study business.
However, Räisänen and Fortanet (2008) argue that in an attempt to support mobility,
European university contexts have made significant curricula changes which have reduced
ESP and increased courses taught through the medium of English. This, Wilkinson (2008)
argues, has shifted ELE from intensive English classes to a product-orientated focus, thereby
supporting students to complete particular tasks (Wilkinson, 2008).

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Aisling O‘Boyle 256
Worryingly for English language educators, Arnó-Macià and Mancho-Barés
(forthcoming) find advice on integrating content and language learning in one European
university vague, and note that in their study such English medium courses do not generally
include language support. Instruction through the medium of English, where it is not the
official language spoken in the host country, is not a European-only phenomenon.
Cheng and Anthony (2014) note a rise in English medium lectures in Korean contexts
together with the changing status of English in Asia.
Although a comprehensive debate on English as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2007;
Seidlhofer, 2005) is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important to note the relevance of
ELF for student and staff mobility. It is incumbent upon any global university which seeks to
prepare its graduates and staff for a global academia or workplace to acknowledge that that
workplace is likely to be negotiated through English as a lingua franca and within a context
which is multinational, plurilingual and far from homogenous (Canagarajah, 2007).
Within the UK, universities are not only concerned with student intake from outside the
UK, but also promoting and facilitating the outward mobility of UK students and staff
(Brooks & Waters, 2011). International experiences at universities across the globe are
supported by international policy (e.g., ERASMUS Mundus, 2009-13), so how then are
students and staff being prepared and developed to participate in such an environment? One
such interesting example is provided by Wicaksono and Zhurauskaya (2011) who have
produced an online tutorial designed to raise awareness of English as a lingua franca in
university group work (http://www.englishlinguafranca.com/).
As internationalisation and mobility trends continue, it may be as Canagarajah (2007)
notes that a goal of language teaching would be to ‗develop in students a readiness to engage
with a repertoire of codes in transnational contact situations‘ (p. 937).

TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION

A further related trend is that of transnational education. Transnational education defines
a situation where ‗the learners are located in a country different from the one where the
awarding institution is based‘ (UNESCO/Council of Europe, 2000, as cited in Dunn and
Wallace, 2008, p. xix). Transnational education can be provided through institutional
campuses, or joint partnerships with institutions or companies. From a UK perspective,
Doorbar and Bateman (2008) suggest that transnational education aligns with the
internationalisation agenda of the UK and includes the development of research partnerships
and opportunities for UK students‘ outward mobility, in addition to making courses available.
According to HESA, over half a million transnational learners were studying wholly overseas
for a UK qualification in 2012/3, which constitutes a fairly significant number of students.
Such forms of education can pose particular challenges for educators, including quality
assurance and expectations of standards in joint provisions. Ultimately, this area of higher
education is signalled for significant growth, and is likely to take place in partnership across
institutions, governments and other agencies (Doorbar & Bateman, 2008). This trend raises
issues of how and to what extent teaching staff are involved in adapting to the specific needs
of transnational students, particularly English language support, given that students may not
have direct access to the institution‘s EAP courses.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education at University 257
However, technology and innovation to facilitate academic life away from the institution,
together with assuring quality across borders will undoubtedly feature in this trend.

ONLINE LEARNING AND TEACHING

The final trend to be discussed in this chapter is the movement of UK and other higher
education systems to offer more blended approaches to online learning and teaching in
subject disciplines and EAP teaching. As more people than every move into higher education
and as the population becomes more diverse, the ways in which students and academics
engage with higher education teaching and learning is becoming more diverse.
From virtual learning environments (VLE) to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) the
use of technology to support, deliver, and innovate university teaching and learning is
established in the UK with multiple realisations and approaches to pedagogy (e.g., Bayne &
Ross, 2014). There are many current and potential impacts of this trend, but what would seem
to be crucial is a wider knowledge base on how academic learning and socialisation occurs
through computer mediated communication and digital practices (e.g., Ha & Kim, 2014). One
such study, echoes Poos and Simpsons‘ (2002) reports (described earlier) on the investigation
of features of uncertainty used in computer-mediated discussions with graduate students
(Jordan et al., 2012).
As an expanding area of research, one would expect further studies within and across
disciplines with different types of new media (e.g., Coffin, Hewing, & North, 2012; Luzón,
2011). Within an EAP context, the use of computer mediated communication tasks (Jackson,
2011) and investigations of EAP online environments (e.g., Arnó-Macià & Rueda-Ramos,
2011) can provide invaluable insights into how stepping up to the challenge of this trend can
address some of the many questions facing English language educators at universities across
the globe.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has outlined a number of trends and challenges in teaching and learning
academic discourse in the UK. Such trends and their associated challenges are not to be
considered wholly negative or wholly positive; change can bring difficulties but it can also
inspire ingenuity, and such challenges will not emerge in the same manner in different
contexts.
Although the discussion has drawn examples from a UK context, the trends in English
language teaching are not geographically bound, nor are the trends presented here by any
means exhaustive. What will facilitate rising to such trends and facing challenges will be the
use of evidence-based, data-driven research, in order to make the best informed decisions in
relation to policy, pedagogy and practices. For English language educators at university,
students‘ needs will remain a focus coupled with the understanding that considerable insight
can be gained from listening carefully to the perspectives of 21
st
century students.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Aisling O‘Boyle 258
REFERENCES

Arnó-Macià, E., & Rueda-Ramos, C. (2011). Promoting reflection on science, technology,
and society among engineering students through an EAP online learning environment.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 19-31.
Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and
language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP.
English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 63-73.
Basturkmen, H. (1999). Discourse in MBA seminars: Towards a description for pedagogical
purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 63-80.
Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: The UK
view. The Higher Education Academy.
Belcher, D. (2009). English for specific purposes in theory and practice. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the
university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-48.
British Council. (2006). A review of the global market for English language courses. JWT
education for the British Council. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/
education/ihe/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education/global-market-
english-language-courses.
British Council. (2014). Exploring the impacts of transnational education on host countries:
A pilot study. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-
centre/policy-thought-leadership/report-exploring-impacts-tne-host-countries.
Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization of
higher education. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language
acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.
Cheng, A., & Anthony, L. (2012). ESP research in Asia. English for Specific Purposes, 33
(1), 1-3.
Coffin, C., Hewings, A., & North, S. (2012). Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of
asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and
university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 38-51.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2010). Meeting the challenges of European student mobility:
Preparing Italian Erasmus students for business lectures in English. English for Specific
Purposes, 29(4), 268-280.
Doorbar, A., & Bateman, C. (2008). The growth of transnational higher education: The UK
perspective. In: L. Dunn, & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in transnational higher
education (pp. 14-22). New York: Routledge.
Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (2008). Teaching in transnational higher education. New York:
Routledge.
European Commission. (2002). Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 232/1, 29/08/2002
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc62_en.htm.
European Commission. (2009). About Erasmus Mundus. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.
europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/programme/about_erasmus_mundus_en.php.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/

http://eacea.ec/

English Language Education at University 259
Fortanet-Gómez, I., & Räisänen, C. A. (2008). ESP in European higher education integrating
language and content. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257-277.
Ha, M-J., & Kim, H-C., (2014). E-learning education for academic literacy in computer-
mediated communication. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its
Applications, 8(1), 107-118.
Hewings, M. (2001). A history of ESP through English for specific purposes. Retrieved from
http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_3/Hewings_paper.htm.
Higher Education Statistics Agency. (n.d.). General student numbers, statistical release 197.
Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/component/content/article?id=1897andItemId=
239andlimit=andstart=0.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.
Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text
Construction, 1(1), 5-22.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individual and community in academic discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, D. O. (2011). Convergent and divergent computer-mediated communication tasks in
an English for academic purposes Course. TESL-EJ, 15(3), 18.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Johns, A. M. (2012). The history of English for specific purposes research. In B. Paltridge &
S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 5-30). Malden,
Ma.: John Wiley and Sons.
Jordan, M. E., Schallert, D. L., Park, Y., Lee, S., Chiang, Y., Cheng, A., Song, K., Chu, H.,
Kim, T., & Lee, H. (2012). Expressing uncertainty in computer-mediated discourse:
Language as a marker of intellectual work. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 49(8), 660-692.
Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate
students in nonscience and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25,
479-489.
Lisbon European Council. (2000). Presidency conclusions, Lisbon European Council, 23-24
March 2000. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/uedocs/cms_data/docs/
pressdata/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm.
Luzón, M. J. (2011). ‗Interesting post, but I disagree:‘ Social presence and antisocial
behaviour in academic weblogs. Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 517-540.
Martin, J. R. (1993). Technicality and abstraction: Language for the creation of specialized
texts. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and
discursive power (pp. 203-220). London: Falmer Press.
Poos, D., & Simpson, R. C. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some
findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In R. Reppen, S.
Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. New York:
John Benjamins.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/46169/

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/uedocs/cms_data/docs/

Aisling O‘Boyle 260
Räisänen, C. A., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2008). The state of ESP teaching and learning in
Western European higher education after Bologna. In I. Fortanet-Gómez & C. A.
Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European higher education integrating language and content
(pp. 11-51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rizvi, F. (2009), Global mobility and the challenges of educational research and policy.
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108, 268-289.
Schachter, S. R., Christenfeld, N. J. S., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. R. (1991). Speech disfluency
and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 362-
67.
Schachter, S. R., Rauscher, F., Christenfeld, N. J. S., & Crone, K. T. (1994). The vocabularies
of academia. Psychological Science, 5(1), 37-41.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts in ELT: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4),
339-341.
Simpson, R. C., S. L. Briggs, J. Ovens, & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of
academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004) Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. (2012). The assessment of critical evaluation, leadership and reflection skills
through participation in online discussions. Psychology Teaching Review, 18(2), 52-58.
Thompson, P. (2006). A corpus perspective on the lexis of lectures, with a focus on
Economics lectures. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across
disciplines (pp. 253-270). Bern: Peter Lang.
Thompson, P. (2014, August). English in interdisciplinary research writing. Paper presented
at 12
th
European Society for the Study of English Conference, Košice, Slovakia.
Thompson, P., & Nesi, H. (2001). The British academic spoken English (BASE) corpus
project. Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 263-264.
Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London: Continuum.
UNESCO/Council of Europe. (2000). Code of good practice in the provision of transnational
education. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Universities UK. (2012). Patterns and trends in UK higher education. Retrieved from http://
www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/PatternsAndTrendsinUKHigherEducati
on2012.aspx#.VFfvjdBFBMs.
Wicaksono, R., & Zhurauskaya, D. (2011) Introducing English as a lingua franca: An online
tutorial. Retrieved from http://www.englishlinguafranca.com.
Wilkinson, R. (2008). Locating the ESP space in problem-based learning: English-medium
degree programmes from a post-Bologna perspective. In I. Fortanet-Gomez & C.
Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European higher education (pp. 55-73). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Woodward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon – the nature and role of specialist language
in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 234-
249.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 24

THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF TEACHING
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE IN WESTERN
AUSTRALIA: A FOCUS ON STUDENTS WITH
AFRICAN REFUGEE BACKGROUNDS

Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver
Curtin University, Australia

ABSTRACT

Self-identity is an issue for many African refugee background (ARB) students. They
battle with retaining aspects of their ‗Africaness‘ in a changed environment, whilst
working to accept and fit into a new culture. At the same time, however, they may feel a
sense of disloyalty to their place of origin and to their parents. Although many of the
participants described in this chapter continue to struggle with their identities, they also
reported that they had made a conscious decision to conform to the new culture as a way
to facilitate a positive stay in Australia and to improve their English proficiency. They
described that they were doing this by adopting new identities, even taking on new
Western names, and that these measures helped them to feel safer and more comfortable
at school. To explore these issues which are presenting challenges for Australian ESL
teachers, this chapter will discuss, firstly, self-identity and identity crisis, then religious
and cultural identities, and thirdly, the burden of being black and how this sometimes
manifests as a reluctance to succeed.

Keywords: African refugee background students, self-identity, limited schooling, intensive
English centres

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver 262
INTRODUCTION: AFRICAN REFUGEE BACKGROUND
(ARB) STUDENTS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Australia is in the top three resettlement countries in the world and since the 1990s there
has been a steady increase of humanitarian refugee arrivals to Australia from Africa and the
Middle East. These refugees from African backgrounds originate from countries such as
Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and
Liberia (Cassidy & Gow, 2005; DIMIA, 2007).
Statistics from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) show that
between June 2000 and June 2007, 9,302 humanitarian entrants arrived in Western Australia
(WA). 2843 (at least 31%) of these entrants were aged between 12 and 24, which means
many are of school-going age. This represents an increase of 114% since the figure of 1331
reported in the WA parliament in 2005 (see Haig & Oliver, 2007).
To date, immigration figures indicate that 17% of the national settlement services involve
groups settled in Western Australia in the period 2009-2010 (DIAC, 2010), making Western
Australia the fourth largest settlement location (in Australia) for refugee families. A study
commissioned to investigate the difficulties facing ARB students, titled: ‗Waiting in line‘
(Haig & Oliver, 2007) found that their needs are not only extensive, but diverse, and include
educational, emotional, physical, social and familial issues.
These findings concur with other studies which suggest that refugee students, including
those of African backgrounds, present challenges to Australian teachers, particularly because
of their prior traumatic experiences. This is particularly so because while they are grappling
with the serious issues related to their new social and education context, they are also battling
to establish their self-identities in their changed cultural environment.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the issues of cultural and social backgrounds, as well as
the more general concept of self-identity, should emerge as important to ARB students.

PARTICIPANTS

To investigate their self-identity 180 African Refugee Background students aged 13 to 18
years were selected to participate in the current study. This age group was selected to ensure
the participants were at an age and also of the English proficiency level where they could
comfortably proffer and articulate their perceptions. They were chosen from Intensive English
Centers (IEC) located in schools in Western Australia through personal contact, or through
staff from district offices of the WA Department of Education (DOE).
This recruitment enabled a wide range of experiences, biases and/or assumptions to be
obtained from these students. Where possible, respondents were selected according to their
various stages of ESL development. Thus the participant selection took the form of non-
probability purposive sampling (Polit & Hunglar, 1999); that is, the respondents were
selected in a non-random way so that the most useful information could be elicited.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Issues and Challenges of Teaching English As a Second Language … 263
PROCEDURES

A qualitative approach was adopted to gain an overall picture of the students‘
perceptions, with a primary focus on exploring issues related to the emerging themes. This
enabled African students‘ assumptions and expectations to be elicited with a degree of
validity. It also had the added advantage of enabling the participants to become critically
aware of, and self-assess, the relevance of their views/assumptions, particular when they are
engaged in school learning. The initial phase of the research involved focus group interviews.
These were followed by classroom observations in order to verify some of the assertions
made during the interviews. The final phase of the data collection process involved individual
interviews with selected participants. The individual interviews were necessary to assist in
interpreting the results of the focus groups and classroom observations.
Once the data were collected, a thematic data analysis was undertaken. This was an
iterative process, and issues arising from the focus group interviews and classroom
observations were verified in the third and final phase, namely the individual one-to-one
interviews. It was only after the final stage of the data analysis that conclusions were drawn.
It is these themes that constitute the findings as described below.

ESL AND AFRICAN REFUGEE
BACKGROUND (ARB) STUDENTS IN WA

English education appears to have played a significant role in the construction of ARB
students‘ identities in the new cultural and social context of WA. For many migrant students,
learning to speak English is part of their transition into the new cultural context and
contributes to reconstruction of their cultural identity. When language learners speak, they are
not only exchanging information with target language speakers, they are constantly
organising and reorganising a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world
(Pierce, 1995). Thus an ‗investment‘ in the target language is also an investment in a learner‘s
own social identity, an identity which is constantly changing across time and space.
Research has shown that along with place of birth and time spent living in a country,
language makes an important contribution to attachment and identity. Therefore, their identity
aligns not only with the language(s) they speak, but also the language(s) they choose or need
to learn.
Indeed many ARB students in WA see a need to learn English and this is related not only
to their everyday functional needs, but also because it can aid their academic success and
assist them to fulfil their goals for the future; in other words, issues that are closely aligned to
their identity. Thus, developing proficiency in English is an ‗investment‘ (Norton-Peirce,
1995). When learners invest in a second language, they do so with the understanding that they
will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources, and together this will increase
their value and enhance their identity in their new social context. In a similar way, Bourdieu
(1977; 2001) suggests that an investment in the target language is also an investment in an
ESL learner‘s own identity, an identity which is constantly changing across time and space.
If learners‘ cultural communities are best understood in the context of their investments
in the target language, what are its implications for classroom teaching? How can teachers
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver 264
address the needs of learners in classrooms in which there may be over thirty learners, each
with his or her own investments, histories and desires for the future? In addition, Bourdieu
(1977) argues that because language learning is a social practice, it engages the identities of
learners in complex and sometimes contradictory ways.
This is clearly demonstrated in the internal conflicts confronting participants in this
chapter. Ibrahim (1999) strongly suggests that it is important to understand the expectations
that learners have of their English education classes and what role, if any, do these play in the
learning process. In order to facilitate the kind of curriculum ARB students might find most
useful as they acculturate into their new community, Ibrahim (1999) asserts that it would be
more relevant for the purposes of ESL pedagogy as well as for understanding the nature of
second language acquisition (SLA) if both were situated within such a specific socio-cultural
context. Therefore, in choosing appropriate pedagogical approaches, teachers need to
understand that ARB students will be affected as they work to create a new self-identity, one
that reflects their cultural background and the struggles they confront in their new social
context within Australia.

ARB STUDENTS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY

The concept of cultural identity is the subject of much academic debate in the literature
(see, for example, Adams & Markus, 2001; Gjerde, 2004; Hermans, 2001; Okazaki, David, &
Abelmann, 2008). Theorists and researchers are, however, consistently and increasingly
calling for a conceptualisation of cultural identity that is dynamic, shifting, and historically
embedded, as opposed to one that is decontextualised and essentialist (Usborne & Taylor,
2010). This is particularly important for ARB students who must develop a new cultural
identity, as part of their self-identity, to fit into the Australian context.
The literature provides a good starting point to understand the concept of cultural
identity. Beginning with the work of Tajfel and Turner in 1979 (for example on social identity
theory, self-categorisation theory), social identity has been defined as a socially derived
psychological process reflecting knowledge of one‘s group memberships and one‘s associated
value and emotional significance. Furthermore, strong group identification has been shown to
promote identity formation (Tanti, Stukas, Halloran, & Foddy, 2011), which is key to an
individual‘s wellbeing and sense of worth. Zapf (1991) also explored this concept of cultural
identity, suggesting that a kind of identity crisis results from migration (or extended visits to
other countries). It can lead to social isolation and a feeling of being treated like an outsider
(Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) or even as an inferior.
Similarly, other studies have recorded negative variables that result from cultural
transitions (see, for example, Adelman, 1988; Adler, 1987; Berry, 1980; Swallow, 2010;
Winkelman, 1994). For adolescent refugee students, developing positive self-identity is the
key to their adjustment in the new environment. Importantly, the educational environment is a
key context for this development of identity. One reason for this that has been suggested in
the literature (Sussman, 2000) is that formal education systems reinforce shared meanings,
symbols, and values.
For example, students may be outspoken and participative in a classroom simply because
they believe that is how any good student should behave. Conversely, other students may be
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Issues and Challenges of Teaching English As a Second Language … 265
passive and non-participatory because of their cultural identity and related identity. Even for
the adults the transition to a new culture can have a negative impact. When communicating in
their native language they may perceive themselves as reasonably intelligent, socially-adept
individuals who are sensitive to different socio-cultural mores. These assumptions are
challenged, however, when conversing in their new second language. In this situation they
may feel that their communication attempts will be evaluated according to uncertain or even
unknown linguistic and socio-cultural standards. Thus there is a direct but dynamic
relationship between individuals, their identity and the new social and cultural situation in
which they find themselves. Another example of this process is provided by Usborne and
Taylor (2011, citing McAdams, 2006) who report that personal and cultural identities of
migrant Americans, examined through their life stories, were shaped by social and cultural
forces. They argue that these individuals‘ life stories, and by extension their personal
identities, reflect much more than an individual‘s own efforts to make sense of his or her life.
Thus, it is apparent that a clear cultural identity serves as the psychological basis on which a
personal identity is constructed (Adams & Markus, 2001; Hammack, 2008; Schwartz et al.,
2008; Taylor, 1997; 2002). Furthermore, one‘s cultural identity provides the comparative
mechanism by which an individual can construct a coherent sense of personal identity and, by
extension, experience positive self-esteem and well-being.

ARB STUDENTS AND ADOPTION OF THEIR NEW IDENTITIES

Strong evidence has emerged that many ARB students have successfully grappled with
issues surrounding their identity, with some going on to adopt new Australian identities. That
is, rather than avoiding their new culture, some student are making attempts to mediate the
identity dilemma posed by their new context by, among other things, taking on a new cultural
identity. This is in contrast to previous research, which shows that in response to an identity
crisis some migrant students have been known to try constantly to avoid involvement with the
new cultures (Anderson, 1994). The following questions give insight into the feeling of some
students:

There are many questions of identity which I have to answer. Who am I? What can I
do to become a successful student? How can I fit into the school community? What do
the teachers expect from me? How can I meet those expectations? What do I want to
become in future?

These sentiments reflect the dilemma facing ARB students as they assume new identities
in Australia. Having decided to accept their new cultural roles in Australia, many of the
participants are keenly aware of the pitfalls facing them if they fail to get the balance right
between their ethnic cultures and those of the new cultural and educational context here in
Australia. ESL teachers, if enlightened about these cultural dynamics, have a role to play in
assisting ARB students negotiate evenly balanced cultural identities.
This may, in turn, ultimately translate to improved classroom performance in the English
language classroom.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver 266
ARB STUDENTS AND ADOPTION OF NEW WESTERN NAMES

In their attempt to negotiate their new identity, as well as mitigate effects of their identity
crisis, some ARB students have gone to the extent of taking on new western-sounding names,
despite their original names having important cultural meanings and connotations. Many of
the male participants who reported doing so said they were attempting to distance themselves
from their original identities. They also described how long sounding names were too difficult
for their friends to pronounce.
Existing literature (see, for example, Burke, 2001) suggests that for some individuals, the
decision to adopt a Western name may be a result of a desire to ensure smooth interactions
with English language speakers. The underlying assumption for this action is that a name that
is familiar to the Western speaker is less likely to be mispronounced and to cause
embarrassment to the learner and the people the learner is interacting with. Burke, however,
in a study of Puerto Rican migrants in Australia (as cited in De Courcy, 2005) suggests that
this adoption of a Western name is a ‗coping mechanism‘ used by the learner to assist their
interactions within the context of an unfamiliar culture. In this regard, individuals who have
independently chosen to assume an alternate name have shown a high level of comfort with
this decision and dismiss suggestions of any loss of cultural identity.
For other learners, taking a Western name seems to be a result of recommendations from,
or at the instigation of, language teachers. In such instances, Burke (2001) suggests that
educators need to appreciate that learners whose teachers have recommended the adoption of
western names are more likely to be unhappy with the arrangement than those who
independently elect to do so. In the current study there was no evidence that teachers in WA
may be suggesting that ARB students take on western names. At a general level, however,
teachers do need to be aware of the dilemma related to identity and identity crisis faced by
refugees, including ARB students, especially as this relates to name changes.

SCHOOL AS A SECOND HOME

Notwithstanding the identity crisis experienced by some ARB students in their new
environment (as described above), it was also clear from the research data that many ARB
students feel safe and well supported at school. To achieve this, many described how they had
cultivated a school persona: a more confident and happier student who liked to believe that
he/she was just like anyone else in the school population. In fact, for many of these students,
schools present a ‗comfort zone,‘ a safe haven where their identities are secure. However, for
some the home environment stands in stark contrast. At home they are African with African
families who are refugees. There is a constant trickle of sad news about missing and lost
relatives, updates about their destroyed properties back in Africa and news about ongoing
family conflicts.
Thus the school environment and the relationships built within them appear to provide
respite from difficulties experienced by many of the ARB students in their homes. This is
particularly the case when teachers provide social and emotional support to often traumatised
refugees, many of whom are also experiencing family hardships (Haig & Oliver, 2007). The
positive consequence is evident and shows the impact of teachers on students‘ lives.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Issues and Challenges of Teaching English As a Second Language … 267
As Cummins (2005) indicates, adjustment to schooling occurs when there are positive
relationships that exist between teachers and students in ESL contexts. Similar findings are
reported elsewhere in the literature (see, for example, Cummins et al., 2005). It cannot,
therefore, be over-emphasised that educators and support staff involved in the care and
education of ARB students need to be made aware of the importance of this aspect of their
role.

ARB STUDENTS AND THEIR RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

Having been informed by immigration officials, amongst others, that Australia (despite
its religious plurality) is a Christian country, a number of the participants indicated that one
aspect of their Australian experience that contributed to their identity crisis was the almost
secular context they encountered since their arrival. Coming from cultures steeped deep in
tradition and spiritualism, the participants explained how this presented a problem as they
attempt to form new identities in their new environment:

We were told that Australia is a Christian country, but when we got here we were
told not to talk about God at school? So where is God?

Given their African backgrounds, where there is a deep-rooted traditional and religious
culture, the difficulties the ARB students face in relation to religion in Australia are
understandable. In Australia, religion is a matter of personal choice, with religion and culture
existing as seemingly separate entities. In contrast, in most parts of Africa, religious and
cultural identity is closely interwoven. As such, the participants explained how this made it
difficult for them. Being religious was communal and celebrated in Africa, but in Australia
they had to suppress this aspect of their identity. Furthermore, many do not understand why it
exists as a deeply private issue in the Australian community.

ARB STUDENTS AND THE BURDEN OF BEING BLACK

For ARB students creating an identity for successful acculturation is indeed a site of
struggle (Pierce, 1995). Whilst for many of the participants the new context presented a
number of possible identity pathways (e.g., adopting an Australian identity, being part
Australian and part African, or maintaining their ‗Africaness‘) what many faced from
Australian students was their perception of them not as African, but rather as ‗black.‘ While
the majority of ARB students seem to have rejected the stereotypical ‗black‘ identity, a few
have embraced it. For example, Hewson (2006) describes how in South Australia older
Sudanese students are assuming the characteristics of Afro-Americans. This was attributed to
the fact that local students expected them to behave in that way because, until the arrival of
African students in their schools, Australian students were only familiar with black people
from media representations of ‗rap‘ artists or basketball players in America (Hewson, 2006).
Similarly, the participants in this study described how many of their Australian friends want
them to act like those African American students they have seen in American movies and
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver 268
shows. This entails talking, dressing and behaving ‗black,‘ wearing such things as baggy
pants that reveal their underwear, caps and other headwear, wrist bands and necklaces, and
other ‗bling bling.‘
1
The participants reported that there was also an expectation from their
Australian peers that by being ‗black‘ African students will move around in gang-like groups.
For ARB students not familiar with gang culture this expectation was indeed very difficult to
comprehend. They did not understand how they could be judged and have conclusions drawn
about their characters by simply walking alone to the bus or train station.
Many participants reported how such expectations – that is, acting ‗black‘ — placed a
huge burden on them. It is also apparent that it contributes to the identity crisis that many are
facing as they try to reconcile their own beliefs about themselves with the expectations and
beliefs of others. A number of them described how they were not prepared to pay the price for
assuming such negative identities (as illustrated in the next section).
From this, it is clear ARB students are aware of threats to their attempts to create new
identities. As such, teachers are encouraged to work with the ARB students to ensure that
pedagogical approaches in ESL reinforce positive African Australian identities.

ARB STUDENTS AND THE RELUCTANCE
TO SUCCEED ACADEMICALLY

Participants in the current study described an issue that was somewhat contentious,
namely the reluctance of a substantial number of African students to ‗succeed.‘ According to
a number of the participants, particularly the female students, because of their ‗black‘ image
there were many incidents of misbehaviour involving African boys. More disturbing to them
still was that their school performance was also deteriorating and one strongly felt that this
would have been amusing had it not been unfortunate. The sentiments expressed by this
participant also revealed how African girls expected certain academic and cultural standards
from their male peers. Comments such as these highlight the difficulties experienced by ARB
students as they make identity choices. However, their reluctance to succeed academically
cannot be ignored by educators as it may point to a deeper problem amongst ARB students in
Australia. It may be, as suggested by similar studies in America, that they were rejecting
school success because they attribute it to ‗whiteness‘ and their rejection is one way in which
students deal with their identity crisis as they work to integrate their self-, social- and cultural-
identities. Based on the research they conducted in the US, Fordham and Ogbu (1986) suggest
that in response to cultural barriers, especially in schooling, African Americans develop
‗survival strategies‘ and other coping mechanisms which include ambivalence about success.
Even those students who are academically able, do not work hard or persevere in their school
work. Furthermore, they argue that this oppositional cultural mind frame has led these same
students to reject certain forms of behaviour, activities or events, symbols, and meanings as
inappropriate for them because they are characteristic of white Americans. Ogbu and Margold
(1986) described this phenomenon as the ‗burden of acting white‘ suggesting that for these
students being successful was tantamount to joining the ‗enemy‘ and is equivalent to giving
up one’s minority background.

1
American colloquial English term for such jewellery.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Issues and Challenges of Teaching English As a Second Language … 269
However, within the literature there are alternative explanations that point to the
significance of class, ethnicity, and school context with respect to the relationship between
race and school achievement (e.g., Carter, 2005; Cook & Ludwig, 1998; Downey &
Ainsworth-Darnell, 1998; Ferguson, 2001; Tyson, Darity, & Castellino, 2005). For instance,
Tyson et al., (2005) found that both black and white students were generally achievement
oriented and that racialised peer pressure against high achievement was not prevalent in all
schools.

GENDER AND ARB STUDENTS

To examine the reasons underlying the behaviour of the ARB students in WA with regard
to lack of motivation to succeed academically, follow-up individual interviews were
organised with a number of older male and female participants. Their responses are
significant for ESL teaching and learning because they suggest that ARB students,
particularly boys, may not be reluctant to succeed, but rather that there are other factors at
play. For instance, their limited literacy skills means that for a number of them school work is
difficult. Instead of losing face over school work they struggle with, they retreat to their
‗street-smart‘ identities that they developed in the refugee camp prior to coming to Australia.
This type of behaviour may represent the coping mechanisms as described by Ogbu (2003).
Furthermore, it may not be that they are rejecting school success because it is associated with
being Anglo-Australian, but instead such behaviour emerges as they develop their new
identity, integrating those facets from their social and cultural backgrounds with their new
context. Some older girls admitted to falling behind in their school work but were at pains to
point out that their academic indifference was related to what they termed ‗this education
system in Australia‘ and a school culture that did not re-affirm their identities as African
women. A number of participants pointed out that apart from not doing well, they were
disappointed that many African girls were also getting into trouble at school, attributing their
underperforming at school to their impressions of Australia as being less than positive, with
some describing Australia as rather uninteresting and boring in terms of friendships and social
contact. This is despite the fact that they had built some good friendships with other African
girls. They told how in Africa there were many places they could go to with their
parents‘/guardians‘ permission, which was not the situation here. However, there were girls
who expressed different views of Australia. Some of them were more positive about their new
environment, seeing Australia as an opportunity for them to attain an education, but felt that
other responsibilities weighed them down.

CONCLUSION

From the evidence presented in this chapter, it appears that some, though by no means all,
ARB students experience an identity crisis as a result of their migration to Australia.
However, it is also apparent that as they undergo their schooling experience and interact with
teachers and students of similar refugee backgrounds, particularly in schools where there are
high numbers of ARB students, their identity is also (re-)constructed.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver 270
The participants in this study described a number of issues that present threats to their
adjustment in terms of cultural identity. These included the outwardly secular context, their
own reluctance to succeed, and the long term implications associated with developing a new
identity. Because it is not possible to separate the construction of the ARB students‘ identity
from their educational context, teachers need to be made aware of this when undertaking
placement of students in appropriate English classes.

REFERENCES

Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2001). Culture as patterns: An alternative approach to the
problem of reification. Culture and Psychology, 7, 283-296.
Adelman, M. B. (1988). Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical perspective on social
support. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 183-204.
Adler, N. (1987). Culture shock and the cross-cultural learning experience. In F. L. Luce & E.
C. Smith (Eds.), Towards internationalism (pp. 24-35). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Anderson, L. E. (1994). A new look and an old construct: Cross cultural adaptation.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 293-328.
Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project: A guide for first time researchers in education,
health and social science. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migrants
Review, 21, 491-511.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistics exchanges. Social Science Information,
16(6), 645-668.
Bourdieu, P. (Ed.). (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Burke, R. (2001). Western names in the classrooms: An issue for the ESL profession. TESOL
in Context, 11(1), 21-23.
Carter, P. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cassidy, E., & Gow, G. (2005). Making up for lost time: The experiences of southern
Sudanese young refugees in high schools. Youth Studies Australia, 24(3), 51-55.
Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (1998). The burden of ‗Acting white.‘ Do black adolescents
disparage academic achievement? In C. Jenks & M. Philips, (Eds.), The black-white test
score gap (pp. 197-229). Washington, DC: The Brooking Institution Press.
Cummins, J., Bismillah, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni L., Sandhu, P., et al.,
(2005). Affirming identity in multillingual classrooms. Educational Leadership, 63, 38-
43.
de Courcy, M. (2005). The effect of learning a new language on ESL teachers‘ beliefs about
language pedagogy. Australian Language and Literacy Matters, 2(3 & 4), 7-12.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2010). Immigration update 2009-2010. Barton,
ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2011). Country chapters – UNHCR
resettlement handbook. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/3c5e542d4.html
Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2005). Australian refugee and humanitarian
program. Retrieved from http://immi.gov.au/media/factsheets/2refugees/
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

The Issues and Challenges of Teaching English As a Second Language … 271
Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2013). Fact sheet 60 – Australia’s refugee and
humanitarian program. Retrieved from http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60
refugee.htm
Downey, D. B., & Ainsworth-Darnell, W. (1998). Assessing the oppositional culture:
Explanation for racial/ethnic differences in school performance. The American
Sociological Review, 63(4), 536-553.
Ferdman, B. M. (2001). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60(2),
181-203.
Ferguson, R. F. (2001). Test score trends along racial lines 1971-1996: Popular culture and
community academic standards. In N. Smelser, J. W. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.),
America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. Vol. 1 (pp. 348-390).
Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students school success: Coping with the ‘Burden of
acting White.‘ Urban Review, 18, 176-206.
Gjerde, P. F. (2004). Culture, power and experience: Toward a person-centered cultural
psychology. Human Development, 47, 138-157.
Haig, Y., & Oliver, R. (2007). Waiting in line: African refugee Students in Western
Australian schools. Bunbury: CSRF.
Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 12, 222-247.
Hermans, H. J. (2001). The dialogical self: Towards a theory of personal and cultural
positioning. Culture and Psychology, 7, 243-281.
Hewson, S. (2006). Inside out: Boys’ voices: Identity and refugee students in a secondary
school. TESOL in Context, 5, 34-48.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Ibrahim, E. A. K. M. (1999). Becoming Black: Rap and hip hop, race, gender, identity, and
the politics of ESL Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 349-369.
Mbano, N. T. (2012). The perceptions of African refugee background students: Their
schooling in WA and their adjustment to the Australian cultural context. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Curtin University, Australia.
McAdams, D. P. (2006). The redemptive self-generativity and the stories Americans live by.
Research in Human Development, 3, 81-100.
Norton, C. (2000, September 18). Thousands of young refugees ‘fall prey to sex gangs.‘ The
London Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/
thousands-of-young-refugees-fall-prey-to-sex-gangs-698850.html
Norton-Pierce, B. (1995). Learning the hard way: Maria’s story. In B. Kanpol & P. Mclaren
(Eds.), Critical multiculturalism: Uncommon voices in a common struggle (pp. 165-176).
London: Bergin and Garvey.
Ogbu, J. (1984). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic
disengagement. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic
disengagement. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ogbu, J., & Margold, J. (1986). A summary of literature review on black oppositional identity
and cultural frame of reference. University of California: Berkely, CA.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/

Noah Mbano and Rhonda Oliver 272
Okazaki, S., David, E. J. R., & Abelman, N. (2008). Colonialism and the psychology of
culture. Social and Personality Compass, 2, 90-106.
Peirce, B. N. (1993). Language learning, social identity, and immigrant women. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto.
Pierce, B. N. (1995). Learning the hard way: Maria’s story. Critical studies in education and
culture. Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, Connecticut.
Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1999). Nursing research – Principles and methods (6
th
ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2008). Broadening the study of self:
Integrating the study of personal identity and cultural identity. Social and Personality
Compass, 2, 635-651.
Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural
transitions: Why home is not so sweet. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(4),
355.
Swallow, D. (2010). The classic 5 stages of culture shock. Retrieved from http:www.
deborahswallow.com/2010/05/15theclassic-5-stage-culture-shock-model/.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tanti, C., Stukas, A. A., Halloran, M., & Foddy, M. (2011). Social identity change: Shifts in
social identity during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 555-567.
Taylor, D. M. (2002). The quest for identity: From minority groups to generation Xers.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Taylor, S. (2008). Schooling and the settlement of refugee young people in Queensland:
‘…The challenges are massive.’ Social Alternatives, 27(3), 58-65.
Taylor, M. (1997). The quest for collective identity: The plight of disadvantaged ethnic
minorities. Canadian Psychology, 38, 174-189.
Tyson, K., Darity, W., & Castellino, D. R. (2005). ‗It‘s not a ‘Black thing:‘ Understanding the
burden of ‘acting white’ and other dilemmas of high achievement. American Sociological
Review, 24, 582-605.
Usborne, E., & Taylor, D. M. (2010). The role of cultural identity clarity for self-concept
clarity, self-esteem, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Pyschology
Bulletin, 36(7), 883-897.
Winkleman, M. (1994). Cultural shock and adaptation. Journal of Counselling and
Development, 17, 121-126.
Zapf, M. (1991). Cross cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock.
International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 14, 105-119.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 25

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN
NEW ZEALAND: AGAINST ALL ODDS?

Diane Johnson
The University of Waikato, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

English language teaching (ELT) is a multi-billion dollar sector of the New Zealand
education system. This system, in spite of a high level of international respect, has been
ambivalent to the teaching and learning of additional languages. ELT is viewed by many
who are not centrally involved in the sector as an educational revenue stream, a
perspective which, nationally, has important implications for the provision of quality
programmes for international students. Add to this mix, the lack of a national languages
policy, a rapidly changing ethnic profile and the delicate politics surrounding the
revitalisation of a fragile indigenous language and the situation becomes one which is
extremely complex to navigate. However, in spite of a number of potential barriers, the
ELT sector is thriving but there are clearly a number of issues and challenges which will
need to be fully addressed if the sector is to continue to flourish and grow in the future.

Keywords: ELT, language policy and planning, international education sector, NZ language
education

INTRODUCTION

Aotearoa/New Zealand is a young nation state located in the southern Pacific Ocean to
the south east of its nearest neighbour, Australia. The total population of the country, a former
British colony, stands at approximately 4.20 million and, because it has a significant migrant
population, its demographic profile is characterised by its ethnic diversity.
A newspaper report following the release of the 2013 census results reports that:

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Diane Johnson 274
[There] are more ethnicities in New Zealand than there are countries in the world. In
total, there were 213 ethnic groups identified in the census, whereas there are 196
countries recognized by Statistics New Zealand (Manning, 2013).

Currently, the majority of New Zealand’s population is made up of individuals of
European descent (69%). The indigenous Māori people constitute the largest minority
(14.6%), followed by citizens from various countries in Asia (9.2%) and non-Māori Pacific
Islands (6.9%). Middle Eastern, Latin American and African migrants make up 1.5% of the
total population. However, the population profile is undergoing almost constant change. More
than one million (25.2%) people in the total population of New Zealand were born outside the
country, with 40% of Auckland‘s (New Zealand‘s biggest city) citizens having been born
overseas (Wikipedia, 2014). The majority of New Zealand‘s population lives in the North
Island, with the city of Auckland now considered to be one of the largest Polynesian cities in
the world (Statistics New Zealand, 2014).

THE NEW ZEALAND EDUCATION SYSTEM: SELECTED KEY POINTS

The New Zealand education system has long enjoyed a strong international reputation, as
evidenced in the United Nations Education Index (United Nations Development Programme,
2013) where it is ranked among the highest in the world. Schooling is compulsory for
children from the age of 6 to 16 although most children start school at the age of 5. In state
schools, education is nominally free from a child‘s 5
th
birthday until January 1
st
following
their 19
th
birthday (New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office, 2014). New Zealand
performs consistently well in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Overall, New
Zealand has an adult literacy rate of 99% (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014), and over half
of the population aged 15 to 29 holds some form of post-secondary qualification.

LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN NEW ZEALAND: INFLUENCES
FROM EARLY EDUCATIONAL AND MIGRATION POLICIES

While the general framework of the New Zealand educational system is robust, the
country has always had an ambivalent attitude towards the teaching and learning of second/
additional languages. This has been, and continues to be, reflected in its practices relating to
language issues. In part, this ambivalent attitude can be traced back to New Zealand‘s
colonial past. When Europeans first began to arrive, they were vastly outnumbered (Crosby,
1999, p. 17) and until around 1850 almost all social and economic communication with the
indigenous Māori population was conducted in the Māori language (Spolsky, 2003, pp. 555-
556).
However it was not long before a ‗systematic attempt to engineer a linguistic and cultural
shift to English‘ (Benton, 1996, p. 66) began, with the Education Ordinance Act 1847
decreeing that only those schools that promoted English medium education would receive
financial support. This kind of monolingual perspective has continued.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Teaching in New Zealand 275
It has had a detrimental effect on relationships among New Zealanders and has resulted in
serious difficulties in relation to recent efforts to preserve the Māori language. In spite of
vigorous attempts at revitalisation, te reo Māori (the Māori language) remains fragile and
endangered, with number of speakers of the language decreasing.
Indeed, the Waitangi Tribunal (2011, p. 449) has observed that while ‗[there] was a true
revival of te reo in the 1980s and early-to-mid-1990s,‘ it is once again in decline. Attitudes
towards the teaching and learning of second/additional languages in New Zealand are almost
certainly also linked to the nature of the immigration patterns and policies that have been part
of New Zealand‘s history and development. As May (2002, p. 6) observes:

[For] much of its postcolonial history, Aotearoa New Zealand has not had to address
seriously issues of second language learners because put simply, the history of
immigration to this country from the 19
th
century until the late 20
th
century has been
dominated by migration from Britain and other nation-states where English is a national
language (Australia, the US, Canada, South Africa).

Although the majority of migrants to New Zealand in the early stages of the country‘s
development were English speaking, there were nonetheless clusters of migrants from non-
English speaking backgrounds who established themselves in New Zealand during this same
period. Examples of these groups can be seen in the Chinese settlers who arrived to work in
the South Island gold fields in the 1850s, the Dalmatians who arrived during the 1860s to be
part of the kauri gum digging enterprise in the north, the Greeks who arrived to set up fishing
businesses in the 1870s, and the many refugees who arrived mainly from Europe in the post –
World War 2 period, including a large number of Dutch and Poles.
Notwithstanding their commitment to living in New Zealand and their need to have
English language skills to survive financially and socially, there was no official entitlement to
formalised English language education to help them manage the transition from one language
and culture to another.
Generally, they lived and socialised within their own ethnic communities, maintaining
their language and culture and remaining apart from mainstream society. While some adults
managed to acquire a working knowledge of English in order to further their commercial
interests, these language skills were ‗caught‘ rather than taught.
Even today, many older members of the various ethnic groups in New Zealand have
limited control of English. For the children of these migrant communities, however, the
situation was somewhat different. Under New Zealand law, they were required to attend
school and, like their Māori peers, were expected to learn English, not by being exposed to
any graduated or specialised teaching of the language but by being totally immersed in the
language during the school day in a ‗sink or swim‘ approach.
In common with their Māori classmates, they often relinquished their heritage language
and culture, something which inevitably led to inter-generational communication breakdowns
and cultural discomfort within the relatively small ethnic groups to which they belonged.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Diane Johnson 276
FIRST STEPS IN EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH: THE
ORIGINS OF THE ELT SECTOR IN NEW ZEALAND

The internationalisation of the education sector in New Zealand has its roots in the
country‘s participation in Colombo Plan activities beginning in 1951. That year, as part of its
commitment to the South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) pact, New Zealand began
to accept scholarship students from some of the other 25 other member nations, mainly from
Asian countries, to study at its tertiary institutions. Initially, these students came from
countries where English was widely spoken or where students would have been educated, at
least in part, in English. However, as the programme developed, more and more requests for
places came from those who did not have highly developed English language skills and who
therefore required language support in order to be able to derive maximum benefit from their
scholarship period. As Wallace (2007) reports, the English Language Institute (ELI) was
therefore formed following an agreement between the Director of Education in New Zealand,
the Deputy Secretary of External Affairs and the Head of the English Department at Victoria
University of Wellington, and scholarship students who needed English language support
before and during their scholarship period were directed to the Institute. Furthermore, from
1957 onwards, teachers from New Zealand were sent abroad (in the first instance to
Indonesia) to prepare students for their scholarship period by working with them in their own
county prior to their departure for New Zealand. While this was a sound idea in principle, it
nonetheless highlighted the need to develop a specialised training programme for teachers of
English as a foreign or second language. It was in response to this need that the first
programme designed to train teachers of English language was established in New Zealand at
the ELI. In its earliest stages, this training programme attracted many trainees form abroad
and many of these early graduates now hold key educational positions in their home countries
(Wallace, 2007). The late 1950s and the 1960s also saw the beginning of a different pattern of
migration to New Zealand. The number of English-speaking European immigrants began to
decline and the number of non-English-speaking people from the Pacific Islands and refugees
from war-ravaged countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia began to increase. As more and
more people from a greater variety of countries began to migrate to New Zealand, the
demographic profile began to change. What had been an almost totally English-speaking
society up to that point was now undergoing significant change (May, 2000). To answer the
needs of an increasingly diverse population, migrant resource centres began to be set up,
notably in Auckland and Wellington where the greatest majority of new migrants chose to
settle. English language training designed to support these families in integrating into a new
society began to be more formalised. Primary and secondary school teachers began to
abandon the earlier ‗sink or swim‘ approach, with many undertaking some specialist training
in English language teaching (often at the ELI) and beginning to develop specialist courses
for their non-English speaking background (NESB) students. The TESOL sector began to be
accepted as a growing, albeit relatively localised, dimension of the New Zealand education
system. The early days of predominantly English-speaking European migrants have now
passed and patterns of migration to New Zealand continue to fluctuate. Thus, for example,
whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a large influx of migrants from the Pacific Islands,
migration from Korea, Taiwan and mainland China increased significantly in the 1970s and
1980s. The ethnic and linguistic profile of New Zealand is in a state of constant evolution.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Teaching in New Zealand 277
In light of this, it seems impossible to imagine that the country can continue to operate, as
it does currently, without a national languages policy.

NATIONAL LANGUAGE POLICY DEVELOPMENT
IN NEW ZEALAND: A LOST OPPORTUNITY?

In recognition of the language needs of a growing migrant population, discussions began
to take place in the 1980s about the possible development of a national languages policy for
New Zealand. These discussions began among those responsible for migrant education who
saw the need for a national policy to manage the increasingly complex language issues that
were emerging from the changes in New Zealand‘s population and who were particularly
interested in the Australian model for language policy development (Lo Bianco, 1987). The
issue was taken up by the New Zealand Association of Languages Teachers (NZALT) whose
membership at that time included teachers of international languages, ESOL, Māori language
and classical languages. The push for policy development was also strongly supported by
teachers of languages in tertiary institutions. Following a long period of lobbying, the
Ministry of Education commissioned Dr Jeffrey Waite to develop a report that would
potentially provide the basis for the development of a national languages policy. In 1992,
Waite produced a two-part document – Aoteareo: Speaking for Ourselves – a carefully
measured yet robust summary of the language needs of the country. Waite‘s report was
preceded and followed by consultation and debate throughout many sectors of New Zealand
society. However, in spite of a number of detailed responses to the Ministry of Education‘s
initiative in commissioning the report (see, for example, Kaplan, 1992 cited in Kaplan, 1993;
Crombie & Paltridge, 1993; Peddie, 1993), no follow-up action was taken by the New
Zealand government. This was no doubt, in part at least, related to the fact that it became
evident even before the report was released that certain of its recommendations, such as the
prioritisation of Māori language revitalisation and heritage language maintenance, would be
resisted strenuously in some quarters and that that resistance had the potential to be
dangerously socially divisive. It also became clear that the report would need to be
supplemented by a more detailed study that attempted to quantify language needs (social and
economic) more precisely and to set specific targets in relation to costs and benefits. This, in
turn, would require the involvement of a number of government agencies since national
language policy and planning inevitably impacts not only on education, but also on health,
immigration, justice, business and many other key areas of society. For this reason, Kaplan
recommended that planning should be ‗separated as soon as possible from the Ministry of
Education‘ so that others could be ‗empowered to move policy implementation discussions
toward a genuine national policy‘ (Kaplan, 1992, p. 3).
Those commenting on Waite‘s document, including Kaplan (1992), Crombie and
Paltridge (1992) and Peddie (1993), made a number of other recommendations in relation to
the establishment of a national languages policy in New Zealand. These included:

 establishing an implementation timetable;
 establishing a National Languages and Literacy Institute;
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Diane Johnson 278
 initiating research into language learning, language use and language needs,
including language needs relating to tourism and trade;
 initiating a publicity campaign to educate all New Zealanders about the importance
of languages, the nature of language learning, and the cultural, social and economic
value of languages in New Zealand society; and
 taking full account of the important place of te reo Māori, in accordance with the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi
1
.

None of these recommendations has been implemented and the absence of real data
regarding the language situation is as disturbing now as it was when the notion of a National
Languages Policy was first mooted. Indeed, there is on-going concern among language
professionals that language activities are continuing to take place in a national policy vacuum.

THE ELT SECTOR IN NEW ZEALAND

Writing in 1992, Robert Kaplan made the following observation:

[Language] education is not adequately provided for in New Zealand …[and] an
element of chaos exists in the various sectors that deal with language. …[Language] rights
– indeed, the very existence of some languages – are threatened by the failure to deal
systematically with language matters. These concerns have, to some degree, been offset
by a residual racism in society, by the mistaken belief that English is the only language
necessary for New Zealand‘s development, and by the disturbing absence of real data
regarding the language situation (Kaplan, 1992, as cited in Kaplan, 1993, p. 3).

More than twenty years on, the situation regarding languages and language education in
New Zealand continues to be of concern. Even so, a relatively robust EFL sector has been
developed and is thriving.
One of the most significant turning points in the development of the ELT sector in New
Zealand was the Education Amendment Act 1989 (New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel
Office, 2014) which drew a clear distinction between domestic and international students and
required all institutions to charge fees on a full cost recovery basis for all international
students (as Australia had done earlier).
Primary and secondary schools which had previously received the same subsidy for
international students as they had for domestic students now began to charge significant fees
for international students (Ma & Abbott, 2007), with much of the additional revenue often
being used to support developments which are not of direct benefit to those providing the
funding.

1
The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 by Governor Hobson (on behalf of the British Crown) and, eventually,
by approximately 500 of Māori chiefs. Article 2 of the Treaty guarantees protection of Maori taonga
(treasures). The Waitangi Tribunal, established in 1975 (Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975) to investigate claims
relating to breaches by the Crown of the promises made in the Treaty, determined, in considering a claim
(WAI 11) lodged in 1985, that Article 2 covered both tangible and intangible taonga and was, therefore,
inclusive of the Māori language (Waitangi Tribunal, 1986, §4.3.9).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Teaching in New Zealand 279
As the principal of a high-status Auckland secondary school, where international students
contribute approximately $NZ3.2 million per annum to the school budget, has recently
observed:

It‘s one of the least-known but most dynamic export sectors in New Zealand …
simply put, without the income from international students the school‘s ability to provide
an education of the level the community expects would be impossible (Jones, 2014).

Many schools in both rural and urban contexts now conduct joint marketing campaigns
and collaborate to ensure pathways for international students through the various levels of
education. There is general acceptance by school Principals that, as one study (Jones, 2014)
reports: ‗[the] international market has become more important to funding the developments
in New Zealand education generally.‘
International students have also become an important revenue stream for New Zealand‘s
national universities and thus when international student numbers drop or when the New
Zealand dollar is high in relation to other currencies, New Zealand universities are placed
under considerable economic pressure.
The Education Amendment Act 1989 (New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office, 2014)
also opened the door to the establishment of private language schools and private training
providers which now offer, among other subjects, English language tuition to international
students. Most of the national universities and institutes of technology have also established
English language centres to cater for students who need English language proficiency
development before advancing to tertiary study. In the early period of the development of
these schools and centres, there was almost no regulatory framework and students therefore
had little or no protection in relation to the quality of provision. Nevertheless, largely because
of the country‘s reputation as having a quality education system and being able to provide a
safe environment, the number of international students arriving in New Zealand continued to
grow, reaching its highest point in the period between 2001 and 2003.
In an attempt to protect the sector against its obvious vulnerabilities, a group of leading
language professionals attempted to persuade the government and the Ministry of Education
to establish national quality standards for all institutions engaged in ELT. In particular, they
were concerned that curriculum content, teacher qualifications, teaching materials and the
learning environment should be subject to appropriate quality assurance processes. Initially,
these attempts were either ignored or, sometimes, vociferously opposed. Even so, some
institutions did develop and implement their own quality standards and self-audit processes.
Unfortunately, but almost inevitably, a number of scandals involving international
students began to emerge in the international education sector in the early 2000s. This,
combined with the collapse of several language schools, had a very negative impact on New
Zealand‘s reputation as an international study destination. When, during the same period, the
value of the New Zealand dollar rose, student numbers fell dramatically. For example,
whereas in 2004, 31% of all Chinese students who were studying abroad were located in New
Zealand, that figure had fallen to 4% by 2012. As a consequence, ‗the damage to New
Zealand’s reputation as a place to study has been difficult to overcome‘ (Day, 2014) and New
Zealand is failing to attract students ‗from the lucrative and rapidly expanding Chinese
international student market as the education system … struggles to recover from scandals in
the early 2000s‘ (Day, 2014).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Diane Johnson 280
One positive outcome of the problems that New Zealand international education has
experienced has been the development of The Code of practice for the pastoral care of
international students (hereafter the Code of Practice) (New Zealand Qualifications
Authority, 2013) which offers some protection to international students, particularly in
relation to living conditions. Since its first iteration in 2002, the Code of Practice has been
amended and strengthened over time and there is now also an International Education Appeal
Authority which deals with any complaints made.
In addition, it has now been placed under the oversight of the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority, the body responsible for quality assurance in relation to educational
institutions apart from universities (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2013). A report
published in 2006 to evaluate the implementation of the Code of Practice (New Zealand
Qualifications Authority, 2013) demonstrates that it is having a positive impact on the sector.
In a further positive move, and closely related to the Code of Practice (New Zealand
Qualifications Authority, 2013), the Ministry of Education and the Qualifications Authority
have each articulated a range of procedures for monitoring the set-up, delivery and quality
assurance of English language programmes for which they have responsibility. These
initiatives have provided the basis for a much more secure footing for the overall quality of
the sector.

ELT NOW AND INTO THE FUTURE

Of those international students who come to New Zealand with the intention of
improving their English language skills, some study English in order to qualify for further
academic study. For them, evidence of English language proficiency development is critical.
The main instrument for assessing English language proficiency in New Zealand is the
International English Language Testing System (IELTS). There is, however, considerable
debate about what IELTS test scores should be the benchmark for entry into various academic
programme types. Many applied linguists argue that benchmarks are currently set too low to
ensure that students are adequately equipped linguistically for their studies. However, raising
the benchmarks would have recruitment and associated financial implications.
It is estimated that international education currently contributes 2.6 billion dollars to the
New Zealand economy annually and supports 28,000 jobs, 13,607 directly and 14,563
indirectly. A breakdown of the financial contribution of international students to different
sectors of New Zealand education is provided in Table 25.1 below, data for this table having
been extracted from an Education New Zealand Report (2014).
The English Language Barometer 2012 (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2012),
which included a survey of 11% of English language students in New Zealand, concluded that
students appear satisfied with the social and support aspects of their study and that 80% of
them would recommend their institution to others. 88% were satisfied with their overall
learning experience (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2012).
There are some positive signs that the ELT sector in New Zealand has begun to come of
age but there is still much to be done. Projections for the future development and expansion
of international education in New Zealand are still largely couched in economic terms, the
ELT sector frequently being referred to as the ‗ELT industry.‘
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Teaching in New Zealand 281
Table 25.1. Contribution by sector to the value of New Zealand international education

SECTOR CONTRIBUTION
Universities NZ $901 million
Private Providers NZ $583 million
English Language Schools NZ $310 million
Secondary Schools NZ $304 million
Institutes of Technology NZ $104 million
Primary Schools NZ $51 million
TOTAL NZ $2.6 billion

Having recently committed an additional NZ $40 million (spread over 4 years) to
‗international education initiatives,‘ the government has indicated its aspiration that the
financial value of international education will reach NZ $5 billion by 2025. In support of this,
some important policy development initiatives have been proposed by the Office of the
Minster for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment (2014). Among these are that:

 some work rights be given to international students enrolled in publicly funded
institutions with unlimited rights for PhD students and those doing Masters by
research;
 incentives be given to providers of international education who strive for higher
education standards;
 visas not be granted for study at education providers who score a 4 (the lowest
category) on a Qualifications Authority External Evaluation and Review process;
 reviews and audits within the sector be more closely aligned with other areas of the
New Zealand Education system; and
 linkages between international students and industry be made to facilitate visa, study
and immigration applications.

There are some very hard-working, talented and dedicated teachers and researchers
working to support the improvement of the ELT sector in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Against all
odds, the sector has had some significant successes thus far. Some carefully considered
strategic policy development combined with a more cohesive and coherent quality assurance
framework would go a long way in securing further successes in the future.

REFERENCES

Benton, R. A. (1996). Language policy in New Zealand: Defining the ineffable. In M.
Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries (pp.
62-98). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Biggs, B. (1968). The Māori language past and present. In E. Schwimmer (Ed.), The Māori
people in the nineteen sixties: A symposium. New Zealand: Blackwood and Janet Paul
Ltd.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Diane Johnson 282
Central Intelligence Agency. (2014). The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.
gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html.
Crosby, R. D. (1999). The musket wars: A history of inter-iwi conflict 1806-45. Auckland,
NZ: Raupo Publishing Ltd.
Crombie, W. and Paltridge, B. (1992). Aoteareo: The way forward. Working Papers in
Language Education, 1, 15-30.
Day, S. (2014, January 19). Quality now the focus as student lesson learnt New Zealand.
Sunday Star Times January. Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/
9625522/Quality-now-the-focus-as-student-lesson-learnt.
Education New Zealand. (2014). Economic contribution of international education to New
Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A20D1C26-
DB5E-4F10-8D90-1EE38594482D/0/economiccontributioninternationaleducation .
Jones, N. (2014, February 28). International students tick all the right boxes. The New
Zealand Herald February. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.
cfm?c_id=1andobjectid=11211095.
Kaplan, R. B. (1992). New Zealand national languages policy: Making the patient more
comfortable: A report to the policy division. New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Policy
Division.
Kaplan, R. B. (1993). The New Zealand national languages policy: making the patient more
comfortable. Working papers in Language education, 1, 3-14.
Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National policy on languages. Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Ma, X., & Abbott, M. (2006). Chinese students and the higher education market in Australia
and New Zealand. Occasional Paper, 7. Retrieved from http://www.crie.org.nz/research-
papers/M.Abbott_OP7 .
Manning, B. (2013, December 11). Census 2013: More ethnicities than the world‘s countries.
The New Zealand Herald December. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/
article.cfm?c_id=1andobjectid=11170288.
May, S. (2002). Accommodating multiculturalism and biculturalism in Aotearoa New
Zealand: Implications for language education. Waikato Journal of Education, 8, 5-26.
Ministry of Education. (2012). New Zealand ELP sector. English language barometer
academic year 2012: Summary results. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Curriculum stocktake report to the Minister of Education.
Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/curriculum/5815.
Ministry of Justice. (2014). International education appeal authority. Retrieved from http://
www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/international-education-appeal-authority.
New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2014). Education Amendment Act 1989
Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0156/latest/DLM198292.
html.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2013). The code of practice for the pastoral care of
international students. Wellington: New Zealand Qualifications Authority.
Office of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, Office of the Minster
of Immigration. (2014). International Education Export Sector: Cover Paper. Retrieved
from http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8CDE47BD-79B8-4E14-BBE6-09C
4618C670A/0/Overview ofInternationalEducationCabinetPapers .
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

https://www.cia/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8CDE47BD-79B8-4E14-BBE6-09C

English Language Teaching in New Zealand 283
Peddie, R. (1993). From policy to practice: the implementation of languages policies in
Victoria, Australia and New Zealand. Auckland, NZ: Centre for Continuing Education,
University of Auckland.
Peddie, R. (1991). One, two or many? The development and implementation of languages
policy in New Zealand. Auckland: University of Auckland.
Spolsky, B. (2003). Reassessing Māori regeneration. Language in Society, 32(4), 553-578.
Statistics New Zealand. (2014). 2013 Census. Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz/
Census/2013-census.aspx.
United Nations Development Programme. (2013). 2013 Human development report.
Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/2013-report.
Waitangi Tribunal. (2011). Ko Aotearoa tēnei: A report into claims concerning New Zealand
law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity. Wai 262. Wellington, NZ:
Legislation Direct.
Waitangi Tribunal (1986). Te reo Maori report: Wai 11. Wellington, NZ: Government
Printer.
Waite, J. (1992a). Aoteareo: Speaking for ourselves: Part A: the overview. Wellington, NZ:
Learning Media.
Waite, J. (1992b). Aoteareo: Speaking for ourselves: Part B: the issues. Wellington, NZ:
Learning Media.
Wallace, L. (2007). Great oaks from tiny acorns: The building of TESOL in New Zealand.
Communications Journal Articles. Retrieved from http://repository.digitalnz.org/system/
uploads/record/attachment/187/great_oaks_from tiny_acorns_the_beginnings_of_tesol_in
_new_zealand .
Wikipedia. (2014). Demographics of New Zealand. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/

http://repository.digitalnz.org/system/

http://en.wikipedia.org/

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 26

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
IN INDIA: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

Helen Boyd Toraskar
Centennial College, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT

English language education has a powerful role to play in the shaping and reshaping
of 21
st
century Indian society. From a tumultuous past as a much hated language of the
colonisers, English has emerged today as a highly sought-after commodity which can
make or break the dreams of the masses. Since 1947, India as a nation has undergone
major changes which are typical of ‗globalisation‘ such as economic growth, a rise in
population and megacities (Hilger & Unger, 2012). One such change has been the
burgeoning demand for English language education both globally and within the Indian
context. English, which was once a means of exclusion, is now regarded as a means of
inclusion (Graddol, 2010). The acceptance of English in India as an ‗Official Language‘
has been supported by the fact that it is the language of the internet, international
communication and the language of new knowledge, particularly in the fields of science
and technology education. This chapter provides an overview of English language
education in India from the social, economic and political perspectives as it struggles to
create an inclusive knowledge society.

Keywords: English language education, India, social, economic, political perspectives

INTRODUCTION

There is a hastening momentum to attain an education in English in India today which is
the result of numerous factors (National Council of Educational Research and Training
[NCERT], 2005; 2006).
According to the findings on English language teaching in the position paper of the
National Council of Educational Research and Teaching,

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Helen Boyd Toraskar 286
English in India today is a symbol of people‘s aspirations for quality in education
and fuller participation in national and international life… The level of introduction of
English has now become a matter of political response to people‘s aspirations, rendering
almost irrelevant an academic debate on the merits of a very early introduction (NCERT,
2006, p. 1).

The Indian populace now equates an English language education with opportunity, both
social and economic and the possibility of better prospects for future generations. Thus,
English language education is now faced with the enormous task to address the public‘s
aspirations in order to support their desire to attain a new level of livelihood which spans the
social, economic and political spheres of their existence.
The remainder of this chapter will address the issues and challenges which society must
overcome in order to fulfil the aspirations of the masses.

THE SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

English language education has the potential to be a major driving force in the creation of
a new social order in post modern India. It has the impetus to reshape traditional norms and
values in society and at the same time act as the glue that binds together all regions of India
which tend to suffer from ‗linguistic regionalism‘ (Reddy, 2012).
Although English language education has now emerged as essential for the gradual
betterment of the country and its people, there is a major controversy regarding English as the
medium of instruction and equality of access to opportunity (National Knowledge
Commission, 2007, p. 27).

There is an irony in the situation. English has been part of our education system for
more than a century. Yet English is beyond the reach of most of our young people, which
make for highly unequal access. Indeed, even now, barely more than one percent of our
people use it as a second language, let alone a first language… But NKC believes that the
time has come for us to teach our people, ordinary people, English as a language in
schools. Early action in this sphere would help us build an inclusive society and
transform India into a knowledge society.

Historically, Indian society has been socially stratified according to the caste system with
only the elites in society having access to an English language education.
Although the caste system has gone underground today it still has a permanent foothold
in post-modern India and the result is unequal access of the lower castes to education and
economic gain (Desai & Kulkarni, 2008). In fact, some states today score below the national
average on economic development and educational opportunities (Asadullah & Yalonetzky,
2012; Chaudhuri & Ravallion, 2006).
Many blame the failure of the Indian government to reform its monolithic education
system for the increasing problem of unemployable graduates, so few of whom are able to
communicate effectively in English (Anand, 2011).

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education in India 287
A Transformation

Embedded within the education system is the controversy regarding the medium of
instruction which is spearheaded by equality of educational opportunity. It is this
transformation of the Indian social landscape which has resulted in the emergence of a deep
societal conflict. These rivalries between clans in small communities across the Indian
landscape take the form of both psychological pressure and physical attacks on the
underprivileged by more powerful members of rival clans. Their aim is to maintain the status
quo and block the social and economic freedom which is so desperately sought after by the
less powerful in society through access to educational pathways. Graddol (2010, p. 120) aptly
sums up the situation:

Throughout India, there is an extraordinary belief, among almost all castes and
classes, in both rural and urban areas, in the transformative power of English. English is
seen not just as a useful skill, but as a symbol of a better life, a pathway out of poverty
and oppression. Aspiration of such magnitude is a heavy burden for any language, and for
those who have responsibility for teaching it, to bear. The challenges of providing
universal access to English are significant, and many are bound to feel frustrated at the
speed of progress. But we cannot ignore the way that the English language has emerged
as a powerful agent for change in India.

This metamorphosis of the public‘s view of English which has occurred in India
necessitates a look at history in order to comprehend this transformation. The Indian
sociocultural landscape is dotted with past events which helped frame the current equation of
English language education in India today. The signing of the East India Company (EIC)
charter by Queen Elizabeth I in 1600 was a landmark decision which created an opening for
individuals such as Lord Macaulay to shape India according to the British Empire‘s needs
(Krishnaswamy & Krishnaswamy, 2006).
The sociocultural context of the past had labelled the English language as the language of
the colonisers and a language which belongs to the firangi (i.e., foreigner). Although the
historical sociocultural context thus described is not entirely erroneous, today a new view has
emerged helped along by the emergence of information technology and India‘s developing
economy and globalisation. The view of ‗English as a coloniser‘s language‘ has been replaced
with the view of ‗English as a tool of economic empowerment and social equality‘ for all,
especially the poor. The ‗English tsunami‘ has firmly taken root, supported by economic
advantage and the I.T. revolution. Consequently, the English language is a much sought after
commodity which offers valuable employment opportunities both in India and world-wide.
The rapid changes taking place in Indian society have also produced warnings of
hegemony coined as ‘linguistic globalisation‘ and ‘linguistic genocide‘ which are reshaping
the very fabric of society and which for the most part are unheeded. India‘s Andaman Islands
have already experienced the loss of the ancient Bo language with the death of the last
speaker (Harrison, 2010). However, the adoption of a global language such as English which
replaces vernacular forms threatens the traditional values and beliefs upheld by society. For
example, the emergence of jean-clad youth and shopping malls offering the latest in brand
label clothing and accessories are examples of the metamorphosis which is taking place in
sections of Indian society.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Helen Boyd Toraskar 288
One only needs to sit in one of these shopping malls, sipping on a Starbucks coffee to
witness the degree of code-switching which occurs in everyday language between Hindi/
Marathi (e.g., in Maharashtra state) and English to gauge the role of the English language
among the strata of Indian society which frequent such places. The English language is the
medium through which customers‘ orders are placed and filled in English and which further
serves to differentiate the public via language knowledge. It is little wonder that the masses
strive for such luxuries and lifestyles which they can barely afford.

THE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

India is facing a transformation in the educational sphere at a scale which is
unprecedented and which is spurred by both demographic and economic change (British
Council, 2014). For example, by 2020 it is predicted that India will have an economy which is
ranked third in size with an accompanying, burgeoning middle class, and India‘s tertiary-age
population will overtake that of China (British Council, 2014). These facts may sound
impressive yet there exist warning signs that growth is and will continue to be uneven. The
disparity between the haves i.e., those who have access to opportunities, both economic and
educational, and the have-nots i.e., those who do not have access to such opportunities for a
better life, will continue to deepen. This is compounded by the fact that India holds the world
record for having the greatest number of out-of-school children and less than two-thirds of the
population earns under $2 per day (The World Bank, 2009).
Krishnaswamy and Krishnaswamy (2006) support the view that English is the language
of the world-wide web and the Info-Age. They claim that the Indian mindset has shifted away
from the view of English as a beacon of colonialism. Today, English is perceived as a tool
with which to communicate internationally and to locate job opportunities in the global
market. In addition, the Indian public nowadays perceives English as a ‗culturally neutral tool
of communication‘ (p. 158). The possibility of future economic prosperity has removed the
fear that the learning of English endangers the Indian identity and results in westernisation.
The skills which were previously taught to understand English literature are not as important
today as they were in the past. The highly-valuable market skills of the twenty-first century
require individuals to have strong oral and written English communication skills essential for
lucrative employment such as call-centre jobs, a fact which some parents have clearly
understood.
The push for English language education in India has never been greater. A report
published by The World Bank (2009) on secondary education in India predicted that 500,000
new secondary school teachers would be required for schools, both private and public. It also
estimated that fifty percent of all secondary students who sit the tenth standard Secondary
School Certificate (SSC) examination either fail or drop out of the education system.
Furthermore, research such as that of Hanushek and Wobman (2007) and McKinsey (2007)
stress the importance of well-trained teachers. The World Bank (2009) claims that

Unfortunately, teachers‘ pre-service education at the secondary level (university
degree plus teacher education) suffers from poor standards, weak accreditation and
monitoring, outdated pedagogical approaches, inadequate supplies of basic teaching and
learning materials (including ICTs), and few incentives for improvement (p. 12).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education in India 289
At the same time, the report also critiques in-service teacher training at the secondary
level by claiming it is ‗ad hoc, poorly resourced, and disconnected from classroom realities.
Teacher effectiveness is also weakened by a lack of teacher accountability‘ (The World Bank,
2009, p. 12). This implies that it is imperative to upgrade both training colleges for secondary
school teachers and in-service teacher training programmes and to encourage student
retention.
The city of Pune in the state of Maharashtra typifies the economic problems the schools
in India are facing today. For example, the local contexts in which these schools are situated
reflect the immediate socio-economic conditions of the surrounding area. The vernacular
government-run schools are in danger of losing out to English-medium schools whose
existence is supported by a market which is thrilled with the possibility of economic and
social freedom created by an English language education. It is these differences which impact
on the schools and the teachers who are employed in these schools and which present a range
of challenges in providing quality English language education for students. Such schools may
be located in economically developing areas surrounded by businesses and shopping malls
which are able to donate to the school. Some schools are labelled as city slum schools with
limited opportunity of acquiring donations from either families or local businesses. Other
schools are located in semi-rural areas where donations are non-existent.
According to Reddy (2012, p. 787), English language teaching has always been
conducted in challenging circumstances which is explained by ‗the large population of the
country, bleak economic conditions, the cultural and social diversities, insufficient men and
material, etc.‘ Overall, not only do Indian schools suffer from under-staffing, but it has also
been pointed out that teacher absenteeism is rife in schools and the teaching profession as a
whole is unable to attract the best graduates who seek much more lucrative careers.
Another serious issue is the stratification of schools which places limits on students‘
career and academic prospects. The government schools in India do not offer instruction in
English which means that those who attend such schools do not have the same opportunities
available to them as students who attend English medium schools. For some parents, the EFL
lesson is much more than simply good examination results. Parents are aware that today
English is ‗the language of opportunity‘ and that it has the potential to free their family from
the cycle of poverty in which they live (Vulli, 2014).

THE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE

Governments worldwide have invested enormous time and resources in reforming
educational policies and India is no stranger to educational reform. Postcolonial India has
eradicated the need for a national language but in the process has created two systems of
education, namely vernacular-medium and English medium (Faust & Nagar, 2001).
Consequently, there exists a class-divided system of education in India in which English can
be regarded as a means of unification among the states, yet at the same time is viewed as a
marker of colonialism and imperialism which reinforces the divide between the haves and the
have-nots (Faust & Nagar, 2001).
It is unsurprising that Indian politics plays an important role in reinforcing this divide and
maintaining the status quo.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Helen Boyd Toraskar 290
It is estimated that India‘s tertiary enrolment will be the largest worldwide and that India
will be a point of origin of intellectual capital (British Council, 2014). However, educational
reforms are monitored and directed by political interests and processes at both the state and
the central levels. The centralisation of educational decision-making impacts bills such as the
Foreign Educational Institutions Bill and the Innovation and Research Universities Bill
(IRUB); bills, which should have been previously passed by parliament but have been in a
state of paralysis for years. It is hoped that Mr. Modi‘s government will effect changes in top
posts in education which will spur the passing of the aforementioned bills and which will
support international universities as autonomous bodies who offer foreign degrees and hire
international faculty.
The Indian government is in the unique position as the main educational provider for half
to three-quarters of school students, mostly from the lowest strata of society, who rely on
government schools throughout their education (Centre for Learning Resources [CLR]
Annual Report 2013-2014). It is also the body which regulates the education system and
recent claims address the pervasiveness of these powers, especially after the Right to
Education Act came into existence on April 1, 2010. Tertiary institutions are regulated by the
UGC and the AICTE whereas primary and secondary education is regulated departmentally.
However, the problem of the low quality of education in Indian schools has not been given
the attention it demands as a direct result of the dual role of the government as provider and
regulator of the education system, resulting in an inefficient education system which caters to
cronyism.
In spite of warnings from educationists that being schooled in an unfamiliar language
affects a child‘s cognitive development, parents across India are increasingly favoring an
English-medium education for their children (Rahman, 2012). In response to parents‘
demands, state governments, such as Goa are now supporting English and abandoning a
regional language education (Rahman, 2012). What is interesting to note is that even
supporters of the regional language recognise the need for an English language education and
have their own children admitted in English-medium schools. Overall, the cumulative effect
is that there is an even greater demand by the masses to acquire an English language
education in the formative years of study so that the tertiary level of education, which is
dominated by English, becomes achievable. According to Pandey and Anshu (2014), the
preference for English medium has placed non-English medium students at a disadvantage in
accessing and adapting knowledge to their needs.
In the years following India‘s independence in 1947 from Britain, the English language
was viewed as a library language. Today, it provides access to the storehouse of the world‘s
knowledge which is not available in Indian languages and ‗…it is the only language through
which maximum knowledge can be imparted to students‘ (Neelam, 2013, p. 32). It is now
identified in India as an ‗associate official language‘ and it is an ‗institutionalised subject in
the school curriculum‘ (Meganathan, 2011). Furthermore, English has resolved the issue of a
national language for India which serves to benefit the vernacular Indian languages. The
English language has, for all practical purposes, achieved the status of a compulsory second
(or third) language with primary school students now learning English in year one of their
formal education. Needless to say, what has transpired is a disparity in the quality of English
language education which largely emanates from an inability to attract the right people to the
teaching profession, to effectively train teaching professionals and to ensure equality of
English language educational opportunity for all.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

English Language Education in India 291
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

This chapter has attempted to examine the social, economic and political issues of
English language education facing India today as it moves forward under a new Prime
Minister, namely Mr. Narendra Modi. Mr. Modi‘s maiden speech to the United Nations
General Assembly in September of 2014 clearly indicates that he believes in creating a
‗genuine international partnership‘ which is ‗mutually supportive‘ (‗PM Modi,‘ 2014) and
spurred on by policy changes to engender growth and development of a nation like India. The
world is witness to the amount of effort he has placed in forging international ties and
encouraging economic and educational investment. India appears to be moving in an upward
direction from the economic perspective. Yet, what remains to be seen is whether India is
ready and willing to accommodate the onslaught of foreign investment, particularly in the
area of English language education and, if so, at what cost. There will be no turning back
once the floodgates for educational investment are opened in India and countries such as
Britain and the United States wait patiently on the sidelines.
Indian society today is fragmented with the disparity in the wealth gap growing at an
alarming rate. The lower socio-economic strata of society can only gaze in wonder and envy
at the luxuries beyond their reach, hopeful that the economic benefits gleaned from
occupations which demand English language knowledge will propel their children into a
socio-economic bracket which will enable them to acquire such luxuries through a lucrative
career. Consequently, with economic gain comes the freedom to make decisions. The youth
of today are making life-changing decisions, such as choosing life partners without parental
consent. In addition, information about court marriages and much-needed mobile numbers are
advertised on the rear of rickshaws, (i.e., three wheeled vehicles) in Maharashtra in English to
help such segments of society who forego traditional weddings with or without parental
consent. Traditional family values and relationships are changing with elders no longer being
respected the way they were a few generations ago. One wonders if language loss is only the
tip of the iceberg while Indian society is experiencing a major transformation in other areas of
life.
All segments of Indian society are in agreement that knowledge of the English language
is necessary for career prospects and opportunities including social and economic
advancement. As a result, local universities are now compelled to change their courses from
literary English to courses such as English Communication skills and Spoken and Written
English or else face marginalisation (Krishnaswamy & Krishnaswamy, 2006). The Indian
government has risen to the challenge and is now in the process of planning a major
expansion of the entire education system although predictions are that it will fall short in
supplying sufficient places in universities, colleges and schools to meet the growing demand
(British Council, 2014). Whether such changes can successfully meet the needs of the masses
who wish to secure an English language education is debatable. What is certain is that even if
Mr. Modi‘s new government chooses to replace English, i.e., the working language the Indian
government uses at present, with Hindi in the future, Indian society and the world is moving
on. The question remains to what extent India‘s national progress and unity will be defined by
the public‘s demand for equal access to English language education and how the Indian
government‘s aim to create an inclusive knowledge society will shape the role that India must
play on the world stage vis-à-vis a highly globalised and competitive world.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Helen Boyd Toraskar 292
REFERENCES

Asadullah, M. N., & Yalonetzky, G. (2012). Inequality of educational opportunity in India:
Changes over time and across states. World Development, 40(6), 11511163.
Anand, G. (2011, April 5). India graduates millions, but too few are fit to hire. The Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com
British Council. (2014). Understanding India – The future of higher education and
opportunities for international cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.
org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/understanding_india_report .
Centre for Learning Resources. (n.d.) Annual report 2013-2014. Retrieved from http://www.
clrindia.org/downloads/annualreport_2013_14 .
Chaudhuri, S., & Ravallion, M. (2006). Partially awakened giants: Uneven growth in China
and India. Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-4069.
Desai, S., &Kulkarni, V. (2014). Changing educational inequalities in India in the context of
affirmative action. Demography, 45(2), 245-270.
Faust, D., & Nagar, R. (2001, July 28). Politics of development in postcolonial India:
English-medium education and social fracturing. Economic and Political Weekly.
Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic543017.files/Aspiring%20in%20
English/Recommended/Faust_Nagar
Government of India. (2007). Report of the national knowledge commission. New Delhi.
Graddol, D. (2010). English next India. New Delhi: British Council.
Hanushek, E. A., & Wobmann, L. (2007). Education quality and economic growth.
Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World
Bank.
Harrison, D. K. (2010, February 5). The tragedy of dying languages. BBC News. Retrieved
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8500108.stm
Heslop, L. (2014). Understanding India: The future of higher education and opportunities for
international cooperation. India: British Council India.
Hilger, A., & Unger, C. R. (2012). India in the world since 1947: National and transnational
perspectives. Switzerland: Peter Lang – International Academic Publishers.
Krishnaswamy, N., & Krishnaswamy, L. (2006). The story of English in India. New Delhi:
Foundation Books Pvt. Ltd.
Meganathan, R. (2011). Paper 4. Language policy in education and the role of English in
India: From library language to language of empowerment. British Council. Retrieved
from www.Britishcouncil.org
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). National curriculum
framework 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ncert.nic.in/rightside/links/pdf/framework/
english/nf2005
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2006). National focus group
position paper on teaching of English. New Delhi: NCERT.
Neelam, M. (2013). English Language is a link language in social strata: A critical review.
International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 2(5), 30-38.
Pandey, N., & Anshu, A. P. (2014). The language of knowledge?: A case study of English-
medium teaching in Delhi university. The Delhi University Journal of the Humanities
and the Social Sciences, 1, 77-86.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

http://www.britishcouncil/

http://www/

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic543017.files/Aspiring%20in

http://www.ncert.nic.in/rightside/links/pdf/framework/

English Language Education in India 293
PM Modi‘s maiden speech at the UN general assembly. (2014). News18. Retrieved from
www.news18.com/news/live-news/full-text-pm-modis-maiden-speech-at-the-un-general-
assembly
Rahman, M. (2012, May 15). Language exodus reshapes India‘s schools. The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com
Reddy, P. S. (2012). Problems in teaching/learning English as a second language in India.
Language in India, 12(2), 781-790.
The World Bank. (2009). Secondary education in India: Universalizing opportunity.
Retrieved from http://datatopics.worldbank.org/hnp/files/edstats/INDstu09b
Vulli, D. (2014). English and medium of instruction: Dalit discourse in Indian education.
Research Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 1-6.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 27

SEEKING COMMONALITY IN DIVERSITY:
CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING AND DELIVERING
AN INNOVATIVE ACADEMIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE
WRITING COURSE AT THE NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

Mark Brooke
National University of Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT

In addition to home-grown students, first year undergraduates in the advanced
English language writing courses at the National University of Singapore‘s Centre for
English Language Communication come from various countries (e.g., Korea, China, and
Indonesia), which can mean that there is a broad range in English language ability. They
are also from multidisciplinary backgrounds such as the Faculties of Sociology, Law,
Business, Computer Science, Engineering, Medicine and Architecture making topics of
interest multifarious. Given this diversity, it is a challenge to devise a pedagogy from
which every class participant is able to derive some benefit. This chapter will outline
approaches adopted to cater to the challenges of teaching students from diverse
backgrounds and with quite significant language disparities. This was done by seeking
commonalities between students. Firstly, this author developed a content-based English
language course which included topics that could interest students from humanities and
science-based subjects. In order for this to be effective, the tutor needs to be able to
manage students as they are researching individual topics, and to grow as co-investigator
in terms of both depth and breadth of knowledge. Secondly, academic learning strategies
such as mind mapping, concept mapping, argument mapping and analysing types of
persuasive appeal were taught as methods for deconstructing academic expository texts in
groups to develop students‘ critical thinking skills. Finally, small classes of twelve
facilitated the implementation of student consultations with the tutor in order to deal with
the language diversity in the classroom. Sessions were actually timetabled into the course
so that quality one-to-one individualised teaching and learning could be conducted. It is
believed that this pedagogy has proven successful in meeting the challenges of teaching
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Mark Brooke 296
classes brimming with diversity. To conclude, some further observations about future
pedagogies are made.

Keywords: Content-based instruction, catering for diversity, teacher as co-investigator,
academic study skills, critical thinking skills, grammar consultations

INTRODUCTION: ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
AT THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE IN 2014

The Singapore government states:

As a small country whose only resource is its people, Singapore believes that human
resource development is vital for economic and social progress (Embassy of the Republic
of Singapore, 2012, para. 1).

A fundamental requirement for progress is education and English has been linked to this
for decades. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam the Minister for Education in 1986 (as cited in Rappa &
Wee Hock An, 2004, p. 84) poignantly demonstrates the People‘s Action Party (PAP)
pragmatic stance:

Our policy of bilingualism that each child should learn English and his mother
tongue, I regard as a fundamental feature of our education system. Children must learn
English so that they will have a window to the knowledge, technology and expertise of
the modern world. They must know their mother tongue to know what makes us what we
are.

Seventy-five percent of Singapore‘s 5,312.4 population is Chinese, and Mandarin is used
as a lingua franca between various dialect-speaking Chinese, and is growing as an economic
language today. However, due to the pragmatism of the government, English was selected as
the medium of instruction in schools and tertiary institutions in order to maximise potential
for development. English is also used at the inter-group level between Chinese, Malays,
Indians and those from other backgrounds in society. Its legacy as a tool to carry out the
business of the state, as well as the region, continues, developing a generation of young
citizens who have an acute awareness that becoming high level bilinguals is essential to
Singapore‘s and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations‘ (ASEAN) future. As a result,
many Singaporeans from diverse racial backgrounds, coming up from school to tertiary
programmes have strong academic proficiency in English. The majority is able to function
effectively in an English medium academic classroom environment. It is surmised therefore,
that the most effective pedagogical approach in this context is Content-based Instruction or
CBI (Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013), similarly termed as Content and Language
Integrated Learning or CLIL (Marsh & Fregols, 2013), an educational model in which
English is used as the lingua franca. The premise, as with English-medium education, is that
extended receptive and productive lexicons can be facilitated through content-specific
language courses. In addition, this model challenges students to actively produce academic
presentations and written texts related to the field under examination.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Seeking Commonality in Diversity 297
Many of the English language courses run by the Centre of English Language
Communication at the National University of Singapore adopt this practice. Indeed, for those
first year undergraduate students whose English is deemed sufficiently advanced, there is an
ever-increasing outgrowth of academic writing courses, taught in English by content
specialists (lecturers with PhDs in Film, Literature Studies and Popular Culture, Bioethics).
Modules in this author‘s faculty include critical approaches to photography; the construction
of public personas; a study on Singlish and intercultural communication; and an analysis of
heroes and their construction in ancient and contemporary societies. The module being
explicated in this chapter is entitled ‗Sport and Competition,‘ and its purpose is to provide a
sociological interpretation of sport as a cultural global phenomenon, with a particular focus
on the emergence and growth of ultra-competitive, elite modern sports, including detrimental
side effects such as the deviant subculture of doping. The course runs over twelve weeks;
there are around forty-eight contact hours. Several individual consultation sessions are woven
into this timeframe.
One major element of teaching these classes is the small student population; the
maximum number of students to a class is 12, allowing a great deal of teacher-student
interaction, including one-to-one consultations, enabling a personalised instructional focus.
These courses can be extremely beneficial to students following them in a number of
ways and this makes teaching them a very positive experience. As is the case with CBI, the
objective is to offer a language-acquisition-rich environment (Marsh & Fregols, 2013) by
providing a cognitively challenging curriculum (Baetens-Beardsmore, 2008).
Through the content of their courses, tutors seek to hone their students‘ critical thinking
and this is done by offering a course that stimulates reflection and engaging discussion on
content specific issues and following on from that, the teaching of how to best construct
evidence-based arguments through the writing of academic persuasive essays (APE).
Students are asked to formulate and investigate a research problem within the specific
field, analyse data and draw conclusions from primary and secondary sources, and to focus on
contestable elements from the topic selected. One contestable theme from the Sport and
Competition module I teach is the ethics of Foetal Gene Doping, also known as Germ-Line
Genetic Modification (GLGM) to create superathletes, and whether it should be condoned in
sport.
In addition, the majority of students in their first year are not familiar with academic
journals and their contents. Using a selection of journal articles as a corpus for the course,
students are given instruction in generic academic skills such as annotating, summarising and
responding to an academic journal article without plagiarising; identifying rhetorical
situations, locating a writer‘s thesis and main ideas in order to effectively summarise a paper.
Then, as the input side is completed and students are required to work independently,
they are taught how to research and plan an expository text exploiting both primary and
secondary sources; how to write an expository text, for example, maintaining a thesis
throughout by ensuring periodicity (Martin & Rose, 2003) through signposting i.e.,
effectively writing macro themes (topic sentences) and supporting these with evidence.
In addition to this, guided peer reviewing is facilitated to hone students‘ review and
editing skills, and to develop autonomous learning.
Although a course of this ilk offers teachers and students a highly effective learning
experience, there are several challenges that arise and these will be explicated in this chapter.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Mark Brooke 298
Overall, the challenges centre on the difficulty of seeking commonalities in diversity; in
other words, in each classroom cohort taught, there is so much student diversity that it is
necessary to cater for students from multiple disciplinary backgrounds who have very
differing interests, critical analysis skills, and, in some cases, English language levels. To
elaborate on the measures taken to deal with this, the following topics will be discussed:

 designing course materials for students from multidisciplinary backgrounds;
 teacher as co-investigator;
 catering for diversity using text to teach critical thinking skills; and
 teacher as grammar consultant.

DESIGNING COURSE MATERIALS FOR STUDENTS
FROM MULTIDISCIPLINARY BACKGROUNDS

Students are from a variety of linguistic backgrounds (Chinese, Indian, Indonesian,
Korean, Malaysian, and Singaporean) and faculties (Science, Engineering, Arts and Social
Science, Medicine, Economics, Business, Design and Environment, Computing and Law).
One of the major challenges at the outset was in the planning of the course content. How
is it possible to select material that might cater to the interests of all of these disciplines?
After careful consideration of this question, I began looking into the possibilities of designing
a course which might be cognitively challenging and linguistically-rich based on a fairly
broad sociological perspective of sport in Western and Eastern societies. This is a large part
of Singaporean student life also, which meant that they should find the topic engaging. I am
also very interested in the topic.
From that point, a core set of twelve scholarly research articles from journals in the fields
of the sociology of sport, sport science and engineering as well as medicine and sports
management were selected for the syllabus.
Some journals used were International Review for the Sociology of Sport; International
Review of Sport Sociology; Journal of Sport Behavior; British Journal of Sports Medicine;
and The Journal of Applied Sport Management. Students from Arts and Social Science as
well as Business Faculties would find topics about sports as a socialisation process or
commodity interesting; Science, Engineering and Medicine students would find the
phenomenon of health and technology in sport, including performance-enhancing drugs,
engaging. Other topics to cater for faculties such as Law students could also be highlighted
throughout, for example, whether doping should be punished as a part of Penal Law or remain
in the hands of sport‘s World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Even Computer Science
students could find topically-related foci such as virtual sports.
In addition, at the beginning of the course, students were told that they would be required
to write a 1500-word essay and that they should start researching a topic from the outset and
be ready to briefly present it within the first three weeks. They were given a free rein to
choose their research topic based on their interests and disciplines.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Seeking Commonality in Diversity 299
TEACHER AS CO-INVESTIGATOR

Dalton-Puffer (2011) in her academic survey of CBI research states that in many cultural
contexts, such as the one in Singapore, teachers at tertiary level are commonly content
experts, not language experts. Often, general academic language instruction, if required, may
be taught in its own right by a language expert as part of a supplementary, parallel course.
This is the inverse for those teachers who are not necessarily content specialists but rather
who have an interest, not necessarily a Doctorate in a particular field and wish to teach
language using it as a medium.
This author has a background in Education Studies and English Linguistics, not the
Sociology of Sports. Prior to that, I worked in English for academic purposes (EAP) and
English for specific purposes (ESP) settings with adult pre and in-service teachers and
language learners from a variety of disciplines, mainly at City University of Hong Kong and
the Hong Kong Institute of Education. As such, my specialist knowledge played an important
role in the design of the genre-based pedagogy of the course, particularly in terms of
curriculum planning, activity design and implementation.
However, the content-specific language of the course and the conceptual underpinnings
that they represented was often new to me. Further, as the course continued and students had
selected topics for their APEs, there were suddenly thirty-six different topics within this field
being researched simultaneously.
Some examples are prosthetic technology for amputee athletes; the exploitation of child
gymnasts in mainland China, the role of education in youth sports in Singapore, the
phenomenon of new goal line technology and its potential effects on football dynamics, the
ethical dilemmas of fetal doping, sport and the perpetuation of masculine hegemony, the
Olympics and the status of transgendered athletes.
This was quite daunting for an English language teacher and non-expert in the field. For
example, an analysis of the role of education in youth sports in Singapore could be explicated
using theories from Bourdieu, Foucault or Durkheim; similarly, an essay on The Olympics
and the status of transgendered athletes, requires a working knowledge of
‗hyperandrogenism,‘ a condition female intersex athletes can suffer from.
The challenge in this kind of educational environment can only be met if the tutor
considers himself/herself a co-investigator and makes it clear to students that there will be
times when he/she is working in lock-step with the students as they progress in their
independent study.
This requires humility on the behalf of the tutor; being able to admit that one does not
know the answer, or one knows less about the topic than one‘s student, is relatively common.
However, I have found that if you say that you will find out about the topic, and you do so
with enthusiasm, the students are delighted to work with you. In fact, this approach creates
strong bonds between tutors and students.
As co-investigator, one feels more like a mentor, and facilitator than a transmitter of
knowledge. In one-to-one consultations, it is possible to share what material or data you have
found with your student regarding the topic, and to discuss what might fit the essay, and how
to incorporate it. The ultimate goal in this process is to make the 1500-word essay the best it
can be, and this is a joint effort.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Mark Brooke 300
CATERING FOR DIVERSITY BY USING TEXT
TO TEACH CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

In the online journal ‗Singteach,‘ Teng Poh Hoon from the National Institute of
Education, Singapore, cites a Singaporean youth who refers to students in Singapore as the
Gen S, or the Generation of Sheep (Han, 2005). Similarly, on the Ministry of Education
website, an article is cited which quotes Senior Minister of State for Law and Education
Indranee Rajah who praises schools that encourage creative and critical thinking. Indeed, it
has become an essential factor in qualifying a good education system here in Singapore.
Critical thinking skills benefit students from all kinds of academic backgrounds. In
addition, all students need to read, synthesise and organise academic information. As the
Sport and Competition course progressed, active learning sessions were conducted to
demonstrate how to mine a content-rich paper and create mind maps, concept maps and
argument maps from it. It was found to be an effective way of dealing with the challenges of
a diverse classroom. Below are a mind map, concept map and argument map created from
expository text during the course. Biktimirov and Nilson (2006, p. 72) define mind mapping
as ‗visual, non-linear representations of ideas and their relationships.‘
A mind map allows students to organise items by exploring associations between them.
This technique is common in multiple disciplines e.g., Finance (Biktimirov & Nilson, 2006),
Economics (Nettleship, 1992), Optometry (McClain, 1987) and Medicine (Farrand, Hussain,
& Hennessy, 2002). An example of a student mind map created using a required reading text
is given on the next page in Figure 27.1.
It describes two sport models coined by Jay Coakley (2009): the first is one based on elite
sport (power and performance); the second, sport for recreation and holistic health (pleasure
and participation).
Concept mapping is widely used in multiple disciplines e.g., Accounting (Chiou, 2008);
Engineering (King & Walker, 2002), Nursing (King & Shell, 2002); and Medicine (Hoffman,
Trott, & Neely, 2002). It is commonly thought to be the same as mind mapping (Ahlberg,
2004). However, mind maps and concept maps differ in that a concept map makes more
evident the hierarchical organisation of information from more general (superordinate) to
more specific concepts (hypernym). Connections using terms such as terms such as leads to
or is part of can be used to represent these.
Figure 27.2 is an example of a concept map. This is in contrast to the mind map in Figure
27.1, which solely makes associations with the ‗Pleasure and Participation‘ model. One can
notice in the concept map, that the student perceives intrinsically-motivated as one of the
most defining composites of the model. Following on from this, if something is intrinsically-
motivated, then the agent is not solely participating as a means to achieve an end, e.g., a
medal or monetary bonus, but rather is enjoying the event for itself. Thus it is process-
oriented, not product-oriented. Therefore, doing a concept map after a mind map activity can
be an effective way of asking students to work more deeply with meanings.
Another way to use expository text to develop critical thinking is through argument
mapping and then following that, analysing claims for their persuasive appeals.
‗Argument mapping‘ is another visualising strategy. The technique can help students to
understand complex argumentation by analysing the logical structures of the reasoning in a
text, and creating diagrams to capture them.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Seeking Commonality in Diversity 301

Figure 27.1. Mind map.

Figure 27.2. Concept map

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Mark Brooke 302

Figure 27.3. Argument map
An example taken from an article a student summarised is the following:

[1. All performance enhancing drugs should be banned.] After all, [2. sports should
act as a role model for society] so that [3. citizens can look up to athletes as
representations of worthy behavior.] Also, [4. sport can help us reflect on our own values
in life.] [5. These values should not condone cheating].

The logical reasoning in this group of claims is represented in Figure 27.3 above. The
numbers represent the ordering of the claims. Having done this, the next activity was to
analyse these claims to critically decipher the reasoning of an author.
When writing the expository genre, authors use reason in the form of evidence and logic
to persuade; they attempt to appeal to readers‘ emotions, and to demonstrate that they are
knowledgeable in the field and thus have good judgement. These three perspectives for
constructing claims are important as writers use them to anticipate how their readers will
respond to an argument; in particular, whether they will be sympathetic or antagonistic. These
engagement strategies in argumentation are derived from ancient Greek writers, in particular
Aristotle, and the three kinds of persuasive appeals are ethos, appeals from character; pathos,
appeals to emotion; and logos, appeals to reason. Students were asked to work with an
argument map that they had already completed and to discern the kind of appeals being used
by the author. Example claims from one paper (Wiesing, 2011) demonstrate these appeals in
Table 27.1:
Table 27.1.

Pathos Sport should be a role model for a better society.
Logos
Different responses of athletes to performance enhancing drugs would be expected to
occur because of genotypic differences alone.
Ethos
Indeed, as stated by the President’s council on bioethics, ‘until proven otherwise, it makes
sense to follow this prudent maxim: no biological agent powerful enough to achieve major
changes in body or mind is likely to be entirely safe or without side effects.’
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Seeking Commonality in Diversity 303
Appealing to logos, the author uses inductive reasoning relying on evidence and
observation. This is also supported by a claim citing the President’s Council on Bioethics,
thus appealing to ethos by using a credible source. In contrast, the appeal to pathos is based
on a provocative issue on the social role of sport. The tone of this claim is more emotive; it is
language which is to have an emotional impact on readers instead of appealing to their logic.
Working in groups, students practised these strategies to critically deconstruct some of
the required expository texts. They were using many critical thinking skills to conduct these
activities, including analysing, associating, evaluating and conceptualising. In the end-of-
course feedback, all of the students, despite their different disciplinary backgrounds, reported
that these critical thinking activities were novel and very interesting.

TEACHER AS GRAMMAR CONSULTANT

Due to the multidisciplinary and multi-racial backgrounds of the students in the course
being presented, it was found that there were quite significant differences between students in
their knowledge of English language.
Students from Korea, for example, made different language errors to Singaporeans. In
addition, students studying a subject such as Engineering might present problems that Law or
Business students would not; for example, noun agreement or article (a, an, the) errors.
Consequently even though there were only twelve students in each class, it was deemed
that, as a general rule of thumb, individual consultation time working with individual
students‘ essays would be more beneficial in dealing with these challenges rather than
devoting whole class time to particular lexico-grammatical items.
This system is in alignment with the learner-centered methodology outlined by Nunan
(1988) in his book The Learner-Centred Curriculum: A Study in Second Language Teaching
because the content of the language instruction is based on what the students actually write
rather than on a pre-course language syllabus design.
This is a bottom-up approach to curriculum design and teaching, not only focusing on
‗what should be‘ but also on ‗what is.‘ Thus, language instruction is based on the needs of the
learners themselves through analysis of the errors that they make in their writing.
The most effective way to manage this approach was to ask for an essay before a
consultation and to go through it applying Socratic dialogue, or the embedding of probe
statements or questions, or simply underlining errors so as to engage each student in a
dialogue and a process of discovery learning.
In the following example, a student makes an error with preposition ‗on‘ following
emphasise. Rather than correcting this error, the prepositions in the sentence were underlined
and it was stated that one of these was incorrect using the Word ‗review‘ mechanism. The
student thus had to find out which one.

The pressure would be at a lower level as opposed to elite schools as they do not
emphasise on maintaining a reputation.

When the consultations took place, the tutor could work through these lexico-
grammatical items with the student individually. A consultation normally took thirty minutes.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Mark Brooke 304
This time was timetabled into the course so that the language diversity of the students
could be catered for.
In their end-of-course feedback, students themselves stated that this approach helped to
‘suit the students’ needs;’ and facilitate ‗interactive’ and ‗caring’ teaching. This feedback
demonstrated that this method is an effective way of dealing with the diversity in the
classroom and exactly the reason why small classes of twelve were being taught.

CONCLUSION: FUTURE STRATEGIES TO CATER FOR DIVERSITY

In this chapter, I have presented some strategies used to deal with the challenges that
emerge in the kind of academic diversity that exists on a campus such as University Town at
the National University of Singapore. The small classes enable individualised learning to
occur; the teaching of academic skills and critical thinking to analyse expository text
transcends disciplines. In the future, I hope to experiment further with content-based
instruction of this type. For example, it might be effective to conduct action research studies
on how best to teach other academic study skills such as using Synthesis Grids for sources,
later to be expanded as annotated bibliographies; or to further work on critical thinking skills
by teaching how to recognise and avoid logical fallacies in expository text. These strategies
would simultaneously aid students in their reading and writing of expository essays and, at
the same time, cater for the challenges inherent in educational diversity today.

REFERENCES

Ahlberg, M. (2004). Varieties of concept mapping. Paper presented at the First International
Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.
academia.edu/829330/VARIETIES_OF_CONCEPT_MAPPING.
Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (2008). Multilingualism, cognition and creativity. International
CLIL Research Journal, 1, 4–19.
Biktimirov, E. N., & Nilson, L. B. (2006). Show them the money: Using mind mapping in the
introductory finance course. Journal of Financial Education, 32, 72–86.
Chiou, C. C. (2008). The effect of concept mapping on students‘ learning achievements and
interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 375-387.
Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to
principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204.
Embassy of the Republic of Singapore, Manila (2012). Singapore cooperation programme.
Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/manila/singapore_
cooperationprogramme.html.
Farrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennessy, E. (2002). The efficacy of ‗mind map‘ study technique.
Medical Education, 36(5), 426–431.
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language
education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 1, 3-33.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

http://www/

http://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/manila/singapore_

Seeking Commonality in Diversity 305
Han, L. C. J. (2005, January 1). Our smart students not willing to think critically [Letter to the
forum]. The Straits Times. Retrieved from LexisNexis™ Scholastic Edition database.
Hoffman, E., Trott, J., & Neely, K. P. (2002). Concept mapping: A tool to bridge the
disciplinary divide. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 187(3), 41–43.
King, M., & Shell, R. (2002). Teaching and evaluating critical thinking with concept maps.
Nurse Educator, 27(5), 214–216.
King, P., & Walker, J. (2002). Concept mapping applied to design. Paper presented at the
Second Joint EMBS/BMES Conference, Houston TX, US.
Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2013). Content and language integrated learning. In C. Chapelle
(Ed.), Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 911–20). Chichester: Blackwell.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New
York.
McClain, A. (1987). Improving lectures: Challenging both sides of the brain. Journal of
Optometric Education, 13(1), 18–12.
Nettleship, J. (1992). Active learning in economics: Mind maps and wall charts. Economics,
28(2), 69–71.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ortiz, C. M. L. (2007). Does philosophy improve critical thinking skills? (Unpublished
Master’s thesis). University of Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
http://images.austhink.com/pdf/Claudia-Alvarez-thesis
Rappa, A. L., & Wee Hock An, L. (2006) Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia:
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. New York: Springer.
Wiesing, U. (2011). Should performance-enhancing drugs in sport be legalized under medical
supervision? Sports Medicine, 4(2), 167-76.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 28

FORMAL ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPAN:
WHAT CAUSES ‘UNSUCCESSFUL’ ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNING?

Masanori Matsumoto
Bond University, Australia

ABSTRACT

Formal English education in Japanese high schools was examined on the basis of its
unsuccessful outcome in the acquisition of communication skills in English despite the
government‘s strong initiative to implement communication-oriented teaching and
learning in its 2003 Action Plan. The primary cause of this is assumed to be the
discrepancy between the official goal advocated in the Action Plan and the realistic goal
that both teachers and students are forced to confront the entrance examinations to
universities. Due to the severe gap between the dual objectives in the teaching/learning of
English, high school teachers and students face pedagogical and motivational challenges
in the acquisition of English as a means of communication. This primary cause extends to
four related problems. 1) High school English classes tend to focus more on grammar-
translation and reading long passages because they are included in the examinations. 2)
Due to a lack of sufficient training for pre-service teachers and inappropriate English
teacher qualification criteria, current in-service teachers have difficulty in conducting
classes with a communicative focus. 3) As the uniform style of teaching English with
colleagues using the government-approved textbooks is common, it is relatively difficult
to utilise communicative materials. 4) Students in these class environments can be easily
demotivated to learn English. These issues have been already discussed in a number of
articles; however, a fundamental solution has yet to be developed.

Keywords: Education policy, exam-oriented learning, pre-service and in-service training,
demotivation, L2 learners

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Masanori Matsumoto 308
INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPAN

English language has been taught in Japan since Japan abandoned its isolation policy and
opened its doors to the rest of the world in the Meiji restoration nearly 150 years ago. Since
then, English and English education have been playing different roles in Japanese society as
assigned by the government or by societal demands. Especially after the Second World War
and up to 1970s, English was taught as a compulsory subject for three years in junior high
school (grades 7-9) because it was ‗regarded as a unilateral means of importing foreign
culture and knowledge‘ (Sasaki, 2008, p. 69). But from the 1970s to the 1990s, English came
to be regarded as a means of communication with other people in the world, as a result of
Japan‘s rapid economic growth during this period of time (Sasaki, 2008). This accelerated
economic growth, then, encouraged the majority of Japanese people to study further to senior
high school level (grades 10-12) and even advance to university
1
. Admission system to non-
compulsory educational institutions in Japan demands candidates to sit for entrance
examinations that include English for both high school and university levels, and regardless
of the discipline area of candidates, they are required to take an English examination. The
competition to enter more prestigious schools and universities intensified overtime and the
entrance examinations turned out to be the means to select elite candidates (Sasaki, 2008). As
a result, the examinations became increasingly difficult, and the content items in the
examinations were designed to include trickier quiz-like questions or extremely difficult
reading passages that even educated native English speakers might have difficulty in
answering (Kikuchi, 2006; Sasaki, 2008).
Along with economic development, the number of Japanese tourists visiting overseas
countries grew fast, and also along with the accelerated globalisation in the 1980s, Japanese
people realised English was a necessary skill to communicate with non-Japanese speakers.
But they found that their skill and knowledge of English acquired during the three-year-
compulsory study and another three years in senior high school was not sufficient for this
purpose. Reacting to this ‗unsatisfactory‘ outcome of the compulsory English study, the
government in 1989 changed ‗the Course of Study Guidelines for Modern Foreign Languages
to state that the primary goal of English lessons was to develop communicative abilities‘
(Lockley, Hirschel, & Slobodniuk, 2012, p. 153) and created a new class called ‗oral
communication.‘ Later in 2003, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology (MEXT) in Japan announced the ‗National Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese
with English Abilities‘ (the 2003 Action Plan) to promote Japanese people to acquire
communication abilities in English.
In response to this strong government initiative, various measures to strengthen the
existing English courses have been implemented. They include extra budget from the
government for introducing English native speakers as ‗Assistant Language Teachers‘ (ALT),
sending 10,000 high school students abroad every year, and encouraging in-service non-
native teachers of English to have a TOEFL score of 550 or over (Tanabe, 2004).
Despite the government‘s intensive plans, the general proficiency in English among
Japanese people has not shown significant improvement.

1
In 2012, 98.3% of junior high school graduates entered senior high schools, and 53.5% of senior high school
graduates advanced to universities (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2014).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Formal English Education in Japan 309
Okuno (2007) stated that according to January 2005‘s Educational Testing Services‘ data
for the average scores of TOEIC during two periods of time (1997-1998 and 2002-2003)
among six areas in the world; Europe, Africa, North America, Middle and South America,
Asia, Korea, and Japan, Japan‘s score was the worst in both periods, and even though all
other areas showed an improvement in the scores Japan‘s score remained unchanged as the
lowest. Japan has developed as one of most successful economic superpowers in a very short
period of time in the last century; however, English communication skills among Japanese
people have not shown similar results so far in spite of the recognition of its importance
among the people and government alike.
This chapter will examine the causes of this unpleasant outcome of the formal English
education, and discuss any possible issues that may help Japan to solve this seemingly
complex political, social and educational problem that has been persisting in the country for
decades.

‘UNSUCCESSFUL’ ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING

The previous section explained the nature of English teaching/learning problem in formal
high school education in Japan. In order to discuss Japan‘s on-going problem, it is necessary
to define unsuccessful learning in terms of formal English education.
Brown (1995) has advocated the goal-and-objective-oriented approach towards the
selection of teaching items and methodology based on the learners‘ needs and wants in target
language use as the essential aspects for designing second language curriculum. L2 learners
have their own learning objectives whether they are determined by themselves or by others,
as in compulsory education.
Given this, should the L2 learning fail to achieve the pre-determined objectives, the
learning should be regarded as unsuccessful. The objectives of the formal English education
in high schools in Japan under the MEXT‘s 2003 Action Plan scheme are the acquisition of
communicative ability; both spoken and written, in English as an equivalent of EPT
2
Level 2
by the end of senior high school in grade 12.
However, as Okuno‘s (2007) report informs and also as a number of research articles
(e.g., Cook, 2010; Kikuchi & Browne, 2009; Lockley et al., 2012; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2008)
highlight the failure in the development of communication skills among the high school
students, it is clear that the government-initiated objectives have not been fully achieved yet.
Why do Japanese high school students not acquire or at the very least have difficulty in
acquiring the required communication skills in English? This unsuccessful outcome should
have several causes, and the rest of this chapter will address them from the viewpoints of
educational policy, English classes, teachers, and students themselves.

2
Test in Practical English Proficiency (Jitsuyo Eigo Kentei = Eiken) is supported by MEXT, the most widely
utilised proficiency test in Japan. It has seven grades depending on the level of difficulty, and the highest
Grade 1 is at equivalent levels of TOEFL 600, or CEFR C1 (Common European Framework of Reference). It
is administered three times a year, and in 2013, more than two million attended and more than 50% passed, but
only 10% passed the Grade 1 (Eiken, 2014).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Masanori Matsumoto 310
DISCREPANCY IN OBJECTIVES

Although the MEXT encourages the development of communication skills in English as
the primary goal for the majority of Japanese people, Japan has long been concerned with the
more persisting ‗real‘ goal in formal education, i.e., passing the entrance examinations. As
mentioned before, in most cases admission to non-compulsory higher educational institutes
requires candidates to sit for and pass written entrance examinations.
The nature of the majority of the examinations is oriented towards measuring reading
skills and grammar knowledge. Why is there such a discrepancy? General demand of an
English speaking ability to help develop a more prosperous business and economy in the
current competitive international environment is too important to ignore for non-English-
speaking developed countries like Japan. Thus the national policy for formal English
education cannot disregard the development of practical communication skills as the primary
objective in teaching and learning English.
Therefore, the teaching methodology, teaching materials, and contents of the syllabus are
naturally selected and developed in alignment with this official goal, or at least, the way the
government promotes them. However, the single means for admission to universities is
similarly too important for each individual student because passing the entrance examinations
and graduating from a good university, as many Japanese people believe, could determine the
student‘s success in future life to a large extent (Sasaki, 2008). For universities, on the other
hand, competition for recruiting academic elites among universities has been severer than
ever as the number of youth is decreasing in Japan due to the diminishing marriage and birth
rate among young couples
3
.
Under these circumstances, the English entrance examinations to universities have not
made it likely to measure the required English skills that enable students to perform properly
in their studies once they are admitted to the tertiary level of education, but only made it
possible to select the best from the available candidates. The existence of these dual
objectives, the pseudo-objective officially established by the government and real-objective
that reflects on the needs of the members of the society, is well addressed by Sage (2007)
while referring to Japan‘s National Centre Examination (NCE)
4
, which is used for all the
public and some private university entrance examinations and is endorsed by MEXT‘s 2003
Action Plan. She argues that NCE does not reliably or validly assess the required English
communicative ability even though NCE has included a listening test following the
introduction of the 2003 Action Plan.
Reflecting on the different objectives of English education in Japan, it can be seen that
the content of the entrance examinations is not aligned with the official objectives, i.e., the
development of communication skills in English. Brown and Yamashita (1995) and Kikuchi
(2006) investigated English entrance examinations of 10 leading private universities and 10
prestigious public universities.
Kikuchi concluded that the level of difficulty in reading passages remained unchanged
and the passages are extremely difficult even for native speakers of English. He also stated
‗most of the test items tested receptive skills or translation skills‘ (p. 90).

3
Crude birth rate (per 1,000 people) decreased from 9.96 in 2000 to 8.39 in 2012 (Index Mundi, 2014).
4
After 1990, private universities started to adopt the NCE, and in 2006 a total of 440 universities, about 60% of all
universities in Japan used the examination (Sasaki, 2008).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Formal English Education in Japan 311
He described the problem in the validity of the entrance examinations as below:

For instance, in many translation tasks, I have observed that students need to
translate English to Japanese using a passage of a certain length in Japanese to be
successful in answering. To meet the test-makers‘ expectations, students probably need to
know certain translation skills to construct carefully crafted pieces in Japanese. This may
lead to problems of validity in that test-taking ability, rather than English proficiency, is
being measured (p. 94).

Goto-Butler and Iino (2004) stated ‗university entrance examinations, which are not
necessarily constrained by high school English curricula, tend to heavily emphasise reading
and the grammatical aspects of English and give little attention on oral/aural skills.‘ (p. 29).
These studies indicate that the entrance examinations in Japanese universities are not fully
developed to assess the high school leavers‘ English communication skills in a practical way.
One of the causes of the unsuccessful learning of the English language among Japanese
students could be this serious discrepancy in the dual objectives in English education and also
in what is targeted for development in English education and what is actually assessed in the
most focused proficiency tests, and entrance examinations to universities, which many high
school students aim to successfully pass.

SCHOOL CURRICULA, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS

The previous section emphasised the discrepancy between the policy that encourages the
development of communication skills in English and the university entrance examinations
that do not assess communication skills validly but focus rather narrowly on linguistic
knowledge, such as grammar and translation. That is, the actual school curricula that should
be based on the government policy and objectives of English education may not reflect
appropriately the proposed goals.
A number of studies have addressed this as one of the major causes of unsuccessful
acquisition of English communication skills through formal education in Japan. For instance,
Kikuchi and Browne (2009) investigated first year university students who just had
completed the six-year-compulsory English study at junior and senior high schools to find
their perceptions of their teachers‘ classroom practices and how the class supports them in
acquiring English communication skills. 38 male and 74 female students, i.e., a total of 112
students from three universities participated in a questionnaire survey. Kikuchi and Browne
found that the students perceive that the class does not effectively implement the activities
and tasks for the acquisition of communication skills, and that the primary focus of the class
is grammar instruction and reading/translation activities. They argued that one obvious reason
for the students‘ perception is ‗overwhelming pressure that Juken Eigo (English for entrance
examinations) places on the teacher‘ (p. 187).
Lockley et al., (2012) investigated 309 freshmen students from five universities with a
questionnaire survey similar to that of Kikuchi and Browne‘s (2009) study. They found that
many students stated that the contents of the class do not contain many communicative tasks
and activities, but rather much more of grammar study and reading texts aloud. They argued
that ‗the lessons might be oral communication in name only‘ (p. 164).
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Masanori Matsumoto 312
Goto-Butler and Iino (2005) discussed the 2003 Action Plan and claimed that there is a
discrepancy between the communicative goals encouraged by the 2003 Action Plan and the
actual education system that forces both teachers and students to pass the entrance
examinations that are not necessarily communication oriented.
The above discussion leads to assume that one of the primary factors in English education,
the actual English lessons conducted by English teachers, may be the cause of the
fundamental problem for the students‘ development of English communication skills. Many
researchers (e.g., Browne & Wada, 1998; Cook, 2010; Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004) have
discussed what teachers do and teach in their English classes and the insufficient provision of
and focus on communication-oriented activities. Given this, then, what exactly happens in the
classroom and what do teachers think and do in order to achieve the goals of the 2003 Action
Plan, i.e., the acquisition of English communication skills? All the Japanese high school
syllabi are determined based on the MEXT‘s Courses of Study and the textbooks used in the
high school classes must be officially approved by the MEXT. Each high school chooses their
textbooks from the government‘s official books that are written based on the Courses of
Study. This forced mono-approach towards the English teaching in the classroom can cause
some critical problems in promoting communicative lessons unless the textbooks fully focus
on communicative language teaching and the teachers are capable of using them to let
students acquire the practical communicative competences. Kikuchi and Browne (2009)
stated that the negative impact of the Ministry-approved textbooks is prominent. Cook (2010)
pointed out that among the constraints of the mandatory Ministry-approved textbooks is the
fact that they promote a unified approach among teachers, and each textbook comes with a
teacher‘s manual that has detailed lesson plans emphasising translation and drill focused
teaching techniques. Sato and Kleinsasser (2004) investigated 19 high school in-service
English teachers, including four English native speakers using multiple methods of data
collection; questionnaire, interview and observations. Their study revealed critical problems
regarding teachers‘ attitudes towards communicative way of teaching, skills and abilities to
utilise the communicative method, and their lack of training. They similarly noted that the
teachers put the priority on keeping pace with other colleagues as a group and ‗the majority of
teachers followed a pattern of teaching unquestionably according to the textbook,‘ (p. 807)
and even though they were not satisfied with it, they did not query their own practices.
The above results extend the discussion of the English teaching qualification conferred to
English teachers who actually practice the 2003 Action Plan in the English classes and teach
students to acquire the communication skills. Studies by Browne and Wada (1998), Cook
(2010), and Sato and Kleinsasser (2004) all found the lack of proper training for both pre-
service and in-service teachers. Most teachers receive certification as part of their bachelor‘s
studies, do not study in faculties of education, and participate in practical training ranging
from only two to four weeks (Cook, 2010). Browne and Wada (1998) reported that results
from the English teachers who responded to their survey show that many of them majored in
English literature, not in TESOL (Teaching English for Speakers of Other Languages – an
internationally acknowledged second language teacher qualification), and those literature
department students are not required to take any additional courses in second language
acquisition theory, ESL (English as Second Language) methodology, or techniques for the
assessment of second language skills (p. 101). That is, newly appointed teachers are assigned
to school and required to start teaching English alone in a classroom, taking a responsibility to
keep up with other experienced teachers. It is not surprising that they manage to cope with
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Formal English Education in Japan 313
this hard task by copying what other teachers do or how they themselves learned English as
students in their school days. As a result, many in-service teachers use the grammar-
translation method because it is how they learned English (Browne & Yamashita, 1995;
Kikuchi & Browne, 2009; Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004). Actually, the grammar-translation
method has prevailed in Japan‘s English education for a long time for a number of reasons,
such as its ease of teaching for teachers with modest professional training, relatively little
requirement for lesson preparation, and lack of requirement for teachers to speak English
fluently (Browne & Wada, 1998; Cook, 2010). In addition, insufficient teacher training fails
to address English teachers‘ lack of actual English oral proficiency. Cook (2010) argued that
teachers‘ lack of confidence in their own English proficiency is the cause of their reluctance
to introduce communicative language teaching in the classroom. MEXT acknowledged this
and the 2003 Action Plan encourages all English teachers to have a TOEFL score of 550 or
over (Tanabe, 2004), and recommended an introduction of English native speakers to support
in-service Japanese teachers of English in the JET program (Japan Exchange and Teaching).
In 2013, the JET program has 4,372 participants from 40 countries but the program neither
requires the participants to possess TESOL qualification nor teacher qualification though it
recommends them (JET Program, 2014). These teaching aids who are English native speakers
are technically not a ‗teacher.‘ Their approach includes talking to 40 students in a class for 50
minutes only in English. Especially in a foreign language learning environment as being
discussed in this chapter, such a language myth that talking only in English to speakers of
English makes us speak English is not likely to work at all. That is, it should be more
important to provide proper pre-service teacher training for both native and non-native
English teachers so they develop the required English teaching skills and knowledge in order
to work together to enhance their own advantages and minimise their disadvantages, and
ensure that all their future students can benefit in the acquisition of the target communication
skills. Finally, the issue regarding students themselves needs to be addressed. Students are the
ones who learn English and who aim to achieve a high proficiency in English, but they are not
mere recipients of English lessons. However, under the current circumstances, as discussed
above, they are not ready to learn English for the goal that the 2003 Action Plan advocates.
They are overly occupied with the real objective of passing entrance examinations. They even
require schools and teachers to teach exam-oriented lessons. At the same time, students who
do not study for entrance examinations are easily demotivated by monotonous grammar-
translation classes, the use of textbooks that contain long and difficult passages, memorisation
of a large number of words, and low test scores (Kikuchi, 2009; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2008).
Here again, the discrepancy in the reality and the norms in formal English education leads to
the unsuccessful learning of English. These multi-faced problems, rooted in the discrepancy
in the objectives of English education, have been shown to be the cause of the unsuccessful
acquisition of communication skills among Japanese people.

CONCLUSION

The formal education of English in high schools in Japan has several profound issues and
deep-rooted problems in terms of the acquisition of so-called communicative skills despite the
strong governmental promotion of learning English as the means of communication.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Masanori Matsumoto 314
The problem is primarily due to the discrepancy between the MEXT‘s official objectives
and the practical goal for high school students to enter higher educational institutions. Due to
the grammar-translation focused contents in the entrance examinations, the actual English
lessons in high schools are more likely to focus on the contents assessed in the entrance
examinations, which are not very communicative. In relation to this, teachers at high schools
are obliged to cope with seemingly opposing dual objectives: development of English
communication skills and helping students pass entrance examinations which are more
oriented to grammar-translation and reading. The government regulates the contents of
textbooks and all the high schools must use ministry-approved textbooks, which are not
designed to promote communication. In addition, because of a lack of sufficient pre-service
teacher training and the nature of egalitarianism, high school teachers suffer from a deficiency
in English fluency and the capability to implement the communicative method for classroom
activities. Tentative measures to introduce English native speaker as teaching aids have not
affected the outcome very positively so far since the majority are not properly qualified
English teachers. Furthermore, students are not properly educated as ‗second language
learners.‘ Hence, they are not ready to become autonomous learners and take full
responsibility for their own English learning, thereby finding their own reason to learn
English. Students tend to easily lose motivation to study English for reasons stemming from
the focus of the lessons on examination-oriented, grammar-translation drills and reading of
long passages.
As has been examined in this chapter, formal English education in Japan has serious
problems and fundamental solutions need to be found if the nation persists in its primary goal
of English education for developing English communication skills. The solution seems to
require narrowing the gap between the dual objectives, and using general proficiency tests as
entrance examinations or removing English from university entrance examinations. These
measures have been recommended by a Member of Parliament (see Goto-Butler & Iino,
2004) but significant improvement in the current situation has not been realised. The solution
should start from the proper recognition of these essential problems, because successful
second language acquisition can only be carried out with a thorough understanding of its
complex mechanism and by facing the reality of the extent of the current problems.

REFERENCES

Beauchamp, E. R., & Vardaman, J. M. (1994). Japanese education since 1945: A document.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp, Inc.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Browne, C. M., & Wada, M. (1998). Current issues in high school English teaching in Japan:
An exploratory survey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(1), 97-112.
Caesar, T. (2005). English in Japan. Salmagundi, 146/147, 159-169.
Cook, M. (2010). Offshore outsourcing teacher inservice education: The long-term effects of
a four-month pedagogical program on Japanese teachers of English. TESL Canada
Journal, 28(1), 60-76.
Eiken. (2014). Overview of the Eiken tests, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.Eiken.or.jp/
eiken/en/eiken-tests/overview/
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Formal English Education in Japan 315
Goto-Butler, C., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education:
The 2003 ‗action plan.‘ Language Policy, 4, 25-45.
Index Mundi. (2014). Historical data graphs per year: Demographics birth rate: Japan
2000-2012. Retrieved from http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=jaandv=25
JET Program. (2014). Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.jetprogramme.org/e/
introduction/index.html
Katsuyama, H., Nishigaki, C., & Wang, J. (2008). The effectiveness of English teaching in
Japanese elementary schools: Measured by proficiency tests administered to seventh-year
students. RELC Journal, 39(3), 359-380.
Kikuchi, K. (2006). Perspectives revisiting English entrance examinations at Japanese after
decade. JALT Journal, 28(1), 77-96.
Kikuchi, K. (2009). Listening to our learners‘ voices: What demotivates Japanese high school
students? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 453-471.
Kikuchi, K., & Browne, C. (2009). English educational policy for high schools in Japan.
RELC Journal, 40(2), 172-191.
Koizumi, R., & Matsuo, K. (1993). A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in
learning English among Japanese seventh-grade students. Japanese Psychological
Research, 35(1), 1-11.
Lockley, T., Hirschel, R., & Slobodniuk, A. (2012). Assessing the action plan: Reform in
Japanese high school EFL. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(2), 152-
169. Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/
MEXT. (2014). Shugakurisu and Shingakuritsu (Advancement rate to higher level education).
Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpba200501/shiryo/008.
htm
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Statistics Bureau Japan. (2014). Post school
status of graduates 2012. Retrieved from http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/back
61/1431-22.htm
Okuno, H. (2007). A critical discussion on the action plan to cultivate ‗Japanese with English
abilities.‘ The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 133-158.
Sage, K. (2007). MEXT‘s 2003 Action Plan: Does it encourage performance assessment?
Shiken: JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 11(2), 2-5.
Saito, A., & Hatoss, A. (2011). Does the ownership rest with us? Global English and the
native speaker ideal among Japanese high school students. International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, 6(2), 108-125.
Sasaki, M. (2008). The 150-year history of English language assessment in Japanese
education. Language Testing, 25(1), 63-83.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2004). Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a
Japanese high school English department. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 797-816.
Tanabe, Y. (2004). What the 2003 MEXT action plan proposes to teachers of English. JALT
Journal, The Language Teacher. 28(3), 3-9.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

http://www.jetprogramme.org/e/

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpba200501/shiryo/008

http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/back

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1
Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 29

PROFILING CHINESE EFL LEARNERS IN RELATION
TO THEIR VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGY USE

Xuelian Xu
Xi‘an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China

ABSTRACT

With a movement from teaching-orientedness to learner-certredness and learner
autonomy, vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) have drawn increasing attention as one
auxiliary approach of vocabulary learning. This chapter will present a study on VLS
conducted in China, which attempts to identify different learner types according to
Chinese EFL learners‘ vocabulary learning strategy use and describe their characteristics
in relation to learner and learning factors such as gender, motivation, vocabulary size, and
English proficiency. Results from a cluster analysis revealed that three different types of
learners could be distinguished, i.e., most strategy users, moderate strategy users, and
least strategy users. Intriguingly, most strategy users had exactly the opposite
characteristics of least strategy users. For example, the former tends to consist of highly
motivated, good language learners who are actively involved in strategy training and use.
This group is primarily female dominated. On the contrary, the latter group tends to
consist of poor language learners with low motivation, who seem to be reluctant to get
involved in strategy training or use. This group is primarily male dominated. The
contrasting results seem to suggest that a certain degree of frequency use of a variety of
strategies is a necessary but insufficient condition for success in vocabulary learning.
That is to say, success in vocabulary learning tends to require learners to use a variety of
strategies frequently to a certain extent, which in turn also interacts with a number of
other factors such as English proficiency, degree of motivation, gender, and the amount
of previous strategy instruction. These findings have significant implications for English
teaching and learning.

Keywords: Vocabulary learning strategies, learner types, vocabulary learning, gender,
motivation, strategy instruction, English proficiency, English teaching and learning,
Chinese

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Xuelian Xu 318
INTRODUCTION

The last three decades have witnessed an increased interest in second language
vocabulary acquisition since Meara (1980) pointed it out as ‗a neglected aspect of language
learning‘ (p. 221). A mushrooming amount of literature has been produced on various aspects
of vocabulary and its acquisition (e.g., Carter and McCarthy 1988; Coady and Huckin 1997;
Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Liu 2010; Meara 2002, 2005; Nation 2001; Read 2000; Schmitt
2000; Schmitt and McCarthy 1997; Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham 2001; Zhang 2009).
Vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) have drawn increasing attention as one auxiliary
approach of vocabulary learning, with a movement from teaching-orientedness to learner-
certredness. However, in some countries like China, where English is a foreign language and
the predominant teaching method is the grammar-translation approach, more research is still
required on vocabulary acquisition and vocabulary learning strategies.
In China, English is the most popular foreign language to date. It is a required academic
subject at schools and universities, and is regarded as an essential tool in developing and
changing the core of the economic system in China. With globalisation in many areas,
English language education is expected to meet the rapidly growing needs for training
technology specialists to understand English texts in their specialised field, or for training
students who want to study abroad. University non-English majors, who are also a main
population of this study, are required to learn English as a compulsory subject in their first
and second year. They are required to take the nation-wide College English Test Band 4
(CET-4) to assess their English proficiency right after they finish their second year. In most
universities, students must pass the CET-4 test in order to be awarded a degree. It has also
become an essential requirement for graduates‘ job applications.
However, the most commonly used teaching method in the English classroom to date still
tends to be the aforementioned traditional grammar-translation approach, which is aligned
with the exam-oriented educational system. Such an approach tends to be teacher-centred,
textbook-centred, and grammar-centred. By high school, learners have built up essential
grammatical competence and basic vocabulary. In my own teaching experience, vocabulary
seems to be the biggest barrier for university students in learning English as it is far more
extensive than the basic vocabulary that has been mastered by high school leavers. I found
that quite a number of students had given up learning English simply because they could not
cope with the large vocabulary demand in university.
This chapter will present a study attempting to distinguish different learner types
according to Chinese EFL learners‘ strategy frequency use and describe their characteristics
in relation to a few factors, namely, gender, discipline, university, motivation, English
proficiency, and previous VLS instruction.
It is noteworthy that the concept of ‗strategies‘ per se is fuzzy and inconclusive. For the
purpose of this study, VLS is defined as ‗what helps learners to acquire words better‘ (Xu
2007, p.41). This all-encompassing definition may sound too general, but it helps to avoid
terminological confusion, and I believe that any strategy that learners employ to facilitate
their vocabulary learning could be seen as a vocabulary learning strategy.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Profiling Chinese EFL Learners In Relation to Their Vocabulary Learning … 319
PROCEDURE

This study was conducted in the south of China by using questionnaires. 558 second-year
students from three universities were included. Based on the research objectives, the
questionnaire was composed of five sections, i.e., introduction, biodata (including the score of
the National Matriculation English Test, i.e., the NMET, major, the frequency of previous
VLS instruction from books/teachers, etc.), a vocabulary levels test, a motivation
questionnaire, and a vocabulary learning strategy inventory. Some of these will be described
in some detail in the following. The NMET is a nationwide, standardised test taken each year
by thousands of high school leavers in China. At the time of this study, it was the only
available English proficiency measure. However, this test was taken by the participants one
and a half years before this study; in this period of time, their English proficiency might have
changed, particularly in terms of vocabulary size. To obtain a complete and more updated
picture of their English proficiency, Schmitt‘s (2000) Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) was
used as a logical complement to the NMET. That is to say, a composite score of the NMET
and the VLT as the English proficiency measure was adopted due to the fact that this
composite might better indicate proficiency than either of the two tests alone. Both of the tests
accounted for 50% of the total score respectively. As they had different full scores, their
scores into percentages were converted to ensure their equal ratio in the composite score. It is
worth mentioning that the VLT has been validated in different EFL/ESL contexts in previous
research (e.g., Beglar and Hunt 1999; Read 1988; Schmitt et al. 2001). It contains words at
five frequency levels, i.e., 2000-word level, 3,000-word level, 5,000-word level, 10,000-word
level, and academic level. Considering the suitability for the participants in the current study,
2,000-word level and 10,000-word level were excluded. Among the retained word levels,
3,000-word level involves high-frequency words, 5,000-word level is on the boundary of
high- and low-frequency words, and academic vocabulary represents one type of specialised
vocabulary. This test uses a word-definition matching format. The participants were required
to match six words to three definitions. There are 60 words and 30 definitions at each level,
with a total of 90 test items for the retained three word levels. The 21-item LLOS-IEA
(Language Learning Orientations Scale – Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and
Amotivation Subscales) of Noels, Pelletier and Vallerand (2000) was used to learn about the
participants‘ motivation in learning English on a 5-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to
(5) strongly agree. Additionally, Xu‘s (2007) 72-item Strategy Inventory for Vocabulary
Learning (SIVL) was used to measure the participants‘ vocabulary learning strategy use. The
SIVL, a self-report Likert-type scale, has been developed and validated by Xu (2007) as a
primary tool for assessing a broad range of L2 vocabulary learning strategies employed by
Chinese university EFL students. The participants were requested to read each statement in
the SIVL and rate how frequently they employed that particular strategy when learning
English words on a 5-point scale: (1) NEVER, (2) SELDOM, (3) OCCASIONALLY, (4)
OFTEN, and (5) ALWAYS. A multivariate statistical procedure, namely, cluster analysis,
was utilised to explore various learner profiles according to the 72-item individual strategy
use in the SIVL. This data analysis tool can be very useful in terms of being able to
potentially provide theoretical and conceptual as well as practical insights into a broad array
of issues in SLA (Csizer and Dörnyei 2005). At the same time, Csizer and Dörnyei (2005)
point out that only a surprisingly small number of relevant previous and recent research have
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Xuelian Xu 320
adopted this technique. A careful review of literature on language/vocabulary learning
strategies indicates only a few studies in the area (see Ahmed 1989; Gu and Johnson 1996;
Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown 1999; Yamamori, Isoda, Hiromori and Oxford 2003).
Cluster analysis is an exploratory technique in which the primary objective is to group
observations based on the characteristics that they have. Unlike the statistical significance
tests of other multivariate methods, cluster analysis does not offer standard and objective
criteria for determining the final number of clusters. Therefore, researchers should take great
care in basing the analysis on a solid theoretical ground to employ this technique
meaningfully, proving the emerging cluster groups through different validating procedures,
and ensuring practical significance of the emerging cluster groups. Using an external criterion
measure as an independent indicator of cluster group variation is suggested as one of the
better ways to validate a clustering solution (Aldenderfer and Blashfield 1984; Csizer and
Dörnyei 2005; Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black 1998). In other words, if the learner cluster
groups which are distinguished show statistical significance on the external criterion variable,
the validity of the clustering solution can be confirmed.
Cluster analysis involves two general categories: (1) hierarchical clustering, and (2) non-
hierarchical clustering. Hierarchical clustering is subdivided into agglomerative methods,
which proceed by series of combinations of the n objects into groups, and divisive methods,
which separate n objects successively into smaller clusters. The agglomerative techniques are
more commonly used as they can establish the number of clusters and profile cluster centres.
However, it is not amenable to analysing a very large sample size. Alternatively,
nonhierarchical clustering, frequently referred to as K-means clustering, requires a pre-
specified number of clusters before the analysis. Unlike hierarchical agglomerative methods,
this clustering procedure works directly on the raw data, thus offering the opportunity of
dealing particularly with larger data sets than the hierarchical approach. Moreover, it allows
the switching of cluster memberships and can compensate for a poor initial partition of the
data. Despite these strengths, non-hierarchical methods suffer from one major limitation; that
is, it relies heavily on the initial cluster centroids.
To gain the benefits of each of the two approaches and avoid the limitations of each, a
combination of both methods is usually used. First, hierarchical clustering is performed on a
smaller subsample of the sample. On the basis of this first step, the number of clusters and
their positions (i.e., the initial cluster centroids) are specified. Then, non-hierarchical
clustering is conducted on the whole sample by entering the cluster centroids obtained during
the first stage. The non-hierarchical clustering procedure is repeated until no reassignments
occur. In this way, the advantages of the hierarchical methods are complemented by the
strengths of the non-hierarchical methods, which helps refine the results by allowing the
switching of cluster membership. In the current study, this combined method was adopted.

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Profiling Chinese EFL Learners In Relation to Their Vocabulary Learning … 321
DEFINING LEARNER PROFILES ACCORDING TO STRATEGY USE

As described above, a combination of both hierarchical and non-hierarchical methods
was adopted to gain the benefits of both. The first step of the data analysis was to select a
20% random subsample, and subject the 72 individual strategies in the SIVL to hierarchical
agglomerative clustering (i.e., Ward‘s method). The procedure resulted in the values of the
distance coefficients at each step and dendrograms. In the case of this study, the number of
meaningful clusters was decided by taking large changes in clustering distances and
characteristics of the resulting clusters into consideration. From Table 29.1, we can see that
the clustering (agglomeration) coefficient shows a rather large increase in going from three to
two clusters (7562.0-7115.6=446.4), and from two to one cluster (8808.9-7562.0=1247.0).
Also, the percentage change in the clustering coefficient for 10 to 2 clusters was calculated to
help identify large relative increases in the cluster homogeneity. The largest percentage
increase by far occurred in going from two to one cluster, and the next noticeable change in
the percentage increase occurred in going from three to two clusters. With the aid of the
dendrogram (see Figure 29.1), a three-cluster solution was finally decided for the subsequent
non-hierarchical clustering.

Table 29.1. Analysis of agglomeration coefficient for hierarchical cluster analysis

No. of Clusters Agglomeration Coefficient
Percentage Change in Coefficient
to Next Level
10 5876.5 2.24%
9 6007.9 2.28%
8 6144.8 2.41%
7 6292.8 2.50%
6 6449.9 2.97%
5 6641.4 3.55%
4 6877.3 3.47%
3 7115.6 6.27%
2 7562.0 16.49%
1 8808.9

Non-hierarchical clustering generated three groups: Group 1 consists of 136 students
(25.8%), Group 2 of 239 students (45.3%), and Group 3 of 153 students (29.0%). Table 29.2
summarises the means and statistical significance on the 72 individual strategies for the three
clusters.
A close examination of the levels of significance for the differences across the clusters
tells us that all the 72 variables are statistically significant. We can also see that the three
cluster groups are linearly related to each other according to the mean values on the 72
individual strategies for them. In other words, Group 1 consists of participants who score the
highest on all the individual strategies, thus being labelled most strategy users, while Group 3
is the inverse of Group 1, as it is made up of students scoring the lowest on all the individual
strategies; accordingly, it is labelled least strategy users. Group 2 is in the middle, as it
contains students who score moderately on all the individual strategies, compared to the other
two groups; therefore, it is labelled moderate strategy users. Figure 29.2 offers a visual
representation of the three groups.
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Xuelian Xu 322

Figure 29.1. Dendrogram for hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward‘s method
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Profiling Chinese EFL Learners In Relation to Their Vocabulary Learning … 323
Table 29.2. Means and statistical significance on the 72 individual strategies for the
three cluster groups

Individual
Strategies
Cluster Groups
F value Significance
1 2 3
1 3.13 2.66 2.29 27.44 .000
2 3.04 2.63 1.99 31.45 .000
3 3.40 3.09 2.49 28.43 .000
4 3.72 3.24 2.72 41.05 .000
5 3.69 3.20 2.56 57.35 .000
6 3.99 3.54 3.02 36.36 .000
7 3.25 2.65 2.08 65.82 .000
8 3.59 2.91 2.47 45.16 .000
9 2.93 2.33 1.81 59.86 .000
10 3.38 2.74 2.10 66.99 .000
11 3.23 2.49 1.83 97.38 .000
12 3.31 2.71 2.27 54.35 .000
13 3.49 2.87 2.21 60.81 .000
14 3.74 3.15 2.41 83.23 .000
15 3.46 2.92 2.18 81.08 .000
16 2.86 2.45 1.76 51.85 .000
17 4.15 3.81 3.37 33.31 .000
18 4.18 3.87 3.40 38.55 .000
19 3.98 3.56 2.67 85.49 .000
20 3.45 3.03 2.24 61.48 .000
21 3.87 3.67 3.23 16.97 .000
22 3.82 3.35 2.63 58.30 .000
23 3.96 3.51 2.75 72.44 .000
24 3.95 3.48 2.79 48.29 .000
25 3.87 3.27 2.39 90.70 .000
26 3.36 2.70 2.12 52.35 .000
27 3.39 2.87 2.10 67.71 .000
28 3.68 3.05 2.16 105.26 .000
29 3.84 3.32 2.54 69.19 .000
30 3.19 2.65 1.99 62.30 .000
31 3.35 2.83 2.25 53.12 .000
32 3.70 2.98 2.33 70.68 .000
33 3.49 2.71 2.03 80.26 .000
34 3.68 2.93 2.20 81.49 .000
35 3.51 3.10 2.87 13.59 .000
36 3.67 3.56 3.17 10.42 .000
37 3.45 2.87 2.25 81.26 .000
38 3.21 2.40 1.91 105.07 .000
39 3.48 2.71 2.14 105.39 .000
40 3.38 2.55 1.99 118.52 .000
41 3.38 2.68 2.06 85.67 .000
42 2.79 2.12 1.56 92.18 .000
43 3.40 2.66 2.10 76.02 .000
44 3.79 3.28 2.42 93.91 .000
45 3.50 2.82 2.16 71.00 .000
46 3.04 2.17 1.75 77.23 .000
47 3.42 2.66 2.03 85.61 .000
48 3.46 2.84 1.99 114.31 .000
49 3.07 2.25 1.72 108.10 .000
50 3.08 2.42 1.72 97.93 .000

No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Xuelian Xu 324
Table 29.2. (Continued)

Individual
Strategies
Cluster Groups
F value Significance
1 2 3
51 3.07 2.36 1.56 107.51 .000
52 3.11 2.59 1.99 46.86 .000
53 2.71 2.20 1.69 53.01 .000
54 3.20 2.53 1.86 70.46 .000
55 3.26 2.33 1.75 104.53 .000
56 3.36 3.15 2.35 47.05 .000
57 3.47 3.07 2.36 41.14 .000
58 3.60 3.08 2.24 88.22 .000
59 3.02 2.18 1.58 119.93 .000
60 3.65 3.08 2.52 57.02 .000
61 3.41 2.60 1.99 79.80 .000
62 3.49 2.82 2.12 101.72 .000
63 3.23 2.80 2.12 77.52 .000
64 2.76 2.36 1.86 30.76 .000
65 3.37 3.10 2.38 44.44 .000
66 2.93 2.54 2.26 19.62 .000
67 2.76 2.37 1.97 30.64 .000
68 3.24 2.79 2.14 47.31 .000
69 3.46 2.75 2.07 92.96 .000
70 3.13 2.45 1.80 72.72 .000
71 3.82 3.36 2.59 57.59 .000
72 3.54 2.89 2.05 88.78 .000

Figure 29.2. Visual representation of the individual strategies in the three cluster groups
No
va
S
cie
nc
e P
ub
lis
hin
g,
Inc
.

Profiling Chinese EFL Learners In Relation to Their Vocabulary Learning … 325
VALIDATION OF THE CLUSTER SOLUTION WITH
THE CRITERION MEASURES

The validity of the clustering was then examined by substantiating the results against the
criterion variables, as described above. In this study, the mean scores of two variables were
used as the criterion measures, i.e., English proficiency (a composite score of the NMET and
Vocabulary Levels Test) and motivation (a composite mean score of the LLOS-IEA scale).
As for motivation, results in the literature consistently indicate its positive strong relationship
with strategy use, that is, more motivated learners tend to use more strategies (e.g., Ehrman
and Oxford 1995; Okada, Oxford and Abo 1996; Oxford and Ehrman 1995; Oxford and
Nyikos 1989). In terms of English proficiency, the literature seems less conclusive; for
example, a few researchers caution that the relationship between strategy use and proficiency
is not necessarily linear (e.g., Green and Oxford 1995; Yamamori et al. 2003). Nevertheless,
the majority of the strategy research seems to support the existence of a general pattern of
more strategy use by more proficient learners (e.g., Ahmed 1989; Cohen and Aphek 1980;
Lawson and Hogben 1996; Oxford and Nyikos 1989). Furthermore, in the case of this study,
these two factors seem to be the best measures of the criterion. Table 29.3 illustrates the
descriptive statistics and the statistical significances on the two variables across the three
cluster groups, as well as the post hoc pairwise comparisons (i.e., the LSD test) between the
groups. The differences among the three clusters on English proficiency and motivation
turned out to be significant. The post hoc test further showed that both variables had
significant differences between all the groups. Group 1 (most strategy users) was most
proficient (as shown by the highest mean score) and most motivated (as displayed by the
highest mean score), while Group 3 (least strategy users) was the other way round. This group
had the poorest English proficiency (as displayed by the lowest mean score) and the least
motivation (as demonstrated by the lowest mean score). Group 2 was in the middle. The
existence of the significant differences and the patterns of differences in the two variables
across the clusters lend sufficient evidence for the validity of the three-cluster solution and the
clustering process.

Table 29.3. Analysis of variance: English proficiency and motivation across
the three cluster groups

External
Criterion
Variables
Cluster Groups
F Value and
Significant
Level

Post hoc
Comparison
a

1 2 3
N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD
English
Proficiency
b 132 63.20 12.98 219 56.36 12.79 141 51.70 11.50 29.27 (p<.001) 1 2 3 Motivation 136 3.58 0.38 239 3.30 0.40 153 3.11 0.47 47.18 (p<.001) 1 2 3 a Different rows indicate significant differences between groups. b The sample number for each group was less than the actual number of the clustering groups because of missing data on English proficiency. No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Xuelian Xu 326 PROFILING THE CLUSTER SOLUTIONS ON OTHER VARIABLES Having established the validity of the clustering by means of assessing the cluster groups against external criterion measures, it would be interesting to profile the clusters by looking at the variation across the three cluster groups on the other five factors (i.e., gender, discipline, university, previous instruction on VLS from teachers, and previous instruction on VLS from books). Cross-table analyses revealed significant differences across the three clusters on all the variables but discipline and university. The results are displayed in Table 29.4. Table 29.4. Profile of the three-cluster solutions on five factors (i.e., gender, discipline, university, previous instruction on vls from teachers, and previous instruction on VLS from books) Profiling the Clusters Cluster Groups Pearson Chi-Square Significance 1 2 3 Gender 14.6 .001 Male 21.3% 44.7% 34.0% Female 33.2% 46.2% 20.6% Discipline 6.39 .172 Law and Social Science 26.3% 46.5% 27.2% Science 30.7% 42.8% 26.5% Engineering 19.3% 46.2% 34.5% University 4.20 .379 Univ.1 29.9% 45.1% 25.0% Univ.2 24.6% 46.4% 29.1% Univ.3 22.4% 44.2% 33.3% VLS Instruction from Teachers 36.20 .001 Never 14.8% 37.0% 48.1% Rarely 17.0% 48.6% 34.4% Sometimes 30.3% 45.2% 24.5% Often 60.7% 28.6% 10.7% VLS Instruction from Books 56.36 .001 Never 10.0% 33.3% 56.7% Rarely 14.9% 45.4% 39.7% Sometimes 31.3% 46.7% 22.0% Often 51.1% 44.4% 4.4% In terms of gender, Group 1 (most strategy users) and Group 2 (moderate strategy users) are dominated by females, while Group 3 (least strategy users) is dominated by males. These findings are consistent with results generally reported in previous studies on general language learning strategies and VLS (e.g., Ehrman and Oxford 1988; Green and Oxford 1995; Stoffer 1995). Females tend to be greater strategy users than males. As for previous instruction on No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Profiling Chinese EFL Learners In Relation to Their Vocabulary Learning … 327 VLS from teachers or books, a similar pattern was found on the two factors across the three cluster groups. While the frequency pattern of the instruction on VLS within Group 2 (moderate strategy users) is mixed, the frequency pattern of the instruction on VLS is linear within Group 1 (most strategy users) and Group 3 (least strategy users), that is, positively linear for Group 1 and negatively linear for Group 3. In other words, Group 1 contains the highest percent of students who reported frequently receiving the instruction on VLS, and the lowest percent of students who reported never receiving the instruction on VLS. In contrast, Group 3 is made up of the highest percent of students reporting never receiving the instruction on VLS, and the lowest percent of students reporting receiving the instruction on VLS often. These findings support results reported in Stoffer (1995), indicating that more instruction on VLS tends to lead to more strategy use. These findings again provide us with extra evidence to draw the conclusion that the three-cluster solution has an adequate level of predictive validity. DISCUSSION Results revealed that three types of learners were distinguished based on the frequency use of the 72 items on the SIVL as follows: most strategy users (Group 1), moderate strategy users (Group 2), and least strategy users (Group 3). In other words, regardless of whether a strategy was reported as being of high or low frequency use, Group 1 used each of the 72 individual strategies on the SIVL most frequently, while Group 3 used them least frequently. As for Group 2, its frequency use of the 72 strategies was in-between that of Group 1 and Group 3. Of the three clusters, Groups 1 and 3 are perhaps more interesting to look at in more detail. Group 1, labelled most strategy users, included most successful learners with highest motivation. In this group, female learners were superior to male learners, and more than half of the students reported having often received previous instruction on VLS from their teachers or books. In contrast, Group 3, labelled least strategy users, was made up of least successful learners with lowest motivation. In such a group, male learners were more than female learners. Besides, nearly half of the students never received previous instruction on VLS from teachers, and more than half of them never received previous strategy training/instruction from books. Intriguingly, the two groups are just the opposite of each other in terms of their frequency use of the 72 individual strategies and the five factors (i.e., English proficiency, motivation, gender, previous instruction on VLS from teachers, and previous instruction on VLS from books). In other words, in Group 1, students tend to be highly motivated good language learners who are primarily females. These students tend to have a high awareness of the existence of a wide range of VLS and strategy training, and seem to be quite active in taking strategy training from either teachers or books; they seem to be more willing to try out an extensive array of strategies to help them acquire words better. On the contrary, in Group 3, students tend to be poor language learners with low motivation. This group is characterised by a higher number of males who tend to have a low awareness of the existence of a variety of strategies and strategy training, and seem to be passive in taking strategy training from either teachers or books; they seem to be more reluctant to try out all kinds of strategies to facilitate their word learning. The contrasting results indicate that a No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Xuelian Xu 328 certain extent to which a variety of strategies are used frequently seems to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success in vocabulary/English learning. In other words, learners seem to start to benefit from the frequency use of a variety of strategies only when it amounts to a certain degree; and their success in vocabulary learning is also affected by a number of other individual factors (e.g., gender and motivation) and general factors (e.g., strategy training and language proficiency). CONCLUSION This chapter has profiled Chinese EFL learners according to their vocabulary learning strategy use. Three learner types were distinguished by using cluster analysis, i.e., most strategy users, moderate strategy users, and least strategy users. Results revealed that the majority of most strategy users tended to be most successful learners who took strategy training quite often while the majority of least strategy users tended to be least successful learners who rarely took strategy training. The results indicate that successful students seem to have a good awareness of and active attitudes towards strategy training and use, whereas underachieving students seem to have a low awareness of and passive attitudes towards strategy training and use. Consequently, it is necessary for English teachers themselves to take a strategy training course to raise their awareness before they can help their students, in particular less successful students, so as to raise their awareness of strategy training and use, and offer them efficient advice on strategy use to enhance their word acquisition. Since teachers do not have sufficient time for teaching them every word in class, it is important for students to be independent of their English teachers in their vocabulary learning. In addition, results revealed that the greatest users of each strategy on the SIVL tended to be the most successful students. This information can be used to make English teachers and learners aware of the fact that ‗the more strategy use the more successful language learning‘ seems to work on one condition, that is, the frequency of strategy use must amount to a certain minimum extent. Therefore, English teachers can encourage their students to try out a variety of strategies and use them as often as possible to facilitate their vocabulary learning, which may lead to their more skillful strategy use and success in language learning. At the same time, they should be aware that the use of VLS is a complicated phenomenon interacting with a number of factors, such as gender, motivation, and strategy instruction. REFERENCES Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), Beyond Words (pp. 3-14). London: CILT. Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (1999). Revising and validating the 2000 word level and university word level vocabulary tests. Language Testing, 16(2), 131-162. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and language teaching. London: Longman. No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Profiling Chinese EFL Learners In Relation to Their Vocabulary Learning … 329 Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (Eds.). (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: investigating the role of mnemonic associations. System, 8, 221-235. Csizer, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners' motivational profiles and their motivated learning behaviour. Language Learning, 55(4), 613-659. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1988). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 253-265. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89. Green, J., & Oxford, R. (1995). A close look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297. Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558. Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Students' approaches to vocabulary learning and their relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 176-192. Lawson, M., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary learning strategies of foreign language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101-135. Liu, Z. (2010). A study on English vocabulary learning strategies for non-English majors in independent college. Cross-Cultural Communication, 6(4), 152-164. Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 15(4), 221-246. Meara, P. (2002). The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18(4), 393- 407. Meara, P. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 32-47. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: CUP. Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57-85. Okada, M., Oxford, R., & Abo, S. (1996). Not all alike: motivation and learning strategies among students of Japanese and Spanish in an exploratory study. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: pathways to the new century (pp. 105-119). Manoa: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1995). Adults' language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23, 359-386. Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300. Read, J. (1988). Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners. RELC Journal, 19(2), 12-25. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: CUP. No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Xuelian Xu 330 Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary language teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: CUP. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88. Stoffer, I. (1995). University foreign language students' choice of vocabulary learning strategies as related to individual difference variables. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Xu, X. (2007). Construction and validation of a vocabulary learning strategy inventory and its application to Chinese EFL tertiary learners. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Yamamori, K., Isoda, T., Hiromori, T., & Oxford, R. (2003). Using cluster analysis to uncover L2 learner difference in strategy use, will to learn, and achievement over time. IRAL, 41, 381-409. Zhang, B. (2009). FL vocabulary learning of undergraduate English majors in western China: Perspective, strategy use and vocabulary size. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 178- 185. APPENDIX The Strategy Inventory for Vocabulary Learning 1. I pay close attention to the vocabulary use in my speech and that of others. 2. I break lists into smaller parts. 3. I know when I need to skip or pass a new word. 4. I know when a new word is essential for adequate comprehension of a passage. 5. I know which words are important for me to learn. 6. I look up words that I‘m interested in. 7. I try to find as many ways as I can to use new English words. 8. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English words. 9. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English words. 10. I have clear goals for improving my vocabulary. 11. I care about vocabulary items my English teacher doesn‘t mention or emphasise. 12. I use various means to make clear vocabulary items that I am not quite clear of. 13. I associate a new word with a known English word that sounds similar. 14. I am aware when I have not used a new word correctly and use that information to help me do better. 15. I think about my progress in learning English words. 16. I test my vocabulary with word tests or other means. 17. I make use of the logical development in the context (e.g., cause and effect) when guessing the meaning of a word. 18. I make use of my common sense and knowledge of the world when guessing the meaning of a word. 19. I analyse the word structure (prefix, root, and suffix) when guessing the meaning of a word. No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Profiling Chinese EFL Learners In Relation to Their Vocabulary Learning … 331 20. I use alternative cues and try again if I fail to guess the meaning of a word. 21. When I want to confirm my guess about a word, I look it up. 22. When looking up a word in a dictionary, I pay attention to sample sentences illustrating its various meanings. 23. I look for phrases or set expressions that go with the word I look up. 24. When I want to know more about a word that I already have some knowledge of, I look it up. 25. When I get interested in another new word in the definitions of the word I look up, I look up this word as well. 26. If the new word I try to look up seems to have a prefix or suffix, I will try the entry for the stem. 27. If the unknown word appears to be an irregularly inflected form or a spelling variant, I will scan nearby entries. 28. If there are multiple senses or homographic entries, I use various information (e.g., part of speech, pronunciation, style, collocation, meaning, etc.) to reduce them by elimination. 29. I try to integrate dictionary definitions into the context where the unknown was met and arrive at a contextual meaning by adjusting for complementation and collocation, part of speech, and breadth of meaning. 30. I use audio, video, computer aids to learn or consolidate my vocabulary. 31. I learn words written on commercial items. 32. I make a note of the meaning of a new word when I think it is commonly-used or interesting. 33. I take notes when I look up a word. 34. I make notes when I want to help myself distinguish between the meanings of two or more words. 35. I remember a new word by saying it repeatedly. 36. I memorise a new word by writing it repeatedly. 37. I try to read as much as possible so that I can make use of the words I tried to remember. 38. I make up my own sentences using the words I just learned. 39. I try to use the newly learned words as much as possible in speech and writing. 40. I try to use newly learned words in real situations. 41. I try to use newly learned words in imaginary situations in my mind. 42. I group new words by grammatical class, e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. 43. When I meet a new word, I search in my memory and see if I have any synonyms and antonyms in my vocabulary stock. 44. I remember a group of new words that share a similar part in spelling. 45. I associate a group of new words that share a similar part in spelling with a known word that looks or sounds similar to the shared part (neighbour, sleigh, weigh). 46. I create a sentence in Chinese when I link a new word to a known word. 47. I learn new words by relating them to myself or my personal experience. 48. I connect the new word to its synonyms and antonyms (blossom/flower; wet/dry). 49. I associate the word with its coordinates/subordinates/super-ordinates (apple/peach; animal/dog; spinach/vegetable). 50. I use ‗scales‘ for gradable adjectives (cold, cool, warm, hot). 51. I deliberately study word-formation rules in order to remember more words. 52. I remember a word‘s part of speech. No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Xuelian Xu 332 53. I learn the words of an idiom together. 54. I create a mental image of the new word to help me remember it. 55. I create mental images of association when I link a new word to a known word. 56. I visualise the new word to help me remember it. 57. I remember the spelling of a word by breaking it into several visual parts. 58. I remember together words that are spelled similarly. 59. I try to create semantic networks in my mind and remember words in meaningful groups. 60. I remember a new word together with the context where it occurs. 61. I deliberately read books in my areas of interest so that I can find out and remember the special terminology that I know in Chinese. 62. I associate a new word with its preceding/following words to remember it better. 63. I review new words soon after the initial meeting. 64. I link new words to similar sounding Chinese words. 65. I paraphrase the word‘s meaning. 66. I ask teachers or others for the meaning of a new word. 67. I ask teachers or others for paraphrases or synonyms of a new word. 68. I try to relax whenever I am afraid of using a word. 69. I encourage myself to use new words even when I am afraid of making mistakes. 70. I give myself a reward or treat after I have successfully recalled new words. 71. I feel successful when having learned new words. 72. I enjoy learning new vocabulary. No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . In: English Language Education in a Global World ISBN: 978-1-63483-497-1 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Aditi Dubey-Jhaveri © 2015 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Chapter 30 THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN HONG KONG Arthur McNeill Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China ABSTRACT Nowadays, Hong Kong is a leading international financial centre that calls for high levels of English proficiency on the part of the workforce. For decades, the territory‘s English language education system has endeavoured to produce graduates who can function in English, while still providing a balanced education for all students. The extent to which decisions affecting language education have been based on political, economic or educational principles has been widely investigated. Shifts in the political and economic landscapes have applied different pressures upon language education at different times. This chapter describes the special language profile of Hong Kong‘s population and some of the measures adopted by the government to raise English language standards. It then considers some of the implications for English language education of Hong Kong‘s return to Chinese rule and the increasing influence of the mainland upon the territory‘s affairs. At an official level at least, the mainland authorities appear to appreciate the importance of English for Hong Kong‘s continued success and take pride in the territory‘s educational achievements. In fact, the mainland government has indicated that it will make every effort to create the conditions for Hong Kong‘s continued prosperity. However, in return, they would welcome a greater sense of national identity. At a time when Hong Kong‘s political future is tinged with uncertainty, the prospects for English language education remain good, provided Hong Kong and the mainland language experts can develop a deeper understanding of their respective values and expectations. Keywords: Hong Kong, ‗one country, two systems‘, language policy No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Arthur McNeill 334 INTRODUCTION For scholars of applied linguistics and language education, Hong Kong‘s relationship with English has proved to be an almost irresistible topic for several decades. There can be few places in the world where the story of English is quite as exciting. During the latter part of the Hong Kong‘s colonial period (1841 – 1997) and in the years following the return of sovereignty from UK to China in 1997, the territory‘s official language education policy underwent constant and dramatic change. In the days when the territory was still relatively small, English was the only official language. Chinese became the second official language as recently as 1974, at a time when Hong Kong‘s economy started to reduce its reliance on manufacturing and began to establish itself as an international commercial centre. The 1970s also saw the introduction of compulsory education (for nine years) and a massive expansion of the school population, many of whom were recent immigrants from mainland China who found it difficult to cope with the prevailing English-medium education system. The extent to which decisions affecting language education have been based on political, economic or educational principles has been the subject of volumes of research. Rapid shifts in both the political and economic landscapes have applied different pressures upon language education at different times. While the twists and turns of Hong Kong‘s language education during the colonial period and immediately afterwards have been studied extensively by scholars, history may not be a good indicator of future directions in the case of Hong Kong. The territory‘s entire system of governance faces challenges as the ‗one country, two systems‘ formula, proposed by Deng Xiaoping and introduced at the handover of sovereignty in 1997, heads towards its legal expiry in 2046. In the meantime, in theory at least, Hong Kong is guaranteed high levels of autonomy in running its own affairs. However, there is widespread acceptance in Hong Kong that China‘s influence will become increasingly strong in the coming years. It is reasonable to assume that language education policy in Hong Kong will be directly influenced by the new master, China. This chapter attempts to assess the impact of political and economic changes upon the future of English language education in the territory. It begins with a brief description of the language profile of the population, then lists some of the key milestones in the evolution of the English language education policy. The remainder of the chapter speculates, in the light of recent political developments, about the challenges that lie ahead for English language education. THE LANGUAGE PROFILE OF HONG KONG’S POPULATION It may be helpful to provide a brief account of Hong Kong‘s population and the main policy shifts and measures undertaken by the government to promote English language education. Hong Kong‘s viability in the commercial world is largely dependent on its positioning as a knowledge-based, international business community. In pursuit of this goal, the Hong Kong government has undertaken to develop a trilingual, biliterate society which recognises the commensurability of spoken Cantonese, standard Mandarin (Putonghua) and English and written standard Chinese and English. The legal basis of this linguistic formula is No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . The Political and Economic Challenges of English Language … 335 enshrined in the Basic Law (1990), which states that both Chinese and English may be used as official languages. The population of the territory is about seven million. Approximately 95% are ethnic Chinese, most of whom immigrated from China‘s Guangdong province. The remaining 5% come from places like South Asia, East Asia, Europe, North America, or Australia (Census and Statistics Department, 2011). Cantonese is the first language of the majority of Chinese inhabitants in Hong Kong, who are also able to speak Putonghua, the national language of China, with some degree of proficiency. Nowadays, Hong Kong is one of the world‘s foremost international finance centres and the widespread use of the English language is an essential element of the territory‘s success. However, given the linguistic make-up of its population, in which 95% of its citizens are native speakers of Chinese, producing and maintaining a workforce which is functional in English represents one of the greatest challenges for the education system. While English is studied as a compulsory subject at school and university, most Hong Kongers do not use English in their everyday lives. As Poon (2000, p. 149) observes, ‗English is used by the English-speaking Chinese in a rather restrictive manner, only in the domains of education, administration, the judiciary, legislature, business and the media, and seldom in daily social interaction among the Chinese‘. An earlier description of Hong Kong‘s population describes two separate language communities: ‗Hong Kong is essentially composed of two monolingual communities (the Chinese-speaking community and the English-speaking community) rather than a community of bilinguals.‘ (Luke & Richards, 1982, p. 51). These linguistic characterisations of Hong Kong‘s population demonstrate that the English language needs of the economy need to be addressed by means of an effective language education system since English is not widely used by the community for everyday communication. MAJOR MILESTONES IN THE SHAPING OF THE EXISTING SITUATION Medium of Instruction Policy As the research literature confirms, concerns about medium of instruction (MOI) have tended to dominate discussion about language education, particularly in the secondary sector. For a review of Hong Kong‘s MOI from a historical perspective, see Evans (2011). The decision of the early colonial government to adopt English as a medium of instruction (EMI) was accepted as logical step for a British sovereign power building a school system in a small territory in the south of China. However, once the education system grew to accommodate the children of the large number of Chinese families who subsequently migrated to Hong Kong, it soon became apparent that providing EMI education to the masses was unrealistic and Chinese (Cantonese) medium (CMI) education was introduced. However, MOI policy has remained controversial and has undergone dramatic swings over the years, during which the preferences of stakeholders such as politicians, bureaucrats and parents have often been at variance (Li, 2002; Poon, 1998, 2010). Particularly divisive (and perceived as largely politically-driven) was the switch to CMI for most secondary schools shortly before the handover of sovereignty in 1997. This particular policy was articulated to schools and the public by the Education Commission (1996) and followed up with specific ‗guidance‘ by the No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Arthur McNeill 336 Education Department (1997a, 1997b). However, following on-going and mounting pressure from the community, the government eventually agreed to adopt a more flexible approach to MOI and removed the old designations of schools as either EMI or CMI by allowing them to adopt CMI for most subjects while encouraging the use of English for the teaching of some subjects. This school-based ‗fine-tuning‘ MOI policy represents a major new policy direction by allowing schools to decide on the most appropriate MOI arrangements for their own student populations rather than following top-down instructions from the government. The impact of the new policy is still being evaluated. For example, Poon (2013) welcomes the scheme because it provides students with greater exposure to English, while preventing English from becoming too dominant a language in schools. According to Chan (2014), schools will need some time to make optimum use of the new opportunities offered by ‗fine- tuning‘ so that all of their students benefit from it. There appears to be no reason to conclude that future governments will cease to manipulate MOI policy prompted by political as well as educational considerations. Other Significant Measures While decisions about MOI have tended to be regarded as the main manifestations of language policy, it is worth noting that the government has also adopted a series of bold, top- down measures which, together with Hong Kong‘s traditional laissez-faire economic principles, characterise the way in which language policy has developed (Berry & McNeill, 2005). Measures intended to strengthen language proficiency have been announced in a number of annual policy addresses and in a succession of Education Commission reports over the past 30 years. These include: (a) a reform of the primary curriculum intended to engage young pupils more actively in language use; (b) the employment of a native English speaker (NET) to teach English in every primary and secondary school; (c) the introduction of new public examination formats which include spoken English, in order to encourage teachers (through washback effect) to include speaking activities in their classes (d) the allocation of grants to universities for language enhancement provision; (e) the launching of a Workplace English Campaign; (f) the introduction of benchmark tests to assess the English language ability of teachers, with a view to removing teachers with inadequate English, and (g) an initiative to refund examination fees for university students who take the International English Language Testing Systems (IELTS) test before graduation. In addition to the above language enhancement measures, the government established, in 1996, the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research - SCOLAR (sic), whose brief was threefold: ‗(1) to conduct research into the language needs of Hong Kong, (2) to develop policies designed to meet those needs, and (3) to monitor and evaluate those policies in a systematic and coherent manner.‘ (Education Commission, 1996, p. 2) The above measures were largely driven by concerns about falling standards of English and warnings about the economic consequences for the territory if it is no longer able to produce a workforce that is able to function in English. They are also indicators of the high priority attached to language education in Hong Kong. However, the cost of ensuring that students leave school and university with high levels of English is considerable and it would be logical to ask whether future governments will be willing and able to fund English language education to the same extent. No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . The Political and Economic Challenges of English Language … 337 POSITIVE STATEMENTS FROM BEIJING China‘s pride in Hong Kong‘s educational achievements is undisguised. For example, its 2014 White Paper on the implementation of the ‗one country, two systems‘ arrangement states: Hong Kong leads the Asia-Pacific region in education, as the HKSAR government continues to increase its investment in education, the biggest government expenditure item. During the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the HKSAR government's current budgetary spending on education reached HK$75.37 billion. Since the 2008-2009 school year, Hong Kong has implemented 12-year free education in public schools. The University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are among Asia's top- ten universities, according to the Times Higher Education Asian University Rankings 2013. Hong Kong continues to rank high in the global test of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012, which reflects the quality of primary education. (Chinese State Council, 2014, p. III) There would appear to be no criticism of the fact that education is the biggest item of the Hong Kong government‘s expenditure. In fact, Song Zhe, the commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People‘s Republic of China in Hong Kong has confirmed that safeguarding and indeed strengthening Hong Kong‘s position as a leading international city is now part of China‘s foreign policy: Efforts are made in Hong Kong-related foreign affairs to ensure its economic and social development, and to keep and lift its position as a world financial, trade and shipping centre. (Song, 2014) POLITICAL UNCERTAINTY However, recent post-handover events may shed some light upon the extent to which Hong Kong‘s language education policy will be subject to the political influence of the mainland. In 2003, massive public protests by Hong Kong people against national security legislation that the government was trying to push through succeeded in pressuring the government to shelve the plan indefinitely. The law, known as Article 23, would have impinged on the freedoms of Hong Kong residents. If Article 23 had been approved, it would have banned any organisation determined by China as a national security risk. All dissident groups including human rights groups, democracy activists, Catholics and Falun Gong, as well as individuals, would have been affected. Many Hong Kongers regarded the law as a threat to the territory‘s autonomy and the ‗one country, two systems‘ principle, under which basic human rights, in particular, freedom of speech, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration are all respected. More recently, in 2012, public protests resulted in the government overturning a decision to introduce ‗national education‘ as a compulsory subject in the school curriculum. In the minds of many citizens, the proposal was considered to be brainwashing propaganda because it highlighted achievements such as China‘s spacecraft, high-speed railways and the Olympics, while glossing over Tiananmen and the Cultural Revolution. The ‗national No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/27/china-cultural-revolution-sons-guilt-zhang-hongping Arthur McNeill 338 education‘ proposal brought tens of thousands of Hong Kong people, led by the school activist group, Scholarism, to the government headquarters each night for two weeks. It is tempting to conclude from these two examples of citizen protests that Hong Kong people will be able to safeguard important aspects of their autonomy and that attempts to interfere with the local education policy can be resisted successfully. Hong Kong‘s autonomy continues to be tested in 2014, as students and others engage in a campaign of civil disobedience known as ‗Occupy Central‘ in response to the proposed framework for electing the next chief executive in 2017. The Hong Kong Basic Law, ratified by China and the UK in 1984, stipulates that ‗the election of the fifth chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the year 2017 may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage‘. Yet, to the frustration of many in Hong Kong, the framework mandates that any candidate running for chief executive has to be vetted by a small committee dominated by pro-Beijing supporters. At the time of writing, the outcome of the Occupy Central protest is still unclear. However, it is likely to provide some indication of Hong Kong‘s future autonomy, including the extent to which education policy should be regarded as a local or national issue. CONCLUSION This chapter has discussed economic and political challenges for English language education in Hong Kong. There is no doubt that some aspects of Hong Kong‘s future are tinged with uncertainty. For example, concerns about the rule of law and the freedoms associated with pluralism, such as due process and freedom of speech are genuine and can be expected to dominate public discourse in Hong Kong in the years to come. However, as far as the Hong Kong and national governments are concerned, English language is just as important to the city‘s success and prosperity as it was in the past. The close associations of English with the former colonial power have largely disappeared from the minds of Hong Kong people and English is now regarded, both in the mainland and Hong Kong, as a global language and language of opportunity. English language education will, therefore, remain a top government priority. It remains to be seen whether the measures introduced by the Hong Kong government to improve English standards will continue to be supported. For example, the large-scale importation of native English speaker teachers into schools, already a controversial policy in Hong Kong, may be more difficult to justify, particularly with so many well qualified mainland teachers interested in working in the territory. In fact, the high standard of English of many of the mainland students studying in Hong Kong has already introduced greater competitiveness within the local student population and may even contribute to higher English standards overall. Although generous government funding for English language education appears to be guaranteed into the future, sensitive discussion about details and emphases will be required to bring about better understanding of the values and priorities of both Hong Kong and the mainland. The commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People‘s Republic of China in Hong Kong reminded Hong Kongers of the importance of identifying themselves with the nation – and resisting influences from abroad: No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . The Political and Economic Challenges of English Language … 339 Hong Kong‘s return to the motherland makes Hongkongers proud of being their own masters, and enables them to share with mainlanders the honour of being part of an increasingly strong nation. For 17 years, the successful implementation of ‗one country, two systems‘ in Hong Kong reveals one important thing. Hong Kong‘s past was closely connected with the nation‘s destiny; its future will rely on the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. We firmly oppose any outside interference or involvement in Hong Kong‘s affairs in any way. Hong Kong is now at a new starting point in its development. To remain competitive in the world, fellow Hongkongers need to work in synergy, strive forward, cherish and make good use of the precious opportunities that come with the nation‘s comprehensive deepening of reform. (Song, 2014) For an international city whose success has been based on free markets and minimum government intervention, some adjustment to the new master‘s expectations and style will be required. Both sides have much to gain and much to lose if this important dialogue fails. REFERENCES Berry, V., & McNeill, A. (2005). Raising English language standards in Hong Kong. Language Policy, 4, 371-394. Census and Statistics Department. (2011). Hong Kong 2011 population census summary results. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Chan, Y. H. (2014). Fine-tuning language policy in Hong Kong education: Stakeholders‘ perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(5), 459-476. Chinese State Council. (2014, June 10). White paper: The practice of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. Education Commission. (1996). Education Commission report number 6. Enhancing language proficiency: A comprehensive strategy (ECR6). Hong Kong: Government Printer. Education Department. (1997a). Arrangements for firm guidance on secondary schools’ medium of instruction. Consultation paper. Education Department. (1997b). Medium of instruction guidance for secondary schools. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Evans, S. (2011). Historical and comparative perspectives on the medium of instruction in Hong Kong. Language Policy, 10, 19-36. Li, D. (2002). Hong Kong parents‘ preference for English-medium education: Passive victims of imperialism or active agents of pragmatism? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English in Asia: Communication, identity and education. Melbourne: Language Australia, 29-62. Luke, K. K., & Richards, J. C. (1982). English in Hong Kong: Functions and status. English World-Wide, 3(1), 47-64. Poon, A. Y. K. (2000). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Poon, A. Y. K. (2010). Language use, language policy and planning in Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(1), 1-66. Poon, A. Y. K. (1998). Bilingualism and monolingualism: A shift in Hong Kong‘s language in education policy. In V. Berry, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Policy and practice in language No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Arthur McNeill 340 education (pp. 89-104). Hong Kong: Department of Curriculum Studies, The University of Hong Kong. Poon, A. Y. K. (2013). Will the new fine-tuning medium of instruction policy alleviate the threats of dominance of English-medium instruction in Hong Kong? Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 34-51. Song, Z. (2014, July 16). How ‗one country, two systems‘ ensures Hong Kong‘s prosperity and stability. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/ comment/article/1555365/how-one-country-two-systems-ensures-hong-kongs-prosperity- and-stability No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . INDEX A Aboriginal English, 148, 150, 157 academic capitalism, 239, 240 academic discourse, xv, 117, 240, 251, 252, 253, 254, 257, 259 academic literacy, 218, 259 academic study skills, 296, 304 accent, 5, 7, 8, 142, 179 accommodation skills, 64 acculturation, 249, 267 accuracy, 65, 95, 170, 184 achievement, xiii, 70, 71, 79, 110, 143, 144, 150, 186, 196, 198, 200, 232, 233, 250, 269, 270, 272, 330 acquisition, ix, xii, xvi, xviii, 18, 28, 29, 34, 48, 57, 58, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 96, 100, 121, 134, 137, 142, 150, 165, 184, 186, 187, 189, 233, 255, 258, 297, 307, 309, 311, 312, 313, 318, 328, 329, 330 adjustment, 264, 267, 270, 271, 339 adolescents, 75, 189, 237, 270 adults, xii, xiii, xvii, 70, 82, 86, 87, 102, 224, 265, 275 affective, 41, 100, 101, 102, 108 Africa, xii, 4, 31, 262, 266, 267, 269, 275, 309 African refugee background (ARB), 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 America, 4, 93, 117, 124, 148, 173, 267, 268, 271, 309, 335, 339 American, xii, 6, 17, 31, 33, 34, 43, 64, 82, 109, 116, 134, 138, 175, 236, 237, 267, 268, 271, 272, 274, 305 analogous, 69, 71 analogy, 83 anxiety, xiv, 105, 107, 108, 168, 271 Aotearoa, 273, 275, 281, 282, 283 applied linguistics, ix, xii, xiv, xv, xviii, 13, 21, 22, 23, 67, 68, 72, 89, 135, 147, 151, 245, 334 aptitude, 41, 64 Asia, xv, xvii, 4, 6, 22, 23, 33, 123, 124, 149, 154, 189, 201, 252, 256, 258, 274, 276, 305, 309, 315, 335, 337, 339 assessment, xi, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, 31, 32, 33, 43, 56, 63, 69, 72, 130, 141, 144, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 163, 170, 178, 185, 186, 190, 197, 200, 217, 219, 223, 224, 234, 249, 260, 312, 315 asynchronous, 251, 258 attention, x, 32, 36, 42, 51, 61, 64, 94, 109, 167, 168, 172, 178, 181, 198, 199, 218, 219, 222, 232, 234, 246, 290, 311, 317, 318, 330, 331 attitudes, xiv, xviii, 37, 39, 58, 103, 110, 122, 189, 196, 199, 241, 247, 312, 315, 328 attrition, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, 160 audio, 27, 30, 31, 32, 49, 50, 55, 153, 331 Australia, vi, vii, ix, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, 4, 5, 13, 24, 44, 47, 55, 58, 59, 111, 121, 138, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 190, 193, 196, 244, 249, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 275, 278, 282, 283, 305, 307, 335, 339 Australian, 8, 23, 54, 57, 68, 76, 82, 123, 138, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 261, 262, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 277, 282 authentic, 28, 29, 31, 57, 60, 63, 64, 199, 206 autonomy, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 334, 337, 338 awareness, xiv, 40, 41, 62, 63, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 105, 127, 131, 172, 185, 193, 195, 233, 247, 255, 256, 296, 327, 328 B barrier, 105, 107, 177, 240, 318 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 342 behaviour, 40, 60, 73, 89, 99, 101, 132, 170, 259, 268, 269, 329, 330 benchmark, 32, 186, 197, 280, 336 bias, 233 bilingual education, 34, 139, 184, 186, 230, 231, 232, 233, 237 Bilingual Education Act, 229, 230, 232, 236 bilingualism, xii, 11, 75, 78, 139, 151, 158, 231, 233, 235, 296 brain, 56, 58, 180, 305 brainwashing, 337 Britain, vi, 3, 4, 7, 76, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 148, 175, 183, 275, 290, 291 British, xiii, 8, 34, 59, 60, 64, 66, 67, 82, 89, 109, 134, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 173, 174, 175, 180, 213, 243, 245, 249, 250, 253, 254, 255, 258, 260, 273, 278, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 298, 335 C Canada, vii, ix, xiii, 5, 91, 93, 121, 125, 134, 135, 154, 196, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 275, 314 Canadian, xiii, 44, 94, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 134, 135, 138, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 272 challenges, iv, ix, x, 19, 25, 26, 33, 50, 61, 68, 105, 107, 108, 126, 130, 131, 134, 135, 145, 151, 161, 169, 201, 217, 218, 246, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 272, 273, 286, 287, 289, 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 303, 304, 307, 334, 335, 338, 339 China, vi, ix, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 43, 55, 61, 99, 116, 118, 123, 154, 190, 196, 201, 203, 204, 213, 214, 217, 241, 276, 285, 288, 292, 295, 299, 317, 318, 319, 330, 333, 334, 335, 337, 338, 340 Chinese, vii, xii, xiv, xvi, 4, 6, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 55, 56, 58, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 107, 110, 118, 126, 131, 134, 135, 143, 145, 183, 204, 214, 275, 279, 282, 296, 298, 317, 318, 319, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 339 citizen, 338 citizenship, 48, 123, 154 civilians, 36 CLOUD, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57 code-switching, 288 cognitive, 41, 43, 51, 52, 64, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 101, 102, 109, 142, 221, 222, 231, 234, 290 collaboration, 33, 55, 64, 91, 127, 129, 130, 232, 234, 235, 239, 255 collaborative, 49, 55, 86, 133, 134 collective face, 40 collectivism, 40 college, xvii, 18, 28, 104, 105, 110, 135, 162, 175, 177, 179, 181, 203, 212, 213, 214, 234, 329 colonialism, 150, 159, 288, 289 colony, 273 comfort zone, 266 commodification, 239, 240, 249 commodity, 285, 287, 298 Common Core State Standards (CCSS), 230, 233, 234, 235 communicative approach, 23, 50 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), 25, 30, 31, 178, 193, 195, 198, 199, 200 competence, 16, 25, 34, 63, 86, 130, 133, 149, 167, 172, 176, 179, 196, 200, 223, 248, 254, 318 complementary education, 138 complexity, 31, 65, 70, 150 comprehensibility, 31 comprehensible input, 28, 31, 50 comprehension, 51, 53, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 101, 126, 132, 133, 170, 177, 233, 330 compulsory education, 308, 309, 334 computer-mediated, 169, 251, 253, 257, 259 Confucian, 36, 38, 39, 40, 44 Confucius, 38, 39, 40, 42 consciousness, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 221, 224 consolidation, 185, 244 constructivism, 36 content-based instruction, 304 content-specific, 296, 299 contextualised, 85, 144, 155, 219 cooperative, 115, 122, 126 corpus, xv, 33, 121, 167, 201, 253, 260, 297 correlation, 72, 102 creativity, 92, 95, 105, 143, 175, 176, 220, 254, 304 creole, 6, 9, 151, 160 critical theory, 36, 38 critical thinking skills, 295, 296, 298, 303, 304, 305 cross-cultural, 45, 49, 58, 149, 270 cross-language transfer, 73 cross-linguistic comparisons, 70 cultural beliefs, 107, 108, 126 cultural differences, x, 122 cultural diversity, 138, 229, 230, 241, 243 cultural identity, 17, 20, 24, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 270, 271, 272 cultural relativism, 36 culture, xiii, xv, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 36, 41, 42, 44, 49, 55, 57, 58, 62, 107, 118, 120, 122, No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 343 126, 131, 135, 143, 150, 151, 172, 230, 233, 246, 252, 261, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 275, 283, 308 curriculum, x, xi, xiv, xv, 17, 19, 20, 28, 32, 52, 54, 63, 67, 70, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 96, 118, 140, 141, 150, 151, 153, 156, 158, 159, 165, 175, 183, 188, 189, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 212, 220, 225, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 255, 264, 279, 282, 290, 292, 297, 299,303, 305, 309, 314, 336, 337 D debate, ix, 3, 14, 17, 27, 39, 100, 155, 223, 240, 256, 264, 277, 280, 286 decoding, 71, 72, 73, 78, 233 decontextualised, 264 deficiency, 151, 314 democratic, 22, 52, 57 demotivation, 307 diagnostic, 159, 185 dialect, xv, 6, 7, 10, 142, 144, 148, 150, 151, 156, 296 dialogic, 85, 88, 221 dichotomy, 220 digital, xi, 32, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 257 digital communication technologies, 47, 48, 56 dilemma, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 61, 64, 65, 107, 199, 265, 266 discipline, 13, 14, 21, 22, 91, 92, 95, 96, 104, 128, 208, 218, 252, 253, 254, 255, 308, 318, 326 discourses, 71, 159, 229, 230, 236, 239, 241, 250 discovery learning, 303 divergent, 69, 259 diversity, x, xviii, 18, 63, 108, 138, 139, 144, 148, 149, 156, 218, 243, 255, 273, 295, 296, 298, 304 domestic, 42, 117, 128, 131, 132, 148, 242, 278 dominant, 3, 4, 9, 28, 93, 138, 149, 281, 336 dynamics, xiii, 32, 61, 67, 94, 172, 219, 265, 299 E economic development, 16, 18, 149, 286, 308 edubusiness, 240 education policy, 189, 194, 237, 334, 337, 338, 339 education reform, 193, 196, 202, 213 eliciting, 168 ELICOS, vi, xi, 147, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159 emotion, 91, 302 emotional, 102, 173, 262, 264, 266, 303 employability, 178, 181 employment, 6, 13, 14, 18, 116, 174, 181, 199, 254, 287, 288, 336 England, xi, 7, 11, 26, 111, 138, 140, 143, 144, 173, 174, 270 English as a foreign language (EFL), v, vii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, 21, 25, 33, 34, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 67, 68, 87, 100, 102, 104, 110, 111, 116, 123, 124, 149, 203, 204, 214, 278, 289, 315, 317, 318, 319, 328, 330 English as a lingua franca (ELF), 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 256 English as a second language (ESL), v, vi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvii, xviii, 25, 33, 50, 52, 53, 57, 59, 87, 100, 102, 103, 110, 111, 116, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 150, 151, 157, 158, 159, 190, 202, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 312, 319 English as an additional language (EAL), 138, 139, 140, 141, 144, 150, 151, 155, 156, 158, 246 English as an international language (EIL), 23, 149 English for academic purposes (EAP), xiii, xiv, xvii, xviii, 126, 132, 134, 135, 155, 204, 206, 213, 214, 217, 219, 242, 245, 252, 253, 256, 257, 258, 299 English for general academic purposes (EGAP), 203, 204, 208, 212 English for general purposes (EGP), 203, 204, 212, 214 English for specific purposes (ESP), xiv, 111, 178, 204, 213, 217, 219, 252, 255, 258, 259, 260, 299 English language arts, 91, 92, 97 English language education, ix, xii, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 36, 63, 81, 82, 85, 100, 147, 148, 154, 190, 194, 201, 229, 230, 239, 240, 246, 248, 251, 252, 253, 275, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 315, 318, 333, 334, 336, 338 English language learning, 11, 18, 35, 40, 42, 55, 213 English language teaching (ELT), vi, 23, 43, 60, 66, 67, 89, 147, 149, 153, 158, 174, 175, 176, 182, 184, 213, 239, 240, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 260, 273, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281 English standards, 3, 157, 194, 338 enhancement, xiii, 48, 57, 217, 218, 219, 224, 246, 336 epistemological, 42, 223 equality, 141, 286, 287, 290 errors, 151, 172, 303 ethical, xii, 20, 27, 68, 239, 240, 246, 247, 299 ethnic, 20, 137, 138, 139, 145, 183, 184, 186, 187, 243, 265, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 335 ethnocultural, 148 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 344 ethnographic, 117, 122 ethnolinguistic, 231 Europe, xv, 63, 144, 149, 252, 256, 260, 275, 309, 335 European, xvi, 6, 55, 57, 62, 153, 196, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 274, 276, 309 evaluation, 67, 126, 154, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 183, 208, 211, 213, 260 examination, xiii, 51, 57, 61, 62, 92, 96, 176, 177, 178, 194, 195, 198, 204, 243, 288, 289, 296, 308, 310, 314, 321, 336 exam-oriented learning, 307 Expanding Circle, 5, 6, 196 experiential learning, 102, 164 experimental, 29, 110 expertise, xvii, 20, 21, 22, 169, 237, 246, 247, 255, 296 explicit, ix, 14, 20, 29, 39, 52, 58, 126, 185, 187, 219, 244 extracurricular, 17, 18 extrinsic motivation, 40 F face-to-face interactions, 27, 32 facilitator, 103, 299 factors, x, xiv, 7, 20, 21, 32, 40, 41, 70, 72, 74, 77, 84, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 125, 127, 135, 144, 148, 193, 194, 197, 232, 244, 246, 248, 249, 269, 285, 312, 317, 318, 325, 326, 327, 328 faculty perceptions, xiii, 125 family, 17, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 266, 289, 291 feedback, 25, 29, 30, 32, 50, 56, 121, 132, 133, 135, 154, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 303, 304 filming, 161, 168, 169 films, 87, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 180 first language, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17, 27, 70, 71, 129, 138, 148, 150, 151, 168, 184, 188, 189, 231, 233, 286, 335 flexibility, 84, 93, 107, 108 fluency, 65, 75, 77, 88, 170, 194, 314 foreign language, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 5, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 47, 48, 56, 57, 62, 102, 103, 104, 110, 115, 118, 139, 149, 193, 194, 195, 200, 252, 313, 318, 329, 330 foreign language teaching, xv, 25, 34, 57, 104 formal education, 140, 187, 189, 194, 235, 254, 264, 290, 310, 311, 313 framework, ix, 13, 18, 21, 44, 49, 57, 62, 71, 72, 101, 107, 153, 155, 159, 190, 203, 204, 212, 224, 234, 274, 279, 281, 292, 338 francophone, 242 freedom, 32, 36, 38, 41, 42, 167, 287, 289, 291, 337, 338 functional approach, 175 functional language, 153, 179 G gender, xi, 271, 317, 318, 326, 327, 328, 329 generation, 25, 48, 92, 272, 296 genre, xviii, 84, 128, 204, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 214, 215, 223, 253, 254, 299, 302 genuine autonomy, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 global economy, 116, 234 global English, 25, 26, 34, 123 globalisation, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 33, 66, 70, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 137, 138, 145, 147, 149, 150, 157, 194, 195, 285, 287, 308, 318 government, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 36, 42, 86, 93, 139, 148, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 184, 186, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 232, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 256, 277, 279, 281, 286, 289, 290, 291, 296, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339 grammar, xi, xiii, 6, 41, 78, 85, 86, 87, 88, 118, 121, 128, 129, 175, 179, 180, 184, 185, 196, 198, 207, 210, 211, 212, 221, 296, 298, 307, 310, 311, 313, 314, 318 Grammar translation method, 173 grants, xii, 123, 230, 233, 244, 336 group work, 125, 127, 128, 175, 256 guardians, 151, 269 guidance, 27, 31, 127, 168, 234, 335, 339 guidelines, 13, 29, 31, 33, 34, 92, 127, 128, 159, 163, 168, 200, 235 H harmony, 40, 126 health, 11, 56, 92, 218, 270, 277, 298, 300 hegemony, 149, 287, 299 heteroglossia, 84 higher education, xiv, 17, 34, 58, 63, 66, 135, 155, 156, 194, 203, 213, 239, 240, 242, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 281, 282, 292, 310, 314 homogenous, 230, 256 Hong Kong, vi, vii, ix, xi, xii, xiv, xv, xvii, 3, 4, 21, 23, 43, 44, 61, 63, 67, 68, 78, 99, 110, 124, 213, 217, 218, 285, 299, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 345 Hong Kongers, 335, 337, 338 humanism, 36 humanistic, 36, 38, 104, 149, 204 hypercentral language, 16 I identity, xii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 44, 65, 66, 67, 68, 124, 173, 184, 186, 187, 189, 249, 259, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 283, 288, 339 ideology, xii, 36, 142 immersion, 74, 76, 230, 231, 232, 236 immigrants, 26, 60, 230, 239, 241, 276, 334 immigration, 148, 153, 154, 239, 240, 241, 248, 262, 267, 275, 277, 281, 282 immoral, 61, 67 imperialism, 23, 124, 144, 289, 339 implementation, xvi, 37, 49, 61, 63, 66, 103, 151, 188, 219, 220, 230, 246, 277, 280, 283, 295, 299, 337, 339 implications, ix, xviii, 15, 27, 35, 41, 48, 58, 60, 62, 72, 99, 100, 101, 108, 110, 125, 128, 135, 141, 142, 156, 193, 194, 200, 214, 220, 251, 252, 258, 263, 270, 273, 280, 317, 333 implicit, 39 independence, 19, 43, 44, 174, 290 independent, 14, 15, 38, 40, 44, 52, 73, 79, 86, 102, 126, 128, 154, 173, 176, 191, 271, 299, 320, 328, 329 independent learning, 40 India, vi, vii, ix, xii, xvii, 5, 144, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 196, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293 Indian, xii, 138, 144, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 182, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 298 indigenous, xv, 137, 148, 149, 180, 273, 274 individual differences, 38, 39, 100, 111 individualism, 36 industry, 56, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 147, 149, 154, 156, 158, 173, 240, 242, 244, 248, 249, 280, 281 inequality, 141, 144 inference, 94 information and communication technologies (ICTs), 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 288 inherent, 5, 42, 43, 62, 101, 224, 304 innatists, 83 Inner Circle, 3, 5, 6, 196 input, 32, 57, 58, 64, 65, 85, 164, 204, 221, 231, 297 insights, 5, 32, 47, 54, 120, 159, 183, 218, 219, 257, 319 instructional, xvi, 25, 28, 29, 31, 69, 101, 102, 105, 126, 185, 188, 297 instrument, 92, 102, 280 instrumental, 217, 219 integration, 50, 56, 58, 63, 70, 79, 95, 97, 149, 171, 185, 194, 198, 217, 218, 219, 224 integrity, 21, 23 intelligence, 95, 176, 250 intelligibility, 10, 63, 65, 79 intensive, 79, 150, 242, 255, 261, 308, 329 interaction, 10, 32, 67, 69, 72, 83, 101, 102, 106, 131, 132, 172, 185, 187, 188, 253, 254, 255, 259, 297 interactive, 29, 32, 49, 51, 52, 56, 60, 73, 86, 126, 132, 304 intercultural, xi, 47, 63, 64, 66, 118, 120, 122, 126, 134, 141, 149, 235, 242, 255, 297 interlanguage, 121 interlocutors, 10, 142 international education sector, 154, 273, 279 International English Language Testing System (IELTS), xi, 126, 133, 155, 163, 280, 336 internationalisation, 19, 156, 239, 240, 241, 242, 247, 249, 251, 252, 255, 256, 276 interpersonal, 10, 86, 126 interpretation, 35, 49, 74, 155, 297 interventions, 75, 151 interview, 8, 128, 175, 181, 197, 198, 219, 223, 312 intonation, 206, 222 intrinsic motivation, 37, 39, 40 J Japan, vi, vii, ix, xiv, xvi, 5, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 30, 43, 116, 124, 154, 163, 169, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 243, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315 Japanese, xiii, xvii, 16, 19, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 110, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 243, 246, 249, 250, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 329 junior high school, 28, 197, 308 K kindergartens, 17, 18 knowledge, xvi, xvii, 9, 13, 14, 20, 21, 29, 34, 37, 38, 41, 42, 56, 58, 63, 69, 70, 77, 79, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 102, 105, 118, 121, 122, 126, 131, 151, 156, 158, 161, 163, 164, 177, 179, 184, 187, 195, 206, 219, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 247, 248, 249, 252, 253, 254, 257, 258, 260, 264, 275, 285, 286, No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 346 288, 290, 291, 292, 295, 296, 299, 303, 308, 310, 311, 313, 329, 330, 331, 334 L laissez-faire, 336 language development, xiii, 34, 75, 88, 151, 235 language diversity, 149, 295, 304 language enhancement, 217, 218, 219, 224, 336 language form, 28, 29, 81 language maintenance, xvii, 277 language model, 196, 200 language planning, 144, 186, 190 language policy, x, xviii, 22, 23, 24, 68, 137, 139, 142, 144, 148, 193, 232, 237, 273, 277, 333, 336, 339 language proficiency, 16, 18, 29, 74, 76, 107, 108, 126, 128, 134, 151, 155, 157, 159, 183, 186, 189, 204, 223, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 242, 245, 247, 279, 280, 328, 336, 339 language revitalisation, 277 language skills, xvi, 51, 66, 71, 73, 130, 133, 155, 185, 206, 234, 242, 245, 255, 275, 276, 280, 312 language standards, 3, 5, 7, 156, 158, 333, 339 language typologies, 72 language use, 10, 15, 30, 31, 50, 65, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 121, 129, 153, 197, 252, 253, 254, 278, 336 learner autonomy, ix, xiii, xviii, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 317 learner types, 317, 318, 328 learner-centred, xi, 185, 305 learning process, 41, 102, 166, 176, 219, 264 learning strategies, 29, 41, 44, 64, 102, 164, 295, 317, 318, 320, 326, 328, 329 learning styles, x, xvii, 37, 41, 43, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 170, 172 legislation, 229, 230, 231, 232, 237, 282, 337 lexical, 31, 71, 73, 86 lexico-grammatical, 303 liberal, 36, 38, 43 life experiences, 51, 102 lifelong, 39, 40, 110, 151, 258 limited schooling, 261 lingua franca, ix, xii, 5, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 115, 143, 240, 249, 256, 259, 260, 296 linguistic, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xviii, 4, 6, 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 62, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 133, 137, 138, 139, 140, 144, 149, 150, 157, 171, 172, 173, 177, 181, 185, 188, 189, 201, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 241, 243, 255, 259, 265, 274, 276, 286, 287, 298, 311, 334, 335 linguistic diversity, 137, 138, 140, 144, 157, 231, 255 linguistic genocide, 287 linguistic globalisation, 287 linguistics, xi, xii, xv, 13, 21, 22, 23, 78, 82, 89, 92, 118, 120, 133, 157, 161, 162, 252, 270 listening, 29, 55, 57, 72, 86, 117, 127, 133, 144, 150, 188, 197, 204, 206, 211, 232, 253, 257, 310 literacies, xii, 92, 93, 143, 217 literacy, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, 7, 10, 29, 34, 47, 57, 58, 59, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94, 97, 125, 135, 150, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 160, 180, 183, 186, 190, 191, 224, 232, 234, 235, 236, 269, 274 literacy-based approach, 81, 85 literature, xii, 29, 31, 36, 38, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 108, 128, 132, 151, 189, 190, 204, 207, 240, 243, 247, 252, 264, 266, 267, 269, 271, 288, 312, 318, 320, 325, 335 localised, 42, 63, 186, 276 M mainstream, 36, 87, 104, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 151, 180, 190, 195, 231, 233, 275 mandatory, 17, 140, 194, 198, 200, 312 Māori, 274, 275, 277, 278, 281, 283 mapping, 71, 152, 153, 157, 295, 300, 304, 305 materials development, xiv, 86, 217, 223, 224 medium of instruction, 4, 6, 194, 286, 287, 293, 296, 335, 339, 340 mental representation, 53, 70 mental shift, 57 mentor, 299 meta-analysis, 28, 29, 34, 72, 75, 77 metacognitive, 41, 42, 70 metalinguistic, 140, 142 metaphor, 48, 101 methodology, xi, xiv, xvi, xvii, 45, 136, 165, 303, 309, 310, 312 microteaching, 121 migrant, xv, 111, 139, 147, 148, 154, 263, 265, 273, 275, 276, 277 migrant education, 111, 147, 148, 277 migration, 4, 139, 148, 150, 154, 159, 258, 264, 269, 275, 276 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314, 315 minority, xiii, 7, 20, 22, 34, 66, 77, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 235, 236, 268, 272, 274 mistakes, 27, 129, 131, 165, 166, 332 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 347 mobility, 11, 17, 48, 102, 140, 174, 181, 246, 255, 256, 258, 260 modality, 103, 220, 221 monocultural, 139 monoglossic, 151, 231 monolingual, 26, 75, 82, 138, 139, 142, 144, 147, 148, 151, 175, 229, 230, 233, 274, 335 mono-lingualism, 83, 88 moral, ix, 19, 40, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68 moral agents, 62 moral dilemmas, 61, 62 moral values, ix morpheme, 73, 76 morphological, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 morphology, 28, 29, 71, 74, 75, 78 morphosyntactic, 6 mother tongue, 63, 141, 175, 184, 186, 296 motivation, xiii, xiv, xviii, 27, 32, 37, 41, 44, 64, 70, 86, 99, 102, 104, 107, 108, 118, 124, 126, 127, 128, 171, 198, 269, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 325, 327, 328, 329 multicultural, 65, 110, 143, 147, 148, 159, 183, 237 multimedia, 32, 47, 50, 55, 56, 59, 60, 97, 180, 190 multimediated language learning, 47 multimodal, 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 59, 60, 87 N narrative, xiv, 68, 93, 117 national identity, 17, 19, 333 national language, 8, 17, 148, 273, 275, 277, 282, 289, 290, 335 native English speakers, 10, 17, 26, 66, 115, 116, 121, 124, 199, 247, 308 native speakers, 5, 8, 19, 27, 30, 36, 61, 62, 102, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 138, 141, 143, 149, 180, 199, 201, 231, 308, 310, 312, 313, 335 native-speakerism, 36 natural approach, 25 negotiation, xvi, 49 neologism, 138 New Zealand, vi, vii, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, xvii, 4, 5, 69, 99, 121, 134, 161, 163, 196, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 New Zealanders, 275, 278 No Child Left Behind Act, 229 non-English speaking, 8, 135, 150, 247, 275, 276 norms, 26, 40, 49, 63, 126, 286, 313 O objectives, 29, 63, 171, 172, 185, 206, 212, 307, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 319 observation, 121, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 170, 236, 278, 303 one country, two systems, 333, 334, 337, 339, 340 online, 11, 17, 27, 32, 55, 56, 57, 58, 68, 89, 116, 118, 120, 121, 124, 125, 128, 134, 153, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 256, 257, 258, 260, 300 oral, xvi, 32, 62, 69, 71, 72, 76, 78, 121, 175, 178, 193, 194, 198, 199, 200, 204, 224, 235, 259, 288, 308, 311, 313 orthography, 71, 72, 74, 79 Outer Circle, 5, 196, 200 output, 31, 50, 57, 64, 65 P paradigm, 30, 31, 50, 57, 62, 65, 77, 85, 91, 92, 94, 96 paradox, 19 parallel discourses, 239 parents, 17, 94, 116, 151, 159, 169, 187, 261, 269, 288, 289, 290, 335, 339 passive, 177, 265, 327, 328 pedagogy, xi, xii, 30, 32, 34, 44, 47, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 70, 97, 116, 121, 141, 143, 159, 182, 183, 191, 202, 246, 249, 257, 258, 264, 270, 295, 299, 330 peer, 30, 32, 41, 42, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 269, 297 peer review, 32, 297 perceptions, xiv, 58, 59, 61, 63, 134, 135, 201, 213, 218, 246, 249, 262, 263, 271, 311, 339 perceptual learning styles, 103 performance, xvii, 63, 69, 73, 94, 96, 109, 111, 121, 141, 143, 168, 180, 183, 185, 186, 190, 194, 199, 200, 219, 220, 221, 265, 268, 271, 298, 300, 302, 305, 315 peripheral, 15, 140 personality, 107, 108, 180, 181 phonological, 6, 63, 71, 73, 76, 78 phonology, 28, 76, 78, 118 physiological, 101, 102 pidgin, 6 pleasure, 10, 188, 300 pluralism, 338 plurilingual, 151, 256 politics, 4, 14, 15, 24, 43, 67, 68, 159, 237, 271, 273, 289 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 348 population, 7, 15, 16, 17, 30, 33, 51, 139, 141, 147, 148, 174, 185, 191, 229, 230, 240, 242, 253, 257, 266, 273, 274, 276, 277, 285, 288, 289, 296, 297, 318, 333, 334, 335, 338, 339 positivism, 36 postcolonial, x, 173, 174, 181, 275, 292 poverty, 287, 289 power, 6, 7, 37, 50, 51, 58, 95, 159, 174, 175, 201, 254, 259, 270, 271, 287, 300, 335, 338 practicum, x, xiii, xvii, 115, 118, 122, 123, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 199 pragmatics, 28, 71 predominant language, 25 pressure, ix, 27, 88, 178, 233, 269, 279, 287, 303, 311, 336 primary school, 74, 141, 194, 290 prior knowledge, 21, 163 proactive autonomy, 40 problem-solving, 87 process-oriented, 300 product-focused pedagogy, 64 productive skills, 31, 32, 50, 55, 153, 189 professional development, xvi, xvii, 9, 32, 59, 68, 193, 195, 200 professionalism, 21, 61, 65, 66, 156 proficiency, x, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 56, 59, 71, 77, 79, 107, 110, 142, 149, 150, 153, 155, 156, 158, 174, 177, 186, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 201, 204, 206, 207, 210, 214, 232, 233, 234, 242, 255, 261, 262, 263, 280, 296, 308, 309, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 325, 327, 329, 333, 335 pronunciation, xi, 5, 8, 63, 67, 133, 157, 172, 179, 180, 206, 331 propaganda, 337 proposition, 81, 82, 223 protest, 66, 338 Proteus effect, 48, 60 pseudo autonomy, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 psychological, xiii, 17, 37, 41, 44, 70, 72, 102, 264, 265, 287, 329 psychology, xii, 43, 99, 100, 101, 103, 109, 271, 272 public schools, 33, 96, 229, 230, 232, 240, 337 Q qualification, 116, 162, 256, 274, 307, 312 qualitative, xi, xiii, xv, xvi, 20, 117, 135, 153, 263 quality standards, 279 quantitative, 32, 34, 109 query, 312 questioning, 126, 168 questionnaire, 102, 104, 207, 208, 218, 311, 312, 319 R race, xi, 93, 123, 269, 271 racism, 141, 278 rationalist, 149, 154 reactions, 118, 168 reading, ix, xii, xiv, xvi, 7, 29, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 60, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 86, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 150, 167, 178, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 197, 204, 206, 207, 212, 222, 232, 300, 304, 307, 308, 310, 311, 314 reading comprehension, ix, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 133, 134, 135 reading difficulties, 75 reading process, 7 reading skills, 29, 70, 74, 77, 78, 185, 206, 310 reasoning, 142, 190, 300, 302, 303 Received Pronunciation (RP), 6, 8 receptive skills, 27, 31, 32, 310 reciprocal, 161, 169 reflection, xiv, 49, 161, 167, 168, 169, 184, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 253, 258, 260, 297 reflective, 21, 30, 33, 102, 165, 170, 210, 217, 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, 225 reflective practice, 21, 217, 218, 223, 224 reform, x, xiii, xv, 17, 18, 59, 126, 151, 154, 158, 193, 194, 197, 200, 203, 204, 206, 212, 214, 237, 286, 289, 336, 339 refugees, 149, 153, 262, 266, 270, 271, 275, 276 region, 6, 81, 85, 148, 154, 296, 337 rehearsal, 131 reinforcement, 108, 149, 185 remediated, 151 repertoires, 33, 141 representation, 40, 58, 60, 183, 321, 324 resistance, 10, 277 resources, 19, 20, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33, 48, 49, 50, 56, 57, 59, 65, 86, 93, 96, 125, 131, 139, 150, 151, 154, 156, 157, 158, 180, 221, 222, 231, 235, 245, 246, 263, 289 responsibilities, 41, 93, 269 revolution, 91, 92, 96, 287 rhetoric, 116, 194 rhetorical, 124, 178, 297 rural, 138, 176, 177, 181, 199, 201, 279, 287, 289 S scaffolding, 52, 53, 135, 188, 190 schemata, 52 scientific, 20, 49, 76, 251, 253 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 349 second language, ix, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, 4, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 43, 47, 48, 50, 53, 57, 58, 64, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 99, 100, 109, 111, 131, 135, 140, 161, 163, 173, 175, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190, 199, 200, 201, 213, 223, 235, 236, 263, 264, 265, 275, 276, 286, 293, 305, 309, 312, 314, 318, 329 second language acquisition, xii, xiv, xv, 25, 27, 34, 43, 47, 48, 50, 57, 99, 100, 109, 190, 213, 235, 236, 264, 312, 314 second language teaching, xvii, 25, 161, 163, 185, 188, 189, 213, 305 self-actualisation, 40 self-appraisal, 221 self-awareness, 105 self-categorisation theory, 264 self-directed learning, 39, 44, 221 self-esteem, 65, 107, 108, 233, 265, 272 self-evaluation, 43, 161, 164, 165, 166, 169 self-identity, 261, 262, 264 self-learning, 38, 39, 40, 44, 206, 212 self-perceived efficacy, 118 self-perfectibility, 40 self-realisation, 40 self-reflection, 165, 169 self-report, 102, 319 semantic, 73, 332 sensitivity, 105 sequence, 29, 51, 188 Singapore, vi, vii, ix, xi, xvi, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 110, 157, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 196, 201, 225, 295, 296, 297, 299, 300, 304, 305 Singaporean, 9, 82, 138, 183, 185, 187, 190, 191, 298, 300 Singlish, 3, 6, 9, 10, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 297 skilled labour, 115 social, xvi, xviii, 5, 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 49, 54, 56, 57, 65, 76, 87, 89, 92, 94, 101, 102, 104, 126, 136, 140, 142, 148, 149, 153, 160, 174, 176, 179, 181, 186, 187, 190, 193, 194, 218, 220, 231, 233, 249, 253, 254, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 277, 278, 280, 285, 286, 287, 289, 291, 292, 296, 303, 309, 335, 337 social class, 40 social context, 76, 263, 264 social development, 19, 337 social identity, 263, 264, 272 social identity theory, 264 social interaction, 101, 149, 186, 335 social networking, 54, 56, 87 social structure, 140 socialisation, 257, 298 sociocultural, xvii, 6, 70, 287 socioeconomic, 5, 75, 82, 150, 151 South Korea, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 154, 196, 241 speaking, ix, x, 5, 6, 7, 8, 25, 26, 29, 54, 57, 61, 63, 64, 67, 70, 77, 78, 81, 82, 103, 115, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 128, 134, 141, 142, 144, 150, 151, 153, 160, 162, 177, 178, 179, 180, 188, 189, 197, 204, 206, 211, 222, 232, 233, 240, 242, 246, 248, 249, 275,276, 296, 310, 335, 336 speech, 6, 7, 31, 51, 58, 71, 83, 84, 132, 133, 187, 253, 291, 293, 330, 331, 337, 338 spoken language, 104, 151 Standard English, v, 3, 7, 8, 10, 139, 184, 186, 187, 189 standard languages, 3, 8, 10 standardisation, 5, 6, 7, 149, 151 standardised, 7, 20, 21, 130, 148, 150, 151, 155, 157, 196, 232, 319 state education, 142, 162 state schools, 147, 148, 274 status, xii, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 42, 64, 65, 66, 75, 87, 88, 93, 116, 120, 123, 139, 140, 149, 174, 175, 183, 189, 203, 247, 256, 279, 287, 289, 290, 299, 315, 339 stimulation, 86 strategies, 34, 37, 41, 45, 49, 51, 54, 59, 69, 86, 102, 109, 110, 120, 126, 127, 129, 132, 155, 198, 199, 200, 221, 224, 233, 246, 268, 302, 303, 304, 317, 318, 321, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328 strategy instruction, 317, 328 strengths, 102, 166, 167, 220, 224, 230, 235, 320 Structuralist method, 173 styles, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 255 supercentral language, 16 syllabus, xiv, xvii, 86, 175, 176, 177, 178, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190, 196, 206, 298, 303, 310 symbolic, 263, 270 syntactic, 73, 74, 75 syntax, 28, 29, 71 systemic functional linguistics (SFL), 83 T target language, xiv, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 65, 199, 263, 309 teacher attrition, 115 teacher education, xv, xvi, xviii, 32, 67, 170, 288 teacher trainee, 161, 162, 167 teacher training, xi, xiv, xviii, 17, 21, 23, 115, 116, 117, 162, 289, 313, 314 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 350 teacher-centred, 52, 107, 318 teacher-student relations, 61, 62, 65, 67 teaching abroad, 115, 122 Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), xvii, 19, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 315 Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL), xiii, 60, 133, 134, 135, 136, 191, 200, 249, 259, 314 Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, 34, 43, 44, 45, 54, 59, 60, 65, 67, 68, 89, 111, 115, 116, 117, 123, 124, 134, 135, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 190, 201, 234, 235, 237, 250, 258, 270, 271, 276, 283, 312, 329 teaching methods, 25, 122, 185, 199 teaching practices, x, xiii, 59, 125, 127, 183 teaching strategies, 142, 150, 169 teaching styles, x, xvii, 42, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111 technical, 16, 27, 87, 88, 97, 110, 121, 173, 182, 220, 224, 253 techniques, 25, 33, 49, 103, 121, 175, 180, 312, 320 technology, ix, xiii, xvi, 4, 11, 16, 18, 19, 30, 32, 33, 48, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 149, 156, 170, 176, 184, 251, 252, 257, 258, 279, 285, 287, 296, 298, 299, 318 tertiary education, 149, 155 test, 27, 55, 59, 70, 82, 118, 126, 133, 151, 163, 177, 186, 197, 198, 204, 206, 207, 212, 233, 255, 270, 280, 309, 310, 311, 313, 318, 319, 325, 330, 336, 337 Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), 126, 133, 155, 163, 197, 198, 201, 308, 309, 313 textbook, xv, 32, 50, 57, 176, 177, 178, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 312, 318 threaten, 19 threshold, 132 training, x, xiv, xv, 4, 19, 37, 38, 52, 65, 75, 109, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 155, 160, 161, 162, 170, 174, 178, 179, 181, 200, 209, 217, 218, 233, 242, 245, 276, 279, 289, 307, 312, 317, 318, 327, 328 transfer, xvi, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 78, 79, 132, 140, 161, 175, 185, 219, 233 transformation, 176, 177, 195, 244, 287, 288, 291 transition, 126, 127, 132, 150, 222, 248, 263, 265, 275 transitioning, xiii, 127 translanguage, 142 translanguaging, 6, 137, 138, 141, 231 transnational, 143, 251, 252, 256, 258, 260, 292 transnationalism, 137, 138 transparency, 71, 72, 196 traumatic experiences, 262 turn-taking, 52 U uncertainty, 147, 257, 259, 333, 338 undergraduate, xii, xiii, xvii, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 133, 160, 177, 203, 204, 212, 218, 225, 254, 297, 330 United Kingdom (UK), vii, ix, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 25, 33, 34, 63, 67, 68, 76, 77, 78, 81, 89, 117, 121, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143, 154, 159, 190, 202, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 270, 281, 305, 330, 334, 338 United Nations, 63, 68, 274, 283, 291 United Nations (UN), 293 United States (US), xvii, 25, 33, 55, 117, 118, 120, 121, 134, 154, 175, 179, 180, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 268, 275, 305 universal, 42, 77, 78, 79, 91, 287, 338 universities, xii, 4, 17, 63, 115, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 132, 135, 148, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 194, 240, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 279, 280, 290, 291, 307, 308, 310, 311, 318, 319, 336, 337 urban, 138, 142, 176, 177, 237, 279, 287 utilitarian, 18, 41, 174 utterances, 10, 84, 187 V validation, 330 validity, 32, 155, 219, 263, 311, 320, 325, 326, 327 values, 16, 17, 18, 19, 61, 62, 65, 86, 96, 102, 103, 208, 264, 286, 287, 291, 302, 321, 333, 338 variables, 10, 71, 103, 104, 191, 264, 321, 325, 326, 330 vernacular, 68, 148, 287, 289, 290 video, 27, 30, 31, 32, 49, 50, 55, 57, 92, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 180, 222, 331 visual, xi, 49, 60, 71, 83, 91, 102, 103, 220, 254, 300, 321, 332 vocabulary, xi, xiii, xiv, xviii, 6, 28, 29, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 87, 121, 129, 132, 133, 176, 179, 184, 185, 194, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 231, 253, 317, 318, 319, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332 vocabulary acquisition, xiii, xviii, 318, 329 vocabulary learning strategies, 317, 318, 319, 329, 330 vocational, 155 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc . Index 351 W washback effect, 336 weaknesses, 73, 166, 167, 168, 220, 221, 224 wealth, 6, 7, 19, 255, 291 website, 118, 167, 222, 300 word recognition, 71, 72, 73, 78 workers, 92, 93, 95, 243 workplace, 179, 224, 254, 256 World Bank, 288, 289, 292, 293 World Englishes, 3, 11, 23, 62, 79, 81, 82, 83, 89, 116 World Trade Organisation (WTO), 203 writing, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, xviii, 7, 29, 50, 51, 57, 61, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 79, 83, 84, 86, 92, 110, 122, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 142, 150, 153, 154, 163, 172, 174, 177, 178, 181, 188, 197, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 220, 223, 232, 252, 253, 258, 259, 260, 295, 297, 302, 303, 304, 331, 338 writing system, 69, 73, 76, 79 written language, 7 written test, 178, 179 written texts, 51, 296 Y young learners, 29, 44 young people, 17, 86, 155, 272, 286 No va S cie nc e P ub lis hin g, Inc .

This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]
On: 25 November 2014, At: 03:10
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcil20

When Special Education
Trumps ESL: An Investigation of
Service Delivery for ELLs with
Disabilities
Sara E. N. Kangasa
a

Temple University

Published online: 21 Nov 2014.

To cite this article: Sara E. N. Kangas (2014) When Special Education Trumps ESL: An
Investigation of Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities, Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, 11:4, 273-306, DOI: 10.1080/15427587.2014.968070

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.968070

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcil20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15427587.2014.968070

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.968070

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

by
[

T
em

pl
e

U
ni

ve
rs

it
y

L
ib

ra
ri

es
]

at
0

3:
10

2
5

N
ov

em
be

r
20

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

WHEN SPECIAL EDUCATION TRUMPS ESL:

AN INVESTIGATION OF SERVICE DELIVERY FOR

ELLS WITH DISABILITIES

SARA E. N. KANGAS

Temple University

Through an ethnographic study of one suburban elementary school, the delivery
of services to English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities was
investigated. The data analysis revealed that often disability-related and
English as a Second Language (ESL) services were in contention, as
scheduling, teacher expertise, school culture, and ESL program models often
resulted in the prioritization of services. Consequently, ELLs with disabilities
were not positioned as learners with Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and
disability-related learning needs. The findings of this study indicate the need to
promote a more robust understanding of the legalities of ESL services for
school personnel and to develop teachers’ knowledge of pedagogical
approaches for ELLs with disabilities from an interdisciplinary and integrative
perspective.

English language learners (ELLs), individuals who are in the
process of acquiring English as an additional language, are a
growing and significant student population in many countries
where English is the majority language. For instance, in the United
States, ELLs are projected to be one-fourth of the student
population by the year 2025 (U.S. Department of Education,
2006). Consequently, English language education is a profession in
which well-trained practitioners and researchers are in demand to
meettheneeds oftheselinguisticallyand culturallydiverse students.
Within the ELL student population, there is a subgroup that
presents profound educational challenges to practitioners—ELLs

273

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sara E. N. Kangas,
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Temple
University, Ritter Hall 466, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19122. E-mail:
snyce@temple.edu

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(4):273–306, 2014
Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1542-7587 print/1542-7595 online
DOI: 10.1080/15427587.2014.968070

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

mailto:snyce@temple.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.968070

with disabilities.1 ELLs with disabilities constitute 8.4% of the ELLs
in American public schools (Zehler et al., 2003). Yet not only are
educators today struggling to disentangle second language
acquisition (SLA) from various disabilities, they are also attempting
to form pedagogical practices that support these students’ multiple
demanding needs whether linguistic, cognitive, behavioral, or
social.

Recently, a growing body of research has emerged on ELLs’
placement into special education, primarily focusing on rates of
referral to special education (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda,
2005; Samson & Lesaux, 2009), the referral process (Klingner &
Harry, 2006; Ortiz et al., 2011), and specific literacy interventions
for these learners (Denton, Wexler, Vaughn, & Bryan, 2008;
Kamps et al., 2007; Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, Fredrick, &
Gama, 2010). Ethically, researchers and educators have been
invested in understanding referral processes as a matter of social
justice to ensure ELLs are not disproportionately represented in
special education. Yet there is an apparent critical need to
consider how schools can provide services to ELLs with disabilities
that adequately target both their linguistic and disability-related
needs; therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate how
one particular school attempts to provide individualized services
to meet the educational needs of ELLs with disabilities.

Literature Review

ELLs with disabilities are an underresearched school-age
population, and the limited amount of empirical research
conducted on this population has been rather narrow in focus,
concentrating on only two educational matters. First, extant
research has primarily investigated special education referral rates
and practices for ELLs, and second, recent studies have explored
how specific literacy interventions can mitigate poor academic
performance for these learners.

1In this manuscript I use the term ELLs with disabilities instead of ELLs with special needs,
because the former term is broader, encompassing all impairments whether physical,
cognitive, or emotional, whereas the latter term typically connotes that these learners only
have cognitive or learning-based impairments.

S. E. N. Kangas274

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

Referral Rates, Practices, and Determinations

A majority of the research that has been conducted on the
populationofELLswithdisabilitieshasfocusedonreferralratesand
processes with the underlining purpose to promote and to ensure
educational equity for a vulnerable population of learners.
Particularly, disproportionate representation of ELLs in special
education has become an urgent concern. According to De
Valenzuela, Copeland, and Qi (2006), disproportionality in
representation can take two forms—underrepresentation and
overrepresentation. Both are determined in comparison to the
general student population, but in underrepresentation there is a
lower number of a particular group of students in special education
and in overrepresentation there is a higher number of a particular
group receiving special education services. As extensively explored
by Donovan and Cross (2002), racial minority learners have been
historically disproportionally represented in special education
in the United States. For those who are linguistic minorities,
disproportional representation has also occurred with some distinct
patterns of representation according to grade level and disability
category. For instance, in recent years scholars have found
disproportional representation of ELLs in special education by
grade level.Specifically,Samson andLesaux (2009)found thatELLs
were underrepresented in kindergarten and first grade yet
contrastingly were overrepresented in special education in third
grade across all disability categories. These findings suggest that
there is a pattern of waiting to refer ELLs for special education until
ostensibly they had sufficient time to progress academically. This
inference is corroborated by Ortiz et al. (2011), who found that
ELLs suspected of having a learning disability (LD) were mostly
referred in second grade and then in third grade, again suggesting
that there is a notable shift in educators’ expectations of ELLs’
language proficiency; that is, educators surmise that by second and
third grade ELLs’ poor academic performance is attributed to the
presenceofadisability,andnotEnglishproficiency.Similarly,Artiles
etal.(2005)foundthatin severalurbanCalifornianschoolspatterns
ofoverrepresentationemergedaccordingtogradelevel;ELLsinthe
secondary level were overrepresented in the disability categories of
intellectual disability and learning disability but underrepresented
in the disability category of speech and language impairment.

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 275

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

Together, Samson and Lesaux (2009) and Artiles et al. (2005)
indicate that age may be a factor influencing the proportionality of
ELLs’ representation in special education. These findings lend
supporttoHibeland Jasper’s (2012)recent studywherein educators
delayed referring ELLs for special education services possibly for
ELLs to develop further in their second language (L2) proficiency.

Not only do disproportional representation patterns emerge
according to grade level, but also as delineated in Artiles et al.
(2005), there are apparent patterns in disproportional represen-
tation according to disability category. De Valenzuela et al. (2006)
in a study of one southwestern American school district found that
ELLs were overrepresented in special education in the following
disability categories: emotional disturbance, intellectual disability,
learning disability, and speech-language impairment; however,
they were underrepresented in the developmental disability
category and proportionally represented in the category of “other
health impairment.” Similarly, ELLs in Indiana were over-
represented for intellectual disabilities and communication
disorders, but despite these patterns of overrepresentation,
underrepresentation was more prevalent in the remaining
disability categories (Levinson et al., 2007). Underrepresentation
draws attention to the reluctance educators may have in referring
ELLs for special education services, a reluctance based in the
possibility of misdiagnosis, inability to provide bilingual assess-
ments for referral, reaction from and confusion of parents, and
limitations of staff both in number and expertise.

Overall, disproportionality studies have been narrow in
scope. Klingner et al. (2005) argue that “concern about
disproportionate representation is focused on the ‘judgmental’
categories of special education—those disabilities usually ident-
ified after the child starts school and by school personnel rather
than a medical professional” (p. 3). Although narrow in focus,
research on special education representation is significant in
terms of educational implications, as these studies allude to the
importance of improving referral practices as a preventative
measure against disproportionality.

To date there has been a preponderance of discussion,
speculating about the potential causes of disproportional ELL
representation yet without sufficient empirical inquiry. Klingner
and Harry (2006) conducted an empirical study investigating the

S. E. N. Kangas276

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

causes of disproportionality. Through a qualitative study of
educational and placement meetings for 19 academically
struggling ELLs, Klingner and Harry found that for a majority
of the ELLs no prereferral strategies were implemented prior to
testing, and that ELLs were referred on the basis of limited testing
evidence. Ortiz et al. (2011) likewise found that ELLs suspected of
having an LD were referred for special education services with
scant evidence. More specifically, for only 10 of the 44 ELLs
studied there was sufficient evidence for the initial referral. Ortiz
et al. argue that the implementation of the referral process in one
school district as a whole was not evidence-based and could have
led to erroneous special education referrals. Ultimately, these
studies indicate that referral to special education should not be a
result of a single measure (i.e., diagnostic assessments adminis-
tered by school psychologists) but rather a multimeasure
approach that includes formative assessments and ecological
evaluations—an examination of the learning environment.
By doing so, educators avoid immediately locating “the learning
problem” within the child and instead consider how the learning
environment is influential in a student’s academic performance.

In light of the educational equity that is jeopardized by
special education disproportional representation, some scholars
(e.g., Orosco & Klingner, 2010; Ortiz et al., 2011) recommend a
prereferral intervention model known as Response to Interven-
tion (RtI) for ELLs. Unlike the discrepancy system, wherein
students are tested and referred to special education, RtI “focuses
on intervening early through a multitiered approach where each
tier provides interventions of increasing intensity” (Esparza
Brown & Doolittle, 2008, p. 66). When a student requires
additional support—more than what is provided by the classroom
teacher—she will then receive targeted small group instruction
aimed at her academic and even behavioral needs (National
Center on Response to Intervention, 2010). For ELLs culturally
responsive pedagogy may also be one approach for targeted
instruction (National Center on Response to Intervention,
2010; Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Only after all feasible
interventions and accommodations have been implemented will
a student go through the referral process. One advantage of this
model is that it is purportedly data-driven (Ortiz et al., 2011),
allowing struggling learners to receive systematic, documented

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 277

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

interventions, thereby reducing disproportional representation in
special education. For example, Kamps et al. (2007) investigated
ELLs andnative Englishspeakersin first andsecondgrade at risk of
failure due to reading difficulties. Through both direct and small
group instruction within the RtI model the experimental group of
ELLs made significant gains on several assessments, indicating that
for ELLs with reading difficulties, direct instruction may be an
effective intervention and necessary preceding step before any
consideration of referral for special education.

Despite accolades from scholars, RtI challenges practitioners,
necessitating they provide tailored or differentiated instruction
according to the learners’ heterogeneous needs. Orosco and
Klingner (2010) found that many teachers did not have the
expertise to differentiate instruction for ELLs in particular when
implementing RtI interventions, suggesting that the touted
referral model can only be effective in preventing disproportional
representation if educators can properly differentiate instruction
and provide accommodations to ELLs.

Instructional Interventions and Strategies

With the majority of research focusing on special education referral
matters, consideration of what teachers can actually do in the
classroom with learners who have disability and ELL needs has been
scarce. Yet some scholars have attempted to address this gap by
investigating specific interventions for ELLs with disabilities. The
purposeofthesestudiesistoidentifyconcreteinterventionsthatcan
improve academic performance, in particular reading and writing
for ELLs, especially given the current high-stakes standardized
testing environment in American schools. Literacy interventions
studies have included Denton et al. (2008) who conducted a study
featuring small group direct instruction for middle school English-
proficient students and ELLs with severe difficulties in reading in
either special education or remedial reading classes. The results of
the study revealed no statistically significant differences between
the control and experimental groups in several critical aspects of
reading proficiency, such as fluency, word recognition, and
comprehension. From these results Denton et al. (2008) suggest
that learners require more intense interventions than the daily

S. E. N. Kangas278

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

40-minute sessions provided to those assigned to the experimental
condition. However, Viel-Ruma (2010) found that writing skills
could be improved through direct instruction for ELLs with LDs.
Specifically, the results of the multiple-probe across participants
design (i.e., a study in which intermittent data sets of participants’
performance are collected throughout the implementation of
interventions) indicated that the three participating high school
ELLs increased correct word sequencing and sentence length in
their writing from the baseline condition.

As demonstrated, the current scope of ELL and disability
research is quite limited. Despite the research conducted on referral
rates and processes as well as specific literacy-based interventions, no
empirical research has explored how educators holistically address
the educational needs of these learners after referral. Specifically, it
remains unknown not only to what extent but also how educators
provide instruction and services that target the many complex and
demanding needs of ELLs with disabilities. This study attempts to
address this profound gap in literature because as a critical matter of
educational equity, researchers and educators should not only care
how ELLs are referred to special education, but what that education
is like for the learners once they are referred. Therefore, following
research questions guided the scope of this study:

1. To what extent is there confluence or conflict in providing
English as Second Language (ESL) and disability-related
services2 to ELLs with disabilities?

2. What local institutional factors either promote or hinder
confluence of services relating to disability and SLA?

3. How does the confluence or conflict of ESL and special
education services position ELLs with disabilities?

Theoretical Framework

For the theoretical framework of this study I utilized positioning
theory (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999). With origins in social

2I use the term disability-related services to describe services delivered through special
education and services relating to the disability that are not provided within special
education (e.g., speech language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy).

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 279

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

psychology, positioning theory pertains to how identities are
constructed in dynamic spaces. A position, according to Harré and
van Langenhove, is a combination of characteristics—or more
simply, an identity—assigned to an individual either by the
individual herself or other parties. This assigned identity,
however, is dynamic, influencing future social experiences.
Positioning theory is an expansion of the concept of position to
consider the dynamic manner in which positions can collide,
congeal, develop, transform, etc., as individuals continue to
interact through social relationships. Positioning, more specifi-
cally, occurs through “speaking and acting,” as it is through these
that “people actively produce social and psychological realities”
(Davies & Harré, 1999, p. 34). That is, an individual’s actions and
discourse create not only a position but also a reality.

Although Harré and van Langenhove (1999) conceptualized
five pairs of positioning practices, each comprising two distinct and
often opposing parts, I will employ as the theoretical lens the
following two pairs: 1) self and other positioning and 2) tacit and
intentional positioning. Self and other positioning can simply be
understood as either the practice of positioning oneself (i.e., self
positioning) or positioning another (i.e., other positioning),
respectively. Second, there is the dichotomous tacit and intentional
positioning. In tacit positioning the positioning discourse or action
that occurs is unintentional, whereas in intentional positioning the
individual performing the positioning is, in fact, deliberate in her
actions. Applied to this study, I analyzed how the discourse (i.e., how
schoolpersonneltalktoandaboutthelearners)andactions(i.e.,how
school personnel instruct and provide services to the learners) other
position ELLs with disabilities during service delivery and how this
positioningconstructsasocialrealitywithintheclassroomandschool.

Methods

Site Description

Williams Elementary School3 is located in a suburban town in
Pennsylvania. Williams educates more than 600 students and is

3Pseudonyms are used throughout the study to protect the identities of the participants.

S. E. N. Kangas280

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

identified as a Title I school—a designation for schools receiving
federal assistance based on the percentage of low income students
per school. The Williams student body is 81% Caucasian, 8%
African American, 8% Asian, and 2% Hispanic, and significantly
the school district Williams belongs to, Cedar View, has doubled
its enrollment in the past 10 years. As the school district is
expanding, so have the needs of its students; teachers and
administrators have reported increases in ELLs, bilingual
learners, racial minority learners, and learners from lower
socioeconomic statuses.

More recently, Williams Elementary began instructing all the
elementary-agelearnerswith autismliving withinthe bounds of the
school district, resulting in a relatively large population of learners
with disabilities within just one school. In addition to students
with autism, Williams also has learners with learning disabilities,
speech or language impairments, and orthopedic impairments.
At Williams, 12 students are identified as ELLs, two of which are
identified as having a disability, while one other ELL is being
monitored for special education referral. The ESL program
models at Williams are both push-in, during which an ESL teacher
provides support to ELLs during content instruction in the general
education classroom, and pull-out, when ELLs receive English
language instruction as a small group in a separate classroom.
Overall, the school district administrators prefer the push-in
model, believing that ethically students should not be divided into
separate learning environments because of differences, whether
linguistic or ability-based. However, when the general education
and ESL teachers present a case wherein an ELL may perform
better within a pull-out setting, the school district acquiesces.

Participants

To recruit appropriate participants in the study, the Williams ESL
teacher and I identified potential practitioner participants who
were currently instructing at least one ELL with a disability with
no restrictions on the subject matter the practitioner instructed.
In total, there were six participating focal practitioners and
paraprofessionals: two mainstream teachers, one ESL teacher,
and one special education teacher and two paraprofessionals

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 281

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

specializing in autistic support (see Table 1). Originally, when I
entered the site I considered the role of the paraprofessionals
distinct from the practitioners, yet after several weeks at the site I
observed that the paraprofessionals in many settings bore a
significant, and in some cases, primary role in teaching. For this
reason, I regarded paraprofessionals and practitioners as fulfilling
similar roles within the site.

In addition to the six focal practitioners and paraprofes-
sionals, 11 additional school personnel, whom I refer to as key
school professionals, participated in the study. These individuals—
the school’s speech pathologists, occupational and physical
therapists, specialist teachers (e.g., Spanish, library) principal,
reading specialist, and the district level ESL administrator—were
not responsible for educating the students on a daily basis but
rather interacted with ELLs with disabilities frequently or could
provide insight about service delivery from an administrative
perspective.

In the school there were only two ELLs with identified
disabilities. These two students were diagnosed with autism or an
orthopedic impairment. In Mrs. Roberts’ first grade class there
were two female ELLs from India. One learner named Marti is a
L1 Urdu speaker and the other student named Lula is an L1
Bengali speaker (see Table 2). Along with her family, Lula
immigrated to the United States prior to the start of primary
school. Lula often baffles her teachers because of her complex
learning needs; she was diagnosed with an orthopedic impair-
ment, resulting in difficulty in her gross motor skills, such as
walking, coordinating movements, and achieving balance, for
which she receives physical therapy in a pull-out setting.
In addition to having an orthopedic impairment, Lula is being
monitored for a social and emotional disturbance. The ELLs in
Mrs. Roberts’ class, including Lula, receive pull-out ESL
instruction with other first grade ELLs in a separate location
with Mrs. Franks.

In Mrs. Harris’ third grade classroom, there is one ELL who
was diagnosed with autism. Ahmed is a native speaker of Arabic
who arrived to the United States as a first grader two years prior
(see Table 2). Unlike other students in the school with autism, he
is considered highly functioning. For this reason Ahmed was
placed in an inclusive classroom where an autistic support

S. E. N. Kangas282

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

T
A
B
L
E
1

P
ra
ct
it
io
n
e
r

a
n
d

P
a
ra
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l

P
ro
fi
le
s

T
ea
ch
er

A
ge

G
ra
d
e

P
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l
R
ol
e

S
u
bj
ec
t

Y
ea
rs
T
ea
ch
in
g

S
p
ec
ia
li
za
ti
on

M
rs
.
B
ro
ck

E
a
rl
y
6
0
s

K
-5

P
a
ra
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l

R
e
a
d
in
g
In
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n

1
7

E
le
m
e
n
ta
ry

E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

M
rs
.
F
ra
n
k
s

L
a
te

4
0
s

K
-5
P
ra
ct
it
io
n
e
r

E
S
L

1
1

E
a
rl
y
C
h
il
d
h
o
o
d
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

E
S
L
C
e
rt
ifi
ca
ti
o
n

M
s.
G
la
ss

M
id

2
0
s

K
-5
P
ra
ct
it
io
n
e
r
R
e
a
d
in
g
In
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n

2
S
p
e
ci
a
l
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

E
S
L
C
e
rt
ifi
ca
ti
o
n

M
rs
.
H
a
rr
is

M
id
2
0
s

3
P
ra
ct
it
io
n
e
r

G
e
n
e
ra
l
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

2
E
le
m
e
n
ta
ry

E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

M
rs
.
M
o
tt
s

M
id
2
0
s
K
-5
P
a
ra
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l

A
u
ti
st
ic

S
u
p
p
o
rt

2
S
p
e
ci
a
l
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

M
rs
.
R
o
b
e
rt
s

M
id

3
0
s

1
P
ra
ct
it
io
n
e
r

G
e
n
e
ra
l
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

1
3

E
le
m
e
n
ta
ry
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 283

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

paraprofessional, Mrs. Motts, pushes into the classroom as
specified by his IEP (Individualized Education Program)4 to
support to him and Jeff, a non-ELL boy with autism. Additionally,
Ahmed receives reading instruction in a pull-out setting with
either Ms. Glass or Mrs. Brock and push-in ESL services with Mrs.
Franks and two other ELLs with no disabilities.

All ELLs with disabilities within this study received the ELL
designation after parents indicated on the home language survey
that another language besides English was spoken in the home.
Based on this response, ESL teachers administered the WIDA-
ACCESS(AssessingComprehensionandCommunicationinEnglish
State-to-State) Placement Test (W-APT), an English language
placement test commonly administered for school-age students.

Data Collection

I conducted an ethnographic case study (i.e., a case study
employing ethnographic methodology) for six months in 2012 at
Williams Elementary. A case study, which examines a unit or
phenomenon, is useful in research for delving into the complex-
ities of the phenomenon and its interplay with a range of
contextual factors (Merriam, 2009). Further, as Merriam posits, in
education it is through case studies in education that “processes,

TABLE 2 Focal Students

Student Grade L1 Disability
ACCESS English
Proficiency

Lula 1 Bengali Orthopedic impairment
monitored for emotional
and social disturbance

5 Bridging

Ahmed 3 Arabic Autism 4 Expanding

Note. ACCESS proficiency levels are not based on raw scores but are grounded in teachers’
reports and/or observation of ACCESS test performance.

4In the United States IEPs are mandated educational programs for students receiving
special education services collaboratively established among school personnel, parents,
and in some cases the student. IEPs specify the educational services and accommodations
that each student must receive.

S. E. N. Kangas284

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

problems, and programs, can be examined to bring about
understanding that in turn can affect and perhaps even improve
practice” (p. 51). This case study included triangulated data
comprised of classroom observations, interviews, informal
conversations and meetings, and school artifacts.

† Observations. I conducted 79 observations at Williams
Elementary, 43 focusing on services provided to Ahmed and 36
observations focusing on services provided to Lula. To gain a
holistic view of these learners’ educational environments,
I observed a range of content areas (i.e., math, science, language
arts, social studies) and services (i.e., ESL, reading interventions,
occupational therapy, physical therapy). I defined an observation
based on the services being delivered at that time. For instance,
when a learner was receiving ESL push-in services, I counted each
of these times as individual observations. Observations lasted for
30–75 minutes depending on the allotted time of service delivery.
Except a few instances wherein teachers requested my assistance
with students, observations were nonparticipatory, during which I
carefully took ethnographic notes, capturing the events in the
classroom that applied to the theoretical framework of position-
ing theory but also extending to include other salient themes.

† Interviews. I conducted a total of 19 semi-structured
interviews with Williams personnel during which predetermined
questions were balanced with spontaneous questions that
emerged in reaction to participants’ shared thoughts. Specifically,
I conducted a total of eight recorded 20- to 60-minute interviews
with focal practitioners and paraprofessionals. It should be noted
that one focal teacher declined to be interviewed for reasons that
will be explored later in the results section. I conducted 11
interviews with key school professionals, lasting 22–58 minutes.
All interviews were audiorecorded and later transcribed verbatim.

† Meetings and school artifacts. During the study, opportunities
arose for informal conversations with practitioners, paraprofes-
sionals, and other school professionals. Following these meetings,
I wrote detailed notes describing the information the participant
shared. Lastly, used in triangulation with the other ethnographic
data, I collected artifacts both issued formally by the school and

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 285

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

school district as well as instructional materials from the
participating practitioners.

Data Analysis

To begin data analysis, I developed a preliminary codebook,
featuring more than 20 codes I identified from both the theoretical
framework and analytic memos I drafted throughout the study. For
each code I developed a corresponding definition, which I utilized
during the coding process to evaluate the relevance of the data
against each code (see appendix for final codebook). I used
deductive coding (i.e., codes derived from theory or previous
research) based in the tenets of positioning theory (Harré & van
Langenhove,1999)toanalyzethedataduringthefirstcycle,orinitial
coding. Although many codes were derived from this theoretical
framework (e.g., other positioning, intentional positioning), both the
codingandanalysisprocessesinfluenceoneanother,sothatthrough
the analysis I also used inductive coding (i.e., codes derived from the
data); for example, the codes professional development, time, and
schedules all emerged from the interview and observation data.
During second cycle coding I reexamined the first cycle codes “to
develop a coherent synthesis of the data corpus” (Saldaña, 2009,
p. 149) by grouping the data into concrete themes. For instance, the
codes schedule and time were grouped into the theme of personnel and
student schedules because both codes pertained to the educational
constraints due to amount of time afforded by scheduling.

As foundational for establishing trustworthiness and authen-
ticity, I used thick description, which consists of detailed depictions
and interpretations during observations (Geertz, 1973), and
triangulation of data (Campbell & Fiske, 1959)—in this specific
study, the examination of how different data converge to a shared
reality about the service delivery at Williams Elementary. To further
assure trustworthiness and authenticity of the data, during data
collection and analysis, I incorporated extended engagement in
the field, consideration of disconfirming evidence, and peer
debriefing. Extended engagement—visiting the site for prolonged
periods of time—has no specified duration, but in ethnographic
fieldwork typically lasts for months, if not years (Creswell & Miller,
2000). As Guba and Lincoln (1989) indicate, extended engage-

S. E. N. Kangas286

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

ment in the field “overcome[s] the effects of misinformation,
distortion, or presented ‘fronts’ . . . [and] establish[es] the rapport
and build[s] the trust necessary to uncover constructions” (p. 237).
Through extended engagement in the field I gained intimate
knowledge about Williams and the service delivery practices that
happened not just once or twice but continued throughout a
majority of the academic year. Also during data analysis I
deliberately considered disconfirming evidence to test emerging
hypotheses and nuanced conceptual perspectives. Creswell and
Miller (2000) assert that the “search for disconfirming evidence
provides further support of the account’s credibility because reality,
according to constructivists, is multiple and complex” (p. 127).
In the context of this study, I sought out data that demonstrated
how learners were positioned in light of all of their learning needs
and how services were delivered in confluence. Finally, I engaged in
peer debriefing with a more senior ethnographic scholar through
frequent discussions of emerging findings, dilemmas in the field,
and initial hypotheses. As a result of this process an unbiased
outsider is able to question the researcher’s hypotheses, roles,
methodologies, etc., to facilitate the researcher’s understanding of
the phenomenon (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). For this study peer
debriefing was particularly helpful in considering emerging
findings from the large amount of ethnographic data I collected.

Results

The data indicate that ESL and disability-related services were in
tension with one another in the following four local institutional
factors: scheduling, school culture, teacher expertise, and ESL
program models. These local factors contributed to differential
positioning of two ELLs with disabilities, creating an educational
reality wherein Ahmed and Lula were very rarely positioned as L2
learners.

Positioning through Personnel and Student Schedules

A practical constraint that created a tension in the delivery of
services at Williams was the schedules of both the ESL teacher and

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 287

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

ELLs with disabilities. At the time of this study the Cedar View
School District adhered to Pennsylvania’s Basic Education
Circulars (BEC), state issued recommendations for the interpret-
ation and implementation of educational law (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2001). According to these recommen-
dations, as shown in Table 3, ELLs are to receive a certain amount
of daily planned ESL instruction depending on each student’s
language proficiency determined by the ACCESS proficiency test,
an assessment used in numerous states throughout the U.S. to
determine English proficiency.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education states “exact
hours of direct language instruction by proficiency level must be
determined based on student need and program/instructional
delivery model” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2001,
para. 12). Through these suggested guidelines, the Cedar View
School District created a schedule for ESL instruction wherein the
ELLs received approximately one hour of instruction every other
day on a rotating schedule, regardless of English proficiency. Part
of the rationale for this schedule was that it allowed the ESL
teachers to work at more than one school within the district.
Although travelling was a necessary component of the job, as the
Williams ESL teacher, Mrs. Franks reported, it detracted from
instructional time: “So, it’s just scheduling is the biggest frustration
and not getting in there enough, like and digging in.” Specifically,
in reaction to the current schedule Mrs. Franks stated that she feels
ESL “is coming up short” within the district. Mrs. Franks made this
comparison after talking to teachers in a neighboring school
district with similar demographics, learning that ELLs receive 1.5–
2 hours of ESL instruction daily. The current amount of ESL
instruction at Williams was significantly lower than the state
recommended guidelines as a consequence of the district created

TABLE 3 Basic Education Circulars (BEC) Guidelines

English Language Proficiency Amount of Daily ESL Instruction

Entering (Level 1) 2 hours
Beginning (Level 2) 2 hours
Developing (Level 3) 1–2 hours
Expanding (Level 4) 1 hour
Bridging (Level 5) Up to 1 hour of instruction or support

S. E. N. Kangas288

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

schedule, making the provision of ESL services difficult for all
ELLs, not just those with disabilities. Yet, ELL Coordinator Mrs.
Shaw, who also served as a high-level district administrator,
explained that the district satisfied the recommendations of the
BEC guidelines because the general education teachers also
delivered ESL services throughout the day.

ELLs with disabilities, too, had complex schedules that made
the delivery of ESL services difficult; for instance, Ahmed received
pull-out instruction in reading, speech therapy, occupational
therapy, and extracurricular orchestra lessons in addition to his
other general education and ESL classes (see Table 4). As I
observed, the demands of Ahmed’s schedule resulted in missing
ESL several times when services were scheduled at the same time,
reducing ESL instruction to only 1 to 2 hours those particular
weeks. Mrs. Franks described the difficulty of trying to provide ESL
services with the competing demands in the student’s schedule:

But, it’s frustrating to be flexible when I want to be like, “No, ESL’s more
important. I don’t see him enough. Get him in here.” . . . And with
scheduling, like especially the end of the year, you see what it’s like with
field trips, field days. And it’s not possible for me to reschedule all the
time, so they miss their time completely.

Similarly, Lula’s schedule of weekly physical therapy unfortunately
often overlapped with her ESL schedule, resulting in reduced ESL

TABLE 4 Service Schedule According to Student

Student Service
Service
Setting Frequency of Service

Duration of
Service

Lula ESL Pull-out 3 times per cycle 1 hour
Physical Therapy Pull-out 1 time per week 30 minutes

Ahmed ESL Push-in 3 times per cycle 1 hour
Autistic Support Push-in 6 times per cycle 3–4 hours
Occupational Therapy Pull-out 1 time biweekly 30 minutes
Reading Intervention I Pull-out 6 times per cycle 30 minutes
Reading Intervention II Pull-out 6 times per cycle 30 minutes
Speech Therapy Pull-out 2 times per cycle 30 minutes
Social Skills Pull-out 1 time per cycle 30 minutes
String Lessons Pull-out 1 time per cycle 30 minutes

Note. At Williams Elementary a cycle consists of six school days. Physical and occupational
therapy schedules operated on a traditional school week schedule.

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 289

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

pull-out instruction on a biweekly basis, which became evident
through both observation of ESL and discussions with Mrs. Franks.
When asked why in such scenarios disability-related services were
prioritized over ESL, Mrs. Franks explained a possible reason:

Special ed is a legal issue. And so, for the district and for the teachers,
there’s IEPs that they legally have to do. They legally have to get it done.
They legally have to meet. ESL, it’s, “What do I think they need?” and “Oh,
let’s try to follow this.” It’s a much looser set of demands.

Ultimately, she argued that there is room for interpretation of the
BEC guidelines; therefore, ESL services at the school were not
prioritized in the same manner as special education services.
A former ESL teacher, Mrs. Avery, who now assists students
receiving learning support at Williams made a similar assertion: “I
don’t know how much on the radar it [ESL] is because of you can
play around with, I mean, they have recommended [emphasis
added] times that you should be with these kids.”

At Williams ESL services were in contention with both
disability-related services and general education curricula
activities. In these instances general education activities took
precedence over ESL instruction. During several ESL push-in
observations, Mrs. Harris scheduled a “Mystery Reader”—a parent
of one of the students—to come to the classroom and read a few
stories to the students, reducing the ESL instruction by 25–
30 minutes out of the total 60-minute class on a biweekly basis for
Ahmed and two other ELLs. Overall, general education and
extracurricular activities resulted in at times weekly disruptions
to ESL instructional time. Ultimately, the limited amount of
instructional time ESL was allotted can be interpreted as tacit
positioning (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999), as the creation of
staff, learner, and general education schedules, unknown to the
teachers and administrators at Williams, positioned these learners
as having disability needs that take precedence over L2 needs.

Positioning through School Culture

Ingrained in the fabric of the school was a deep understanding
of disabilities, as Williams educated the entire population of
elementary learners with autism for the district. From this large

S. E. N. Kangas290

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

population of students receiving autistic support (AS), Mrs. Motts
purported that the school has grown to accommodate disabilities:

So, it’s a learning curve. But, looking back two years ago on what they
expected to see in a hallway when things were if someone was having a
tantrum and what they expect now, they’ve adjusted to it. And they’re a lot
more welcoming of our students [with autism].

This understanding culture was fostered through special events,
such as assemblies, aimed to build understanding about autism; in
fact, Williams held an “Autism Day” to build awareness, which
Mrs. Motts described in an interview: “And the kids didn’t realize
that they’re very sensitive to light, and they’re very sensitive to
sound. And this what, what it would be like if you had autism and
then we made things super bright or we made things really strong
in smell. And they kinda got a sense of what it was like.” Mrs. Motts
posited that the events had positively influenced the student
body’s understanding of disabilities. This understanding and
appreciation manifested in several observations when fellow
students cheered for Ahmed and Jeff—a non-ELL boy with
autism—when they successfully answered math questions in a
class game or completed a science project, such as hand-made
flashlight. In regards to Lula, Mrs. Roberts observed: “I know they
think she’s different. You know, I think some of them are more
accepting of her as the year’s gone on.” Mrs. Martin, the Williams
Spanish teacher corroborated this acceptance from the student
body: “And I think it’s a learning experience for regular ed kids.
They can teach and learn from that. They can definitely become
more open-minded, more sympathetic, less egocentric. The world
does not revolve around them.”

In contrast to the cultural acceptance and understanding of
disabilities at Williams, the understanding of the ELL population
and ESL was more limited, possibly a consequence of the ESL
population being somewhat new to the district. Notably, the
creation of Mrs. Franks’ position as an ESL teacher occurred just
three years before the study. Despite the gradual population
increase, understanding about ESL pedagogy remained quite
limited. Mrs. Motts who supported Ahmed for a majority of the
day and even was present during ESL push-in instruction
identified her own limited understanding of ESL. When asked

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 291

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

about her familiarity with ESL, she answered, “Not very familiar at
all.” Mrs. Roberts, although an experienced teacher, did not know
about the instructional approaches and content of ESL until a few
months ago. These reflections were corroborated by observations
of Mrs. Roberts who differentiated instruction for learners
according to reading level but not by language or cultural
background. Yet, there were times during instruction when the
ELLs, including Lula, required differentiated instruction based
on their cultural knowledge. For example, in an activity focusing
on identifying the main idea based on a series of clues, a culturally
biased example was utilized:

“My main idea is baseball,” she [Mrs. Roberts] said. The students start
listing the details: “bat,” “catcher,” “bull,” “spring,” “bases,” “pitcher,”
“team,” “positions.” The ELLs were not participating although the girls
[Lula and Marti] frequently do. Lula offers a detail; she describes the net
and the ball going inside of it. Mrs. Roberts corrects her and explains that
she must have been talking about soccer.

In this example, Lula misunderstood the main idea in this
particular activity quite possibly because this topic is culturally
biased. Knowledge of ESL pedagogy, however, may have led
Mrs. Roberts to use an example that was less culturally-bound.
Additionally, Mrs. Roberts utilized more linguistically advanced
material without providing differentiation for Lula or Marti, for
example, through playing an informative video on the defense
practices of butterflies for first grade science. Although the video
quite obviously incorporated visuals, the vocabulary was far too
advanced for first graders, not to mention ELLs, as exemplified
in the following: beguiling, endowed, prelude, courtship, binge, and
severity. The lexical difficulty of the video demonstrated
inaccessible, unmodified instruction for ELLs.

Significantly, this lack of awareness of ESL created a
dilemma within Williams Elementary: Although practitioners
were expected to provide ESL services through accommodations
in the general education classroom, many practitioners did not
possess adequate knowledge of ESL to do so. Mrs. Shaw, a
district-level administrator, explained that the district provided
ESL support within the general education classroom to satisfy
the BEC guidelines: “While the guidelines indicate they should
be seen everyday by an ESL or ELL person at the elementary

S. E. N. Kangas292

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

level, we don’t necessarily use an ESL person to support them in
the area of language arts; we use the classroom teacher.” Yet at
Williams, the practitioners and paraprofessionals spending the
most time with the ELLs with disabilities were not familiar with
ESL pedagogy, indicating that services are not delivered during
this time.

In addition to the lack of knowledge of ESL, culturally within
the school a lack of awareness of the importance of ESL education
was prevalent. Throughout the observations, pull-out ESL was
relocated from its current room—a television studio—to
alternative spaces burdened with distractions often occurring as
a result of testing accommodations for students with disabilities.
Relocating to the hallway proved distracting, which Mrs. Franks
corroborated: “So, here [Williams] and I sit in the hallway or a TV
studio. Or, yeah, or I grab a planning center or something. And
that’s got copiers in it and people are in and out with the copiers.
It’s not conducive.” Moreover, the lack of prioritization of ESL
education resulted in the destruction and misplacement of ESL
materials; for example, one day some of the student-made
materials were disheveled and even missing, resulting in Mrs.
Franks saying, “We’re just gonna give it up. We’ll just jump to the
next thing.” The physical displacement of the ESL pull-out
location and resources hindered the delivery of L2 services. This,
I argue, intentionally positioned (Harré & van Langenhove,
1999) the ELLs primarily as learners with disabilities because ESL
not only suffered from unequipped, distracting locations, but
there was a lack of awareness of and respect for ESL culturally
within the school.

Positioning through Expertise and Training

Although many of the participating practitioners possessed
advanced degrees in education, they had not received formal
training in ESL with the exception of Mrs. Franks and Ms. Glass,
who earned ESL certifications. Interestingly, Ms. Glass was not an
ESL teacher for the district but rather held a bachelor’s degree in
special education. Ms. Glass, utilized her knowledge of both ESL
and AS to teach Ahmed about the concept of wingspan during an
observation of a reading intervention class:

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 293

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

Ms. Glass then grabbed a meter-long wooden ruler. She used the ruler to
show the length of the wingspan. She used an area rug on the floor to help
show the distance. The wingspan was apparently 7–8 feet. At this point Ms.
Glass was crawling around the floor demonstrating the size of the
wingspan, while Ahmed hunched over the ruler and area, quietly looking
at its mammoth size.

In this example, Ms. Glass used a concrete example of mapping
out the size of the eagle’s wingspan to facilitate Ahmed’s
understanding of the concept, targeting his SLA needs by
providing comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982) and capitalizing
on the strengths of the learner—unimpaired visual processing
(Gill, 1997). With Ms. Glass’ knowledge of both ESL and special
education a confluence of services occurred—a notable excep-
tion in service delivery and a datum of disconfirming evidence—
achieved by intentionally positioning (Harré & van Langenhove,
1999) Ahmed according to both his AS and L2 needs through
instruction.5

Despite a lack of knowledge and training of educators at
Williams in ESL, both practitioners and paraprofessionals
received professional development in disability-related topics.
Prior to bringing the AS program to Williams, all teachers were
required to complete professional development relating to AS.
Moreover, the participants at Williams each have been afforded
additional professional development opportunities, and as
described by some of the participants, this training was in areas
of greatest need. For instance, Ms. Glass identified “behavior and
social skills training” as the highest priority for professional
development. She rationalized, “There are many more kids on my
caseload that would benefit from my having more knowledge in
those areas.” Likewise, Mrs. Roberts stated, “There’s other things I
need to focus on. You know, and that’s [ESL] just such a small
piece of it.” These priorities though logical, resulted in
positioning of the ELLs with disabilities as learners who only
have disabilities, because without further professional develop-
ment in ESL pedagogical approaches, the practitioners and

5It is significant to note that Ms. Glass, who has an ESL certification, did not remain
Ahmed’s teacher for reading invention. Instead, Mrs. Brock was selected by Ms. Glass to
replace her because “She was the easiest person to schedule to work with Ahmed during
that time.”

S. E. N. Kangas294

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

paraprofessionals were unable to provide services in an integrated
manner. Instead, each practitioner or paraprofessional primarily
delivered instruction and services from her own perceived role,
creating strict service boundaries. Mrs. Motts identified this
boundary in service delivery: “The reason we’re being pushed into
these classrooms is to take things slower . . . however, we’re not in
there for ESL. That’s what Mrs. Franks in there for.” Moreover,
Mrs. Harris, Ahmed’s general education teacher, declined to
participate in the interviews, saying, “I don’t really work with him
[Ahmed].” This statement demonstrated a rigid divide in
providing services, which Mrs. Motts echoed:

Well, it’s kind of like we have to take a step back and focus on what our role
is in the room. Mrs. Harris’ job is to basically educate everyone in the
classroom so, she’s not going to worry about anyone specifically. She will
come over and help our students, but she’s not going to specialize and stay
there with them like we would . . . . And then my job is to take care of their
special ed needs, so I need to worry about things that are going to come
from their autism.

Since pedagogy did not accommodate ELLs in the inclusive
classroom, the result was the intentional positioning (Harré & van
Langenhove, 1999) of these ELLs with disabilities only as ELLs
when Mrs. Franks was present (i.e., every other day for one hour at
most). The intentional nature of positioning manifested in both
Mrs. Harris’ and Mrs. Motts’ comments regarding the interaction
with Ahmed—they knowingly taught from not only their
knowledge but from their perceived role within the inclusive
classroom.

Positioning through Program Models

Williams utilized both ESL push-in and pull-out, depending on
the educational needs of the students, although the preferred
model was push-in.6 Yet at Williams, push-in ESL provided little

6Lula and other first grade ELLs together received pull-out ESL instruction due to the
lower English proficiency of one of the ELLs within this group. After numerous attempts to
push into the general education classroom with the group of ELLs, Mrs. Roberts and Mrs.
Franks decided that this program model was ineffective, so they advocated for pull-out.

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 295

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

opportunity for ESL instruction for students who are receiving
both ESL and special education services, ultimately creating a
conflict in service delivery in the school. Ahmed not only had an
AS paraprofessional, Mrs. Motts, pushing into his general
education class, but also an ESL teacher, Mrs. Franks. During
these times, Mrs. Franks had abrupt interactions with Ahmed only
asking him a few questions or encouraging him to continue in his
work because he was already working alongside of Mrs. Motts—a
common occurrence in Ahmed’s ESL push-in classes. Instances
wherein the ESL teacher barely interacted with Ahmed were quite
common in push-in and were corroborated in an interview with
Mrs. Franks: “Now with the coteaching, I feel like I’m not getting
meaty ESL instruction anymore.” Further, she explicated, “But,
I’m like pitching in two seconds here, whereas if I had them for
45 minutes, we could really dig in more, I guess, and get more
specific to that kid’s needs or those children.” Mrs. Franks’
concern was substantiated throughout the observations of push-in
ESL, when most days Mrs. Franks provided ESL support for
Ahmed from 5 to at most 15 minutes. Although Mrs. Franks felt
that she could not provide “meaty instruction” to Ahmed in push-
in, Mrs. Motts posited that the negotiation of services in the push-
in model was not challenging:

However, when Mrs. Franks is in the room there’s a student with ESL
needs, I’m gonna step back from that student a little bit. But, she’s not
there everyday. And everyday, every period I’m addressing their special ed.
needs . . . . So, during that time I’m going to step back a little more and let
her handle that particular student because that need isn’t getting
addressed as much my needs are.

Despite this “stepping back” Mrs. Motts reported, only one
observation revealed an instructional practice wherein Mrs. Motts
primarily worked with another student while Mrs. Franks worked
with Ahmed. Mrs. Franks corroborated this pattern by discussing
the difficulty of providing ESL services in push-in when there are
multiple specialists present: “It’s very much a challenge because a
lot of times she’s [Mrs. Motts] got Ahmed and I’ll just kind of eye-
ball him and focus on the other two.”

In addition to the conflict of providing services with multiple
push-in specialists, another reason why Mrs. Franks was only able
to “pitch in” sporadically can be practically attributed to the

S. E. N. Kangas296

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

amount of time she and Mrs. Harris could coplan. When asked to
describe and quantify their coplanning sessions, Mrs. Franks
responded, “I would say if I’m lucky, 15 minutes” per six-day cycle.
Further Mrs. Roberts explained that finding a time for
coplanning was difficult because of scheduling, especially with
the travel the ESL teachers in Cedar View completed each day.
Consequently, during some observations coplanning occurred
upon Mrs. Franks’ arrival to class. For instance, during social
studies Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Harris were co-planning during the
showing of video on the differences between democrats and
republicans. While the video played, the teachers discussed the
upcoming content and the particular details of the poster project
the students would start during that very class.

The provision of ESL services for Ahmed was not only
challenging in the push-in model, but special education and ESL
services were competing. As a consequence of the school district’s
decision to adopt the push-in model, instructional and coplan-
ning time for ESL was limited. These constraints, in addition to
Ahmed’s physical position within the general education class-
room—next to another learner with autism, not near the
ELLs—both tacitly and intentionally positioned (Harré & van
Langenhove, 1999) Ahmed as a learner with autism.

In examining ESL program models, I identified prominent
disconfirming evidence. Unlike for Ahmed, there was a greater
quantity and quality of ESL instruction for Lula in pull-out ESL.
During a majority of the observations when Mrs. Franks pulled
out Lula, Marti, and Fredo, the students received roughly 1 hour
to 1 hour and 15 minutes of ESL support every other day. This
was in stark contrast to the amount of ESL instruction Ahmed
received in the push-in model. In pull-out Mrs. Franks was able to
target the students’ linguistic needs, for example, by taking note
of the errors they are making and using those errors as topics of
instruction they will explore in upcoming classes. Also, Mrs.
Franks was able to develop their language skills through intensive
times of oral and written language production. This was
illustrated in an ESL lesson wherein Lula and her ELL classmates
received direct instruction on lexical knowledge pertaining to
giving directions, practiced delivering directions using a map, and
then took turns providing directions through the hallways of the
school. This activity allowed for extensive speaking as well as

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 297

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

organization of thought, which according to Mrs. Franks was an
important skill Lula needed to develop. Although Lula did not
receive ESL services everyday, the amount of instructional time as
well as the depth of language instruction afforded through the
pull-out model tacitly positioned (Harré & van Langenhove,
1999) her as an ELL more so than Ahmed despite her higher L2
proficiency. This positioning can be classified as tacit because
Lula’s differential positioning occurred unknowingly as a result of
the program model.

Discussion

Harré and van Langenhove (1999) argue that positioning in its
various forms through discourse and action can create a new
social reality. In the case of Lula and Ahmed, new social realities
were created through discourse and action whereby they were not
learners with complex SLA and disability needs but rather
primarily learners with disabilities. Specifically, Ahmed and Lula
were other positioned within their educational environment both
intentionally and tacitly, and the consequence was a new social
reality in which Ahmed’s and Lula’s ELL identities are not
acknowledged and where ESL is not prioritized in the educational
agenda.

With regards to the identities of Ahmed and Lula, the new
social reality created through the tension of services acknowl-
edges the disabilities of the learners; yet this is merely one aspect
of each learner’s identity. Specifically, most of the pedagogical
practices of the teachers at Williams were not intended for the
whole child but just a singular facet of the learner’s identity.
Yet Norton Peirce (1995) argues that ELLs’ identities are not
composed of a singular dimension but embody complexity and
multidimensionality, which is certainly true of Ahmed and Lula.
Moreover, acknowledging just a part of learners’ needs ignores
their fuller identities, and this unidimensional view of learners,
such as ELLs with disabilities, defies the very spirit of inclusion
education whereby the whole learner is accepted and is included in
the general education classroom. If the multidimensions of the
learner’s identity are not acknowledged through the delivery of
services, inclusion is in jeopardy, because inclusive practices

S. E. N. Kangas298

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

depend on addressing students’ educational needs through
instructional supports and accommodations and fostering
acceptance for all individuals, as they are (Wisconsin Education
Association Council, 2014). Further, without planned and
differentiated L2 instruction while in the general education
classroom, ELLs’ language skills may preclude them from full
inclusion.

Second, tacit and intentional positioning of the ELLs with
disabilities in this study, I argue, reflects the sentiment that ESL
services are somehow less legally significant when compared to
special education; that is, when ESL and special education are in
conflict, special education legislation apparently trumps ESL
legislation. Despite the perceptions that may exist about ESL
services, legislation has been passed in the United States ensuring
the delivery of language services to ELLs. For instance, Lau v.
Nichols (1974) resulted in the ruling that failure to provide ELLs
with language related services “denies them a meaningful
opportunity to participate in the public educational program”
and therefore violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Office of Civil
Rights, 2005a, para. 1). Several years later Castañeda v. Pickard
(1981) established a measure of adequate services provided for
ELLs, comprising three significant components: 1) connection of
the school programs and practices to language learning theory, 2)
feasibility to effectively implement the theory-based programs and
practices with the amount of resources, including staff, and 3)
evaluative procedures districts have in place to monitor and alter
practices to increase effectiveness (Office of Civil Rights, 2005b).
It is through Castañeda v. Pickard that schools, like Williams
Elementary, can interpret how and when services should be
provided. Although this flexibility can foster the implementation
of language programs that best suit the population and resources
of each school, it should not be mistaken for legal lenience in the
implementation and delivery of ESL or bilingual services.

Despite the presence of ELL-related legislation, at Williams
the perception exists that special education law is somehow more
legally significant. The United States’ Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) first passed in 1975 ensures the free
appropriate public education (FAPE) of learners with disabilities.
An individual level of accountability for IDEA occurs through
such documents like IEPs (National Dissemination Center for

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 299

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

Children with Disabilities, 2012). At Williams IEPs were regarded
by the staff as powerful binding legal contracts, as evidenced
through their rigorous delivery of disability-related services.
Significantly, it should be noted that IEPs for ELLs with
disabilities must not only include disability-related services for
the learner but also consider the L2 goals and skills necessary for
the learner’s academic progress (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, 2001). Ultimately, this important stipulation demon-
strates ESL services are both significant to the learner’s progress
and legally required to be implemented fully, not selectively.
Further, the implementation of services may be connected to the
perception of parents—that English proficient parents are more
likely to advocate for their children than ELL parents. In fact,
De Gaetano (2007) found that ELLs’ parents do not possess the
requisite linguistic skills and knowledge of the school system for
parental involvement, let alone advocacy.

Conclusion

The findings of this study shed light on the importance of
instruction that addresses both disability and L2 educational
needs of ELLs with disabilities. When one service is prioritized
over the other—regardless of the service—ELLs with disabilities’
needs are not being fully met. One possible solution for services
that are competing is to develop a confluence in the delivery of
services through integrating pedagogical approaches that
facilitate learning for learners with disabilities and ELLs. For
instance, Ms. Glass provided integrated services through
pedagogical approaches that targeted Ahmed’s needs stemming
from autism and the L1. By doing so, her instruction was not solely
targeting his disability. Yet integrated service delivery will certainly
require teacher education programs to better equip preservice
practitioners and paraprofessionals (whether special education,
ESL, or general education teachers) by developing their
differentiated instruction skills for diverse learners. This
implication corroborates the findings of several studies (e.g.,
Hansen-Thomas & Caragnetto, 2010; Meskill, 2005; Orosco &
Klingner, 2010): Although many general education teachers are
charged with providing support to the ELLs within their

S. E. N. Kangas300

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

classrooms, they are often grossly underprepared for the
endeavor. To avoid competing services, the onus is also on
schools to foster interdisciplinary professional development
wherein educators are able to augment their own disciplinary
expertise with knowledge of other content (e.g., ESL, special
education, etc.). Shared interdisciplinary knowledge may avoid
what Yoon (2008) discovered—that as practitioners position
themselves, they in turn, position their students accordingly (i.e.,
I am a special education teacher, so you are a special education
student). Instead, through the cultivation of interdisciplinarity,
school personnel will position learners with more identity
dimensions in mind as integrative services—like those delivered
by Ms. Glass—are provided. Such professional development
opportunities can range from formal events (e.g., workshops
and conferences) to informal events, for example, in which
practitioners and paraprofessionals are the source of expert
knowledge, developing opportunities for their colleagues to grow
in their understanding of other disciplines’ pedagogies, instruc-
tional approaches, as well as teaching and learning theories. Even
more simply, providing practitioners with scheduled, consistent
coplanning time can cultivate interdisciplinary knowledge that
can later be applied during instruction. Significantly, before
initiatives can be undertaken to move to an integrated view and
practice of services, there is the essential first step of disabusing
the education community of the notion that ESL services are not
legal or not as legal. Surely, when one service is perceived as
negotiable or less significant in terms of the law, there will hardly
be an effort to provide that service in the face of other pressing
educational needs.

Although this study has important implications for educating
diverse learners, there are some notable limitations that must be
acknowledged. First, Mrs. Harris, as earlier mentioned, declined
to participate in the interviews. Although all the other
participants were able to share their perspectives on the
complexities of providing language and disability-related services
to ELLs with disabilities, Mrs. Harris’ perspective cannot be
entirely represented in the data. Additionally, since the
population of learners featured in this study is particularly
vulnerable, a Cedar View district administrator requested that I
refrain from both interviewing the ELLs and accessing their

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 301

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

records. Without the ability to interview the ELLs, this study
explored how the ELLs with disabilities were other positioned
(Harré & van Langenhove, 1999) as a result of the delivery of
services; however, what remains unknown is what extent the ELLs
are cognizant of this positioning (i.e., tacit positioning) and how
these students may position themselves (i.e., self positioning).
Further, and significantly, these findings are based on a case study
approach. One particular value of case study research is the close
attention given to a specific context (Stake, 2006), not in the
generalizability of the case to other cases. Also, Merriam (2009)
posits “a single case or small nonrandom sample is selected
precisely because the researcher wishes to understand the
particular in depth, not to find out what is generally true of
many” (p. 224). Therefore, the findings of this particular case are
not generalizable but rather illuminate the educational reality
within a particular educational context.

This study explored the local institutional factors that either
promoted or hindered the confluence of services of ELLs with
disabilities, yet certainly there are larger educational factors that
are influential in this process, such as preservice teacher
education and the legal imperatives of IEPs. Therefore, future
research should expand to investigate the role of larger
educational factors in the positioning of ELLs with disabilities
as learners with disabilities. Moreover, this study included
practitioners and paraprofessionals who were instructing either
an ELL with autism or an ELL with orthopedic impairment
receiving emotional, social, and attention monitoring and
interventions; however, this study did not include educators
instructing ELLs with an LD, which is a higher incidence disability
category. Thus, more research is needed to examine how services
are delivered to ELLs with higher incidence disabilities. The site
of this study, although a Title I school, is somewhat unlike many
American schools with ELLs in that it has a smaller percentage
students receiving ESL services. Future studies should be
conducted in schools with higher percentages of ELLs to
understand how service delivery is enacted in these settings as
well. Finally, with the cross-section of ELL and disability research
still in its infancy and with a majority of research conducted within
the United States, research and teaching communities alike can
benefit from conducting studies in international contexts to build

S. E. N. Kangas302

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

better understanding of educating L2 learners with disabilities
from a more global perspective.

References

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group
diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language
learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 282–300.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry.
Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.
1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harré & L. van
Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 60–73). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.

De Gaetano, Y. (2007). The role of culture in engaging Latino parents’
involvement in school. Urban Education, 42(2), 145–162.

Denton, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Bryan, D. (2008). Intervention provided to
linguistically diverse middle schools students with severe reading difficulties.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 79–89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5826.2008.00266.x

De Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., & Qi, C. H. (2006). Examining educational
equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in
special education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 425–441.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted
education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Esparza Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological
framework for response to intervention with English language learners.
Council for Exceptional Children, 66–72.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.
In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of culture (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic
Books.

Gill, K. A. (1997). Instructional considerations for young children with autism:
The rationale for visually cued instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 27(6), 697–714.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Hansen-Thomas, H., & Caragnetto, A. (2010). What do mainstream middle
school teachers think about their English language learners? A tri-state case
study. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 249–266. doi:10.1080/15235882.2010.
502803

Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 303

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00266.x

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/15235882.2010.502803

Hibel, J., & Jasper, A. D. (2012). Delayed special education placement for
learning disabilities among children of immigrants. Social Forces, 91(2),
503–530. doi:10.1093/sf/sos092

Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J.,
. . . Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction
for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier
intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 153–168. doi:10.2307/
30035561

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., . . . Riley, D.
(2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and
linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally
responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n38/

Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-
making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings
and placement conferences. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2247–2281.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00781.x

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London, England: Longman.
Levinson, B. A. U., Bucher, K., Harvey, L., Martinez, R., Pérez, B., Skiba, R.,

. . . Chung, C. (2007). Latino language minority students in Indiana: Trends,
conditions, and challenges. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy. Retrieved
from http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/Latino_Language_Minority_
Students_Indiana

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meskill, C. (2005). Infusing English language learner issues throughout
professional educator curricula: The training all teachers project. Teachers
College Record, 107(4), 739–756.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Using response to
intervention framework to improve student learning. Retrieved from
http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/Response_to_Intervention_
Pocket_Guide_2

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2012). All about
the IEP. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep

Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. doi:10.2307/3587803

Office of Civil Rights. (2005a). Developing programs for English language learners:
Lau v. Nichols. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
ell/lau.html

Office of Civil Rights. (2005b). Developing programs for English language learners:
Glossary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/
glossary.html

Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with
English language learners: “Referring into RTI.” Journal of Learning Disabilities,
43(3), 269–288. doi:10.1177/0022219409355474

Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner,
M. I. (2011). The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing

S. E. N. Kangas304

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1093/sf/sos092

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2307/30035561

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n38/

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00781.x

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/Latino_Language_Minority_Students_Indiana

http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/Response_to_Intervention_Pocket_Guide_2

http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2307/3587803

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/0022219409355474

inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: Implications for
response to intervention. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National
Association for Bilingual Education, 34(3), 316–333. doi:10.1080/15235882.
2011.628608

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2001). Educating students with limited
English proficiency (LEP) and English language learners (ELL). Retrieved from
http://www.education.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_codes/
7501

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, England:
Sage Publications.

Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special
education: Rates and predictors of identification for service. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148–162. doi:10.1177/0022219408326221

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). States ranked according to per pupil elementary-

secondary school system finance accounts: 2009-2010. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/finance_insurance_real_estate/
cb12-113.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Building partnerships to help English
language learners. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/english/
lepfactsheet

Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L. D., & Gama, R. (2010).
Direct instruction in written expression: The effects on English speakers and
English language learners with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 25(2), 97–108. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00307.x

Wisconsin Education Association Council. (2014). Special education inclusion.
Retrieved from http://www.weac.org/Issues_Advocacy/Resource_Pages
_On_Issues_One/Special_Education/special_education_inclusion.aspx

Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ role and
pedagogies on the positioning of English language learners. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495–522. doi:10.3102/0002831208316200

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick,
M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to lep students and lep
students with disabilities (Contract No. ED-00-CO-0089). Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.net/files/rcd/BE021199/special_ed4

Service Delivery for ELLs with Disabilities 305

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.628608

http://www.education.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_codes/7501

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/0022219408326221

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/finance_insurance_real_estate/cb12-113.html

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/english/lepfactsheet

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00307.x

http://www.weac.org/Issues_Advocacy/Resource_Pages_On_Issues_One/Special_Education/special_education_inclusion.aspx

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.3102/0002831208316200

http://www.ncela.net/files/rcd/BE021199/special_ed4

APPENDIX

Final Codebook

Theme Inductive Codes

Personnel and Student Schedules Scheduling
Time

School Culture School culture
ESL priority/support
Professional support
Resources
Location

ESL Program Models Language program model
Co-planning/co-teaching
Communication between teachers

Expertise and Training Teacher knowledge of ELL/SLA
Teacher knowledge of disability
Professional development
Teacher role and responsibility

Deductive Codes

Positioning discourse/action, ELL
Positioning discourse/action, disability

Tacit (unintentional) positioning
Intentional positioning

S. E. N. Kangas306

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
T
em
pl
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
L
ib
ra
ri
es
]
at
0
3:
10
2
5
N
ov
em
be
r
20
14

Abstract
Literature Review

Referral Rates, Practices, and Determinations
Instructional Interventions and Strategies

Theoretical Framework
Methods

Site Description
Participants
Data Collection
Data Analysis

Results

Positioning through Personnel and Student Schedules
Positioning through School Culture
Positioning through Expertise and Training
Positioning through Program Models

Discussion
Conclusion
APPENDIX

Template for Journal Article Annotated Bibliography

All articles should relate to topics covered class (see Course Schedule for topics).

Your name should be on the cover sheet of the document and the title of the assignment should be in the Running Head of each page (see APA style for formatting requirements). Check the Online Writing Lab by Perdue (OWL) for any style questions or ask the GMU librarian. Remember to page number your paper.

Article Citation

· Citation (APA style):

Summary

Provide a one-two paragraph summary of the article.

· What is the key point of the article?

· What did you find striking or interesting about the key point?

Reflection

Provide your personal response to the article in two or three paragraphs.

· How specifically will I be able to use the information and knowledge to improve or enhance my role as an educator of ELs in terms of approaches, strategies, methods or techniques?

Submit your assignment via Blackboard as one document.

Annotated Bibliography

Jane Doe

Root, C., (Vol 1, No. 1, April, 1994). A Guided to Learning Disabilities for the ESL Classroom

Practitioner. Retrieved from

http://www

. Idonline.org/article/8765/

A Guide to Learning Disabilities for the ESL Classroom Practitioner

By Christine Root

This article, A Guide to Learning Disabilities for the ESL Classroom Practitioner, begins with a statistical information about the amount of people in the general population with learning problems. Also, it includes a clinical definition of a learning disability by Dr. Melvin Levine from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Based on extensive research by Martha-Sue Hoffman, the article lists the four categories of detailed behaviors associated with learning disabilities. Along with the description of types of learning disabilities, effective strategies are included that can be implemented into the classroom environment by the teacher to help improve student engagement and understanding.

Christine Root provides a well- research article on the definition of a learning disability as well as the types of disabilities displayed in students with learning concerns. The article dispels myths surrounding people with learning problems and implores teacher not to accept these myths as truths. The classroom teacher’s responsibility is not to perpetuate student failure.

Along with defining and describing the various types of learning disabilities, the article includes research by leaders in educational research such as Howard Gardner and Betty Edwards. Learning strategies that focus on bringing out the strengths of each students are included in the article as well. These techniques are easy to incorporate into any classroom routine and instruction. The focus on the article is to ensure each student is provided every opportunity to be successful especially in a cultural diverse classroom.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Annotated Bibliography ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer