Teaching English

in South Korean primary schools

Suhae An

2020

A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in English Language Teaching

University College London, Institute of Education

2

Declaration

I, Suhae An, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where

information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been

indicated in the thesis.

Word count (exclusive of references and appendices): 86,577

The copyright of this thesis rests with the author, and no quotation from it or

information derived from it may be published without the author’s consent.

Signed:

Date:

3

Abstract

In spite of the growth of interest in the English language world-wide the teaching of

English as a foreign language in primary/elementary schools is under-researched. In

particular, empirical evidence about the nature of primary teaching in many countries

in the world is needed. The research reported in this dissertation investigated English

language teaching in the context of South Korean primary education, a country where

English language teaching is based on the communicative language teaching

approach.

In order to contribute to knowledge about English language teaching in South Korean

primary schools, this research used a mixed methods design framed by sociocultural

theory. The data sets were observations of English lessons mainly focusing on

reading and writing; a questionnaire survey of pupils, from Year 3 to Year 6; a

questionnaire survey of teachers; and interviews with pupils and teachers, all of which

were collected in Seoul. The analyses began by exploring practices of teaching,

concentrating on classroom interaction, activities, and materials, drawing on the

observation data. Then, the analyses of teachers’ explanations of their practices were

carried out, followed by the teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of the benefits and

challenges of English teaching and learning in their context.

The findings of the study revealed that teachers’ main emphases for their teaching

were on pupils’ interest in, and enjoyment of, their English learning, and the pupils’

achievement. They aimed to provide interesting activities and materials in meaningful

situations and preferred to use activities integrating oral language skills, including for

teaching reading and writing. Encouragement for pupils to collaborate with each other,

and the development of positive attitudes towards English learning were enacted by

the teachers. The findings also showed that the biggest challenge teachers faced was

the wide range of English language attainment of pupils, primarily influenced by the

very wide variation in pupils’ experiences of English learning outside of school,

including as a result of the use of private tutors.

The outcomes of the research point clearly to the need for teachers to take a balanced

approach to English language teaching for young learners. Specifically this means

keeping a careful balance between emphases on spoken and written English, as well

4

as between pupils’ English language proficiency and their level of cognitive

development. Strategies to address the variation in pupils’ English language

proficiency, as a result of different levels of prior experience, need to be addressed as

part of teaching.

5

Impact statement

This research explored how English as a foreign language was taught in South

Korean state primary schools in order to gain insight into effective pedagogies for

teaching English to young learners (YLs). First, this study makes a contribution to

understanding of English as a foreign language at the primary school level in the

context where English is not used on a daily basis but is taught as one of the important

compulsory subjects such as in many Asian countries. This study contributes to

understanding the adaptation of communicative language teaching (CLT) for YLs in

particular context. In the setting where spoken English tends to be emphasised in CLT,

the current study broadens the understanding of teaching practices based on CLT

through dealing with the lessons mainly dedicated to reading and writing. This study

also detailed teachers’ perceptions of their teaching practices, and the benefits and

challenges of teaching and learning English that teachers and pupils perceived. These

understandings of English teaching and learning from the participants’ voices as well

as from observation of English lessons will not only further the understanding of ELT

in South Korean primary schools but also set a precedent for the exploration of ELT

for YLs in other countries. To my knowledge this is the first research to investigate in-

depth primary school-based ELT as a foreign language which includes the integration

of the voices of teachers and pupils and observed practice, framed by sociocultural

theory.

Nationally, the research data will be able to influence the national curriculum and the

national textbooks not only in taking a more balanced position between spoken

English and written English, and between pupils’ language proficiency and their

cognitive development, but also in considering significant factors for ELT per se, such

as deliberation on how to mediate pupils’ language learning effectively. As for teachers

who are responsible for their pupils’ learning, it will help expand and deepen their

understanding of both their practice of teaching English and pupils’ perceptions of

English language learning. In addition to the elements of the government-driven public

education sector such as the curriculum, textbooks, teacher training and teaching

practice in formal education, the study could affect commercial fields such as

publishing coursebooks or resource books because it is essential to understand the

practice and perceptions of teachers and pupils involved in order to plan and design

activities or materials as well as develop rationales.

6

Internationally, the research results could help researchers or professionals who are

interested in English education of South Korean primary schools or a comparative

study of investigating ELT for YLs between nations gain useful information. It will also

offer opportunities for each country to reflect on their own English education,

particularly in countries where the CLT approach has been highlighted for YLs, as it

has in South Korea. Eventually, all these benefits, based on all efforts to understand

and improve pupils’ learning, will be felt by individual pupils who learn English.

7

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I sincerely appreciate God Almighty for giving me the strength,

capability, and opportunity to conduct my study. I am grateful for His grace and

faithfulness to keep His promises not only during this research work but also

throughout my life.

My special appreciation and thanks go to my supervisor, Professor Dominic Wyse.

His constant support, encouragement, and guidance, as well as his invaluable

insights and expertise, have been contributors to the completion of the thesis. I

would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Gemma Moss and Dr. Sue

Garton. Their insightful suggestions and comments were a great help to me in

refining my thesis more constructively.

I am indebted to my colleagues and friends in Seoul, especially Headteacher

Sukgyeong Han, for contributing to the data collection process and sending

emotional support. Besides, I owe sincere thanks to the headteachers, teachers,

and pupils involved in this study for their time and commitment to it.

I am grateful to all my fellow doctoral students for their feedback, encouragement,

and friendship over the years. I also have great pleasure in acknowledging my

gratitude to my family for their support, love, and valuable prayers.

8

Table of contents

Author’s Declaration ................................................................................................. 2

Abstract .................................................................................................................... 3

Impact Statement ..................................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................... 7

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... 8

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... 13

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... 14

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 16

Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 17

Chapter 2 Literature Review .............................................................................. 24

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 24

2.2 English language teaching in primary schools ................................................ 24

2.2.1 English as a foreign language ................................................................... 24

2.2.2 Communicative language teaching ........................................................... 27

2.2.3 Written English and literacy ....................................................................... 35

2.3 Sociocultural perspectives of second language learning ................................. 39

2.3.1 Mediation .................................................................................................. 40

2.3.2 Language as a mediational tool ................................................................ 44

2.3.3 Regulation and the zone of proximal development .................................... 47

2.3.4 Scaffolding ................................................................................................ 54

2.4 The practice of English language teaching ..................................................... 61

9

2.4.1 Primary English language teaching worldwide .......................................... 62

2.4.2 Communicative language teaching in East Asian countries ...................... 65

2.4.3 Teachers’ difficulties in primary English language teaching

in East Asian countries ............................................................................... 67

2.5 Chapter summary........................................................................................... 77

Chapter 3 Methodology ..................................................................................... 80

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 80

3.2 Pragmatism and mixed methods approaches ................................................. 80

3.3 Research questions ....................................................................................... 83

3.4 Research design ............................................................................................ 84

3.5 Sampling and sites ......................................................................................... 86

3.6 Data-collection methods and fieldwork ........................................................... 99

3.7 Ethics ............................................................................................................105

3.8 Data analysis ................................................................................................107

3.9 Validity .......................................................................................................... 113

3.10 Chapter summary ........................................................................................ 114

Chapter 4 Findings from the Observational Data ........................................ 115

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 115

4.2 Classroom interactions .................................................................................. 116

4.2.1 Interactions between teachers and pupils ................................................ 116

4.2.2 Interactions between pupils .....................................................................120

4.2.3 Summary ................................................................................................123

10

4.3 Activities ....................................................................................................... 124

4.3.1 Reading activities .................................................................................... 124

4.3.2 Writing activities ...................................................................................... 127

4.3.3 Activities integrating language skills ........................................................ 131

4.3.4 Summary ................................................................................................ 132

4.4 The use of materials ..................................................................................... 133

4.4.1 National textbooks .................................................................................. 133

4.4.2 Supplementary materials ........................................................................ 135

4.4.3 Summary ................................................................................................ 140

4.5 Chapter summary ......................................................................................... 140

Chapter 5 Findings from the Surveys and Interviews ................................. 143

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 143

5.2 Findings from the questionnaire surveys ....................................................... 143

5.2.1 Teachers’ explanations for classroom practices ....................................... 143

5.2.1.1 Activities .......................................................................................... 144

5.2.1.2 Classroom interactions and the use of materials ............................. 145

5.2.2 Benefits of teaching and learning English ................................................ 146

5.2.2.1 Improving pupils’ affective factors ................................................... 147

5.2.2.2 Developing pupils’ ability in English ................................................. 148

5.2.2.3 Facilitating pupils’ collaboration ....................................................... 149

5.2.3 Challenges of teaching and learning English .......................................... 149

5.2.3.1 Pupils with different English proficiency .......................................... 150

5.2.3.2 The limitations of the national curriculum and textbooks .................. 157

11

5.2.3.3 Challenges of teaching and learning reading and writing .................158

5.2.4 Summary ................................................................................................160

5.3 Findings from the interviews ..........................................................................162

5.3.1 Teachers’ explanations for classroom practices .......................................162

5.3.1.1 Classroom interactions ....................................................................162

5.3.1.2 Activities ..........................................................................................164

5.3.1.3 The use of materials ........................................................................169

5.3.2 Benefits of teaching and learning English ................................................172

5.3.2.1 Improving pupils’ affective factors ....................................................172

5.3.2.2 Developing pupils’ ability in English .................................................176

5.3.2.3 Facilitating pupils’ collaboration .......................................................177

5.3.3 Challenges of teaching and learning English ..........................................179

5.3.3.1 Pupils with different English proficiency ...........................................180

5.3.3.2 The limitations of the national curriculum and textbooks ..................186

5.3.3.3 Challenges of teaching and learning reading and writing .................188

5.3.4 Summary ................................................................................................194

5.4 The integration of the findings from the quantitative and qualitative results ...196

5.5 Chapter summary..........................................................................................200

Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................ 201

6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................201

6.2 Main findings .................................................................................................201

6.3 The importance of pupils’ interest in L2 learning and their L2 proficiency ......202

6.4 Pupils’ collaborative work ..............................................................................209

12

6.5 The role of reading and writing and a need for better practice ....................... 215

6.6 Teacher’ challenges and the range of pupils’ attainment ............................... 221

6.7 Implications of the research .......................................................................... 226

6.7.1 Expanding the paradigm of communication and

developing systematic contents for reading and writing ............................ 226

6.7.2 Providing teacher training programmes and standardised measures ...... 227

6.7.3 Laying stepping stones for better English lessons ................................... 229

6.8 Limitations of the research ............................................................................ 231

6.9 Contribution to the field ................................................................................. 234

6.10 Recommendations for Future Research...................................................... 235

References ......................................................................................................... 238

Appendices ........................................................................................................ 258

Appendix A Example of English Lessons ....................................................... 258

Appendix B Excerpt from the English Literacy Classroom Observations ........ 278

Appendix C Tables .......................................................................................... 294

Appendix D Questionnaire for Pupils ............................................................. 383

Appendix E Questionnaire for Teachers .......................................................... 397

Appendix F Interview Topics for Pupils .......................................................... 418

Appendix G Interview Topics for Teachers ..................................................... 419

Appendix H Interview Topics for Head Teachers ............................................. 420

13

List of Figures

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 The structure of the mediated act ...................................................... 41

Figure 2.2 The mediate nature of human/world relationship ............................... 42

Figure 2.3 The zone of proximal development .................................................. 47

Figure 2.4 Four zones of teaching and learning ................................................. 56

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 The convergent parallel design ........................................................ 85

Figure 3.2 The location of the schools in Seoul ................................................. 90

Figure 3.3 The numbers and the percentages of the teachers participating in the

questionnaire ................................................................................. 95

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 The writing worksheet in Teacher K2 and NE1’s lesson .................. 118

Figure 4.2 The writing worksheet offered by Teachers K9 and NE4 ................. 128

Figure 4.3 The example of an English classroom ............................................. 134

Figure 4.4. The back page of the worksheet used by Teacher K5 ..................... 137

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 The game boards created by Teacher K9’s pupils ........................... 166

14

List of Tables

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 Research studies and the language-in-education framework ............. 69

Table 2.2 Teachers’ challenges in adopting the CLT approach in terms of the

language-in-education framework ....................................................... 75

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 The link between research methods and research questions ............. 86

Table 3.2 Sampling for questionnaires, interviews and classroom observation .. 87

Table 3.3 The association between apartment prices and the rate of entering SNU

or CAST scores according to the distinct in Seoul ............................... 91

Table 3.4 The basic information of the observed classes ................................... 94

Table 3.5 The pupil-participants for questionnaire surveys ................................. 97

Table 3.6 Data-collection methods ..................................................................... 99

Table 3.7 Fieldwork timetable ........................................................................... 104

Table 3.8 The codes for classroom observation ................................................ 108

Table 3.9 The types of questions in the questionnaire for teachers ................... 109

Table 3.10 The types of questions in the questionnaire for pupils ....................... 109

Table 3.11 The codes for interviews with teachers .............................................. 111

Table 3.12 The codes for interviews with pupils .................................................. 113

15

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 The comparison of reading lessons .................................................. 124

Table 4.2 The example of teachers’ scaffolding observed during reading and writing

activities .......................................................................................... 129

Table 4.3 The examples of using PPT materials............................................... 136

Table 4.4 Storybooks used in English lessons.................................................. 138

16

List of Abbreviations

L1 First Language

L2 Second Language (English language in this study)

TL Target Language

FL Foreign Language (English language in this study)

ELT English Language Teaching

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ESL English as a Second Language

EAL English as an Additional Language

EYL English for Young Learners

YLs Young Learners

SLA Second Language Acquisition or L2 acquisition

CC Communicative Competence

CLT Communicative Language Teaching

PPP Presentation-Practice-Production

TBLT Task-based Language Teaching

NLS New Literacy Studies

SCT Sociocultural Theory

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

SMOE Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education

TEE Teaching English in English

IRF Initiation-Response-Feedback

NES teacher Native English-speaking assistant Teacher (Teacher NE)

Teacher K Korean teacher teaching English

17

Chapter 1. Introduction

The remarkable popularity of English as a language of international communication

has led to the introduction of English as a first Foreign Language (FL) at primary

education level in many countries globally. Consistent with global patterns, in South

Korea there is a belief that English is necessary for South Korea’s economic survival,

hence the central government has taken strong actions in relation to English language

education (Butler, 2004; Choi, 2008; Jeong, 2004; Kwon, 2000; Song, 2011). Based

on this “government-led Korea-wide globalization policy”, English language began to

be taught at the primary school level in 1997 (Min, 2008, p. 109). Since then, English

has been taught to all pupils from Year 3 (age 8 to 9) as one of the compulsory

subjects based on the national curriculum. Before then English had been taught only

to pupils at the secondary school level, mainly using the grammar-translation method,

which proved to be unproductive and unsuccessful in having students become fluent

users of English (Butler, 2004, 2005; Chang, 2009; J. Jeon, 2009; Li, 1998). As a

reaction to English teaching and learning excessively devoted to the grammar-

translation method, as well as a reaction to the impact of globalisation, primary English

education has been grounded in improving pupils’ Communicative Competence (CC).

Around the same time, many Asian countries also introduced primary school English

programmes due to the importance of English as a global language. Particularly,

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been central to primary English

education in many countries (Butler, 2005; Nunan, 2003). English Language

Teaching (ELT) is situated “in the domain of popular culture as much as in the domain

of applied linguistics” and the term CLT has referred to a very large number of different

things to different people (Pennycook, 2002, p. 288). Since there is no single model

that is generally agreed as authoritative in CLT (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), it is

meaningful to explore how CLT is realised in particular contexts. Indeed, some studies

have already been conducted about not only the language policy of introducing

English education at primary level but also the implementation of CLT in Asian

countries. (Butler, 2005; Garton, 2014; Mitchell & Lee, 2003). However, these

studies primarily tend to be limited within the initial stage of ELT.

The research that is reported in this dissertation aimed at investigating how English

as a Foreign Language (EFL) is taught in South Korean primary schools, particularly

in the context where CLT is highlighted. As mentioned earlier, 20 years have passed

18

since the emergence of the English language at the primary school level of formal

schooling. This introduction of English was a paradigm shift in English language

education in South Korea because not only did primary pupils start to learn English in

school, but a completely different approach to teaching English from the previous

approach was also executed. As a teacher, I have watched how English language

education has been established in primary schools since 1997, and have participated

in primary English language education not only as a teacher but also as a teacher

trainer and textbook writer. At this moment, English language teaching for Young

Learners (EYL) in South Korean primary schools is not in an inchoate stage any more.

It seems to have reached a turning point and there needs to reflect on how English is

taught in order to gain an insight into how to mediate pupils’ English learning more

effectively.

CC, emphasising meaningfulness and appropriateness, tends to imply oral modes

such as communication, interaction, performance and fluency (Dubin, 1989). In line

with this, the emphasis on developing CC resulted in placing more stress on spoken

English in South Korean primary schools, and consequently written English has been

regarded as a supplement for oral English (Butler, 2004). Pupils are asked to read

and write what they have already learnt in spoken English. Although oral

communication is significant in improving CC, it is also necessary to be aware of the

importance of reading and writing. That is because reading and writing activities

involve pupils in the process of interpreting, expressing and negotiating meaning as

in oral communication (Spada, 2007). In addition, there are many other reasons to

pay attention to reading and writing in primary schools.

Basically successful schooling is mostly dependent on ability in literacy, and learning

to read and write is viewed as a core of education in contemporary society (Barton,

2007; Dubin, 1989; Opoku-Amankwa, Brew-Hammond, & Kofigah, 2011; Wyse, 2011).

Literacy is one of the mediums in which the learning and teaching of all subjects are

implemented, and functions as the central role of education leading to cognitive

development. Not only mother tongue literacy but also English reading and writing in

the EFL setting are significant in many ways, even though there might be different

extents of the importance and a variety of learning purposes in each context across

the world. In the EFL context, pupils have limited chances to encounter English in

their everyday life except for regular English classes. Through learning reading and

writing in English, they will be able to have more opportunities to be exposed to an

19

English learning environment such as books written in English. The development of

the Internet and digital means for communicating across geographical boundaries

also enables pupils to communicate with people in other countries or share

information as well as to find good information in written English. The importance of

effective English literacy education should not be overlooked, particularly in South

Korea, because one of the goals of the national curriculum is to educate children to

build their personal capabilities and characters as citizens able to communicate with

the world (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2009a). Reading and

writing in English can become one of the effective tools to communicate with the world.

Taking these into consideration, obtaining useful skills for reading and writing could

be a crucial factor in becoming autonomous learners in the EFL setting since pupils

are capable of accessing more easily written English in their ordinary life, which can

encourage their developmental learning throughout their life as well as outside the

classroom.

Along with the significance of English reading and writing, there is some evidence for

young learners (YLs) to be able to learn English reading and writing effectively. Korean

primary school pupils come into English class with literacy skills acquired and learnt

in their mother tongue. Their prior knowledge and experience in literacy in the first

language will help them learn reading and writing in other languages because of “the

interdependence of cognitive/academic skills across languages” (Cummins &

Nakajima, 1987, p. 191). There are also many findings that reading and writing can

successfully be taught for YLs using practical methods, techniques and materials,

even though they are beginners in learning an FL (Ghosn, 2002). Empirical studies

show that cultivating reading/writing abilities or providing reading/writing activities

have positive effects on the improvement of ability to think such as creative thinking,

or positive attitudes towards English learning as well as the development of

reading/writing skills or CC (J.-S. Kim & Kim, 2013; M.-H. Kim, 2013; Y.-J. Kim & Kim,

2015).

In this context, this study was designed to explore how English is taught from

sociocultural perspectives. In order to explain the reasons for choosing Sociocultural

Theory (SCT) rather than cognitive approaches, it is necessary to explore two

positions in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). SLA is a relatively new,

inter-disciplinary field of study broadly regarded as dating from the late 1960s (R. Ellis,

2015; M. H. Long, 1990, 1998). It benefits from a wide range of perspectives, theories

20

and research methodologies (R. Ellis, 2008; Gass, 1993; Gass, Selinker, & Behney,

2013). That is because language learning itself is a multifaceted phenomenon that

incorporates dynamic interaction among individual neurobiological mechanisms and

cognitive competencies, and learners’ diverse experiences (Atkinson et al., 2016).

Historically, cognitive orientations have dominated in the field of SLA because the SLA

process was viewed as an internalised cognitive process (Zuengler & Miller, 2006).

From the mid-1980s, this field has extended to sociocultural approaches as well as

cognitive approaches (Frawley & Lantolf, 1984, 1985). Cognitive and sociocultural

approaches to SLA have distinct perspectives on acquiring, or on investigating how

to acquire, a second language. Second language researchers, who borrow theoretical

constructs from cognitive psychology, view SLA as the mental process of acquiring

systems of knowledge (Foster & Ohta, 2005). They are essentially interested in how

the brain processes and retrieves information, and in such aspects as memory,

attention, automatisation and fossilisation. On the other hand, second language

researchers from sociocultural approaches refer to language development as a social

process, and think of the mind as distributed, and learning as an inter-mental process

embedded in social interaction (Foster & Ohta, 2005). Saville-Troike and Barto (2017,

p. 118) elucidate the features of sociocultural (S-C) theory by clarifying the differences

between SCT and other approaches:

S-C Theory differs from most linguistic approaches in giving relatively limited attention to the structural patterns of L2 which are learned, as well as in emphasizing learner activity and involvement over innate and universal mechanisms; and it differs from most psychological approaches in its degree of focus on factors outside the learner, rather than on factors which are completely in the learner’s head, and in its denial that the learner is a largely autonomous processor. It also (as noted above) differs from most other social approaches in considering interaction as an essential force rather than as merely a helpful condition for learning.

When it comes to merging a cognitive or linguistic view of SLA with a sociocultural

one, R. Ellis (2008) presents two different perspectives. The first possibility is to

handle these paradigms as oppositional. This is maintained by some researchers with

sociocultural views, who have attempted to reveal the incommensurability of SCT and

other paradigms and the superiority of the sociocultural paradigm. A different stance

is to regard SCT and other theories as complementary. The latter stance leads, in my

view, to a better understanding of the whole phenomenon, namely, the multi-layered

complexity of SLA. SCT involves understanding how knowledge is internalised

21

through the experience of a sociocultural nature, which refers to the paradigm being

basically a cognitive one (R. Ellis, 2008). Negueruela-Azarola and García (2016) point

out that separating the cognitive, the cultural and the social in human beings is

epistemologically convenient, but it is an ontological mistake because human beings

are social and private simultaneously. However, this does not imply that all studies

should be conducted in integrated ways. Even though each study is carried out on the

basis of the different approaches, the results are helpful in building a fuller

comprehension of SLA.

In this research, SLA, particularly EFL teaching and learning, is examined and

discussed from sociocultural perspectives, which would help build a full understanding

of this area. The reason for choosing SCT instead of other theories such as

neurobiological and cognitive theory is that the purpose of the study is to investigate

how English is taught in the specific context. Furthermore, some essential notions in

SCT are useful for understanding how to mediate pupils’ English learning effectively,

with the vital idea that learning happens not only inside the head of the learner but

also through the interaction in the world the learner inhabits.

In order to explore how English is taught in state primary schools of South Korea, a

mixed methods approach was employed. Observation of real English lessons was

crucial for investigating the practices of English teaching and learning. Surveys and

interviews were also essential for appreciating phenomena from stakeholders’ voices,

who were primary school teachers and primary school pupils. Pupils who were the

focus in this study come under YLs. As regards YLs Pinter (2017) points out that YLs

can be applied to all age groups from five to 14 years of age, and Nunan (2011)

identifies the term ‘young learners’ as covering chronological age span from around

three years of age to 15. Arnold and Rixon (2008) clarify the age range for YLs as

children from as young as four or five up to eleven or twelve, who attend primary

school. In this study, YLs primarily mean pupils in primary schools, which belong to

the “primary” level, the term proposed by G. Ellis (2014, p. 77), and more specifically

the scope of pupil-participants of this study was limited within Year 3 to Year 6 (age 8

to 12). However, since pupils were able to recall and draw on their experiences as a

learner even before coming to school, YLs might include other age groups under 12

years of age, which belong to not only “primary” but also “early years/pre-primary” (2-

5 years) (G. Ellis, 2014, p. 77).

22

As has been addressed throughout this chapter, this study investigated English

teaching and learning based on CLT in South Korean primary schools from

sociocultural perspectives. Developing English communication skills “tend to be

expressed in terms imported from the ‘western’ literature of Communicative Language

Teaching (CLT), Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), learner- or child-centred

classrooms and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning” (Wedell, 2011, p.

276). Many researchers point out the disjunction between curriculum rhetoric to

introduce CLT and pedagogical reality to implement CLT (Kuchah, 2019; Nunan,

2003). However, this study did not view the challenges caused by the discrepancies

between western literature and Asian traditions or between official discourse and

classroom reality as significant problems. Rather, these discrepancies can be

regarded as a lens for exploring the reality or as a steppingstone to better practices

since they almost happen in a natural process of adapting new approaches to

practices.

This study investigates how CLT is realised in practice from classroom observation

based on reading or writing lessons and teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions. Reading

and writing have not received sufficient attention in previous research related to CLT

because written English has been viewed as less significant than spoken English in

English classrooms under CLT. However, it is one of the misconceptions in CLT to

regard CLT merely as listening and speaking practice (Spada, 2007). It is necessary

to expand the understanding of CLT beyond an emphasis on spoken English. For this,

the sample of lessons in this study was dedicated to reading and writing. This would

help not only enrich our understanding of CLT in South Korean primary schools, but

also determine the important features for better English teaching. Grounded in these

contexts, an overarching question and three main questions are formulated:

How is English taught in South Korean state primary schools?

1. What practices for ELT are enacted in South Korean primary English

classrooms?

2. What explanations do teachers give for their ELT practices?

3. What do teachers and pupils see as the benefits and challenges of teaching

and learning English in the primary school in this way?

23

The dissertation consists of six chapters. This chapter briefly introduces the aims and

the theoretical and pedagogical context of the study. The literature review chapter

opens with an exploration of basic terms regarding SLA, CLT and literacy, related to

my research context. Then, the primary concepts of sociocultural theory as a

theoretical framework are discussed, followed by a careful review of empirical studies

concerning primary EFL education in mainstream schools. The Methodology chapter

justifies the decision to investigate English language education in South Korean

primary schools through three main research methods, rooted in pragmatism: (1)

classroom observation; (2) questionnaires with teachers and pupils; and (3) interviews

with teachers and pupils. The first findings chapter provides the results of classroom

observation to understand practices of teaching English grounded in CLT. These

results are presented in three mediational tools in order to answer the first research

question: interaction, activities and materials. The second findings chapter reports

and integrates the findings of the quantitative and qualitative research methods under

three main issues centred on the second and third research questions: (1) teachers’

explanations for classroom practices; (2) benefits of teaching and learning English;

and (3) challenges of teaching and learning English. The last chapter discusses the

main findings in depth, and also draws some implications, limitations and

contributions of the research as well as recommendations for future research.

24

Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The review of literature in this chapter addresses two main areas: the theoretical

framing for my research and the empirical studies in the field. The first part of this

chapter addresses fundamental definitions for the important concepts or terms, not

only in the area of Second Language Acquisition (SLA, L2 acquisition) but also those

of CLT and of literacy. In SLA and CLT, the terms and notions to help comprehend the

context of this study are clarified, and then two different points of view on literacy are

explored with regard to the context of the study. Then, significant concepts in

sociocultural perspectives such as mediation, the Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD) and scaffolding are discussed in order to help understand how pupils’ English

learning may be mediated. Last, some meaningful issues related to my research are

elaborated through empirical studies, particularly those conducted in the context of

primary schools where EFL is taught for young learners (YLs).

2.2 English language teaching in primary schools

In order to offer comprehensive understanding of the context where English is taught

as one of the compulsory subjects for young learners in South Korea, this section first

deals with some significant terms in the area of SLA. Then, it deals with the essential

principles and misconceptions of CLT as well as the definitions and components of

CC. The last part of this section addresses two perspectives to view literacy.

2.2.1 English as a foreign language

People use more than one language in many countries as a result of social relations

and webs of power affected by extensive sociopolitical events and global markets

(Atkinson et al., 2016). These languages are called a first language, second language

or any other terms according to many factors such as the function of the language, a

period of language acquisition or a context to use the language. A person’s First

Language (L1) has taken place in the context of primary socialisation in the family

(Atkinson et al., 2016). It is roughly treated as synonymous with a native language,

primary language and mother tongue (Gass et al., 2013; Saville-Troike, 2012). While

25

people in some communities or countries acquire a couple of L1s simultaneously,

others learn another language after acquiring the L1. Any language other than the L1

is called ‘Second Language (SL, L2)’ (R. Ellis, 2008; Gass et al., 2013).

L2 acquisition, a complex process with many factors, refers to acquiring any language

after the acquisition of the L1 (R. Ellis, 2008; Gass et al., 2013). Unlike the oral

language of L1 acquisition that is accomplished in the first few years after birth, L2

acquisition can take place at any age, and the contexts of L2 acquisition are much

more diverse (R. Ellis, 2015). In the field of SLA, the term ‘additional language’ is

found to be used interchangeably with the L2. Additional language may be the third

or fourth to be acquired, but it can be called an L2, or a target language (TL) referring

to any language that is the goal or aim of learning (Saville-Troike, 2012).

In terms of the function of the L2, there is a further distinction between an L2 and a

FL. The L2 is normally an official or societally dominant language required for

education and other fundamental purposes such as employment as a means of wider

communication and often acquired by immigrants and ethnic minority population who

have their own native language (Saville-Troike, 2012). In Singapore, which is a

multiracial and multicultural society by a multitude of ethnic groups, English as a

Second Language (ESL) is used, functioning as one of the official languages and the

main medium of instruction. The example of the L2 acquired by immigrants and ethnic

minority population is that ESL is acquired by speakers of other languages in the

United Kingdom or the United States where learners can pick up the language in daily

life. In contrast, a FL has no significant local use and is typically learnt in a classroom

through instruction (R. Ellis, 2015; Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2013). In the UK,

FLs such as French, German or Chinese are compulsorily learnt at key stages 2 and

3 (ages 7 to 14) (Department for Education, 2014). English is learnt as a FL in the

context where English has no widespread or official role or use in everyday life such

as the learning of English in schools in South Korea or France.

Nevertheless, many researchers incorporate foreign languages under the more

generic term ‘second languages’ (R. Ellis, 2008, 2015). That is because the learning

processes for both of them are basically the same in spite of different purposes and

circumstances, and moreover languages are easily accessible through the Internet

as a means of communication, which makes a simple distinction between local and

foreign less meaningful (Mitchell et al., 2013). In fact, in some countries such as

26

Finland or Sweden in Scandinavia, where English is a FL, English is used much more

now than before when compared to some countries where English is an SL (Simensen,

2010). The term second language as a superordinate term is generally used to

embrace both types. A FL is a more suitable term for explaining English language in

the South Korean primary school context than a L2, but both a FL and a L2 refer to

English language in the current research.

As two independent ways of developing L2s, Krashen (1985, 1988) distinguishes

acquisition from learning through one of his five famous hypotheses, ‘The Acquisition-

Learning Hypothesis’. Acquisition is “a subconscious process identical in all important

ways to the process children employ in acquiring their first language”, and learning is

“a conscious process that results in ‘knowing about’ language” (Krashen, 1985, p. 1).

That is, acquisition is the incidental and spontaneous process where language

learners unconsciously pick up a language in mastering it, whereas learning

accompanies conscious and intentional effort to learn a language (R. Ellis, 2008,

2015). In this sense, acquisition is the result of natural interaction based on

meaningful communication, and learning is generally the result of classroom

experience where learners are supposed to focus on form and to learn about the

linguistic rules of the target language (Mitchell et al., 2013). However, most

researchers in the field do not maintain this distinction between the two terms (R. Ellis,

2015; Mitchell et al., 2013). That is because it is difficult to show whether the

processes involved are conscious or not (McLaughlin, 1987). I agree with the idea

that it is hard to differentiate the two terms very succinctly. Even in classroom settings,

pupils can be provided with opportunities to pick up a language through well-designed

activities or English environments such as using English for instructions. In my

research learning is generally used rather than acquisition except for some instances

which use the term SLA.

The context to use English in this research is mainstream primary schools to teach

EFL to children from Year 3 to Year 6. In the EFL setting, it is hard to acquire the

language without conscious and intentional efforts. Pupils in primary schools usually

learn English through formal education or private tutoring after acquiring their mother

tongue. Even though English is not used as the primary language in daily life and

does not function as an official language or a language as the medium of instruction

for other subjects, the position of English is highly valued in both South Korean society

and the formal educational setting (Chang, 2009; Choi, 2008; Jeong, 2004; Song,

27

2011, 2012). English language as one of the essential compulsory subjects is deemed

important for higher education but also viewed as a critical key to success and upward

social mobility (M. Jeon, 2009; Song, 2011). Since having a good command of English

has had a great deal of influence on higher education and highly paid employment in

the modern Korean society (Choi, 2008; M. Jeon, 2009; Song, 2011, 2012), a

tremendous amount of time, money and effort has been invested in learning English

(Park, 2009).

2.2.2 Communicative language teaching

Since the mid-1970s, CLT has been viewed as one of the most important trends in a

variety of English education settings in the world (Bachman, 1990; Brown, 1994;

Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Y.-A. Lee, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Samuda &

Bygate, 2008; Swaffar, 2006). Until then, Situational Language Teaching (or

Structural-Situational Approach) in which language was taught by practicing basic

structures in situation-based activities represented the major British approach to

teaching EFL (Richards, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Audiolingualism (or the

Aural-Oral Method) derived from structuralism (a linguistic theory) and behaviourism

(a learning theory) considerably flourished in the United States as earlier approaches

to language teaching (Richards, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). As a reaction

against these approaches focusing on mere mastery of structures as well as changes

of educational realities in Europe such as the need for efforts to teach adults the major

languages of the European Common Market, CLT emerged in the UK and in Europe,

and later on in North America (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Samuda & Bygate, 2008).

CLT was an effort to operationalise the concept of CC (Richards, 2002). The various

definitions of CC and its components have been claimed by numerous linguists and

educators with different educational traditions and backgrounds. Chomsky (1965)

insists the distinction between competence as the speaker’s complete inventory of

language knowledge to produce grammatically correct sentences and the actual

performance of language in different verbal or written contexts (Howatt, 1984;

Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Swaffar, 2006). Compared to Chomsky’s cognitive view

of competence primarily related to abstract grammatical knowledge, Hymes (1972), a

sociolinguist who coined the term of communicative competence, sees CC as both

knowledge and ability for language use (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). He retains

Chomsky’s idea of underlying competence and expands its scope to include

28

contextual relevance, indicating the importance of appropriateness of language use

(Skehan, 1995). According to him, CC is referred to as the aspect of competence to

allow us to convey and interpret message and to negotiate meanings with others

within particular contexts (Brown, 2007).

Canale and Swain’s seminal work (1980) and later Canale’s research (1983) on

defining CC propose four components to constitute the construct of CC: grammatical,

sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence. On the one hand, grammatical

competence means the ability to use and interpret sentence-level elements, whereas

the other three domains of competence are related to operating across different levels

of language from the word to the larger social and discourse contexts (Duff, 2014).

The first three competences are related to underlying knowledge systems which

combine in some ways to achieve communication, whereas the last one covers the

ways language users compensate for breakdowns in communication (Skehan, 1995).

This approach has been further developed by Bachman (1990).

Bachman (1990) places two components under language competence: organisational

competence and pragmatic competence. The former is associated with the rules and

systems to control what we can do with the forms of language: grammatical

competence (sentence-level rules); and textual competence (rules to specify how we

join sentences together) (Bachman, 1990; Brown, 2007). Pragmatic competence,

which corresponds to Canale and Swain’s sociolinguistic competence, is divided into

illocutionary competence related to functional aspects of language (“sending and

receiving intended meanings”); and sociolinguistic competence handling “such

considerations as politeness, formality, metaphor, register, and culturally related

aspects of language (Bachman, 1990; Brown, 2007, p. 221). In Bachman’s definitions,

there is a crucial change in the role of strategic competence, because strategic

competence is separated from communicative language ability, as an executive

function of making the final decision on wording, phrasing, and productive and

receptive means for negotiating meaning (Bachman, 1990; Brown, 2007; Skehan,

1995). Strategic competence is not viewed as compensatory any longer, and rather it

is central to all communication (Skehan, 1995).

In line with Canale and Swain’s and Bachman’s definitions, Littlewood (2011) offers

another conceptualisation of CC: linguistic, discourse, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and

sociocultural competence. The definitions of three competences such as linguistic,

29

discourse and sociolinguistic competence are not different from the previous ones.

Pragmatic competence is defined as the ability to use “linguistic resources to convey

and interpret meanings in real situations, including those where they encounter

problems due to gaps in their knowledge” (Littlewood, 2011, p. 546). In addition to

these competences, sociocultural competence is added to include “the cultural

knowledge and assumptions that affect the exchange of meanings” (Littlewood, 2011,

p. 546). Linguists’ theories or concepts thus show that CC can be understood as

including various components. It embraces the appropriate use of language in real

contexts, based on understanding sociolinguistic and sociocultural elements as well

as the linguistic knowledge related to the forms of language. These components work

interdependently in the comprehension and production of language for the purpose of

communication. At the primary ELT in South Korea, it is important to develop pupils’

CC. However, the term CC is not defined thoroughly in the national curriculum. Instead,

the curriculum just mentions ability for basic communication in English in everyday

life, which means pupils’ basic ability to understand and express themselves in

English (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2011).

CLT deals with the nature of communication and the role that language plays in it

more thoroughly compared to previous approaches where communication was not

ignored (Littlewood, 2011). Beyond mastering the structures and vocabulary of the

language through linguistic competence (Littlewood, 2011), the ultimate goal of

language learning in CLT is to communicate successfully (G. Cook, 2010). CLT is “a

unified but broadly based theoretical position about the nature of language and of

language learning and teaching” (Brown, 2007, p. 241), and is best comprehended

as an approach rather than a method (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). It is not

straightforward to combine all of the diverse definitions (Brown, 2014) because CLT

refers to different things to different people (Harmer, 2015).

Many researchers suggest some key principles to characterise CLT. According to

Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 172; 2014, p. 105), the core principles include:

• Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.

• Authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of classroom activities

• Fluency is an important dimension of communication.

• Communication involves the integration of different language skills.

30

• Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error.

Wesche and Skehan (2002, p. 208) offer the following features of communicative

classrooms:

• Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with other interlocutors to exchange information and solve problems

• Use of authentic (nonpedagogic) texts and communication activities linked to “real-world” contexts, often emphasizing links across written and spoken modes and channels

• Approaches that are learner centered in that they take into account learners’ backgrounds, language needs, and goals and generally allow learners some creativity and role in instructional decisions.

In order to assist these features they reveal that CLT may include (Wesche & Skehan,

2002, p. 208):

• Instruction that emphasizes cooperative learning such as group and pair work

• Opportunities for learners to focus on the learning process with the goal of improving their ability to learn language in context

• Communicative tasks linked to curricular goals as the basic organizing unit for language instruction

• Substantive content, often school subject matter from nonlanguage disciplines, that is learned as a vehicle for language development, as well as for its inherent value.

From these, some important features of classroom methodology are salient: authentic

and meaningful activities for communication; the emphasis of cooperative learning;

the integration of language skills; and learner-centred instruction. In order to get

simplicity and directness, Brown (2014, p. 236) presents the four interconnected

characteristics as a definition of CLT.

• Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of CC and not restricted to grammatical or linguistic competence.

• Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational language forms are not the central focus but rather aspects of language that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.

• Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use.

31

• In the communicative classroom, students ultimately have to use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts.

These characteristics clearly show the differences from earlier approaches, such as

more focus on meaning, authentic use of language for meaningful purposes, the

importance of fluency as well as accuracy.

Despite these principles and characteristics, there have been several misconceptions

about CLT because of the vagueness of the term, different ways to interpret it within

the theoretical and empirical literature, and diverse ways in which teachers have

chosen to conduct CLT (Spada, 2007). Spada (2007, p. 275) presents five myths

about CLT.CLT means an exclusive focus on meaning

• CLT means no explicit feedback on learner error

• CLT means learner-centered teaching

• CLT means listening and speaking practice

• CLT means avoidance of the learners’ L1

When it comes to the exclusion of any attention to language form, which is one of

misconceptions about CLT, Spada (2007) elucidates that CLT is not intended to

exclude form. Rather, it is intended to include communication in addition to form, and

there is a need for a balance between form and meaning (Spada, 2007). As for

feedback on learner error, implicit and indirect forms of corrective feedback have

widely been encouraged in CLT, but more explicit types of feedback may be required

when pupils’ attention is mainly focused on meaning and content (Spada, 2007). One

of the essential themes of CLT is to offer pupils more control and autonomy for their

language learning, and one of the ways to accomplish this is via learner-centred

activities (Spada, 2007). Not only a greater degree of responsibility for pupils’ own

learning but also pupil-centred activities imply new roles for teachers such as facilitator,

monitor, needs analyst, guide and group process manager (Richards, 2006; Richards

& Rodgers, 2014). These roles of teachers are important to encourage pupils’ learning

in CLT, but this does not mean that teacher-led activities should be ignored. Learner-

centred, collaborative learning or group work is highlighted, but not at the expense of

relevant teacher-centred activity (Brown & Lee, 2015; Savignon, 2002). M. H. Long

and Porter (1985), who conducted research on the advantages of group work, reveal

that group work is not a panacea and teacher-led work is apparently effective for

certain kinds of activities.

32

Another misconception is related to emphasis on spoken language. The strong impact

of the audio-lingual method led to the primacy of listening and speaking over reading

and writing in the area of L2 teaching (Carrell, 1988; Savignon, 1983). However,

dissatisfaction with the audio-lingual method was increasing and it was realised that

aural-oral proficiency did not spontaneously transfer to reading and writing

competence (Carrell, 1988). L2 reading researchers initiated the call for teaching

reading in its own right (Carrell, 1988). In the area of L2 writing, there were also

changes from product-based approaches to process-based approaches (Spada,

2007). The development in L2 reading and writing research and pedagogy, thus,

occurred independently from CLT theory and practice (Spada, 2007). However, many

researchers suggest that linking the language skills together is significant because

they generally take place together in the real situation (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). In

the principles and practices of CLT, the appropriate contextual and social factors

which contribute to pupils’ comprehension (i.e. listening and reading) and production

(i.e. speaking and writing) are essential (Spada, 2007). Reading and writing activities

engage readers and writers in “the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of

meaning” as in face-to-face oral communication (Savignon, 2002, p. 22).

In respect of the use of pupils’ L1, there has usually been a view to consider the L1

as a negative influence on L2 development since the grammar-translation method

was replaced by the direct method in the late nineteenth century (Spada, 2007). In

order to become successful learners of the L2, pupils need to be exposed to the L2

as much as possible. However, although using the L2 is significant, many researchers

demonstrate that the L1 can be carefully and systematically employed in the

classroom, rather than simply avoiding its use (V. Cook, 2001; Littlewood & Yu, 2009;

Turnbull & Arnett, 2002). Spada (2007) reveals that there is support for L1 use

theoretically, empirically and pedagogically. V. Cook (2001) suggests that teachers

should use the L1 if the L2 use of learners is inefficient or problematic in some

occasions such as explaining grammar, organising tasks, maintaining discipline and

conducting tests. The use of the L1 can also be seen as offering substantial

scaffolding from sociocultural perspectives, which is explored more precisely in

section 2.3.2. When it comes to the extent of using the L1, Spada (2007) argues that

it depends on the broader linguistic context. In foreign language contexts, it is

desirable to maximise the L2 exposure and minimise L1 use, whereas minority

language learners need to be given chances to maximise L1 use (Spada, 2007).

33

CLT cannot provide a common template for all L2 teaching and learning contexts,

various ages and stages of learners, or different purposes for learning (Duff, 2014). It

has passed through diverse phases, and its advocates have applied its principles to

different ways of the teaching/learning process (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Spada,

1987). In some CLT classrooms, a lesson might employ the Presentation-Practice-

Production (PPP) model of activity sequencing. The PPP lesson structure was

originally used in lessons based on the situational approach, but it has been widely

employed in modified form such as an introductory phase, a practice phase to use the

new teaching point in a controlled context, and a free practice phase where authentic

communication is significant in many speaking- or grammar-based lessons (Criado,

2013; Richards, 2006). Whereas PPP is concerned with grammar in the previous

approaches, it is related to communicative function in the CLT approach (V. Cook,

2008).

In order to understand PPP in CLT, it is necessary to recognise the difference between

a weak and strong version of CLT. The weak version of CLT emphasises the

significance of offering learners chances to communicate with others in English and

“attempts to integrate such activities into a wider programme of language teaching”,

whereas the strong version supports "the claim that language is acquired through

communication” (Howatt, 1984, p. 279). That is, the weak version can be

characterised as “learning to use English”, and the strong version as “using English

to learn it” (Howatt, 1984, p. 279). Both the weak and strong version aim at developing

CC but they differ in how CC is to be achieved (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014). In the weak

version, the syllabus is communicative, which includes a list of notions and functions,

but the methodology is traditional and non-communicative such as using the PPP

scheme (R. Ellis, 2003). Namely the weak version is methodologically different from

traditional approaches merely in minor ways, whereas the strong version provides

more radical alternative to traditional approaches (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014). In the

strong version of CLT, learners are given opportunities to experience how language

is used in communication, unlike the weak version of CLT where learners learn

language as a structural system and then acquire how to use this system in

communication (R. Ellis, 2003). In the process of learning how to communicate,

learners discover the system in the strong version (R. Ellis, 2003).

In contexts where the weak version of CLT is employed, the PPP model seems to be

effective in familiarising pupils with new language items gradually. At the presentation

34

phase, the new language item is presented through a conversation or short context

to help learners to understand its communicative purpose; pupils repeatedly practise

using the TL in a controlled context at the practice stage; and pupils practise using

the TL in different contexts at the production stage, employing their own content or

information for the development of fluency (Hedge, 2000; Richards, 2006). Pupils

learning a FL need to be offered language input before they use it, time for practising

it, and chances to use it in meaningful situations. On the other hand, for reading/

writing lessons, the other type of three stages is effectively used such as pre-

reading/pre-writing; while-reading/while-writing; and post-reading/post-writing. These

sequences are important in understanding the flow of English lessons in South Korean

primary schools.

As an alternative to the PPP model, Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) was

developed (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014). TBLT is the one of the most important

perspectives within the CLT framework (Brown & Lee, 2015), but it is not the only way

of fulfilling a strong version of CLT (R. Ellis, 2003). In the TBLT approach, tasks act as

the basis for a communicative curriculum, and the use of tasks is placed on the core

of language teaching (R. Ellis, 2003). The aim of TBLT is to develop learners’ CC by

enabling them to participate in “meaning-focused communication” through performing

tasks (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 135). TBLT is not simply for developing fluency

focusing on meaning in the communicative process. The primary concern of TBLT is

on constructing and understanding messages, but it is also needed “to attend to form

for learning to take place” (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 135). As regards the

advantages of TBLT compared to PPP, Frost (2004) points out five features:

• Unlike a PPP approach, the students are free of language control. In all three stages they must use all their language resources rather than just practising one pre-selected item.

• A natural context is developed from the students’ experiences with the language that is personalised and relevant to them. With PPP it is necessary to create contexts in which to present the language and sometimes they can be very unnatural.

• The students will have a much more varied exposure to language with TBL. They will be exposed to a whole range of lexical phrases, collocations and patterns as well as language forms.

• The language explored arises from the students’ needs. This need dictates what will be covered in the lesson rather than a decision made by the teacher or the coursebook.

• It is a strong communicative approach where students spend a lot of time

35

communicating. PPP lessons seem very teacher-centred by comparison. Just watch how much time the students spend communicating during a task-based lesson.

• It is enjoyable and motivating.

It is impossible to deal with ELT in South Korean primary schools without the

understanding of CLT. ELT at the primary level began with CLT, and CLT has still been

the basis of ELT. However, the principles of CLT discussed above cannot be said to

be readily translated to the practice of ELT. In order to apply this approach into practice,

it requires locally focused efforts to take “a cautious eclectic approach” and make

“well-informed pedagogical choices” (Hu, 2002, p. 93). In the light of the principles of

CLT, it would be meaningful to investigate the practices of EYL in South Korean

primary schools based on CLT.

2.3.3 Written language and literacy

In South Korean primary schools, English reading and writing have been considered

less significant than spoken English, as explained in Chapter 1. However, the

principles of CLT are realised not only in oral language (listening and speaking) but

also in written language (reading and writing). In gaining some ideas to teach reading

and writing, the definitions of literacy need to be explored. The definitions in the Oxford

English Dictionary (2019, online) consist of two useful meanings:

1. The quality, condition, or state of being literate; the ability to read and write. Also: the extent of this in a given community, region, period, etc.

2. In extended use (usually with modifying word). The ability to ‘read’ a specified subject or medium; competence or knowledge in a particular area.

The first definition is closely related to reading and writing with the extent understood

in a particular community and period. The second definition covers more extended

notions including other areas or mediums such as computer literacy, visual literacy

and media literacy. Literacy is not the same in all contexts, and there are different

literacies containing different media or symbolic systems as well as including practices

in different cultures and languages (Barton & Hamilton, 1998). The reference to being

competent and knowledgeable in specific areas is relevant for describing professional

competence in a technical world.

These dictionary definitions of literacy need to be comprehended, specified and

36

broadened along with academic and practical understandings of literacy. ‘Literacy as

skills’, the most common understanding of literacy, views literacy as a set of skills,

notably the cognitive skills of reading and writing, and as independent of the context

and the background of the person that acquires them (UNESCO, 2006). These skills

and competencies, which are used in a broader sense such as information literacy or

visual literacy, seem to mean the second definition of literacy in the Oxford English

dictionary. M. Long, Wood, Littleton, Passenger, and Sheehy (2011), who focus on

literacy learning, mention that the skills that reading and writing are comprised of not

only include a lot of elements such as processes of decoding, word recognition,

comprehension and articulation for reading, but are also associated with other

language-related skills and cognitive processes. Using this understanding, literacy

appears to be developed and mastered by means of acquiring discrete skills. With

regard to the best way of acquiring literacy based on these skills, scholars have

different views, from advocating the ‘phonetic approach’ to ‘reading for meaning’

(UNESCO, 2006). The distinction between these two approaches has given birth to

the ‘reading wars’, and more lately a ‘balanced’ approach, which recognises the

strong points of each view, tends to be advocated (Street, 2004). This ‘technical skills’

framework seems to be effective in teaching literacy at school because literacy skills

are seen to be learnt without considering any cultural context, and once the skills have

been achieved, they can be successfully used for other situations entailing reading

and writing (Martin, 1999).

However, an undue focus on discrete skills seems to be too limited to lead to an overall

understanding of literacy. In contrast to the perspective of regarding literacy as basic

decoding and encoding skills or the abilities to read and write, there is a view of literacy

as a socially constructed phenomenon (Cook-Gumperz, 2006b). From this view, many

scholars have demonstrated that literacy is contextualised in social, cultural, historical

and political practices (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Gee, 2012; Kress, 2003; Larson &

Marsh, 2005; Street, 1984). This perspective describes literacy, like all human activity,

as fundamentally social and as situated in the interaction between people, not just as

a set of skills inhabiting people’s heads or inhabiting paper (Barton & Hamilton, 1998).

Looking at the definition of literacy by UNESCO (2004, p. 13),

Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society.

37

According to this definition, literacy seemingly appears to be closely related to literacy

as skills because literacy here means various abilities, from identifying to creating as

well as computing and communicating. In addition to this, it includes several different

dimensions of literacy, such as considering the diverse contexts learners inhabit.

Through literacy, people can develop their capabilities and moreover fully become a

member of a community or society. Rather than a single method or approach that is

valid and fits all circumstances, UNESCO (2004, p. 15) recommends “flexible

approaches responsive to the individual circumstances and needs of the learner and

the learning environment”. Literacy, therefore, can be seen as plural like literacies.

From anthropological and social historical perspectives, literacy is considered as

“interactively and therefore socially constructed through verbal exchanges that take

place over time in many communicative settings” (Cook-Gumperz, 2006a, p. xii). In

the late 1970s and early 1980s literacy scholars set up a body of work that expands

the limited concept of literacy and identifies literacy as inseparably related to social

practices (Pahl & Rowsell, 2005). This large body of work has become known as the

‘New Literacy Studies’ (NLS), which makes it possible to expand some traditional

conceptions of literacy with sociocultural views (Gee, 2012). The NLS emphasises the

concept of social practice to explain literacy, which is contextualised within particular

domains (Marsh, 2010). Comprehending literacy in a given sociocultural context is

meaningful in that literacy as a form of cultural artefacts is socially constructed in a

particular community, region or period, and developed through interaction with other

people in diverse settings.

Scribner and Cole’s (1981) study of Vai literacy is seen as a landmark study showing

that there is not only one literacy but a number of forms of literacy associated with

different areas of practice. For example, among the Vai of north-west Liberia, English

literacy was used in government and education. Vai literacy mainly related to

commercial matters, and Arabic literacy was used for the religious purpose. The

salient finding from Scribner and Cole is that literacy is not “some decontextualized

‘ability’ to write or read, but the social practices into which people are apprenticed as

part of a social group, whether as ‘students’ in school, ‘letter writers’ in the local

community, or members of a religious group” (Gee, 2012, pp. 75-76). Literacy as a

social practice can be understood as a tool to fulfil social and cultural purposes of use

in ordinary life. Their study also reveals that literacy is associated with cognitive skills

through particular practices engaged in the use of literacy (Rogoff, 2003). Different

38

forms of written script and different uses of literacy such as story problems or letters

facilitated specific cognitive skills in their study (Rogoff, 2003). Through their study,

there was a shift in understanding literacy from a psychological paradigm to a social

paradigm (Barton, 2007).

In the Korean language, it is not straightforward to translate literacy as only one word.

It could be translated diversely: ‘the state of being able to read and write’ (Education

Research Institute of Seoul National University, 1995); ‘the basic ability to read and

write’ (Go, 2000); ‘the ability of reading and writing’ (ECC, n.d.); and ‘the ability of

being able to read and write’ (KEPA, 2000). This difficulty in translating literacy as the

exact word does not only pertain to Korean. This is also seen in French or German

(Barton, 2007; Janks, 2010). Thus, English literacy in the primary school context of

South Korea can be comprehended as various terms, but the shared meaning of

these terms is that literacy is the “ability to read and write” in English (Shin & Crandall,

2019, p. 188), which is associated with the first definition of literacy in the Oxford

English Dictionary. From this view, literacy can be developed by acquiring skills that

reading and writing contain (M. Long et al., 2011).

Although it is necessary to make sense of reading and writing as diverse skills in the

school context, it is also significant to comprehend how teachers and pupils construct

the concept of English literacy in their particular context. This is because knowing their

perceptions of English reading and writing can be helpful in understanding their

practice. Also, although the main focus of English education based on CLT is on

spoken English, it is necessary to pursue the development of both spoken English

and written English in a balanced way. For this, there is a need to re-establish the role

of reading and writing in South Korean primary schools. Thus, the main context of this

study is formal primary schooling where EFL is taught as a mandatory subject in South

Korea. Classrooms, as institutional settings, are very meaningful to scrutinise as they

have a social and cultural history with stable, persistent and emergent characteristics

and a variety of activity systems that interact to facilitate learning (Gutiérrez & Stone,

2000). Sociocultural theory, which is one of the important learning theories, is useful

in comprehending authentic English classes. That is because the sociocultural

theoretical view of learning and development is appropriate for grasping socially and

culturally formulated phenomena such as English literacy practices in classrooms

(Cole, 1985; Rogoff, 1990; Wertsch, 1991). To a greater extent, it is clear that many

educators tend to be interested in ‘literacies’ to show that there is not a united notion

39

that can be completed and defined as literacy, but rather that literacy is described on

the basis of social constructs such as cultures, context, task and history (Freebody &

Luke, 1990).

In deriving the meaning of literacy from teachers and pupils, it seems to be more

appropriate to ask the necessity of literacy than to define literacy itself because pupils

are able to respond more easily to the question of the necessity than of definition.

Widdowson (1989, p. 128) points out that “the influence of ideas, whether for good or

ill, does not depend upon their being fully understood in their own terms. Usually,

indeed, it depends upon them being recast in different terms to suit other conditions

of relevance”. It is important to accept some of the ways in which teachers and pupils

have recast elements of literacy ‘to suit other conditions of relevance’. That is because

literacy tends to be diversely comprehended according to the individual context which

is realised and learnt (Dubin, 1989).

The South Korean context for English literacy might be different from the settings of

using English as a mother tongue. It might also be different from the bilingual society

where individual literacy takes on a significant role in particular spheres such as

education, religion, commerce or business. English reading and writing in Korea is

rarely required of ordinary people save some occasions such as taking English tests,

taking English classes in formal schooling or private institutes (hakwon), or using

business English in a firm. Therefore, it would be noteworthy to explore why teachers

and pupils perceive that English reading and writing are necessary in their context.

This would help not only understand the practices of teaching reading and writing but

also have some implications for better teaching.

2.3 Sociocultural perspectives of second language learning

Sociocultural theory (SCT) originating from Vygotsky’s work has broadly affected

research into the processes of learning and cognitive development in the last 30 years

(Daniels, 2001; M. Long et al., 2011; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Mitchell et al., 2013;

Wertsch, 1984; Wood, 1998). Many second language researchers and theorists have

applied the sociocultural ideas of Vygotsky to second language learning since the

1990s (Atkinson et al., 2016; McDonell, 1992; Mitchell et al., 2013; Ortega, 2013;

Williams & Burden, 1997), even though SLA research based on Vygotskian SCT

initially made an appearance in the mid-1980s (Frawley & Lantolf, 1984, 1985). SLA

40

as a psychological process can be accounted for through the same principles and

concepts that clarify all other higher mental processes (Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner,

2015).

In SCT, which focuses on learning and development, human development is enriched

by “the individual’s appropriation and mastery of the cultural inheritance” because

human development takes place while conducting activity and interacting with others

(Wells, 2000, p. 54). Namely, individual development is seen as the internalisation or

appropriation of socially constructed knowledge or inheritance (Mitchell et al., 2013).

As well as interaction between biologically inherited abilities and culturally organised

artefacts, interaction with other people is significant for understanding learning and

development, as Vygotsky (1981a) indicates that learning and development are based

on interacting with other people. Learning first takes place at the social or intermental

level, and the role of social interactions is critical to cognitive development

(Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005). Once the interaction with other people has

happened, the information is then internalised at the individual level. Based on this

fundamental understanding of higher mental processes, the following sections cover

more specifically the primary concepts such as mediation, the ZPD and scaffolding,

which help build a theoretical framework for my research.

2.3.1 Mediation

Among the essential concepts in Vygotsky’s writing or sociocultural theory rooted in

Vygotsky’s ideas, many scholars agree that mediation is the central construct of the

theory. Wertsch (2007) mentions that mediation is a theme that runs throughout the

writings of Vygotsky. Lantolf (2000a, p. 1) also reveals that the most crucial construct

of sociocultural theory is that “the human mind is mediated”. Kozulin (1986) refers to

Vygotsky’s viewpoint that human mental functions must be seen as products of

mediated activity. Thus, sociocultural theory is usually called a sociocultural approach

to mind (Wertsch, 1991) or a sociocultural theory of mind (Lantolf, 2000a) because it

is eventually a theory of mediated mental development. Humans are regarded as

mediated beings by Vygotsky, which is a new ontological understanding of humans

(Lantolf, 2006).

41

Figure 2.1 The structure of the mediated act (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 40)

Vygotsky (1978) points out that human basic behaviours anticipate a direct response

to the task such as simple stimulus (S) → response (R) formula (see Figure 2.1). But

a new relation between S and R is created through the intermediate link which is

drawn into the operation by means of a technical tool or a psychological tool (X) such

as a knot in a handkerchief and a mnemonic scheme (Vygotsky, 1981b). The simple

stimulus-response process, consequently, becomes a complicated, mediated act with

the second order stimulus as in Figure 2.1. Even though much more refined forms

than this model exist, this type of organisation is fundamental to all higher

psychological processes. Vygotsky (1978, p. 40) clarifies the specific function of the

intermediate link:

it transfers the psychological operation to higher and qualitatively new forms and permits humans, by the aid of extrinsic stimuli, to control their behaviour from the outside. The use of signs leads humans to a specific structure of behaviour that breaks away from biological development and creates new forms of a culturally-based psychological process.

Two interrelated types of mediating instruments in human behaviours, which are

subsumed under indirect (mediated) activity, are tools and signs:

The tool’s function is to serve as the conductor of human influence on the object of activity; it is externally oriented; it must lead to changes in objects. It is a means by which human external activity is aimed at mastering, and triumphing over, nature. The sign, on the other hand, changes nothing in the object of a psychological operation. It is a means of internal activity aimed at mastering oneself; the sign is internally oriented. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 55)

In order to explain more precisely how mediation through artefacts, concepts and

activities is comprehended in sociocultural theory, Lantolf and Thorne (2006) present

a simple but effective image of Vygotsky’s model of artefact mediation (Figure 2.2).

R S

X

42

The model reveals that the relationship between people and the world is indirect, or

mediated (seen by the solid arrows) as well as direct (seen by the dotted arrow).

Instead of the terms ‘stimuli’, ‘response’ and ‘X’ used in Vygotsky’s model, Lantolf and

Thorne’s model incorporates the terms ‘subject’, ‘object’ and ‘artefact’ which is used

to refer to cultural artefacts, activities and concepts. When it comes to the use of the

term ‘object’, there has been an amount of philosophical debate owing to translation

problems (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). The Russian word ‘object’ includes diverse

meanings when translated into English: the goal of an activity; the motives for taking

part in an activity; and material products that participants attempt to receive through

an activity (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).

Lantolf and Thorne (2006) describe more clearly the relationship between human

beings and the world, which is represented as objects in the model. Involuntary

attention (e.g. turning towards a sudden noise unconsciously), involuntary reflex (e.g.

avoiding a ball hurtling towards us) and involuntary memory (e.g. recalling highly

emotional and personal events, often in the form of vivid images) are all related to the

direct relationship between people and the world. The indirect relationship entails “the

historically cumulative cultural generation of auxiliary means” that are placed between

ourselves and (mental or physical) objects (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 62). The

characteristics of objects can be identified specifically as mental or physical, and

auxiliary means can be understood as culturally constructed artefacts. R. Ellis (2008),

who applies Lantolf and Thorne’s model into SLA more precisely, clarifies those terms

in the field of SLA. A subject refers to an L2 learner, and the object of his/her activity

is, for example, to read and understand a text in the L2. The object here seems to be

the goal, which learners are expected to achieve during lessons. In the context where

Artifacts/concepts/activities

Subject Object

Figure 2.2 The mediate nature of human/world relationship (Lantolf & Thorne,

2006, p. 62)

43

relevant development has taken place, the subject can mediate his/her own action on

the object. Unless the development has occurred, the subject will depend on an

artefact such as a dictionary to offer aid, which leads to “tool mediated” action or help

from others (R. Ellis, 2008, p. 524).

Mediation, according to Lantolf and Thorne (2006, p. 79), is “the process through

which humans deploy culturally constructed artefacts, concepts, and activities to

regulate (i.e. gain voluntary control over and transform) the material world or their own

and each other’s social and mental activity”. Activities, artefacts and concepts are

three essential cultural factors to organise human mental functioning as a mediated

process. According to Vygotsky, once humans face cultural artefacts, activities and

concepts, human biologically determined psychological systems, which automatically

work as a result of direct stimulation from the environment or internal bodily needs

such as hunger, are reorganised into a new, specified mental system (Lantolf, 2006).

Activities are, for example, producing goods, educating children, working and playing;

artefacts include tools, books, eating utensils, toys and technology; and concepts are

about things and people, more specifically, self, person, family, time, literacy, law,

religion and mind (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Ratner, 2002). These three factors interact

in complicated and vigorous ways with one another and with mental phenomena

endowed biologically (Ratner, 2002). For example, education, which is a leading

activity of many cultures, entails physical and symbolic artefacts such as books, paper,

computers, language, numbers and so forth, as well as the goal of encouraging pupils

to develop consistent and elaborate concept-based knowledge of the world (Lantolf,

2006).

When appropriated, these factors like artefacts, concepts and activities mediate three

types of relationships: between people; between people and the physical world; and

between people and their inner mental worlds (Lantolf, 2006). Like Vygotsky who

suggests three significant sources of mediation such as material tools, psychological

tools and other human beings (Kozulin, 1990), Lantolf (2000b), who labels

sociocultural SLA, proposes that mediation in L2 learning entails three general

categories: mediation by others in social interaction; mediation by the self through

private speech; and mediation by artefacts such as tasks and technology. The primary

means of mediation is verbal interaction, which is dialogic, between the individual and

other persons, and also through private speech (R. Ellis, 2008). Therefore, language

is a very important symbolic form in mediation by others or mediation by the self, and

44

even in mediation by artefacts where substantial non-linguistic features are involved

(Lantolf, 2000b). However, mediation by the self was not dealt with in my study

because interactions among pupils, and between teachers and pupils was the main

focus.

The use of physical (or material) tools which are included in artefacts that are created

by human culture(s) over time and can be modified before passing them on to the

next generation promotes an indirect or mediated relationship between humans and

the physical or mental world (Lantolf, 2000a, 2000b). In mediating English learning,

significant artefacts are diverse, ranging from various teaching materials to more

advanced technology such as computers or electronic bulletin boards. All the artefacts

are not the mediating means for English learning. They are potential tools to mediate

learning at the appropriate time. Whatever materials they are, the purpose of using

them is identical, namely mediating pupils’ learning, but the action of pupils’ learning

is different according to each material. For efficient action, it is important to choose

proper materials. Artefacts utilised as the mediational tool for learning might have

different purposes in other situations. For example, a handheld folding fan for cooling

oneself, which is made of five pieces of hard paper, could become a mediational tool

for English learning such as making a story with a five-stage structure. The functions

or purposes of artefacts depend on the specific context where they are used. Since

artefacts have shared conceptual value associated with some activity, it will be

meaningful to explore what and how materials and activities are used to mediate

pupils’ English learning in a particular context of South Korean primary schools.

2.3.2 Language as a mediational tool

Humans are regarded as beings with a specific competence for communication, who

live within groups, communities and societies where they share ways of using

language, ways of thinking, and social practices and tools (M. Long et al., 2011;

Mercer & Littleton, 2007). A communicative tool that emerges within a particular

sociocultural context is language, which is seen as a central mediator of knowledge

for humans and functions as “a conceptual organizer, a primary medium through

which thinking occurs” (C. D. Lee, 2000, p. 192). Vygotsky (1978) views language as

the most powerful tool of symbolic mediation. That is, language offers not only a new

mechanism for communicative or interpersonal use but also new opportunities to

organise information through an intrapersonal and cognitive language use (Cameron,

45

2001; Lantolf & Appel, 1994).

Language as a means for enabling social interaction and for controlling mental activity

can be explained more clearly through understanding the notions of social, private,

egocentric and inner speech. Language or speech is originally communicative or

interpersonal, and secondly intrapersonal and cognitive (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). In

terms of speech functions, speech can be divided into three types: social, egocentric

and inner speech. According to Vygotsky’s account, egocentric and inner speech act

as controlling and regulating human activity, and derive from previous participation in

verbal social interaction (Wertsch, 1985). Namely, verbal interaction with others

develops into their use of language for regulating their own learning processes. In

addition to social, egocentric and inner speech, the term ‘private speech’ can be

added, which is coined by Flavell (1966) and therefore had not been used by Vygotsky.

Private speech means the form of externalised speech employed by adults to regulate

their own cognitive (and probably physical) activity (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

Unlike private speech used by adults, egocentric speech refers to children using social

speech as a means of regulating their own behaviour, which can be transformed into

inner speech later (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Egocentric speech originates from social

speech which leads to inner speech playing a critical role in the planning and

regulation of action (Wertsch, 1985). While inner speech as “a use of language to

regulate internal thought without any external articulation” is not directly audible and

has a psychological function as a final phase in the development of higher forms of

human mental activity, social speech is for regulating others, grounded in

interpersonal, verbal interaction (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006; Mitchell and Myles, 2004:

pp.198). Considering the relationships among egocentric, inner and social speech,

inner speech does not suddenly emerge from social speech, but rather it passes

through an egocentric stage which is externally social and becomes increasingly

psychological in function (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

In learning an L2, the language could be a goal to be achieved, and concurrently an

instrument to mediate learning. More specifically, the L2 serves as not only the object

which learners should pay attention to and master but also the means for mediating

its acquisition (R. Ellis, 2008). The L1 can be used as the tool for mediating L2 learning

internally and interactively, although it is not the object for learning in L2 classes unlike

the L2. Looking at Saville-Troike’s explanation (2017) about interaction from a social

46

perspective, interaction is typically viewed as critical in offering learners the quantity

and quality of external linguistic input; in concentrating learner attention on aspects of

their L2 that differ from target language norms or goals; and in supplying collaborative

means for learners to construct discourse structures and meanings that are beyond

the current level of their linguistic competence. During interaction, the language for

external linguistic input should be L2, but as for having pupils focus attention on

something or collaborate with others, both L1 and L2 could be used. However, the

issue of using the L1 is controversial in the L2 classroom (Littlewood & Yu, 2009).

In the case of South Korea, the central government enforces a TEE policy, which is

regarding teaching English in English in order to enhance the effectiveness of English

language teaching (W. K. Lee, 2010). Since the TEE policy is for offering pupils more

chances to be exposed to English and to use English, not only teachers but also pupils

are encouraged to use English even interacting with other pupils during activities. In

Swain and Lapkin’s study (2000), French immersion teachers mentioned that they

were unwilling to utilise group work because of their concern that their pupils would

use a lot of English (the L1) during group activities. This was counterproductive to the

aim of learning French. However, Brooks and Donato (1994) point out the importance

of learners’ L1 use, indicating that pupils’ interaction is beyond simply encoding and

decoding a message about the topic. In their research, pupils tried to manage the

problem-solving task through verbal interaction, and the talk that might appear to be

irrelevant due to the use of the L1, especially among beginners, was indeed mediating

pupils’ control over the language and procedures of the task for themselves as well

as each other. In the same vein, Antón and Dicamilla (1999) argue that the use of the

L1 is advantageous for language learning because it becomes a critical psychological

tool to create a social and cognitive space. V. Cook (2001) also reveals that

Vygotskyan-style research has documented how the L1 establishes a precious part

of learning as social practice and that the L1 functions as scaffolding so that learners

build up the L2. In language classrooms, although communicative activities should be

undertaken in the L2, it would be desirable to allow the use of the L1 as primary

symbolic artefacts if necessary in order to regulate cognitive activities and learning

(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Namely, the use of the L1 is regarded as one of the major

means where learners are able to mediate L2 learning (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014).

To summarise, in the area of SLA, language is central as not only a goal but also a

tool for learning. Language in this study is theorised mainly as a mediational tool for

47

teaching and learning the L2. Language is used in mediation by the self as well as

mediation by others in social interaction. The research reported in this dissertation

focused on social interaction among pupils, and between teachers and pupils, to

investigate mediation in pupils’ L2 learning. The study also emphasises that in the L2

classroom it is necessary to consider carefully the use of L1 for mediating L2 learning.

Making effective use of these mediational tools such as interaction through artefacts

or language is tightly connected to the concepts such as regulation, the ZPD and

scaffolding, which are discussed in the following.

2.3.3 Regulation and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

The relationship between intermental and intramental processes can be clarified

through the concept of the ZPD proposed by Vygotsky (Pinter, 2011). This concept is

related to elaborating the dimensions of instruction or school learning with a

philosophy of education that learning should lead to development (Cazden, 1983;

Mercer, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 2000). The ZPD emerged comparatively late in

Vygotsky’s writings, and at the time of his death his thinking about the ZPD appears

to have been still in the process of development (Wells, 2000).

Figure 2.3 The zone of proximal development (M. Long et al., 2011, p. 39)

The definition of the ZPD by Vygotsky (1978, p. 86) is “the distance between the actual

development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of

potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance

or in collaboration with more capable peers”. In this definition two levels of

Actual development

- able to manage tasks

by self

Potential development

- unable to manage tasks, even with

help

Zone of proximal

development - able to manage tasks with help

Most difficult tasks that can be managed by self

Most difficult tasks that can be managed with help

48

development are found: the actual developmental level and potential developmental

level. Vygotsky attempts to expound on the relationship between learning and mental

development using these two levels (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD concentrates on the

stage in development in which the child has incompletely mastered a task but can

engage in its execution with the aid and supervision of an adult or more capable peers

(Wertsch & Rogoff, 1984). A learner who can cope with problems with assistance

today (what is in the ZPD) will be able to solve them without any help tomorrow (what

is in the actual developmental level) (Vygotsky, 1978). M. Long et al. (2011) clarify the

ZPD through the diagram as tasks which lie between the most difficult tasks that can

be conducted independently and the most difficult tasks that can be carried out with

help (Figure 2.3). Beyond the potential development, learning cannot take place, even

though more capable individuals provide help.

The ZPD is linked closely to the other SCT concepts of mediation, regulation,

internalisation and scaffolding. Looking at the connection with mediation, learning

takes place when a ZPD is constructed for the learner through mediation of one kind

of another (R. Ellis, 2015). At this moment, interaction is critical in mediating learning

in the ZPD. The notion of the ZPD embodies Vygotsky’s view that learning and

development are embedded in situational factors, and productive dialogue between

the expert and the novice can develop intramental (individual) learning processes

(Mercer, 2000; Pinter, 2011). Interaction in the ZPD enables learners to take part in

activities that would be difficult without any help and to accomplish those activities

successfully (Rogoff, 2003). In SLA, R. Ellis (2015) elucidates that interaction provides

opportunities to produce new linguistic forms collaboratively through the joint

construction of a ZPD, not just by offering learners data that they process internally.

Although the ZPD by Vygotsky is mainly associated with assessing children, some

scholars are more interested in the ZPD for teaching and learning, and the notion of

the ZPD has profoundly influenced education. Goswami (2008) points out that

learning should correspond with the learner’s developmental level and learning can

change the learner’s developmental level. Here, the former of ‘the learner’s

developmental level’ is associated with the ZPD, with the latter linked to the child’s

actual development level. The learner who can solve problems by interacting with the

more skilful individual on the intermental plane will gradually be able to move to the

intramental stage where they can solve problems independently. The essential

characteristic of learning, accordingly, is to create the ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). Through

49

instruction, adults and children in most contexts should cooperate to lead the child

from his or her initial level of mastery gradually to the most progressive level of

independent activity that the child can accomplish without any aid (Campione, Brown,

Ferrara, & Bryant, 1984). In this sense, the role of instruction is significant in

development, and the best instruction happens when it proceeds in advance of

development (Ball, 2000).

Mercer (2000, p. 141), who shows more interest in an intermental or interthinking

process between a teacher and a learner within the ZPD, argues:

For a teacher to teach and a learner to learn, they must use talk and joint activity to create a shared communicative space, an ‘intermental development zone’ (IDZ) on the contextual foundations of their common knowledge and aims.

According to him, the intermental zone is reconstructed continually as the dialogue

between a teacher and a pupil develops. In his later study, Mercer (2008, p. 38) uses

the metaphorical image in order to identify this concept as “the dynamic, reflexive

maintenance of a purposeful, shared consciousness by a teacher and learner” and “a

kind of bubble in which teacher and learner move through time”. In the intermental

zone, the teacher and the pupil negotiate the ways through the activity that they are

doing (Mercer, 2000). Through the well-maintained zone, the teacher can help a

learner to become capable of going beyond their capabilities, and the learner can

strengthen this experience as a new capability and understanding (Mercer, 2000).

Unless the dialogue continues successfully, “the IDZ collapses and the scaffolded

learning grinds to a halt” (Mercer, 2000, p. 141). This concept places more emphasis

on the contributions of both teacher and learner, although it still focuses on how a

learner’s understanding develops under guidance through an activity, like Vygotsky’s

original concept of the ZPD (Mercer, 2000). It is obvious that a teacher’s contribution

is important in a learner’s achievement. However, a learner’s achievement is a joint

one, i.e. the output of a process of interthinking, considering the fact that teachers do

not give the same quality of ongoing intermental support and individual learners

respond differently to the same teacher (Mercer, 2000). This is the case for many

teachers who deal with the same contents for pupils in different classes. Also, each

class collectively shows different levels of understanding or accomplishment in terms

of the continued reconstitution of the IDZ between teachers and pupils. In the IDZ as

“a continuing event of contextualized joint activity”, its quality depends on “the existing

knowledge, capabilities and motivations of both the learner and the teacher” (Mercer,

50

2000, p. 141). Effective communication between teacher and learner is seen as very

significant in constructing cognitive development interactively through their joint

contributions.

Teacher-pupil interaction permits learners to make progress from other-regulation to

self-regulation, which is described as internalisation (also translated as interiorisation

or in-growing). According to Vygotsky (1981a, p. 162), a higher mental function

necessarily arises in an external form at first because it is social at some point before

becoming an internal, mental function:

It becomes clear here why it is necessary that everything internal in higher forms was external, i.e., for others it was what it now is for oneself. Any higher mental function necessarily goes through an external stage in its development because it is initially a social function. This is the center of the whole problem of internal and external behavior. … When we speak of a process, “external” means “social.” Any higher mental function was external because it was social at some point before becoming an internal, truly mental function. It was first a social relation between two people. The means of influencing oneself were originally means influencing others or others’ means of influencing an individual.

Since higher cognitive functions such as logical memory or categorisation are initially

social and subsequently are internalised, internalisation can be said to be a process

related to the transformation of the social plane into the psychological plane:

Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it appears between people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category. This is equally true with regard to voluntary attention, logical memory, the formation of concepts, and the development of volition. (Vygotsky, 1981a, p. 163)

The individual development of higher mental functions occurs through exposure to,

and use of, semiotic systems: languages, textual (and now digital) literacies,

numeracy and other historically accumulated cultural practices (Lantolf et al., 2015).

As a result of gaining and maintaining control over semiotic systems, children, who

learn to master their own psychological behaviour, move from dependency on other

people to independence and self-regulation (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Regulation is

characterised as “a developmentally sequenced shift in the locus of control of human

activity” containing object-regulation, other-regulation and self-regulation (Lantolf et

al., 2015, p. 209). Through interpersonal communication, individuals regulate others

or are regulated by others, and intrapersonal communication based on private and

51

inner speech allows individuals to regulate their mental life (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014).

Some scholars expound on object-regulation, other-regulation and self-regulation

through the process of children’s mental growth (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Wertsch,

1979). In the early stages of mental development, children are not able to exercise

much control over their environment, and the environment influences the child (Lantolf

& Appel, 1994). The child is seen as object-regulated. Children at an early age can

independently conduct certain types of activities that do not need a decontextualised

goal (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). If children’s mental processes are mediated by adults,

they are capable of engaging in activities which require a decontextualised

representation (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). However, adult mediation can be ineffective in

the case of very early stages of mental development (Lantolf & Appel, 1994).

Wertsch’s research (1979) can be used to illustrate this. In a situation where mothers

and their 2⅟2, 3⅟2, 4⅟2-year-old children did the puzzle-making task together, the

mother’s utterances were involved in regulating the child’s performance in the ZPD

during the task. In the case of the social interaction between a 2⅟2 year old boy and

his mother while working on the truck puzzle, the child failed to insert a window piece

in an appropriate place because he did not interpret mother’s speech to look at a

window piece in the puzzle (a decontextualised frame). It is apparent that he had not

recognised that the model puzzle in front of him depicted a truck and that the truck

had windows, which made him interpret that his mother’s utterances were related to

windows in the room (a contextualised frame). This example, which is useful in

understanding the occasion of unsuccessful adult mediation, shows that an object-

regulated child is basically responsive to whatever attracts his or her attention in the

physical environment (Ohta, 2001).

Lantolf and Appel (1994) mention that at the next stage of development, the child is

capable of doing certain tasks only with linguistically suitable mediated assistance

from a parent or more capable peer. This refers to other-regulation, and the principal

means for this is through dialogic speech. The child gradually becomes more

responsible for, and exerts much control over his/her work until self-regulation is

fulfilled. Eventually, the self-regulated child can carry out the task independently

(Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Even though this transition is successfully achieved, it does

not guarantee that the child is wholly self-regulated over other tasks (Lantolf & Appel,

1994; Wertsch, 1979).

52

Turning to the examples of regulation in SLA, the use of a dictionary to look up

unknown words or the use of word cards for creating sentences can be included as

an example of object-regulation. Thus, when artefacts in the environment offer

cognition/activity, it is regarded as object-regulation (Lantolf et al., 2015). This allows

learners to conduct a task that they are not able to do successfully with their own

linguistic resources (R. Ellis, 2015). Other-regulation refers to the assistance that

learners are given by others, such as a teacher or another learner, to conduct a

particular task which they are not yet able to do independently (R. Ellis, 2015). As

mediation by people, explicit or implicit feedback or corrective comments on

grammatical form or writing and guidance from a teacher or an expert belong to other-

regulation (Lantolf et al., 2015). These interactions with other people and tools enable

learners to progress from other-regulation or object-regulation to self-regulation. Self-

regulation means that learners have internalised external forms of mediation for the

implementation or accomplishment of a task (Lantolf et al., 2015). When learners,

who were able to produce a new linguistic form with the assistance of other objects

or people at the start, can produce on their own, it can be said that they have moved

from object-regulation or other-regulation to self-regulation. Even though these types

of regulation have a developmental order, a learner can traverse this sequence, if

necessary (Frawley, 1997). When even the most proficient learners, including native

speakers, encounter challenging situations, they might move back to earlier stages of

development such as object- or other-regulation (Lantolf et al., 2015).

It is almost impossible for a learner to be self-regulated immediately. The shift from

other- or object-regulation to self-regulation does not happen at a single, distinctive

moment (Wertsch, 1979). Gradually, the learner can increase his/her responsibility

and proficiency of self-regulation by participating in activities or doing tasks, and finally

he/she can individually be self-regulated even in his/her other learning. Swain,

Kinnear, and Steinman (2015) point out that the notion of regulation, which refers to

monitoring, controlling or evaluating, may cover one’s capacity to evaluate their own

general performance as a language user as well as to determine what factors of their

language use are correct or incorrect, proper or improper. Even in English lessons in

the EFL situation, it is important to encourage learners to promote their capacities

related to self-regulatory functions because this self-regulatory attitude to learning

may lead to increased confidence and positive motivation pertaining to other learning

as well as English learning itself. Accumulated experiences in conducting tasks

enable learners to be more capable of regulating their own performance in

53

accomplishing other similar tasks (Mitchell & Myles, 2004).

It is true that the notion of the ZPD itself has some limitations when being applied to

formal schooling, even though Vygotsky was concerned with formal school education.

The prime reason is related to practical circumstances where most teachers design

or plan activities based on classes or groups of learners instead of individual learners

(Mercer & Fisher, 1997). Basically, since pupils in a group or class do not have a

common ZPD, the concept of the ZPD might seem to be inappropriate for schooling.

However, Mercer and Fisher (1997, p. 209) argue that teachers are required to

conceptualise “the ways that the organizing actions and interventions of a teacher are

related to the creation of a learning culture in the classroom, and hence to the

cognitive advancement of the members of a group or class as a whole”. Although

teachers usually appear to design and provide activities based on considering

learners’ development as a whole, they could help learners individually through

interaction within their ZPD during activities. As well as face-to-face interaction, the

cultural inheritance can also be one of the useful means to cause development within

the ZPD. Wells (2000) reveals that the ZPD is viewed as offering a way of

conceptualising various ways in which an individual’s development may be assisted

by other people belonging to the culture, both in face-to-face interaction and through

the legacy of the artefacts that they have generated. The role of teachers, therefore,

is very significant not only in interacting with pupils but also in preparing activities and

other artefacts or mediational tools for pupils’ learning within their ZPD, considering

individual differences.

In applying the concept of the ZPD in classrooms, attention needs to be paid to pupils

as well as teachers. Learning in the ZPD does not always require a designated

teacher since learners can assist one another whenever they collaborate in an activity

(Wells, 1999). Although Vygotsky’s original work for the ZPD is mainly involved in the

interaction between an expert and a novice, the concept of the ZPD is currently

expanded to incorporate pair and group work among peers (Mitchell et al., 2013).

Forman and Cazdem (1985) point out that, as with the importance of working with

more knowledgeable others, peer interaction is cognitively valued because peer

relationships can act as transitional contexts between social and external adult-child

interactions and the individual child’s developing inner voice. When these processes

are internalised, the processes can become part of the child’s independent

development achievement (Vygotsky, 1978). There will be a more detailed discussion

54

related to peer interaction in the subsequent section.

In the research reported in this dissertation ZPD is understood as the possible range

for completing an activity or doing something with the help of others, whether the

helpers are a teacher or more capable peers. The process of helping pupils do work

in their ZPD through mediational tools would be discussed in this study. The ways to

help or mediate pupils’ learning in the ZPD can tightly be linked to the concept of

scaffolding.

2.3.4 Scaffolding

The notion of the ZPD, which has significantly influenced educational practices,

underlies the concept of ‘scaffolding’, which Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976, p. 90)

established in their tutor-child dyads study. Even though Wood et al. did not mention

Vygotsky in their seminal article, scaffolding is very close to the idea of the ZPD, and

the ZPD and scaffolding support each other. Wood et al. (1976, p. 90) describe the

concept as below:

a kind of “scaffolding” process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts. This scaffolding consists essentially of the adult “controlling” those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence.

From this definition, scaffolding can be understood as the process or action of

supporting learners to complete their work beyond their capacity, whereas the ZPD

means the distance, site, zone, place or difference between the actual development

level and the level of potential development with the help of others. It can be

comprehended that scaffolding can occur only within the ZPD (Walqui, 2006). Lantolf

et al. (2015, p. 214), who demonstrate that scaffolding is not equivalent to the ZPD,

argue that scaffolding is thought of “in terms of the amount of assistance provided by

the expert to the novice rather than in terms of the quality, and changes in the quality,

of mediation that is negotiated between expert and novice” as mentioned by

Stetsenko (1999). Stetsenko (1999) reveals that scaffolding implies that the quantity

rather than quality (i.e., content) of the adult’s assistance influences a child’s

development decisively. Since the quantity or contingency of assistance means

“moving to less intervention after success and to more intervention after failure”, the

amount of scaffolding could be decisive rather than the quality of content (Arievitch &

55

Stetsenko, 2000, p. 72; Vianna & Stetsenko, 2006, p. 91). However, the distinction

could be less appropriate for understanding scaffolding more elaborately. The adult’s

action in assisting the child can be qualitatively different from one another (Tharp &

Gallimore, 1988). Regarding the difference between the ZPD and scaffolding, Daniels

(2001, 2016) mentions that the term scaffolding could mean a one-way process where

the scaffolder builds the scaffold alone and offers it for use to the novice. Conversely,

the ZPD is the reciprocal appropriation process between the more proficient partner

and the learner (D. Newman, 1989). From the original definitions, this distinction

appears to be reasonable, but thinking of scaffolding merely as a unilateral action by

the adult or expert needs to be reconsidered.

A significant shared feature between scaffolding and the ZPD, based on their

definitions, can be found. This is the role of more knowledgeable helpers, who

participate in interaction with learners for learning. These helpers mainly refer to

adults in scaffolding. However, in the ZPD not only adults but also more capable peers

are mentioned as helpers. In the process of scaffolding, learning implies mentoring

offered by “more culturally knowledgeable persons, usually elders, who engage in

activity with less experienced or knowledgeable persons” (C. D. Lee & Smagorinsky,

2000, p. 2). As the critical factor for effective scaffolding, Rogoff (1990) underlines the

dimensions of authority and expertise in adult-child interactions. The adult’s intellect

explicitly provides the children with support for the initial performance of tasks to be

later conducted on their own (Lave & Wenger, 1991; M. Long et al., 2011; Mercer &

Littleton, 2007). Through the support and scaffolding of more experienced others,

learners can expand the range of their learning and achievement in conducting tasks

(Wells & Claxton, 2002). The majority of subsequent studies related to scaffolding,

therefore, tend to concentrate on the interaction of parent-child (Stone, 1998).

For scaffolding in the classroom setting, the role of teachers is important as more

knowledgeable helpers with authority and expertise. Looking at a diagram adapted by

Gibbons (2015) from Mariani (1997), combining the two dimensions of challenge and

support forms four patterns in order to illustrate four kinds of classroom environments:

high challenge, low support; low challenge, low support; low challenge, high support;

and high challenge, high support (Figure 2.4). The vertical ‘challenge’ axis means the

task that the pupil is conducting, and the horizontal ‘support’ axis refers to what the

teacher is doing (Gibbons, 2015). When pupils are in frustration, boredom or comfort

zone, effective learning does seldom take place. A high-challenge, high-support

56

classroom is the most productive learning environment (Gibbons, 2008, 2015; Walqui,

2006). This shows that pupils need to deal with authentic and cognitively challenging

tasks for their learning (Gibbons, 2015). Rather than simplifying the task, the important

point is to provide suitable scaffolding for pupils to conduct that task (Gibbons, 2015).

Although pupils’ outcomes are similar, the nature and amount of scaffolding offered,

and the process by which the outcomes are constructed might differ according to

individual pupils (Gibbons, 2015). It is teachers who should provide relevant

scaffolding through a collaborative endeavour with pupils as active participants, based

on grasping what a pupil is currently able to do alone and what they can do with the

help of others.

Figure 2.4 Four zones of teaching and learning (adapted by Gibbons (2015, p. 17)

from Mariani (1997)

In understanding the characteristics of scaffolding more clearly, it is necessary to

mention the metaphor of scaffolding explained by Hammond and Gibbons (2001, pp.

1-2).

Scaffolding, as most will be aware, is placed around the outside of new buildings to allow builders access to the emerging structure as it rises from the ground. Once the building is able to support itself, the builder removes the scaffolding. The metaphor of scaffolding has been widely used in recent years to argue that, in the same way that builders provide essential but temporary support, teachers need to provide temporary supporting structures that will assist learners to develop new understandings, new concepts, and new abilities. As the learner develops control of these, so teachers need to

Comfort zone

LOW CHALLENGE

Learning/engagement zone

(the zone of proximal development)

Frustration/anxiety zone

Boredom zone

HIGH CHALLENGE

LOW SUPPORT

HIGH SUPPORT

57

withdraw that support, only to provide further support for extended or new tasks, understandings and concepts.

The main characteristics of scaffolding can be comprehended as two phases:

‘essential but temporary support’ when pupils learn new knowledge or concepts, and

‘withdrawing that support’ when pupils manage this knowledge or concepts for

themselves. However, this metaphor has some limitations when applied to learning.

Stone (1998) points out that scaffolding in learning would disappear gradually over

time in accomplishing the same task because the child understands how to

conceptualise the task and the appropriate sequence of steps toward its

accomplishment through scaffolding, unlike the structure of scaffolding, in which the

same framework would be needed each time to erect a similar building. Even though

the metaphor has clear limitations, it must still be an attractive concept for teachers

(Hammond & Gibbons, 2001). That is because teachers’ own intuitive conceptions on

the meaning of scaffolding are appropriate so as to be able to intervene effectively in

pupils’ learning (Mercer, 1994).

My research included attention to whether pupils provide scaffolding for each other

regardless of their proficiency (in addition to teachers’ scaffolding), and the different

kinds of scaffolding that could be offered for second language learning. Scaffolding in

the developmental context normally indicates the support which an experienced adult

such as a parent or a teacher offers in order to assist the natural development of a

younger, less experienced learner and which is reduced steadily when the young

learner becomes progressively independent (Moore, 2012). Even though experienced

adults take a vital role in assisting children to solve tasks and promote children’s

cognitive development, the role of children or pupils should not be overlooked as an

active participant or learner. An active role is justly ascribed to the child in interactions

with adults (Stetsenko, 1999). Pupils should not be viewed as a passive participant in

teacher-student interaction anymore (Mercer, 2000; Stone, 1993). Scaffolding is a

dynamic, interpersonal process in which both participants are active in building shared

understanding or intersubjectivity. Sometimes it is true that ESL learners may

misguide one another and lead themselves into erroneous solutions linguistically

(Pinter, 2011). They may fail to conduct their tasks successfully, and not all learner-

to-learner interactions during activities are necessarily useful for their effective

learning. Nevertheless, these excuses cannot be reasons to deprive learners of

learning from or through each other. According to Ohta (2001), although there is no

expert, peer learning has the potential of encouraging learners to share their strong

58

points with one another, which contributes to better performance, compared to

working individually. Wells (2000) illustrates the case of the invention of radically new

tools and practices, where there is no expert. In this situation participants with

comparatively little experience can learn with and from each other, not just from those

with greater expertise. Lantolf (2000b) also demonstrates that learning can take place

without a recognised expert since learners can scaffold each other effectively through

using various interactive strategies within the ZPD.

When it comes to more proficient learners benefiting from less proficient peers, D. W.

Johnson and Johnson (1987) elucidate that learners may learn better with the support

of their peers than with adults, and learners can have the useful experience of

teaching their friends through collaborative learning. Ohta’s study (1995) shows that

learners can learn from each other through interaction, regardless of their proficiency.

In particular, more proficient learners benefit from interactions with less fluent peers,

by increasing their fluency and their awareness of their own knowledge. This study

also reveals that even less proficient learners can act as an expert when their

strengths contribute to assisting another learner. Through the process of scaffolding,

both learners derive benefit from one another, whether he or she is the one gaining

help or the one who reaches out to offer it (Lantolf, 2000b).

In the school setting, scaffolding can be offered for pupils as useful frameworks or

guidelines to help them structure their thoughts, stories or arguments (Moore, 2012).

For instance, scaffolds might contain “a sequence of ‘headings’ or questions, or

opening phrases or sentences, or a combination of these provided by the teacher to

the student” (Moore, 2012, p. 19). They could also include taking the pupils’ previous

experience into consideration and connecting this to the new concept or topic by

offering more instructions and bridging explanation (Long, Wood, Littleton, Passenger

and Sheehy, 2011). Scaffolding is no longer confined to interactions between

individuals. Beside scaffolding based on interactions, artefacts, resources, materials

and environments are also being used as scaffolds (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005).

Wass, Harland, and Mercer (2011), who used Vygotsky’s developmental model of the

ZPD as a framework to examine how critical thinking is developed, state that pupils

experience a high-level of material scaffolds such as textbooks, problem-solving

exercises and computer simulations as well as verbal scaffolding and conversation

between lecturers and peers. Assistance provided by instructional materials functions

as supportive structures that learners can depend on for assistance, in addition to

59

scaffolds by teachers or peers (Ohta, 2001). Wass and Golding (2014) also illustrate

scaffolds as: providing textbooks, or readings, which include background knowledge

for students to utilise for better comprehension of the tasks they confront; heuristics

that leads pupils through the phases they are required to follow such as a problem-

solving process, or graphic organisers like Venn diagrams, which they can use to help

themselves compare and contrast; and feedback provided to pupils while completing

a task. Alternatively, scaffolds might involve providing the opportunity for peer support

where pupils are able to observe and copy how their peers solve similar problems,

gain their feedback or create new strategies collaboratively. However, rooted in

understanding the original meaning of scaffolding, some scholars or researchers do

not agree that pupils can be scaffolded by other multiple agents such as peers, tools

or resources except for interaction with teachers.

Scaffolding is often considered to have the same meaning as support, guidance,

advice, prompts, direction or resources to enable a learner to accomplish a task

(Davis & Miyake, 2004; Wass & Golding, 2014). As the result of extending the scope

of scaffolding, the scaffolding construct has been overgeneralised and therefore tends

to have been stripped of its original meaning (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005). Thus,

there is a need to identify and clarify essential components for successful scaffolding

in order to differentiate scaffolding from simple support or guidance. In order to clarify

the term scaffolding, many scholars have made efforts to identify the important

elements that constitute scaffolding.

Langer and Applebee (1986) present five constructs of effective instructional

scaffolding: ownership given to pupils for what is learned; appropriateness to what the

pupils already have; structure, namely, producing a natural sequence of thought and

language, and offering effective routines for the pupils to internalise; collaboration

between teacher and pupil; and internalisation through gradual withdrawal of the

scaffolding. In the same vein, but from a different angle, Stone (1998) clarifies four

critical features. First, a scaffolding interchange includes “the recruitment by an adult

of a child’s involvement in a meaningful and culturally desirable activity beyond the

child’s current understanding or control” (Stone, 1998, p. 349). Second, the adult is

involved in the process of diagnosis of the child’s current level of understanding and/or

skills, along with careful calibration of the support for assisting him/her to complete

the goal or subgoal. Third, the adult provides a range of types of support, which might

involve not only nonverbal assistance such as modelling or pointing but also extensive

60

dialogue. The final feature is that the support is assumed to be temporary and is

gradually withdrawn to facilitate a transfer of responsibility from the adult to the child.

While Langer and Applebee (1986) identify the five constructs for useful instructional

scaffolding from the standpoint of the pupil given the scaffolding, Stone (1998) clarifies

the characteristics from the viewpoint of the adult giving the scaffolding. Similarly, the

significant theoretical features of scaffolding presented by Puntambekar and

Hubscher (2005) are the following: the notion of a shared understanding of the goal

of the activity, or intersubjectivity; ongoing diagnosis and calibrated support; and

fading. van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen (2010), who summarise clearly shared

characteristics among many different definitions of scaffolding through a conceptual

model, also characterise contingency, fading or the gradual withdrawal of the

scaffolding, and the transfer of responsibility as the common characteristics. Likewise,

Brownfield and Wilkinson (2018, p. 3) also identify three significant theoretical tenets

of scaffolding: intersubjectivity, which means “a shared understanding of the goal of

the activity” and “common ground with regard to what is known and what is to be

learned”; contingent support, in which the teacher provides assistance in terms of the

performance of the pupil; and release of responsibility to the pupil.

Even though the terms the researchers use are different, the researchers mainly show

a common understanding of scaffolding. First, the ongoing diagnosis and adaptation

are finely tuned to the pupil’s progress, which could be referred to as adjusted,

calibrated or contingent support. Scaffolding is gradually withdrawn or fades over time

when the process of internalisation in a pupil proceeds, and eventually pupils’

responsibility is increased. The notion of ownership referred to by Langer and

Applebee (1986) can be understood as responsibility and linked to the shared

understanding of the goal or intersubjectivity as explained by Puntambekar and

Hubscher (2005) and Brownfield and Wilkinson (2018). In order to motivate pupils to

engage in the task and to undertake the task successfully, it is important for pupils to

share the goal and have ownership of the task.

In the research reported in this dissertation, scaffolding is viewed as ongoing support

to enable pupils to do work which would be beyond their independent efforts, based

on the recognition of pupils’ knowledge, understanding or skills. Scaffolding could be

done not only through interactional scaffolds, which are the responsive, face-to-face

support, but also through teachers’ planned scaffolds such as sequenced activities

grounded in lesson plans (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2014; Dan & Shannon, 2018;

61

Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). As well as the process of teacher-pupil interaction within

pupils’ ZPD, scaffolding also incorporates the process of pupil-pupil interaction. The

pupils who participate in the interaction with their peers share the common goal for

learning, and they could provide contingent support according to their friend’s

response. For smooth pupil-pupil interaction, the teacher can take a critical role of

arranging useful activities and preparing pupils through instructions and

demonstrations as well as intersubjectivity, which finally leads pupils into taking more

responsibility in their learning. The pupil’s task becomes mediated by the verbal and

nonverbal directives offered by their teacher or their peers during interactions.

Besides face-to-face interaction, multiple modes of support such as activities or

resources which are designed to assist pupils in the complex learning environment of

the classroom are included as part of the scaffolding process. That is because those

multiple agents help pupils complete a task which they would not have been capable

of doing independently. They are also planned and done from understanding pupils’

progress and fade when pupils deal with the tasks on their own, which means that

they include the significant features of scaffolding. However, merely offering pupils

with visual interfaces, materials or structures for a process cannot be defined as

scaffolding unless the hints and prompts are contingent on an ongoing diagnosis of

pupil learning (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005). It is a teachers’ important job to

develop activities or resources grounded in the accurate diagnosis of pupils’

understanding and skills, and encourage pupils to participate in these activities and

to use the materials appropriately in good times for their learning. Not only activities,

resources or materials but also how to provide them should act as scaffolding for

pupils’ learning.

2.4 The practice of English language teaching

In this section empirical studies associated with English education as a foreign (or

second) language are investigated mainly at the primary school level. Learning

English in a school context is different from learning at home where the child can

receive individualised comprehensible input from carers (Copland & Garton, 2014). In

the school setting, various conditions of schools such as big class size or limited

instructional time should be taken into account. Considering these conditions, the

section begins with understanding some trends and issues in primary ELT in the

school setting. Also, it is important to recognise how CLT is understood in or adopted

62

by East Asian countries which are in a similar situation to South Korea’s. This section

ends with teachers’ difficulties in primary ELT in East Asian countries, particularly in

applying CLT. This will help comprehend teachers’ challenges not only in teaching

English in their specific contexts but also in adopting new approaches.

2.4.1 Primary English language teaching worldwide

English, as a global language or an international language, is currently taught to many

millions of primary school pupils throughout the world (Arnold & Rixon, 2008; Bourne,

2007; Butler, 2005, 2015; Hayes, 2014; Mayor, 2007; Mikio, 2008; Nunan, 2003; Rixon,

2013). Although multilingual communities have traditionally existed around the globe,

the critical factors such as globalisation, technologisation and mobility increasingly

have a profound influence on people learning and using more than one language,

even in monolingual communities (Atkinson et al., 2016). Notably bilingualism and

multilingualism, in which English takes a crucial role, have become unavoidable in not

only face-to-face but also electronic communications (Mayor, 2007). In this context

primary ELT has become the fastest increasing area in ELT over the last 35 years (G.

Ellis, 2013). The growing numbers of children learning English globally in primary

schools have influenced a growing amount of research into teaching YLs (Copland &

Garton, 2014).

Nunan (2003) identified some of the effects of English as a global language on policies

and practices in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region. He chose Mainland China,

Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, which represented

various contrasting characteristics, “from developed to developing, ex-colonial to

independent, large to small, and culturally diverse to culturally cohesive” (Nunan,

2003, p. 589). Generalising important factors across the countries, he demonstrated

substantial problems such as the issues of age of initial instruction, inequity

concerning access to effective English language instruction, insufficiently trained and

skilled teachers, and a difference between curriculum rhetoric and pedagogical reality.

These issues were also mentioned in other studies based on not only Asian countries

but also other regions in the world.

Rixon’s survey (2013, p. 4) was built on the original survey designed by herself in

1999-2000 in order to “gain as complete as possible a view of the organisational

frameworks that support young learners’ teaching worldwide and of the policies and

other administrative decisions that lie behind them”. Rixon (2013) presented the major

63

themes and issues in the teaching of English as a FL or SL to children of primary

school age in her report based on this international survey which collected data from

64 countries or regions. Her report showed that in many contexts there was a trend

to lower the starting age of children to learn English compared to the survey

approximately ten years previously. This was accompanied by a reinforcement of

teaching English as a compulsory part of the curriculum at primary level (Rixon, 2013).

Rixon pointed out that the introduction of English at ever-younger ages was not

problematic per se but it might become so when materials and teacher education were

not properly provided for children’s learning. That is because the important thing for

successful language learning is “the quality of the experience” given to the YLs and

this depends substantially on “the professional preparation and support given to the

teachers who are to carry out the English teaching” (Rixon, 2013, p. 9). As another

change, she argued that a general educational or curriculum reform rather than of a

policy decision regarding merely English affected a change in the role of English

instruction in schools. The last important policy change was English as the vehicle for

other curricular subjects, especially in Cyprus and in Qatar.

As in Rixon’s report (2013) and Nunan’s study (2003), Hamid (2010) emphasised the

importance of teachers’ professional capacity for desirable ELT outcomes. In his

article focusing on Bangladesh’s English education, he revealed that the effects of

globalisation and the global spread of English had caused a need for English all over

the world, and early English instruction in many developing countries could be an

example of the global spread of English. However, he maintained that this policy is

believed to contribute to the nations’ human capital development and pointed out that

their participation in the global economy for national development would remain

unrealised because of insufficient infrastructure and limited institutional capacity for

teacher education and training.

In the same vein, Hayes’s report (2014) clearly showed that the successful

implementation of primary ELT is closely related to teacher factor. Based on the

research and documentation, Hayes presented some recommendations for effective

primary ELT within national education systems. Among his recommendations, the first

six factors were all related to teachers. He demonstrated that ELT in primary schools

should be carried out by generalist primary class teachers with suitable training in

primary ELT methods and they should have significant levels of English language. For

effective primary ELT, he suggested that not only a pre-service teacher training

64

system but also a school-focused system of continuing professional development for

teachers’ lifelong learning should be developed. He also insisted that teachers should

be respected and trusted, with the freedom to organise instruction based on their

pupils’ needs within a guiding national framework. In order to influence pupils’

motivation to learn, their enjoyment of English classes, and eventually, their

achievement, teachers’ positive attitudes towards English was viewed as important

(Hayes, 2014). Except for the aspects linked to teachers, there were other

recommendations for effective primary ELT: a curriculum to provide teachers and

pupils with opportunities to engage in genuine language use; materials prepared by

teachers based on considering the particular needs of their pupils or by others

grounded in comprehending how young children learn languages and theme-based

activities encouraging authentic communicative language use. Hayes (2014) also

recommended substantial out-of-school exposure to English in the local environment

such as films and television programmes in English that are subtitled rather than

dubbed into learners’ L1, as well as an equitable education system for pupils to

achieve academically regardless of their socio-economic status. Lastly, he argued that

private tuition in English should not be considered fundamental for academic success

within the education system, and high-stakes testing should not be viewed as a way

to facilitate English language competence across the education system.

Grounded in understanding these important issues including qualified teachers for

effective primary ELT, it is necessary to investigate studies focusing on the adoption

of CLT in Asian countries which are familiar with oriental cultures of learning. When

approaches or pedagogies of foreign origins are adopted, careful considerations

should be given to their own sociocultural context (Hu, 2004). In fact the matter of

appropriateness of CLT has been debated in particular cultures (Hiep, 2007). A

criticism of CLT is its Western origins and as a result there are questions about its

relevance in non-Western cultures where “nondirective, student-centered cooperative

learning” might be uncommon (Bax, 2003; Brown & Lee, 2015, p. 33; Copland &

Garton, 2014). However, it is true that Asian countries have been primary “recipients”

of CLT ideas and practices since their inception in the 1970s (Littlewood, 2011, p.

550). It is noteworthy to explore what considerations are necessary for or what issues

are raised by accepting CLT in these particular sociocultural backgrounds.

65

2.4.2 Communicative language teaching in East Asian countries

Due to the lack of compatibility between CLT and the beliefs and traditions of particular

culture, some researchers express concerns over adopting CLT in their context (Hu,

2002; Littlewood, 2011). Hu (2002) pointed out the Chinese culture of learning as one

of the most significant potential constraints on the introduction of CLT in the Chinese

classroom. There were some conflicts between CLT and the Chinese culture of

learning influenced by Confucian thinking, particularly in “philosophical assumptions

about the nature of teaching and learning, perceptions of the respective roles and

responsibilities of teachers and students, learning strategies encouraged, and

qualities valued in teachers and students” (Hu, 2002, p. 93). However, he recognised

that although some notions and practices of CLT were incompatible with those in the

Chinese culture of learning, CLT still had something to give to ELT in China such as

“collaborative learning, cultivation sociolinguistic competence, use of authentic

teaching materials, and learning strategy training” (Hu, 2002, p. 102).

Hong Kong has implemented TBLT in the primary school context since the mid-1990s

(Littlewood, 2007) and in secondary schools since 2001 (Carless, 2007). In Carless’

study (2004) dealing with teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based (hereafter TB)

innovation in Hong Kong state primary schools through extensive fieldwork and

interviews, he revealed how teachers had filtered and interpreted the innovation. He

highlighted three issues such as use of the mother tongue, classroom management

or discipline problems, and the quantity of target language produced, which all proved

problematic while the tasks were conducted. According to him, the TB approach in the

Hong Kong context was not suitable with the general understanding of task, and rather

task seemed to mean language practice activities. Carless (2004) suggested that

task-supported teaching might be a more appropriate term based on his observation

than the term TB learning stated in the government documentation. Task-supported

teaching means a weak version of TB instruction that views tasks as a way of offering

communicative practice for language items that the teachers have introduced in a

more traditional way (R. Ellis, 2003). This study revealed that a new approach were

adapted appropriately into a particular context.

Carless (2007) also analysed the suitability of TB approaches for Hong Kong

secondary schools through semi-structured interviews with 11 secondary teachers

and 10 teacher educators. Carless (2007, p. 595) emphasised “the need for

66

adaptation and a flexible ‘situated version of task-based teaching’”, and suggested

that a weak version of TB teaching seemed to be most relevant for schooling, with a

claim for the desirability of context-sensitive approaches. In the Hong Kong secondary

school context the desirable adaptation was related to their particular context such as

clarifying or strengthening the role of grammar instruction; integrating tasks with the

specifications of examinations; and stressing reading and writing tasks as well as

listening and speaking.

In Japan Sakui (2004) investigated how CLT was interpreted and carried out by

English language teachers in secondary schools through interview data with twelve

teachers, year-long classroom observations of three teachers, and classroom

artefacts such as handouts, quizzes, and tests. Concerning the goal of CLT which is

to exchange messages in English, paying little attention to linguistic forms, there was

consistence between the teachers’ understandings and the curriculum (Sakui, 2004).

However, when the teachers were actually conducting the government statement,

they showed a different picture from that. Unlike documented instructional goals to

integrate CLT and form-based instruction smoothly, much more emphasis was laid on

grammar than CLT in overall actual classroom teaching (Sakui, 2004). Whereas

teachers’ understandings of CLT were related to a weak version of CLT, their practices

were closer to audiolingualism to put focus on the correct production of sentences.

Sakui revealed that teachers’ teaching practices were frequently influenced by

sociocultural factors. As diverse situational constraints, grammar-oriented entrance

examinations for universities, classroom management problems, time constraints,

and rigorous curriculum schedules were mentioned, and these factors were

associated with teachers’ difficulty in integrating CLT and form-based instruction

(Sakui, 2004).

In the belief that teachers’ understanding of a curriculum innovation plays a decisive

role in its success, Li (1998) investigated South Korean secondary school English

teachers’ perceived difficulties in using CLT. He revealed that the source of the

difficulties was in the differences between the underlying educational theories of

South Korea and those of Western countries. Through questionnaire surveys with 18

teachers and in-depth interviews with ten of the 18 survey participants, he divided the

difficulties reported by the teachers into four categories: those caused by the teacher;

by the pupil; by the educational system; and by CLT itself. As for the main constraints

caused by the teacher, he revealed deficiency in spoken English; deficiency in

67

strategic and sociolinguistic competence in English; lack of training in CLT; few

opportunities for retraining in CLT; misconceptions about CLT; and little time and

expertise for developing communicative materials. As the constraints by the pupil, the

teachers mentioned the pupils’ generally low English proficiency; lack of motivation

for communicative competence; and resistance to participating in class. The

difficulties related to the educational system were large class; grammar-based

examinations, insufficient funding, and lack of support. With regard to the main

problems with CLT itself, the teachers referred to CLT’s inadequate account of EFL

teaching and the lack of effective and efficient assessment instruments in CLT. From

the results, Li (1998) suggested that EFL countries like South Korea would need to

change their underlying approach to education in order to adopt CLT and to implement

it gradually in the countries’ own EFL situations.

It is true that Asian countries have difficulty adapting CLT, which is originated from

western culture, in their specific context. Particularly, ELT at secondary level needs

various considerations because of grammar-oriented entrance examinations for

universities in many Asian countries. However, these cultural differences or contextual

influences are not an obstacle to CLT, and rather they can be regarded as substantial

considerations to develop CLT appropriate for their given situation. An appropriate

stance to use pedagogical innovations such as the implementation of CLT could be

to take an eclectic approach and make pedagogical decisions that are rooted in a

thorough grasp of the factors at work in a specific sociocultural context (Hu, 2004).

2.4.3 Teachers’ difficulties in primary English language teaching in East

Asian countries

East Asian countries, such as South Korea, China, Taiwan and Japan, where English

is not a native language for the majority of people, have introduced the English

language as a compulsory subject or a part of integrated activities at the primary

school level because of the importance of English globally (Butler, 2004, 2005, 2015;

Choi, 2008; Ho, 2003; Hu & McKay, 2012; Nunan, 2003; Song, 2011, 2012). Under

the influence of globalisation, these countries have promoted the CLT approach at the

primary school level, aiming to develop pupils’ communicative competence (Butler,

2005; Ho, 2003; Hu & McKay, 2012; J. Jeon, 2009; Littlewood, 2007; Nunan, 2003).

Some researchers have investigated various challenges in introducing or applying

68

this CLT approach to these East Asian countries where the approach was adopted

comparatively recently into educational practices at primary level. In discussing some

empirical studies related to teachers’ challenges in embracing the CLT approach, it is

useful to clarify teachers’ challenges with the help of Kaplan and Baldauf’s language-

in-education framework. Kaplan and Baldauf Jr. (2003) have developed a revised and

expanded framework for language planning goals based on their own ecological

model (Kaplan & Baldauf Jr., 1997) and Hornberger’s framework (1994), which

consists of four approaches to goal development: status planning (about society);

corpus planning (about language); language-in-education (or acquisition) planning

(about learning); and prestige planning (about image). Particularly, language-in-

education planning, which is related to language learning and teaching, concentrates

on “those user-related learning decisions that need to be made to develop language

education programs and teach a language(s) for various purposes” (Baldauf Jr., 2005,

p. 961). Language-in-education policy planning includes seven interrelated policy

goals, which lead to the success of policy development (Kaplan & Baldauf Jr., 2005,

p. 1014):

• Access policy (Who learns what when?).

• Personnel policy (Where do teachers come from and how are they trained?).

• Curriculum policy (What is the objective in language teaching/learning?).

• Methodology and materials policy (What methodology and what materials are

employed over what duration?).

• Resourcing policy (How is everything paid for?).

• Community policy (Who is consulted/involved?).

• Evaluation policy (What’s the connection between assessment on the one

hand and methods and materials that define the educational objectives on the

other?).

Looking at some researchers’ studies to explore their topics according to the

language-in-education policy types, the issues raised in each component of the

language-in-education policy would be helpful in understanding the framework (Table

2.1). Some areas have been investigated together because they are closely

interrelated. Baldauf Jr., Kaplan, Kamwangamalu, and Bryant (2011) and Garton

(2014) discussed ‘curriculum’ and ‘methodology and materials’ policies together,

whereas Butler (2015) integrated ‘resourcing’ and ‘community’ policies. Unlike the

other two studies which dealt with every component, Garton’s study (2014) focused

69

on only three areas among the seven as most appropriate for teachers and teaching

practices and clarified those areas very precisely. Particularly, the issues in

‘curriculum’ and ‘methodology and materials’ policies brought up by Garton were clear

and systematic, which would be useful in identifying teachers’ challenges in other

studies through the language-in-education framework: approaches to language

teaching; materials and learning and teaching resources; classroom-based factors

such as large classes, or problems of control and discipline; and learner factors. In

order to clarify teachers’ challenges in adopting the CLT approach into their practice

or in teaching English to YLs, some components need to be integrated, and therefore,

five areas will be used: access policy; personnel policy; curriculum, methodology and

materials policy; resourcing and community policy; and evaluation policy.

Table 2.1

Research studies and the language-in-education framework

Baldauf et al. (2011) Garton (2014) Butler (2015)

Access

policy

◦ Providing access to English through primary programmes in English

∙

◦ Target grade levels

◦ Frequency of instruction

Personnel

policy

◦ A different type of training for all teachers

◦ Recruitment and training

◦ Teachers’ level of English proficiency

◦ Local teachers (qualifications)

◦ Native English-speaking teachers

Curriculum

policy

◦ Curriculum policies with a communicative focus

◦ A more communicative methodology

◦ Appropriate materials, especially textbooks, a variety of other supporting facilities

◦ Approaches to language teaching

◦ Materials and learning and teaching resources

◦ Classroom-based factors: large classes, problems of control and discipline

◦ Learner factors: learners’ low levels of proficiency, learners’ lack of motivation and interest in English

◦ Language development (phonological processing skills, language development in other linguistic domains)

◦ Affective/ attitudinal domains

Methodology

and

materials

policy

◦ Communicative activities and tasks

◦ Specific instructional strategies and interventions

◦ Use of technology in instruction

70

Resourcing

policy

◦ Funding for language programmes

◦ The private sector

∙ ◦ Various agencies and individuals- and parents in particular

◦ High private sector provision

Community

policy

◦ Parent-driven demand for English ∙

Evaluation

policy

◦ The high-stakes examinations

∙

◦ Challenges with assessment of learning and age-appropriate assessment

◦ Washback effects

Butler (2005) identified and compared primary school teachers’ concerns and

challenges in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan about the introduction of

communicative activities for improving pupils’ abilities to communicate in English.

Based on a sociocultural framework, she found that teachers’ concerns resulted from

a lack of comprehending three factors: motives and purposes to promote

communicative activities; developmentally suitable mediational means; and strategies

for situating activities in particular contexts. These challenges are all associated with

curriculum and methodology policy. According to her, there seemed to be no obvious

definition of communicative competence for foreign language learners, and what to

teach for communicative purposes appeared to be ambiguous. She pointed out that

the introduction of communicative activities without identifying motives and goals

would not necessarily lead to pupils learning. The second concern was related to the

insufficient consideration given to developmental factors in the curricula and activities

which did not match pupils’ developmental stages. Teachers were unsure of the

purpose and effectiveness of communicative activities such as chants, songs or

games suggested by their governments due to “a significant discrepancy between

what students appear to do in the foreign language and their actual developmental

level” (Butler, 2005, p. 436). The last challenge addressed by the teachers was how

to situate English activities in their particular sociocultural contexts while considering

classroom harmony. Classroom harmonisation, which includes “the arrangement of

the physical conditions of a given classroom” and “the integration of various

psychological variables pertaining to both students and teachers”, was used as a

more appropriate term than classroom management in her study because both

teachers and pupils are responsible for harmonising both learning and teaching within

their specific classrooms (Butler, 2005, p. 438).

71

Littlewood (2007) reviewed some of the practical and conceptual concerns that had

influenced CLT and task-based language teaching (TBLT) in primary schools of East

Asia, including South Korea, Hong Kong, China and Japan, through published reports.

His study covered secondary school teachers’ perspectives as well as primary school

teachers’ views. The five concerns categorised by him were classroom management;

avoidance of English; minimal demands on language competence; incompatibility

with public assessment demands; and conflict with educational values and traditions.

The concern associated with classroom management was mentioned as one of the

challenges, as in Butler’s study (2005). The second concern was related to teachers’

and pupils’ poor command of English as the medium of communication, and the third

one was about pupils producing language only at the minimal level and using simple

strategies that made fewer language demands such as guessing, rather than

involving the active negotiation of meanings. The concern with public examinations

seemed to be seriously considered at the secondary school level rather than the

primary school level. Lastly, cultural mismatches between theoretical or pedagogical

underpinnings of CLT and the Asian cultures of learning were teachers’ concern. That

was because rather than a learner-centred methodology, a teacher-centred

methodology has been traditionally employed for knowledge transmission in Asian

countries. As in Butler’s study (2005), Littlewood mentioned conceptual uncertainties

about the CLT methodology, such as what the approaches actually mean. Since there

is no single method or set of procedures that will suit all teachers and learners in all

contexts, he suggested that teachers need to trust their own voice and construct a

pedagogy fitted for their own particular situations.

With regard to critical issues in implementing the CLT approach in Korea, J. Jeon

(2009) compared teachers’ responses obtained in the beginning stage of 1996 and in

2008 in order to see changes in the extent of importance of the issues over time. 18

issues were rated with a 10-point response scale to reveal the degree of significance

by 172 teachers (106 primary/66 secondary school teachers) in 1996 and 305

teachers (75 primary/131 middle/99 high school teachers) in 2008. The results of the

research conducted in 2008 showed that teachers identified five main issues related

to using CLT in EFL classes: the number of students in the classroom; chances for

systematic in-service training in CLT; a need for improved pre-service training; a lack

of relevant supplemental materials; and a demand for practical and interesting

materials. These top five issues had not changed at all compared to the results in

1996. As one of the noticeable rank differences, J. Jeon (2009) pointed out promoting

72

learner motivation and participation, which moved up to 9th in the 2008 administration

from 16th in the 1996 administration. She assumed that teachers in the beginning

stage regarded teaching-related issues as more important than learner-related

matters.

The research to explore teachers’ challenges in teaching English to YLs globally was

conducted by Garton, Copland, and Burns (2011). They found a variety of critical

factors about global practices in teaching YLs English, rooted in teachers’ voices in

five continents. Some factors seemed to be shared by teachers across different

countries and contexts. Government documents and local documents influenced

primary school teachers of English around the world and, notably in South Korea, the

strict government guidelines were viewed as rather restricting. The activities teachers

used often were diverse: children repeating after the teacher; listening to tape-

recorder/CD; children reading out loud; playing games and so on. Turning to teachers’

challenges, large class sizes and discipline issues were chosen as the most

problematic. Mixed level classes, including learners at various levels, were mentioned

as one of the difficulties, primarily by the Korean teachers. As regards this issue,

Copland, Garton, and Burns (2014) mentioned this had not been uncovered in

previous studies, and Garton (2014) clarified this issue more deeply.

As part of their more extensive study (Garton et al., 2011) mentioned above, Copland

et al. (2014) specified teachers’ challenges in teaching English to YLs through a

mixed-methods approach using a survey with 4,459 teachers from 142 countries

worldwide and case study based on observation and interviews with five teachers in

five different countries. The challenges that teachers perceived varied according to

their individual context, even though some challenges were globally common. For

example, when it came to factors that would improve learning and teaching, training

in new language teaching methodologies, smaller classes, better access to new

technologies and more hours of English were ranked as important. Significant

challenges perceived by teachers in response to the open question were speaking

problems, discipline problems, motivation, differentiation, writing, and class size. In

particular, with regard to local issues in South Korea, the researchers pointed out that

differentiation, which overwhelmingly focused on proficiency level, was raised by

teachers as the difficulty. From the observed lesson for a mixed-grades (Year 1 and

Year 2) after-school class, the researchers said that group work was used in order to

ensure that learners of different levels worked collaboratively and improved a sense

73

of responsibility to each other. Based on their findings, Copland et al. (2014)

suggested that teachers needed teacher education for teaching skills, and training

courses as well as course book materials for dealing with differentiation.

In Garton’s study (2014), which focused only on South Korea using a mixed methods

approach grounded in not only survey data from 125 Korean primary school teachers

but also in-depth data from a small-scale case study of one teacher, new challenges

as well as some of the initial challenges resulting from the introduction of early English

learning emerged. In order to clarify significant pedagogical issues that primary school

teachers of English in South Korea faced, Garton chose three areas of policy related

to teachers and their practices of teaching English to YLs among seven components

in Kaplan and Baldauf’s language-in-education framework: personnel policy;

curriculum and materials policy; and methods policy (Baldauf Jr., 2005; Kaplan &

Baldauf Jr., 2003, 2005). Many initial issues that had been addressed by the

government and other organisations in the area of personnel, curriculum and

materials policies generally appeared to be solved at the moment of research,

according to teachers’ responses. However, some ongoing issues such as the

teachers’ level of English proficiency or large classes were also revealed, along with

some new challenges, especially in methods policy. When it came to classroom

activities belonging to methods policy, although teachers frequently used

‘communicative’ activities, they seldom used more unstructured, creative activities

such as creative writing, project work and making things. This seemed to result from

the rigorously prescribed curriculum and materials because those activities tended to

be time consuming. The teachers pointed out three key classroom-based and learner

factors such as discipline problems, motivation and mixed-level classes as their

challenges. Among these challenges, Garton placed more focus on the issue of

mixed-level classes, which meant mixed ability and mixed proficiency, because this

was not identified by previous research globally. Notably, she took notice of the unique

conditions such as the private English education as the factor causing mixed

proficiency.

With regard to private education, it is necessary to look over a survey conducted by

the government of South Korea. The survey was carried out with 43,000 parents

across 1,244 primary and secondary schools nationwide by Statistics Korea and the

Ministry of Education (2016) in South Korea from June through October 2015. The

data showed that seven out of ten students took private lessons, with monthly

74

spending on private education per child hitting a record high. The most noticeable

result was the relationship between parents’ socioeconomic status and the amount of

English private education. The data revealed a big difference in expenditure on

English private education between high-income and low-income families. In addition,

this survey showed that high-achieving pupils in English spent more time and money

on English private tutoring than low-achieving pupils. This data focused on primary

pupils (age 6 to 11) to secondary pupils (age 12 to 17) in addressing these differences

in spending on English private education both between high-income and low-income

families and between high-level students and low-level students. However, this did

not show the results of primary pupils only because they were not separated from

those of secondary pupils. The data was also restricted within private lessons pupils

were taking at the moment of the survey without considering their prior private

education. Unlike this survey conducted at the national level with both primary

students’ and secondary students’ parents, it is necessary to focus solely on primary

pupils since the situation at primary school is different from that at secondary school.

These studies which are relevant to understanding teachers’ challenges in teaching

English to YLs through formal education in South Korea (in some studies, East Asian

countries), particularly from the emergence of the CLT methodology, show that

teachers had various challenges associated with an unclear understanding of the CLT

approach itself, as well as teacher factors or student factors. These challenges are

categorised by each element of the language-in-education framework as in Table 2.2.

Since the challenges were tightly linked to teachers’ practice, they mainly tended to

be included in the areas of curriculum, methodology and materials policy. The results

from these studies informed my aim to investigate teachers’ challenges in teaching

English to YLs at the primary school level after about 20 years of teaching English,

based on teachers’ voices.

However, it is necessary to pay attention to five critical points which those studies did

not feature. First, most of the studies, except for Garton’s study (2014) and J. Jeon’s

study (2009), mainly concentrated on challenges or problems perceived in the initial

stages of introducing English at primary level in South Korea. In fact, 20 years have

passed since English began to be taught in primary schools in South Korea. The

research is needed to explore contemporary challenges that teachers face because

the challenges could change over time. The challenges will be useful in

comprehending teachers’ teaching practices. Second, the previous studies all dealt

75

Table 2.2

Teachers’ challenges in adopting the CLT approach in terms of the language-in-education framework

Butler (2005) Littlewood (2007) J. Jeon (2009) Garton et al. (2011)

Copland et al. (2014)

Garton (2014)

Access policy ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ◦ More hours ∙

Personnel policy ∙

◦ Avoidance of English

◦ Training (in-service, pre-service)

∙ ◦ Training in new language teaching methodologies

◦ Teachers’ level of English proficiency

Curriculum, methodology and

materials policy

◦ Motives and purposes to promote communicative activities

◦ Developmentally suitable mediational means

◦ Strategies for situating activities in given contexts

◦ Classroom management

◦ Avoidance of English

◦ Minimal demands on language competence

◦ Conflict with educational values and traditions

◦ Large class sizes

◦ Lack of appropriate supplementary materials

◦ More interesting , practical and communicative textbooks

◦ Large class sizes

◦ Discipline issues

◦ Mixed level classes

◦ Children with learning difficulties and disabilities

◦ Motivation

◦ Grammar

◦ Class size

◦ Better access to new technologies

◦ Teaching speaking/ writing/ grammar

◦ Discipline problems

◦ Motivation

◦ Differentiation

◦ Large classes

◦ Classroom activities

◦Discipline problems

◦ Motivation

◦ Mixed-level classes

Resourcing, Community policy

∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙

Evaluation policy ∙

◦ Incompatibility with public assessment demands

◦ High-stakes university entrance exams

∙ ∙ ∙

76

with general ELT based on CLT at the primary school level without mentioning any

challenges focusing on teaching reading and writing. In the context of South Korea

where spoken English was emphasised unduly in the national curriculum or textbooks,

teachers’ challenges in teaching English generally seemed to be confined to spoken

English. Although English reading and writing belong to English education, it will be

meaningful to investigate teachers’ challenges focusing on teaching reading and

writing in order to provide some implications for balanced primary ELT.

Third, the studies mentioned above were all based on teachers’ perceptions, which

means they did not handle pupils’ perceptions or experiences. It is, therefore,

necessary to compare teachers’ challenges with pupils’ perceptions or experiences

because it can help understand teachers’ challenges more deeply. Fourth, these

studies were primarily conducted from surveys or interviews with teachers rather than

classroom observation. Although Garton’s study (2014) included a classroom

observation, it was limited within a mixed class with Years 1 and 2 as one of the after-

school programmes. Since English is taught from Year 3 in South Korean primary

schools, there is a need to observe regular English lessons rooted in the national

curriculum. Lastly, the studies investigated a variety of challenges in teaching but

seldom discussed teachers’ efforts or solutions. If teachers have some challenges,

they might attempt to overcome them in their own ways in their own contexts.

Indeed CLT was developed in Western classrooms for adults, and it may not be

in harmony with local educational traditions (Copland & Garton, 2014; Hu, 2002;

Littlewood, 2011). But it has been introduced in many Asian countries including

South Korea, even though it has caused many difficulties in teaching and learning

practices. Over time teachers have overcome a number of challenges and have

tried to graft CLT onto their practices. Although ELT did not start based on a perfect

preparation in the South Korean primary school context, CLT has taken root in the

classroom. Since 1997 when primary ELT was initiated for the first time in South

Korean primary schools, CLT has been a main approach. Unlike secondary school

teachers who had to move from grammar-translation methods to CLT, primary

teachers were able to accept CLT according to national policy to implement a new

approach, without cleaving to traditional approaches or methods. The pedagogical

practices of CLT such as learner-centred, interactive methodologies fit well with

the characteristics of primary pupils. This study focuses on investigating what CLT

looks like in South Korean primary schools. It also explores what teachers and

77

pupils see as the benefits and challenges of teaching and learning English in the

ways based on CLT.

2.5 Chapter summary

This chapter has presented the argument that in order to research ELT in South

Korean primary schools it is essential to understand CLT because it has been a main

approach in teaching English since 1997. It is also argued that understanding ELT

and CLT is most appropriately supported by a theoretical framework of SCT

originating from Vygotsky’s work. Interaction through language is central to the

quantity and the quality of linguistic input; it also facilitates attention to aspects of

pupils’ L2 which are different from target language norms; and it provides collaborative

means to support pupils to construct discourse structures and meanings beyond their

current level of linguistic competence (Saville-Troike & Barto, 2017). In addition to

the exploration of interaction, artefacts that mediate pupils’ L2 learning were an

important consideration in the research. The aim of learning L2 remains the same but

the teacher-pupil actions can be transformed by the types and uses of artefacts

(Lantolf et al., 2015). Therefore the investigation of artefacts such as activities and

materials was needed to further understand the practices of primary ELT.

The mediational tools for pupils’ L2 learning were further scrutinised in this research

by the other core notions of SCT: the ZPD and scaffolding. A fundamental feature of

learning is for teachers to create the ZPD, which means learning stimulates

miscellaneous internal developmental processes that are able to be in operation only

when the learner is interacting with others in his/her environment and working together

with his/her peers. Interaction in the ZPD allows learners to accomplish activities that

would not be possible without any help (Rogoff, 2003). The assistance from other

people through interaction makes it possible for learners to progress from other-

regulation to self-regulation. Thus a higher mental function such as learning initially

goes through a social stage in its development and then becomes a mental function

(Vygotsky, 1981a). In ELT classrooms the joint construction of the ZPD through

interaction offers pupils the opportunity to use new linguistic forms collaboratively (R.

Ellis, 2015).

In order to stimulate pupils to progress beyond their actual level of development, the

continuing diagnosis and appropriate support for learners are necessary, known as

78

scaffolding. The definition of scaffolding adopted in this research focuses on the

support that an experienced adult provides to encourage the development of a

younger, less experienced learner (Moore, 2012), but the role of learners is also

important as an active participant in a dynamic, interpersonal process (Mercer, 2000;

Stetsenko, 1999; Stone, 1993). Many researchers emphasise the significance of

learning from peers, whether they are more proficient learners or less proficient (D.

W. Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Lantolf, 2000b; Ohta, 1995; Wells, 2000), therefore, it

is meaningful to investigate interaction between pupils as well as interaction between

teachers and pupils in order to understand how pupils’ learning is meditated. In this

research scaffolding was also linked with artefacts, resources, materials and

environments being employed as scaffolds in the classroom setting (Puntambekar &

Hubscher, 2005).

In the light of empirical studies of the adaptation of CLT, this study addressed the

benefits and challenges perceived by teachers and pupils when they taught and

learned English in their primary classrooms. CLT was orginally developed in Western

ELT classrooms for adults and has been expanded to other regions and other target

groups (Hiep, 2007). So, it is necessary to investigate how CLT has been understood

in other situations such as primary ELT classrooms in Asian countries. From these

empirical studies, the findings show that there are differences that can be attributed

to CLT being enacted in different cultural settings (Hu, 2002; Littlewood, 2011).

Despite the differences, many countries have tried to adapt CLT to their ELT field with

the purpose of improving pupils’ communicative competence, and they have found

difficulties in applying CLT, for example teachers’ lack of understanding of CLT or large

classes (Carless, 2004, 2007; Garton, 2014; Li, 1998; Sakui, 2004). One of the myths

about CLT is to regard CLT mainly as listening and speaking (Spada, 2007). South

Korean primary ELT also places more emphasis on spoken English, and reading and

writing have been considered as less important (Butler, 2004). However, in order to

understand effective primary ELT in South Korea, it is necessary to investigate ELT

focused on reading and writing, which have not been explored sufficiently in this field.

The review of empirical studies in the field of the teaching of English in this chapter

revealed the need for research in the context of primary schools in South Korea. As a

result the following overaching research question was investigated: How is English

taught in South Korean state primary schools? The study as a whole, including its

focus on the practice of primary teachers and their pupils, was framed by SCT. In

79

particular the practice of the teachers and pupils was examined in relation to

mediation enacted through classroom artefacts and scaffolding by teachers and

pupils. The practices of teachers and their pupils were focused in the following

research questions: 1. What practices for ELT are enacted in South Korean primary

English classrooms? 2. What explanations do teachers give for their ELT practices?

The cultural aspects of ELT in South Korea were also focused through SCT, in

particular in the examination of mediation through the CLT which is articulated in the

final research question: 3. What do teachers and pupils see as the benefits and

challenges of teaching and learning English in the primary school in this way?

The sociocultural concepts of mediation, the ZPD and scaffolding, framed the

research’s exploration of practices realised in classrooms, the data for which can

be seen in chapter 4. The explanations teachers gave for their practices, seen

particularly in the data in chapter 5, and what benefits and challenges were

perceived by teachers and pupils (chapter 5) was also framed by SCT. This study

emphasised exploration of mediation by others in social interaction, and mediation

through artefacts such as activities or materials. Language was conceptualised in the

research as an essential mediator of knowledge and a communicative tool.

The next chapter explains the methodology and methods that were used to explore

how English is taught in primary classrooms in South Korea.

80

Chapter 3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Following the review of literature, this chapter describes the ways in which the

research questions are addressed and investigated. First, the philosophical stance of

using the mixed methods approach is explored, followed by the research questions.

Then, details of research design and sampling and sites for the research are

elucidated, and procedure of data collection and research ethics are elaborated.

Lastly, data treatments and analysis, as well as the validity of the research, are

presented.

3.2 Pragmatism and mixed methods approaches

Since the late 19th century, researchers with a positivist or postpositivist worldview

have used strategies of inquiry linked to scientific approaches including experimental

designs such as true experiments, quasi-experiments and single-subject experiments,

or nonexperimental quantitative research like surveys and correlational designs

(Creswell, 2014). In positivism, grounded in the scientific, naturalist tradition, it is

argued that there is an ontological reality in the world we inhabit regardless of our

perception, understanding or descriptions of that reality (Plowright, 2011). Positivism

epistemologically takes a position of objectivism which means that the inquirer

accepts an independent, distant, detached posture, and methodologically uses

experimental or manipulative ways, designating questions and/or hypotheses in

advance, followed by empirical tests under deliberately controlled conditions (Guba,

1990).

As a modified version of positivism and the intellectual heir, postpositivism,

recognising human frailties, points out that there can be no doubt that reality is out

there as in the positivist perspective, even though we cannot make sure that ultimate

truth has been disclosed (Guba, 1990). Epistemologically, postpositivism admits that

it is not possible for an inquirer to be beyond the confines of human beings when

conducting an inquiry, so objectivity can be approximated, although it remains a

regulatory ideal like positivism (Guba, 1990). Postpositivists thus recognise the

researcher’s limitations, which makes them consider that a reality can only be known

81

incompletely and probabilistically, even though they believe that a reality does exist

(Robson, 2011). In order to capture as much of reality as possible, postpositivism

depends on diverse methods and concurrently highlights the discovery and

verification of theories (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). It may also incorporate rigorously

defined qualitative methodologies as well as modified experimental and manipulative

methods, unlike positivism connected with chiefly quantitative methods (Guba &

Lincoln, 2005).

While the scientific paradigms are often viewed as having an ontologically realist

perspective about the world, a constructivist paradigm, which is often closely related

to qualitative research, considers that realities are mind-dependent, and co-

constructed locally and specifically. (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Plowright, 2011). That is,

the constructivist paradigm accepts a relativist ontology which demonstrates that

there are multiple realities, and a subjectivist epistemology emphasising that

understandings are constructed (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Methodologically, it

assumes an interpretive, naturalistic set of methodological procedures in the natural

world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Researchers with this theoretical orientation tend to

use qualitative research methods like interviews and observation, which result in

acquiring diverse perspectives, and qualitative methods techniques which are linked

to the gathering, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of narrative information

(Robson, 2011; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Qualitative research puts stress on the

qualities of entities and on processes and meanings which are not experimentally

explored or measured through quantity or frequency (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

Qualitative researchers try to make sense of or interpret phenomena in their natural

settings according to the meanings people bring to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

In addition to research studies rooted in these two different kinds of paradigms, mixed

methods approaches, which some see as the third methodological movement, started

to come to the fore in the areas of social inquiry from the 1990s (Creswell, 2009;

Denscombe, 2008; Greene, 2008; R. B. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007;

Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003, 2009), even though mixed methods research has been

used at least since the 1900s according to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003). A mixed

methods approach is viewed as one that should be driven by the questions that

research seeks to answer (Biesta, 2010; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Plowright,

2011). It refers to the use of qualitative and quantitative data collection procedures

and analysis techniques in either parallel or sequential phases in order to answer the

82

research questions in a single study (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2003). It is argued that the combination of qualitative and quantitative

approaches leads to a more thorough understanding of a research problem than

either approach alone: quantitative and qualitative data can compensate for the

shortcoming of each form of data (Creswell, 2014). Although mixed method studies

use both data collection, they tend to be marginally mixed since they are often either

qualitative or quantitative in the type of questions they seek and the type of inferences

they make at the end of the studies (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003).

On a philosophical level, mixed methodologists confronted the incompatibility thesis,

which was grounded in the connection between epistemology and method (Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2003). That is, the incompatibility thesis is based on the belief that the

combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is not relevant because the

paradigms such as postpositivism and constructivism underlying these methods are

fundamentally different (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). In order to counter this

association between epistemology and method, Howe (1988) posited the different

paradigm, pragmatism, emphasising the ‘compatibility thesis’, which means

quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible. R. B. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie

(2004) also recommend a compatibilist approach, mentioning that one should decide

the combination of methods and procedures to work best for replying to the research

questions.

Pragmatist philosophy suggests that research approaches should be mixed in order

to provide the best opportunities for answering significant research questions (R. B.

Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Pragmatists regard the research question as being

more substantial than either the method or the worldview that underlies the method

(Mertens, 2015). From this worldview, the important criterion to decide which method

to use in order to answer a particular research question is ‘what works?’ (Mertens,

2015). The notion of ‘what works’ engages in choosing the methods that work best to

approach a study’s problem and questions (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Pragmatism is predicated on the argument that “there may be both singular and

multiple versions of the truth and reality, sometimes scientific and sometimes

humanistic”, and it prefers utility, practical consequences and heurism instead of the

singular pursuit of the most accurate account of reality (Cohen, Manion, Morrison, Bell,

& McCulloch, 2011, p. 23).

83

In my research, mixed methodology was advantageous in that it could offer a holistic

picture of the phenomenon under study as well as contribute to the validity of the

research through combining information from diverse data or sources (Denscombe,

2008; Morse, 2003). In order to find the appropriate answers to the research questions,

both quantitative and qualitative research methods were deemed to be indispensable,

based on pragmatism which “opens the door to multiple methods, different worldviews,

and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis”

(Creswell, 2014, p. 11). Specifically, my research needed to investigate the practices

in which English lessons were realised through classroom observation. These

practices needed to be supported and evidenced by teachers’ explanations through

questionnaire surveys and interviews. It was also important to explore teachers’ and

pupils’ perspectives with regard to the advantages and challenges of teaching and

learning English in their particular context. These were gained from the quantitative

research data through questionnaire surveys, and in-depth interviews as qualitative

data. In this sense, combining quantitative methods and qualitative methods was an

effective way to investigate my research questions, which enabled me to gain not only

greater breadth but also greater depth in comprehending complex multifaceted

perceptions and realities, and elucidating the different aspects of a phenomenon

(Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003).

3.3 Research questions

In the South Korean primary classroom, English has been taught for twenty years,

based on CLT. At this moment, it is worth investigating how CLT has been seated in

the South Korean primary English classroom. Grounded in the discussion of the

literature, three research questions under one overarching question were formulated.

The first research question aimed to explore the practice of English lessons in

classrooms. This would help understand what CLT looks like in South Korean primary

schools. The second research question was related to the explanations of the practice

from the direct voices of teachers, who were involved in the practice of teaching.

When English was taught in the ways presented in the practice and teachers’

explanations, it was important to explore the benefits and challenges of teaching and

learning English. That was because it would not only reflect the practice more vividly

but also become a cornerstone to construct better English education. It was the third

research question to investigate the benefits and challenges perceived by pupils as

well as teachers. The research questions were formulated as follows:

84

How is English taught in South Korean state primary schools?

1. What practices for ELT are enacted in South Korean primary English

classrooms?

2. What explanations do teachers give for their ELT practices?

3. What do teachers and pupils see as the benefits and challenges of teaching

and learning English in the primary school in this way?

3.4 Research design

In order to answer the research questions, the research adopted a mixed methods

design which involves the integration of quantitative and qualitative research and data.

The purposes of using the mixed methods design for the research were to

comprehend English education more deeply and clearly from various angles and

viewpoints and therefore to gain a more certain and holistic portrayal of English

instruction at primary schools. In choosing a proper mixed methods design, four key

decisions needed to be considered: the level of interaction between strands1 ; the

relative priority of the strands; the timing of the strands; and the procedures for mixing

the strands (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Considering this research based on these

four decisions, it took a position of an independent level of interaction between the

quantitative and qualitative strands, instead of an interactive level of interaction,

because the quantitative and qualitative strands were carried out independently

during the process of research. With regard to the priority of the quantitative and

qualitative strands, the research had an equal priority in answering the research

questions.

Taking the entire process of the research methods into consideration, both the

quantitative and qualitative strands were done concurrently during a single phase of

1 A strand is an element of a study including the fundamental process of carrying out quantitative or qualitative research: raising a question, collecting data, analysing data, and interpreting results based on that data (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

85

the study. In the research, the questionnaire survey with pupils, the interviews with

teachers and pupils and classroom observation were conducted simultaneously,

followed by the questionnaire survey with teachers several months later. Timing is

often related to the time the data sets are collected, but it is more desirable to describe

it as the order in which the results from each set of data are used within the study

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Since timing is associated with the whole quantitative

and qualitative strands, not just data collection, this research can be said to be carried

out concurrently, although the quantitative and qualitative data for teachers were not

collected around the same time. Lastly, concerning the procedures for mixing the

strands, mixing in the research occurred during data analysis. After each data had

been collected, quantitative data were analysed quantitatively, and qualitative data

were analysed mainly qualitatively. Then, the quantitative and qualitative results were

merged through relating them to each other in order to have a better understanding

of each research question.

Figure 3.1 The convergent parallel design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 69)

The exact mixed methods design used in the research was, hence, the convergent

parallel design in which equal priority, concurrent timing and mixing during data

analysis, as well as an independent level of interaction, were essential (Figure 3.1).

In this research where the mixed methods approach was used, each research

question was investigated through both quantitative and qualitative research, as in

Table 3.1.

Quantitative Data Collection

and Analysis

Qualitative Data Collection

and Analysis

Compare or relate

Interpretation

86

Table 3.1

The link between research methods and research questions

Mixed Methods Design

Research Questions

Quantitative Research Qualitative Research

Surveys (questionnaires) Interviews Classroom Observations Teachers Pupils Teachers Pupils

1 √

2 √ √

3 √ √ √ √

3.5 Sampling and sites

The research required three main points to explore the practice of English teaching

and learning. The first one was English lessons mainly focusing on reading and writing.

In the setting where spoken English had been more significant than written English,

there has not been sufficient exploration of how English reading and writing were

taught in CLT. Thus, this research had the potential to offer a new contribution to

knowledge about English teaching by looking at English lessons mainly dealing with

reading and writing. The second one was teachers’ views about their teaching such

as their explanation of teaching practices and appreciation of English teaching and

learning. The last one centred on pupils’ experiences and perspectives of English

learning to recognise the benefits and challenges of learning English.

In order to consider these points, it is necessary to define several dimensions of the

sample. Classroom observation was carried out in state primary schools in Seoul,

South Korea, and the participants of the surveys and interviews were also teachers

and pupils in state primary schools in Seoul. Seoul is the capital of South Korea and

the biggest city as the centre of its government, economy, culture and education

where approximately a fifth of the entire population of South Korea lives. Although all

the primary schools in South Korea could freely choose one out of the government-

authorised English textbooks grounded in the same national curriculum (the 2009

revised national curriculum at the time of the research), all the schools in each

province were under the jurisdiction of a metropolitan or provincial office of education.

Accordingly, this research was limited within Seoul where Seoul Metropolitan Office

87

Table 3.2

Sampling for questionnaires, interviews and classroom observation

※ H: Pupils with high English proficiency I: Pupils with intermediate English proficiency L: Pupils with low English proficiency

M: Pupils who did not respond about their English proficiency B: Boy G: Girl

※ HT: Headteacher K: A Korean teacher who teaches English language NE: A native English-speaking teacher (a foreign assistant language teacher)

School Classroom Observation Interviewees

Questionnaires (pupils) Pupils’ pseudonyms Teachers

School A

2 lessons

Year 3 (0)

6 pupils

Jeonghwa (Year 6, G, H) Yuna (Year 6, G, I) Sion (Year 6, B, L)

Seojin (Year 4, G, H) Jeongsu (Year 4, B, I)

Chanseo (Year 4, B, L)

3 teachers

K1 K2 K13

163 pupils

Year 3 (35 pupils) Year 4 (36 pupils) Year 5 (44 pupils) Year 6 (48 pupils)

High (60 pupils) Intermediate

(70 pupils) Low (20 pupils) Missing (13 pupils)

Year 4 (1 lesson: K1)

Year 5 (1 lesson: K2, NE1)

Year 6 (0)

School B

0 3

pupils

Minjun (Year 6, B, H) Inhu (Year 6, B, I)

Junwu (Year 6, B, L)

1 teacher

K14 94

pupils

Year 3 (23 pupils) Year 4 (25 pupils) Year 5 (23 pupils) Year 6 (23 pupils)

High (26 pupils) Intermediate (45 pupils) Low (7 pupils) Missing (16 pupils)

School C

2 lessons

Year 3 (0)

0 2

teachers HT2 K3

92 pupils

Year 3 (22 pupils) Year 4 (21 pupils) Year 5 (24 pupils) Year 6 (25 pupils)

High (35 pupils) Intermediate (36 pupils) Low (10 pupils) Missing (11 pupils)

Year 4 (0)

Year 5 (1 lesson: K4)

Year 6 (1 lesson: K3)

88

School D

2 lessons

Year 3 (0)

6 pupils

Sujin (Year 5, G, H) Minho (Year 5, B, H) Leean (Year 5, G, I) Wubin (Year 5, B, I) Heeju (Year 5, G, L) Sehun (Year 5, B, L)

2 teachers

HT1 K5

142 pupils

Year 3 (52 pupils) Year 4 (21 pupils) Year 5 (43 pupils) Year 6 (26 pupils)

High (71 pupils) Intermediate (60 pupils) Low (6 pupils) Missing (5 pupils)

Year 4 (0)

Year 5 (1 lesson: K6, NE2)

Year 6 (1 lesson: K5)

School E

1 lesson

Year 3 (0)

3 pupils

Shinhye (Year 6, G, H) Jimin (Year 6, B, I) Jihu (Year 6, B, L)

2 teachers

K7 K15

96 pupils

Year 3 (24 pupils) Year 4 (24 pupils) Year 5 (25 pupils) Year 6 (23 pupils)

High (42 pupils) Intermediate (38 pupils) Low (7 pupils) Missing (9 pupils)

Year 4 (0)

Year 5 (0)

Year 6 (1 lesson: K7, NE3)

School F

1 lesson

Year 3 (1 lesson: K8)

0 1

teacher K8

97 pupils

Year 3 (24 pupils) Year 4 (24 pupils) Year 5 (25 pupils) Year 6 (24 pupils)

High (47 pupils) Intermediate (30 pupils) Low (4 pupils) Missing (16 pupils)

Year 4 (0)

Year 5 (0)

Year 6 (0)

School G

2 lessons

Year 3 (0)

3 pupils

Inseong (Year 5, B, H) Hael (Year 5, G, I)

Jiyun (Year 5, G, L)

2 teachers

HT3 K9

78 pupils

Year 3 (19 pupils) Year 4 (15 pupils) Year 5 (22 pupils) Year 6 (22 pupils)

High (28 pupils) Intermediate (35 pupils) Low (8 pupils) Missing (7 pupils)

Year 4 (0)

Year 5 (2 lessons: K9, NE4)

Year 6 (0)

89

School H

1 lesson

Year 3 (1 lesson: K10)

4 pupils

Jongseok (Year 5, B, H) Hyenbin (Year 5, B, I)

Doyun (Year 5, B, I) Onyu (Year 5, B, L)

2 teachers

K10 K12

118 pupils

Year 3 (29 pupils) Year 4 (29 pupils) Year 5 (31 pupils) Year 6 (29 pupils)

High (67 pupils) Intermediate (32 pupils) Low (2 pupils) Missing (17 pupils)

Year 4 (0)

Year 5 (0)

Year 6 (0)

School I

1 lesson

Year 3 (0)

0 1

teacher K11 0

Year 4 (0)

Year 5 (1 lesson: K11)

Year 6 (0)

Total 12

lessons

Year 3 (2 lessons)

25 pupils

Year 3 (0)

16 teachers

3 Head teachers

13 Korean

teachers

880 pupils

Year 3 (228 pupils)

Year 4 (195 pupils)

Year 5 (237 pupils)

Year 6 (220 pupils)

High (376 pupils)

Intermediate (346 pupils)

Low (64 pupils)

Missing (94 pupils)

Year 4 (1 lesson)

Year 4 (3 pupils) * H (1 pupil) I (1pupil) L (1 pupil) * B (2 pupils) G (1pupils)

Year 5 (6 lessons)

Year 5 (13 pupils) * H (4 pupils) I (5 pupils) L (4 pupils) * B (8 pupils) G (5pupils)

Year 6 (3 lessons)

Year 6 (9 pupils) * H (3 pupils) I (3 pupils) L (3 pupils) * B (6 pupils) G (3pupils)

90

of Education (hereafter, SMOE) has jurisdiction over education. There were 599

primary schools in Seoul in 2015 when this research was implemented, comprising

two primary schools attached to the national universities, 39 private primary schools

and 558 state primary schools (Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, 2015).

Teachers and pupils in state primary schools that accounted for the majority of primary

schools in Seoul became the significant research groups of this research.

Among the state primary schools in Seoul, nine were involved in the research: 12

English lessons were observed; 16 teachers (13 teachers and 3 head teachers)

participated in the interviews; 880 pupils in the questionnaire surveys; and 25 pupils

in interviews (Table 3.2 and Appendix C, Table A1). These nine state primary schools

were located in seven districts out of the 25 in Seoul and belonged to six District

Offices of Education out of a total of 11 (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 The location of the schools in Seoul

School A was the school where I had worked as a teacher right before starting my

PhD course, and therefore I knew the head teacher, the deputy head teacher and

most of the teachers, as well as the pupils in Year 6, some of whom I taught as a class

teacher when they were in Year 4. The head teacher of School D was my former

colleague and supportive enough to introduce the head teachers of Schools B, C, E,

F and I. The head teacher of School G and the teachers of Schools G and H had

91

carried out some projects related to primary English education with me, so I could ask

their help with my research. Although convenience sampling was used, selecting the

schools was based on understanding the conditions and circumstances of each

school because various types of schools needed to be included in the research.

Table 3.3

The association between apartment prices and the rate of entering SNU or CSAT scores according to the district in Seoul2

District

Ranking of

Schools District

Office of Education

apartment prices 1)

the rate of entering SNU 2)

CSAT scores

3)

Gangnam-gu 1 1 1 School A Gangnam

Jungrang-gu 23 23 24 Schools B and C

Dongbu

Dongdaemun-gu

15 22 16 Schools D and E

Dongbu

Seongdong-gu 10 11 11 School F Seongdong Gwangjin

Jung-gu 9 15 20 School G Jungbu

Sopngpa-gu 3 3 4 School H Gangdong Songpa

Dongjak-gu 11 14 9 School I Dongjak Gwanak

1) the fourth week of August 2015

2) in terms of the location of secondary schools (high schools) between 2013 and 2015

3) the average total of Korean language, English language and mathematics in CSAT

In order to understand the general school environment grounded in the districts where

the schools were located, it was helpful to refer to the news article about educational

inequality through the correlation of apartment prices and the rate of the students

entering SNU3 or the CSAT (College Scholastic Ability Test) results (Sun, 2015,

2 Extracted and translated from the news article (Sun, 2015, September 24) 3 Seoul National University (the top university in South Korea)

92

September 24). Schools A, F, H and I were located in the districts where apartment

prices were relatively high, and the rate of the students entering SNU or CSAT scores

were high compared with the other districts (Table 3.3). Conversely, Schools B, C, D

and E revealed comparatively low ranking in the three elements mentioned above.

School G was situated in the district where the price of the apartments ranked high

compared with the rate of the pupils entering SNU or CSAT scores.

According to the teachers’ and head teachers’ interview results, School A was located

in the socioeconomically advantaged district, but the pupils in School A were not from

families with high socioeconomic status, when compared with the pupils in other

schools in the neighbourhood. The pupils’ English attainment was generally at the

intermediate level in Seoul. In Schools B and C, which were situated in the less

advantaged regions, parents tended to be of low socioeconomic status. The English

proficiency levels of the pupils were low. The head teacher of School D said that the

number of the pupils with parents who tried to expose their child to English

environment with great eagerness was approximately 30 to 40 among 530 in School

D, which was a very small amount. Most pupils were from dual-career families, and

many pupils did not belong to families with high socioeconomic status. Some pupils

were from low-income single-parent families. The pupils’ English attainments were

intermediate or below average. School E was located in the same district as School

D. The pupils’ English levels were between intermediate and low, and parents’

socioeconomic status was not high. School F was located in a good environment, and

the level of educational aspiration of the parents was high. The pupils’ English

proficiency was beyond intermediate and almost high. School G was situated in an

important business district, the centre of Seoul. The pupils were not from high-income

homes and they did not have high English proficiency. The district where School H

was located was famous for the catchment area of good schools like the district which

School A belonged to. Most pupils came from socioeconomically advantaged families,

and the pupils’ English levels were very high. Many pupils had various experiences in

learning English, and more than half of the pupils had attended English language

kindergarten. Many pupils had experience in living and studying in English-speaking

countries. School I was also located in a good environment, and the percentage of

the pupils from low-income families was small, which was the main reason why a

native English-speaking teacher (hereafter, an NES teacher) was not provided from

the government in the year when this research was done. The pupils’ English

proficiency level was almost high.

93

These schools had different features in the environments around the schools, the

administrative districts, the district offices of education and parents’ socioeconomic

status as well as pupils’ English proficiency levels, although all the schools were state

primary schools under the jurisdiction of SMOE. Since the schools had both some

distinct characteristics and some common phenomena, they were the appropriate

sampling in investigating teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of English teaching and

learning and their practice in English lessons. The schools were also supportive of

conducting research in that the head teachers displayed a cooperative attitude and

helped in the procedure and the process of the research. However, this nonprobability

sampling did not provide a representative sample.

Out of nine schools, the number of the schools which allowed me to conduct research

in all the research methods such as classroom observations, teacher-interviews,

pupil-surveys and pupil-interviews was five: Schools A, D, E, G and H. Schools C and

F gave permission to conduct classroom observation, teacher-interviews and pupil-

surveys. In School B, consents for a teacher-interview, pupil-surveys and pupil-

interviews were given, and classroom observation and a teacher-interview were

allowed in School I. The type and the number of the research methods which each

school gave their assent to depended on the head teachers’ decision and the teachers’

permission based on the school conditions and personal acceptance.

Twelve English lessons focusing on reading and writing were observed in eight

schools in order to investigate how English was taught and what strategies and

approaches teachers used to facilitate pupils’ English learning from sociocultural

perspectives (Table 3.2). In Schools A, C, D and G, two lessons were observed

respectively, and one lesson in Schools E, F, H and I. In terms of the school year, two

lessons in Year 3, one lesson in Year 4, six lessons in Year 5 and three lessons in

Year 6 were observed (Table 3.4). Lessons A, C, D, E, H, K and L were done by the

Korean teacher alone, while Lessons B, F, G, I and J were co-taught by the Korean

teacher and the NES teacher. In South Korea, five sorts of English textbooks for

primary school pupils were published by four publishers. Except for School I (Lesson

L), the schools were all using the textbooks by the same publisher and authors,

among whom Teachers K10, K14 and K15 had been included. Their textbooks had

forged nearly a 60 per cent market share among five kinds of textbooks for primary

pupils over the country according to K14’s explanation. Lessons B and F, Lessons D

and J, and Lessons E and G were dealing with the same unit, although they were

94

taught in the different schools. Save Teachers K9 and NE4 who showed two lessons,

the other teachers provided only one lesson. The duration of each lesson lasted

approximately 40 minutes, one class hour.

Table 3.4

The basic information of the observed classes

Lesson School Year Teachers Unit Title

A A 4 K1 Unit 5. Where Is My Bag?

B A 5 K2, NE1 Unit 5. Whose Cap Is This?

C C 6 K3 Unit 6. Go Straight and Turn Right

D C 5 K4 Unit 6. Help Yourself

E D 6 K5 Unit 5. What Does He Look Like?

F D 5 K6, NE2 Unit 5. Whose Cap Is This?

G E 6 K7, NE3 Unit 5. What Does He Look Like?

H F 3 K8 Unit 6. Do You Have a Pencil?

I G 5 K9, NE4 Unit 4. May I Take a Picture?

J G 5 K9, NE4 Unit 6. Help Yourself

K M 3 K10 Unit 7. Look! It’s Very Big

L I 5 K11 Unit 5. May I Drink Some Water?

In order to inspect teachers’ general perceptions, experiences and preferences

towards English teaching, the questionnaire surveys were conducted with 191

teachers, who worked for the state primary schools throughout Seoul, using

convenience sampling and snowball sampling. In Seoul, when comparing the quality

of education among state primary schools from district to district, fundamental

differences in the quality of educational opportunity and the teaching staff were

seldom found. Rather, more financial support was invested in the schools in deprived

regions in order to equalise educational opportunities. Every state primary school

teacher in Seoul usually has the same type of teaching certificate for becoming a

teacher. Since South Korea has regulated the supply of state primary school teachers,

primary teacher candidates are trained in undergraduate programs for four years at

ten national universities of education, two national universities or one private

university (National Center on Education and the Economy, n.d.). Then, they must

take an annual Teacher Recruitment Test (Chung & Choi, 2016). For example, teacher

candidates who want to teach in Seoul should take the test administered by the SMOE.

95

After becoming a teacher, they are usually transferred to other schools in Seoul every

five years according to their residence or other considerations such as multi-child

family, regulated by the SMOE. These teachers’ qualifications and periodic rotation

enable a similar quality of teacher throughout Seoul. Taking these factors into

consideration, it was useful to employ convenience sampling based on my list of

teachers who had varied English teaching experiences and also to use snowball

sampling in that it led to boosting survey response rates. Considering that all sampling

should be decided within the constraints of feasibility, snowball sampling, starting with

key informants, is effective because the researcher can gain more and more

participants through the referral of informants, much like a snowball (Mertens, 2015).

Beginning with approximately 50 teachers I had personally known, who worked for

the state primary schools in Seoul, I asked them to complete the questionnaire and

encourage their colleagues to respond to it.

Figure 3.3 The numbers and the percentages of the teachers participating in the

questionnaire

The teachers participating in the questionnaire surveys were diverse in terms of the

district office of education they belonged to, their teaching experience, their English

teaching experience, their experiences receiving ELT lectures at higher education

96

institutions and their TEE certificate4 (Figure 3.3 and Table A2). All the teachers

belonged to eleven district offices of education, and the teachers’ teaching

experiences or English teaching experiences varied from novice teachers to

experienced teachers. In addition to in-service teacher training programmes for

teaching English, many teachers had already received ELT lectures at university or

postgraduate level. 12.0 per cent of the respondents gained the TEE-A certificate, and

17.8 per cent of the respondents possessed the TEE-M certificate. Although only 52

teachers were teaching English at the time of the research, all the respondents had

taught English before. The greatest percentage (49.7%) of the respondents thought

their pupils belonged to the group with intermediate academic standards, and 26.5

per cent responded that their pupils were in the low academic level group, compared

with other schools in Seoul. 22.8 per cent of the respondents answered that their

pupils belonged to the group with high academic standards. When it came to pupils’

English proficiency, 43.9 per cent of the teachers said that their pupils had

intermediate English proficiency, and 31.7 per cent replied that their pupils were in the

low-level group, followed by 21.2 per cent of the respondents who said their pupils

belonged to the high-level group. Thus, the questionnaire surveys from the teachers

with various experiences and backgrounds were effective in order to gain a

comprehensive picture of the perspectives of teachers.

The interviews with the teachers were conducted with three head teachers and 13

teachers in nine schools involved in the research (Table 3.2). They all had a certificate

for primary school teachers. Among the teachers, the more experienced were

Teachers K1, K5, K9, K10, K11, K12, K13, K14 and K15, whereas the novice teachers,

who had teaching experience for less than two years, were Teachers K2, K3, K7 and

K8 (Table A3). The teachers who majored in English education at the master level or

at the PhD level were Teachers K3, K9, K10, K12 and K14 and the teachers who

4 The TEE (Teaching English in English) certificates, which consisted of two types such as TEE-M and TEE-A, were a scheme made by the SMOE in 2009 in order to certify teachers who were teaching English in English, but they were stopped in 2018 mainly because of budgeting problems. The certificates were awarded to the teachers who had passed some procedures for confirming their qualification: English teaching experience, taking teacher training programmes for English, Knowledge tests, English interviews and class evaluation. The TEE-M (master) was the upper certificate than the TEE-A (ace).

97

gained a TEE-M or a TEE-A certificate were Teachers K1, K5, K9, K13 and K14.

Teachers K9, K10, K14 and K15 had written English textbooks and had participated

in varied projects linked to primary English education in Seoul or in the country. The

interviews placed more focus on understanding teachers’ in-depth thoughts or

opinions on how English was taught. Accordingly, it was significant not only to include

the teachers with miscellaneous levels of teaching experience from the novice

teachers to the experienced teachers, but also to contain as many experienced

teachers as possible because they had set up their views based on a variety of

experiences in teaching English and their professional careers in English education.

Table 3.5

The pupil-participants for questionnaire surveys

Schools

A B C D E F G H

Total

Fre-quency

Per cent

Valid per-cent

N 163 94 92 142 96 97 78 118 880 100 100

Gender

Male 83 46 47 69 49 50 33 58 435 49.4 49.5

Female 80 48 45 73 47 46 44 60 443 50.3 50.5

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 .2

Age

7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .2 .2

8 25 16 17 34 19 16 7 15 149 16.8 16.9

9 28 23 15 37 22 20 20 34 199 22.4 22.5

10 51 21 29 30 21 28 15 32 227 25.9 26.0

11 38 23 22 28 24 26 33 26 220 25.1 25.2

12 18 11 9 12 10 6 3 11 80 9.1 9.1

Missing 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 .5

Year

3 35 23 22 52 24 24 19 28 227 25.9 25.9

4 36 25 21 21 24 24 15 29 195 22.2 22.2

5 44 23 24 43 25 25 22 31 237 26.9 26.9

6 48 23 25 26 23 24 22 30 221 25.0 25.0

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

English Profi-ciency

Low 20 7 10 6 7 4 8 2 64 7.3 8.1

Intermediate

70 45 36 60 38 30 35 32 346 39.3 44.0

High 60 26 35 71 42 47 28 67 376 42.7 47.8

Missing 13 16 11 5 9 16 7 17 94 10.7

98

The questionnaire surveys with pupils were conducted with 880 in Year 3 to Year 6 in

eight schools where permission was given. The purpose was to understand pupils’

experiences and perspectives on English learning. Detailed information about the

sample of the pupils for the questionnaire survey is in Table 3.5, and Tables A1 and

A4 in Appendix C.

In the interviews coinciding with the questionnaire surveys, the interviewees were

mainly chosen from the pupils in Years 5 and 6 because they were the seniors at the

primary school and had been learning English as a regular subject for over two or

three years. Furthermore, when interviewing the pupils in Year 4 in School A for the

first time, they had less experience in learning English at school, and hence their

answers tended to be too short and limited. From the next school, the interviewees

were singled out among the pupils in Years 5 and 6.

In deciding the interviewees, it was necessary to include the pupils in various levels

of English proficiency. Regardless of the interviewees’ gender or other factors such

as learning experiences, English proficiency was the only requisite in selection for

interviewees. That was because I hypothesised that pupils’ English proficiency would

be closely related to their perceptions of English learning. English proficiency might

be apt to affect pupils’ perceptions towards English learning. Also, pupils’ different

perceptions of English learning, conversely, might influence their English proficiency.

Proficiency, which refers to “a learner’s skill in using the L2”, can be in contrast to the

term, competence (R. Ellis, 2008, p. 976). Whereas competence means “the

knowledge of the L2 a learner has internalized”, proficiency indicates “the learner’s

ability to use this knowledge in different tasks” (R. Ellis, 2008, p. 976). However, it is

not significant to separate proficiency from competence in this study because pupils’

L2 proficiency is strongly related to their competence. Pupils’ English proficiency or

L2 proficiency in the current study is considered the learner’s ability to understand

and use the target language which they learn or have learnt during English lessons,

which relates to their ability to communicate in English, as presented in the national

curriculum. Even though there were no nationwide tests targeting primary students,

teachers regularly assessed their students through both summative assessment and

formative assessment. Each teacher had their own standards to decide their pupils’

proficiency based on what pupils were taught in terms of the national curriculum. The

results were reported to parents at the end of each term , i.e., twice a year, primarily

using three or four performance criteria for each of listening, speaking, reading and

99

writing such as ‘excellent, good, satisfactory and needs improvement’ with some

comments. Through the process and results of pupils’ performance during lessons as

well as assessment results, teachers recognised and identified pupils’ English

proficiency. Thus, for the pupil-interviewees, the teachers who were teaching English

in each school selected appropriate pupils considering their English proficiency at a

high level, an intermediate level and a low level, among the pupils who spontaneously

wanted to participate in the interviews. The total number of the interviewees was 25

pupils from six schools, and eight pupils with high English proficiency, nine pupils with

intermediate proficiency and eight pupils with low proficiency were included (Table

3.2).

3.6 Data-collection methods and fieldwork

The research used three types of data-collection methods: classroom observation;

questionnaire surveys with teachers and with pupils; and interviews with teachers and

with pupils (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6

Data-collection methods

The data collection methods, and the analysis of the data, were informed a-priori by

the three analytic categories of interactions, activities and materials, framed through

SCT. In addition to the a-priori establishment of the analytic categories they were

enriched and added to through the processes of the final analyses. These analytic

categories have been explored in the literature review chapter in terms of their a-priori

Partici-pants

Period Data-collection methods

Pupils

May 2015~June 2015 questionnaires self-completion, paper

May 2015~June 2015 interviews face-to-face semi-structured, audio recording

Teachers

December 2015 questionnaires self-completion, online

May 2015~June 2015 interviews face-to-face semi-structured, audio recording

Twelve lessons

May 2015~July 2015 classroom observations

video/audio recording, field notes

100

theoretical influence. In the findings chapters the enrichment and additions to these

categories can be seen. Particularly, in chapter 4, which handles findings from the

observational data, each section focuses on classroom interactions, activities and the

use of materials respectively to investigate ELT practices. Chapter 5, related to the

findings from the survey and the interview data, deals with teachers’ explanations for

their ELT practices, using the same categories, in sections 5.2.1 and 5.3.1. The

analysis framework is also addressed later in this chapter.

Observations of classrooms were focused through the sociocultural means for

mediating pupils’ L2 learning in terms of interaction, activities, and materials. The

primary mediational tool was seen as verbal interaction (R. Ellis, 2008). Since learning

first takes place through social interactions (Vygotsky, 1978) it was meaningful to

examine the interactions (analytic category one) which happened during the lessons.

Therefore the interactions between pupils as well as the interactions between

teachers and pupils, as mediation by others, became the main features for

observation. Analytic category two, the kinds of activities, and analytic category three,

the materials used to mediate pupils’ L2 learning in a particular context, were also

examined. These three types of mediational tools for pupils’ learning were chosen not

only from sociocultural perspectives but also from the practice of fieldwork. During

data collection these mediational means were observed, even though it was not easy

to separate one from another because they were tightly intertwined during the lesson.

The mediational tools were investigated in close connection with the other

overarching constructs of SCT such as the ZPD, regulation and scaffolding.

11 Korean teachers, four NES teachers, and their pupils from eight schools gave

permission to be observed. Except for three teachers who were not teaching English

at the moment of the research, all the Korean teachers who participated in the

interviews showed their lessons willingly. As an outsider of the group under study, I

watched and took field notes from a distance, recording the classes. Ten lessons out

of twelve were recorded through both field notes and video-recordings, which were

later employed to confirm and expand the field notes, using two video cameras: the

first camera for recording the whole class including a teacher and pupils was located

at the back of the classroom; and the second one was carried by me in order to record

pupils’ responses, interaction or work while they were doing activities. In Teacher K8’s

lesson, only audio recording and field notes were allowed by the head teacher, and

Teachers K9 and NE4’s first lesson (Lesson I) was provided only with a video file. I

101

heard from their head teacher that the teachers had recently opened their English

class for the novice teachers in the schools under the jurisdiction of the same district

office of education. Although I did not observe their first lesson on the spot, I wanted

to explore their lesson in that the head teacher said that their teaching style, as well

as the lesson design, was effective not only for the pupils but also the novice teachers

as a good example of the experienced teachers’ lesson. I asked their permission to

observe their first lesson, and they offered me the video file of their lesson.

The interview protocols and questionnaires for understanding teachers’ and pupils’

perceptions were created by myself, considering academic knowledge and practical

issues on English teaching and learning as well as the reading/writing part of the

national curriculum of English reflecting English education policy and theories. I had

taught pupils for more than 15 years in state primary schools in Seoul. As a teacher,

I had shown my English classes to other colleagues and pupils’ parents many times,

and I had observed other English classes a number of times as a colleague or a

teacher trainer. I had many opportunities to share the ideas related to English

education with other experts in some projects funded by the Office of Education, and

I had also worked as a teacher trainer many times in the area of EYL. I had experience

in writing the English textbooks and English digital textbooks for primary school pupils

in South Korea. Such diverse professional experiences of mine, as well as literature

review and the English language curriculum which was the essential framework for

both textbooks and teachers’ teaching, became a starting point and a significant

resource for designing the interview protocols and questionnaires.

The interviews with teachers were done individually, using two types of protocol: the

protocol for teachers and the protocol for head teachers (Appendices G and H).

Although the questionnaire surveys were carried out later, the interview protocols

were based on the draft of the questionnaire for teachers. The individual interviews

with teachers were done more freely compared with the pupils, which meant that the

interviews proceeded with the flow of the protocol, but the topics could be changed,

extended or reduced in terms of the individual teachers’ responses and experiences.

According to each teacher’s backgrounds or characteristics, some topics were given

more time and questions in order to derive deeper understandings of English teaching

from their thoughts and experiences. The interviews with the head teachers were

conducted for apprehending the educational policies of the government or the

individual school as well as the school contexts from the broader perspectives since

102

three head teachers had been in charge of primary English education in many ways

in Seoul. The head teachers were individually interviewed in their office in each school.

The questionnaires for pupils centred on investigating how pupils had learned English

outside of school and perceived English learning at school, consisting of the

demographic questions (A to E) and the main questions about English learning

experience (Q1 to Q5); perceptions of English learning (Q6 to Q7); the necessity of

English reading/writing (Q8); perceptions of English lessons focusing on reading/

writing (Q9 to 28); and opinions for English learning (Q29).

Before distributing the questionnaire to the respondents, it was piloted with four pupils

in Years 3 and 5 who were not supposed to participate in the real surveys in order to

check that the questions were understandable and to identify any possible problems.

When I individually observed every participant filling in the questionnaire, I found that

some questions were misunderstood, which made me change them into more precise

instructions. It was also noticeable to find that the pupils tended to select the option

‘Neither agree nor disagree’ in the items of using a Likert scale. When I asked them

to choose the other option except for ‘Neither agree nor disagree’, they picked another

up without hesitation. The pupils seemed to select that option because it was easy to

choose the one in the middle without any careful consideration (Cohen et al., 2011).

So, the option ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ was deleted in the questionnaire so that

there was no mid-point. Some questions where the pupils wanted to select more than

one option became altered by reflecting their opinions. After completing the

questionnaire, the pupils’ general opinions about the questionnaire were asked. A

pupil in Year 5 said that it was not difficult to respond to the questionnaire on the whole,

and that she apparently came to reflect on her own English learning while filling in the

questionnaire. After performing modification of the questionnaire, it was again

scrutinised by a teacher and a head teacher who had expertise in doing research as

well as teaching English to young learners (YLs). The final version after several

revisions were provided for each participant in the paper.

Even though the self-completion survey questionnaires were administered on a group

basis in a classroom, the pupils’ teachers or I helped them conduct the questionnaires.

The questionnaires written in Korean were distributed and the respondents were

given approximately 30 minutes to complete them (Appendix D). The pupils in School

A were the first participants in the questionnaire surveys, and I was able to help them

103

fill in the questionnaires. For the pupils in the other schools, the teachers themselves

wanted to assist their pupils. Instead of entering the classroom, I explained the

important details for filling in the questionnaire to the teachers based on the

experience with the pupils in School A. The teachers assisted their pupils to complete

the questionnaires and collected them for me.

On the basis of the questionnaire, the interview protocol for pupils was drawn up

(Appendix F). The face-to-face semi-structured interviews were individually executed

in order to comprehend pupils’ in-depth perceptions related to the questionnaire

questions on a single occasion. The interviews were done with the pupils at three

different levels of English proficiency so as to grasp how differently pupils experienced

and perceived English learning according to their English proficiency. Since

understanding pupils’ individual experiences and perceptions in terms of their

proficiency was meaningful for this study, the interviews were done individually in a

separate room. For the fluent interviews, I started with ice-breaking questions such

as greetings or introducing myself. I knew how to build rapport with the interviewees,

who were children, because of my experience as a primary school teacher. Audio

recordings were used for each interview, which was helpful in concentrating on the

interviews without note-taking and also to preserve the integrity of the data. The

questionnaire surveys and the interviews could be said to be conducted concurrently,

even though the surveys primarily preceded the interviews. Hence, the interviews

were done without analysing the quantitative data, which meant that the interviews

focused on grasping the pupils’ perceptions more deeply on the same important

themes as the questionnaire survey.

The surveys with teachers, which used the self-completion questionnaires, were done

online through Survey-Monkey, a useful online tool for producing and administrating

surveys. After I asked some teachers to participate in the surveys, they were given

the web link with the explanation of doing this via email or multi-platform texting

application. Then, they not only completed the questionnaire but also encouraged

their colleagues to do the questionnaires. The first draft of the questionnaire was

designed with the questionnaire for pupils in advance before conducting fieldwork.

Then, the draft was elaborated several times because the first version included a huge

number of questions and I needed to narrow them down to focus on a few topics. After

a teacher filled in the questionnaire, it was revised by the teacher’s opinions to make

it more easily understood, and some items were deleted because they were repeated

104

questions or not relevant for deriving teachers’ opinions or perceptions. The revised

draft was inspected by a head teacher who had experience in designing many surveys

for teachers and pupils. She suggested that some terms should not be used because

it seemed to be difficult for some teachers to understand. She added that some items

required examples to make participants grasp them more easily and clearly. According

to her opinions, not only were some questions deleted or refined, but the options for

some questions were also reduced or repositioned. Considering the head teacher’s

comments, the questionnaire was revised again, and she encouraged some teachers

in her school to inspect it for me. Based on their opinions, the questionnaire was

modified, and each question was created online, using Survey Monkey’s interface.

After two teachers tried to fill in the questionnaire online, it was slightly revised in order

to enhance readability on the web, and finally it was ready for teachers to do the

questionnaire with the questions which included demographic information (a to g);

their perceptions of language skills (Q1); English education (Q2 to Q14); English

reading at school (Q15 to 20); and English writing at school (Q21 to Q26) (see

Appendix E).

Table 3.7

Fieldwork timetable

In order to collect the data, fieldwork except for the surveys with teachers was carried

Research Methods

Participants Fieldwork Timescale

Classroom observations

12 lessons (8 Schools)

Conducting May - June 2015 (8 weeks)

Questionnaires 880 pupils (8 Schools)

Designing February - April 2015

Conducting May - June 2015 (8 weeks)

Interviews 25 pupils (6 Schools)

Designing March - April 2015

Conducting May - June 2015 (8 weeks)

Interviews 16 teachers (9 Schools)

Designing March - April 2015

Conducting May - June 2015 (8 weeks)

Questionnaires 191 teachers Designing

1st: February - April 2015 2nd: May - July 2015 3rd: October - November 2015

Conducting December 2015 (3 weeks)

105

out for approximately two months from May to June 2015, as presented in Table 3.7.

As the convergent parallel mixed methods, classroom observations, the questionnaire

surveys with pupils, and the interviews with pupils and teachers were conducted at

the same time. Since one session in the primary schools lasted for 40 minutes, the

total amount of time for 12 classroom observations was nearly 480 minutes. The

interviews for teachers and pupils were done individually, and it took approximately

30 minutes to one hour for the teachers and about 15 to 30 minutes for each pupil. In

the questionnaire surveys for pupils, the respondents filled in the self-completion

questionnaire with the help of the researcher or their own teachers for about 30

minutes. The surveys for teachers were done through online self-completed

questionnaires for about three weeks in December 2015.

3.7 Ethics

It was a very important issue to protect and respect people who participated in the

study. I acquainted myself with the ethical issues related to my research and I gained

ethical approval from the IOE before carrying out research. In terms of ‘Ethical

Guidelines for Educational Research’ (British Educational Research Association,

2011) which I complied with, there are eight issues for the responsibilities to

participants, some of which particularly needed to be more focused in my research:

voluntary informed consent; the right to withdraw; privacy; disclosure; and detriment

arising from participation in research. In order to follow these ethical guidelines, I was

required to take voluntary informed consent from all the participants, and especially

from head teachers for pupils, prior to the research getting underway. First, I asked

head teachers’ permission for my research, and then I proceeded with the research.

In addition to understanding the process in which they were to be engaged,

observation participants and interviewees were informed both verbally and in the

information letter that their participation and interactions were being recorded and

analysed for research. For the pupils doing interviews, I asked for their parents’

consent to agreeing that their child contributed to the interview, as well as the pupils’

consent, before the interviews. The pupils who gained their parents’ permission and

brought their parents’ consent form were able to be involved in the interviews. For

questionnaire surveys, after I informed participants of the purpose of this research

and their contributions, I explained that it was their decision whether to fill in the

questionnaire and that they could withdraw anytime if they wanted. In cases where I

could not explain it to the pupils, I asked their teachers to clarify it before pupils

106

received the questionnaires. The teachers participating in the questionnaire survey

were informed about this information through the online questionnaire. The right of

any participant to withdraw from the research was respected for any or no reason,

and at any time, and I informed participants of this right before they took part in my

research. All the participants, as well as the head teachers of each school, were given

not only an oral explanation but also the information letters and the consent forms

before participating in the research.

Other ways to protect research of research participants were confidentiality and

anonymity, and for these, pseudonyms or fictionalising details should be used

(Mertens, 2015). All personal data was secured or concealed and made public behind

a shield of anonymity in my research. Teacher-participants were labelled as a unique

number including the initial of K for Korean teachers and NE for native English-

speaking teachers such as Teacher K1 and Teacher NE1. For pupil-interviewees,

Korean names were created, and pupils observed during activities were addressed

as a number with the initials of G for girls and B for boys like G1 and B1. This took

into account the cultural factors as well as convenience. In Korea, children are called

their first names, but teachers are mainly addressed as ‘teacher’ or a full name with

teacher like ‘Jang Jiwon teacher’ by pupils, pupils’ parents and even colleagues.

Instead of addressing Korean style names for teachers because they seemed to be

complicated for readers to recognise easily, the combination of the initials and

numbers was used to identify teachers more clearly.

Since it was important not to waste participants’ time, I designed my questionnaires

and interviews to give participants opportunities to reflect on their English teaching

and learning. Classroom observations, which were carried out during the regular

English language classes, were carefully conducted not to interrupt pupils’ learning

by intactly observing the classes without any intervention. Moreover, participants’

contributions to my research would be helpful for better English education in South

Korea, which means that they were participating in valuable work. In addition to these

guidelines, various ethical issues were considered while conducting research, and

research was undertaken thoroughly within an ethic of respect for the person;

knowledge; democratic values; the quality of educational research; and academic

freedom (British Educational Research Association, 2011).

107

3.8 Data analysis

Data analysis in this research was done both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Observations of English classes and the interviews with teachers and pupils were

analysed through qualitative methods. The questionnaire surveys with teachers and

pupils were analysed using quantitative methods. Particularly, after the survey data

and interview data were analysed through quantitative and qualitative analysis

methods respectively, both sets of information were compared and related under the

same themes. Some open questions in the questionnaire, which were designed to

gather additional information, were analysed quantitatively after the responses were

classified through a process of coding.

Data analysis for interviews and observations was done with thematic analysis which

is a method for “identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data

(Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). As explained by Kawulich (2017), qualitative data

analysis began with preparing and organising text data in transcripts. As some pre-

coding work, video recorded data of classroom observation was transcribed along

with field notes, through the repeated process of listening and watching. This process

was organised based on significant features such as teacher-pupil(s) or pupil(s)-

pupil(s) interactions, activities and materials. Particularly, the substantial interactions

rooted in each activity from the video clips were transcribed, along with descriptions

of behaviours and explanations of context and materials. The salient contents were

extracted, and what the teachers and pupils said in Korean was transcribed both in

Korean and in English. The simple outline of each lesson is presented in Table A7 in

Appendix C.

In order to familiarise myself with the data, it was necessary to read repeatedly the

whole texts transcribed by myself based on visual information as well as audio

information. Then, the analysis was done through a process of coding and condensing

the codes, using NVivo, Microsoft Word and memos. Sociocultural perspectives such

as scaffolding or mediation became the core points in interpreting the data. In

understanding the lessons, knowing a school culture from the inside as an

experienced teacher was helpful for a richer understanding and interpretation of

observed lessons (Mercer, 2008; Roth, 2001). The list of codes was developed

through several processes of revising (Table 3.8).

108

Table 3.8

The codes for classroom observation

Mediation for the effective lessons

• Interaction ▫ Scaffolding from teachers

Instruction/demonstration/gesture/asking and answering

Teacher-led interaction/pupil-led interaction

▫ Scaffolding from peers

Collaboration with peers/ helping less proficient pupils

• Activities ▫ Reading activities

▫ Writing activities

▫ Activities integrating language skills

• Materials ▫ The types of materials

For the questionnaire surveys, the numerical symbols were assigned to the diverse

answer categories, followed by direct analysis through descriptive statistics using

SPSS. First, since the questionnaire surveys with teachers were carried out through

Survey Monkey, the analysis started with converting survey responses to SPSS. The

original data was in Korean, and some part of it was not suitable for analysing through

SPSS, so I needed to change some sorts of variables and values. The questionnaire

was composed of five types of questions (Table 3.9). Both the options of multiple

choice questions and the levels of agreement on the Likert scale were considered as

categorical variables because each item was analysed separately. In the Likert scale,

the five-point Likert items were employed, unlike the questionnaire for pupils using

the four-point items, since teachers were believed to show their position more clearly

compared with pupils. The ranking questions were divided into two types: questions

to rank all the options according to priority; and questions to limit the number of ranked

items such as ranking three, four or five top priorities among the options. The rank

order questions required weights for each of the ranks, and the sum of all the weighted

values and the average ranking were calculated. Since weights were applied in

reverse, the most preferred choice was given the largest weight, and the least

preferred choice had a weight of one. From this calculation, the answer choice with

the largest average ranking became the most preferred choice.

109

Table 3.9

The types of questions in the questionnaire for teachers

Question Type Questions

Multiple choice (single answer) 11, 17, 23

Multiple choice (multiple answers) 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 19, 22, 25

Likert scale 4, 15, 21

Rank order All: 1, 3

Limiting: 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 24, 26

Open question 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 25

In order to analyse pupils’ data, a total of 880 cases from the questionnaires were

entered in SPSS. Questions A to E in the questionnaire were the demographic

questions including the fundamental information about the pupils such as school,

gender, age, school year and English proficiency. There were five types of questions

in the questionnaire: single choice questions; multiple choice questions; Likert scales;

ranking questions (priority sorting); and open-ended questions (Table 3.10). The

open-ended questions also included the ‘other’ option of some questions.

Table 3.10

The types of questions in the questionnaire for pupils

Question Type Questions

Multiple choice (single answer) 1, 2, 4, 10-1, 16, 17, 20-1, 26, 27

Multiple choice (multiple answers) 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 24, 25, 28

Likert scale 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (3), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Rank order 7 (1), 7 (2), 7 (3), 7 (4)

Open question 2, 3, 5, 8, 10-1, 11-1, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20-1, 21-1, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29

The data analysis for pupils’ surveys was first based on the entire cases in order to

investigate pupils’ general experiences or perceptions irrespective of their English

proficiency, using SPSS in the same ways as the teachers’ questionnaires. The data

from some open questions could be analysed quantitatively as well as qualitatively,

and this depended on the amounts or depth of the pupils’ responses. For the

110

quantitative analysis of the open questions, the pupils’ opinions were entered into the

Microsoft Excel file and were classified in terms of the codes. Then, they were

analysed quantitatively. Some of the open questions were excluded from the analysis

when they did not provide significant information.

After analysing the data entirely, the same data was analysed again in terms of pupils’

English proficiency which was decided by pupils themselves. Self-perceived level of

English proficiency was necessary for investigating how different pupils’ experiences

in English learning or perceptions of English learning were according to their English

proficiency. For pupils’ self-perceived proficiency, there was a question for pupils to

choose their English level from the list in the questionnaire. For example, pupils who

selected ‘I can understand what I learn during lessons and do activities very well,

thinking these are easy.’ belonged to the high-level group. Since many pupils tended

to think English learning at school was easy compared to learning outside of school,

the percentage of pupils who believed they belonged to the high-level group (42.7%)

was more than that of intermediate-level (39.3%) or low-level group (7.3%). The

percentage of pupils who missed their English proficiency (10.7%) was larger than

that of low-level, and this was excluded from analysing the results in terms of English

proficiency. However, it was included for analysing the general perceptions or opinions

of pupils.

The results according to pupils’ self-perceived level of English proficiency were

presented with the frequency tables, including the number of the pupils for each item

and the percentage. In case of a comparison among the groups with different English

proficiency, the Pearson chi-square analysis was conducted in order to check if there

was a significant relationship between English proficiency and the particular question.

If a significant difference was found, the Pearson chi-square tests were run again

between two groups such as the high and intermediate groups, the intermediate and

low groups, and the low and high groups so as to clarify which groups differed

significantly.

For this research, it was not easy to measure the validity and reliability of the

questionnaires statistically. In order to understand teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions,

experiences and opinions towards English teaching and learning which was the

purpose of the questionnaire surveys, diverse sorts of questions were developed, and

the results were analysed according to the relevant methods. Unlike questionnaires

111

developed for measuring and evaluating psychological factors based on rating scales,

the surveys including the various types of questions both in content and form were

difficult to examine the validity and reliability. However, out of all the items in the

questionnaires for this study, some items, which used a Likert-type scale, made it

possible to measure validity and reliability. The results show that they have high

construct validity and high reliability statistically in terms of the Kaiser-Meyer-OIkin

(KMO) measure (.895 for the teacher-questionnaires and .861 for the pupil-

questionnaires), Bartlett’s test (x2 22170.258, p..05 and x2 26069,740 p..05 each)

and the Cronbach’s coefficient (Tables A5 and A6). Moreover, the questionnaires

went through significant processes such as piloting and the experts refining questions,

which are significant in establishing the face validity, to enhance the quality of the

measurements.

Table 3.11

The codes for interviews with teachers

Mediation for the effective lessons

• Interaction ▫ Scaffolding from teachers

▫ Mixed-ability grouping: supporting each other

• Activities ▫ English activities focusing on reading/

writing/the integration of language skills

▫ Interesting activities and effective activities

▫ Considering pupils’ interest and their development of L2 proficiency

• Materials ▫ The adaptation of textbooks

▫ Supplementary materials

The benefits of teaching English

• Pupils’ affective factors

▫ Preference/interest/confidence

• Pupils’ ability in English

▫ Ability in reading/writing

• Pupils’ collaboration

▫ Group/pair work

The challenges of teaching English

• The difference among pupils

▫ The reasons for the difference among pupils

- External factors

- Internal factors

• The national curriculum and associated textbooks

▫ The levels: too high, suitable, too low

▫ The limitations

▫ The necessity and reasons for reconstructing the textbooks

112

• The revision of the textbooks

▫ For Pupils’ interest

▫ For pupils’ learning

▫ Providing the effective materials and resources

• Difficulties in teaching English reading/ writing

▫ Abstract reading process

▫ Systematic reading approach

▫ The exact meaning of the sentences or words

▫ Writing at a sentence level

▫ Grammar

▫ Feedback

English reading and writing

• The necessity of English reading and writing

▫ National competitiveness

▫ Travel

▫ Future job/Finding employment

▫ Acquirement of knowledge

▫ Professional fields

▫ Daily life such as the cross-border shopping

Audio recorded data of interviews was transcribed word for word in Korean because

all the interviews were done in Korean. Through the repeated process of reading the

transcription, the salient codes with significant information were generated employing

NVivo, Microsoft Word and memos (Tables 3.11, and 3.12). The analysis for interviews

with teachers and pupils was done separately, but the results from teachers and pupils

were stated in terms of the same themes or patterns. At the final stage of analysis,

this qualitative analysis based on the interviews and the quantitative analysis of the

survey data were compared and integrated in order to “seek a more panoramic view

of the research landscape, viewing phenomena from different viewpoints and through

diverse research lenses” (Shorten & Smith, 2017, p. 74). The results of combining two

different research methods could be interpreted as one of four possibilities (Brannen,

2005, p. 176), and the research results of this study were also interpreted with these

four characteristics:

• Corroboration: The ‘same results’ are derived from both qualitative and

quantitative methods.

• Elaboration: The qualitative data analysis exemplifies how the quantitative

findings apply in particular cases.

• Complementarity: The qualitative and quantitative results differ but together

they generate insights.

• Contradiction: Where qualitative data and quantitative findings conflict.

113

Table 3.12

The codes for interviews with pupils

English reading and writing

• The necessity of English reading and writing

▫ Communication

▫ Future life

▫ Learning better

English learning

• First experience ▫ Time/place/methods

• English learning outside of school

▫ How often

▫ Where

▫ How

• English or English learning at school

▫ Preference

▫ Interest

▫ Confidence

• English language skills ▫ Interesting/confident/difficult

▫ Studying most

English lessons

• Reading class/writing class ▫ Interest

▫ The degree of difficulty

▫ The heavy workload

▫ The effect of reading lessons

▫ Learning organisation

▫ Favourite Activities

▫ Preferred difficulty level

▫ Preferred support

▫ The biggest difficulty in reading

3.9 Validity

It is essential to confirm the validity of research because firm consistency establishes

the credibility of research findings and assists in ensuring that readers have

confidence in the findings and implications of research (I. Newman, Ridenour,

Newman, & DeMarco Jr., 2003). The first issue to add to the validity of my research

was related to triangulation, defined as the use of two or more methods of data

collection (Cohen et al., 2011). I triangulated different data sources of information by

investigating evidence from the data sources and utilising it to strengthen a consistent

justification for themes, as in Table 3.1 mentioned above. Namely, the mixed methods

design to combine the strength of quantitative data with the in-depth qualitative data

ensured the validity of my research. For face validity, the interview questions and

survey questions were designed to measure what they claimed to measure.

114

Specifically, I conducted online or face-to-face survey questionnaires for teachers and

pupils respectively as a way of building the validity because I could encourage them

to participate in surveys through the accessible ways for them to respond readily. It

was also significant to minimise the amount of bias caused by the interviewer, the

respondents and the questions in order to achieve greater validity (Cohen et al., 2011).

As a researcher and interviewer, I needed to be careful not to see the respondents in

my own image, and not to have misperceptions on what the respondents were saying.

I also tried to conduct research for the respondents not to be misunderstood on what

was being asked, and for the leading questions not to influence the answer

illegitimately (Cohen et al., 2011). Moreover, I kept a full record of my activities

including my raw data, such as the field notes and the transcripts of interviews, as

well as my research journal and details of my data analysis, which would help in ruling

out threats to validity.

3.10 Chapter summary

This chapter presented the methodological background of the study. As well as the

rationale of using a mixed methods design, the research questions and the details of

the research methods employed for this study such as data collection and analysis

were included and discussed. The following chapter investigates important findings

from the observational data.

115

Chapter 4. Findings from the Observational Data

4.1 Introduction

This chapter is the first to report findings from the research. The main focus of the

chapter is to show practices of teaching English in South Korean classrooms. The

observational data revealed the nature of the CLT approach. As discussed in the

Methodology chapter, twelve lessons from eleven Korean teachers and four native

English-speaking teachers in eight schools were observed. As such the chapter

particularly addresses research question one: What practices are enacted in South

Korean primary English classrooms?

The sample of lessons was dedicated to reading and writing. As I explained in the

Introduction chapter, before English started to be taught as a subject at primary

schools in 1997, English education had mainly focused on grammar and translating

texts at the secondary school level because of the entrance exams for the higher-

level school. It was a serious problem that students could not communicate fluently in

spite of learning English for over six years at secondary schools. As a reaction to this

problem, the CLT approach became emphasised, and reading and writing skills were

regarded as less important than oral language skills in the national English curriculum

for primary learners. Written English were also dealt with less thoroughly in the

national textbooks. In this context, it is noteworthy to explore English education

focusing on reading and writing lessons. That is because it would be helpful to reflect

on how CLT is realised in the South Korean primary classroom and to gain some

insights into understanding how CLT might be fully realised to mediate pupils’ English

learning.

The observations of English lessons focused on three areas: interactions, activities

and materials that were the main ways in which pupils’ English learning was mediated.

Since these three factors were closely intertwined during lessons, it is not

straightforward to separate them. It is therefore meaningful to understand them in an

integrated way, but it is necessary to investigate them individually in order to delve

into each of them as a mediational tool for teaching and learning.

This chapter starts by reporting not only what kinds of interactions were shown in each

116

type of activity, and what it looked like to mediate pupils’ learning, but also important

features raised through observing interaction. The second section of the chapter deals

with activities, which not only concentrate on reading or writing individually but also

integrate language skills. The last section explores what sorts of materials were used

and how and what their functions were in lessons.

4.2 Classroom interactions

In order to understand how pupils’ learning can be mediated, there is a need to

observe interactions where learning takes place. That is because development and

learning happen through interacting with others at the social or intermental level

(Vygotsky, 1978, 1981a; Wells, 2000). Interactions frequently observed in lessons

were divided into two sorts of interactions: interactions between teachers and pupils;

and pupils’ interactions with their peers. This section presents an analysis of

interactions between teachers and pupils, and between pupils, and how the

interactions acted as mediating pupils’ learning.

4.2.1 Interactions between teachers and pupils

The interaction between teachers and pupils in lessons focusing on reading and

writing mainly consisted of the following features: teachers explaining each activity;

teaching reading based on whole-class work; and asking and answering questions

relevant to individual pupils while they were carrying out activities. The initiation of

interaction by teachers was the important key to creating an interactive language

classroom (Brown & Lee, 2015). First, at the beginning of each activity, the teacher-

led interactions were active in order to help pupils understand and participate in

activities. Teachers tried to clarify how to do activities, using explanations, instructions,

questions, demonstration and materials. For instance, when explaining how to write

a poem using the key expressions and the pictures, Teacher K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4)

showed the example of writing on the electronic bulletin board. She also explained

how to complete the activity integrating writing and art step by step not to confuse

pupils, and asked if they understood the process. Teacher K5 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6)

utilised varied ways to explain how to do a reading activity: instructing and checking;

demonstrating with a pupil; translating difficult words in Korean; repeating important

phrases; having pupils translate; and showing examples (Appendix A, Example A1).

This interaction initiated by teachers was active at the beginning of the activities, but

117

gradually teachers enabled pupils to move from more dependence on teachers to less

dependence during activities (Brown & Lee, 2015).

Since questions for activating pupils’ interest or prior knowledge and comprehension

checks were primarily done from front of class, teacher-student interactions were

active and diverse, and generally followed a pattern of teacher initiation – pupil

response – teacher feedback (IRF) (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). Before silent reading,

Teachers NE4 and K9 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5), who taught together as co-teachers,

helped pupils participate in the conversation related to the story by asking questions.

Namely, teachers tried to connect pupils’ already existing experiences and knowledge

with the text (Gibbons, 2015). Looking at the dialogue between teachers and pupils,

NE4 led the class by asking central questions to stimulate pupils’ interest and

background knowledge, which would help pupils comprehend the story when they

read individually, and used yes/no questions to ease pupils’ burden of speaking in

English (Appendix B, Excerpt A1.A Lines 1, 3, 5, 9, 12 and 14). Teacher K9 assisted

pupils to answer or recall through showing gestures or saying the relevant word as a

hint (Lines 17 and 19). In the first and the second lines in Excerpt A1.A, Teacher NE4

asked what it was in the textbook, and pupils said ‘worm’ and ‘monkey’ from the

pictures. The answer the teacher anticipated was caterpillar instead of worm because

it is a caterpillar that becomes a butterfly. The teacher used a question (Is it a worm?)

in order to have the pupils notice that ‘a worm’ they said was not a proper word (Line

3). Pupils said yes because they did not recognise what was wrong, and the teacher

asked ‘Can a worm become a butterfly?’ (Lines 4 and 5). Pupils said yes again, but

one of them said ‘caterpillar’ (Lines 6 and 7). The teacher asked the boy to say it again,

and the other pupils as well as the boy said ‘caterpillar’ together (Lines 9 and 10).

After silent reading and teachers’ reading aloud, Teacher NE4 asked the questions for

comprehension checks (Excerpt A1.B Lines 1-3, 12-15, 18-19, 25-26 and 28). He

repeated the same questions two or three times slowly in order for the pupils to

understand, and sometimes gave some hints such as ‘looking at the picture’ or ‘in the

picture’ (Lines 1-3, 12-15, 18-19, 25-26 and 28). Teacher K9 also repeated the same

questions after NE4, making gestures to help the pupils comprehend better (Lines 4,

6 and 27). Since Teacher K9 was able to understand what pupils spoke in Korean,

she responded appropriately when pupils said or even mumbled in Korean (Lines 10-

11 and 23-24). The teachers did not say directly what they wanted to hear from pupils,

and rather they supported pupils to say and clarify the story themselves. Without the

118

teachers saying or explaining in Korean, pupils seemed to make clear what they read

in the text through the suitable questions.

After reading, while pupils were doing the writing activity individually, Teachers K9 and

NE4 went around helping pupils write. The teachers were sometimes observed to go

to some pupils, even though the pupils did not ask for help. During the individual

activity, interaction between teachers and pupils mainly began with pupils’ questions.

In order to allow pupils to proceed with their own learning, there were relevant times

for teachers to support pupils, particularly when pupils sought it (Brown & Lee, 2015).

While conducting the writing activity, pupils’ questions were usually to ask how to spell

the words or how to translate the Korean words in English (Excerpt A2). The writing

activity as guided writing was making a poster with cuisine photos the pupils brought

from home. They were given skeletal sentence patterns such as ‘This is (the name of

food). It has (ingredients). It is (delicious/yummy/awesome and so on)’ necessary for

designing posters. Since key patterns were presented on the board, pupils’ questions

primarily focused on words, and the teachers were very busy answering the pupils’

questions.

Figure 4.1 The writing worksheet in Teachers K2 and NE1’s lesson

119

An example of interaction between teachers and pupils in a group-based writing

activity showed how teachers scaffolded pupils. In Teachers K2 and NE1’s Year 5

class (Ages 10-11), pupils were making a poster to find out the owner of each given

item (Figure 4.1). The teachers circulated to help pupils in need when doing activities.

When some pupils did not know how to say an object (a case of mechanical pencil

leads) in English, they asked the teachers to say the word. Teacher NE1 tried to help

them, but there was a miscommunication between them (Example A2). This made the

pupils confused about completing their writing, so they asked the Korean teacher

again. The Korean teacher understood exactly what they wanted to know, but he said

a misnomer (a sharp case). Sometimes, NES teachers could not easily notice

problems that pupils face, and Korean teachers might have made a mistake or might

not have known the correct expressions in English because they are also L2 learners

like their pupils. Although there were the miscommunications and mistakes, the

teachers attempted to support the pupils to implement their task employing various

ways: saying words/spellings; pointing to the words; and writing the words in the air

or on the paper.

In Teachers K9 and NE4’s class (Lesson I) (Ages 10-11/ Year 5), the teachers aroused

pupils’ curiosity and attention, demonstrating a role-play so that the key expressions

were used in a natural and interesting situation. At the beginning of the lesson,

Teacher NE4 went out of the classroom and came back, masquerading as his brother,

who came to look for Teacher NE4 (Excerpt A3 Lines 1-7). He was wearing weird

glasses, a wig and a different jacket. He not only used the target language (TL) but

also elicited the TL such as ‘May I ~?’ and ‘Yes, you may.’ from Teacher K9 and pupils

(Lines 1, 3-4, 10-15, 16-18, 22-23 and 29). This short role-play motivated pupils to

connect what they had learnt in the previous lessons with what they would learn in

this lesson. Connecting pupils’ previous learning to their current learning through the

intervention based on teachers’ scaffolding is important to mediate pupils’ learning.

Moreover, this became a useful demonstration in a meaningful setting since one of

the main activities was role playing after reading the text, ‘The Giving Tree’ in the

textbook.

After the short role-play, Teacher NE4 was responsible for reading the text for pupils

or reading alternatively with pupils with their voices altered like voice actors. Teacher

K9 led a practice activity of preparing pupils for the role-play through memorising the

script. She started with having pupils read the whole script on the board. Although she

120

erased more and more words on the board, pupils had to read the whole text,

including the erased words. The words were removed first from the important content

words and then verbs. When pupils had difficulty memorising some words, she gave

hints to recall them such as showing a gesture.

Then, the teachers demonstrated a role-play, wearing a wig or carrying the model of

the tree. While pupils were practicing the role-play with their partners, the teachers

went around assisting them. The role-plays were done by volunteer pupils in front of

others, and more than half of the pupils had a chance to do the role-play. When acting

out, pupils tended to adopt the same ways as the teachers showed, for example,

wearing the wig, holding the tree, changing the tone of their voices, acting like a boy,

a man and an old man, and so on. During role-play, they did not require any help

because they were prepared well through previous activities. Pupils enjoyed not only

role playing but also watching their friends’ role-plays. Thus, the teachers took the

lead in doing activities as well as reading itself for their pupils. They assisted pupils to

memorise the script without a lot of pressure. The teachers worked together through

taking on the proper roles in one lesson with the aim of helping pupils learn better.

4.2.2 Interactions between pupils

The teachers usually began their lessons with a whole-class activity, but they

organised the pupils in various different ways, such as group work or pair work as well

as individual work during the lessons. They started out as a leading and modelling

role, but gave more control to pupils as the lesson proceeded (Dörnyei & Murphey,

2003). Many of the main activities were designed for pupils to carry out with other

peers, and hence, the situations where pupils scaffolded each other were readily

observed.

In group work pupils were frequently observed to help others, but sometimes more

proficient pupils not only supported others but also carried out work quickly without

collaboration with others. Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) offered a group activity

based on collaboration within the same group and competition with the other groups.

In the activity, the individual contribution to completing the task was very clear

(Example A3). All the pupils actively participated in the activity, and a free rider was

not permitted. Pupils who were poor at reading and memorising a sentence were

accompanied by a more proficient friend in the group to help them. When the pupils

who were in charge of writing did not know the correct spelling, the other members in

121

groups said the spelling or wrote the word in the air in order for the pupils responsible

for writing to write well. Nevertheless, although pupils were given a distinct role during

games, more proficient pupils were sometimes observed to perform faster without

waiting for the others because they were competing with other groups. For instance,

while the ‘Guess who?’ game as a group activity in Teachers K7 and NE3’s class

(Ages 11-12/ Year 6) was played, identifying the target person from the clues mainly

tended to be done by the leading pupils who could read quickly and understand

English sentences well, although pupils played an individual role in collecting

sentence cards with clues.

While doing activities, pupils spontaneously supported their friends in need. In

Teacher K1’s class (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) , each pupil wrote two sentences individually

in order to complete a poem as group work. They were given the writing patterns of

the story they had read at the previous stage: ‘I like (one of the items in the picture,

e.g. book, sock and cap) (the prepositional phrase showing place, e.g. on the floor).’

(Excerpt A4.A). Compared with G1 and B1 who were able to write well, G2 and B2

hesitated to write because they did not know some words (Excerpts A4.B and A4.C).

The words for each item were presented on the picture worksheet, but the words

associated with places were not offered. After finishing their writing, G1 and B1

watched their friends (G2 and B2) writing to provide help if necessary. They suggested

some ideas to write (Excerpt A4.C Lines 5-6 and 9); said the essential expressions or

words directly (Lines 11, 12, 19-20, 33, 35 and 41-42) or spellings of the word (Lines

26-27); and wrote on the paper when their friends did not write it at all (Lines 28-30).

Thus, the pupils scaffolded their friends in diverse ways to write the sentences

correctly, and the exchange was initiated by the pupils who helped, not the pupils who

needed help, such as ‘Bomin, shall I give you some ideas?’

After writing their part of the poem individually, the pupils brought their writings

together into the group poem. They wrote the group poem on coloured paper and

decorated spaces. Whereas individual pupils’ work was clear such as writing two

verses, their individual roles were not apparent in copying and decorating their poem

on coloured paper. One girl (G1) among two girls and two boys not only took the lead

in doing the activity but also made the other three pupils do what she instructed. B1

and B2 did not want to follow her instructions. However, since they had known G1

was proficient in both English and designing, they conceded the biggest space on the

paper for her to decorate or write. Instead, they timidly used small spaces on the

122

paper to write and decorate. G2 followed the leading girl (G1) completely, and she did

very trivial things such as covering up the glue lid or arranging coloured markers,

which were not directly related to the writing activity itself. When the pupils were

reading their poems in front of others, the scaffolds by more proficient pupils were

observed. The pupils individually had to read the two sentences that they wrote in

their poem. While the proficient pupils could read fluently, the less proficient pupils

hesitated to read. Whenever less proficient pupils could not read properly, the other

pupils in the same group helped them with the appropriate ways according to their

friends’ needs: saying words; reading sentences in advance for their friends to read

after them; or correcting wrong words or pronunciations.

In the writing activities based on collaborative learning for encouraging active

interaction with others, pupils’ outcomes were produced individually or collaboratively

according to the design or intention of each activity. While Teacher K1 had pupils write

individually and then combine their individual work into a piece of poem, Teacher K11

(Ages 10-11/ Year 5) had pupils write collaboratively with the group members in the

whole of the process from planning to completion (Example A4). Group A showed that

one girl generally took the lead in the activity, with the other two girls agreeing with

what the leading girl was doing (Excerpt A5.A). The group of four boys, revealing a

big interest in doing the activity, vigorously participated in making a story, although

drawing and writing were primarily done by two of the boys (Excerpt A5.B). For

drawing pictures and making the story, the boys used body motion as if they had

played soccer, which means they actively participated in creating the story, even

though they did not draw or write anything. In Group C, three boys took turns in

drawing and writing in each panel, discussing and co-constructing a storyline and the

language as well as drawing pictures (Excerpt A5.C). As seen in three cases, pupils

enjoyed working together, and positively took part in the collaborative activity,

although the practice could be different according to pupils. Various communications

among pupils in carrying out their task were done in Korean, except for using target

expressions in English.

In Teacher K5’s lesson (Aages 11-12/ Year 6), pupils conducted a reading activity as

pair work on a team. Its purpose was for pupils to read a text in order to complete their

work. For the activity, ‘Find the Spies!’, which encouraged pupils to collaborate with

peers on the same team and compete with the other groups, the pupils were divided

into three teams, and two pupils of each team alternately went to the maps on the wall

123

with a text card to find out who the spies were. Among the four pairs observed for this

activity, the first pair read individually. Although the boy attempted to collaborate on

reading with his partner (Excerpt A6.A Line 4), the girl read quickly alone and found

the spy very soon (Lines 5 and 6). After she ran to the front to write down the answer

on the board, the boy kept reading silently to check if the answer was right. As for the

second pair, a boy and a girl collaborated to accomplish their work, through sharing

their understanding (Excerpt A6.B Lines 2-3 and 5-12). Even though the girl noticed

the spy quickly, she waited for him to be convinced (Lines 13-20). The next pupils

were reading together (Excerpt A6.C Lines 2-7) and asked help from their team

members sitting away from them when they did not know a meaning of the word (Lines

8-13). Their team members did not tell them the meaning, so they did not identify the

word. However, it was not a problem to find a spy thanks to other clues in the text

(Lines 14-16). In the fourth pair, a girl led, and a boy supported her (Excerpt A6.D

Lines 1-5 and 10-15). They also did not know a word in one sentence (Lines 8 and 9)

but could find the spy with other hints (Lines 6-7 and 13).

4.2.3 Summary

Interactions between teachers and pupils mainly featured teachers explaining each

activity, teaching reading on a basis of whole-class work, and supporting pupils when

they were doing activities. At the beginning of the lesson or in teaching reading,

teacher-led interactions were frequently observed as seeking to activate pupils’ prior

knowledge or to engage pupils in learning in scaffolded ways. Over time pupil-initiated

interactions increased because pupils needed teachers’ help such as asking how to

spell or how to translate Korean words in English. Teachers not only tried to help

pupils do work with scaffolded help, but also themselves became a good role model

for mediating pupils’ learning.

Effective interaction between pupils was mainly done in collaborative work through

group or pair work. Even in individual work, more proficient pupils spontaneously

helped less proficient pupils in various ways. In some activities where pupils were

expected to work together, more proficient pupils tended to take the lead without

interacting with others, especially when they were competing with other groups. Even

in the same activities, the types of pupils’ collaboration were different according to

group members from a group where a leader took the initiative to a group where group

members constructed their work collaboratively. Interaction between pupils was

124

usually carried out in Korean except for using the TL, unlike interaction between

teachers and pupils which was generally done in English.

4.3 Activities

Every lesson consisted of a series of activities, and hence it was necessary to take a

close look at what kinds of activity were generally used, what each activity was about

and how they were presented as a mediational tool for pupils’ English learning in the

CLT classroom. Activities in this section are divided into reading activities, writing

activities and integrated activities according to the focus of the teaching.

4.3.1 Reading activities

Reading lessons basically comprised three steps such as pre-reading, while-reading

and post-reading stage (Examples A5 and A6). Since teachers mainly taught texts in

the textbooks, the lessons can also be divided: before reading a text; while reading

the text; and after reading the text. The pre-reading stage commonly contained the

activities for stimulating pupils’ background knowledge. The while-reading stage in

Table 4.1, which compares Teacher K11’s lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) and Teacher

K5’s lesson (Ages 11-12/ Year 6), was comprised of silent reading, reading aloud and

comprehension check. In this stage, teachers were usually observed to offer pupils

diverse opportunities to read texts. Pupils had to read texts repeatedly in a variety of

ways: reading silently; listening to what teachers read; reading after CDs or teachers;

reading aloud; reading together; taking turns in reading; and doing a role-play.

Table 4.1

The comparison of reading lessons

Stage of the lesson

Teacher K11’s reading lesson Teacher K5’s reading lesson

◦ Pre-reading ▪ Checking four words in the textbook

▫ Choosing four words among nonsense words

▫ Understanding the meanings of the words

▪ Pronunciation

▪ Talking about the pictures and the title in the textbook

125

◦ While-reading ▫ Reading the story silently (the

teacher going around)

▪ Asking questions for comprehension or words and eliciting key expressions

▫ Watching the video clip of the story without any English subtitles

▫ Reading while watching the video clip of the story with subtitles

▫ Reading the subtitles without any sound from the CD

▫ Taking a role for reading and reading

▪ Asking easy questions (yes/

no or one-word questions)

▫ Reading after the CD

▪ Mentioning the significant words of each sentence without explaining or translating them

▫ Selecting the right pictures for the textbook and saying the reasons

▫ Boys and girls reading out the text alternatively or reading together

▪ Checking the correct answers through explanation or questions

◦ Post-reading ◦ Make a Four-cut Cartoon (writing activity)

◦ Find the Spies! (reading)

▪ Checking pupils’ answers

◦ Describe Your Manito (writing)

▪ Teacher’ activity ◦ Pupils’ activity

Teachers K9 and NE4’s lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) can be an example of a lesson

centred on reading itself (Example A7). After the teachers activated pupils’

background knowledge of language expressions and stories at the pre-reading stage,

they had pupils read silently. Then, the teachers took turns in reading with some

gestures to help pupils’ understanding, and pupils were allowed to listen to the

teachers without reading after the teachers. The teachers became a reading model

for pupils (Gibbons, 2015). After asking for a comprehension check, Teacher NE4 and

pupils took turns reading a text out loud. Finally pupils read the text with their partners

without any help. Pupils were guided from just listening to what the teachers read to

reading aloud with their partners themselves.

The process of checking pupils’ understanding was inclined to be carried out through

questions collectively rather than individually. Some teachers did not appear to check

individual pupils’ comprehension thoroughly. They merely asked simple questions and

pupils answered together. In many cases, although pupils did not comprehend texts

wholly, they had little difficulty in answering the teachers’ questions about the texts

(Excerpt A8). In Teachers K6 and NE2’s lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year 5), the questions

were asked in order from the first line to the last line of the text (Excerpt A8.A.2 Lines

126

6, 8, 12, 18, 20 and 24), and therefore pupils might answer appropriately, even though

they did not know the clear meaning of each sentence. In the case of Teacher K4

(Ages 10-11/ Year 5), she tended to explain the whole situation and important features

of the text in Korean without inducing pupils to say something (Excerpt A8.B.2 Lines

1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-14 and 20-21). Pupils were just asked to translate what the teacher

said in Korean into English (Lines 5-6). They were also given some questions which

were not difficult to answer (Lines 1-3, 8-9, 12-14, 16, 18 and 20-21). Pupils did not

know the exact meaning of each sentence, but they could notice the teacher’s

intention or assume the appropriate answers from the context, pictures or prior

knowledge (Lines 8-10, 11-15, 16-17, 18-19 and 20-24).

It was the post-reading stage where many creative activities developed by teachers

were observed. Whereas Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) provided a writing activity

(Make a Four-cut Cartoon) as a post-reading activity, Teacher K5 (Ages 11-12/ Year

6) offered both a reading activity (Find the Spies!) and a writing activity (Describe Your

Manito) (Table 4.1). Teachers tended to place more focus on these post-reading

activities in order to have pupils practise or produce the TL in interesting or meaningful

contexts.

Looking at Teacher K1’s lesson (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) as the example to show three

stages in teaching reading, she taught with a storybook, unlike other teachers who

utilised the texts in the textbooks. At the pre-reading stage, Teacher K1 showed

pictures of a sock under the chair and books on the floor in order to recall the key

expressions that pupils had learnt in the previous lessons, She had pupils make O or

X with their hands after they listened to what the teacher said about each picture. This

listening activity lightened the pupils’ burden on saying something from the start, and

even less proficient pupils could participate in it without any stress because they could

copied their friends. Then, she displayed a cover of a book to stimulate pupils’ interest

and asked some questions linked to the pictures. These were organically connected

with the key expressions that pupils had learnt and they would read and write in this

lesson. Another pre-reading activity was to match some words with the pictures on

the screen.

After presenting the key expressions and words, the main reading activity was to read

the PPT book on the screen. At the first reading, pupils just listened to what the

teacher read from the first slide to the last slide. At the second reading, the teacher

127

placed focus on doing activities while reading some parts of the story: reading out two

sentences together; choosing one sentence appropriate for the picture out of two

sentences; and unscrambling the words to make a sentence. While ‘choosing one

sentence for the picture’ was related to the meaning, ‘putting the words in order’ was

focused on noticing the form. These activities were presented to all the pupils on the

screen but were done by individual pupils chosen by the teacher among the

volunteers.

The next activity concentrated on figuring out the word order intensively, which was

associated with the subsequent main activity, ‘Writing a Poem’. The teacher showed

the whole sentences including the words of objects written in blue (e.g., paint, socks,

toys, shoes) and the phrases indicating places written in red (on my table, on my chair,

on my floor, in my drawer) in one slide of the PPT materials. Due to the distinctive

colours in the sentences, pupils could pay attention to the common among the words

written in the same colour, and the difference between the words written in the

different colours. Like Teacher K1, many teachers were observed to offer scaffolded

help in order to teach difficult concepts or grammatical features using materials or

activities. Even though those features were not dealt with in the national curriculum

or textbooks, teachers taught them if they determined that those features required

teaching for pupils’ better learning or understanding. Many teachers mentioned that

learning grammatical rules would be very helpful for pupils to read and write effectively.

These activities, which were done before the last activity, acted as stepping stones to

go to ‘Writing a poem’, which was a post-reading activity. At the post-reading stage,

pupils were given work to use target expressions in a meaningful context.

4.3.2 Writing activities

Writing activities during observed lessons included controlled writing, guided writing

and free writing. First, looking at controlled writing by Teacher K8 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3),

she concentrated on having pupils copy the words in the textbook (Example A8).

While her pupils were writing, she taught the use of lower case letters for words.

Although most of her pupils were at high English level, the teacher tried to check the

basics of writing because they had just started to learn English through formal

education. Teachers who taught pupils in upper school years (Years 5 and 6) tended

to offer more guided writing activities in the meaningful context than controlled writing.

Many teachers attempted scaffolded help as an intermediate step in the process from

128

controlled writing to free writing, which was the reason for providing guided writing.

Teachers K9 and NE4 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) presented the worksheet where guided

writing and free writing were gradually embodied at sentence level (Figure 4.2). Pupils

were supposed to write six sentences which they had learnt in the previous lessons

and this lesson. The first two sentences were to fill in the blanks in order to suit each

picture, and the next was to make a sentence appropriate for the short dialogue in the

picture. The fourth and the fifth sentences were to write relevantly for the speech

bubble based on the pictures and the same pattern as the previous sentences. The

last sentence was for free writing at sentence level using the same key pattern. Pupils

were able to write sentences step by step from more guided to less guided and from

more supportive to less supportive in the worksheet.

Figure 4.2 The writing worksheet offered by Teachers K9 and NE4

Guided writing was also observed in Teachers K2 and NE1’s lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year

5), Teacher K5’ lesson (Ages 11-12/ Year 6), and Teacher K1’s lesson (Ages 9-10/

Year 4) (Examples A9, A10 and A11). Their guided writing activities were group work

129

(Teachers K2 and NE1’s lesson), pair work (Teacher K5’ lesson) and individual work

(Teacher K1’s lesson) respectively, but all of them included key patterns on the

worksheet or on the screen for pupils to fill in the blanks with appropriate words.

Except for Teachers K2 and NE1’s activity where the teachers were not able to expect

their pupils’ items, the other two activities offered various words as well as key

patterns, which helped pupils choose appropriate ones to complete their writing. Free

writing was observed in Teacher K11’s lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year 5). As group work,

pupils were given a worksheet to make a four-frame comic strip. Among the assigned

topics, pupils selected a topic including the key expression such as ‘May I ~?’ and

made a story as they wanted through working together.

Not only were these writing activities a means to mediate pupils’ effective learning,

but the ways the activities were presented and accomplished were also helpful for

leading pupils to learning. The teachers’ scaffolded help through face-to-face

interaction, manageable tasks, or well-designed materials to assist pupils with the

completion of the reading and writing activities was frequently observed throughout

the lessons (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2

The examples of teachers’ scaffolding observed during reading and writing activities

Activities Scaffolding

◦ The beginning of

each activity

∙ Presenting how to do activities - explaining gradually - checking pupils’ understanding - repeating important words or phrases in English - paraphrasing explanations or instructions - translating difficult English words into Korean - having pupils repeat teachers’ explanations in Korean or

in English - using visual materials - demonstrating how to do activities

◦ Reading aloud ∙ Reading silently ∙ Reading aloud individually ∙ Teachers’ demonstration of how to read aloud

∙ Using CDs to offer the native speaker’s reading

∙ Reading after teachers

∙ Reading like a role-play with teachers or peers

∙ Doing a role play activity - presenting a meaningful context - activating prior knowledge

130

- demonstrating a role-play in a given context to motivate pupils

- providing a cue card - reading a text for pupils (altering voices for each role) - reading a text with pupils - having pupils memorise the script for a role-play by

degrees - demonstrating a role-play - giving pupils time to practice with their partners (going

around to help pupils) - having volunteers do a role-play in front of others - eventually, having most of the pupils perform

◦ Reading for

comprehension

∙ Before reading a text - activating pupils’ background knowledge about the story

or TL from a title or pictures

∙ While reading or after reading - showing some gestures - asking questions gradually from closed-ended questions

(yes/no questions) to open-ended questions (wh-questions)

- repeating the same questions a couple of times slowly with some hints such as showing some parts or pictures of the text

- using verbal clues such as saying important words or prompts

- repeating pupils’ wrong answers in order to have pupils realise their mistakes

- changing questions to have pupils think again - asking a pupil saying the right answer to say again - eliciting correct responses from pupils without saying the

right answers directly - giving feedback or comments

◦ Writing activities ∙ Before-writing - activating prior knowledge - showing sample writing - having pupils say words or spellings before writing - stimulating pupils to write words in the air - asking pupils to say various words or expressions

∙ While-writing and after-writing - providing worksheet with many words and expressions - offering tasks gradually - going around to help pupils write - saying suitable words or correct spellings - pointing to the words - writing the words in the air or on the paper - offering various words or on the board or worksheet in

advance - supporting pupils to present their outcomes - giving feedback or comments

131

4.3.3 Activities integrating language skills

Since not only the textbooks but also teachers regarded integrated activities for

reading and writing as significant, many lessons integrating language skills could

readily be observed in reality. Teacher K8’s pupils had been taught English in school

for approximately three months. Their English abilities were higher than the level of

the textbook, but the teacher mainly used activities in the textbook for her pupils

(Example A12). As seen in Teacher K8’s lesson using the activities in the textbook

(Ages 8-9/ Year 3), reading and writing were primarily taught together within one

activity from the very beginning of learning English at school. Teacher K10 taught

pupils in Year 3 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) like Teacher K8 but offered activities she had

developed herself instead of using activities in the textbook. She provided the

integrated activity of reading and writing as individual work, using a worksheet

(Example A13). Pupils had to complete six sentences by choosing the words and the

correct pictures for the words in the worksheet. In order to do this activity, the pupils

had to read the sentences and write the words with the aid of the examples and the

pictures. Even though the textbooks offered reading at word level, the teacher, who

figured out their pupils’ English levels, gave the relevant work for their pupils’ abilities

and learning.

Beyond the integration of reading and writing, there was the integration of reading and

spoken language across activities. Teacher K4 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) used reading as

a tool for practising speaking accurately and fluently. In her class, pupils were given

reading materials with the three different levels of difficulty in order (Excerpt A7). In

the first level, pupils read together with the text, looking at the PPT material containing

the text and pictures from the textbook, which was shown scene by scene. From the

second level, some words or expressions were missing, but the pupils had to read the

whole text including the missing parts. This activity was aimed at not only improving

pupils’ speaking ability through reading but also helping pupils memorise the TL for

the next activity focusing on speaking. Instead of having pupils memorise the whole

text from the start, the teacher helped pupils familiarise and memorise the expressions

by repeating reading with the extent of difficulty increased. This activity was not just

learning the key expressions by rote, and pupils had to activate their prior knowledge

in language and schema with the help of the pictures.

The integration of four language skills was also observed in many classes. Particularly,

132

K9 and NE4’s class where pupils were expected to make a poster introducing foods

as individual work (Example A14). Pupils had to write about the food they selected

and read their writing to their group members. Then, they took a role of guest or host

in order to ask and answer questions about some food. They communicated with each

other based on the TL of asking to eat something using the poster. The other example

of integrating language skills was observed in Teacher K3’s lesson (Ages 11-12/ Year

6) (Example A15). He presented the coherent activities within the same topic

throughout the lesson. These activities with the final goal to find the villain were

intimately connected to one another in the given context which attracted pupils’

interest and motivation. In the process of conducting their mission, the pupils had to

use the key expressions repeatedly, and they did various integrated activities of

speaking and listening as well as reading and writing. The activities in one lesson

should be closely connected in the flow of an introduction, ongoing parts and a

conclusion, and should be consistent with a given topic (Thornbury, 1999).

Thus, multiple activities that encouraged learning grounded in the integration of

language skills, whether the integration of reading and writing or of spoken and written

English, could be observed within an activity or across activities. Although pupils did

not know exactly why they did the particular activities, the previous activities

eventually became stepping stones to doing the final activity, which pupils could

accomplish independently, according to the teachers’ intention and plan. These

lessons can be said to be well organised to scaffold pupils’ learning because

scaffolding should not merely assist pupils to accomplish a specific task but also

encourage pupils’ autonomy to complete similar tasks independently later (Gibbons,

2015).

4.3.4 Summary

Activities in the lessons focusing on reading and writing incorporated diverse reading

activities; writing activities; and activities integrating language skills. As for reading,

the activities were conducted in three stages: pre-reading, while-reading and post-

reading stage. At the pre-reading stage, teachers activated pupils’ prior knowledge in

order to familiarise pupils with key expressions which they not only had learnt in

spoken English but also were expected to read and write. At the while-reading stage,

pupils were given various opportunities to read texts, which helped them move from

more guided reading to more independent reading. As regards checking pupils’

133

comprehension, teachers tended to ask collectively rather than individually. Teachers

did not seem to check pupils’ individual understanding carefully. At the post-reading

stage, teachers provided a variety of creative activities which were designed to give

more chances to use the TL in meaningful or authentic settings.

Writing activities constituted controlled, guided, and free writing activities. The most

frequently observed activities were guided writing activities. These included various

scaffolds such as language patterns, vocabulary or pictures as well as teachers’

scaffolded help through face-to-face interaction. In addition to reading and writing

activities respectively, there were many activities integrating not only reading and

writing but also spoken and written language across activities or even within an activity.

Through these activities, pupils were able to use the TL in more interesting and

authentic settings. Not only did each activity mediate pupils’ learning, but the

considerate arrangement of the activities during lessons also functioned as

scaffolding for pupils’ learning. The previous activities became stepping stones to lead

pupils to the final activity where pupils had to produce the TL.

4.4 The use of materials

Materials are the physical and observable component of pedagogy (Nunan, 1991).

They acted as not only mediating pupils’ learning and teachers’ teaching but also

facilitating diverse interactions and activities. In the practice of classes, various

materials for encouraging English learning were being used, whether they originated

from published ones or ones created by teachers themselves. They helped run each

activity smoothly and effectively, which as a result might have led to pupils’ effective

English learning. Materials could be organisers of learning rather than merely

supporting activities since they were sources of linguistic input, which offered chances

for pupils to practice or produce the language (Guerrettaz & Johnston, 2013). In this

section, the primary materials employed during lessons are investigated, focusing on

what sorts of materials were used; how they were presented; and what functions they

performed.

4.4.1 National textbooks

The most fundamental and primary materials were the government-authorised

English textbooks, which were selected by teachers in individual schools for their

134

pupils among five sorts of the published textbooks. The textbooks could be chosen

appropriately for pupils in each school year, but pupils in the same school year of the

same school used the same textbooks. The CDs, which exactly followed the paper-

textbooks in the contents and the arrangements but included more information such

as animations, movies or sounds, were offered with the textbooks and teachers’

guides to teachers. Pupils were awarded a password to download e-books from the

website of the national education service system (EDUNET) provided by a

government organisation (KERIS: Korea Education and Research Information

Service) under the South Korean Ministry of Education along with the free paper-

textbooks. The extent or importance, as well as the time of using the textbooks and

CDs, was varied according to individual teachers. Among the 12 lessons observed,

the textbooks and the CDs were dealt with in nine lessons, which means most of the

teachers fundamentally taught with the textbooks. Teachers K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4),

K2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) and K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) did not use the textbooks at all

in their observed classes, but they still managed the lessons based on the key

expressions and words extracted from the textbooks.

Figure 4.3 The example of an English classroom

Teachers used the textbooks when presenting or practicing essential language input

such as key expressions or words. In particular, the CDs offered with the paper-

textbooks were very useful and convenient to present the contents of the textbooks

and to share them with pupils through a big screen, since classrooms were all

equipped with a large TV screen or an electronic bulletin board as well as a computer

(Figure 4.3). For listening or speaking input, the textbooks contained pictures without

135

any written form. Pupils guessed a story from pictures, and they understood the whole

story from the video clips of the CDs. The reading or writing input was given in the

textbooks, but the CDs showed the same input in more interesting ways such as

moving images or acting voices. The CDs, most of all, were used for having pupils

repeat words or sentences, which became a good role model for reading aloud and

accurate pronunciations. Although it was possible for pupils to download the English

e-books at home, they used the textbooks at school.

When teaching texts in the textbooks, teachers started with asking questions about

pictures or illustrations on the big screen, and they read together with pupils or gave

pupils time to read silently with their own textbooks (Teachers K3, K4, K5, K6 and

NE2, and K11’s lessons – Years 6, 5, 6, 5 and 5 in order). After some teachers taught

contents in the textbooks at first, they gave pupils more activities to complement the

textbooks (Teachers K3, K4, K5, K6 and NE2, K8, K9 and NE4, K10 and K11’s lessons

– Years 6, 5, 6, 5, 3, 5, 3 and 5 in order). Teachers K9 and NE4, and K10 did not use

the CDs at all in the observed classes. In the Teachers K9 and NE4’s class, Teacher

NE4 played a role in reading texts instead of the CDs, which was the reason for not

using the CDs. Teacher K10, who taught alone without any NES teacher, dealt with

reading aloud at word level for pupils in Year 3 from the textbook. Instead of using the

CDs, she offered other materials such as animations which might interest her pupils

whose English proficiency was relatively high.

4.4.2 Supplementary materials

While many teachers used the textbooks as compulsory materials, there was nobody

who taught only with the textbooks. They utilised a variety of supplementary materials

to mediate pupils’ learning: PPT materials; worksheets; flash or sentence cards; and

storybooks. First, looking at PPT materials used in the lessons, they seemed to be

used variously in each step of the lesson (Table 4.3). Some teachers exploited PPT

materials for reviewing the previous lesson or motivating pupils at the introduction

stage. Teachers K6 and NE2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) presented PPT materials for

activating the previous lessons with the help of photos and words (Example A16).

Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) used PPT materials for motivating pupils in order to

engage them in learning actively with a clear purpose (Example A17). The examples

of presenting key expressions or words at the presentation step were seen from

Teachers K1’ (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) and K2 (NE1)’s lessons (Ages 10-11/ Year 5).

136

Teacher K1 made PPT slides containing pictures and story from one of the children’s

books, ‘My Messy Room’, which were useful to share the book with the pupils.

Teachers K2 and NE1 showed a Korean traditional story, ‘The Golden Axe and the

Silver Axe’, through PPT materials for offering key expressions in written form along

with pictures in a meaningful setting. For a game-based practice activity, Teachers K7

and NE3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) employed PPT materials, which helped pupils practise

the TL with enjoyment (Example A18).

Table 4.3

The examples of using PPT materials

Stage of the lesson The instance of PPT material use

◦ The introduction stage ▪ Reviewing the previous lesson (Teachers K6)

▪ Motivating (Teacher K3)

◦ The presentation stage ▪ Presenting a story, words and expressions

(Teacher K1 and K2)

◦ The practice stage ▪ The ‘pass the ball’ game (Teacher K7)

◦ The production stage ▪ Explaining how to do activities

(Teachers K1, K2, K4, K5, K8 and K11)

▪ Showing good models for writing

(Teachers K1, K2 and K11)

▪ Sharing texts (Teachers K1, K2 and K5)

▪ Playing language games (Teachers K6 and K7)

◦ The closing stage ▪ Checking or reviewing pupils’ learning

(Teachers K1 and K3)

At the production stage where group work, pair work or individual work was

emphasised more than whole class work, PPT materials were presented mainly for

explaining how to do activities; showing good models for writing; sharing texts; or

playing language games (Table 4.3). When teachers instructed pupils to do something,

they usually showed some examples such as sample writings as well as how to do it

before doing activities. Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) presented several cartoon

examples written by other pupils along with the ways of making a cartoon through

PPT materials in order for pupils to make sense of what they would do in the free

writing activity. This process was helpful for pupils to recognise multiple and proper

situations where the key expressions were used. Teacher K5 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6)

displayed the whole text that pupils had read for their mission to find the spies through

the PPT slides after pupils completed their work in order to check pupils’

137

understanding. She also offered a worksheet describing someone for a writing activity,

showing the same content through PPT materials to explain how to do it. Teachers K6

and NE2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) used the PPT slides, which offered unscrambled words

to make sentences for playing the language game as team work. PPT materials were

also used to check or review what pupils had learned during the lesson at the closing

stage. As a wrap-up activity, Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) showed PPT slides with

the photos of the inside of the school in order to have pupils say the directions to their

classroom from each place and spell some important words. Teacher K1 (Ages 9-10/

Year 4) presented the PPT slides she had already used at the development stage and

had pupils read the text aloud again for reviewing.

Figure 4.4. The back page of the worksheet used by Teacher K5

138

One of the primary resources used for many purposes by teachers was worksheets.

Teachers generated worksheets or adapted original ones developed by other

teachers for their own pupils. Worksheets for presenting, practicing, checking or

recalling the TL incorporated core words or expressions, chants and songs, and

dialogues in the textbook, which could be used for homework or for preparing for tests.

Some teachers added the grammatical points, even though the textbooks or the

national curriculum did not mention grammar (Figure 4.4). Another purpose of using

worksheets was to offer the main activities which were designed to use key

expressions in a meaningful situation. Teacher K5 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) made a

worksheet for guided writing (Example A19). The worksheet, which included

explanations about how to describe someone’s appearance as well as key patterns,

was very helpful to guide pupils to write more easily (Figure A13). Since the teacher

understood her pupils very well, she could create the worksheet appropriate for pupil’s

proficiency and their ZPDs.

Flash cards or sentence cards were also used effectively for facilitating pupils’ interest

and learning. Teacher K9 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) used flashcards at the introduction

stage for reviewing the previous lesson (Example A20). The activity with flashcards

helped pupils not only review what they had learnt but also made learning more

interesting because the teacher presented the flashcards as a gaming instrument for

learning. It was very tedious work to repeat the TL for practice, but the use of sentence

cards or flash cards enabled pupils to enjoy it owing to activated game factors such

as guessing, luck or competition. Teachers K6 and NE4 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5)

employed cards for practicing role-play, and the cards also functioned as cue cards

when pupils were doing role-play (Example A21). For the main activities, Teacher K3

(Ages 11-12/ Year 6) (Example A22) and Teachers K7 and NE3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6)

(Example A23) used flash cards or sentence cards. These were done as a game-

based activity, which allowed pupils to enjoy reading or writing.

Table 4.4

Storybooks used in English lessons

The type of storybooks The title of the storybook and

the purpose of use

◦ Storybooks for children using English as a mother tongue

∙ My Messy Room (Teacher K1’s lesson)

- writing a poem with the key sentences included in the book

139

◦ Adapted storybooks for children

to learn English ∙ The Giving Three (Teacher K9’s lesson)

- asking permission

∙ The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Teachers K4’ and K9’s lessons)

- asking to eat some food

◦ Korean traditional storybooks translated into English

∙ Gold Ax and Silver Ax (Teacher K2’s lesson)

- asking for possession

◦ Korean traditional storybooks in Korean

∙ The Rabbit (Teacher K5’s lesson)

- describing someone’s appearance

Among authentic materials, various types of storybooks were often used in the

lessons (Table 4.4). Stories, including a temporal sequence and a thematic structure,

can be a good starting point to teach foreign language in a context familiar to learners,

since children have already enjoyed listening to stories in their mother tongue from

younger children (Cameron, 2001; G. Ellis, 1991). Some teachers, who used stories,

tended to adapt them without losing the storylines to use target expressions in

authentic situations. Whereas other teachers primarily deployed texts in the textbooks

for presenting key expressions, Teachers K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) and K2 (Ages 10-

11/ Year 5) commonly exploited the storybooks in their lessons by amending them in

order to make them easy for their pupils. While Teacher K1 used the English storybook,

My Messy Room, written by the native English-speaking author for native English-

speaking children, Teacher K2 handled the Korean traditional fairy tale. Compared

with Teacher K1 who did not alter the story a lot, Teacher K2 borrowed the essential

storyline from the book and grafted the key expressions onto the story which was

appropriate for the TL. Through these adapted stories, pupils could make sense of

the context where the TL was used clearly (Gibbons, 2015). The example of adapting

a story familiar with pupils was found in texts of the textbooks: The Very Hungry

Caterpillar in Teacher K4’s lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) and Teachers K9 and NE4’s

lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year 5); and The Giving Tree in another of Teachers K9 and

NE4’s lessons (Ages 10-11/ Year 5). Unlike the other teachers dealing with the stories

in English whether the original works were written in English or in Korean, Teacher K5

(Ages 11-12/ Year 6) offered a scene in Korean from one of the Korean traditional fairy

tales, The Rabbit, which was describing a rabbit’s appearance. The teacher read the

important part in Korean to help pupils comprehend descriptive writing, showing the

text with the underlined phrases and the illustration on the screen. Then she displayed

one passage which described the rabbit in English with some blanks through PPT

slides. Through the Korean traditional storybook, she not only engaged pupils but also

140

connected key expressions with pupils’ prior background knowledge.

4.4.3 Summary

As regards materials, two sorts of materials were employed to mediate pupils’ English

learning: the government-authorised textbooks; and supplementary materials such as

PPT slides, cards, worksheets and storybooks. The textbooks acted as the main

materials to plan lessons, even when they were not used during lessons at all. The

supplementary materials were used for various purposes in each step of the lessons

such as reviewing the previous lessons, and presenting, practising and producing the

TL. They fundamentally supplemented the limitations of the textbooks. They were

planned and used not only for motivating and scaffolding pupils to execute work, but

also for mediating pupils’ learning in more effective and interesting ways.

4.5 Chapter summary

As mediational tools for pupils’ English learning, the interaction, activities and

materials were intertwined during lessons. The first noticeable factor was teachers’

role as multiplayers such as facilitator, monitor, needs analyst, counsellor or group

process manager (Richards, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). They not only planned

and arranged all the lessons with creative ideas beforehand but also led the lessons

in a variety of ways to mediate pupils’ learning. They provided step-by-step

instructions to scaffold pupils to implement their work with the help of diverse

questions, repetitions, clues such as gestures and pictures, or materials. They

attempted to give the same instructions in various ways because “message

abundancy, where the same information is given in a variety of ways” offers learners

several chances to access information and increases comprehensibility of input for

learners (Gibbons, 2015, p. 47). Teachers were also the most important resource for

pupils’ learning, which means they became a good role model of doing something

through demonstration. Teachers tried to engage pupils in interactions and to elicit the

TL or important information from pupils without saying it straight out themselves.

Although teachers superficially seemed to follow the IRF pattern during interaction

with pupils, they encouraged pupils to speak for themselves and to express their

opinions or ideas precisely. In pupil-centred activities, teachers individually supported

them to achieve the goals of the lesson.

141

The arrangement of activities showed that there was a gradual transition from teacher-

led activities to pupil-centred activities during a lesson: from whole-class work to

group/pair/individual work; and from presentation and practice to production (PPP).

Although the PPP lesson structure originates from the situational approach (Criado,

2013; Richards, 2006), it was one of the salient characteristics observed in English

lessons in South Korean primary classrooms where English was taught in the form of

the weak version of CLT. Each activity itself designed to present or practise the TL

was helpful in pupils’ learning, and also functioned as leading pupils into the final

activity at the production stage where they had to use the TL in meaningful situations.

The previous activities thus became scaffolding for the following ones, and acted as

stepping stones to the last destination of the lesson. However, pupils were sometimes

so hectic in conducting many activities in a lesson, such as doing at least three main

activities for thirty minutes to the exclusion of ten minuties for the introduction and

closing stage of the lesson. No matter how wonderful a set of activities was, it was

necessary not to provide too much in one lesson for fear that pupils would rush into

the next activity before finishing the previous one (Gibbons, 2015).

Activities integrating not only reading and writing but also four language skills were

frequently observed in the lesson focusing on reading or writing. In the EFL context,

teachers seemed to offer pupils diverse chances to use English. Teachers also

seemed to provide activities for pupils to listen and speak even in lessons focusing

on reading and writing in the CLT approach. This reflected not only the natural use of

language in authentic situations but also teachers’ intention to connect written English

with spoken English in order to improve pupils’ communicative competence.

Pupils’ responses or interactions depended on the types of activities. Many reading

activities tended to focus on scanning for finding necessary information as quickly as

possible. Pupils did not need to read the whole texts carefully because they could

accomplish their reading activities by checking some keywords or pictures. This might

cause pupils’ less accurate understanding of sentences or texts. In game-based

activities, pupils were also seen to read or write roughly to fulfil their work quickly.

Although pupils made some mistakes in making sentences, teachers did not give

appropriate comments on them during game-based activities. In controlled or guided

writing, pupils’ interaction was merely related to asking for words or spellings since

pupils were supposed to fill in the blanks.

142

Interaction between teachers and pupils was related to the type of activities. In reading

activities focusing on grasping a text, the interaction was led by teachers. Teachers

used questions not only to check if pupils understood the text appropriately, but also

to help pupils make sense of the text rather than explaining or interpreting it in Korean.

During main writing activities, interaction between teachers and pupils tended to be

initiated by pupils such as asking spelling or English words. Since the most frequently

observed writing activity was guided writing including patterns such as key

expressions, pupils were observed to just need to know proper words to complete

their writing.

Interactions between pupils were often observed in activities emphasising pupils’

collaboration. Much group/pair work had pupils working together in order to

accomplish the goals of activities. Pupils had to share their ideas and knowledge to

complete their activities successfully. In individual work, pupils were also seen to help

others, and they were frequently given a chance to interact with others using their

outcomes after individual work.

Lastly, the most essential materials were the textbooks, but no teacher used only

textbooks. Teachers used various supplementary materials whether they created their

or developed ones created by other teachers. There was no teacher that utilised

commercially published materials, except the storybooks.

143

Chapter 5. Findings from the Surveys and Interviews

5.1 Introduction

Through the results of the questionnaire surveys and interviews with teachers and

pupils, this chapter addresses research questions 2 and 3 in particular. The

quantitative and qualitative data are presented separately, and then integrated

accounts of findings are provided at the end of the chapter. Section 5.2 is related to

the findings from the quantitative data. As discussed in the methodology chapter, the

questionnaire surveys with 191 teachers who had taught English, and with 880 pupils

in Year 3 to Year 6 in primary schools in Seoul were analysed to comprehend the

participants’ general perceptions. Section 5.3 presents the results of the interviews

with 16 teachers and 25 pupils. The results help gain a detailed understanding of the

phenomenon from the participants’ voices. These findings from the quantitative and

qualitative data are integrated in section 5.4.

5.2 Findings from the questionnaire surveys

This section deals with the findings of the quantitative data to comprehend why

teachers carried out their lessons in the ways observed in the previous chapter, and

the benefits and challenges of teaching and learning English. The explanations of

teaching practices are based on the findings from the surveys with only teachers. The

benefits and challenges are investigated from not only teachers’ but also pupils’

perceptions or experiences. Especially, pupils’ views are revisited according to their

English proficiency where necessary. That is because it was hypothesised that pupils

would show different views according to their English proficiency. This section would

help understand the general patterns of teachers’ and pupils’ responses.

5.2.1 Teachers’ explanations for classroom practices

Teachers’ explanations are presented in three categories: activities that were deemed

to be effective; classroom interactions; and their reflections about teaching materials.

144

5.2.1.1 Activities

Classroom activities acted as the building blocks for English lessons. All lessons for

the research consisted of a chain of activities within one lesson. Activities functioned

as a means of accomplishing the goals of each lesson, namely a mediational tool for

English teaching and learning. Activities created a sort of environment for learning

and provided various chances for language learning (Cameron, 2001). Among

reading activities, the majority of teachers preferred to utilise the texts and activities

in the textbooks (ranks 1 and 2 each), and then game-based activities (rank 3)

(Appendix C, Table A8). In line with these results, it can be understood that teachers

basically handled the texts and activities in the textbooks, even though it was not

compulsory to teach the contents in the textbooks for their pupils.

As for writing activities, teachers also used activities in the textbooks most often, and

then language games for writing, as in the results for reading (Table A9). The activity

ranking third was writing varied kinds of texts in meaningful situations with authentic

purposes such as making a poster or writing a letter. Among the three stages of writing,

guided writing (‘writing sentences based on patterns of model sentences’ and ‘writing

freely in terms of given topics using given words or expressions’), controlled writing

(‘copying words, sentences, or texts exactly’) and free writing (‘writing freely in terms

of given topics’) were preferred in order. Teachers offered more guided writing than

controlled or free writing.

In designing reading and writing activities, teachers preferred to integrate language

skills (75.2%) to develop pupils’ communicative competence rather than to teach

reading and writing respectively (57.1%) (Table A10). 65.8 per cent considered

meaningful situations for language use. Among the ways teachers integrated

language skills for teaching reading and writing, half of the respondents demonstrated

that they integrated reading and writing, and 48.8 per cent said that they integrated

four language skills together (Table A11). Only 7.6 per cent of the respondents said

that they taught reading and writing respectively without integrating them. Teachers

seemed to consider the importance of integrating language skills.

In mediating pupils’ English learning, it was important to help pupils engage in learning

with interest. For this, teachers preferred to offer fun activities (84.8%) and to employ

diverse aid materials (79.7%) (Table A12). As consideration for creating activities,

145

about 84 per cent of the teachers regarded pupils’ interest as most important, and

75.2 per cent were concerned to improve pupils’ communicative competence based

on the integrated use of four language skills (Table A10). This was in line with teachers’

perceptions on the requisites for having pupils become good at English reading and

writing: ‘interest in English reading and writing’ (rank 1); ‘the ability to communicate in

spoken English’ (rank 2); ‘mother tongue literacy’ (rank 3); and ‘understanding phonics’

(rank 4) (Table A13).

When providing activities for pupils at different English levels, 89.4 per cent of the

teachers replied that they offered the same activities, allowing pupils to accomplish

the activities according to their English proficiency (Table A14). Teachers providing

different activities in terms of pupils’ English proficiency accounted for 68.9 per cent.

In order to encourage pupils’ learning, it was important to provide the appropriate

difficulty level of English activities. The majority of the teachers replied that the slightly

easy level for reading (63.8%) and writing (60.6%), which does not need any help or

hint, would be relevant for their pupils (Tables A15 and A16). 28.9 per cent (reading)

and 27.5 per cent (writing) selected the slightly difficult level, which requires some

help or hints. Teachers’ perception of the appropriate difficulty level was different from

the idea of the ZPD. According to Vygotsky (1978), learning takes place in pupils’ ZPD

between their actual developmental level where they can accomplish their work

independently and potential developmental level where they need other’s help.

However, teachers tended to prefer slightly easy activities that required little or no

help for their pupils.

5.2.1.2 Classroom interactions and the use of materials

Verbal interaction as the primary means of mediation is very important in learning (R.

Ellis, 2008). In order to facilitate pupils’ learning which means pupils’ second language

(L2) proficiency, it was crucial to consider effective learning organisation for pupils’

interaction. With regard to learning organisation for reading, teachers responded that

they used group work (64.0%) and pair work (63.3%) more often than individual work

(37.3%) and whole class work (23.2%) (Table A17). For writing activities, teachers

liked individual work (79.9%) and group work (49.0%) more than pair work (41.3%)

and whole class work (16.8%) (Table A18).

In order to mediate pupils’ learning effectively with different English proficiency, the

146

consideration of effective groupings is necessary. 77 per cent of the teachers

answered that they placed pupils at different English levels within the same group,

whereas the teachers who placed pupils at a similar English proficiency level within

the same group took up 31.1 per cent (Table A14). 65.8 per cent of the respondents

instructed low-level pupils individually during lessons, and 37.3 per cent instructed

low-level pupils separately in extra time. The percentage of assigning pupils to distinct

English classes according to pupils’ English levels was merely 1.3 per cent.

In designing and implementing activities, a variety of materials as a physical tool or

artefact were essential. Materials are often the most tangible and visible element of

pedagogy, and also a significant element within the curriculum (Nunan, 1991). With

regard to materials teachers used frequently, 74.3 per cent of the teachers responded

they mainly used the textbooks and accompanying CDs, and 60.2 per cent of the

teachers utilised PowerPoint materials, which was the same as the percentage of

teachers mentioning worksheets (Table A19). 45.0 per cent of the teachers usually

employed word or sentence cards, and 24.6 per cent made use of authentic materials

such as English storybooks, newspapers, comics and magazines. Thus, teachers

made use of a variety of aid materials along with the textbooks to facilitate pupils’

interest and effective learning.

Concerning the ways to gain materials when they did not have sufficient materials

from the textbooks, 92.5 per cent of the teachers responded that they exploited

materials downloaded from teachers’ online communities (Table A20). 73.3 per cent

of the teachers searched for materials on the Internet, and 59.6 per cent developed

materials themselves. The smallest percentage (16.8%) of the teachers replied that

they used commercial resource books or workbooks.

The textbooks were regarded as the most significant materials for English teaching,

but 83.8 per cent of the teachers adapted the textbooks for their pupils (Table A21).

Particularly, most of the respondents (81.3%) modified activities in the textbooks in

consideration of pupils’ proficiency and interest. The second biggest proportion

(43.1%) added more language expressions, and 31.9 percent of the teachers included

more words.

5.2.2 Benefits of teaching and learning English

Teachers’ and pupils’ perspectives as the major stakeholders in the process of

147

teaching and learning were critical in both appreciating the effects of English lessons

and addressing challenges. The results of the surveys showed that there were three

main benefits of teaching and learning English in the ways observed in Chapter 4:

building pupils’ interest and confidence in English; improving pupils’ CC; and

facilitating pupils’ collaboration.

5.2.2.1 Improving pupils’ affective factors

The first benefit of teaching and learning English was closely related to pupils’

affective factors such as interest, confidence or preference to English/English learning.

Teachers’ reflection on their own lessons showed their positive views on improving

pupils’ interest and confidence through English lessons focusing on reading and

writing (Table A22). 56.7 per cent of the teachers responded that pupils’ interest in

reading and writing had been improved through English lessons. 51.2 per cent

responded that pupils’ confidence had been improved. These positive responses were

far greater than their negative responses at 11.7 per cent and 10.6 per cent

respectively.

Pupils also revealed positive responses both to English learning and to English

reading/writing lessons. This was very important because improving pupils’ interest

and confidence was one of the essential goals of teaching English in the national

curriculum. With regard to interest in English learning, 78.9% of the respondents said

that it was interesting (Table A23). The proportion (68.1%) of the pupils having

confidence in English learning was much more than double that (31.9%) of the pupils

lacking in confidence (Table A24). 79.4 per cent of all the pupils replied positively with

respect to the preference to English language learning (Table A25).

As for lessons focusing on reading, most pupils were seen to have positive attitudes.

Around 80 per cent answered that English reading lessons were interesting (Table

A26). About 73 per cent liked English reading lessons (Table A27). As regards English

writing lessons, pupils also had positive views, although the proportions of the

respondents with positive responses were slightly smaller than those of English

learning or reading lessons. About 70 per cent of the respondents found English

writing lessons interesting (Table A28), and 63.9 per cent liked writing lessons at

school (Table A29).

148

These pupils’ positive views seemed to be influenced directly by learning activities.

Among reading activities, 75.6 per cent of the pupils enjoyed English reading games

best (Table 30). 38.9 per cent liked reading diverse materials such as English

storybooks or cartoons, which was chosen by the fewest number of the teachers.

These intriguing activities might influence pupils’ positive views on English lessons.

Pupils’ favourite writing activities among the given options was free writing (creative

writing) at 59.4 per cent (Table A31). 52.4 per cent of the pupils liked writing activities

in the textbooks. Guided writing was chosen by 26.7 per cent, and controlled writing

was selected by 9.4 per cent. This showed that pupils preferred creative work than

mechanical practice for writing activities.

Pupils’ interest and confidence in English learning might be tightly related to their

perceptions of the difficulty or heavy workload of English lessons. Pupils thought that

English reading lessons were not difficult (80.3%). That was four times as large as the

percentage of the pupils who said that English reading lessons were difficult (Table

A32). Similarly, 78.8 per cent did not think English writing lessons were difficult (Table

A33). In regard to workload during lessons, 66.7 per cent did not think they had a lot

of things to study in reading lessons, (Table A34). Concerning writing lessons, 69.2

per cent did not think that they had a number of things to study (Table A35). It can be

assumed that relatively easy lessons helped pupils build interest or confidence in

learning.

5.2.2.2 Developing pupils’ ability in English

The second benefit was improving pupils’ ability to read and write in English.

Concerning the effect of English lessons, teachers revealed positive perceptions

(Table A22). The majority of them (68.2%) replied that English reading and writing

lessons had developed pupils’ English ability in reading and writing. This figure was

far bigger than the negative responses at 8.9 per cent. It was greater than their

positive responses to improving pupils’ interest (56.7%) and confidence (51.2%)

addressed in section 5.2.2.1.

Pupils also demonstrated positive perspectives on the effect of their English learning.

About 68 per cent of the respondents thought that English reading lessons had

developed their English reading ability (Table A36). 64.2 per cent responded that

English writing lessons had allowed them to develop their English writing ability (Table

149

A37). Pupils’ negative responses on improving their reading and writing ability

accounted for 32.3 per cent and 35.8 percent respectively.

In order to understand the reasons for the effect of English reading lessons, it was

necessary to note the data from the open questions. As one of the positive answers,

pupils said that since they learned something through reading lessons, they could

develop their reading ability (Table A38). They also referred to their teachers’ teaching

as the significant factor to improve their ability. There were also the other reasons for

the positive effect: repeated reading; interesting activities; easy and basic English

reading for them; and review of what they had already known.

As for the positive effect of writing lessons, pupils recognised that their writing ability

was developed because they realised their improved writing ability through learning

something (Table A39). There were also many other reasons as in reading: repeated

writing practice and many opportunities to review, teachers’ teaching, their working

hard, interesting activities and so forth.

5.2.2.3 Facilitating pupils’ collaboration

Pupils frequently worked together with their peers in section 4.2.2. Collaborative work

allowed pupils to accomplish their work successfully. For reading activities teachers

preferred to provide group work (64.0%) or pair work (63.3%) as mentioned in section

5.2.1.1 (see Table A8). Although the majority of teachers liked to present individual

work (79.9%) for writing, a considerable number of teachers also liked group work

(49.0%) and pair work (41.3%) (see Table A9). Pupils also tended to prefer group work

(66.9%), whole class work (66.2%) or pair work (44.6%) to individual work (27.5%) for

their reading activities (Table A40). Whole class work can mainly be understood as

playing language games or conducting activities in the context where they

collaborated with team members but competed with other teams (Appendix D,

Questions 14 and 24). For writing activities, pupils showed a tendency to prefer group

work at 66.1 per cent, and about 60 per cent of the pupils liked whole-class teamwork

(Table A41). The percentage of the pupils choosing pair work was 44.2 per cent, and

30.7 per cent of the pupils responded that they liked individual work.

5.2.3 Challenges of teaching and learning English

This section starts by investigating teachers’ main challenges in teaching English:

150

pupils with different English proficiency; and the limitations of the national curriculum

and textbooks. Then teachers’ and pupils’ challenges in teaching and learning reading

and writing are handled. In order to clarify their challenges, teachers’ challenges are

supported and evidenced by pupils’ experiences or perceptions where necessary.

Pupils’ experiences and perceptions are compared or contrasted in terms of their

English proficiency.

5.2.3.1 Pupils with different English proficiency

i. Teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ different English proficiency

The biggest challenge in teaching English was pupils’ different English proficiency,

which was brought up by 91.8 per cent of the teachers (Table A42). This was

nominated as the total rank one out of eight options of challenges. Including this, the

items representing from the first place to the third were all related to pupils: teaching

pupils at different levels; pupils lacking interest in English; and pupils lacking

confidence. Of the teachers responding to the question on a difference in pupils’

English proficiency, 100 per cent agreed that there was a difference in English

proficiency among pupils, with 94.3 per cent reporting a large difference (Table A43).

Before investigating why this difference was challenging for teachers, it was essential

to explore the reasons to cause this challenge. According to teachers, the reasons

why the big difference occurred were diverse (Table A44). Among them private

language lessons was chosen as the biggest reason by the most teachers (73.8%).

In this study, teachers’ perceptions on the difference are supported by pupils’

experiences both in their previous English learning and in their English learning

outside of school at the time of the research.

ii. Pupils’ experiences of English learning

Pupils had different experiences in their initial English learning in terms of their English

proficiency. The greatest percentage of the pupils started to learn the English

language before beginning formal schooling. (Table A45). The pupils who started in

Year 3, when they were expected to learn English at school, accounted for only 14.4

per cent. Whereas the greatest percentage (43.5%) of the pupils at low level leant

English in Year 3 (8-9 year-olds), more than half of the high-level pupils (55.3%) began

151

learning English from ages 3 to 5 years. (Table A46). Compared with the pupils

belonging to the low-level group, the pupils at a high level or at intermediate level

started to learn English earlier, x2(8, N2782)291.927, p..05.

Regarding the place English learning was initiated, 31.3 per cent mentioned nursery

or kindergarten, followed by 27.2 per cent who began at English language hakwon or

through personal English tutorials (Table A47). Only 11.7 per cent started to learn

English at school. As for the results by pupils’ English proficiency, the pupils at high

level started to learn English mainly at English language hakwon (28.5%) or at nursery

or kindergarten (27.5%) (Table A48). 13.9 per cent of the high-level pupils began to

learn at an English language kindergarten5, and 4.5 per cent learnt English in a foreign

country. However, there was no pupil in the low-level group who learned English at

English language kindergarten or in a foreign country. 63.5 per cent of the pupils with

low proficiency started their English learning through general educational institutions

such as kindergarten or primary school. The percentage of the pupils who began to

learn English at school was 28.6 per cent at a low level, 16.0 per cent at the

intermediate level and 6.1 per cent at the high level. There was a significant

association between English proficiency and the place where pupils started to learn

English in the groups of high-level and intermediate-level pupils, x2(6, N2718)247.102,

p..05.

As for ways used in the initial stage of their English learning, 73.7 per cent answered

that they started with reading/writing the alphabet letters (Table A49). 64.1 per cent of

the pupils learnt through various activities, and more than half of the pupils (52.3%)

leant through listening to English storybook audio CDs. Most of the pupils with high

proficiency learnt English through a variety of ways, whereas more than half of the

pupils at low level (66.7%) replied only ‘reading and writing the letters of the English

alphabet’ (Table A50). The pupils with high English proficiency whose parents or

teachers read English storybooks took up 40.9 per cent, which was almost three times

5 English language kindergartens cannot be registered as official kindergartens in South Korea, and they are just private English language-oriented institutes or hakwon for pre-schoolers, where parents should spend much more tuition fees than genuine kindergartens.

152

as large as the proportion of the pupils at a low level. Learning English through English

lessons at school accounted for the smallest percentage (6.7%) of the pupils in the

high-level group but took up approximately a third of the pupils in the low-level group.

A significant relationship was found between English proficiency and their learning

ways at the beginning of English learning, x2(8, N2781)2 150.410, p..05.

In terms of the learning experience in English-speaking countries or schools, the

majority of the pupils (88.8%) did not have any experiences of learning English abroad

(Table A51). However, 15.8 per cent of the advanced pupils had experienced English

learning in English-speaking countries, and 3.3 per cent among them had experience

of studying abroad for more than or equal to two years (Table A52). In contrast, only

one person among the pupils in the low-level group had been overseas for English

learning for less than 6 months.

Aside from regular English classes at school, 82 per cent of the respondents replied

that they received extra English private tutoring (Table A53). The greatest percentage

(56.7%) of the pupils attended English language hakwon among the diverse types of

extra private English learning. More than 70 per cent of the high-level pupils were

learning English at English language hakwon, while only 7.5 per cent said that they

were not learning English personally at the time of the survey (Table A54). By contrast,

more than 40 per cent of the pupils at low level did not study at all except for regular

English lessons at school, which was more than the percentage of the low-level pupils

(33.9%) replying they attended English language hakwon. The relation between

pupils’ extra English language learning and their English proficiency was significant in

the groups of the high-level and the intermediate-level pupils, and the groups of the

low-level and the high-level pupils, x2 (6, N2713)293.442, p..05, and x2 (6,

N2433)289.603, p..05 respectively.

iii. Pupils’ different perceptions of English learning

Along with understanding the differences in pupils’ personal experiences, it was

necessary to inspect how similar or different their perceptions of English learning were

in terms of English proficiency. As stated in section 5.2.2, the majority of pupils

revealed positive responses to English learning, reading and writing lessons at school.

However, a more detailed understanding of these results needs to be done by

comparing each result by pupils’ English proficiency.

153

Looking at pupils’ responses to English learning, high-level pupils revealed positive

attitudes, whereas low-level pupils showed negative responses. About 90 per cent of

the pupils with high proficiency answered that they found English learning interesting,

whereas approximately 67 per cent of the pupils at low level responded negatively,

x2 (6, N2779)=190.395, p<.05 (Table A55). The high-level pupils significantly had

more confidence in English learning (92.7%) than the pupils with low proficiency

(12.5%), x2 (6, N2775)2422.936, p..05 (Table A56). While more than 90 per cent of

the high-level pupils liked English learning, more than 70 per cent of the pupils at low

level disliked it, x2(6, n=780)2207.736, p<.05 (Table A57).

Pupils’ responses to English reading and writing lessons at school were the same as

the ones to English learning. About 89 per cent of the high-level pupils responded that

reading lessons were interesting, while 63 per cent of the low-level pupils responded

negatively, x2(3, N2439)2102.082, p..05 (Table A58). 83 per cent of the high-level

pupils answered that they liked English reading lessons, whereas the proportion of

the low-level pupils was only about 23 per cent, x2(3, N2432)2104.158, p..05 (Table

A59). The high-level pupils tended to show more interest in English writing lessons

(76.3%) than the intermediate-level pupils at 68.4 per cent and the low-level pupils at

32.8 per cent, x2 (6, N2781)2 94.873, p..05 (Table A60). As regards the question

asking whether they liked writing lessons, the high-level pupils showed a more

positive view at 73.3 per cent, compared with the intermediate-level pupils at 60.0 per

cent and the low-level pupils at 23.4 per cent, x2(6, N2780)2 102.111, p..05 (Table

A61).

The reasons why pupils did not like reading or writing lessons were also different in

terms of English proficiency. As the primary reason, the highest percentage of the

respondents (40%) answered that English reading activities were too boring, which

was also chosen by the most pupils with intermediate proficiency (53.2%) (Tables A62

and A63). 59 per cent of the high-level pupils picked up ‘too easy’, whereas nearly 64

per cent of the low-level pupils replied that reading lessons were too difficult, x2(3,

N2108)258.306, p..05. When it came to English writing lessons, the greatest

proportion of the respondents (49.5%) replied that English writing activities were too

boring (Table A64). The majority of both the high-level and intermediate-level pupils

selected that writing activities were too boring at 55.2 per cent and at 49.3 per cent

each, whereas the 68.6 per cent of the low-level pupils answered that they were too

difficult (Table A65).

154

Pupils’ perceptions on the difficulty or heavy workload of learning also showed

disparities between pupils’ English proficiency. Compared with 92.5 per cent of the

high-level pupils who responded that English reading lessons were not difficult, 84.4

per cent of the low-level pupils revealed that they were difficult, x2(3, N2439)2233.191,

p..05 (Table A66). Roughly 55 per cent of the low-level pupils felt that they had an

excessive workload to study in English reading classes, whereas about 79 per cent

of the high-level pupils did not think like that (Table A67). As for writing lessons, most

of the high-level pupils (92.5%) did not think that English writing lessons were difficult,

while 60.9 per cent of the low-level pupils admitted that they were difficult, x2 (3,

N2435)2 131.121, p..05 (Table A68). 79.6 per cent of the high-level pupils revealed

that they did not have a heavy workload to do, whereas half of the low-level pupils

replied that they had too many things to study in English writing lessons, x2 (3,

N2436)243.229, p..05 (Table A69).

With respect to the effect of reading lessons, the group replying positively with the

greatest percentage was the intermediate-level group at about 74 per cent, followed

by the high-level group at around 66 per cent, whereas about 59 per cent of the low-

level pupils did not think English lessons had been helpful for developing their English

reading ability, x2(6, N2736)266.169, p..05 (Table A70). The effect of writing lessons

also showed the same result. The positive effect of English writing lessons on pupils’

English writing ability was supported by 70.6 per cent of the intermediate-level pupils

and 62.6 per cent of the high-level pupils, whereas approximately 70 per cent of the

low-level pupils disagreed with the positive influence of writing lessons, x2 (6,

N2743)281.220, p..05 (Table A71).

In the open question, the reasons for negative responses to the effect of English

reading lessons were diverse in terms of English proficiency (Table A72). The high-

level and intermediate-level pupils mainly pointed out that they were already proficient

at reading because they had learnt from private lessons, and that reading lessons

were too easy for them to improve their reading ability. They also mentioned that they

were not given enough reading time or reading materials. The low-level pupils

ascribed the reason to themselves, blaming themselves for not learning and

expressing the view that reading lessons were too difficult. As the other noticeable

reason, one high-level pupil and two intermediate-level pupils revealed that they could

not move at their own rate and their own progress because some teachers focused

on more proficient pupils.

155

Looking at pupils’ negative responses to the effect of writing lessons, the cause

mentioned by the majority of the respondents replying was that they had already learnt

outside of school, which led them not into actual learning (Table A73). One high-level

pupil in Year 5 wrote that she had already learnt what pupils in Year 10 were supposed

to learn. As another response, 21.4 per cent of the high-level pupils revealed that

writing lessons were too easy, whereas 9.5 per cent of the intermediate-level pupils

and 24.1 per cent of the low-level pupils said that writing lessons were too difficult.

11.5 per cent of the high-level pupils and 10.8 per cent of the intermediate-level pupils

pointed out that they hardly wrote thoroughly during lessons. These pupils seemed to

want writing beyond just copying or repetitive writing, unlike the pupils who mentioned

that writing repetitively was helpful in improving their writing ability.

iv. Pupils’ different preferences in the ways to learn English

It was necessary to explore how pupils revealed their perceptions on how to learn

English in terms of English proficiency. First, looking at pupils’ preferred support, many

pupils in the observed lessons needed help to complete their work. When pupils had

trouble in reading activities, 47.4 per cent of the pupils liked to ask their teachers

(Table A74). The percentage of the respondents who preferred their friends (17.9%)

was slightly smaller than that of the pupils who did not need any help (18.1%).

Comparing these results in terms of pupils’ English proficiency, the high-level pupils

asked teachers (41.4%) or they did not need any help (28.8%), whereas the

intermediate-level pupils and the low-level pupils usually sought help from teachers

(54.1% and 46.8% each) or friends (25.4% and 27.4% each), x2(8, N2776)297.723,

p..05 (Table A75).

In writing, 45.3 per cent of the pupils liked to ask their teachers (Table A76). The pupils

who liked to ask their friends accounted for 17.7 per cent, which was the same rate

as the pupils who did not need any help. The favourite source of support in each

English proficiency group was to ask their teachers (Table A77). The second most

preferred source for both the intermediate-level and low-level pupils was their friends

at 24.0 per cent and 30.2 per cent each, whereas 27.6 per cent of the high-level pupils

did not need any help.

The low-level pupils (63.3%) and intermediate-level pupils (71.8%) liked group work

most, whereas the high-level pupils preferred teamwork based on the whole class

156

(69.5%) (Table A78). When it came to individual work, the high-level pupils (36.6%)

liked more than the low-level pupils (20.0%) or the intermediate-level pupils (18.6%).

As for writing activities, the high-level pupils chose ‘teamwork’ and ‘group work’ at

similar percentages (62.6% and 62.3% each) (Table A79). The intermediate-level

pupils and low-level pupils preferred group work at 71.1 per cent and 60.7 per cent

respectively. As regards individual work, more pupils with high proficiency (39%) liked

it than pupils with intermediate (22.8%) or low proficiency (24.6%).

Pupils in all the groups chose English reading games as their favourite reading activity

(Table A80). Pupils’ second preferred activity was different in terms of English

proficiency. ‘Doing activities in the textbooks’ was chosen by both the low-level (41.0%)

and the intermediate-level (39.0%) pupils, and ‘reading various materials’ was

selected by the high-level pupils (50.8%), x2(8, N2779)260.181, p..05. In the ‘other’

option, high-level pupils mentioned participating in diverse activities such as plays,

musicals, movies, debates, contests, quizzes and presentations. As for writing

activities, the high-level pupils liked free writing best at 70.3 per cent, while the

intermediate-level pupils (55.6%) and the low-level pupils (52.5%) preferred activities

in the textbooks, x2(10, N2771)264.082, p..05 (Table A81).

Finally, the difficulty level of reading activities preferred by the majority of the pupils

was slightly difficult (39.3 per cent), followed by 26.8 per cent who chose slightly easy

(Table A82). The high-level pupils preferred slightly difficult activities (45.8%),

whereas the intermediate-level pupils liked slightly easy activities (40.4%), and the

low-level pupils preferred very easy activities (55.2%), x2(6, N2773)2174.831, p..05

(Table A83). In writing activities, more than a third of the pupils liked slightly difficult

activities, and about 28 per cent preferred slightly easy ones (Table A84). The greatest

proportion (44.1%) of the high-level pupils liked slightly difficult activities; the

intermediate-level pupils (40.7%) liked slightly easy ones best, and the greatest

percentage (57.6%) of the low-level pupils chose very easy ones, x2 (6, N2766)2

142.287, p..05 (Table A85).

In the open question of expressing their own opinions about learning English reading

and writing in school, the pupils gave 220 responses. Among the 126 responses of

the high-level pupils, 30.2 per cent was about their desire that more difficult work

including grammar or difficult words would be necessary. 28.6 per cent required

various activities such as essay, debates, projects and interesting games, which was

157

also brought up by 30.7 per cent among 75 responses of the intermediate-level pupils.

About 17 per cent of high-level pupils required more time for reading and writing.

Conversely, more difficult work was asked by merely 5.3% of the intermediate-level

pupils, and nobody in the low-level group wanted difficult work. The majority of the

low-level pupils asked for easy work (63.2% out of 19 responses), which was

mentioned by 24 per cent of the intermediate-level pupils. Three high-level pupils, one

intermediate-level pupil and one low-level pupil wanted to learn according to their

English levels: ‘I hope to move at my own rate and my own progress in English

lessons’; and ‘Please teach me individually.’

5.2.3.2 The limitations of the national curriculum and textbooks

Except for the challenges related to pupils, the next four challenges were all

associated with the constraints of the national curriculum and textbooks, whereas the

least significant factor was teachers’ low proficiency in English (18.2%) (Table A42).

The limitations of the national curriculum were chosen by about 66 per cent of the

teachers as the challenges. Teachers were not satisfied with the simple and limited

reading and writing part of the national curriculum, and they demonstrated that

insufficient class hours (47.8%), teaching materials (22.6%) and teaching methods

(23.9%) also caused their challenges.

Looking at the perceptions of the reading part in the national curriculum, 34.9 per cent

of the teachers responded that the achievement standards were not high, while about

18 per cent recognised them as high (Table A86). This means that more than a third

of the teachers thought the levels of their pupils were higher than the achievement

standards for reading, although 47 per cent seemed to be content with the standards

for their pupils. About writing in the curriculum, 31.5 per cent of the teachers

responded that the achievement standards were not high (Table A87). Nearly 20 per

cent of the teachers said that the standards were high, which was slightly greater than

the percentage for reading.

With regard to the textbooks, 53.3 per cent of the teachers thought the reading

contents were systematically offered to achieve the goals entirely within one unit, but

this did not connote the validity of each goal (Table A86). Half of the teachers did not

think the amount of English reading was large, and more than half of the teachers

answered reading texts were not difficult. In the questions investigating whether

158

reading texts or activities filled pupils’ interest and improved their confidence, which

was one of the main goals to teach English in the national curriculum, the teachers

showed varied views. In terms of keeping pupils’ interest, they had more negative

opinions about reading texts, compared with activities. While 35.3 per cent of the

teachers did not think reading texts met pupils’ interest, 28.7 per cent of the teachers

did not think that reading activities satisfied pupils’ interest. With regard to improving

pupils’ confidence, the teachers showed more positive responses for both reading

texts (32.7%) and activities (40.0%) than about pupil’s interest (28.0% and 36.0%

each). When it came to improving pupils’ reading ability, the proportions of the

negative views and positive views were very similar at around 30 per cent. From these

three types of questions, reading texts were seen as receiving more negative opinions

than reading activities. In building interest and confidence, and improving abilities, the

teachers tended to have a more positive perspective on building pupils’ confidence

through reading texts and activities compared with arousing interest or improving

abilities.

As regards the writing part offered in the textbooks, 42 per cent of the teachers

reported that the writing contents were systematically presented so as to accomplish

the goals for each unit (Table A87). 41.6 per cent and 48.6 per cent respectively said

that the amounts of writing were not large and writing activities were not difficult. 35.7

per cent of the teachers answered that writing activities in the textbooks did not

interest pupils, whereas the same percentage of the teachers replied that pupils could

build their confidence through writing activities. Improving pupils’ writing ability was at

a similar proportion (around 32%) for both positive and negative options, as in reading.

Among interest, confidence and writing abilities developed through writing activities,

the teachers generally showed more positive responses on building confidence.

5.2.3.3 Challenges of teaching and learning reading and writing

i. Perceptions of language skills

Among the four language skills, teachers perceived that their pupils were better at

listening and speaking than reading and writing (Table A88). This was in accord with

a policy of the national curriculum placing emphasis on spoken language. This was

also parallel to the pupils’ perception of English language skills. To explore pupils’

perceptions, the four language skills were given for pupils to place the skills in order

159

of interest, confidence, difficulty and workload for learning. As for the most interesting

and confident English language skill, the pupils chose listening as the first, and writing

as the last (Tables A89 and A91). The results by pupils’ English proficiency showed

that writing was the least interesting and confident skill among all the subgroups as

well, even though the rankings of the other language skills varied in terms of their

English proficiency (Tables A90 and A92). The most difficult English language skill for

the respondents was writing, but pupils studied writing most outside of school (Tables

A93 and A95). The pupils belonging to each group all ranked writing as the most

difficult skill (Table A94). Both the intermediate-level pupils and high-level pupils

studied writing most, while the low-level pupils studied reading most (Table A96).

Reading as well as writing was also seen to be not only less interesting, less confident

and more difficult, but also studied more outside of school than listening and speaking.

As to the necessity of English reading and writing, the majority of the teachers (77.2%)

and the pupils (86.6%) demonstrated that they needed them in order to communicate

with people from other countries as a result of globalisation (Tables A97 and A98).

The necessity for reading as a hobby was supported by the smallest percentage of

the teachers (11.7%) and the pupils (42.1%). In terms of pupils’ English proficiency,

the majority of the pupils in all the group chose the necessity for the purpose of

communication (Table A99). In the ‘other’ option, which aimed to give respondents the

chance to express freely their thoughts about the necessity, the pupils gave responses

such as for their future dream and the importance of English as a global language

(Table A99).

ii. Challenges of teaching or learning reading and writing

Looking at teachers’ challenges in teaching reading and writing respectively, teaching

systematically low-level pupils ranked first (Tables A100 and A101). Instructing low-

level pupils was regarded as much more demanding, compared with teaching high-

level pupils. In teaching reading, teachers’ second biggest difficulty was checking

whether their pupils genuinely understood what they read because teachers could not

investigate the reading process in pupils’ brains. Among the difficulties in teaching

reading at each level, teachers chose reading at sentence-level as the most

challenging (Tables A100). Regarding difficulties that pupils were likely to perceive,

67.8 per cent of the teachers selected reading at phrase or sentence-level (Table

A102). In teachers’ difficulty in writing, the second biggest difficulty was teaching

160

writing at phrase and sentence level based on the correct grammatical order (Table

A101). In regard to the biggest difficulty that pupils were likely to perceive, 70.6 per

cent of the teachers chose writing at phrase and sentence-level as well, followed by

spelling words correctly (39.9%) (Table A103).

Unlike teachers’ responses, the majority of the pupils (43.9%) responded that they did

not have any difficulty, and 25.3 per cent picked reading at text level as their difficulty

(Table A104). The greatest proportion (65.3%) of the high-level pupils answered that

they did not have any difficulty in English reading, while less than 10 per cent of the

low-level pupils responded that they had no difficulty, x2(14, N2784)2369.662, p..05.

(Table A105). The various difficulties of low-level pupils were all of a similar

percentage: reading at sentence level (45.3%); understanding the meanings of words

(43.8%); reading at text level (42.2%); reading aloud words (34.4%); and memorising

the English alphabet letters (31.3%). As in reading, the greatest percentage (32.5) of

the pupils replied they had no difficulty in writing, and 24.7 per cent chose writing a

text appropriate for each genre (Table A106). In the results by English proficiency,

48.9 per cent of the high-level pupils answered that they did not have any trouble in

English writing, whereas the low-level pupils selected various difficulties with a high

proportion (Table A107).

5.2.4 Summary

In explaining classroom practices, the survey results revealed that teachers tended to

put emphasis on ‘fun’ factors in their lessons. Teachers liked to use game-based

activities and to provide interesting situations in order to engage pupils in learning with

interest. Teachers’ efforts to motivate pupils can be linked to what some regard as

positive elements of teaching and learning English, specifically referring to improving

pupils’ interest and confidence in English and English learning. Teachers also tried to

offer effective conditions to facilitate pupils’ learning. For example, they preferred to

present group work for reading and individual work for writing, having thought about

the educational effect. This showed that teachers seemed to think that pupils needed

to collaborate with each other in order to construct meanings in reading and they

needed more individual experience in writing. As for pupils’ views, group work for both

reading and writing was preferred.

The integration of language skills was considered important by teachers when

161

planning and offering activities for improving pupils’ reading and writing ability.

Teachers tended to integrate not only reading and writing but also spoken English and

written English in the activities. It could be assumed that the improvement of pupils’

ability to communicate in spoken English was essential even in learning written

English. Teachers also attempted to provide pupils with opportunities to use the TL in

more authentic situations where various language skills were integrated. This could

be related to teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of the necessity of English reading and

writing for spoken communication.

The biggest challenge of teaching English felt by teachers was the wide variation of

L2 proficiency among pupils. The primary reason to cause this disparity that teachers

perceived was pupils’ different experiences of English learning outside of school. In

order to understand why these differences were challenging to teachers, there was a

need for exploring how different pupils’ experiences and perceptions were in terms of

their English proficiency, directly from pupils’ voices. The survey results with pupils

showed that there was a significant difference between pupils with different English

proficiency in their experiences of English learning, not only when they started to learn

English but also outside of school at the time of the research. Pupils with different

proficiency had different perceptions of English learning and English lessons as well

as different preferences in the ways to learn English. Thus, these differences must be

one of the important considerations when teachers plan lessons and teach pupils as

a planner, manager and facilitator of the lessons.

According to the survey results, in order to offer effective scaffolding in large classes,

teachers tended to prefer mixed attainment groupings, guided writing work and

slightly easy activities. Teachers liked to employ heterogeneous groupings where

pupils could provide scaffolding to their peers in the group (Sullivan & Weeks, 2019).

In line with this, teachers tended to present more guided writing than free writing to

their pupils. This can be interpreted that teachers preferred to provide guided writing

as scaffolded help in activities or materials per se rather than to offer individual help

or face-to-face scaffolding for challenging free writing activities. The difficulty level of

activities that teachers perceived to be appropriate for their pupils was ‘slightly easy

work’, whereas pupils preferred ‘slightly challenging work’. Although many pupils

tended to like slightly challenging work, their preference was distinct according to their

English proficiency. High-level pupils enjoyed slightly challenging work, whereas

intermediate-pupils liked slightly easy work and low-level pupils liked very easy work.

162

For learning to take place, many researchers insist that pupils should encounter tasks

at a level of moderate challenge (Case-Smith & Holland, 2009; Sullivan & Weeks,

2019; Tomlinson et al., 2003). However, teachers in the current research seemed to

like activities that were not difficult for pupils because it was not easy for them to

provide individual help for challenging work in large classes.

The final challenges that teachers felt in teaching English were related to the

constraints of the national curriculum and textbooks. Despite teachers’ dissatisfaction

with textbooks based on the national curriculum, it was true that the most important

materials teachers employed were textbooks. However, the fact that teachers

basically used texts and activities in the textbooks did not mean that they were

satisfied with the textbooks. Rather, teachers tended to show negative perceptions of

the contents in the textbooks. This made them not only modify the activities in the

textbooks or add/reduce the number of the key words/expressions but also provide or

use a variety of supplementary materials such as worksheets, PPT materials or

storybooks.

5.3 Findings from the interviews

This section provides the results of the interview data. First, the interview data with

teachers presents explanations for classroom practices, which helps understand the

findings from the quantitative data more deeply. Then, the interview data with pupils

as well as with teachers adds more depth and colour to the findings of the surveys as

regards the benefits and challenges of teaching and learning English.

5.3.1 Teachers’ explanations for classroom practices

From the interviews with teachers, classroom practices are explained in relation to

classroom interactions, activities and materials.

5.3.1.1 Classroom interactions

Classroom interactions between teachers and pupils during individual/pair/group work

were mainly related to teachers helping pupils do their work or pupils asking questions.

While teachers moved around to help pupils during main activities, they prioritised the

pupils who needed help. As for this, Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) explained that

163

he went to the pupils who were underachieving. If pupils knew something in their

learning, they could come to pay more attention to what they were doing. He

intentionally put them onto what they had to do during the activities. Teacher K1 (Ages

9-10/ Year 4) said,

Some low-level pupils can manage their work when their friends help them, but sometimes they might not do their work successfully merely with their friends’ aid. I observe pupils, and if I find someone in need, I help them to understand activities or accomplish them well. (K1)

Teacher K2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) also mentioned that while the other pupils were doing

activities, he usually helped the less proficient pupils. He gave them simple work or

comfortable roles in collaborative activities as well as some opportunities to answer

easy questions to have them feel a sense of achievement.

When teachers did not help low-level pupils during lessons owing to limited time,

some teachers left them after class to encourage them to accomplish their work.

Teacher K5 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) said she had low-level pupils finish their writing even

after class. Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) pointed out since teaching pupils

according to English proficiency in the same classroom was not easy, he left low-level

pupils after class. He taught them the keywords of each unit, which was very helpful

for them to have more interest in the next lessons because they became aware of the

keywords at least.

Teachers usually preferred mixed attainment grouping not only for facilitating

interaction but also for scaffolding their peers. Teacher K2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5)

included at least one proficient pupil in each group because he wanted pupils’ work

to proceed more smoothly. If a group consisted of only low-level pupils, it would not

be easy for them to conduct a task at the same level as that of high-level pupils. In

heterogeneous groups, even low-level pupils could fulfil their work successfully with

their group members’ aid. Teacher K9 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) also mentioned that more

proficient pupils helped other pupils learn. Teacher K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) agreed

that other group members helped low-level pupils or cheered them up to complete

their work or roles in a group.

164

5.3.1.2 Activities

i. Activities focusing on reading/writing and the integration of language

skills

When it came to offering diverse opportunities for pupils to read, Teacher K9 (Ages

10-11/ Year 5) said that she allowed pupils to read over and over in various ways such

as reading after teachers, reading with a partner, reading aloud the texts for their

friends, checking what their friends read, correcting what their friends read, and

reading with a loud voice or a quiet voice. She mentioned that these multiple ways

had pupils participate actively in reading, which could decrease the number of listless

pupils.

In writing activities, teachers appeared to use more guided writing than controlled or

free writing. Teacher K5 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5), concerning the reason, pointed out her

pupils’ English levels. Even though she prepared some free writing activities, she was

not able to use them because free writing activities were too difficult for her pupils.

Filling in the blanks as guided writing was useful for her pupils because it reduced

pupils’ burden. As regards controlled writing, Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) said that

in the previous year, she had pupils in Year 6 dictate the dialogue with nine turns,

listening to it three times in every unit. Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) offered

controlled writing that had pupils fill in the blanks based on what they had learned in

the previous lesson. For approximately five pupils per class, who did not make a

sentence relevantly, she had them dictate the sentences. As for free writing, Teacher

K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) wanted to give pupils a chance to write as they wanted to

express their thoughts. Teacher K12 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) offered the same type of free

writing for every unit, which was designed to make a story with four pictures from the

textbook. According to her, this free writing activity would be useful not only for

memorising or using what pupils had already learnt but also for making a creative

story or writing within their capacity.

In addition to reading and writing activities, there were many activities integrating

language skills within an activity as well as across activities. With regard to the

integration of language skills, some teachers mentioned that the integration had

already been specified at the textbook level. Teacher K15 (see Table A3), one of the

authors of the most popular textbooks, made clear the integration of the language

165

skills at the textbook level, explaining the characteristics of six lessons of a unit:

The first lesson of every unit in the textbooks centres on listening and the second lesson focuses on speaking. In the third lesson, pupils are exposed to a written form of what they have previously learnt in spoken English, and I think the third lesson acts as a bridge connecting speaking to reading. So in the third lesson, reading is offered in the form of dialogue. Although actually reading should not be based on spoken forms, but on written forms, the texts in the third lesson are presented in speech bubbles. … The fourth lesson offers written forms developed more from the third lesson. However, it includes spoken English as well. That is, the fourth lesson is based on reading and writing, but after reading the text, spoken English is used again for comprehension check. …. To put it in a nutshell, the first lesson is for listening, the second lesson for listening and speaking, the third lesson for listening, speaking and reading, and the fourth lesson is for four language skills. The fifth lesson is centred on a project where four language skills are more developed. Finally, the sixth lesson of each unit is the check-up stage. I can say the language skills are gradually integrated at textbook level. (K15)

Designing new activities at the teacher level, some teachers followed the guideline for

the integration in the textbooks, while other teachers had their own position on the

integration. First, some teachers tended to integrate listening and speaking or reading

and writing. Teacher K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) said that it was better to teach spoken

English and written English separately. She usually integrated listening and speaking,

and reading and writing respectively. Teacher K13 (see Table A3) explained that the

integration of reading and writing reflected natural language use because reading and

writing were intimately connected to each other. Teacher K9 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5),

although activities in the textbooks sometimes placed more focus on reading or writing,

preferred to offer more integrated activities to her pupils. Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/

Year 5) mentioned that it would be more difficult to have her pupils do activities

focusing on just one language skill because pupils tended to get bored with those

monotonous activities. She also mentioned, ‘I teach reading and writing together as I

showed today in my lesson. My pupils read and then write on the basis of what they

read. They also present what they have written, and they do a gallery walk to read

other pupils’ work, putting a sticker on the best work or writing short comments.’

Teacher K12 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) offered a worksheet for the third and fourth lessons

of every unit where language skills were integrated to reinforce the key expressions

through writing a script for a role-play. Sometimes she presented special activities

such as a project where pupils were responsible for every process. Her pupils in Year

4 produced public information films in the unit of ‘Don’t do that’. After they wrote a

script for a film on a topic chosen by themselves, they made the film. They showed

the film to their classmates and assessed their own film.

166

ii. Interesting activities and effective activities

During lessons, interesting activities were frequently observed as main activities.

Teacher K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) mentioned that even pupils in Year 6 liked fun

activities such as language games. Some pupils were very lethargic, but when they

were given language games, they became much more active. Teacher K10 (Ages 8-

9/ Year 3) did not want her pupils to feel bored at learning, so she prepared interesting

activities which led pupils to more interesting learning. Teacher K9 (Ages 10-11/ Year

5) gave her pupils opportunities to create language games in order for them to

participate in learning actively (Figure 5.1).

My pupils often say, ‘Last game was exciting.’, ‘I like this game.’ So, I sometimes have my pupils make activities for themselves. They said that their activities were more interesting than activities given by us. A group consists of four pupils. Each group makes their own learning game, using paper and Post-it notes. They also make the game manuals, which are helpful to clarify the game. One pupil among each group explains the game rules for the participants from other groups, and the other group members except for one pupil of each group join the activities developed by other groups. After enjoying every game, they vote which game is the best by putting the stickers on the most interesting game board. During this activity, I could not find pupils who rode free of charge, and everyone actively participated in playing these games as well as creating the language games. (K9)

Figure 5.1 The game boards created by Teacher K9’s pupils

Along with the advantages of interesting activities, many teachers highlighted the

importance of active learning to develop pupils’ L2 proficiency, trying to consider pupils’

cognitive development or L2 proficiency as well as their interest. Interesting activities

were planned to facilitate learning through stimulating pupils’ interest. However, some

teachers sometimes fell into the temptation of putting more focus on interest itself

without careful consideration of pupils’ cognitive development or L2 proficiency. Head

167

Teacher HT2, who came to realise the importance of learning from her experiences

of observing many lessons, raised the problem of putting excessive stress on interest,

Many activities seem to be very interesting, but some contents included in the activities are so childish. A substitution activity is simply a sort of practice, even though it takes a form of interesting language games. Pupils do not need to think deeply for doing it, and nothing remains in pupils’ minds except for rote memorisation. I think reading should be reading books. … Some teachers say, ‘Writing with a topic in English is very difficult for our pupils.’ I do not agree with that because writing is possible even at the kindergarten level. Pupils can speak and write about weather or a tree, and then they can make a story. In the meaningful situation, teachers and pupils can ask and answer with a text or their writing. (HT2)

The teachers said that they could not abandon either interest or cognitive and

linguistic development. Teacher K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) mentioned that she kept

thinking about keeping a balance between these essential factors. Teacher K9 (Ages

10-11/ Year 5) wanted to make activities which considered interest and cognitive

development at the same time, but it was not possible to offer such activities every

time. She occasionally attempted to prepare meaningful activities which could provide

pupils with the opportunity to think deeply along with interest.

Teachers used various ways to facilitate pupils’ active learning at different English

levels. There were some teachers who offered different activities to pupils with

different English proficiency. Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3), who usually focused on

intermediate-level pupils in preparing her lessons, added one or two more difficult

words for high-level pupils. For pupils with low proficiency, she believed that words

and expressions in the textbooks were proper since they were usually better at

English than intermediate-level pupils in other schools. As for her pupils whose

English proficiency was relatively low compared with pupils in the other schools in the

same district, Teacher K13 (see Table A3) said the textbooks were appropriate for the

intermediate-level pupils, and for the high-level pupils she presented more activities

such as free writing. Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) said that he prepared more

cognitively complex activities in order to interest pupils with high proficiency. Teacher

K5 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) also told of her experience in the previous school of offering

high-level pupils extra reading materials such as a newspaper in English for kids.

Differentiated classes based on pupils’ different English proficiency were mentioned

by a teacher-interviewee but not common at primary school. Pupils were assigned to

distinct classes in terms of English proficiency, and were offered different contents

168

and activities. Teacher K14 (see Table A3) had experience in teaching differentiated

classes for two years. This system in terms of the school policy depended on the

policy of each school. In her school, pupils from three classes were divided into four

classes only for English lessons according to English proficiency: one class for high-

level pupils; two classes for intermediate-level pupils; and one class for low-level

pupils. The class for high-level pupils included more pupils than the class for the low-

level pupils because teaching low level-pupils was the most challenging work. By and

large, it was useful for both low-level pupils and high-level pupils, but this system

posed several problems. It was not straightforward for intermediate-level pupils to

level up to the class for high-level pupils. Furthermore, the classes for intermediate-

level pupils contained the wide levels of pupils closest to both the low-level class and

the high-level class, which made teaching more difficult for the teachers. Pupils

belonging to the low-level group seemed to be improved because at least they were

able to recognise the alphabet letters and understand words through repetitions.

However, they were still in the low-level class in the next term because they had to

take the same placement test as the other pupils in the high-level or intermediate-

level classes. They were not given chances to experience some activities which pupils

in higher-level classes carried out. Another problem was that although the teachers

assigned colour names to each class instead of names representing their levels,

pupils noticed which class was for high, intermediate or low-level pupils, which might

give some pupils an inferiority complex. This explanation would help comprehend

homogeneous groups in a sense.

Offering the same activities to pupils with different English proficiency could be

comprehended in line with the idea that pupils can be given same opportunities to

learn regardless of English proficiency. However, many cases of using the same

activities were related to pupils’ preference because pupils basically enjoyed

interesting activities. Teacher K8 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) mentioned that although some

pupils had known what they would learn, they could participate in learning with fun

because of interesting activities. At the beginning of the school year, Teacher K9 (Ages

10-11/ Year 5) had tried to offer differentiated activities for pupils at different levels.

She had high-level pupils write a journal during lessons, and the NES teacher helped

them and corrected their writings. At first, high-level pupils were content with their

distinct activities. For low-level or intermediate-level pupils, the teachers presented

various interesting activities. However, although high-level pupils still liked to write a

journal, they wanted to do the same activities as their friends’. Writing journals was

169

appropriate and helpful for their English levels, but they preferred to do interesting

activities. A couple of months later, all the pupils came to conduct the same activities.

Although given the same activities, pupils were supposed to carry out them in terms

of their English proficiency. Teacher K12 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) offered the same

worksheets to all pupils, but she asked them to complete the worksheets as much as

they could according to their proficiency.

5.3.1.3 The use of materials

i. The adaptation of textbooks

The purpose of altering some contents in the textbooks was to encourage pupils to

learn with fun. Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) said that he tended not to use

activities in the textbooks because they were not interesting. He created new activities

to motivate pupils. Teacher K2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) flexibly used activities in the

textbooks, altered them or created new activities for pupils to be interested in learning.

Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) revised the confusing or complicated activities in

the textbooks into simple, interesting activities because too complex activities might

prohibit pupils from enjoying activities. Teachers K1 and K12 considered meaningful

contexts important.

The games in the textbooks do not offer the context. Those are just for repeating the expressions mainly using the flashcards. But when I provide the context, it facilitates pupils to imagine more actively. When I taught ‘Don’t run’ or ‘Don’t swim here’, no context was offered in the activity of the textbook. So, I gave the context like making warning signs in diverse situations. Pupils were able to use the expressions in various meaningful contexts. (K1)

Along with pupils’ interest, many teachers referred to effective learning as a purpose

of adapting the textbooks. Teacher K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) replied that more reading

materials were prepared for pupils as texts in the textbooks were too short.

Conversely Teacher K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) whose pupils were not good at English

had to adjust the textbooks because the textbooks were difficult for her pupils. The

goals of a unit were to describe friends’ appearances and to explain their characters

and future dreams. It was demanding to include various topics or expressions within

one unit. She planned to focus on teaching how to describe a person’s appearance

without handling the other two goals. For effective, natural learning, some teachers

emphasised written English. Teacher K8 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) had her pupils write

170

sentences, although they were expected to write only words at the textbook level.

Since her pupils’ English levels were higher than the textbook level, it was not hard

for them to write sentences. Teacher K12 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4), who reinforced written

English, also mentioned:

Even though the textbooks cope with reading and writing at phrase level, pupils have already been exposed to spoken English at sentence level in the same unit. I do not think we need to limit pupils to reading and writing phrases. After pupils listen and speak ‘It’s on the bed’, they read and write just ‘on the bed’ in the textbook. I think it is meaningless. They can read and write ‘It’s on the bed’ as well. (K12)

Teachers K5 and K11 also agreed that written English had to keep pace with spoken

English. Teacher K9 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) altered activities in the textbooks when

activities were not effective for learning. She said, ‘Some activities are difficult or

confusing to do. They have little effect on pupils’ learning. In that case, I change the

activities.’ Since the textbooks are too easy for her pupils, Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/

Year 3) added more words and expressions for high-level pupils and changed the

activities:

In order to complement the textbooks, my colleagues and I make new activities. We add expressions and words. If there are five or six sentences in the textbook, we provide twelve sentences for pupils. If four new words are presented in the textbook for Year 3, we offer twelve or thirteen new words. (K10)

In addition to the teachers who worked for the schools, including many pupils with

high proficiency, a number of teachers also mentioned that they added more words

for their pupils (Teachers K2, K3, K11, K13 and K16).

ii. Supplementary materials

The teacher-interviewees said they used diverse materials throughout the lesson:

PowerPoint materials; worksheets; word cards or sentence cards; and authentic

materials. Teacher K8 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) used the PowerPoint materials to introduce

key expressions in the first lesson of each unit. She explained that pupils might have

difficulties with understanding the main dialogues without learning key expressions.

Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) primarily utilised PowerPoint materials as an aid for

the textbooks in the first and second lessons among six lessons of a unit; cards or

worksheets in the third and fourth lessons; and individualised work in the fifth and

171

sixth lessons of each unit as routine materials. PowerPoint materials were very useful

in presenting expressions with pictures. As the lessons progressed within the unit, she

wanted to facilitate pupils to do something with their hands using cards or worksheets,

and at the end of the unit, she guided them into doing individualised work.

Teacher K8 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) painstakingly revised worksheets downloaded from the

Korean teachers’ popular website. She offered pupils routine activities through

worksheets and had pupils do free writing according to English proficiency (Example

A24). Teacher K12 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) also made effective use of worksheets for

having pupils write by their English proficiency (Example A25). Teacher K5 (Ages 10-

11/ Year 5) said she used worksheets for practicing sentence-making. When she was

transferred to her school two years ago, she found many pupils could not make

sentences properly. She started to provide some worksheets for practicing making

sentences. Showing her worksheet, she said, ‘The front page of the worksheet is the

same as those other teachers are using, but on the back page I offer grammatical

activities such as filling in the blanks, correcting words or sentences, and grammatical

points’ (see Table 4.4).

Teacher K1, who mainly used a storybook in her observed lesson, mentioned the

advantages of using storybooks, ‘I think using storybooks is good. Children basically

like storybooks. The illustrations are very helpful to understand the stories. Pupils can

find many useful expressions in them, and they feel familiar with stories. We have

many attached CDs to storybooks, which include reading aloud and songs. Through

these storybooks and CDs, children can acquire English easily.’ Teacher K5 (Ages 10-

11/ Year 5), who used a Korean traditional storybook in her lesson, explained that

pupils were already familiar with the story, and its storyline was suitable for using the

key expressions of the unit. She stated, ‘If I teach reading and writing just within the

textbook, pupils feel very bored. I try to offer something more interesting and special.’

Teacher K2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5), who also utilised a Korean traditional story for his

lesson, referred to the importance of understanding key expressions in meaningful

contexts. He tried to choose relevant stories for key expressions.

As regards useful websites, Teacher K8 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) said that she downloaded

materials such as songs and worksheets from the website where most primary school

teachers in South Korea shared or gained their teaching materials, and adapted them

according to their pupils’ English levels. Teacher K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) referred to

172

the difficulty of creating materials for English lessons and the use of the teachers’

website,

English is generally taught on the basis of fun games in our context, and materials are the core for effective English language teaching. We have to make materials in which our pupils are interested, but it is very time-consuming to make all materials. Fortunately, there are many passionate teachers who share their valuable materials on the website. I utilise the website very often, and so do other teachers. (K7)

In addition to using materials on the websites, many teachers responded that they

created materials themselves for their pupils. Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) said

that it was not demanding at all of her to design or make materials. Teacher K3 (Ages

11-12/ Year 6), who often generated materials, replied that he considered pupils’

interest as a very crucial factor in developing materials.

5.3.2 Benefits of teaching and learning English

In this section, teachers’ and pupils’ views concerning the benefits of teaching and

learning English are based on the results of the interviews. Pupils’ opinions are usually

dealt with in terms of their English proficiency. It would be helpful in understanding

pupils’ perceptions based on their English proficiency.

5.3.2.1 Improving pupils’ affective factors

The interview data with pupils demonstrated that pupils had positive perceptions of

English learning, and reading and writing lessons in English. Pupils’ affective factors

were inextricably intertwined with each other. For example, pupils’ liking for English

learning was connected with their interest or confidence. Sujin and Minho with high

proficiency and Leean with intermediate proficiency liked English because it was

interesting. Jeonghwa and Seojin with high proficiency associated interest in English

with a sense of accomplishment in learning English. Leean with intermediate

proficiency, and Heeju and Jiyun in the low-level group showed their interest in doing

something interesting in English such as games, songs, chants or activities.

Although the majority of pupils revealed positive perceptions of English learning, it

was also necessary to recognise pupils’ negative responses because it would be

helpful in gaining some implications for better teaching. Pupils’ lack of confidence was

linked to their dislike for English learning. Some pupils at a low level replied that they

173

did not like English as they were not good at English, or English was difficult. Sion

with low proficiency said that English would have become interesting if he had known

the meanings of words or sentences in English. As the reasons for lack of confidence,

Jeongsu mentioned that he did not know many words, and Leean thought that she

had a long way to go to learn English. Chanseo and Heeju in the low-level group

answered that they were not confident in English because they were not good at

English, as well as that they did not like it. Pupils’ preference or interest in English

generally appeared to have a positive relationship with their confidence in English.

However, there were some pupils, who had less confidence in English, although they

liked English and thought English was interesting (Jeongsu, Leean and Wubin at the

intermediate level).

When it came to reading lessons, many interviewees responded that they enjoyed

them. The biggest interest in English reading classes was from various activities.

Seojin and Jihu liked English reading games, and Leean enjoyed English songs.

Although English lessons were too easy for Jongseok, he found them interesting

because he enjoyed participating in presentation activities. Heeju liked reading games

but she was concerned about excessive competition that made her get cold feet.

Since pupil-interviewees largely showed their particular interest in game-based

activities, there was a need to look into the reasons. Pupils thought that reading

games were interesting and effective in learning. They responded that doing game-

based activities with friends was entertaining and helped them have a strong

emotional bond in a group. Shinhye with high proficiency and Jihu with low proficiency

said playing games was interesting since they played games with friends, and

Shinhye also added she could learn English reading better through games. Many

interviewees mentioned that learning English through games helped them learn better

because it allowed them to concentrate on learning and to understand or memorise

better what they learned. Jongseok with high proficiency pointed out that even pupils

showing less interest in English could become interested in English through games,

which eventually would lead them into learning well. Hael at intermediate level

mentioned, ‘Games enable us to have a close relationship with one another. Less

competent pupils can naturally learn to read in English from more competent pupils

in the same group when playing games’. Doyun at the intermediate level and Jiyun at

low level replied that doing interesting activities helped them memorise better.

Although it was often noisy to play games or those activities, Onyu with low proficiency

174

said, ‘Playing games encouraged me to understand well. I do not care about noisy

situations and rather understand those situations because I might make a noise

playing games’.

Some interviewees said that they enjoyed the reading process itself as the reason

why they found English reading classes interesting. Yuna and Leean said that they

were interested in understanding what was written in English, Hael with intermediate

proficiency said that she enjoyed reading itself. Leean mentioned that she could

understand what was written in English because the teacher interpreted it, or because

she guessed the whole meaning from some words. Sehun thought that English

reading lessons were interesting since he was learning something through teachers’

support. Minho and Jeongsu also agreed that teachers taught and explained well,

which made them enjoy English lessons. Conversely, Sion, Chanseo and Junwu with

low proficiency did not agree that English reading lessons were interesting. That was

because Sion did not understand reading lessons well, Chanseo did not have any

confidence in English reading, and Junwu thought there were too many things to do

during lessons.

Interviewees also revealed positive views on English writing classes. As one of the

reasons, some interviewees with high proficiency mentioned easy lessons. Jongseok

in the high group said lessons were interesting because he was able to express what

he wanted to write. Yuna with intermediate proficiency pointed out interesting activities,

and Heeju and Sehun with low proficiency said writing something was interesting even

at the word level. Many interviewees who liked writing classes thought writing helped

them memorise words and study effectively (Minho at the high level; Jeongsu, Leean

and Jimin at the intermediate level; and Junwu at the low level). On the contrary,

Hyenbin noted it was tiresome, and Sion replied that English writing was not

interesting because he just disliked English itself. Jeonghwa with high proficiency did

not like writing lessons because she did not enjoy just copying sentences from

textbooks. She wanted to write freely. Minjun at the high level also said that writing

was irksome because he had already known what he had to write.

More specifically, in terms of controlled writing which was selected by the least pupils

in the questionnaire surveys, no pupil-interviews with high proficiency said that they

liked it. All five interviewees who preferred controlled writing such as copying words

or sentences pointed out that copying was less effective but easy. Sion at low level

175

said, ‘I can copy words or sentences, but I cannot write anything except for copying.

I know writing my thoughts would be more effective, but I don’t know how to write.

Just copying is easy for me.’

Some pupil-interviews said that just copying words or sentences would not help them

improve their writing skills, and writing freely was very demanding for them. Instead,

they mentioned guided writing was neither too simple nor too difficult. Sujin with high

English proficiency replied, ‘I like changing some parts of the text presented as the

sample. If I have to alter the whole text, it would be very demanding. If I am supposed

to copy everything, it would be unhelpful for learning.’

With regard to the reasons for preferring free writing, which was chosen as pupils’

favourite writing activities in the surveys, the pupil-interviews responded that it might

help not only express their thoughts freely but also improve their writing ability.

Jeonghwa and Shinhye at a high level and Hyenbin at an intermediate level

mentioned that they could write as they wanted in free writing. Hael with intermediate

proficiency said, ‘When I just copied texts, I think my writing skills would not be

improved that much. After reading well-written texts as a reference, we can write our

thoughts, and this can make us improve our writing.’ Jiyun at a low level also said, ‘In

my opinion, writing our own ideas as we want is much better. When we copy, we might

mechanically write them without thinking. When we ponder over writing, we can

develop our imagination, and put more concentration on writing.’

Looking at these interview results about preferred writing activities, pupils tended to

choose activities appropriate for their English proficiency. In this regard, it was

important to explore pupils’ perceptions of the difficulty or workload of learning. The

interviewees mainly thought that the amount of reading or writing that they had to

cover during lessons was small or appropriate. Nobody said that it was large.

Jeonghwa at high level mentioned pupils were usually encouraged to listen or speak

rather than read. Sion with low proficiency said that pupils were not given enough time

for reading itself. Jongseok at high level mentioned his school context where pupils

learnt English writing at a very difficult level through private hakwon (private institute

for learning) or at home, which made them feel that their writing lessons were

comparatively much easier. Jeonghwa and Sujin at the high level pointed out the

deficient writing work. Jongseok with high proficiency did not think they had a heavy

workload for writing at all, but he did not want more work. Their perceptions of the

176

difficulty or workload appeared to be linked to their perceptions of English learning in

a sense. That is because pupils, who thought English learning was difficult, tended to

show less interest (Sion at the low level), less preference (Sion, Heeju, Chanseo,

Sehun and Onyu at the low level) and less confidence (Jeongsu, Leean and Jimin at

the intermediate level, and Chanseo and Heeju at the low level). It was also true that

pupils showed less interest in learning with too easy work since they did not feel a

sense of accomplishment (Seojin at the high level and Yuna at the intermediate level).

5.3.2.2 Developing pupils’ ability in English

As regards the improvement of reading ability through English lessons, Minho with

high proficiency mentioned that school lessons allowed him to understand well

because the teacher focused on particular expressions in one lesson. Like Minho,

Hyenbin, Sehun and Onyu said that they could improve their reading ability through

English lessons because English lessons at school offered them appropriate and

basic English reading, compared with difficult English reading lessons at private

English hakwon. Leean and Doyun referred to interesting activities at school as the

reason why they thought their English reading ability was developed at school. It is

true that some pupils had different opinions about the effect of reading lessons at

school. Yuna, Inhu and Wubin in the intermediate-level group as well as Seojin,

Jeonghwa and Inseong in the high-level group mentioned that learning at private

English language hakwon could develop their English reading ability, and English

classes at school seemed to function as merely reviewing what they had already

learned.

Turning to the positive effect of writing lessons, some interviewees demonstrated that

regular writing lessons developed their writing ability because they came to memorise

words or realise their gradual improvement themselves. Sujin with high proficiency

mentioned her writing ability seemed to have developed continually since Year 3.

Seojin at a high level, Yuna and Wubin in the intermediate group, and Junwu, Heeju

and Jiyun at low level pointed out that they recognised their improvement in writing

when they became able to write what they had not written before. However, Jeonghwa

and Minjun with high proficiency, and Inhu in the intermediate group answered that

they could not improve their writing ability as writing at school was too easy. Hael with

intermediate proficiency and Sion in the low-level group said that they did not review

enough personally what they had learnt at school, which became the main reason

177

why their writing ability did not improve.

5.3.2.3 Facilitating pupils’ collaboration

Group work tended to be preferred by both teachers and pupils. Many teacher-

interviewees mentioned the various advantages of group work: intriguing pupils

through interesting activities based on luck or competition; learning from others;

minimising the learning load on pupils; and accomplishing activities successfully

through collaboration. Teacher K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) said that pupils liked group

work as it not only provided diverse fun activities but also included more interesting

factors such as competitive elements or luck, compared with individual work. Teacher

K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5), concerning the reason for preferring group work, mentioned

collaborative learning, which might encourage pupils to help each other. She said,

From my personal experience, I know how effective group work is. When I learned English at the in-service programmes for teachers, I could always find someone better than me. When the tutors asked us something, I did not know what to say or what to do, but more proficient colleagues among us knew that. They led us into managing activities smoothly in a group. During activities, I also realised that I learned from more proficient colleagues. That is why I prefer to use group work even for my pupils. (K11)

Teacher K11 also stressed that pupils had to be given time to work themselves, ‘Even

though a teacher gives a perfect lecture, students do not learn at all if they do nothing

themselves.’ Teacher K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) referred to not only relieving stress on

conducting activities but also learning respect or cooperation.

When some pupils are individually given writing activities, they feel overwhelmed by writing something alone. But in group work, individual pupils have only to write a couple of sentences to accomplish the whole text. They can learn significant affective factors such as consideration or respect for others or cooperation during the work as well. (K1)

Teacher K5 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) also connected pupils’ affective factors with their

learning in a group.

Less proficient pupils lack confidence, which might constrict themselves, and keep them from learning. It is like a cycle. So, I encourage pupils to work together. Sometimes I attempt to give more chance for them to present what they have done in front of others in order to help them build confidence. (K5)

Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) favoured group or pair work because he had many

178

less proficient pupils in his class. He encouraged them to collaborate with each other

during activities, even in situations where they were supposed to submit their outcome

individually.

Concerning each type of learning organisation, the pupils-interviews showed diverse

views. As regards group activity which was preferred for both reading and writing

activities by the greatest percentage of pupils, they mentioned that collaborating with

friends in a group made their learning easier, more effective and more enjoyable. Sujin,

Minho and Jongseok with high proficiency, Yuna with intermediate proficiency, and

Sion, Junwu and Onyu with low proficiency said that they could work together and

they could assist each other. Jongseok and Yuna added that group activities were

more interesting, and Sujin enjoyed helping less proficient peers, which made her feel

rewarded. Jeongsu and Jimin in the intermediate group indicated that they could ask

one another in a group when they did not understand texts or activities. Jihu in the

low level said, ‘I like to work together. Even when three members in my group do not

understand, the other member can help us understand’. Onyu also pointed out the

advantage of group work, compared with other types of work, ‘I do not like doing whole

class activities because they are very noisy. I like group work because I can ask my

group members if necessary. Reading individually is not good because I cannot ask

others when I do not understand.’ In addition to asking others, Sehun mentioned that

he felt more excited when he was working with group members.

While group work generally means that two or more pupils are given a task that

contains collaboration, pair work refers to merely group work in groups of two (Brown

& Lee, 2015). The pupils who preferred pair work liked working together and

simultaneously liked the less distracted situation, compared with group work or whole-

class work. Jihu with low proficiency mentioned. ‘I think there is likely to be noise

during whole-class work or group work, and when I write alone I might be stuck in

writing. But if I am doing it with my friend, we can help each other.’ Hael with

intermediate proficiency said, ‘Whenever I write, I feel that I am very poor at writing.

In group work, I’m afraid that the group members might become aware of that, so I do

not like group work. In pair work, although my pair would notice that, he or she could

help me without telling the other pupils.’ Hyenbin with intermediate proficiency said, ‘I

like pair work because my friend helps me read’.

When it came to the reasons they preferred whole-class work, pupils said that

179

conducting activities together with all classmates was not only interesting but also

useful for learning. Whole-class work encouraged collaboration within each team and

competition with other teams as observed in the activities, ‘Whisper game’ in Teachers

K7 and NE3’s class (Appendix A, Example A25) or ‘Find the Spies!’ in Teacher K5’s

lesson (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) (Example A7). Doyun with intermediate proficiency

mentioned, ‘We might compete with others in whole class work, but we can share

ideas and help each other. So we can learn better’. Minjun in the high-level group

replied, ‘I like whole class work, but it is true that individual work is better for more

proficient pupils. In the case of less proficient pupils, whole class work is helpful

because they can repeat after more proficient pupils. I like individual work, but I prefer

whole-class work’. Wubin with intermediate proficiency, and Chanseo and Sehun in

the low-level group referred to the less stressful situation because the teachers or

other classmates could help them, and they did not need to accomplish work alone.

The majority of pupils liked collaborative work based on whole-class, group or pair

work, but some pupils preferred individual work. As for the reasons, Seojin, Minho and

Shinhye in the high-level group, and Leean and Jimin with intermediate proficiency

said that they could concentrate on their work. Jeonghwa with high proficiency, Inhu

with intermediate proficiency and Heeju with low proficiency mentioned that they felt

more comfortable without any interruption. Seojin with high proficiency demonstrated

that individual work helped pupils concentrate on activities, and Jongseok said that

doing activities with others might distract him because more competent pupils spoke

first what they understood before the others thought.

5.3.3 Challenges of teaching and learning English

This section deals with the findings of the interviews with teachers and pupils.

Understanding teachers’ and pupils’ challenges would help gain insights into how to

mediate pupils’ learning effectively. That is because the process of overcoming the

challenges leads to the more appropriate and effective teaching in this particular

context.

180

5.3.3.1 Pupils with different English proficiency

i. Teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ different English proficiency

All the teachers who were interviewed answered that they perceived the difference

among pupils. Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) in the school with a large proportion of

advantaged pupils mentioned the different levels of vocabulary that pupils used as an

example of showing the difference between the pupils’ English proficiency. When her

pupils were asked to write the words they heard from the short movie they were

watching during the lesson, some pupils wrote approximately 300 words including

difficult words such as ‘addiction’, whereas some pupils wrote only one or a few words.

Although her school was located in a socioeconomically advantaged region and most

pupils came from socially and economically advantaged families, the teacher

demonstrated that huge differences among pupils were still found. Teacher K15 (see

Table A3), another teacher who had taught in one of the affluent school districts before,

also said that she had seen many pupils receive a perfect score in the Test of English

for International Communication (TOEIC). Teacher K14 (see Table A3) working with

children in the deprived and disadvantaged area also agreed with the gap, ‘It is

extremely big. Even though the students at the top of each class in my school are not

as good as the pupils in the Gangnam district6, I can find one or two very good pupils

from each class.’ When it came to the pupils with low proficiency, many interviewees

(Teachers K2, K7, K8, K11, K12, K13, K14 and K15) mentioned that it was not rare to

discover pupils who could not read or write even the letters of the English alphabet in

each school.

In regard to the reasons to generate the big difference in the pupils’ English levels,

out of 13 teachers interviewed, all the teachers directly or indirectly referred to the

impact of private English education. Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) raised the issue

related to exposure of English. She thought that children were equally exposed to

English in the context of formal education, but they had different exposure and input

opportunities in the private sector, which could cause the pupils’ different English

6 It is the most socioeconomically advantaged region in Seoul.

181

proficiency. Teacher K13 (see Table A3) also said, ‘... the big gap between pupils

depends on the private sector of English education. Pupils with high proficiency know

a lot of difficult words because they have already learnt them in English language

hakwon’. Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) clarified that there were seventeen or

eighteen pupils out of thirty pupils in each class of her school who had attended

English language kindergarten before formal schooling, and most of the pupils

continually had extra English lessons in English language hakwon or through personal

English tutors at home. She added that about ten pupils in one class among pupils in

Year 3 that she taught in the previous year had experienced living in the USA.

Some teachers insisted that the differences in private English instruction or English

exposure opportunities were closely linked to the parents’ socioeconomic status and

their commitment and attention towards their children’s English learning. Teacher K14

(see Table A3) explained her school situation, ‘…even in my school, some pupils are

very good. ...... From a very young age, they have learnt English from their mother, or

they attended an expensive English language kindergarten. However, a number of

pupils in my school are not well taken care of by their parents.’ Along with parents’

high socioeconomic status, parents’ commitment to their children’s English language

education was pointed out as one of the primary reasons for making a difference.

Teacher K5 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) said, ‘I think the most important factor is parents. In

addition to financial support, parents’ role as a mentor is important. Many parents just

keep asking their children to study English, but instead of that, they should explain

why English learning is necessary and important.’ Teacher K2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5)

highlighted parents’ attention, mentioning that pupils whose parents were interested

in English and instructed their children elaborately tended to have high English

proficiency. For other reasons, the teachers referred to various aspects which make

a difference in English abilities; innate cognitive abilities (Teachers K3 and K11);

lacking a proper grounding in English (Teachers K2, K7, K8 and K11); Korean

language proficiency (Teachers K7 and K9); and affective factors such as interest and

motivation (Teachers K2, K9, K11 and K12). While many teachers raised pupils’

factors, Teacher K5 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) brought up the teachers’ role, referring to

the fact that if one teacher had taught the same pupils continually over the years, it

would enable careful teaching of English.

182

ii. Pupils’ experiences of English learning

Among the interviewees, the pupil who learnt the English language at the earliest age

was Sujin in the group with high proficiency. She started to learn English at nursery

when she was 2 or 3 years old with a NES teacher and a Korean teacher of English

language through songs and games as well as learning the names of the letters of

the alphabet. Jongseok at high level started to learn English at English language

kindergarten in Seoul, and he had lived and studied in Indiana, in the USA, for a year

and a half. Hael belonging to the intermediate proficiency group learned English

through English storybooks and songs from a school English programme in Year 1.

Even though English lessons on a regular curriculum base should be taught from Year

3, some schools could develop their own English programmes considering their

school context and need. Sion, Chanseo and Junwu with low English proficiency

replied that they started to learn English in the mainstream classroom in Year 3 as a

mandatory subject.

Looking at pupils’ English learning experiences at the time of the research, the pupil-

interviewees at a high level were all studying English outside of school, whether they

studied at private English language hakwon or at home. Jeonghwa had three-hour

English lessons two days a week at hakwon, and Minjun and Sujin were attending

hakwon five days a week. Jeonghwa in Year 6 was writing essays with various topics,

for example, ‘What would you do if you had supernatural powers?’ Shinhye read short

stories and wrote journals, which was done by herself or sometimes checked by her

mum, and Jongseok was reading ‘Land of stories’. On Jongseok’s reading list, there

were books such as the Harry Potter series and The Hobbit, and when he

encountered difficult words in books, he asked his mum the meanings of the words or

guessed them from the context. The pupils with intermediate English proficiency

replied that they went to English language hakwon, had private English tutorials, or

took after-school English programmes at school. Wubin in Year 5, who was attending

hakwon, was learning English with test preparation books for middle school students

(Years 7, 8 and 9). Hael and Hyenbin studied English voluntarily at home using

storybooks or workbooks, and Leean did not study English at all in the out-of-school

settings.

The interviewees with low proficiency also attended hakwon or learned from personal

English tutors. Heeju studied English at home with his father using the website for

183

English learning which was introduced and guided by a school letter, and Jiyun

studied English with the coursebooks and smartphone applications that she had used

in English language hakwon, even though she did not attend hakwon at the time of

the interview. Sion and Chanseo had attended English language hakwon before, but

they did not study English at all outside of school since they had stopped attending

hakwon. The reason why Sion quit hakwon was that he became stressed because he

had to pass tests for memorising given English words every day and study at hakwon

for extra time by the time he could pass the tests. Thus, the pupils’ personal

experiences in English learning were very diverse even in the same proficiency

groups.

iii. Pupils’ different perceptions of English learning

As stated in section 5.3.1.1, pupils presented different perceptions of English learning

and reading and writing lessons at school in terms of their English proficiency. Some

high-level pupils liked English learning because it was interesting. They felt a sense

of accomplishment when learning English, which made them enjoy learning. Some

pupils in the low-level group mentioned that they did not like English learning because

they were not good at English and English was difficult. They also showed different

responses to reading and writing lessons. Some high-level pupils liked reading and

writing lessons because they were able to understand what they learned. Some low-

level pupils did not enjoy them since they did not understand well. Other high-level

pupils said that they did not like writing lessons because they were bored at learning

what they had already known.

Most of the interviewees with high proficiency thought English reading lessons were

too easy. Jeonghwa said there was nothing difficult in English reading lessons at

school because she had already learned. Jongseok thought English lessons would

be too easy for most of the students in his class. Sujin said that if the level of difficulty

in private English language hakwon was level 10, it was merely level 3 in school. The

pupils such as Wubin or Sehun in the intermediate or low-level group also agreed that

English reading lessons were easy, compared with what they were learning at the

private hakwon. However, Sion, Chanseo and Junwu with low proficiency all admitted

that English reading lessons were too difficult for them, which made them dislike them.

Regarding easy reading lessons, the pupils showed different opinions. Hyenbin and

Doyun in the intermediate group said they enjoyed English reading lessons since they

184

did not burden them at all. Minjun with high proficiency, on the other hand, was not

content with easy lessons because he was able to understand all the reading contents

in the textbooks without learning at school. These different views corresponded to the

responses of the open question asking the effect of English lessons in section 5.3.1.2.

iv. Pupils’ different preferences on the ways to learn English

Generally, the sources of help that pupils received during lessons were teachers and

friends in the observed lessons. The pupil-interviewees seeking teachers’ help mainly

gave considerable thought to useful and exact information from teachers. Minho in

the high-level group, and Jimin and Inhu with intermediate proficiency said that asking

the teachers made them feel comfortable because their friends might not know, but

their teachers could explain everything that they wanted to know. Inseoung at a high

level, who explained that he did not need any help in reading, answered, ‘Although

my friends know a lot, I do not think they are always correct. The teachers have a lot

of experiences in teaching. So, I think they can give me more correct answers during

writing activities.’ Hael with intermediate proficiency also said, ‘To be honest, my

friends and I have much difficulty in writing unlike reading, so when I ask them, they

usually do not know like me. Asking the teachers is much better.’ Jiyun with low

proficiency mentioned that the reason for asking teachers was that she could gain

accurate information, and she was concerned that her friends might give her false

information when she asked them.

The pupils who preferred to ask their friends said that they felt comfortable with friends.

Sujin with high proficiency answered, ‘While the teacher is explaining, it is not easy to

ask her. Instead, I ask my friends sitting beside me. On the contrary, when my friends

do not know, I help them. I do not think it bothers me, and rather I think it is very fun

to help friends’. Yuna with intermediate proficiency, who usually asked her friends

instead of the teachers, said that she felt more comfortable with friends rather than

teachers.

Some interviewees asked both teachers and friends. Hyenbin at intermediate level

pointed out that he might ask the teachers or friends according to the situation, saying

‘If I miss something during lessons, I usually ask my friends what I should do because

I do not want to disturb the lesson. But if I do not know some words and my friends

also do not know, I have to ask the teachers.’ Sehun, Jihu and Onyu with low

185

proficiency said that they asked the teachers again after they first asked their friends

but were not satisfied with them.

With regard to the question asking pupils’ preferred support when they had difficulty

doing work, some high-level pupils responded that they did not need any help during

English lessons; they tried to solve problems themselves; or they used a dictionary

without asking others. Jongseok said, ‘I have never faced difficult activities so far at

school.’ Seojin mentioned that there was normally no difficulty in lessons, but if she

had something difficult, she generally tried to use her brain. Inseong replied, ‘At first,

I guess what it means. For example, when I read the rules of the game in English, I

guess the unfamiliar words from the context’. Shinhye displayed that after she thought

carefully by herself, she looked up later if she still did not understand. She felt that

solving by herself helped her memorise well, but asking others, although it was the

easy way to find out answers, kept her from recalling afterwards. Jeonghwa answered

that she used the dictionary without asking others.

Concerning the appropriate difficulty level, many pupil-interviewees, particularly in the

high-level or intermediate-level groups, preferred slightly difficult activities because

they thought easy materials or easy activities were not effective in learning to read,

and very difficult materials or activities made them abandon them easily. Jeonghwa

and Sehun explained that slightly easy or very easy activities were not helpful for their

learning, and very difficult ones were too challenging for them to read. Leean said, ‘If

activities are slightly difficult, I will try hard to learn’. Hyenbin pointed out that he was

not interested in too easy work, and Doyun mentioned that he wanted to learn new

contents that he had not learnt in English hakwon. Conversely, the majority of the

interviewees with low proficiency liked slightly easy work, indicating that very easy

work was not effective for learning, and difficult work prohibited them from trying

reading. Sion said, ‘I do not think I am learning with very easy reading materials or

activities. I seem likely to go round in circles without making progress. With difficult

ones, I cannot try reading. I like slightly easy ones’. Jihu replied, ‘If I have slightly

difficult activities, I am unlikely to handle them. If they are easy, I can do’, but he added,

‘I do not think easy work allows me to improve my reading ability. When the activity is

a little bit more difficult than my ability, my reading ability is likely to make progress.’

Compared with the extent of difficulty preferred in reading activities, more pupil-

interviewees selected slightly easy activities for writing, even though the slightly

186

difficult level was chosen more in the surveys. Jeonghwa, the only pupil that chose

slightly easy activities among the high-level pupils, replied, ‘If writing activities are

difficult, I have to look up the dictionary. It would take much time. I like slightly easy

ones.’ Hyenbin in the intermediate-level group and Jihu in the low-proficiency group,

who preferred slightly easy activities, revealed that they would give up difficult writing

activities as they thought they were not good at writing, compared with reading. Onyu

with low proficiency said that he would have confidence when writing activities were

slightly easy. The pupils who preferred the slightly difficult level mentioned that too

easy work did not allow them to improve their writing, and too difficult work was

demanding to complete. Leean with intermediate proficiency demonstrated, ‘If writing

activities are very difficult, I cannot keep up with them. In case of very easy work, I

would be sloppy, or I would not participate in learning actively.’ Junwu with low

proficiency also said, ‘Slightly easy work seems to be interesting, but I like a little bit

difficult work.’ Minho with high proficiency had already known most of the school

writing lessons, so he wanted to learn more with slightly challenging activities.

5.3.3.2 The limitations of the national curriculum and textbooks

The survey results about the national curriculum demonstrated that the achievement

standards in reading and writing were not perceived as high. For this, Teacher K14

(see Table A3), who had been involved in writing the national textbooks of English

language several times, mentioned one of her colleagues who believed the national

curriculum offered very low standards in reading and writing. According to her

colleague, parents’ expectations were higher than the level of the textbooks, which

could be a reason for them having their children gain extra private tutoring. Teacher

K14, however, cited her textbook team’s leader, who was a professor in English

language education, presenting the opposite opinion to her colleague, ‘Our team

leader said that the curriculum has to focus on intermediate pupils across the country.

We should not concentrate on special pupils who have taken various private English

lessons.’ Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3), who worked for the school in the socio-

economically advantaged region, also pointed out that the level of the national

curriculum or textbooks was appropriate, although she admitted the discrepancy

between the national curriculum and parents’ standards:

Even though there is a huge gap between the curriculum and the pupils in my school, I do not think our pupils should become a standard for the curriculum or textbooks. … I think the objective of the curriculum for primary English is to

187

build pupils’ interest and confidence, so the textbooks should be easy. If textbooks become more difficult, pupils who don’t catch up with the textbooks would hate English. The pupils whom I am teaching say that English is easy and interesting. I think it means we attain the goal. If the textbooks are easy, and pupils get a perfect score on the tests, then pupils can enjoy English. (K10)

When it came to the textbooks, there were some teacher-interviewees who were

content with the textbooks or even thought they were difficult for their pupils, unlike

the results of surveys chosen by the most of teachers. Teachers K2 and K13 revealed

that the level of textbooks was proper for their pupils. Teachers K3 and K7 said that

for their pupils, reading and writing in the textbooks were difficult. However, some

teachers demonstrated that the textbooks were not appropriate for their pupils.

Teachers K10 and K12 indicated that the textbooks were too easy for their pupils.

Although Teachers K2, K13, K3, K7, K10 and K12 used the same textbooks, they had

different opinions about the textbooks according to their pupils’ levels.

The teachers, who had been writing the textbooks, mentioned the difficulty of having

to follow the regulations of the curriculum and simultaneously accept what teachers

wanted for their pupils. Teacher K14 (see Table A3) introduced many constraints in

writing textbooks such as choosing topics and making dialogues or sentences within

given regulations:

We have to consider both the curriculum and reality. To what extent should we accept or reject what teachers require? … When I make dialogues for textbooks, I am always thinking this would be good or not because we have to consider a number of things. For example, when I created a dialogue related to getting on a plane, our team leader said it was not appropriate because the aeroplane was not common compared with other vehicles for transportation. We need to contemplate child-friendly topics over and over. We are very careful in choosing topics. We are not allowed to deal with religious, political and social issues or events. We also have many limitations such as the number of new words offered in one unit, and the number of words in one sentence. We have to use the limited number of words to make a dialogue, and some NES teachers said those expressions sounded weird. We know that, but those expressions were the results of what we did our best under the supervision of other NES persons and the regulations of the national curriculum. It is difficult to use the natural expressions under these restrictions. (K14)

Teacher K15 (see Table A3) mentioned that the most significant difficulty in writing

textbooks was developing activities to meet pupils’ cognitive levels, which could

awake pupils’ desire to study. She said that it was not possible to make or include

these various activities in the textbooks because of the limitations of pages allocated

188

to each lesson and each unit.

The textbooks were developed in consideration of many aspects, such as practical or

realistic needs as well as national needs based on the curriculum. It is hard to develop

perfect textbooks to meet individual needs. Many teachers also understood that

excessive restrictions in creating textbooks caused unsatisfactory results, but it was

also true that they still had some complaints about the textbooks regardless of

whether they knew the limitations or not. Teacher K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) mentioned

she was dissatisfied with some English expressions, which were indicated as odd by

her NES colleague. She knew the textbooks were the outcomes of textbook writers’

hard work and efforts, so she wanted to use the textbooks effectively. However, when

she discussed the use of textbooks for the lesson with her NES colleague, he

demonstrated that pupils did not like boring activities in the textbooks. Teacher K11

(Ages 10-11/ Year 5) mentioned that her pupils felt bored with the texts in the

textbooks, which made her change the activities to keep pupils’ interest. Teachers K1,

K3, K5 and K8 also agreed that the texts or activities were basic and boring. Some

teachers said that some activities in the textbooks were too confusing or complicated

to understand or ineffective for learning (Teachers K8, K9, K11 and K14).

To solve these diverse problems, most of the teachers in the interviews responded

that they complemented the textbooks in various ways. Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year

6) revealed that his pupils’ English levels were very low, so they had difficulty in

reading and writing. He thought it should be his responsibility to make activities more

interesting to facilitate learning. Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/ Year 3) said, ‘My pupils’

English levels are so high. Their English abilities are beyond the textbooks. We just

use the dialogues in the textbooks. But I do not think the other textbooks should be

developed for us, especially pupils with high proficiency since very difficult textbooks

would aggravate the difference among pupils. Instead, I think teachers should

supplement the textbooks for their pupils’ learning.’

5.3.3.3 Challenges of teaching and learning reading and writing

i. Perceptions of language skills

Looking at the interviewees’ opinions on each language skill, Chanseo, Heeju and

Onyu in the low-level group, as well as Doyun with intermediate proficiency,

189

mentioned that listening in English learning was the easiest and most interesting since

they did not need to produce something, as they did in speaking or writing. On the

contrary, Seojin and Sujin in the high group perceived listening as boring. With regard

to speaking, Sujin with high proficiency felt nervous and uncomfortable, and Jimin with

intermediate proficiency and Sehun with low proficiency also found speaking difficult

in that they did not know appropriate words and had difficulty in speaking in English

itself. However, the other pupils such as Yuna, Hyenbin and Hael in the intermediate

English group as well as Minho and Jongseok with high proficiency thought speaking

was the most interesting. Jeongsu in the intermediate group also liked speaking

because it allowed him to learn more words in English. Jiyun in the low-level group

and Hael preferred speaking as they could convey their thoughts vividly and directly

through speaking.

Regarding reading, there was a big difference among pupils. Shinhye with high

proficiency and Yuna with intermediate English proficiency thought reading was

straightforward and easy because it was just reading something in written form. Yuna

said that she could guess and understand what she read if she knew the words.

However, some interviewees referred to difficulty in reading as they did not know

words and they did not interpret properly. Minho with high proficiency and Jeongsu

with intermediate proficiency revealed their lack of vocabulary knowledge making

reading difficult. As another difficulty, Sion, Chanseo and Heeju belonging to the low

proficiency group mentioned that they did not know how to read and understand, but

interestingly, they said that they could write because just copying the words or

sentences was not difficult. Heeju felt nervous and embarrassed when she read aloud

in front of others because she did not know how to pronounce the words appropriately.

All the pupils who said writing was interesting were the interviewees belonging to the

high group. The main reason why writing in English was interesting was that they liked

writing itself. Sujin, Minho and Inseong answered they were fond of writing, and writing

something was an enjoyable activity. Jeounghwa thought writing was interesting

because she could write what she wanted to write, and Seojin said that memorising

and learning words through writing was very helpful and even interesting. However,

most of the interviewees considered English writing difficult. Concerning the difficulties,

Shinhye and Jongseok in the high-level group pointed out grammatical problems in

writing such as the correct use of grammatical rules or punctuation. Doyun with

intermediate proficiency also brought up the difficulty of utilising grammatical rules

190

such as using upper and lower case letters correctly in a sentence or adding ‘s’ for

subject/verb agreement as well as correct spelling. The difficulty mentioned by the

majority of the interviewees was to memorise spellings of words. Seojin with high

proficiency, Yuna, Jeongsu, Leean, Jimin, Hael, Hyenbin and Doyun with intermediate

proficiency, and Sehun with low proficiency said that writing was the hardest language

skill due to the difficulty of memorising words correctly. Wubin with intermediate

proficiency, and Sion and Junwu in the low-level group said that writing was tiring and

vexing.

In the EFL context where English is not used for the ordinary purpose, teachers gave

various reasons for the necessity of English reading and writing, but their responses

were primarily linked to special occasions. For example, Teacher K13 (see Table A3)

noted that English reading and writing would be required for travelling, finding

employment, or cross-border shopping. Teacher K2 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) responded

that English would be necessary for reading academic books or articles in English

when studying. Teacher K1 (Ages 9-10/ Year 4) mentioned reading and writing in

English would be related to strengthening Korea’s international competitive power,

and she seemed to regard written English as English. Teacher K14 (see Table A3)

pointed out that reading and writing were connected intimately with spoken English,

‘If pupils can write words or sentences, they can say them. If they have confidence in

reading and writing, they can improve their English ability easily.’

Looking at the results of interviews with pupils, the majority of the interviewees

mentioned the importance of English as a global language and the necessity of

English reading and writing for communication. Jongseok in the high-level group said,

‘If we go abroad, communication is important. When we go to the USA, people do not

understand Korean except for a few people who might have learned Korean.’ Heeju

with low English proficiency also referred to English as a global language and the

need for communication, ‘If we go abroad, people cannot speak in Korean. In order

to communicate with them, we need it.’ In many cases, the pupils addressed the need

for the future. Shinhye replied, ‘English is a global language, so when studying abroad

later or when going on a business trip, it would be helpful.’ Seojin also mentioned,

‘When I get older, I will become a member of society. In that time, when I travel or

when I meet someone from other countries in a firm, English reading and writing would

be helpful.’ Leean with intermediate level said that she needed to learn reading and

writing in case she needed it later.

191

Considering pupils’ perceptions, they tended to think English or English reading and

writing were necessary for special times, places or occasions. They generally said

they needed English reading and writing in the future or in foreign countries. Even

some pupils mentioning the necessity of English reading and writing in the present or

in Korea said that they required it when they met foreigners in the street or on the

tube. Among pupils replying that English reading and writing needed to be learnt in

the present, three pupils mentioned it was helpful to learn English. Two pupils made

mention of entering the university, which would have been chosen much more if this

question had been put to pupils at secondary schools. However, nobody referred to

the necessity of English reading and writing for the enjoyment of reading books or

writing something in English.

ii. Challenges of teaching or learning reading and writing

In the results of questionnaire surveys associated with teachers’ challenges in

teaching reading, many teachers chose the difficulty of checking pupils’ genuine

understanding. Some teacher-interviewees also mentioned this difficulty. Teacher K9

(Ages 10-11/ Year 5) stated that she needed a specialised assessment tool for

inspecting pupils’ understanding systematically,

Reading is an abstract process. I do not know to what extent pupils understand from each text. The texts in the textbooks all have clues. Even though pupils do not read all, they can find the appropriate answers to questions because the texts are too kind. We do not have suitable assessment tools for examining what pupils know, and what pupils do not know. I think we need individual checks or tests to identify pupils’ comprehension. … I was surprised by the fact that pupils had a lot of skills or strategies to find correct answers. But sometimes when I asked the exact meaning, they said weird or pointless answers. … It means that they can find the correct answers from the texts through a guess or clues, but those answers do not guarantee their correct understanding. (K9)

In order to encourage pupils’ active reading process, teachers tried to show how to

do it through asking and answering. Teacher K5 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) found that pupils

did not know the exact meanings of sentences or words when they were asked to

translate them in Korean. She said that pupils’ understanding was not clear because

they could find the answers from the clues such as pictures or some words. She

stressed the importance of teaching how to read. In her lesson, she was observed to

continuously ask her pupils the meanings of each sentence in various ways while

reading. She said that was because she wanted to show pupils the reading process

192

that occurred in the brain through the process of asking and answering. Teacher K11

(Ages 10-11/ Year 5) pointed out that practical know-how for teaching EFL young

learners (YLs) how to read had not been developed enough. Teacher K14 (see Table

A3) mentioned her experiences observing many teachers’ reading lessons as a

teacher trainer, which focused more on reading aloud rather than comprehending.

That was because the teachers that Teacher K14 had observed, tended to regard

reading as reading aloud rather than both reading aloud and comprehension.

When it came to difficulties in teaching writing, many teachers mentioned pupils’ lack

of English grammar knowledge as their main difficulty. Teacher K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year

5) mentioned that although pupils could say a sentence, they could not write the

sentence correctly because they did not know the right grammar rules.

Some pupils did not write ‘I like Thursday.’ even though they were given the words ‘like, I, Thursday’. Although they learned to say ‘I like Thursday.’ they do not write it in the correct word order. I just guess this is caused by the difference between the word order of English and that of Korean. (K11)

Teacher K11 also gave an example of pupils proficient at understanding what was

spoken but deficient at writing because of the lack of basic English grammar and

vocabulary knowledge. It sounded odd that pupils were able to say the sentence but

were not able to write it in the right order. This might be understood from the context

of teaching English in South Korea. Since key expressions pupils had to learn in each

unit tended to be taught like a chunk in spoken English, they could say them

automatically. Even though pupils had learnt them orally, writing them might make

pupils feel confused because they did not have the grammatical knowledge to

assemble words as well as phonological knowledge. Formally and seemingly, English

language education at primary level did not deal with grammar, but many teachers

carefully brought up the necessity of teaching grammar. Teacher K13 (see Table A3)

revealed that low-level pupils had a number of errors in grammar as well as in spelling

since most of them did not know the grammatical rules.

They have a lot of errors in subject-verb agreement. They miss a subject in a sentence, or they do not use the appropriate verb ‘be’ for a subject. They also do not know when to add ‘s’ to the end of the verb. They also tend to write two verbs one after another in a sentence like “is have”. They do not even know these are errors. (K13)

In dealing with these errors, she was inclined to correct their grammatical errors

193

because she wanted pupils to realise and try to rectify their errors. Teacher K9 (Ages

10-11/ Year 5) did not think that when pupils learned the English language in chunks,

they could acquire grammatical knowledge naturally. Instead, she said that teaching

grammar would be more effective.

As other difficulties in teaching writing, teachers mentioned their own lack of

sociolinguistic competence and difficulties caused by the educational system. Teacher

K11 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) identified that giving appropriate feedback was difficult

because she did not know differences of subtle nuance expressed in English. Teacher

K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) pointed out the inadequate amount of writing, indicating that

intensive writing activities were offered in just one page in the textbooks.

Regarding pupils’ difficulty in writing, many teachers reported that pupils had difficulty

in memorising spellings of words, and that pupils often complained of their hand pain,

which made writing difficult and irksome. Teacher K9 (Ages 10-11/ Year 5) mentioned

that pupils were usually very poor at spelling due to the excessive emphasis on

spoken English. She said that the pupils always asked her how to spell even easy

words such as computer or hospital. Like Teacher K9, Teacher K10 (Ages 8-9/ Year

3) mentioned that the pupils were proficient at speaking, but they felt confused about

writing with the correct spelling. Teacher K3 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) also demonstrated

that the most frequent question by his pupils was asking the spelling of words while

writing. Teacher K7 (Ages 11-12/ Year 6) said that pupils seemed to show more

interest in speaking and reading rather than writing. She explained the reason,

When pupils write something, they should produce outcomes. They should continue to write for a given time. When my pupils write, they start to complain, ‘I am very tired. I experience pain in my hand. How much should I write?’ (K7)

Teacher K 9 also revealed that pupils felt difficulty in writing and that pupils needed

more efforts to improve their writing:

… I tried to teach the pupils with many efforts last year, but while advanced pupils were continually in good process, the rest of the pupils were not good at writing. When they listened to what the NES teacher said, they could understand well. But if they were given writing activities, they hated them. …. This year, I found the same situation. I think in the case of writing, they need more effort to write outside of school. They need to memorise. … I know one pupil who goes to the USA every vacation. She speaks like a native speaker. Her pronunciation is really good, but when she writes, there are many errors in grammar and spellings. … She asks me, ‘Teacher, what is the singular?

194

What is the plural? Why is it wrong?’ … (K9)

Unlike the results from the pupil-survey that they had no difficulty in reading, the pupil-

interviewees mainly mentioned difficulty in pronunciation as their most significant

difficulty in reading (Jeonghwa, Seojin, Sujin and Inseong in the high-level group;

Hyenbin with intermediate proficiency; and Sion, Junwu and Heeju in the low-level

group). Minjun with high proficiency explained that when there were several difficult

words, he could find their meanings in the dictionary, but he had difficulty in

pronunciation, even though he could hear the pronunciation from the electronic

dictionary. Other pupils identified their problem in knowing the meanings of words.

Shinhye with high proficiency, and Yuna, Jimin, Hael and Leean with intermediate

proficiency and Sehun with low proficiency said that when they did not know some

words in a sentence or a text, they had a problem in understanding it completely.

Regardless of English proficiency, the pupil-interviewees said that they had much

difficulty in spelling, while writing (Jeonghwa, Minho, Shinhye and Inseong in the high

group; Jeongsu, Jimin and Hyenbin in the intermediate group; and Chanseo, Sehun,

Junwu and Jihu in the low group). Inseoung said, ‘Even though it sounds awkward in

speaking, we can understand it. But in writing, it is difficult to understand the words

written with the wrong spelling.’ Yuna pointed out that knowing grammar was the most

important in writing. Sion with low proficiency mentioned that knowing the meanings

of the words helped him write better. Even though he could copy each sentence, he

did not know each word in a sentence exactly, which made him less confident in

writing.

5.3.4 Summary

Teachers’ explanations of their teaching practices through the interviews show that

they emphasised the importance of integrating language skills, interesting activities,

the adaptation of textbooks and heterogeneous groupings in order to facilitate pupils’

learning in more meaningful and interesting ways. As for the integration of language

skills, teachers commented that it reflected the authentic use of the language

(Richards & Rodgers, 2014) and helped pupils enjoy learning as focusing merely on

one language skill might make pupils feel bored. The significance of integrating

language skills mentioned by teachers is in concordance with one of the features of

communicative classrooms offered by Wesche and Skehan (2002). Interesting

activities were essential in order to involve pupils actively in learning. However, some

195

teachers voiced concern over excessive emphasis on fun factors because too many

fun activities such as games to intrigue pupils might distract pupils from concentrating

on the TL itself. Teachers also insisted that activities for language learning should be

based on considering both pupils’ L2 proficiency and their level of cognitive

development. Although the textbooks were used as fundamental materials for pupils’

learning, teachers utilised the textbooks differently according to their pupils’ English

levels or needs. Considering pupils’ interest, needs and English proficiency, teachers

created new activities; presented meaningful situations for using the TL; and

presented more or less language input than that in the textbooks. In order to

supplement the textbooks, teachers employed various materials. Particularly,

teachers liked to use storybooks because of many advantages such as the use of the

TL in authentic settings or familiar stories.

In planning main activities where individual pupils’ active roles were significant,

teachers preferred group work. This showed that teachers tried to encourage

interaction between pupils through collaborative work. The results of the qualitative

data explained the advantages of group-based work more clearly. Teachers

mentioned that group work motivated pupils; gave opportunities to learn from others;

reduced pupils’ learning load; and enabled the successful completion of work. Pupils

also said that group work made their learning easier, more effective and more

enjoyable. Group work relieves pupils’ stress (Brown & Lee, 2015; M. H. Long & Porter,

1985), and helps increase the opportunity and motivation for communication

(Savignon, 2002). For the successful completion of group work based on collaborative

activities, effective groupings were important. Teacher-interviewees preferred mixed

attainment groupings. In the classroom setting where teachers’ help cannot be given

to all pupils equally, teachers expected that more proficient pupils could act as a

leader to support others in order to fulfil their work.

In terms of their English proficiency, pupils showed different perceptions of English

learning and different preference for the ways to learn English. In this study it was

teachers’ main challenge in teaching English to handle pupils’ different English

proficiency, perceptions and preference. Pupils’ different English proficiency had also

been mentioned before as one of teachers’ challenges in other studies (Copland et

al., 2014; Garton, 2014; Vrikki, 2013). With regard to the difficulty level of activities,

activities, pupils belonging to high or intermediate-level groups mainly preferred

slightly challenging activities. They said that slightly challenging work was effective in

196

learning (Case-Smith & Holland, 2009; Sullivan & Weeks, 2019; Tomlinson et al.,

2003). In order to adjust the difficulty level, teachers provided controlled, guided or

free writing considering pupils’ proficiency, but pupils tended to prefer guided writing.

Guided writing included useful information to help pupils complete their work. As

mentioned by Vrikki (2013), the huge gap of L2 proficiency among pupils could be one

of the major reasons of using guided writing because the level of average pupils are

normally focused in school. Having pupils build confidence through the successful

completion of their work could also be one of the reasons to use guided writing. Some

pupil-interviewees stated that easy activities encouraged them to build confidence

and feel a sense of achievement by doing them on their own and decreasing their

academic stress, even though many pupil-interviewees recognised the importance of

slightly challenging work for their learning.

Regarding challenges focusing on reading and writing, many teachers referred to the

difficulty of checking pupils’ genuine understanding in reading and pupils’ lack of

understanding of English grammar rules in writing. Many pupils mentioned the

difficulty of pronunciation in reading, and grammar as well as spelling and

understanding of words in writing. Although grammatical knowledge or competence

is regarded as one of the important components to constitute CC in CLT (Bachman,

1990; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Chomsky, 1965; Littlewood, 2011), the

textbooks based on the national curriculum emphasising CLT did not deal with

grammar at all. This seemed to have caused teachers’ and pupils’ difficulty in teaching

and learning writing in English.

5.4 The integration of the findings from the quantitive and

qualitative results

This section integrates the important findings of the quantitative data (the surveys)

and the qualitative data (the interviews) from both teachers and pupils in order to gain

a fuller understanding of teachers’ and pupils’ perspectives. The most important

characteristics to explain teachers’ teaching practices were corroborated by both the

quantitative and qualitative data from teachers. According to these two types of

research data, teachers regarded ‘fun’ factors as significant in primary classrooms for

English to hold pupils’ interest and as a result, to improve their L2 proficiency. Both

kinds of data also showed that teachers preferred to integrate language skills even

197

for teaching reading and writing. Specifically, the survey results to demonstrate these

teachers’ preferences or perceptions, such as their emphasis of pupils’ interest or

integration of language skills, were supported more elaborately by the qualitative data,

which added precise explanations about the reasons and provided concrete examples.

On the other hand, although the quantitative data did not deal with the issue to

emphasise fun factors excessively, the qualitative data showed teachers’ concern

about too much focus on only interest and teachers’ perspective to keep a balance

between pupils’ interest and authentic learning considering pupils’ L2 proficiency and

their level of cognitive development. When it came to integrating language skills, the

quantitative data presented teachers’ tendency to integrate language skills, and the

qualitative data provided the reasons for and experiences of integrating language

skills more specifically.

In regard to the benefits of teaching and learning English, the survey data from both

teachers and pupils pointed out that pupils could improve their interest and confidence

or develop their L2 proficiency through English lessons. The interview data from pupils

showed similar results, but this qualitative data also handled pupils’ negative

responses. Looking at pupils’ negative responses, their lack of interest or confidence

was tightly associated with their low English proficiency. This was corroborated again

by comparing the quantitative data gained from pupils in terms by their English

proficiency. High-level pupils revealed more positive attitudes, whereas low-level

pupils showed more negative responses to their interest, confidence and preference

for English lessons.

The other benefit of teaching and learning English was to encourage pupils to

collaborate with their peers. The survey data indicated that group work tended to be

preferred by both pupils and teachers, compared with other learning organisations.

The qualitative data provided more strong evidence for this. Many teacher-

interviewees referred to the diverse advantages of group work such as scaffolding

from peers or successful completion of work through collaboration. Pupil-interviewees

expressed various opinions on each sort of learning organisation, and particularly,

pupils said that collaborative work through group or pair work made their learning

easier, more effective and more enjoyable.

In the survey, the gap of English proficiency among pupils was clearly chosen as the

biggest challenge that teachers faced in teaching English. This issue was also

198

mentioned as the difficulty that teacher-interviewees felt. This issue of mixed-level

classes with learners at diverse levels was addressed as one of the teachers’

challenges in teaching English to YLs in Copland, Garton, and Burns’ study (2014)

and Gorton’s study (2014), which were based on teachers’ perceptions. In the current

study, the teachers’ perception was evidenced by pupils’ own experiences and

perceptions through the surveys and interviews. Pupils not only had different

experiences of English learning but also revealed different perceptions of English

learning and English lessons in terms of their English proficiency. Pupils also showed

different preferences for the ways to learn English according to their English

proficiency. As the biggest reason to cause pupils’ different English proficiency, private

tutoring was pointed out by teachers through both the surveys and interviews. In the

same vein, Garton (2014) and Vrikki (2013) also specified the private English

education as the factor to make differences between pupils’ English proficiency. The

current study dealt with this issue more deeply in subsections 5.2.3.1 and 5.3.3.1.

As for teachers’ challenges of teaching reading and writing, the survey data merely

showed what kinds of challenges teachers perceived. The qualitative data elucidated

the reasons why teachers perceived such challenges and identifies how teachers

solved these challenges. Hence, these two different kinds of data collaboratively led

to the better understanding of teachers’ challenges. For example, the difficulty of

checking pupils’ understanding systematically was chosen as one of the teachers’

challenges in teaching reading in the survey data. The interview data clarified this

issue by providing teachers’ various experiences or views, such as pupils’ tendency

to guess a text without knowing exact meanings of words or sentences, and texts in

the textbooks including a number of clues, which made teachers feel unsure about

pupils’ real understanding in reading. Also, a lack of a specialised assessment tool for

checking pupils’ reading was pointed out as causing the challenge by teacher-

interviewees. In teaching writing, the survey results revealed that one of the teachers’

challenges was the difficulty of teaching pupils how to assemble or organise words to

make a full English sentence. In interviews, teachers argued that teaching grammar

was essential in order to help pupils construct sentences effectively, even though

grammar was not dealt with in the national curriculum at the time. In the case of pupils,

the quantitative data revealed that the majority of pupils did not need any help during

work, and only showed the patterns of pupils’ difficulties based on their English

proficiency. However, the qualitative data showed that pupils had various difficulties

in pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary or grammar, regardless of their English

199

proficiency.

As for teachers’ challenges of teaching reading and writing, the survey data merely

showed what kinds of challenges teachers perceived. The qualitative data elucidated

the reasons why teachers perceived such challenges and identifies how teachers

solved these challenges. Hence, these two different kinds of data collaboratively led

to the better understanding of teachers’ challenges. For example, the difficulty of

checking pupils’ understanding systematically was chosen as one of teachers’

challenges in teaching reading in the survey data. The interview data clarified this

issue by providing teachers’ various experiences or views such as pupils’ tendency to

guess a text without knowing exact meanings of words or sentences, and texts in the

textbooks including a number of clues, which made teachers feel unsure about pupils’

real understanding in reading. Also, a lack of a specialised assessment tool for

checking pupils’ reading was pointed out as causing the challenge by teacher-

interviewees. In teaching writing, the survey results revealed that one of teachers’

challenges was the difficulty of teaching pupils how to assemble or organise words to

make a full English sentence. In interviews, teachers argued that teaching grammar

was essential in order to help pupils construct sentences effectively, even though

grammar was not dealt with in the national curriculum at the moment. In the case of

pupils, the quantitative data revealed that the majority of pupils did not need any help

during work, and only showed the patterns of pupils’ difficulties based on their English

proficiency. However, the qualitative data showed that pupils had various difficulties

in pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary or grammar, regardless of their English

proficiency.

As regards the necessity of English reading and writing, the survey data revealed that

teachers and pupils viewed reading and writing as significant for communication,

without explaining the exact meaning of communication perceived by themselves.

The meaning of communication was explored precisely from the interview data.

According to the interview data, many teachers and pupils mentioned communication

with people from other countries was essential in English reading and writing under

the influence of globalisation. Such responses tended to be related to special times,

places or occasions for communication such as communicating with foreigners in the

future or in foreign countries, rather than in their daily life for ordinary purposes. Their

comments were usually not linked to reading and writing as a means of written

communication such as sending an email, and rather associated with supporting oral

200

communication. These perceptions of reading and writing was helpful for exploring

how reading and writing should be taught in their particular contexts, i.e. in the English

language class in primary school in Korea.

5.5 Chapter summary

This chapter presented the quantitative and qualitative analysis rooted in the

questionnaire surveys and interviews with teachers and pupils. These two kinds of

research data were separately analysed in each section, even though they dealt with

the same topics. The first subsection of each section was about teachers’

explanations for their teaching practice, in an attempt to offer a response to the

second research question. The second and third subsection handled the benefits and

challenges of teaching and learning English respectively, based on the data from both

teachers and pupils, in order to provide an answer to the third research question.

201

Chapter 6. Discussion and Conclusions

6.1 Introduction

The research reported in this dissertation investigated how English was taught in

South Korean state primary schools in order to gain insights into how English might

be better taught for young learners. The observations of English lessons, triangulated

with the surveys and interviews with teachers and pupils, were key to understanding

the nature of the teaching and learning of English. This chapter begins by

summarising the main findings of the research. The sections that follow build on the

main findings in order to focus on the final outcomes and implications of what was

discovered. The limitations of the research are also addressed. The chapter ends with

an account of the contribution of the study to the field, and recommendations for future

research.

6.2 Main findings

The main findings of the research as regards the primary characteristics of South

Korean primary ELT based on CLT are as follows:

1. The importance of pupils’ interest in L2 and their L2 proficiency

Teachers regarded pupils’ interest as essential in promoting pupils’ learning.

Teachers attempted to provide interesting activities and materials in

meaningful situations, which could stir up pupils’ active participation in

learning.

2. Pupils’ collaborative work

Teachers emphasised and facilitated pupils’ collaboration with others through

collaborative activities. Pupils were able to interact with others in meaningful

and authentic situations and to learn from each other. They were given

chances to use the language as a communicative and psychological tool that

allowed for the exchange of ideas, thoughts and feelings, usually using their

L1 instead of L2. In order to encourage pupils’ interactions more authentically,

202

it was necessary for teachers to create carefully-designed activities which

could challenge pupils cognitively as well as linguistically.

3. The role of reading and writing and a need for better practice

Reading and writing were perceived as somewhat subserviant to oral

language because they were seen to mediate the learning of oral

communication. Both teachers and pupils tended to perceive English reading

and writing as necessary for communication as a result of the CLT approach.

However, communication was perceived as mainly referring to oral

communication rather than written communication. Beyond merely supporting

oral communication, reading and writing need to be taught as an interactive

process with the authentic purpose such as a genuine reader and writer.

4. Teachers’ challenges and the range of pupils’ attainment

The biggest challenge in teaching English was the wide variation in the

English language attainment of pupils. The gap in pupils’ English proficiency

was mainly caused by differences in English learning experience outside of

school, which was chiefly related to parents’ socioeconomic status and their

level of interest in education. Pupils with different English proficiency revealed

different perceptions about both English learning and English lessons. Thus,

pupils’ different English proficiency was associated with their perceptions of

English learning, both of which influenced teachers’ challenges in teaching

English.

6.3 The importance of pupils’ interest in L2 learning and their

L2 proficiency

The salient characteristics of English lessons were to build pupils’ interest in learning

and eventually to facilitate their L2 proficiency. The emphasis on pupils’ interest and

their ability to communicate in English was also seen in the national curriculum.

The objective of English curriculum at primary level is to increase students’

203

interest in English and foster basic ability to comprehend and express

themselves in English.

1) Acquire an interest in English and confidence in the basic use of English.

2) Build an ability for basic communication in English in everyday life.

3) Understand foreign customs and cultures through English education.

2009 Revision (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2011) 7

As stated in the curriculum as the first and second objectives, building pupils’ interest

in English and ability for basic communication was seen as significant across the

findings of both the quantitative and qualitative data.

The ultimate purpose of using these fun activities and authentic contexts was

mediating pupils’ English learning, especially improving pupils’ communicative

competence (Littlewood, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). English lessons revealed

that teachers held pupils’ interest. In order to improve pupils’ interest in English

learning, teachers provided effective mediational tools such as various fun activities

and interesting materials. Pupils were observed to enjoy their learning when activities

and materials included fun elements such as rules, a contest and an element of luck

(Khan, 1991; Rixon, 1986). When asked about the reasons for liking English, the

pupils’ chief response was straightforward, ‘just fun’. Irrespective of their English

proficiency, pupils built a positive attitude to learning when they found learning

interesting. Even lethargic and passive pupils actively took part in fun activities such

as language games. Pupils believed that language games allowed them to learn

better through helping them concentrate on learning, and memorise and use the target

language (TL) effectively. In addition to game-based activities, teachers attempted to

offer various activities in a meaningful situation for pupils’ interest. Meaningful

contexts were able to create a more interesting environment where pupils fully

7 The Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology was a cabinet-level division of the government of South Korea between February, 2008 (29.02/2008) and March 2013 (23.03.2013), which was in charge of science and technology as well as education. On 23rd of March, 2013, it was split into the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (which was again succeeded by the Ministry of Science and ICT in 2017) and the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, n.d.; Ministry of Science and ICT, n.d.).

204

engaged in learning and to give opportunities to use the TL in more appropriate or

authentic situations. A core principle in making classroom activities was to encourage

authentic and meaningful communication (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Wesche &

Skehan, 2002).

The design of classroom activites was also significant in the facilitation of

communicative competence in English through fun activities. Therefore, it is axiomatic

that neither pupils’ interest nor the improvement of their L2 proficiency could be

abandoned. They should be balanced like two wings of a bird for primary pupils’

effective English learning. English activities begin with fun, but they should not end

with just fun. English materials should both engage pupils and lead them into genuine

learning to develop their L2 proficiency. The importance of pupils’ interest and genuine

learning was emphasised in adapting the textbooks authorised by the government.

The textbooks were undoubtedly the core materials acting as a starting point in

teachers planning lessons and teaching. The use of the textbooks could save

teachers’ time and labour for planning and making activities or materials. They could

also function as adjusting teachers’ teaching according to the national standards such

as a bridge connecting the national curriculum and their actual lessons. Teachers

were seldom observed to teach without the textbooks, but it did not mean that

teachers used the textbooks all the time during the lessons. They were given

discretion such as flexibility and autonomy about teaching through textbooks. When

they did not feel that textbooks satisfied pupils’ interest or English levels, they adapted

them. The teachers’ purpose was not to teach textbooks, but to teach pupils (Edge &

Garton, 2009). In adapting the textbooks, Teachers omitted, added or changed

language or activities (McGrath, 2013).

To make up for the textbooks, teachers themselves developed a variety of materials

for pupils’ interest and effective learning, instead of using commercially published

materials. Working on teachers’ own materials not only gives them a sense of control

and ownership, but is also effective for mediating pupils’ learning because teachers

know their pupils best: what pupils’ interests are; what pupils will find fun and engaging;

what pupils’ English proficiency is; and what pupils need to learn (Johnston & Janus,

2007). As an example of materials developed by teachers, PPT materials, which

contained visual images, were useful in not only presenting target expressions but

also practising them. Since words or expressions were visualised as a whole by sight,

PPT materials allowed pupils to understand new words or expressions without

205

translation into Korean. Pupils enjoyed practicing the TL, even in the context of

repetitive practice, and learned key expressions effectively. That was because they

incorporated the fun elements to encourage pupils’ competition as well as visual hints

or clues acting as prompts. PPT materials were also helpful in presenting meaningful

contexts through including attractive main characters and exciting events, as well as

settings with suspenseful sound effects.

In using materials as an effective mediational tool for learning, teachers have to

deliberate on deciding why they need these materials rather than others; when to offer

them; and how to provide them in their context in order to maximise the effect. Since

it is teachers who know and comprehend pupils’ interest and proficiency best and the

contents to teach, teachers should give judicious and adequate thought to providing

the right materials in the right place at the right time. The object of learning English

remained the same, but the nature of learning was transformed in appearance

according to the types of materials used (Lantolf et al., 2015). During the lessons,

teachers were frequently observed using materials with a lot of clues which helped

pupils complete their work step by step in relation to their ZPDs (see sections 4.3.2

and 4.4.2, and Examples A9, A10, A11, A13, A15, A16, A18, A19, A24 and A25).

However, critical deliberation was still required in making careful use of materials,

even if the materials were interesting, creative and well-organised enough to involve

pupils in active participation. That is because the use of too many materials could

result in distracting pupils from learning rather than encouraging pupils to learn. In

some observed classrooms, pupils were given many materials, which meant that they

had to move on to the next materials at speed without working on the given task

sufficiently. Instead of providing excessive materials, it is sometimes be better to

utilise fewer materials more deeply during a lesson.

Some teachers brought up concerns about undue focus on pupils’ interest without

careful consideration of cognitively challenging activities or materials. They

sometimes found that pupils were not facilitated to learn at all with some enjoyable

activities which were designed to entertain them (see sections 5.3.1.2 and 5.3.3.2).

When activities excessively concentrated on pupils’ one-dimensional interest, they

could sometimes deviate from their original purpose of leading pupils into learning to

improve pupils’ L2 proficiency. Basically, the reasons for teachers to use fun activities

might result from a difference between pupils’ linguistic ability in English and their

cognitive ability as well as young learners’ characteristics to like them. Pupils’ linguistic

206

ability in English was generally lower than their cognitive ability. Activities grounded in

too easy language input might make pupils lose their interest in learning. In order to

complement pupils’ deficient linguistic ability and to have pupils interested in learning

even with linguistically easy work, activities tended to add interesting factors rather

than stimulate pupils’ intellectual curiosity. That was why some teachers showed this

kind of concern about interesting activities.

Teachers showed more preference for slightly easy activities than difficult activities

(see section 5.2.1.2). This preference of teachers for easy activities seemed not to

be in line with some published research. Gibbons (2015) argued that the task for

the most productive learning is challenging, a view that was matched by pupils’

preference in this study. However, easy activities did encourage pupils to build

confidence and feel a sense of achievement by doing them on their own and

decreasing their academic stress. Their self-regulatory performance without any help

seemed to be related to their increased confidence. Ultimately though, easy work was

not sufficient for pupils to maintain their confidence nor to improve pupils’ English

ability in optimal ways. In order to encourage pupils not only to build confidence but

also to develop their ability, the difficulty level of activities needs to be beyond their

actual development level. Effective classroom activities should be beyond the pupils’

abilities to accomplish independently and within their abilities to fulfil when scaffolding

is given (Mercer, 1994). Teachers’ important work is to find pupil’s ZPDs and teach in

line with his or her ZPD, which brings optimal benefits of instruction (Butler, 2005;

Goswami, 2008). Pupils also mentioned that even though they liked slightly easy work,

slightly difficult work would help improve their English ability and challenge them

linguistically and cognitively. It is desirable to present pupils with slightly difficult work,

but the work can be controlled for a child to manage enough through dividing it with

several phases or others’ help (Mercer, 2000; Wood et al., 1976). A high-challenge,

high-support classroom is the most desirable learning environment (Gibbons, 2008,

2015; Walqui, 2006). Pupils need to be given authentic and cognitively challenging

tasks, and teachers should offer relevant scaffolding for pupils to carry out challenging

activities (Gibbons, 2015).

Considering pupils’ ZPDs and English proficiency, some teachers liked to give

different activities. Activities fundamentally tended to be adjusted to intermediate-level

pupils. For low-level pupils, teachers reduced the number of words or key expressions

or proffered more scaffolded help. A lot of teachers responded that they instructed

207

low-level pupils individually during lessons or in extra time after lessons to help them

accomplish their given work or to help them not to lag behind other pupils. For high-

level pupils, teachers provided more words or expressions, linguistically difficult work,

free writing activities, extra reading materials or cognitively complicated activities to

help high-level pupils extend their actual developmental level (see section 5.3.1.2).

However, the majority of teachers preferred to offer the same activities to pupils with

different English proficiency, which were accomplished according to their English

proficiency. Language input was given equally, but output depended on individual

pupils. First, providing the same activities to pupils with different English proficiency

might be due to its convenience by lessening the workload of teachers to give different

sorts of tasks. Second, it could be understood in connection with the sociocultural

setting. In South Korean primary schools, it was natural to start lessons all together

in the stage of presenting and practicing target expressions. After that, pupils were

given group/pair work to do collaboratively in the production stage. In order to do

whole-class work or to collaborate with each other, it was useful for every pupil to

share the same activities. Another reason for the same activities could be associated

with the distinct characteristics of English language as a subject based on the CLT

approach in South Korea, unlike mathematics where pupils should gradually learn

from the basic math skills to more advanced skills. Since the units of the textbook

were not arranged in terms of the systematic order, pupils did not need to know every

TL in previous units in order to do activities in that particular unit. Many activities were

designed for even low-level pupils to carry out if they understood and knew the TL in

the given unit, which might make teachers provide the same activities for pupils with

different proficiency.

The other assumption behind providing identical work could be linked to teachers’

concern about the fixation of pupils’ English proficiency (see section 5.3.1.2). When

pupils are given different activities in terms of their proficiency, their levels of

proficiency could be fixed without any fluctuation. That is because the opportunities

to improve their proficiency could mainly become limited by the level of activities

based on proficiency. If higher-level pupils were offered more difficult input, and lower-

level pupils were provided with easier input continually, low-level pupils would never

catch up with high-level pupils. Different activities would drive pupils’ differences in

English proficiency further apart. This might be the main reason to give the same

activities to pupils with different proficiency, although activities based on pupils’

208

individual ZPD could be more effective.

If the same activities were given to pupils, would learning take place even to high-

level pupils? In classrooms where pupils with different English proficiency or different

inclination study together, it is demanding not only to satisfy all of them but also to

have each of them learn in their individual ZPD. Imagine that lower-level pupils do

activities with others’ help within their proximal development level, and high-level

pupils carry them out without any help in their actual development level, not in the

ZPD. Compared to lower-level pupils, high-level pupils could be considered not to

learn anything new during lessons because they had already known the TL. However,

knowing the TL is one thing, and using it in appropriate situations is another. Through

activities, pupils could have experience putting their understanding to the test and

using the TL in various contexts.

Moreover, although pupils were provided with identical activities, they did not generate

the same outcomes. Pupils were given the freedom to add more language creatively

in doing activities (see sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). Since recycling the language is

crucial to language learning, this could be a good opportunity for high-level pupils to

make a useful application of what they had previously learnt even in their private

learning, as well as in other units. High-level pupils, as well as low-level pupils, might

also ask teachers’ help in order to gain better outcomes. They do not know every word

or expression they want to express because English is not their first language. Even

though pupils are engaged with the same activities with similar outcomes, the nature

and amount of scaffolding provided, and the route to reach their final destination can

be different (Gibbons, 2015). Teachers offer the different quantity and quality of

ongoing intermental support for individual pupils (Mercer, 2000). The extent of

internalisation from other-regulated to fully self-regulated could be varied, which

means that the point at which pupils are located in the continuum of development

might be diverse even in the same activity. Accordingly, we should not jump to the

conclusion that learning did not happen to high-level pupils when they were given the

same activities as lower-level pupils.

In summary, pupils’ interest was seen to be essential in activities and materials which

were the significant elements to constitute English lessons. Offering interesting

activities such as language games and meaningful settings was for mediating pupils’

learning effectively, notably improving pupils’ communicative competence. The

209

textbooks mainly functioned as designing and guiding lessons as the core materials,

but they were not sufficient for most of the teachers. Teachers adapted the textbooks

in order to increase pupils’ interest, and developed various materials to supplement

the textbooks. It is important to present diverse activities and materials for pupils’

interest, but teachers need to develop activities and materials to stimulate pupils not

only linguistically but also cognitively, considering pupils’ ZPD. That is because

meaningful and cognitively challenging tasks are critical for pupils’ learning (Gibbons,

2015). For this the significant point is that pupils need to be given appropriate

scaffolding in order to succeed in tasks (Gibbons, 2015).

6.4 Pupils’ collaborative work

One of the distinct characteristics observed in the lessons was the encouragement of

pupils’ collaboration. At the beginning of each lesson, teacher-led instruction was

central, whereas interaction between pupils was chiefly found from the middle

sections of lessons through not only group or pair work but also individual work where

pupils helped each other. Emphasis on pair and group work is one of the important

features of classroom talks in CLT (Richards, 2006). In fact, group or pair work, which

was generally preferred by both teachers and pupils for English activities, offered

many opportunities for language learning (Gibbons, 2015). According to the teachers

who clarified the fundamental advantages of group work, game-based activities in

groups involved pupils in learning actively because of interesting factors such as point

scoring, luck or competition with others (Khan, 1991; Rixon, 1986). Well-designed and

well-run group or pair work had pupils obtain more opportunities for learning from

others (Richards, 2006) and reduced the burden on learning through sharing

responsibility with others.

In fact, since pupils have minimal experience of using English outside of the

classroom in the EFL situation, a lot of opportunities to use English need to be offered

in English class. However, it is impossible for all learners to communicate individually

with a teacher in English just during their 40 minutes, one class hour. The Korean

primary classroom has a teacher (sometimes, with an NES teacher) and around 25

pupils, and pupils are given two class hours for Years 3 and 4 and three class hours

for Years 5 and 6 per week for English. Collaborative learning through group or pair

work could be an adequate mechanism through which most learners could intensify

their interaction to use the TL during English lessons (Ghaith & Kawtharani, 2006;

210

Gibbons, 2015; M. H. Long & Porter, 1985; Moore, 2012; Richards, 2006).

Group or pair work is useful not only from the physical conditions of South Korean

primary schools but also from sociocultural perspectives. During group/pair work,

pupils were observed to collaboratively negotiate ideas, linguistic structures or

appropriate words with the purpose of implementation of activities (see section 4.2.2).

Teachers stimulated pupils to support each other through working collaboratively,

which made pupils’ learning easier, more effective and more enjoyable (see section

5.3.2.3). According to Vygotsky who highlights the critical role of language, language

is a means both for enabling social interaction and for controlling mental activity

(Lantolf & Appel, 1994). In social interaction, language is used both as a

communicative means, enabling us to share and develop knowledge collaboratively,

and as a psychological function, allowing us to organise, plan and review thoughts

and actions (Pinter, 2011). In English lessons, language is the subject and target that

pupils should learn, and concurrently is used as a communicative tool and

psychological tool between teachers and pupils, between pupils, and as part of

individual pupils’ internal mental processes. Group work gives more chances to use

language both as a communicative function to negotiate linguistic structures and

forms, and as a psychological function to reflect not only on their own understanding

or knowledge but also on other’s contributions.

However, group/pair work may cause the issue of classroom management and

discipline such as a noisy classroom. When applying CLT or TBLT into practice, many

teachers mentioned classroom management or discipline problems in other studies

(Butler, 2005; Carless, 2004; Littlewood, 2007). It was true that the fun activities based

on group work provoked a lot of noise and excitement, but noise was not always to

be removed. The thing is to distinguish between constructive noise based on doing

work and off-task noise (Tsui, 2003). In this research, a pupil-interviewee mentioned

that he understood noise caused by playing language games because it was a natural

phenomenon. Teachers need to tolerate constructive noise (Carless, 2004), and they

also need to educate pupils not to distract other peers through unnecessary or

excessive noise.

Unlike interaction with teachers typically done in English, peer-peer interaction for

planning or discussing what to do was mainly done in Korean, except for using the TL

in English. In the language classroom the use of L1 has been a controversial issue.

211

In South Korean primary classrooms, L1 use has been prohibited, as seen in the

Teaching English in English (TEE) policy (K. Lee, 2014). However, there is a need for

allowing primary pupils to use the L1 for active interaction (Antón & Dicamilla, 1999;

Brooks & Donato, 1994; V. Cook, 2001). L1 can mediate pupils’ L2 learning as

private/inner speech and as a cognitive tool for scaffolding production in L2 (R. Ellis

& Shintani, 2014). First, L1 as one of the powerful tools for learning, enables pupils to

help themselves throughout the task through private speech for managing mental

activity (Antón & Dicamilla, 1999). Second, pupils can regulate each other’s work or

thoughts, suggesting some ideas and discussing better ideas (section 4.2.2). Their

experience from interaction with peers might be developed later into inner speech to

regulate their own learning, thoughts or independent planning more deeply and

systematically. Thus the use of L1 functions as scaffolding for assisting each other,

and it can be a normal psycholinguistic process to initiate and sustain verbal

interaction and L2 production (Antón & Dicamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; V.

Cook, 2001; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003).

For active interaction between pupils with different English proficiency, organising

mixed attainment groupings was widely used in manipulating the differentiation, while

homogeneous groupings were relatively less employed (see section 5.2.1.1). Mixed

attainment groupings were useful in that more proficient pupils could assist less

proficient pupils to fulfil their tasks and to learn from various interactions (see sections

4.2.2 and 5.3.1.1). From teachers’ perspectives, heterogeneous groupings were also

helpful in managing pupils and their learning, especially in a large class. Many

teachers said that they intentionally formed mixed attainment groups to encourage

pupils to support one another in learning.

Through group work pupils not only communicated with each other, but also gained

help from peers. Friends were significant sources of help, along with teachers. Pupils

may learn better with the support of their peers than with adults, and they can have

the useful and helpful experience of teaching their friends in collaborative learning (D.

W. Johnson & Johnson, 1987). While asking teachers might sometimes be hampered

by constraints of time and space, asking friends was the easiest way of receiving help

because of the comparatively close distance physically and psychologically. Less

proficient pupils often felt more comfortable working with peers than in a whole-class

setting (Gibbons, 2015). Although pupils may mislead one another or reach

linguistically incorrect answers (Pinter, 2011; Porter, 1986), peers must be a good

212

source of gaining help and learning from each other because they could understand

their friends sometimes more than their teachers could. In order to prevent pupils from

being misled, teachers need to be considerate in observing pupils’ interactions and

giving proper feedback to pupils’ outcomes.

In mixed attainment groups, high-level pupils could be given comparatively fewer

opportunities to learn and improve their proficiency because they were usually in a

position to offer help. That was one of the reasons for some teachers preferring

homogeneous groupings and for some schools to organise differentiated classes

according to pupils’ English proficiency. However, some interviewees with high

English proficiency responded that they enjoyed studying with friends, even though

their friends were less proficient than themselves, and felt rewarded by helping others.

More proficient pupils might develop their fluency and awareness through interaction

with less proficient friends (Ohta, 1995). Talking with others could be “an opportunity

to put half-formed ideas into words” (Pinter, 2011, p. 45). Pupils might clarify their

knowledge by assisting others, which could become a chance to regulate themselves

externally. Indeed, more proficient pupils were observed to participate in group or pair

work actively and lead others, which made them gain more chances to use what they

knew or understood than others. For high-level pupils to utilise their knowledge

actively could be a useful experience in the context where they are seldom exposed

to the English environment, as mentioned in the previous section. Using language

might lead them into development through internalisation and reflection.

Less proficient pupils in mixed attainment groups are considered to obtain help for

learning from more proficient pupils during activities. They can not only gain support

related to language knowledge but also learn how to regulate their work. Through

accumulated experiences, they can become capable of regulating their own

performance in other similar tasks (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). By and large, proficient

pupils were observed to assist their friends in need, even though less proficient pupils

did not ask for any help (see section 4.2.2 and Excerpt A4). That was because pupils

might already know who needed help in their groups, or have noticed that less

proficient pupils hesitated to do something. It meant even pupils at the primary school

level recognised their friends’ level of development where they could carry out

activities with help. Although less proficient pupils can learn effectively from their peers’

assistance, it is necessary to prohibit them from feeling left out or hurting their self-

respect owing to proficient pupils’ unilateral scaffolds. They need to be given chances

213

to contribute to their collaborative work.

In order to activate mutual interaction, not unilateral scaffolds, pupils needed to be

offered clear individual roles in doing activities. In group activities where collaboration

within groups and competition across the groups were emphasised, it was often

observed that pupils in a group were given equal opportunities to contribute to the

completion of particular missions (see section 4.2.2). Individual roles for pupils during

activities tended to be rotated, and free riders were not permitted since everyone in a

group took a role in making a contribution to their tasks. However, in the case of

focusing on accomplishing work in a competitive situation, even though pupils were

expected to work collaboratively with partners, it was no surprise that more proficient

pupils took the initiative in doing the work (see Excerpt A5.A). Rather than exchanging

opinions for comprehending texts, faster readers noticed the right answers and said

them rapidly (see Excerpt A6.A). Even in the situation where competition was not

necessary with other groups, more active and proficient pupils tended to lead the

activities if pupils were not given obvious individual roles. Some pupils did very trivial

work, like arranging writing supplies or cleaning up, which means they could do

nothing directly related to English learning.

Desirable grouping was not exclusively related to pupils’ English proficiency, and

rather it was necessary to consider various aspects to encourage pupils’ interaction.

For this it was noticeable that pupils showed different types of collaboration according

to group members even in the same activity. In a writing activity of a four-frame comic

strip, pupils had to work together with group members from planning to the completion

of writing. In order to decide a setting and make a storyline, three groups were

observed to reveal different sorts of collaboration from the group where the other

pupils mainly followed a leader’s opinions to the group where all group members took

equal responsibility for their work. Since group organisation for this activity was

decided by the pupils, they might or might not spontaneously gather at similar English

proficiency levels. In order to encourage pupils to work together, their English

proficiency could be considered significant in organising groupings because more

proficient pupils could act as a key person to lead interactions. However, active or

considerate pupils could better support their friends to participate in work, even though

they are not more proficient at English. That is because more proficient pupils could

dominate decision making, disregard the others’ opinions and interact less with others

(Rogoff, 1990). The important consideration, therefore, is not related to simply

214

whether groupings are homogeneous or heterogeneous. The desirable grouping

depends on stimulating pupils’ interaction actively and effectively. Therefore, teachers

need to encourage pupils to respect and communicate with each other. Pupils need

to be exposed enough to the TL and to recognise the procedures of the activities

beforehand in order to conduct activities with shared challenges, which could make

them interact with one another actively, confidently and collaboratively.

Another consideration to facilitate pupils’ collaborative work was related to the type of

activities. In many activities, pupils’ interactions tended to be very simple such as

asking and answering words. For instance, pupils usually asked how to spell the

words they wanted to write in guided writing where pupils were expected to fill in the

blanks according to the given patterns. In order to encourage interaction of good

quality beyond simple interaction based on sharing words, there needed to be some

activities which could challenge pupils cognitively (Gibbons, 2015). The idea of the

IDZ, which Mercer (2000) uses to explain how the teacher and the pupil negotiate

through the activity, can be applied to interactions between pupils because carefully

well-designed activities can reconstruct the IDZ between pupils through facilitating the

continuous interaction. Through the process of solving problems or yielding outcomes,

pupils will be able to co-construct their thoughts and meaning in their common

communicative space, and build their shared understanding and knowledge as well

as to produce the TL. Carefully-designed activities will decide the quality of interaction

and collaboration.

Pupils’ collaboration during activities were emphasised by teachers and observed

frequently in practice. In group work or pair work to facilitate pupils’ collaboration,

pupils were able to not only use the TL but also communicate with each other. The

use of the L1 during interaction between pupils is a controversial issue, but it could

function as a communicative and psychological means as well as scaffolding for L2

production. In order to activate pupils’ interaction, mixed attainment groups were

preferred by teachers because it was felt that even lower attainment pupils

accomplished work successfully with the help of friends, and teachers were able to

manage pupils’ learning efficiently. However, there is a need for considering diverse

aspects to facilitate pupils’ interaction, not just organising pupils in terms of their

English proficiency. In group work, pupils’ individual roles and contribution to their

work need to be clear to benefit from each other. It is also necessary to create a

supportive atmosphere such as respecting each other. Activities need to be designed

215

to construct pupils’ thoughts and opinions, and to stimulate them cognitively as well

as linguistically in order to encourage good quality interaction.

6.5 The role of reading and writing and a need for better

practice

English reading and writing were seen to be closely related to communication (see

sections 5.2.3.3 and 5.3.3.3). As to the necessity of English reading and writing,

teachers and pupils mainly mentioned the purpose of communicating with foreigners

in the age of globalisation. Teachers also regarded the ability to communicate in

spoken English as one of the significant requisites for pupils becoming good at English

reading and writing (see section 5.2.1.2). Their perception was that this spoken

communication in English was a more critical factor for pupils to be proficient at

English reading and writing than mother tongue literacy or linguistic knowledge such

as understanding of visual, phonological and semantic information. That might be

influenced by the situation where pupils are supposed to read and write what they

have learnt in spoken English. Even in designing reading/writing activities, teachers

considered that improving pupils’ communicative competence based on the integrated

use of language skills was more substantial than enhancing reading and writing

separately (see section 5.2.1.2).

Improving CC has been encouraged not only from the national curriculum but also

from the particular sociocultural context of South Korean primary schools. The

national curriculum reflected globalisation rooted in the development of technology

and transportation, and at the same time the historical development of the English

language subject in the education of South Korea (J. Lee, 2004; W. K. Lee, 2009;

Nunan, 2003). During the decades of the 2000s and 2010s, developing CC was the

critical issue, and has remained the dominant theory of ELT (Kang, 2013). In contrast

to secondary school students who have to prepare important exams regularly, primary

school pupils or teachers have not had the high-stakes pressure of exams or statutory

tests (Moodie & Nam, 2015). Not only was there no national exam during primary

school, but also exams at the individual school level, which were mainly done as

formative assessments, were grounded in what pupils learnt or did during lessons.

The results of the exams did not affect pupils’ academic careers profoundly. Therefore,

putting the focus on CC was able to be accepted at primary level without huge

216

institutional resistance or difficulties.

In the national curriculum of English, reading and writing have been dealt with as

comparatively less important than oral language. The national curriculum developed

by the Ministry of Education has been a powerful influence over formal educational

settings, which provides teachers with the guidelines for teaching what is essential

and relevant for pupils under the national policy (Chung & Choi, 2016; Kang, 2013; J.

Lee, 2004). The emphasis on communication in the national curriculum, together with

the importance of communication affected by globalisation, might influence teachers’

and pupils’ perceptions to recognise the necessity of English reading and writing for

communication, even in the context where English is seldom used for this purpose on

a daily basis. However, many researchers mention that English reading and writing

have not been taught for the genuine purpose of communication such as sending

letters or emails in the context of South Korean primary schools (H.-R. Kim & E. Kim,

2010; H.-R. Kim & S. J. Kim, 2010).

Taking this disparity between teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions and their practice into

consideration, it was necessary to ponder the meaning of communication in reading

and writing. When teachers and pupils said that reading and writing were needed for

communicating with others, communication was viewed as communicating with

people rather than between a reader and a writer (a text). From teachers’ and pupils’

perceptions as well as the national curriculum, communicating with people in

reading/writing did not mean sharing written messages such as writing a letter,

sending/receiving an email, posting/reading on social media, or texting each other in

English. Given that communication in the national curriculum referred to

understanding and expressing basic English used in daily life, reading and writing for

communication were seen to help pupils communicate well in spoken English. It was

also understood as the tendency to accept the integration of language skills rather

than the distinct language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, particularly

among pupils at the primary school level. When asked about the necessity of reading

and writing learning, many pupil-interviewees did not separate reading and writing

from listening and speaking (see section 5.3.3.3). They seemed to grasp

reading/writing simply as English, answering that reading/writing learning was

necessary for communicating or conversing with foreigners in English. In this sense,

reading and writing in English seemed to be regarded as mediating oral

communication in primary classrooms.

217

Looking at the pupils’ responses mentioning communicative purposes in the

interviews, they considered the necessity of English reading/writing learning for the

future rather than for the present, expressing the viewpoint that English as a global

language was significant (see section 5.3.3.3). For example, quite a number of pupils

revealed that they would need English reading/writing when studying abroad,

travelling in foreign countries or working for a company in the future. This instrumental

orientation to learn English reading/writing for the futures was considered more

substantial than their intrinsic motivation such as enjoying written English as a hobby

or for self-development at present, which was chosen least by both teachers and

pupils (see section 5.2.3.3). This indicated that English reading and writing were

viewed as necessary not for the performance of their daily tasks as in English-

speaking countries or like their mother tongue literacy, but for special events or

purposes. The South Korean context for English reading and writing is different from

the bilingual society where individual literacies take on a significant role in each

particular sphere such as education, religion, commerce or business. Since Korea is

a monolingual society, the Korean language has strong power and influence on the

society at large (Song, 2011). Even though English is endowed with the most powerful

position among foreign languages and is decisive for better education and better jobs,

its position in daily lives as the need for personal survival is not powerful, compared

to Korean as a mother tongue. As a result, nonliteracy status in English does not

exclude a person from full participation in economic activities or social life. That could

be one of the reasons why teachers and pupils connected the necessity of English

reading and writing with special purposes in the future or in the foreign countries.

In this context where communication was important not only in spoken English but

also in written English, teachers preferred to use activities integrating reading and

writing, or even integrating spoken English and written English to teach English (see

sections 5.2.1.2 and 5.3.1.2). Before pupils learnt reading and writing in each unit,

they had learnt in spoken English. The language skills which pupils dealt with before

learning reading and writing could be said to function as a mediational tool for learning

written English. Namely, spoken English mediated reading and writing learning

(Cameron, 2001), and concurrently written English was also a mediational tool for

communicative competence as stated above. Integrating language skills was

conducted not only within an activity but also across individual activities within a

lesson (see section 4.3.3). The integration of language skills was said to reflect the

genuine use of language in authentic situations (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).

218

However, there needs to go back to the basics of reading and writing per se, beyond

only focusing on mediating oral communication. Access to the language skills of

reading and writing needs more careful instruction even in the L1, unlike listening and

speaking which are naturally developed in everyday interaction with others after birth

(Cameron, 2003; Rixon, 2011). A FL is not developed naturally either. This means that

the development of English reading and writing as a FL requires substantial efforts by

both teachers and pupils. That is why teachers need more systematic and carefully-

structured schemes and better knowledge about what they should be teaching

beyond reading and writing what pupils have learnt in spoken English. Systematic

contents from very basic to advanced level need to be carefully arranged rooted in

deliberate research and teaching experiences as well as considerations of pupils’

difficulties in reading and writing. Well-organised contents would be beneficial to

teachers in recognising their pupils’ proximal development level because they could

clearly understand where their pupils are in the process of moving to a more advanced

level. Pupils could be provided with broader and richer language experiences within

the ZPD, which would allow them to learn effectively (Cameron, 2001).

In order for pupils to be interested in reading and writing, they need experience to

read like a genuine reader and write like an author. Reading and writing are the

interactive processes that take place not only between the reader and text but also

between the reader and the writer (Shin & Crandall, 2019). Unlike the observed

lessons where pupils had a hectic schedule for many activities, pupils are sometimes

required to read and write intensively and quietly. They need enough time to read

interesting stories at some appropriate length. While reading, pupils as a reader

should bring meaning based on their own experience and background knowledge to

the text and interact with the meaning encoded in the text (Shin & Crandall, 2019).

For writing, pupils should contemplate who will read their text, and decide about what

to write and how to write, grounded in the reader (Shin & Crandall, 2019). These

decisions include not only “word choice, vocabulary, grammar and mechanics (such

as spelling and punctuation)” but also “more choices related to tone, style (formal or

informal), and so forth” (Shin & Crandall, 2019, p. 189). Since each written text has

its own conventions for layout, structure and language, pupils need to write what they

want to express, based on understanding various characteristics of texts. Since the

ways written in each genre could vary by language, pupils need to learn to write in

socioculturally accepted ways. For example, writing an email in English is different

219

from in Korean. Even though pupils are capable of writing an email in Korean, they

need to learn how to write in the appropriate ways used in English-speaking countries.

Through the repeated process of reading what they write while writing, pupils are

given a chance to communicate their intended meaning to the potential reader (Shin

& Crandall, 2019).

As regards the amount of activities for a lesson, one or two activities sometimes need

to be sufficiently conducted, and even one activity such as reading a book or writing

a story could last across several lessons when necessary. These activities will help

pupils interact more variously and expand their depth of thinking beyond just repeating

like a parrot. Language learning activity should be regarded as a cognitive activity, not

merely the rehearsal and ultimate acquisition of linguistic patterns (Brooks & Donato,

1994). At the primary level, where pupils are relatively free of pressure to take formal

exams, it would be a great time for teachers to provide more opportunities for pupils

to be exposed to reading and writing activities with an authentic and meaningful

purpose. This would eventually not only help pupils improve more accurate and fluent

oral communication but also intensify pupils’ intrinsic motivation in reading and writing.

One of the important materials for YLs to learn reading and writing in South Korean

primary schools was storybooks, which were frequently observed to be used in

lessons as a mediation tool for effective English learning. Not only did children like

storybooks because they motivated and engaged the children, but also beautifully

illustrated storybooks were useful in assisting pupils to understand or memorise words

and stories (G. Ellis & Brewster, 1991). Storybooks function as scaffolding to develop

the significant knowledge in semantic, syntactic, lexical and orthographic/

graphophonic area (Gregory, 1996). Storybooks as authentic materials allow pupils to

acquire vocabulary and genuine expressions in meaningful situations, which could

serve as a foundation of writing as well as reading (Grabe, 2002; Hafiz & Tudor, 1989;

Mason & Krashen, 1997). Basically, these authentic books could be a complement to

textbooks with limited situations, words and expressions (Arnold & Rixon, 2008; G.

Ellis & Brewster, 1991).

The choice of storybooks in English lessons depended on the TL that teachers had to

teach. In terms of the TL, teachers selected storybooks with suitable storylines or

vocabulary. The stories that teachers used for English lessons can be classified into

four types: English storybooks for native children by real authors; adapted stories to

220

learn English; Korean traditional storybooks in English; and Korean traditional

storybooks in Korean (see Table 4.4). While storybooks for English native children

included authentic English, adapted storybooks were written in easy and simple

English to help L2 learners understand well and generally focus on the specific TL. In

adapting storybooks for English lessons, teachers borrowed the settings, characters

and storylines, and then modified the stories in order to include the TL they were

required to teach. Many texts in the textbooks also incorporated interesting stories in

this way. The main advantages of Korean traditional storybooks were interesting and

familiar storylines because most of pupils had already read them in Korean. The use

of books was desirable in grafting the TL onto familiar or meaningful stories, which

helped pupils learn English effectively with fun. The story also acted as a starting point

for further literacy events such as role-playing or creating a poem or a poster

(Cameron, 2001).

However, there was a need for considering whether the introduction of books brought

pupils to a level of their spontaneous and autonomous reading. Concerning the

necessity of English reading and writing, the smallest number of teachers and pupils

selected reading books or newspapers in English as a hobby or for self-development.

This meant using books in lessons seldom influenced pupils’ further reading beyond

learning the TL in school. In order to encourage pupils to enjoy reading itself, pupils

are required to be more exposed to real books because the use of books for English

lessons was usually limited within adopting storylines for learning the TL without

presenting real books. Various opportunities of exposure to real books would help

pupils familiarise books in English, and keep them from feeling uncomfortable at

reading books in English. Pupils’ experience in reading diverse stories and writing in

authentic contexts would influence their learning outside of school and would enable

them to become more independent and autonomous learners (Hedge, 2000).

Particularly, authentic story books written for native English-speaking children are

useful materials to introduce foreign customs and cultures to pupils, which was one

of the main goals to teaching English in the national curriculum (Ministry of Education,

Science and Technology, 2011). As well as linguistic knowledge, pupils would be able

to learn more context and culture specific background knowledge (Shin & Crandall,

2019). This understanding to the social and cultural contexts in which the language

that pupils learn is practiced is very important from sociocultural perspectives. It allows

pupils to comprehend the real-world ways where real people engage with authentic

221

texts, and eventually pupils learn the language more meaningfully and appropriately

as well as their culture (Perry, 2012).

In addition to storybooks, various sorts of books across all literary genres such as

informational books, magazines or newspapers reflecting varied areas of pupils’

concerns and interests needed to be offered, which would motivate pupils to extend

their reading interests beyond stories. Reading a variety of genres would be able to

offer models and texts in the process of developing written competence and help

pupils to produce those genres of text later (Ediger, 2014). This would eventually lead

pupils into becoming lifelong readers for information and pleasure (Palmer & Stewart,

2005). Pupils need to be given more chances to be surrounded by a variety of reading

materials in everyday life.

English reading and writing in South Korean primary classrooms were understood in

close association with spoken English within a larger scheme of communication.

Communication, however, did not mean meaningful communication in written English.

Instead, the focus by the teachers was on helping pupils with communication in oral

English through reading and writing. This was the key to understanding instruction for

English reading and writing. Teachers presented activities integrating language skills

in teaching reading and writing, which were useful in using English in meaningful

situations with the authentic purpose. In order to facilitate pupils’ learning in reading

and writing, it is necessary to note that reading and writing have their own unique

characteristics to require pupils’ attention and enough experience. Teachers should

consider presenting reading and writing activities and materials based on authentic

purposes.

6.6 Teachers’ challenges and the range of pupils’ attainment

Most of the challenges that teachers faced were included in the area of curriculum,

methodology and material policy, classifying their challenges in terms of Kaplan and

Baldauf’s (2005) language-in-education framework. Conversely, the least problematic

factor was teachers’ own low proficiency in English in relation to the personnel policy.

Unlike the results of my research data, the issue of teachers’ low proficiency in English

was mentioned as one of the biggest challenges in teaching English based on the

CLT approach in Littlewood’s study (2007) or Garton’s study (2014). This

disagreement might reveal that teachers’ English proficiency had been improved over

222

time or the other factors were perceived as more crucial. Looking at the study to

explore changes in teachers’ English proficiency in South Korea between 1996 and

2008, the percentage responding positively about their English speaking proficiency

had been increased from 13 per cent to 66 per cent (J. Jeon, 2009). Indeed, most of

the participants of the survey did not identify their proficiency in English as the biggest

challenge in teaching English in my research. They perceived their English proficiency

as less problematic in teaching English, compared to other factors.

The teachers’ top challenges in teaching English were mainly associated with pupils:

the range of pupils’ attainment in English; pupils’ lack of interest; and pupils’ lack of

confidence in English. These all come under a category of learner factors in

curriculum, methodology and materials policy. In Jeon’s study (2009), teachers

tended to focus on teaching-related issues at the beginning of introducing the CLT

approach, but after more than 10 years they also became focused on learner-related

matters. In the current study, teachers voiced much more concern about learners than

teaching materials or teaching methods.

As the biggest challenge for teachers, the research reported the range of pupils’

attainment. In all schools that were part of the research there were marked differences

in the pupils’ attainment in English, irrespective of location or socioeconomic context

of each school, or of pupil age/school year. In the field of second language learning,

scholars have attempted to explain why some learners become more proficient

learners than others (R. Ellis, 2008). They point out a variety of individual learner

variables or differences to affect learners’ L2 acquisition: language aptitude,

motivation, language learning strategies, and cognitive and affective factors (Skehan,

1989); aptitude, learning style, learner strategies and motivation (Dörnyei & Skehan,

2003; Skehan, 1991); and intelligence, language aptitude, working memory, learning

style, motivation, anxiety, personality, willingness to communicate, learner beliefs and

learning strategies (R. Ellis, 2004).

As well as these differences based on personal characteristics, there are some

studies examining how social factors such as gender, social class and ethnic identity

affect L2 learning. Particularly, when it comes to social class, its effect may be crucially

related to the setting (R. Ellis, 2008). A study of Hebrew-speaking seventh graders in

the Israeli school system provided evidence to show a relationship between social

class and general L2 achievement (Olshtain, Shohamy, Kernp, & Chatow, 1990). In

223

this study, the socioeconomically advantaged pupils were better at learning English

as a FL at school due to a more developed cognitive/academic proficiency in L1 which

appeared to be linked to their socioeconomic backgrounds. On the contrary, there

was no difference in L2 proficiency such as listening comprehension or oral production

in young learners from different socioeconomic and ethnic groups in immersion

settings, according to Holobow, Genesee and Lambert’s research (1991). Pupils’

interpersonal communication skills in a L2 did not seem to be reliant on individual

differences of a cognitive, linguistic and social nature (Holobow et al., 1991). Thus,

these two studies revealed that different sociocultural contexts produce different

results concerning the effect of social class on pupils’ English achievement.

In the context of my research, differences in pupils’ attainment mainly seemed to result

from different English learning experiences outside of school. This issue of mixed-

level classes or the range of pupils’ attainment had previously been discussed in

Garton’s research (2014) concentrating on South Korean primary schools. She found

the cause of generating mixed proficiency to be the particular conditions of South

Korea, such as the effect of private education, which was supported by a teacher’s

statement and other studies explaining high reliance on private education in South

Korea. Although this previous research and my research took a similar stance on the

main cause of different English proficiency, my research investigated this issue in

more depth. It was explored not only through teachers’ opinions grounded in the

questionnaire surveys and interviews but also from pupils’ voices about the different

learning experiences they had had outside of school according to their English

proficiency.

Pupils’ prior experiences of English learning showed distinct differences in terms of

their English proficiency. The high-level pupils initiated their English learning much

earlier than the pupils at the intermediate or low level. The differences were also found

in the places where pupils started to learn English; the ways that English was learned;

and their learning experience in foreign countries. In addition to pupils’ prior contact

with the English language, their English learning experiences outside of school at the

time of the research also made a difference to their English proficiency. The pupils

with high English proficiency took more private language lessons than the pupils at

the intermediate or low level, whether they learnt it with the aid of others such as

hakwon teachers, personal tutors or parents, or by themselves with mediated

materials like storybooks, workbooks or online programmes. This meant that pupils

224

who came into the same English class not only brought with them differently

developed levels of English proficiency even when they began to learn English at

school, but also had still been receiving a different amount of input for English learning

outside of school. This issue of pupils’ different experiences of exposure to English

learning to cause their different English levels has also been found in other countries

(Kirköz, 2019; Vrikki, 2013).

The interview data with teachers demonstrated that a difference in the amount of

exposure to English or English learning environments outside of school appeared to

be influenced by the wide disparity between pupils’ home environments, grounded in

parents’ socioeconomic status. This root cause of differences in pupils’ English

proficiency is associated with social class among the factors mentioned above (Vrikki,

2013). With regard to this, R. Ellis (2008) states that since learners have agency and

attempt to shape the social context where they learn rather than passively accept it,

social factors such as social class seem to be less significant for success in language

learning compared to its influence which has been in the past. However, it is still true

that pupils’ different proficiency has mainly been affected by their different opportunity

to learn English outside of school, which is related to parents who can afford to pay

high fees for private tutoring in South Korea (Statistics Korea and the Ministry of

Education, 2016).

This phenomenon was not in accord with one of the rationales for initiating English

education at primary level. The first rationale for the decision of beginning English

education as one of the compulsory subjects in South Korea was to offer every child

an equal opportunity to learn English regardless of their family’s socioeconomic status

or residence (W. K. Lee, 2009). Nevertheless, unequal opportunities of exposure to

English still occurred among pupils, and a rather noticeable reliance on private

education from a very young age exacerbated these inequalities. This was because

parents wanted their children to outperform peers through doing much more than what

was provided by school education (Song, 2011).

The other learner factors pointed out as teachers’ challenges in teaching English were

pupils’ lack of interest or confidence in English. Teachers revealed that interest and

confidence were the significant requisites for pupils to be good at English. As the

factors listed as influencing individual learner differences in language learning, many

scholars have mentioned pupils’ interest (motivation) and confidence (belief) (Dörnyei

225

& Skehan, 2003; R. Ellis, 2004; Skehan, 1989, 1991). Some teachers, although

comparatively small in number, also reported interest and confidence as the reasons

generating pupils’ different English proficiency. Many teachers viewed interest and

confidence as important factors in designing activities. They also demonstrated the

positive effect of their lessons on improving pupils’ interest and confidence which was

emphasised as the substantial goal in the national curriculum. However, it was not the

aim of my study to identify whether affective factors such as interest or confidence

indeed impacted on differences in English proficiency or vice versa. Instead, it was

appropriate to examine a correlation between pupils’ perceptions of English

learning/English lessons and their English proficiency because knowing this

correlation was helpful in understanding teachers’ challenges and solutions.

The pupils with different English proficiency had different views not only on general

English learning but also English lessons at school. Regarding English learning, the

pupils with low English proficiency showed much less preference, interest and

confidence than more advanced pupils. Among these three factors, the low-level

pupils revealed more negative attitudes towards confidence than preference or

interest. This meant that some low-level pupils expressed negative responses to

confidence, although they liked lessons and thought lessons were interesting. In

pupils’ perceptions of English lessons, the high-level pupils and low-level pupils also

exhibited opposing views. The majority of the low-level pupils did not think English

lessons were interesting; they did not like lessons; they did not agree with the positive

effect of English lessons on improving their English ability; they did not think English

lessons were easy; and they agreed that they had a heavy workload during lessons.

These conflicting opinions about English lessons in terms of English proficiency could

not but become challenges for teachers, who were responsible for all pupils’ learning.

Specifically, teaching low-level pupils was reported as the biggest challenge by

teachers in teaching both reading and writing respectively. Both low-level pupils’

English proficiency and their lack of interest or confidence were teachers’ important

considerations in teaching English.

Teachers’ primary challenges in teaching English were related to learner factors such

as difference in pupils’ English proficiency, and their lack of confidence and interest in

English. According to teachers’ perceptions, the wide range of pupils’ attainment in

English was seen as resulting mainly from their different experiences of English

learning outside of school based on parents’ different socioeconomic status. This

226

perception was supported by both pupils’ previous English learning experiences and

their English learning experiences at the time of the research. Since pupils with

different English proficiency showed different perspectives on English learning and

English lessons, teachers needed to consider all these differences in teaching English.

6.7 Implications of the research

6.7.1 Expanding the paradigm of communication and developing

systematic contents for reading and writing

It is helpful to view written English in conjunction with spoken English because written

English can contribute to improving oral communicative competence through

clarifying and reinforcing what is learnt in spoken English. Indeed, the eventual aim of

the development of written language is “communication and comprehension”, as it is

in spoken language (Wyse & Goswami, 2008, p. 706). However, communication in

English reading and writing should not be unduly restricted to helping with

communicating in oral English. The data from my research revealed that at primary

school in South Korea there needs to be a refinement of the meaning of

communication, and clarification of the purpose of reading and writing beyond only

reading and writing the words and phrases that have been learnt as part of developing

spoken English. Reading and writing as communication should incorporate interaction

between readers and writers in written English with an authentic purpose (H.-R. Kim

& E. Kim, 2010) or writing as a response to reading what other peers have written;

and oral communication with others based on what pupils read or write (Ediger, 2014).

The principles of CLT should apply to reading and writing activities to involve pupils in

“the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning” (Savignon, 2002, p. 22).

The national curriculum may well be improved if it includes contents that specify

reading and writing in ways that embody the extended paradigm of communication.

South Korean primary school teachers used very creative and interesting activities

and careful materials to attract pupils, and worked strenuously to develop useful

activities and materials to mediate pupils’ effective English learning. They also tried to

support pupils through diverse interaction both verbally and nonverbally. It was

evident that teachers knew and used effective ways to scaffold pupils’ learning in their

ZPDs. However, it would be demanding for individual teachers to determine what

vocabulary should be taught first and how to deal with them in texts, and how to

227

arrange important factors systematically for effective learning. Fundamental

frameworks for systematic and effective English learning should be set up at

curriculum and textbook levels. After that, teachers would be able to give appropriate

response to pupils’ interest and to build on these through understanding pupils’

proximal development from knowledge of conventional patterns grounded in research

and professional teaching experiences (Wyse, 2012).

It is necessary for the national curriculum to present clear guidance for teaching

grounded in systematic English reading and writing, as well as allowing for learners’

circumstances and the cultural conditions, from the very beginning, and up to more

advanced levels, rooted in carefully organised plans and research. Much effort should

be made in such areas as relevant curriculum based on proper pedagogy from

bottom-up skills such as letter identification, word recognition or phonemic awareness

as part of developing more authentic and meaningful reading and writing activities.

Oral skills of children are an essential factor in learning reading and writing, especially

in the new language, and reading texts should be matched with their oral skills

(Verhoeven, 1990). Indeed, many pupil-interviews mentioned pronunciation or lack of

vocabulary knowledge as their difficulty in reading. Emphasis on oral skills such as

phonological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in the foreign language is

necessary for children in the early stages in order to be literate, and children should

be confronted with written words that they already know orally (Cameron, 2001).

However, English learning should not end with that, and go beyond what is learnt in

spoken English. The eventual goal of English at primary school would be that pupils

could read reading materials with an authentic purpose and write what they want to

express as well as enjoy reading and writing. For this, a systematic teaching

curriculum needs to be organised for gradual development from bottom-up skills to

authentic reading and writing based on harmonious and balanced views.

6.7.2 Providing teacher training programmes and standardised measures

In addition to more systematic and careful guidelines about what should be taught at

the national curriculum level, improvements in teacher training programmes are

necessary in order to provide teachers with theoretical and pedagogical rationales for

these guidelines. After the national curriculum or textbooks present well-organised

guidelines or contents, teachers need to understand why the particular contents for

effective English learning are chosen and arranged in that way, not just abiding by the

228

guidelines. Teachers also need to be given training programmes for developing their

English proficiency. Since English is not their mother tongue, they have difficulty giving

sociolinguistically appropriate feedback for pupils’ writing work, even though they

have linguistic knowledge. Furthermore, teachers need to be offered not only in-

service teacher education programmes about helping understand pupils’ reading

process but also instruments or tools to recognise pupils’ reading process or

difficulties. Some teachers mentioned that they did not have enough knowledge in

checking pupils’ reading process systematically. Even though teachers could

understand to some extent pupils’ reading comprehension by means of asking for a

comprehension check, they did not have any standardised measures for tracking

students’ progress and any information to check and accumulate pupils’ individual

progress. This could be related to the problem of what to teach again. Since reading

or writing was based on expressions organised from communicative functions, it could

not be said that reading/writing contents were carefully-structured. It was not easy for

teachers to recognise their pupils’ exact position of reading and writing learning. The

development of the tools, as well as teacher-training programmes for understanding

pupils’ reading and writing process, would be able to help teachers comprehend pupils’

actual levels in English learning, and prepare activities and materials within their ZPDs.

The development of tools or instruments for understanding or checking pupils’ levels

in English could be very useful in teaching pupils according to their English proficiency.

Many teachers agreed that it would be better to provide the same activities to pupils

with different proficiency to avoid the fixation of pupils’ English proficiency. Pupils with

different proficiency in a group can scaffold each other to accomplish the same tasks

and benefit from each other (Sullivan & Weeks, 2019). Nevertheless, when it comes

to learning effectiveness more precisely, attention needs to be paid to differences

between pupils, and alternative ways and levels of supporting them contemplated

(Pinter, 2011). Although not always, differentiated instruction according to pupils’

English proficiency needs to be offered where necessary. Teachers, particularly, had

low confidence in having low-level pupils become proficient readers or writers through

remedial help. If they had tools for diagnostic assessment and progress monitoring,

they would be able to provide low-level pupils with individual and gradual activities

more easily within their ZPDs. For high-level pupils, it is critical to offer challenging

activities to mediate their learning and extend their proximal developmental levels,

and those tools would be helpful in diagnosing their levels and providing appropriate

activities in their ZPDs, as in low-level pupils.

229

6.7.3 Laying stepping stones for better English lessons

In interaction, an important form of mediation within SCT, the most significant point is

that interaction for learning should be increased. During explanations, the interaction

between a teacher and pupils was active, which could be understood as interaction

for a real purpose of conveying information. However, these were only for preparing

pupils so that they carried out activities successfully. In a given time, the considerate

allocation of time is necessary for freeing up more time for pupils’ learning itself, rather

than teachers’ explanation of complicated work.

It was evident that some activities, which were created for pupils to interact with each

other in fulfilling their work, did not need any interactions in practice because faster

readers or writers could do them alone without sharing ideas or thoughts. In designing

activities, elaborate attention needs to be paid to generating active authentic

interactions between pupils. For this, teachers should give each pupil their own

information to share with others in accomplishing tasks (Gibbons, 2015), and some

time to concentrate on their own work before interaction in order to take an active part

in collaborative work. Another precondition for active interaction is to have all pupils

well-informed with the TL and their role in activities, which will help even less proficient

pupils have confidence in their work. In order to facilitate pupils’ active interaction,

teachers are also required to offer pupils explicit training for ground-rules and useful

strategies in interacting with each other effectively during collaborative work because

not every pupil can communicate well in pairs or group (Pinter, 2011). Moreover, a

positive and friendly atmosphere to work together needs to be encouraged, and

teachers should inspire pupils to respect each other. Once these are all settled

carefully, active interaction between pupils for mediating and regulating each other’s

learning as well as their own learning would be more effective and meaningful.

In peer interaction, the use of the L1 should not be prohibited in English lessons. While

performing activities, pupils could use private speech for talking to themselves or

social speech for organising work with others. It is not straightforward to use the L2

not only as private language or inner language even to adults as well as primary pupils,

but also as social speech for regulating work or others. It is natural to use their mother

tongue for regulating themselves and others with elaborate and creative thoughts

such as planning, guiding and monitoring their own behaviour (Swain & Lapkin, 1998).

Talk between peers offered an effective medium for problem-solving and enhanced

230

L2 learning, which was commonly done in the L1 in the observed lessons (Brooks &

Donato, 1994; Saville-Troike & Barto, 2017). If the policymakers who encourage

teachers and pupils to use only English in the English class have a more open mind

about the use of the L1 as a classroom resource or a mediational tool, it would be

possible to create activities or materials which stimulate pupils’ learning more

cognitively beyond pupils’ one-dimensional interest. The effective use of the L1 could

help inhibit English activities from being excessively caught in simple pattern drills or

game-based activities.

However, the use of the L2 should also be encouraged, although it is not bad to use

the L1 for active interaction cognitively (Spada, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003).

Pupils who do not have many opportunities to use English in daily life need more

chances to use English in an authentic situation during lessons (V. Cook, 2001). The

L2 should be used while carrying out communicative activities, and furthermore it is

necessary to encourage its use as a tool for regulation and interaction eventually. For

the effective use of the L2, it is necessary to teach pupils useful linguistic devices such

as ‘now’, ‘next’, ‘let’s see’, ‘oh’, ‘yes’ and ‘OK’ that serve to concentrate their attention

on mental activities to regulate their work (Frawley, 1997; Lantolf, 2006). Pupils also

need to learn helpful expressions to ask others’ opinions and give comments as well

as to convey their thoughts or opinions (Gibbons, 2015). Without an appropriate

command of classroom language, pupils cannot use them, and prior to the task, pupils

need to encounter those expressions (Brown & Lee, 2015). Teachers can be a good

role-model to use those expressions or utterances in English while carrying out tasks.

Based on learning these basic expressions, pupils will gradually be able to regulate

both themselves and others as well as to interact with each other in English.

Taking pupils’ interest and learning into account, teachers need to place the different

extent of focus on the type of activities for pupils at different English levels. For low-

level pupils, since it is more significant to boost their interest in learning, fun activities

would be more appropriate. Considering pupils’ short attention spans, teachers need

to provide variety in activities which are motivating and interesting (Kirköz, 2019).

Even high-level pupils like fun activities, but it is important to lead them into building

interest through giving them a sense of achievement. Cognitively well-designed

activities, which should be interesting, not insipid, will help stimulate pupils’ motivation

and active learning. However, it would be the teachers’ dilemma whether they offer

activities beyond the primary school level presented in the national curriculum or not.

231

It does not seem to be reasonable to offer linguistically very difficult materials at the

secondary level to pupils at primary school level. Instead of linguistically very

challenging activities or materials, teachers need to offer cognitively challenging ones.

They can also present activities and materials with wide latitude to have pupils

experience various types of reading materials and writing tasks to motivate them.

When it comes to teaching grammar, it is necessary to consider the introduction of

teaching grammar deliberately at the primary school level. Even though the national

curriculum and textbooks did not deal with grammar, some pupils as well as teachers

in this research demonstrated the necessity of learning grammar. In CLT, grammatical

knowledge (or linguistic knowledge) is part of communicative competence (Bachman,

1990; Canale & Swain, 1980; Littlewood, 2011). Communication can occur with

structure or grammar as well as a willingness of participants to cooperate in the

negotiation of meaning (Savignon, 2002). Grammar, thus, needs to be taught, but the

important thing is how to teach grammar to YLs, based on CLT. For YLs, grammatical

knowledge needs to be presented, practised, and used in communicative activities,

but important features in grammar needs to be presented saliently where necessary.

Along with interactions and activities, materials are a sine qua non for mediating

effective English lessons. In addition to offering good quality materials for pupils’

learning, pupils’ participation in designing or developing materials deserves

consideration. Not only could pupils enjoy learning with materials produced by

themselves, but learning could also happen in the process of making materials. This

invitation to the process of generating materials could help pupils feel responsible for

their learning and participate in cognitive and creative work. Pupils could also be given

work to be exposed to various literacies such as digital or visual literacy in the process

of making their own materials. Since there is a good deal of information in English on

the Internet and there are a number of useful computer tools and programmes to use,

pupils would be able to retrieve information, read, write and make materials, which

could lead into experience to use English for a realistic purpose. This could be done

collaboratively with others and would enable pupils to share or regulate their thoughts

or ideas actively in order to make useful materials.

6.8 Limitations of the research

The first limitation was related to the period of research and sampling of schools.

232

Since the study focused on teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions and their practice of

lessons, the period of two months for conducting research except for teacher-

questionnaire surveys was not inappropriate. Nevertheless, it was true that the given

time which was permitted by the district office of education, which the researcher who

was taking a leave of absence from work for studying abroad belonged to, was not

enough to include more various kinds of schools. Furthermore, at the time of research,

MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), which is viral respiratory illness and

highly contagious, started to break out and spread throughout the entire nation

seriously. This resulted in some schools being closed for a while and made it difficult

to visit primary schools as an outside researcher. Even though the schools with

different contexts or levels socioeconomically or educationally were included for this

research, the locations of the schools were geographically confined to the east and

the south of Seoul due to these constraints. So, it cannot be said that these schools

selected for the research represented all kinds of primary schools in Seoul, even

though they were good examples for understanding teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions

as well as their practice.

Second, collecting data depended on the situation of individual schools, not by the

researcher. The head teachers of most schools participating in the research gave

permission for all kinds of research such as questionnaires, interviews and classroom

observation, but some head teachers permitted only limited areas. That was the

reason why specific research results in some schools were missing. The number of

students who were involved in the research also varied by school because the context

or the size of each school was different. Since the school was not a variable in

comprehending pupils’ perceptions, it did not matter how many pupils of each school

were included in each method. However, if the number of pupils with different English

proficiency per school was controlled for the questionnaires, the results would be able

to be compared in terms of individual schools in order to see differences among

schools with different backgrounds.

When it came to the variables, pupil-participants’ gender or school year was not

handled as the important variable in analysing the research results, although these

were included as demographic information. That was because they were not

mentioned as challenges by teachers in teaching English. In analysing the data

gained from pupils, English proficiency was the only variable to take into account. For

pupil-interviewees, the teachers identified pupils’ English proficiency through their

233

own thorough standards, but the reliability of teachers’ ratings was not checked for

this research. In the questionnaire surveys, the pupils themselves decided on the level

of their own English proficiency. Since pupils’ self-perceived level of English

proficiency was the variable to examine pupils’ perceptions in analysing the data, the

reliability of the pupils’ responses to their English proficiency was not investigated

either. Not checking the reliability of these ratings could be one of the methodological

limitations of the research.

There was also the restriction concerning observing pupils’ cognitive development

and teachers’ adjusted teaching over an extended period of time. The process of

teaching and learning in school cannot be comprehended only as a series of discrete

educational events as it has a natural long-term trajectory (Mercer, 2008). Moreover,

learning is an outcome of the ongoing interaction between ontogenetic development

and instruction (C. D. Lee, 2000). Vygotsky believes that mental activity can be

understood when observed in its formation over time (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995).

Sociocultural SLA also has counted primarily on the study of acquisition in the

ontogenetic (i.e. “how an individual develops over the course of his/her life”), and

microgenetic (i.e. “how development takes place over the course of a particular

interaction in a specific sociocultural setting”) domains (R. Ellis, 2008, p. 521). This

research focused on exploring how to mediate pupils’ English learning, but the

process of pupils’ ontogenetic or microgenetic development and teachers’ continuing

teaching was not dealt with over time because studying the dialogues of teaching and

learning over time posed methodological challenges. Accordingly, it could not be

determined whether pupils internalised what they learnt during lessons, even though

they were ostensibly observed to accomplish their work. With one or two lessons from

each teacher, it could be difficult to explain how teachers adjusted their teaching or

interaction with pupils in terms of the passage of time, except for interactional

scaffolds within the given activity or lesson.

Last but not least, there was the limitation related to the investigation of pupils’

intramental process from a different angle. The research was restricted to merely

intermental communication in learning among pupils as well as between teachers and

pupils. Not only language as a communicative tool where pupils collaboratively share

and develop knowledge but also language as a psychological tool which helps pupils

organise, plan and reflect thoughts and actions were observed in joint activities (Swain

& Lapkin, 1998). Nevertheless, intrapersonal communication based on private speech

234

or inner speech was seldom observed, except for some occasions when pupils

verbalised what they read to clarify the tasks. Without special strategies, it was not

simple to investigate pupils’ cognitive language use or a gradual process of

internalisation. In order to gain insight into pupils’ intramental process, it would be

necessary to train pupils to verbalise their thoughts. In the situation of my research

where pupils were not trained to think aloud or to verbally externalise their inner

speech, it would have been possible to understand pupils’ intramental stage of

learning to some extent if pupils, who were observed during task performance, had

been interviewed about their behaviours, intentions, decisions and opinions after the

lesson, or had been given some chance to reflect on their work through writing a

journal.

6.9 Contribution to the field

Effective pedagogies for teaching English to YLs in classrooms have been

insufficiently investigated (Copland & Garton, 2014). The present study makes an

original contribution to the field of EYL in South Korean primary schools. The main

contributions are to help understand the practice of English education as an FL based

on CLT at the primary school level and to make suggestions for effective primary ELT.

As discussed in the literature on the implementation of CLT, most of the studies dealt

with the introduction of CLT, but this study handled the practice of ELT after around

twenty years of introducing English language as a compulsory subject in primary

schools. It presented how CLT was adapted and developed to South Korean primary

schools, and what benefits and challenges of teaching and learning English were

addressed. In the context where oral English has been highlighted, the study

investigated the sample of lessons focusing on reading and writing. Beyond

understanding generally how English was taught, this would help comprehend

intensively a marginalised area in ELT for YLs. This study not only contributes to the

comprehension of English instruction itself in South Korean primary schools but also

provides an appropriate resource for other studies related to primary ELT that could

be conducted in similar situations around the world, including neighbouring Asian

countries where the CLT approach has been emphasised.

More specifically, this study was based on sociocultural perspectives in order to

explore primary ELT. First, this study will be helpful in comprehending teaching

English in South Korean primary schools, not only through the genuine practices

235

based on classroom observation, but also teachers’ explanation for their practices.

Second, this study handled the pedagogical benefits of teaching and learning English

perceived by teachers and pupils. This will help check the effects of English education

for South Korean primary pupils at the time of teaching English in primary schools

over about twenty years. Third, teachers’ challenges in teaching English were

investigated, supported by pupils’ experiences and perspectives. Teachers’ and pupils’

challenges of teaching and learning English were also explored. These will be useful

in not only reflecting on English education itself but also generating considerate

insights into effective access to English teaching and learning. Fourth, some important

issues raised in teaching English based on CLT to young learners (YLs) were

discussed from sociocultural theory. This will be helpful in having deep understanding

of various phenomena which teachers would face in teaching English, and teachers

finding their own routes to effective teaching. Finally, this study makes a contribution

to the exploration of ELT in South Korean primary classrooms from various angles

such as teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions, as well as observation of English lessons.

From a methodological perspective, the current study not only combined teachers’

voices and their own practices as a basis for comprehending the South Korean ELT

for YLs but also incorporated pupils’ perspectives. This will help achieve a fuller

picture of the dynamics of English teaching as the study based on diverse angles.

6.10 Recommendations for future research

In order to find more effective ways to mediate pupils’ English learning precisely, each

of the activities, interactions and materials would separately need to be investigated

in more depth. Since this study was designed to investigate how English was taught

in South Korean state primary schools, it first focused on the overall understanding of

English from the actual practices. Rather than highlighting one of three sorts of

mediation by interactions, activities and materials, they were all explored because all

of them contributed to English teaching and learning. The careful investigation of

activities, interactions and materials respectively would be necessary. It would also

be meaningful to explore these factors in integrated ways since these are tightly

intertwined with one another. It will be interesting to examine how these factors are

embodied and interact with one another to maximise the effect of English learning.

Further research is required to develop gradual and systematic teaching contents

from basic levels to more advanced levels for South Korean primary pupils. This study,

236

which put emphasis on how to mediate effective English learning, did not explore what

should be taught for effective learning, particularly reading and writing. Teaching

methods or skills used by South Korean primary school teachers to mediate pupils’

learning were careful and desirable from sociocultural perspectives. As future

research, deliberate considerations about what should be taught for effective English

learning would be necessary. It could start with reviewing research results of English

reading and writing as a mother tongue or a second language, and with gaining ideas

from teachers’ practical experiences.

The teachers’ main challenge was the difference in pupils’ English proficiency, which

affected the decision that pupils’ English proficiency was chosen as the variable to

investigate pupils’ perceptions and thoughts. Although pupils’ school year or gender

issue was not mentioned as teachers’ challenges, it would be worth researching to

see the similar or different perceptions that pupils reveal in terms of the school year

or gender. That is because understanding those perceptions will help develop

systematic teaching contents as well as teaching methods or skills for pupils’ English

learning through clarifying various characteristics associated with pupils.

Related to teachers’ main challenge, there is need for research that focuses on

secondary school level. Secondary teachers of English would be faced with first-year

classes who have reached different levels of proficiency (Cameron, 2003). Pupils

would remember varying amounts of language and would have become more or less

confident in English owing to different input not only from private tutoring but also from

the primary sector. The gap between pupils would be much wider than that of pupils

at primary school level. It will be necessary to investigate how secondary teachers

perceive this challenge, and how they try to overcome this.

Comparing participants’ perceptions of English and English lessons was limited to

pupils’ English proficiency, but it would be interesting to compare teachers’

perceptions in terms of teachers’ age, their teaching experience of English, their pupils’

general English proficiency, etc. Teachers’ different background information might

influence their perceptions of English teaching. In this research, teachers with diverse

experiences and backgrounds were included, but it was not easy to compare teachers’

perceptions according to their different background information because the number

of participants belonging to each sub-group was not sufficient to gain meaningful

results. For further research, teachers’ various backgrounds would be able to become

237

significant variables to compare their perceptions in teaching English.

It would be useful to do further research tracking the progress and performance that

take place in pupils’ developmental change from other-regulated behaviour to self-

regulated behaviour. This would enable an understanding of how the assisted

performance of a particular feature (a word or structure) precedes and changes into

unassisted performance either within the same interaction (or activities/materials) or

in the following interactions (or activities/materials). Due to time constraints, it was not

possible to explore pupils’ process of development in English learning in this study. A

longitudinal study as well as a cross-sectional study to investigate how to mediate

pupils’ English learning would be more helpful in understanding English teaching and

learning from sociocultural perspectives.

238

References

Antón, M., & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233-247.

Arievitch, I. M., & Stetsenko, A. (2000). The quality of cultural tools and cognitive development: Gal’perin’s perspective and its implications. Human Development, 43(2), 69-92.

Arnold, W., & Rixon, S. (2008). Materials for teaching English to young learners. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials: A critical review (pp. 38-58). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2014). Scaffolding versus routine support for Latina/o youth in an urban school:Tensions in building toward disciplinary literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 263-299.

Atkinson, D., Byrnes, H., Doran, M., Duff, P., Ellis, N. C., Hall, J. K., . . . Tarone, E. (2016). A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19-47.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Baldauf Jr., R. B. (2005). Language planning and plicy research: An overview. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 957-970). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baldauf Jr., R. B., Kaplan, R. B., Kamwangamalu, N., & Bryant, P. (2011). Success or failure of primary second/foreign language programmes in Asia: What do the data tell us? Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 309-323.

Ball, A. F. (2000). Teachers' developing philosophies on literacy and their use in urban schools: A Vygotskian perspective on internal activity and teacher change. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research : constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 226-255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, England: Routledge.

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278-287.

Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 95-117). Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London; New Delhi; Singapore: Sage.

239

Bourne, J. (2007). English for speakers of other langauges. In N. Mercer, J. Swann, & B. Mayor (Eds.), Learning English (pp. 189-225). Abingdon, Milton Keynes: Routledge.

Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 173-184.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

British Educational Research Association. (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research: British Educational Research Association.

Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262-274.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (Fifth edition ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition (Sixth edition ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (Fourth edition. ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brownfield, K., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2018). Examining the impact of scaffolding on literacy learning: A critical examination of research and guidelines to advance inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research.

Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case Studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 245-278.

Butler, Y. G. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 423-446.

Butler, Y. G. (2015). English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004–2014). Language Teaching, 48(3), 303-342.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, L. (2003). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57(2), 105-112.

Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., & Bryant, N. R. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Implications for individual differences and learning. In

240

B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the “zone of proximal development” (pp. 77-91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: London : Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teahing and testing. Applied linguistics, I(1), 1-47.

Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.

Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595-608.

Carrell, P. L. (1988). Introduction: Interactive approaches to second langauge reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 1-7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Case-Smith, J., & Holland, T. (2009). Making decisions about service delivery in early childhood programs. 40(4), 416-423.

Cazden, C. B. (1983). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. In B. Bain (Ed.), The Sociogenesis of language and human conduct (pp. 33-58). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Chang, B. M. (2009). Korea's English education policy innovations to lead the nation into the globalized world. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 83-97.

Choi, I. C. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing, 25(1), 39-62.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Ma: MIT press.

Chung, J., & Choi, T. (2016). English education policies in South Korea: Planned and enacted. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in Asia (pp. 281-299). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., Bell, R., & McCulloch, G. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.

Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition : Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 146-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook-Gumperz, J. (2006a). The social construction of literacy (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook-Gumperz, J. (2006b). The social construction of literacy. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The social construction of literacy (2nd ed., pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

241

Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian modern language review, 57(3), 402-423.

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Hodder Education.

Copland, F., & Garton, S. (2014). Key themes and future directions in teaching English to young learners: Introduction to the Special Issue. ELT Journal, 68(3), 223-230.

Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in Teaching English to Young Learners: Global Perspectives and Local Realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 738-762.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Criado, R. (2013). A critical review of the presentation-practice-production model (PPP) in foreign language teaching. In R. Monroy (Ed.), Homenaje a francisco gutiérrez díez (pp. 97-115). Murcia: Edit.um.

Cummins, J., & Nakajima, K. (1987). Age of arrival, length of residence, and interdependence of literacy skills among Japanese immigrant students. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of bilingual proficiency: Final Report. Volume III: Social context and age (pp. 183-202). Toronto: Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studeis in Education.

Dan, R., & Shannon, D. (2018). Toward contingency in scaffolding reading comprehension: Next steps for research. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 367-373.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and pedagogy (Classic ed. ed.). New York: Routledge.

Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265-272.

Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks ; London: Sage.

242

Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England: Framework document. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335116/Master_final_national_curriculum_220714.pdf

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & m. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Dubin, F. (1989). Situating literacy within traditions of communicative competence. Applied linguistics, 10(2), 171-181.

Duff, P. (2014). Communicative language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 15-30). Boston, Mass.: National Geographic Learning.

ECC. (n.d.). 21st Centry Encyclopedia of Political Science. Retrieved from

http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId2729074&cid242140&categoryId242140

Edge, J., & Garton, S. (2009). From experience to knowledge in ELT. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ediger, A. M. (2014). Teaching second/foreign language literacy to school-age learners. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 154-169). Boston, Mass.: National Geographic Learning.

Education Research Institute of Seoul National University. (1995). The dictionary of educational studies. Retrieved from http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId2510656&cid242126&categoryId242126

Ellis, G. (1991). Learning to Learn. In C. Brumfit, J. Moon, & R. K. Tongue (Eds.), Teaching English to children: From practice to principle (pp. 191-200). London: Collins ELT.

Ellis, G. (2013). Foreword. In S. Rixon (Ed.), British Council survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide. London: British Council London.

Ellis, G. (2014). ‘Young learners’: Clarifying our terms. ELT Journal, 68(1), 75-78.

Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (1991). The storytelling handbook for primary teachers: Penguin Books.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525-551). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

243

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (Second edition ed.). Oxford Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Abingdon: Routledge.

Flavell, J. (1966). La language privé. Bulletin de Psychologie, 19, 698-701.

Forman, E. A., & Cazdem, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323-347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied linguistics, 26(3), 402-430.

Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unification of the social and computational mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1984). Speaking and Self-Order: A Critique of Orthodox L2 Research. Studies in second language acquisition, 6(2), 143-159.

Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second-language discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied linguistics, 6, 19.

Frost, R. (2004). A task-based approach. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/a-task-based-approach

Garton, S. (2014). Unresolved issues and new challenges in teaching English to young learners: the case of South Korea. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(2), 201-219.

Garton, S., Copland, F., & Burns, A. (2011). Investigating global practices in teaching English to young learners. In B. Council (Ed.), ELT Research Papers 11-01. London: British Council.

Gass, S. M. (1993). Second language acquisition: Past, present and future. Second Language Research, 9(2), 99-117.

Gass, S. M., Selinker, L., & Behney, J. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (Fourth ed.). New Your; London: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). London: Routledge.

Ghaith, G., & Kawtharani, A. (2006). Using cooperative learning with primary school students. In S. G. McCafferty, G. M. Jacobs, & A. C. DaSilva Iddings (Eds.), Cooperative learning and second language teaching (pp. 74-91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ghosn, I. K. (2002). Four good reasons to use literature in primary school ELT. ELT Journal, 56(2), 172-179.

244

Gibbons, P. (2008). "It was taught good and I learned a lot": Intellectual practices and ESL learners in the middle years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 155-173.

Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed. ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Go, Y.-b. (2000). The dictionary of sociology.

Goswami, U. (2008). Cognitive development: The learning brain. Hove, East Sussex; New York: Psychology Press.

Grabe, W. (2002). Dilemmas for the development of second language reading abilities. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 276-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.

Gregory, E. (1996). Making sense of a new world: learning to read in a second language. London: Paul Chapman Pub.

Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-30): Sage Publications.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks ; London: Sage.

Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 779-796.

Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills. ELT Journal, 43(1), 4-13.

Ham, S.-a., Lee, Y., Lee, D.-H., Choi, J., Kim, J., Kim, H., . . . Jun, U. (2014). Elementary school English 3. Seoul: Chunjae Education.

Ham, S.-a., Lee, Y., Lee, D.-H., Choi, J., Kim, J., Kim, H., . . . Jun, U. (2015a). Elementary school English 5. Seoul: Chunjae Education.

Ham, S.-a., Lee, Y., Lee, D.-H., Choi, J., Kim, J., Kim, H., . . . Jun, U. (2015b). Elementary school English 6. Seoul: Chunjae Education.

Hamid, M. O. (2010). Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: Language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 289-310.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 1-14). Newtown, N.S.W.: Primary English Teaching Association.

245

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.

Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (Fifth edition. ed. Vol. Pearson Education): Harlow, Essex.

Hayes, D. (2014). Factors influencing success in teaching English in state primary schools. In (Vol. 324). London: British Council.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201.

Ho, W. K. (2003). English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in east Asia today: Changing policies and practices (pp. 1-32). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

Holobow, N. E., Genesee, F., & Lambert, W. E. (1991). The effectiveness of a foreign language immersion program for children from different ethnic and social class backgrounds: Report 2. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(2), 179-198.

Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education, 8(1-2), 75-86.

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational researcher, 17(8), 10-16.

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.

Hu, G. (2004). Pedagogical practices in Chinese EFL classrooms. Asian Englishes, 7(1), 42-59.

Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2012). English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 345-362.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (Vol. 269293, pp. 53-73). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York ; London: Routledge.

Jeon, J. (2009). Key issues in applying the communicative approach in Korea: Follow up after 12 years of implementation. English Teaching, 64(4), 123-150.

Jeon, M. (2009). Globalization and native English speakers in English programme in Korea (EPIK). Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(3), 231-243.

246

Jeong, Y. K. (2004). A chapter of English teaching in Korea. English Today, 20(02), 40-46.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Johnston, B., & Janus, L. (2007). Developing classroom materials for less commonly taught languages. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.

Kang, H. D. (2013). Primary school english education in Korea: From policy to practice. In N. Spolsky & Y. Moon (Eds.), Primary school English-language education in Asia (pp. 59-82). New York: Routledge.

Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf Jr., R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf Jr., R. B. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf Jr., R. B. (2005). Language-in-education policy and planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 1013-1034). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kawulich, B. B. (2017). Coding and analyzing qualitative data. In D. Wyse, E. Smith, N. Selwyn, & L. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research (pp. 769-790). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

KEPA. (2000). Terminology of educational psychology.

Khan, J. (1991). Using games in teaching English to young learners. In C. Brumfit, J. Moon, & R. K. Tongue (Eds.), Teaching English to children: From practice to principle (pp. 142-157). Harlow: Longman.

Kim, H.-R., & Kim, E. (2010). 다문화 아동문학 텍스트 기반 반응저널 쓰기를 통한 초

등영어와 문화의 통합교육. [A study of integrating culture into elementary

English through response journal writing based on children’s multicultural

literature]. Primary English Education, 16(2), 81-110.

Kim, H.-R., & Kim, S. J. (2010). 문학텍스트 기반 반응저널쓰기를 통한 초등영어쓰기

에 대한 연구. [A study of English writing through response journals using

literary text in primary schools]. Studies in English Education, 15(1), 196-220.

Kim, J.-S., & Kim, H.-R. (2013). 동화기반 낭송극이 초등영어 학습자의 의사소통능력

및 창의·인성에 미치는 영향. [Effects of story-based reader’s theater on

247

primary English learners’ communicative competence, creativity and personality]. Studies in English Education, 18(2), 231-257.

Kim, M.-H. (2013). 그래픽오거나이저의 적용이 의사소통능력 신장에 미치는 영향 연

구. [An effect of graphic organizer on the development of communicative

competence]. Primary English Education, 19(4), 31-54.

Kim, Y.-J., & Kim, H.-R. (2015). 영자신문제작 활동이 초등영어 학습자의 읽기-쓰기 능

력 및 학습동기에 미치는 영향. [The effect of an English newspaper making

activity on elementary school students’ reading-writing abilities and learning

motivation]. English Language Teaching, 27(3), 155-174.

Kirköz, Y. (2019). Fostering young learners' listening and speaking skills. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 171-187). Abingdon Routledge.

Kozulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in context. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), Thought and language (pp. xi-lvi). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. New York; London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Prentice Hall.

Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Kuchah, K. (2019). Teaching English to young learners in difficult circumstances. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 73-92). Abingdon: Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.

Kwon, O. (2000). Korea's English education policy changes in the 1990s: Innovations to gear the nation for the 21st century. English Teaching, 55(19 ), 47–91.

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Reading and writing instruction: Toward a theory of teaching and learning. Review of Research in Education, 13, 171-194.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000a). Intoducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000b). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79-96.

Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in second

248

language acquisition, 28(01), 67-109.

Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1-32). Westport; Connecticut; London: Ablex Publishing.

Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis to eliminate the research practice divide. New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edition. ed., pp. 207-226). London: Routledge.

Larson, J., & Marsh, J. (2005). Making literacy real: Theories and practices for learning and teaching. London: SAGE.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 191-225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2000). Introduction: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research : constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 1-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. (2004). Multi-layered aspects of language policy: Implementing English education at elementary schools in Korea. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 20(1), 71-87.

Lee, K. (2014). The politics of teaching English in South Korean schools: Language ideologies and language policy. (PhD), University of Pennsylvania, 2014.

Lee, W. K. (2009). Primary English language teaching (ELT) in Korea: Bold risks on the national foundation. In J. Enever, J. Moon, & U. Raman (Eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 95-102). Reading: Garnet Publishing.

Lee, W. K. (2010). Insights from South Korea. In R. Johnstone (Ed.), Learning through English: Policies, challenges and prospects: Insights from East Asia (pp. 47-68). Malaysia: British Council.

Lee, Y.-A. (2006). Towards respecification of communicative competence: Condition

249

of L2 instruction or its objective? Applied linguistics, 27(3), 349-376.

Li, D. (1998). "It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine": Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(03), 243-249.

Littlewood, W. (2011). Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a changing world. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 541-557). New York: Routledge.

Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2009). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64-77.

Long, M., Wood, C., Littleton, K., Passenger, T., & Sheehy, K. (2011). The psychology of education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 649-666.

Long, M. H. (1998). SLA: Breaking the siege. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 17(1), 79-129.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group Work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.

Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting learner autonomy. Perspectives: A Journal of TESOL Italy, 23(2), 1-9.

Marsh, J. (2010). The relationship between home and school literacy practices. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. V. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 305-316). London: Routledge.

Martin, D. (1999). Bilingualism and literacies in primary school: Implications for professional development. Educational Review, 51(1), 67-79.

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25(1), 91-102.

Mayor, B. (2007). Introduction. In N. Mercer, J. Swann, & B. Mayor (Eds.), Learning English (pp. 1-3). Abingdon Milton Keynes: Routledge; Open University.

McDonell, W. (1992). Language and cognitive development through cooperative group work. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative language learning: a teacher’s resource book (pp. 51-64). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.

McGrath, I. (2013). Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers: Practice and theory. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

250

Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Stierer & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning in educational practice (pp. 92-110). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London; New York: Routledge.

Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33-59.

Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1997). Scaffolding through talk. In P. Scrimshaw & R. Wegerif (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 196-210). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York: Routledge.

Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles; London: SAGE.

Mikio, S. (2008). Development of primary English education and teacher training in Korea. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), 383-396.

Min, C. K. (2008). Innovative English education curricula and the strategies of implementation in Korea. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), ELT curriculum innovatioin and implementation in Asia (pp. 101-129). Seoul: Asia TEFL.

Ministry of Education. (n.d.). About MOE: History. Retrieved from http://english.moe.go.kr/sub/info.do?m20104&page20104&s2english

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009a). The school curriculum of the Republic of Korea. (Proclamation of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 2009-41). Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009b). 영어과 교육과정.

(Proclamation of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology 2009-41). Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2011). 영어과 교육과정. (Ministry of

Education, Science and Technology Announcement. 2011-361). Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

Ministry of Science and ICT. (n.d.). About MSIT. Retrieved from http://www.msit.go.kr/web/msipContents/contents.do?mId2NTQx

Mitchell, R., & Lee, J. H.-W. (2003). Sameness and difference in classroom learning cultures: Interpretations of communicative pedagogy in the UK and Korea. Language Teaching Research, 7(1), 35-63.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed. ed.). London: Arnold.

Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories.

251

London; New York: Routledge.

Moodie, I., & Nam, H.-J. (2015). English language teaching research in South Korea: A review of recent studies (2009–2014). Language Teaching, 49(1), 63-98. doi:10.1017/S026144481500035X

Moore, A. (2012). Teaching and learning: Pedagogy, curriculum and culture (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: SAGE.

National Center on Education and the Economy. (n.d.). South Korea: Teacher and principal quality. Retrieved from http://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/south-korea-overview/south-korea-teacher-and-principal-quality/

Negueruela-Azarola, E., & García, P. N. (2016). Sociocultural thoery and the language classroom. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 295-309). London; New York: Routledge.

Newman, D. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & DeMarco Jr., G. M. P. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 167-188). Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: SAGE.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.

Nunan, D. (2003). The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies and Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.

Nunan, D. (2011). Teaching English to young learners. Anaheim: Anaheim University.

Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in applied linguistics, 6(2), 93-121.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Olshtain, E., Shohamy, E., Kernp, J., & Chatow, R. (1990). Factors predicting success in EFL among culturally different learners. Language Learning, 40(1), 23-44.

Opoku-Amankwa, K., Brew-Hammond, A., & Kofigah, F. E. (2011). What is in a textbook? Investigating the language and literacy learning principles of the ‘Gateway to English’textbook series. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), 291-310.

Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary

252

relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1-24.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2019). "literacy, n.". Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109054

Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Palmer, R. G., & Stewart, R. A. (2005). Models for using nonfiction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 426-434.

Park, J.-K. (2009). ‘English fever’in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today, 25(01), 50-57.

Pennycook, A. (2002). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.

Perry, K. H. (2012). What Is literacy?- A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. 8(1), 50-71.

Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plowright, D. (2011). Using mixed methods: Frameworks for an integrated methodology (1st ed.). Los Angeles; London: SAGE.

Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200-222). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.

Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.

Richards, J. C. (2002). Theories of teaching in language teaching. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 19-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rixon, S. (1986). Language teaching games. ELT Journal, 40(1), 62-67.

Rixon, S. (2011). Beyond ABC: Investigating current rationales and systems for the teaching of early reading to young learners of English. University of Warwick,

253

Rixon, S. (2013). British Council survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide. In. London: British Council London.

Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Chichester: Wiley Chichester.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roth, W.-M. (2001). Situating cognition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1-2), 27-61.

Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155-163.

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice, texts and contexts in second language learning Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching (pp. 1-28): Yale University Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saville-Troike, M., & Barto, K. (2017). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. (2015). 2015 Seoul education statistics. (Seoul Education 2015-72). Seoul: Policy and Safety Planning Division of Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education

Shin, J. K., & Crandall, J. (2019). Teaching reading and writing to young learners. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 188-202). Abingdon: Routledge.

Shorten, A., & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. Evidence Based Nursing, 20(3), 74-75. doi:10.1136/eb-2017-102699

Simensen, A. M. (2010). English in Scandinavia: a success story. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 472-483). London; New York: Routledge.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

254

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(2), 275-298.

Skehan, P. (1995). Analysability, accessibility, and ability for use. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG Widdowson (pp. 91-106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Song, J. J. (2011). English as an official language in South Korea: Global English or social malady? Language Problems & Language Planning, 35(1), 35-55.

Song, J. J. (2012). South Korea: Language policy and planning in the making. Current Issues in Language Planning, 13(1), 1-68.

Spada, N. M. (1987). Relationships between instructional differences and learning outcomes: A process–product study of communicative language teaching. Applied linguistics, 8(2), 137-161.

Spada, N. M. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271-288). New York: Springer.

Statistics Korea and the Ministry of Education. (2016). The survey of private education expenditures 2015. Daejeon and Sejong: Statistics Korea and the Ministry of Education

Stetsenko, A. (1999). Social interaction, cultural tools and the zone of proximal development: In search of a synthesis. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 235-252). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.

Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the mataphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 169-183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760-770.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. V. (2004). Understanding and defining literacy: Scoping paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006. Paris.

Sullivan, A. L., & Weeks, M. R. (2019). Differentiated instruction for young English learners. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 125-137). Abingdon Routledge.

Sun, D. S. (2015, September 24). 집값 낮은 43곳, 서울대 입학 0 신임 법관 배출 1~2

255

위 강남·서초 [No student living in 43 places with low house prices enters SNU,

the most and the second most new judges come from Gangnam and Seocho]. Ohmynews. Retrieved from http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg_w.aspx?CNTN_CD2A0002142488

Swaffar, J. (2006). Terminology and its discontents: Some caveats about communicative competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 246-249.

Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives (Second edition. ed.). Bristol Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: SAGE.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles; London: SAGE.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London; New Delhi; Singapore: Sage.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., . . . Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse dlassrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers' uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics(22), 204-218.

UNESCO. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programs. UNESCO Education Sector Position Paper, 13.

UNESCO. (2006). Education for all global monitoring report: Literacy for life Paris: Unesco.

256

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.

Vianna, E., & Stetsenko, A. (2006). Embracing history through transforming It: Contrasting Piagetian versus Vygotskian (activity) theories of learning and development to expand constructivism within a dialectical view of history. Theory & Psychology, 16(1), 81-108.

Vrikki, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of learner codeswitching on L2 oral fluency in task-based activities: The case of EFL primary school classrooms in Cyprus. Oxford University, Oxford.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981a). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981b). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 134-143). Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.

Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: The zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 671-684.

Wass, R., Harland, T., & Mercer, A. (2011). Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal development. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 317-328.

Wedell, M. (2011). More than just 'technology': English language teaching initiatives as complex educational changes. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Dreams and realitites: Developing countries and the English language (pp. 269-290). London: British Council.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (2002). Introduction: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. In Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 1-17). Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22(1), 1-22.

257

Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children's learning in the "zone of proximal development" (pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Rogoff, B. (1984). Editors' notes. In B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children's learning in the "zone of proximal development" (pp. 1-6). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wesche, M. B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207-228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied linguistics, 10(2), 128-137.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn: The social contexts of cognitive development. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving*. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Wyse, D. (2011). The public, the personal, and the teaching of English, language and literacy. In A. Goodwyn & C. Fuller (Eds.), The great literacy debate : a critical response to the literacy strategy and framework for English (pp. 157-170). London: Routledge.

Wyse, D. (2012). Editor's introduction: Towards a theory of English, language and literacy teaching. In D. Wyse (Ed.), Literacy teaching and education: The foundations of language and literacy (pp. xxi-xlii). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Wyse, D., & Goswami, U. (2008). Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading. British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 691-710.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity Systems Analysis Methods Understanding Complex Learning Environments. Boston, MA: Springer.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives: Two Parallel SLA Worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58.

258

Appendices

Appendix A

Examples of English Lessons

Example A1 Teacher K5’s scaffolding to introduce a reading activity

First, Teacher K5 divided the pupils into three teams of four pairs and asked the individual pupils which team and which pair they belonged to. After deciding the teams, the teacher chose one boy as her pair to demonstrate how to do the activity. She sometimes translated the difficult English words for instruction into Korean and repeated the important phrases in English to have the pupils understand well. To check pupils’ understanding, she asked them to say again in Korean or in English what she said. Then, she had the pupils ask any questions if they did not fully comprehend the procedure. In addition to clarifying the procedure, the teacher also illustrated with an example of reading the map and following the directions, using the similar reading materials that the pupils were expected to read and the map on the electronic bulletin board as the visual material.

Example A2 Teachers K2 and NE1’s verbal or nonverbal interaction with pupils

during group work

In a group of three, the pupils were given a case of mechanical pencil leads, but they did not know how to say it in English. First, they drew the picture of the case and wrote

the name of the item in Korean next to the picture like 샤프심통 (a case of pencil

leads). They called out the teachers because they did not know the appropriate English word for that. Teacher NE1 came to them, and when looking at the item, he said, ‘Ah, sharp leads. Sharp, sharp. Here’s a sharp. Spelling, s-h-a-r-p-l-e-a-d-s’. Since the pupils did not seem to notice it, the teacher wrote down the word on the worksheet. Actually, what the pupils wanted to write was ‘a case of pencil leads’, but what the teacher wrote was ‘sharp leads’. There was a miscommunication between the native English-speaking teacher and the pupils, which made the pupils misunderstood sharp leads as a case of pencil leads. After the teacher moved to another group, the pupils could not continue writing since they did not know how to fill in the next blanks.

In the next stage of guided writing, the pupils had to write what the item contained in it. They wanted to write mechanical pencil leads, but they wrote just ‘sharp’. This time, they asked for the Korean teacher’s assistance.

K2: 샤프심 [The leads]. Ah, sharp lead. It has a, It has sharp lead. 똑같이 써도 돼. [You can write the same words here as above.] It has sharp lead. (Looking at the container carefully) Er, sharp case. Sharp 한 다음에 c-a-s-e. [After sharp, c-a-s-e.] (Looking at the first sentence which Teacher NE1 helped) Here’s a sharp lead라기 보다는 sharp case. [Write ‘sharp case’ rather than ‘Here’s a sharp lead’.]

Actually, Teacher K2 understood what the pupils wanted to know, but his answer (a sharp case) was not correct. Since Teacher NE2 told ‘sharp leads’ for the first

259

sentence and a mechanical pencil is called 샤프 (a sharp) in Korean, Teacher K2

seemed to use the word ‘sharp’. Although making allowance for these, his answer was still incorrect because he used a ‘sharp case’ which was different from ‘a case of pencil leads’. Even though he did not say the correct word, he tried to help the pupils complete their writing. For example, he spelt the words for one of the pupils to write. For the second sentence where ‘It has sharp .’ was written, he pointed to the ‘leads’

which Teacher NE1 wrote down in the first sentence, saying ‘이거. [This.]’. He kept

helping the pupils fill in the blanks of the third sentence, ‘Whose ______ is this?’, pointing to the ‘sharp case’ in the first sentence. For the last sentence, Teacher K2 asked the pupils to write the owner’s name they guessed among pupils in the class.

While the pupils completed their writing, Teacher NE1 came to them again. He looked at the Korean letters for the owner’s name in the pupils’ writing, and he asked them to write it in English, saying how to spell it. He also helped the pupils write correct punctuation such as using the apostrophe and question mark. When the pupils did not understand the terms like apostrophe and question mark, he pointed to the apostrophe in ‘Here’s’ of the first sentence and wrote the question mark in the air several times. In the process of helping the pupils, Teacher NE4 said the spelling, wrote with his finger several times on the paper and wrote with the pencil when the pupils did not notice exactly.

Example A3 Each pupil’s role in doing an activity: Teacher K3’s class

In the activity, Teacher K3 had each pupil play an equal role through rotating their roles in reading, memorising and writing a sentence. The first pupils in each group came to the front to read a sentence, and they had to memorise it in order to convey it to their group members. The second pupils had to write the sentence on paper as the first pupils said. Then, the second pupils came to the front to read and memorise another sentence.

Example A4 The collaborative writing activity: Teacher 11’s class

In Teacher K11’s class where pupils had to make a four-frame comic strip, pupils, who wanted to belong to the same group, gathered in groups of three or four after understanding how to make a comic strip. The pupils in a group discussed situations and storylines for the cartoon. They worked together to draw pictures in four boxes of the worksheet and write proper sentences in speech bubbles. The pupils had to include key expressions, but they were able to create a storyline and write as they wanted.

Example A5 Three steps of teaching reading: Teacher K11’s lesson

Teacher K11 began with checking the words in the textbook as a pre-reading activity in Year 5 class. After pupils read four words (door, more, may, and sure), they found and circled those four words among nonsense words with unusual letter combinations. The teacher asked the meanings of the words, and pupils answered in Korean. A student asked the teacher the pronunciation of the door because he did not understand why ‘oo’ makes /ɔ/. When the teacher asked the pupils about the pronunciation of ‘oo’, they answered /ʊ/. The teacher said that it did not sound like /dʊ(ə)r/, but /dɔ(ə)r/ and she advised that they should just memorise it because it does not have any rule for that. In the during-reading stage, the teacher first asked the pupils to read the story silently and independently. When some pupils did not understand certain words, they raised their hands, and the teacher went to them,

260

whispering the meanings to them in order not to interrupt other pupils’ reading.

K11: What’s the boy’s name? 1 Ps: Nick. 2 K11: What’s the tree’s name? 3 Ps: Mr Tree. 4 K11: Nick and Mr Tree meet. And then Nick said what? 5 Ps: Open the door. 6 K11: (Spreading her hands, and then holding her hands) Nick and Mr Tree 7

meet for the first time. 처음 만났어요. [They met for the first time.] 처음 8

만났는데. [They met for the first time, but.] (Shaking her finger and using 9 an angry tone of voice) Open the door. Is it good? 10

Ps: No. 11 K11: Is it polite? 12 Ps: No. 13 K11: What is polite? 14

Ps: 예의 바른. [Polite.] 15

K11: (Writing ‘polite’ on the board) Oh, yes. Polite is 예의바른. [Polite.] It’s 16 polite. It’s rude. What is “rude”? 17

G1: The opposite. 18

Ps: 무례한. [Rude] 19 K11: (Drawing a double-headed arrow, and writing ‘rude’ next to the word 20

‘polite’ on the board) Ah, this is the opposite word. It’s rude. But Tree, what 21 did the tree say? (Shaking her finger and using the angry tone of voice) 22 Open the door. What did the tree say? (Making a zipping motion across her 23 lips) Nothing. (Crossing her arms across her body in an X) Why didn’t tree 24 answer anything? 25

Ps: Because he is very rude. 26 K11: Ah, he is very rude. The tree doesn’t like rude attitude. He likes polite 27

attitude. So, Nick changed his sentence. How? (Putting her hands politely) 28 Ps: May I come in? 29 K11: Mr Tree, (putting her hands politely) may I come in? And then tree say? 30 Ps: Yes, you may. 31 K11: Yes, you may. And then, oh, it’s amazing. Inside the tree, there were 32

lots of 33 Ps: Candy. 34 K11: Candy, chocolate and sweeties. Do you like sweeties? 35 Ps: Yes. 36 K11: I love sweeties. And then the boy, he says, I want chocolate, I want 37

candy. What did tree say? 38 Ps: Nothing. 39 K11: (Covering her mouth) Nothing. Why? 40 P1: I don’t know. 41 Ps: Because 42 P2: He is rude. 43 K11: His attitude is rude. And then Nick realised Ah ha, and then say again 44

how? (Putting her hands politely and then pretending to eat) May I.. 45 Ps: May I have some chocolate? 46 K11: And then tree says? 47 Ps: Yes, you may. 48 K11: Yes, you may. And then he had a good time with his friends eating 49

chocolate and candy and relax. And then (Pretending to check the watch 50

261

on her wrist) oh, it’s time to go home. Nick wants to come again. So what did 51 Nick say? 52

P3: May I come again? 53 K11: Ah, may I come again? And then tree says? 54 Ps: Sure. See you. 55 K11: Sure. See you. Good job.56

After silent reading, the pupils were offered some questions related to the storyline (Lines 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 21-25, 28, 30, 32-33, 37-38, 40, 44-45, 47, 51-52, and 54) and the meanings of the difficult words (Lines 14, and 17). The teacher not only checked pupils’ understandings but also elicited the key expressions such as ‘May I come in?’ and ‘Yes, you may.’ or ‘Sure.’ (Lines 28-29, and 44-55) from the pupils by asking the questions based on what they read. The teacher also asked pupils’ personal thoughts to activate their background knowledge or to involve them in the story (Line 35). In order to induce important features from the pupils, she presented various clues such as gestures or alteration in pitch or tone of the voice (Lines 7, 9-10, 22-24, 28, 30, 40, 45, and 50-51). After that, the pupils watched the video clip of this story without any English subtitles. Next time, the teacher showed the subtitles and asked the pupils to read together with the CD if they could read. The third time, the pupils read the subtitles along with the teacher without any sound from the CD, and finally, they took a role for reading: the girls read Mr Tree; the boys read Nick; and all the pupils read the narrative together. The pupils were encouraged to read the same text several times but in different ways not to get bored.

Example A6 Three steps of teaching reading: Teacher K5’s lesson

Teacher K5, who started with the text in the textbook, also asked what the pupils could see from the textbook, and talked about the pictures with the pupils. After activating their prior knowledge for the text, pupils were given time to read the text silently (Figure A1).

They were given the easy questions that could be answered just with one word or yes/no (e.g., What is the writer’s friend’s name? Are they good friends?). The teacher asked them to attempt to understand the meanings of each sentence while they read after the CD. While having pupils read sentence by sentence after the CD, the teacher did not explain or translate the sentences in Korean. Instead, she just emphasised the crucial words of each sentence. For checking pupils’ comprehension, she had pupils select the right picture out of four pictures in the textbook for the text. Pupils said “C”, and she pointed out a boy to say why the picture C was relevant. She asked if pupils had the same opinion and then had them to read out the text again, showing the text and pictures on the big screen using the PPT materials. She had boys and girls read out the text alternately. In order to check the answer (C), the teacher concentrated on the keywords of each sentence explaining a boy’s appearance in the text, and she excluded the inappropriate pictures for the text with the pupils. In the latter part of the text, she asked the pupils to read aloud together, and then checked their understanding about the story through the questions such as ‘Who likes music?’ and ‘Who plays soccer?’ Like the other teachers, Teacher K5 followed the similar procedure for reading the textbook, but in her lesson, comprehension check was done from selecting the picture appropriate for the text as presented in the textbook aside from questioning.

262

Figure A1. The text and activity in the textbook (Ham et al., 2015b, p. 86)

Figure A2. The texts used in the reading activity

263

After reading the text in the textbook, pupils were offered the reading activity to find a spy by reading each text, ‘Find the Spies!’ Pupils were divided into three teams of four pairs. Each team had to find four spies on the maps pasted on the rear wall (Excerpt A6.E), and every pair of each team had a different mission card including information about where the spy was and what the spy looked like (Figure A2).

The pupils had to go to the map with the mission card in order to complete the mission of finding the spies. Two pupils had to work together to understand the text and read the map (Figure A3).

Figure A3. Pupils working together to find the spy

Figure A4. The text pupils had already learnt in the previous unit (Ham et al., 2015b, p. 101)

264

After finishing finding the spies, the pupils were given all the texts containing information for four spies to check their answers. The teacher checked where the spies were on the map through the big screen with the pupils. While reading the route indicating where the spies were, they tracked the location on the map in the big screen. Among the people on that place, they found the spies through reading the sentences describing spies’ appearances. The texts for this activity encompassed the key expressions (describing a person’s appearance) as in the text in the textbook (Figure A1), but they had more information such as the directions based on what they already learned in the other unit of the textbook (Figure A4).

Example A7 The activity focusing on reading itself: Teachers K9 and NE4’s

lesson

The teachers initiated with opening the textbook. Teacher NE4 talked about the pictures in the textbook, which spurred the pupils to recall their background knowledge associated with the language expressions as well as the story which was familiar with some pupils. After a short pre-reading activity, pupils were given time to read the comic in the textbook silently, and Teacher K9 helped the pupils at low levels individually during silent reading. After silent reading, the teachers took an individual role of reading aloud to show how to read: Teacher NE4 read the monkey, and Teacher K9 read the caterpillar. While reading the story for pupils, the teachers sometimes made gestures, which helped the pupils understand the text well. Without any explanation in Korean, the teachers asked three comprehension questions. The next part of the reading section was to read aloud with the pupils. After Teacher NE4 read the monkey part and the pupils read the caterpillar part, they changed the roles. As the last activity for reading, Teacher NE4 had pupils read aloud with their partners, taking an individual role without any help from the teachers.

Example A8 Controlled writing: Teacher K8’s lesson

In Teacher K8’s lesson, since pupils in Year 3 were supposed to learn at word level for literacy, her pupils copied some words individually in the textbook after reading them. Their English levels were comparatively high, and copying was not hard at all for most of them. They could finish copying quickly, and the teacher had them write the words in the appendix of the textbook several times as extra work. While they were copying the words, the teacher explained that writing the words on four lines was important. The teacher also emphasised writing the words in lower case letters after she found some pupils who were writing in the upper case letters, saying ‘This is not a sentence, so you should begin not with the capital P, but the lower case p’. The pupils, who finished writing earlier than others, were encouraged to review or preview the words in the textbook.

Example A9 Guided writing activity as group work: Teachers K2 and NE1’s

lesson

Teachers K2 and NE1 had pupils make a poster in a group. Each group chose one item which belonged to one pupil in other groups, without knowing the owner of the item. In order to look for the owner, pupils had to make a poster with a picture and its explanations. The teachers demonstrated on the screen how to make a poster, and gave some basic patterns on the worksheet for the poster in order to help pupils write: ‘Here’s a ….’, ‘It has …..’; Whose … is this?’; and ‘Is this ….?’. This writing activity gave pupils the authentic purpose for writing, which helped motivate the pupils to write

265

based on a worthwhile purpose, not just on mechanical copying. However, the sentences used for this activity might seem to be unnatural for a poster. Since the key expressions for this unit were questioning and answering factual information (e.g. Whose … is this?/ Is this …?), these sentences were used but it could not be said to reflect the real and natural written form.

Example A10 Guided writing activity as pair work: Teacher K5’s lesson

For describing a person, Teacher K5 employed the Manito game as pair work, which referred to a secret friend game. The teacher showed the picture of people, and their names on the screen (Figure A5), and gave a worksheet to describe one of them. Before writing, the pupils picked up one name tag from the small bag, which became their secret friend. The persons who the pupils chose had to be concealed because the pupils would answer the quizzes of guessing who their friends’ secret friends were in the following activity. The pupils had to fill in the blanks in the worksheet with their partners in order to describe their secret friends, using example words or expressions in the worksheet (Figure A15).

Figure A5. The picture of people for choosing a secret friend (Manito) on the screen

Example A11 Guided writing activity as individual work: Teacher K1’s lesson

In the Teacher K1’s class, the main writing activity, ‘Writing a poem’ was done as a post-reading activity after reading the story. The pupils were given the same writing patterns as the story they had read, and each pupil had to complete two sentences, with the help of a worksheet of pictures and words. The pupils were able to make one poem by collecting the group members’ sentences. It started with individual work but ended with producing a shared outcome. The pupils’ burden on writing a poem was relieved because they just wrote a couple of sentences in accomplishing the whole poem.

Example A12 Literacy activities: Teacher K8’s lesson

The first activity was to read the words after the CD (Figure A6, and Lines 2-3). The

266

second one was to link the pictures to the proper words by connecting the letters between the pictures and the words to make the whole words (Figure A7, and Lines 4-10). The teacher asked the pupils to memorise how to spell the words (Lines 11-12). After the matching activity, they said how to spell the words with the teacher (Lines 21-29), and pupils wrote the words, drawing the pictures for each word in the textbook (Figure A8, and Lines 30-38). The teacher taught /b/ sound using the CD (Figure A8, and Lines 40-52), and talked about how to pronounce it (Lines 53-75). Then, the teacher had pupils stand up when listening to the /b/ sound from the CD, and spell the words (Lines 74-93). The teacher first asked the pupils to repeat after the CD and had them think about how to use their lips when pronouncing it. Even though they were learning four words such as an eraser, a pen, a book, and a ruler related to school supplies, they just focused on the /b/ sound of the book in learning pronunciation, which was presented in the textbook. Throughout the lesson, reading and writing were dealt with together within one activity (Lines 1-10, 21-29, and 30-38)

Figure A6. The activity in the textbooks (Listen and read) (Ham et al., 2014, p. 66)

K8: 66쪽. [Page 66.] Let’s read and write. 1

The teacher played the CD, and the pupils read four words (pen, book, ruler, 2 and eraser) after the CD. 3

K8: 자 2번. 이제 같은 물건을 알파벳을 연결한 다음에 각자 작게 읽어봅시다. 4

[Now, number 2. After you match the object with the alphabet letters, let’s 5

read the word in a low voice individually.] 2분만에. [Within two minutes.] 6

시작. [Off we go.] 7

(The pupils completed the words by connecting each letter. For example, if 8 there was a picture of an eraser, they had to link the letters, e, r, a, s, e, r in 9 order, and then match the word, eraser.) 10

K8: 그러면서 스펠링을 외워보세요. [Please memorise the spelling of each 11 word.] 12

G2: 선생님, 너무 쉬워요. [Miss K8, it’s too easy.] 13

267

K8: 아, 하지만 겸손하게. 혹시 틀릴 수도 있으니까. [Do in a modest way 14 because you could be wrong.] 15

G2: 왜냐면 여기 모양이 똑같이 나오니까. [Because they have same figures.] 16

K8: 응, 그쵸. 이런 거 영어 퀴즈 대회에 나올 지 모르니까 외우면서 17

해보세요.[Yes, right. Since you may see these words in the English quiz, 18 please write the words, memorising them.] 19

… 20

K8: 자 그럼 답을 맞춰 봅시다. [Let’s check the answers.] Number 1, how do 21 you spell eraser? 22

Ps: e-r-a-s-e-r 23 K8: How do you spell pen? 24 Ps: p-e-n 25 K8: How do you spell book? 26 Ss: b-o-o-k 27 K8: How do you spell ruler? 28 Ss: r-u-l-e-r 29

K8: Very good. 자 그럼, 3번으로 가서 낱말을 따라 쓴 후에 알맞은 그림을 30

그려 봅시다. [Then, let’s move to Number 3. Let’s copy the words and draw 31

the pictures for them.] 시간은 이것도 2분. [You’ll be given two minutes, as 32 well.] 33

(The pupils copied the words and drew the outlines of the objects. The 34 teacher went around and checked what the pupils did.) 35

K8: 민희는 그림을 그린 다음에 그 안에다가 한 번 더 쓰기를 했네요. 지우개를 36

그리고 안에 또 한 번 eraser라고 써 줬네요. [Minhee wrote the words one 37 more inside the pictures. She drew the eraser and wrote it in it.] 38

… 39 (The teacher played the CD again and clicked the sound.) 40 K8: Today, let’s practice b sound. 여기를 잘 보고 입술을 똑같이 따라해보세요. 41

[Look at here carefully, and make your lips like ones in the CD.] 42 CD: /b/ /b/ /b/ /b/ /b/ /b/ 43 (The pupils repeated after the CD, and the CD included every angle of a 44

person making a sound.) 45 K8: Let’s practice more. 46 CD: /b/ /b/ /banana/ 47 Ps: /b/ /b/ /banana/ 48 CD: /b/ /b/ /book/ 49 Ps: /b/ /b/ /book/ 50 CD: /b/ /b/ /bus/ 51 Ps: /b/ /b/ /book/ 52

K8: 여러분 b발음할 때 입술을 어떻게 했어요? [When you made a /b/ sound, 53

what did you do with your lips?] 설명해 볼 사람? [Who wants to explain it?] 54

수원? [Suwon?] 55

B2: 윗입술과 아랫입술이 입속으로 잠깐 들어갔다가 두꺼운 발음으로 56

나왔어요. [The upper lip and the lower lip went into the mouth for a while, 57 and then they came out with heavy sound.] 58

K8: 어, 어, 네. 좋은 표현이었어요. [Wow, It’s a good explanation.] 그쵸? 59

[Right?] 또 설명해 볼 사람? [Anyone else?] 음, 어렵나? [Is it difficult?] 그냥 60

입술을 어떻게 했는지? [What did you do with your lips?] 네, 지민이! [Yes, 61 Minji!] 62

G3: 윗입술과 아랫입술이 붙었다가. [I bring my lips together.] 63

K8: 그쵸. That’s right. 윗입술과 아랫입술이 붙었다가 떼는데 /b/ 약간 뭐가 64

268

터지듯이 /b/ 그쵸? 네. [You bring both of your lips together and open them. 65 /b/, it’s like releasing air pressure in your mouth, /b/. Right? Yes.] 66

B3: 바람이 입에서 밖으로 나가는 것 같아요. [It’s like the blows going out of 67 the mouth.] 68

T: 어, 약간 나오죠. 바람도. /b/할 때, 좋아요. [Yes, a quick puff of air when 69 you pronounce /b/. Good] 70

G4: 풍선껌 같아요. [It’s like bubble gum.] 71

K8: 뭐 같다고요? [What did you say?] 72

G4: 풍선껌. [Bubble gum.] 73

K8: 어, ‘풍선껌 같이’. 어 좋은 표현이었어요. [Ah, like bubble gum. It’s a good 74 expression.] 75

K8: Let’s check. 여러분이 b소리를 잘 구별하는지 알파벳 b의 소리로 76

시작하는 낱말에서 일어나세요.[I’ll see you if you can distinguish /b/ well. 77 Please stand up when you hear the word starting with /b/.] Please stand up. 78 Ready? 어, b소리로 시작하면 일어나는 거에요. 잘 듣고, number 1. [If you 79 hear /b/ sound, please stand up. Listen carefully. Number 1.] 80

CD: book. 81 K8: One more time 82 CD: book. 83 K8: Very good. How do you spell this? 84 Ps: b-o-o-k 85 K8: Ah, very good. 86 CD: pen. 87 (The teacher checked if the pupils stood up.) 88 K8: How do you spell it? 89 Ps: p-e-n 90 CD: banana 91 K8: One more time 92 CD: banana 93 K8: Everyone, good job. How do you spell banana?94 Ss: b-a-n-a-n-a 95 K8: Aha, very good. 96

269

Figure A7. The activity in the textbook (Match the alphabet letters and read the words)

(Ham et al., 2014, p. 66)

Figure A8. The activity in the textbook (Copy the words and draw the picture for

each word) (Ham et al., 2014, p. 67)

270

Example A13 Literacy activities: Teacher K10’s lesson

Teacher K10 offered the integrated activity of reading and writing as individual work, using a worksheet of completing six sentences by choosing the words and pictures they wanted from the example words and pictures (Figure A9). In the worksheet, there were three columns; in the first column, there were six sentences with one blank for each sentence; in the second one, there were three example words for each sentence where the pupils could select one to fill in the blank; and in the last column, there were the pictures with the number for each word. The pupils had to make six sentences through choosing proper words and the pictures appropriate for the words, and the numbers of the pictures they selected became their own Word Lotto numbers. At the end of the activity, the teacher selected six numbers from a secret bag, and the pupils with the same six numbers as the teacher chose were given a reward as the winners. In order to do this activity, the pupils had to read the sentences and write the words with the aid of the examples and the pictures.

Figure A9. The worksheet used in Teacher K10’s lesson

Example A14 Literacy activities: Teachers K9 and NE4’s lesson

Pupils in K9 and NE4’s class were expected to make a poster introducing foods as individual work. This activity started with pasting a photo of food on the paper and writing for the food, connected with the following activities such as reading the poster and having a conversation with the poster (Figure A10). After completing the poster, the pupils were given time to practice reading in a group. Every member in a group

271

had to take turns in reading aloud his/her own poster, and then they held a party using the poster. The half of the class became the hosts, placing all the food posters on their desks and waiting for their guests. The other half of the class as a guest visited their friends’ party. If someone was interested in one of the foods on the posters, he/she asked the person with that food (the poster), ‘What’s this?’ The host said the name of the food and introduced the ingredients, saying, ‘Do you want some ___?’ If the guest said, ‘Yes, please’, the host said, ‘Please, go ahead. Help yourself’, and the guest said, ‘Thank you’, pretending to eat the food. The host recommended eating more, and the guest said, ‘Yes, please.’ or ‘No, thanks. I’m full.’ After this activity, the teachers asked what the pupils had done, ‘What food would you like?’, ‘What did it have?’ and ‘How did it taste?’

Figure A10. The pupils making a poster in Teacher K9 and NE4’s literacy lesson

Example A15 Literacy activities: Teacher K3’s lesson

The goal of the lesson was to read and write the sentences asking for and giving directions like ‘Where is the ~?’ and ‘Go straight and turn~’. In the introduction stage of the lesson, Teacher K3 displayed the PPT materials of the pictures and English subtitles introducing a topic of the lesson through a story he created based on the famous hero movies. The teacher used the popular movie characters and film music

272

to allow pupils to engage with the story in the meaningful situation where they were given a mission to find the villain. This was effective not only to motivate pupils but also to keep all the activities consistent throughout the lesson.

The next activity was for having pupils get ready to catch the villain through reading the text in the textbook (Figure A11). The pupils read the text individually, and then the teacher read the story with the pupils to check if they understood well. Since the story was about giving the directions in order to find the Lucky Star, the teacher prepared a huge map on the board. While he checked pupils’ understanding sentence by sentence, he also moved his finger on the map to follow the directions and pasted the key expressions next to the map. When the teacher arrived at the final spot on the map in terms of the directions, he took that part of the map off, where the Lucky Star was hidden. During this activity, the teacher encouraged pupils to comprehend the directions and induced them to speak the target language repeatedly. Even though he used Korean excessively for instructions, he tried to demonstrate how to grasp each phrase and picked out the keywords or expressions from the text for the pupils. This reading activity led up naturally to the speaking activity, which enabled pupils to give directions from the certain position to the star. Pupils were capable of giving directions grounded in reading the text. After accomplishing these activities, the teacher said that the pupils were ready to catch the villain, which meant that they could move on to the next activity.

The second main activity was to find five clues for catching the villain as group work, using five pictures of the hero characters behind which the key expression were written. One pupil from each group came to the whiteboard, and memorised the sentence at the back of the picture on the whiteboard. The pupils went back to their seats and conveyed the sentence to the group members, and the next pupils wrote it on the worksheet. In this way, every pupil in the groups took turns in coming to the whiteboard and memorising, and writing the sentence. The pupils had to discover where the villain was on the map from combining five clues they gained. In order to check what each group did, the teacher showed the map on the screen, having the pupils tell the information they gained. Through this activity, the pupils confirmed the place where the villain hid, and then they could move on to the next activity, which was planned for pupils to find eight sentences with important information.

Each group chose one of the hero pictures on the whiteboard, and they became the hero they selected in order to catch the villain. At the first round, the boys went around the classroom to find the hidden sentences with a number and had to memorise the sentence they found to tell the girls of their group. The girls dictated the sentences the boys said for each number, and at the second round, the boys and the girls swapped roles. The number of the sentences the pupils had to find was eight from number 1 to 8, and particularly, the pupils had to choose one sentence out of three options (3-1, 3-2, and 3-3) for number 3. According to the sentence chosen for number 3, each group had a different route to find the villain, even though they had the same seven sentences. After the pupils found all the information, the teacher asked each group to read their sentences in order from sentence 1 to 8. One pupil from each group followed the directions as their group members read, and eventually two groups out of five groups could find the villain.

273

Figure A11. The text in the textbook used in Teacher K3’s literacy lesson (Ham et al., 2015b, pp. 100-101)

274

Example A16 The use of PPT materials: Teachers K6 and NE2’s lesson

Teachers K6 and NE2 presented the PPT materials including pictures and sentences which were related to what they had learnt in the last lesson. After pupils said sentences using clues and famous entertainers’ or animation characters’ pictures in the slides, the teachers showed the right answers. For example, while Teacher K6 showed a photo of a cap and scrambled words indicating a sentence ‘Whose cap is this?’ on the TV screen, Teacher NE2 and the pupils made the sentence and read it together. Then, looking at the picture of a famous Korean actor wearing a cap, pupils answered, ‘It’s XX’s hat.’, and Teacher K6 showed the correct sentence in written English through the PPT slide.

Example A17 The use of PPT materials: Teacher K3’s lesson

Teacher K3 effectively used PPT materials created by himself to motivate the pupils in the introduction stage. His PPT materials incorporated not only many interesting animation characters for both setting up the meaningful context and motivating pupils, but also sound effects to build suspense and to create a dramatic atmosphere. When he showed his materials, his pupils let out exclamations showing interest. The context presented by the PPT materials became the substantial device to interest pupils and to lead the remaining activities throughout the lesson by introducing the main characters, settings and major event. That is, Teacher K3 offered the coherent activities from the introduction to the closing stage to solve the problems presented by the PPT materials at the beginning of the lesson.

Example A18 The use of PPT materials: Teachers K7 and NE3’s lesson

For the ‘Pass the Ball’ game as a practice activity, Teachers K7 and NE3 employed the PPT materials. Teacher K7 showed the PPT materials with the pictures, questions, and keywords to help the pupils to make the sentences, and Teacher NE3 led the game. If the music was played from the PPT materials, the pupils passed the ball to the next person. If the music stopped, the pupil with the ball had to stand up. Teacher NE3 read the questions on the screen, and the other pupils copied the teacher. The pupil with the ball had to answer the question using the clues such as the pictures, guided words and key patterns presented in the PPT materials. Teacher K7 displayed the sentence to check if the pupil said right or not. The PPT slides including sounds (music) as well as pictures, keywords and sentences were effective for the literacy activity for practice.

Example A19 The use of worksheets: Teacher K5

Teacher K5 developed her worksheet based on the activity in the textbook through offering more information to help pupils write (Figures A12 and A13). The writing activities both in the textbook and in the worksheet contained useful information such as sentence structures to help pupils write individually, but the writing activity in the textbook was limited within the simple sentences based on spoken English. The writing worksheet designed by Teacher K5 offered more helpful features such as various expressions and words as well as the key patterns grounded in the topic of the unit. It also encouraged pupils to use more patterns that they had already learnt in other units.

275

Figure A12. The writing activity in the textbook (Ham et al., 2015b, p. 89)

Example A20 The use of flash cards: Teacher K9

In the first lesson of Teachers K9 and NE4, Teacher K9 showed flash cards including key sentences as an activity for reviewing the last lesson at the introduction stage. At first, she asked the pupils to read the sentences on the cards, and then she mixed the cards with the back part of the cards seen for the pupils not to notice the sentences. When pupils said stop, she stopped mixing the cards and then had pupils guess in a group what sentence she had in her hands.

Example A21 The use of dialogue cards: Teachers K6 and NE2

Teachers K6 and NE2 gave the cards on which short dialogues were written for practicing role-play. Pupils practiced reading and speaking with the dialogue written on the card they picked up as pair work, and they were given a chance to do role-play in front of others. Pupils could memorise the dialogue with the help of the cards, and they could be supported by the cards at the moment of role playing.

276

Lesson 5 Activity 3 – Describe your Manito

How to describe

someone’s appearance

1) 외양(look): He/ She is short, tall. (pretty, handsome, cute, good-looking (잘생긴))

2) 머리 모양: He/ She has + 길이 + 모양 + 색깔 hair. (눈: 크기 + 색깔 – big green eyes)

He/ She has long + curly + brown hair. He has big + brown eyes.

3) 옷차림이나 장신구: He/ She is wearing a/an/N + 색깔 + 옷 또는 장신구.

He/ She is wearing a + blue + cap.

shirt, T-shirt, pants (바지), blouse (블라우스), hood(ie), uniform (단체복)

jacket (재킷), necklace (목걸이), earring (귀걸이), hairband, bracelet (팔찌)

He / She is ____________________.

He / She has __________________ ________________________ eyes.

He / She has __________________ ___________________ _______________________ hair.

He / She is wearing __________________ ____________________ _____________________.

He / She is my Manito, ( ).

A: Do you know who he/ she is?

B: He/ She is _________, isn’t he/ she?

Figure A13. The worksheet Teacher K5 developed for guided writing

277

Example A22 The use of flash cards: Teacher K3

Teacher K3 pasted five picture cards on the movable blackboard for one of the main activities, and on the back of each picture card, a sentence was written. A pupil from each group came to the board and memorised the sentence on the back of the card. They had to say the sentence to their group members in order to write it on the group paper.

Example A23 The use of sentence cards: Teachers K7 and NE3

Another example of using cards for the main activity was observed in Teachers K7 and NE3’s lesson where they used sentence cards for the whispering game. A pupil from each team chose one envelope containing a sentence card and conveyed the sentence to the next pupils by whispering it in their ears. The last pupils from each team had to pick up the sentence card they heard among several cards on the teacher’s table as fast as possible and paste it on the board. After each round, the pupils had to change their position in the queues. After the final round, Teacher K7 checked the pupils’ work, and the points written at the back of the sentence card. The team with the most points won the game. Thus, the activities using flash cards or sentence cards enabled pupils to participate in the activities vigorously and actively and offered some clues to help the pupils to recall the key expressions well.

Example A24 The use of worksheets: Teacher K8

Worksheets, which could be done according to pupils’ English ability, were offered with the same format for every unit: key expressions in the first section; sentences for copying in the second section; scrambled sentences in the third section; and in the last section, free writing to fill in speech bubbles using pictures extracted in the textbook. Activities from the first section to the third section were imperative, but the free writing part was allowed to do in terms of individual pupils’ ability.

Example A25 The use of worksheets: Teacher K12

After the second lesson of each unit, she had pupils write down key sentences from the dialogues they learnt. In the third lesson, the pupils were given worksheets to write according to their English proficiency with reference to key expressions in dialogues they had written in the previous lesson. For pupils who did not write even alphabet letters correctly, she had them write with their more competent peers to gain help. Pupils with intermediate proficiency, who would know which sentences needed to be written but could not write well, were encouraged to copy appropriate sentences from what they had written previously. Pupils, who were capable of writing creatively, were facilitated to create a new story in speech bubbles, and read their stories to others. The other reason to offer worksheets for her pupils was to give clues when they spoke with key expressions in role-plays.

278

Appendix B

Excerpt from the English Literacy Classroom Observations

( ): Action description (Italic): Context explanation for helping understand [Italic]: Translation in English NE: Native English-speaking teacher K: Korean teacher B: A boy G: A girl P: A pupil Ps: Pupils

Excerpt A1 Teachers’ scaffolding in teacher-pupil interactions: Teachers NE4

and K9’s reading lesson

A. Before reading

NE4: What is it on page 104? 1 Ps (Pupils): Worm, monkey. 2 NE4: Is it a worm? 3 Ps: Yes. 4 NE4: Good. Can a worm become a butterfly? 5 Ps: Yes. 6 B1: (In a big voice) Caterpillar. (The boy noticed it is not the worm, but the 7

caterpillar.) 8 NE4: (Pointing to B1) What did you say? 9 B1 & Ps: Caterpillar. 10 K9: Wow! 11 NE4: Is this story about a caterpillar eating? 12 Ps: Yes. 13 NE4: What’s the name of it? 14 G1: Errrr. 15 P1: Caterpillar 16 K9: Hungry … (making a gesture of ‘adding something’ to G1) 17 P2: Hungry? 18 K9: Yes, hungry… 19 S2: Apple. 20 Ps: Caterpillar. 21 K9: Caterpillar. 22 NE4: Hungry caterpillar. Good job. 23

B. After reading

NE4: Raise your hand. Who gave the caterpillar an apple? Who gave the 1 caterpillar an apple? Who gave the caterpillar an apple? (He asked the 2 same questions three times very slowly.) 3

(K9 put her hands repeatedly forward to indicate ‘giving’ when NE4 asked.) 4 NE4: (Looking at four pupils who raised hands) Only four people? 5 K9: (Making the gesture of giving again) Who gave the apples? 6 NE4: (Choosing a girl) Yes.7

279

G1: Monkey. 8 NE4: Yes, the monkey gave the caterpillar an apple. 9 B1: 어, 곰 아니었어? [Huh, isn’t it a bear?] 10 K9: (Looking at B1) Monkey, not a bear. 11 NE4: (In a regular speed) How many apples did the caterpillar eat? How 12

many apples, (pointing to the picture in the textbook) looking at the picture. 13 Did the caterpillar eat? Did the caterpillar eat? (The second question was 14 asked more slowly than the first one.) 15

(Nine pupils raised their hands, and NE4 chose G2.) 16 G2: Three apples. 17 NE4: That’s it. He ate three apples. Why, why did the caterpillar stop eating 18

apples? Why did the caterpillar stop eating apples? 19 (Seven pupils raised their hands. NE4 selected B1.) 20 B1: Because the caterpillar is full. 21 NE4: Yes, the caterpillar was full. What full in Korean? 22

Ps: 배부르다. [Be full.] 23

K9: 배부른. [Full.] 24 NE4: Okay, last question. What did the caterpillar become? What did the 25

caterpillar become? (Pointing the picture in the textbook) In the picture. 26 K9: What did the caterpillar become? 27 NE4: (More slowly) What did the caterpillar become? 28 (Four pupils raised their hands, but K9 called G3 who did not raise her hand 29

after looking around carefully.) 30 G3: Butterfly 31 NE4 & K9: The butterfly.32

Excerpt A2 The pupils’ main questions in the writing activities: Teachers K9 and

NE4’s lesson

A. Asking for translating the Korean word into the English word

G1: Teacher, 고구마 맛탕이 영어로 뭐에요? [Mrs. K9, what is Goguma mattang in

English?] K9: Sweet potato mattang.

B. Asking the spelling of the word

G2: (Turning to the pupils around her) Awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome. (Looking at Teacher K9) Teacher, a-w-s-o-m?

K9: a-w-e G2: a-w-e K9: a-w-e-s-o-m-e G2: (She is writing the word.)

280

Excerpt A3 The role-play: Teachers K9 and NE4’s first lesson

NE4: Miss, may I go to the bathroom? 1 Ss: No. 2 NE4: May I go to the bathroom 3 K9: Of course. Go ahead. 4 …. 5 NE4: (He came back, dressed as the other person) Where is Johnson? 6

Where is Mr Johnson? 7 (The pupils were surprised with his different and funny appearance and 8

laughed.) 9 NE4: No, no. I’m Josh’s brother. May I join you? 10 K9 and Ps: Yes, you may. 11 K9: You may join the class. 12 NE4: I like this class. (Taking out his mobile phone) May I take the picture? 13 Ps: Yes. 14 (Teacher NT4 took a selfie with the pupils in the background.) 15 NE4: Oh, wow. I’m tired. May I sit here? 16 Ps: Yes, you may. 17 K9: Of course. 18 (The pupils really seemed to enjoy this situation.) 19 P1: (To Teacher NT4) Handsome. 20 P2: Very handsome. 21 NE4: (Picking up the book) This book, may I read this book? 22 Ps: Yes. Yes, you may. 23 NE4: What book is this? 24 K9: What book? This book is the book we’re going to read. What’s the name 25

of the book? 26

Ps: 아낌없이 주는 나무. [The Giving Tree.] 27 K9: Okay. That’s in Korean. 28 NE4: (Pretending to have a phone call) Oh, I’m sorry. May I go outside? I 29

need to talk on the phone. 30 K9: You do not want to stay here? 31 NE4: It’s very important. 32 K9: Okay, okay. Please, please. 33 NE4 went out of the classroom. 34 K9: (Pointing to the goals) We’re going to read the story, Kevin and the giving 35

tree, and we’re gonna do role-play, and we’re going to write some 36 sentences about ‘May I …’. Okay? 37

Ss: Okay. 38

281

Excerpt A4 Pupils’ support in writing a poem: Teacher K1’s literacy class

A. The target sentences presented on the screen

B. The seat arrangement of four pupils

C. The interaction in a group

(In the picture given by the teacher, there was a messy room with various 1 items and the words for each item. The pupils in a group had to write two 2 sentences using the items and words from the picture. G1 and B1 were doing 3 well.) 4

G1: (Looking at B2 who hesitated to do) 보민아, 아이디어 줄까? [Bomin, 5 shall I give you some ideas?] 6

B2: (Without any answer, he erased what he had written, and just looked at 7 the pictures.) 8

B1: (Pointing to one picture and saying to B2) 이걸 선택해. [Choose this one.] 9

B2: (He did not do anything.)10

G2 B2

G1 B1

282

B1: 보민아, cap, cap, cap. [Bomin, cap, cap, cap.] 11 G1: (Saying to B2) I like sock on the floor. 12 B1: On the bed, bed지. [It’s on the bed, bed.] 13

G1: (Pointing to the sock on the floor in the picture) 여기 있잖아. [Look here.] 14

(Pointing to the picture which B1 had previously pointed to) 이게 sock이야? 15

[Is this a sock?] (Pointing to the sock) 이게 sock이지. [This is the sock.] 16

B1: (B1 seemed to think of the sock as the shoe.) 네가 가리고 있어서 안 17

보이잖아. [You hide that, so I can’t see it.] 18

G1: (Looking at B2) ‘The sock is under the floor.’ 아니, ‘The sock is on the 19 floor.’ [The sock is under the floor. No. The sock is on the floor.] 20

B2: (B2 started to write it.) 21 B1 and G1: (They carefully watched B2 writing.) 22 G2: (She looked at the picture. She tried to write several times, but she 23

seemed to hesitate to write. She looked at G1, pointing to the item in the 24 picture). 25

G1: (Looking at the picture) Pants. (Watching G2 writing) P-a-n-t-s, p-a-n-t-26 s, p, p, p-a-n-t-s 27

G2: (She erased the word she had written. She tried to write as G1 said, but 28 she stopped writing.) 29

G1: (Watching G2 hesitating to write, she wrote the word on G2’s paper.) 30 B2: (B2 wrote ‘I like the sock’, and then looked at the picture in order to find 31

the rest of the information.) 32 B1: (Saying to B2) On the floor. 33 B2: (B2 wrote ‘th’, and then found his eraser, saying to B1) On my floor? 34 B1: On the floor. 35 B2: (B2 started to write again.) 36 (The teacher came to this group.) 37 KT1: Do you have any questions? (Reading G2’s writing) I like the cap on 38

the pants. That’s okay. Good. 39 …. 40 B1: (Watching B2 writing, and noticing that he hesitated to write the next word) 41

Floor. 42

Excerpt A5 The interactions in group work: Teacher K11’s literacy class

A. Group A: Three girls’ group

G1: (Looking at the situations offered in the worksheet) ‘May I take your order?’를

할까? 식당. [Shall we choose ‘May I take your order?’ A restaurant.]

G2: 그리기는 까다롭긴 하지만, 자. [It is complicated to draw, though.]

(She started to draw.)

G3: 손님 한 명. [A guest]

G1: (Smiling) 손님 한 4명 정도, 3~4명 그 정도. [About four guests. Three or four.]

283

(Pointing to four boxes in the worksheet) 일단 4칸이니까 순위에 맞게 정해야

되는데. [First, there are four boxes. I think we should make the story in order.]

(Pointing to the first box) 일단 식당에 갔어. [First, she went to the restaurant.]

(Moving her finger to the second box) 웨이터가 왔어. [A waiter came to her.]

여기서, ‘May I take your order?’를. [Here, he can say, ‘May I take your order?’]

(Moving her finger to the third box) 그래서 Sure하고 이렇게 주문하고. [So she

says, ‘Sure’, and gives an order.]

(Moving her finger to the last box) 와서 먹는 거야. [The food is served and she

eats.]

G2: (Smiling) 딱 좋아. [Perfect.]

G3: (Nodding her head) 그리는 게 문제인데. [We have only to draw.]

G1: Yes. (She started to draw)

B. Group B: Four boys’ group

Among four boys in a group, two of the boys mainly drew pictures, and the other two of the boys concentrated on looking at the boys who were drawing. They told a boy to draw stick men, and they looked so happy to talk about the story. They pretended to play soccer to show their actions to the drawing boy because they wanted to make a cartoon related to playing soccer.

C. Group C: Three boys’ group

1. The interaction in three boys’ group

(The pupils had already finished drawing two cuts when I started to observe them, and they were about to draw the third cut.)

B1: (Passing the worksheet to B2) 네 담당이야. [Now, it’s your turn.] 집에서 먹는

거 그려. [Draw a picture of eating at home.]

B2: 식탁을 딱 그려주는 거야. [I’m drawing a table.]

B1: 오케이, 맞아, 맞아, 맞아. [Okay, right, right, right.]

B2: 식탁을 딱 그려 주고. [Drawing the table.] (He was drawing a table top.)

B3: 식탁이 왜 그리 작냐? [Why is the table so small?]

B2: 식탁을 대충 그려줘. [I just roughly draw the table.]

B1: 1인용, 1인용, 1인용, 1인용. [For one person, for one person, for one person,

for one person.]

B3: (Looking at the long legs of the table) 아, 식탁이 너무 긴데? [Ah, the table is

so long, isn’t it?]

B2: 긴 식탁 있어. 카페 같은데 가면 긴 식탁 있어. [We can see long tables actually.

Like in cafes, there are long tables. ]

B1 (Pointing to empty space above the table) 접시 하나도 그려. [Draw a plate.]

B2: (Drawing a plate) 접시. [A plate.]

B1: (Pointing to the first cake on the right side of the first picture) 케이크도 그려,

케이크. [Draw a cake, a cake.]

B3: (Taking the worksheet) 의자는 내가 그려줄게. 의자는 이거니까 높으니까 이렇

게 해 가지고 이렇게 해가지고 이렇게. [I’ll draw a chair. The chair should be tall.

Like this, and like this, and like this.] B1: Okay, okay, okay.

B1: (Passing the worksheet to B2 and then pointing to the chair) 여기 앉아 있는 거,

284

앉아 있는 것도 그려. 여기 앉아 있는 것 그려. [Here, someone sitting on, draw

someone sitting on. Draw someone sitting on here.]

B3: (Pointing to empty space above the plate) 근데, 접시 그린 다음에, 여기 위에

케이크 크게 해, 크게. [Then, after drawing a plate, a big cake on here. Draw big.]

B2: (Drawing a person) 크기가 안 닿아서 땀 뻘뻘. [He can’t reach the floor. It

makes him sweat.]

B3: (Bringing B2’s pencil) 케이크 내가 그려줄게. [I’ll draw the cake.]

B1: 케이크 그려야겠다, 케이크. [We should a cake, a cake.]

B3: 접시, 접시. 지우개 어디 있냐? [A plate, a plate. Where is the eraser?]

B1: (Patting B2 on the hand) 지우개 갖고 와, 지우개 갖고 와. [Bring your eraser,

bring your eraser.]

B3: 여깄어, 여깄어. (Here it is, here it is.)

B1: 1분 남았다, 1분 남았다. [We have one minute. We have one minute.]

B3: 1분 남았다구? [Just one minute?] (Erasing the plate.)

B2: (Looking at B3 who was erasing the plate) 왜, 왜? [Why, why?]

B3: (After erasing the plate, he drew a big plate and a cake on the plate.)

B1: Okay. (Taking the worksheet) 자, 이제 내가 할게. [Now, I’ll do.]

B3: (Indicating the third box, and moving his finger like drawing a speech bubble)

여기에 점점. 요렇게 해가지고 점점. [Here, do like this.]

B1: 점점? 어떻게 하지? [What? How can I do?] (He tried to draw but he could not.)

B3: Yummy라고 해. It’s yummy. [Write yummy. It’s yummy.]

B1: (Giving the pencil to B3)

B3: (Holding the pencil) 아냐, 아냐. [No, no.] (After drawing a speech bubble in the

second box and giving back to B1.) B2: It’s yummy.

B3: 야, 1분 남았다, 딱 1분. [Oh, we have one minute left, exactly one minute.]

B1: (B1 wrote ‘It’s yummy.’ in the speech bubble and then drew the table in the fourth box.)

B2: 야, 인제 살을 씌어줘야지. 너 같이 그리면 돼. [Now, draw fatter. It’s okay to

draw like you.]

B3: (Pointing to table legs) 야, 그냥 쭉쭉 그어. [Hey, just draw roughly.]

B2: 야, 의자 부서진다고 해. 의자 부셔져. 의자를 부서뜨려. 얘가 너무 뚱뚱해서.

[Hey, what about the broken chair? The chair is broken. Break the chair. That’s because this child is too fat.]

B3: 야, 되게 뚱뚱하게 그려라. [Hey, draw very fat.]

B2: 너 같이 그려. 너 같이. [Like you, like you.]

B2: (Recognising the picture was drawn out of the box) 너무 넘었는데. [It’s too big.]

B3: 이거 너무 아닌데. [It’s not good.]

B1: 아니야. 이 정도는 해 줘야지 재밌어. [It’s good. Doing like this makes it funny.]

B3: 아 다 먹었더니 배부르네. 어 배부르네. [Ah, since I ate all, I am full. I am full.]

B1: 배부르다, 배부르다가 뭐냐? [I am full. What is ‘I am full’ in English?]

B3: It’s 뭐라해야 되지? [It’s something?]

(When B1 was about to write, the time was over.)

B1: (Going back to his desk) 내가 가서 쓸게. 이따가. [I’ll write it later.]

B2 & B3: 응. [Okay.]

(After B1 came back to his seat, he wrote ‘I’m not hungry.’ instead of ‘I’m full.’)

285

2. The worksheet of the three boys’ group

286

Excerpt A6 Pupils’ interactions: Teacher K5’s lesson

A. The first pair

(A girl with a text card arrived at the map first, and a boy followed her very 1 quickly. She started to read the text on the card out in the soft mutter of voice, 2 pointing to the directions on the map with a finger.) 3

B1: (Taking the card from the girl) He 니까 남자지? [He means a man, right?] 4

G1: (Pointing to a man in the map) 이거 이거 이거. [This, this, this.] (She left 5

to write their answer on the board) 6 B1: (Even though she left, he kept reading to himself silently and pointing at 7 the position on the map in order to check the right answer, and then went to 8 her.)9

<The text on the card> Go straight one block and turn right at the corner. Go up the street two blocks. He is on your left. He is tall. He has blue eyes and short straight brown hair. He is wearing a purple hoodie and holding a soccer ball. He is your PE teacher, isn’t he? Spy 1: Picture ( ), ( )

B. The second pair

(A boy with a text card waited for his pair to come.) 1 B2: (Hesitating to find the starting point on the map) Where 2

G2: (Pointing to the starting point) 여기 앞에. [Here. In front.] 3

B2: (Moving his finger from the starting point) Go straight three blocks. 4 G2 & B2: (The boy moved his finger according to the direction, and the girl 5 pointed to the right place.) And turn left at the corner. 6 G2 & B2: It’s on your right. 7

B2: 여기야. [Here.] 8

G2: 여기. [Here] 9

(The boy wrote the number of the block on the text card, and the girl pointed 10 to the block with her finger. Then, he started to read the rest.) 11 B2: (Moving his finger along the sentence on the card) He is very tall. 12

G2: 3 번, 3 번, 가자. [Number three, number three, let’s go.] 13

(People in every block of the map were given a number. Since the person 14 numbered as three among people in the block that they mentioned was 15 tallest, she noticed he would be a spy without reading the rest of the text.) 16 B2: (He kept reading aloud, but did not read all, just reading important words) 17

Short black hair, wearing 어 맞네. [Ah, that’s right.] 18

G2: (The girl, who had waited for him, ran to the front) 3 번, 가자. [Number 19

3, let’s go.] 20 B2: (After writing the number on the card, he followed her.)21

287

<The text on the card> Go straight three blocks and turn left at the corner. He is on your right. He is very tall. He has small brown eyes and short black hair. He is wearing a yellow sweater with a black hat and holding a skateboard. He is tall, isn’t he? Spy 2: Picture ( ), ( )

C. The third pair

(A boy with a card started to read aloud.) 1 B3: Go straight two blocks. 2 B3: (Moving his finger on the map) Go straight two blocks. 3

G3: 쭉 가나요? (Is it ‘go straight’?) 4

B3: (Moving his finger according to the direction) She is on your right. 5 G3: (Trying to hand over a pen to the boy, but instead of giving, using the 6 pen to read along the sentence on the card) She is on your right. She is 7 (The pupils could not read the next word, ‘medium’) 8 B3: (Looking at their team members away from them and shouting) m-e-d-i-9

u-m이 뭐야? [What is m-e-d-i-u-m?] 10

G4: (from the seat) 어? [What?] 11

B3: m-e-d-i-u-m. 12 G3: (Laughing) 13 B3: (Without knowing the meaning of medium, he kept reading aloud.) Big 14

brown eyes. Big brown eyes, (pointing to a woman in the picture) 어, 이거다. 15

[Ah, that’s it.] big brown eyes랑 [big brown eyes and] 16

(G4 came up to them, and read the sentence and pointed to the right picture.) 17

G4: 3번, 3번. 3번이야. [Number three, number three, number three is right.] 18

G3: G3번. [G number 3] 19

G4: (Patting him on the shoulder) G3번. 빨리 가. [G number 3. Hurry up.] 20

<The text on the card> Go straight two blocks. She is on your right. She is medium height. She has big blue eyes and long curly red hair. She is wearing a tank top with a necklace. She is holding a mike, too. She is a singer, isn’t she? Spy 3: Picture ( ), ( )

D. The fourth pair

G5: (Holding a card) Go straight two blocks. 어딨냐? 시작점? [Where is it? 1

The starting point?] 2 B4: (Pointing to the starting point.) 3

G5: 어. [Right.] Go straight two blocks. She is, where? Right? Right? 4

B4: (Pointing to the right position)5

288

G5: (Pointing to the position) She is mega, 어디냐? Big blue eyes. [She is 6

mega, where is she? Big blue eyes.] 7 (She did not read the word, ‘medium’, and read some important words in the 8 next sentence.) 9

G5: (Pointing to the person on the picture) 이거. 잠깐만, 연필좀 갖고 와봐. 10

[This. Wait a minute. Can you bring me a pencil?] 11 (The boy went to bring a pencil.) 12 G5: I, curly, curly hair, (Moving her finger along the sentences) 13 (The boy brought the pencil.) 14

G5: 잠깐만, 줘봐. [Wait a minute. Give me.] 3번 이잖아. [It’s number three.] 15

(She wrote the number on the card and ran to the front.) 16

<The text on the card> Go straight two blocks. She is on your right. She is medium height. She has big blue eyes and long curly red hair. She is wearing a tank top with a necklace. She is holding a mike, too. She is a singer, isn’t she? Spy 4: Picture ( ), ( )

E. The map pasted on the back wall for the activity

289

Excerpt A7 An example of reading for practicing speaking: Teacher K4’s lesson

A. Level 1

Do you like apples? Yes, I do. I like apples.

Please go ahead. Help yourself.

Thank you. Mmm. It’s sweet.

Do you want some more? Yes, please.

Do you want some more? No, thanks. I’m full.

Hello. Wow, now you are very pretty. Thank you.

B. Level 2

Do you ? Yes, I do. I .

Please go ahead. __________________.

290

Thank you. Mmm. It’s .

Do you want ? / Yes, .

Do you some more? , thanks. I’m .

Hello. / Wow, now you are very . Thank you.

C. Level 3

Do ? Yes, I do. I .

Please . __________________.

Thank you. Mmm. It’s .

? Yes, .

? . I’m .

291

Hello. Wow, now you are . Thank you.

Excerpt A8 Comprehension check: Teachers NE2 and K6’s lesson, and Teacher

K4’s lesson

A. Teachers NE2 and K6’s lesson

1. The text and the activities in the textbook (Ham et al., 2015a, pp. 84-85)

292

2. Comprehension check for the text pupils read

NE2: Now, what we’ll do is listen first and then read together. So, listen 1 Ps: Carefully. 2 (They listened to the text through the CD, and then NE2 read sentences. The 3

pupils repeated after NE2. Here is a big hat./It has a flower./Whose hat is 4 this?/It is Betty’s hat.) 5

NE2: Is a hat big or small? 6 Ps: Big. 7 NE2: What does the hat have? 8 Ps: Flower. 9 NE2: It has a flower. 10 Ps: flower. 11 NE2: Whose hat is it? It is 12 Ps: It is Betty’s hat. 13 NE2: Let’s listen first. So listen 14 Ps: carefully. 15 (After they listened to the CD, they repeated after NE2. Here is a nice boat./It 16

has a flag./Whose boat is this?/It is Andy’s boat.) 17 NE2: Is a boat ugly or nice? 18 Ps: Nice. 19 NE2: Nice. Good. So, here is a nice boat. Does the boat have a flag? 20 Ps: Yes. 21 NE2: Okay, it has a flag. 22 Ps: It has a flag. 23 NE2: Whose boat is it? 24 Ps: It’s Andy’s boat. 25 NE2: Excellent, good. Okay. 26

B. Teacher K4’s lesson

1. Comprehension check for the text pupils read

K4: 이 원숭이 친구가 지렁이 친구한테 좋아하는 과일이 있냐고 물었는데 과1

일 이름이 뭐에요? [This monkey asked the earthworm if he liked certain 2

fruit. What was it?] 영어로 [In English], in English. 3 Ps: Apple. 4

K4: 자, 너 사과 좋아하니까 많이 먹어 어떻게 이야기했어요? [Well, what did 5 the monkey say ‘Since you like apples. help yourself.’ in English?] 6

Ps: Please go ahead. Help yourself. 7

K4: 라고 얘기를 했죠. [He said like that.] 사과 맛이 어땠대? [What did the 8 apple taste like?] It’s 9

Ps: Sweet. 10

K4: Sweet했대. [It was sweet.] 자, 그러면서 너무 잘 먹어. [Then, he ate a 11

lot.] 그래서 지렁이 친구한테 원숭이 친구가 더 주죠. 뭐라고 얘기하면서 더 12

줬어? [So, the monkey gave more to the earthworm. When he gave, what 13 did he say?] 14

Ps: Do you want some more?15

293

K4: 그랬더니, 처음에는? [And then, what was the first answer?] 16 Ps: Yes, please. 17 K4: 두 번째는? [At the second time?] 18 Ps: No, thanks. I’m full. 19

K4: 자, 그래서 이 사과를 많이 많이 먹고 나중에 뭐가 됐어요? [Now, so he 20 ate a lot of apples, and then what did he become?] 21

Ps: 나비. [A butterfly.] 22

K4: 그렇지. [Right.] In English? 23 Ps: Butterfly.24

2. The text and the activities in the textbook (Ham et al., 2015a, p. 104)

294

Appendix C

Tables

Table A1

The information on each school participating in research

School A

The public disclosure8 of School A information

School A Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

2 3 3 3 3 3 2 19 (2)

The number of pupils

52 68 60 55 65 74 11 385 (11)

The number of pupils per class*

26 22.7 20 18.3 21.7 24.7 5.5 20.3

Pupil-participants of School A for research May 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · 2 2 2 2 · 8

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 35 36 44 48 · 163

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · 3 · 3 · 6

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · · 1 1 · · 2

School B

The public disclosure of School B information

School B Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

8 9 9 7 8 9 2 52 (2)

8 The public disclosure of each school (01 April 2015): http://www.schoolinfo.go.kr/index.jsp

295

The number of pupils

210 212 210 172 180 216 5 1205 (5)

The number of pupils per class*

26.3 23.6 23.3 24.6 22.5 24 2.5 23.2

Pupil-participants of School B for research June 2015

The number of class participating

in the surveys

· · 1 1 1 1 · 4

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 23 25 23 23 · 94

The number of participants (the

interviews) · · · · · 3 · 3

The number of lessons for classroom

observation

· · · · · · · ·

School C

The public disclosure of School C information

School C Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

3 4 4 4 4 5 1 25 (1)

The number of pupils

79 103 96 80 96 97 9 560 (9)

The number of pupils per class*

26.3 25.8 24 20 24 19.4 9 22.4

Pupil-participants of School C for research June 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · 1 1 1 1 · 4

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 22 21 24 25 · 92

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · · · · · ·

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · · · 1 1 · 2

School D

The public disclosure of School D information

School D Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

4 4 3 4 3 4 0 22 (0)

296

The number of pupils

98 82 81 84 75 103 0 523 (0)

The number of pupils per class*

24.5 20.5 27 21 25 25.8 0 23.8

Pupil-participants of School D for research May, June 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · 2 1 2 1 · 6

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 52 21 43 26 · 142

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · · 6 · · ·

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · · · 1 1 · 2

School E

The public disclosure of School E information

School E Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

7 8 7 5 6 8 2 43 (2)

The number of pupils

165 191 172 121 149 184 10 992 (10)

The number of pupils per class*

23.6 23.9 24.6 24.2 24.8 23 5 23.1

Pupil-participants of School E for research June 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · 1 1 1 1 · 4

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 24 24 25 23 · 96

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · · · 3 · 3

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · · · · 1 · 1

School F

The public disclosure of School F information

School F Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

7 7 6 6 6 6 0 38 (0)

297

The number of pupils

183 189 148 154 145 161 0 980 (0)

The number of pupils per class*

26.1 27 24.7 25.7 24.2 26.8 0 25.8

Pupil-participants of School F for research June 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · 1 1 1 1 · 4

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 24 24 25 24 · 97

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · · · · · ·

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · 1 · · · · 1

School G

The public disclosure of School G information

School G Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

2 3 2 2 2 2 1 14 (1)

The number of pupils

48 66 46 32 44 51 3 290 (3)

The number of pupils per class*

24 22 23 16 22 25.5 3 20.7

Pupil-participants of School G for research June 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · 1 1 1 1 · 4

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 19 15 22 22 · 78

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · · 3 · · 3

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · · · 2 · · 2

School H

The public disclosure of School H information

School H Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

9 10 9 9 10 9 1 57 (1)

298

The number of pupils

300 314 270 299 319 273 9 1784 (9)

The number of pupils per class*

33.3 31.4 30 33.2 31.9 30.3 9 31.3

Pupil-participants of School H for research June, July 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · 1 1 1 1 · 4

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · 29 29 31 29 · 118

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · · 4 · · 4

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · 1 · · · · 1

School I

The public disclosure of School I information

School I Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Special classes Total

The number of class

5 5 4 4 4 4 2 28 (2)

The number of pupils

108 123 100 87 101 99 16 634 (16)

The number of pupils per class*

21.6 24.6 25 21.8 25.3 24.8 8 22.6

Pupil-participants of School I for research June 2015

The number of class participating in the surveys

· · · · · · · ·

The number of participants (the questionnaires)

· · · · · · · ·

The number of participants (the interviews)

· · · · · · · ·

The number of lessons for classroom observation

· · · · 1 · · 1

* ‘The number of pupils per class’ means the number of pupils by adding the pupils in the same School Year together and dividing the total of the pupils by the number of classes. That is why some numbers reveal a decimal. In fact, each class might have the different number of pupils, but the difference in numbers is very slight.

299

Table A2

The fundamental information of the teachers replying to the questionnaires

The district office of Education Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid Dongbu 28 14.7 14.7 14.7

Seoubu 23 12.0 12.1 26.8

Nambu 7 3.7 3.7 30.5

Bukbu 4 2.1 2.1 32.6

Jungbu 19 9.9 10.0 42.6

Gangdong Songpa 16 8.4 8.4 51.1

Gangseo 19 9.9 10.0 61.1

Gangnam 39 20.4 20.5 81.6

Dongjak Gwanak 12 6.3 6.3 87.9

Seongdong Gwangjin 19 9.9 10.0 97.9

Seongbuk 4 2.1 2.1 100.0

Total 190 99.5 100.0

Missing 1 .5

Total 191 100.0

Teaching Experience Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid Less than 1 year 4 2.1 2.1 2.1

1 year to less than 3 years 11 5.8 5.8 7.9

3 years to less than 5 years 16 8.4 8.5 16.4

5 years to less than 10 years 39 20.4 20.6 37.0

10 years to less than 20 years 85 44.5 45.0 82.0

More than or equal to 20 years 34 17.8 18.0 100.0

Total 189 99.0 100.0

Missing 2 1.0

Total 191 100.0

English Teaching Experience Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent Valid Less than 1 year 28 14.7 14.7 14.7

1 year to less than 3 years 64 33.5 33.7 48.4

3 years to less than 5 years 31 16.2 16.3 64.7

5 years to less than 10 years 48 25.1 25.3 90.0

10 years to less than 15 years 9 4.7 4.7 94.7

More than or equal to 15 years 10 5.2 5.3 100.0

Total 190 99.5 100.0

Missing 1 .5

Total 191 100.0

300

Taking ELT (English Language Teaching) Lectures at Higher Education Institutions Frequency Per cent

An intensive course of primary English education in National University of Education

25 13.1

Undergraduate ELT courses for young learners 115 60.2

A bachelor’s degree in English education major in university 16 8.4

A master’s degree in English education 56 29.3

N/A 39 20.42

TEE Certificate Frequency Per cent

TEE-A (Teaching English in English Ace) 23 12.0

TEE-M (Teaching English in English Master) 34 17.8

English Teaching Status at the Moment of the Research Frequency Per cent

Valid Per cent

Valid

Yes

the pupils in Year 3 as a subject teacher 14 7.3 7.3

the pupils in Year 4 as a subject teacher 15 7.9 7.9

the pupils in Year 5 as a subject teacher 19 9.9 9.9

the pupils in Year 6 as a subject teacher 15 7.9 7.9

the pupils in Year 3 as a class teacher 2 1.0 1.0

the pupils in Year 4 as a class teacher 4 2.1 2.1

the pupils in Year 5 as a class teacher 3 1.6 1.6

the pupils in Year 6 as a class teacher 2 1.0 1.0

No 139 72.8 72.8

Their Pupils’ Academic Standards Frequency Per cent

Valid Per cent

Cumulative Per cent

Valid High 43 22.5 22.8 22.8

Intermediate 94 49.2 49.7 72.5

Low 50 26.2 26.5 98.9

I do not know 1 .5 .5 99.5

Other 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 189 99.0 100.0

Missing 2 1.0

Total 191 100.0

Their Pupils’ English Proficiency Frequency Per cent

Valid Per cent

Cumulative Per cent

Valid High 40 20.9 21.2 21.2

Intermediate 83 43.5 43.9 65.1

Low 60 31.4 31.7 96.8

I do not know 6 3.1 3.2 100.0

Total 189 99.0 100.0

Missing 2 1.0

Total 191 100.0

301

Table A3

The information about the teacher-participants participating in interviews

Head Teacher

School

Gender

Description

Degree Teaching careers in primary English education

HT1 D F An MEd degree in educational administration

Since she was a vice head teacher, she had been interested in primary English education. She had much experience in planning various English programmes such as English camps for all the schools in the jurisdiction of a certain district office of Education. For her school, she had been managing adequate English programmes for the pupils.

HT2 C F Both an MA degree and a PhD degree in English education

For a long time, she had worked in the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education as a superintendent who was in charge of primary English education. She had still been working for primary English education in Seoul, and she had been managing school English programmes for the pupils in her school.

HT3 G F An MA degree in Bicultural, bilingual studies in the USA

She had written English textbooks for primary school pupils. She became a head teacher of this school through principal invitation and public subscription system. One of her major management plans was global citizenship education which connected English education with character education. She had been working for primary English education in Seoul. The school English programmes were being systematically run in her school.

Teacher School

Gender

Descriptions

Degree Teaching

experience English teaching

experience

Teaching careers in primary English

education

K1 A F A bachelor’s degree in English education major9

15 years 7 years (It was the third year that she worked for School A, and she was teaching English for the pupils in Years 3 and 4 as an English language subject teacher. She was co-teaching with NE1 from Australia for some part of her teaching hours.)

A TEE-M certificate from the SMOE

9 Between the very end of 20th century and the very beginning of 21st centry, there was a temporary policy to hire some primary teachers among people with a secondary teaching certificate, who completed a required course. Teacher K1 was awarded a primary teaching certificate after becoming a primary school teacher, so her major at university was English education, not primary education.

302

K2 A M A bachelor’s degree in primary education

(He had taken lectures related to primary English education at university.)

(He was doing an MEd course in primary mathematics education as a part-time student.)

3 months (He was a novice teacher who started his teaching career three months ago.)

3 months (He was teaching English for the pupils in Years 5 and 6, and co-teaching with NE1 for some part of his teaching hours.)

K3 C M A bachelor’s degree in primary education

(He had taken lectures related to primary English education at university.)

(He was doing his MEd course in primary English education as a part-time student.)

9 months 3 months (In the previous year, he taught a practical course, and at the moment he was teaching English for the pupils in Year 6.)

K5 D F More than 20 years

Almost 8 years (She was teaching English to the pupils in Years 4 and 6 with NE2 who was from the UK.)

A TEE-A certificate from the SMOE

K7 E F A bachelor’s degree in primary education

(She had taken an intensive course of primary English education.)

1 year and 3 months

3 months (In the previous year, she taught music, and at the moment she was teaching English to the pupils in Year 6 with NE3 from the USA.)

K8 F F A bachelor’s degree in

2 years 3 months (She had been teaching the

303

primary education

(She had taken lectures related to primary English education at the university.)

pupils in Years 3 and 4 English. For some part of her teaching hours, she was co-teaching with a native English-speaking assistant teacher.)

K9 G F A bachelor’s degree in primary education

An MA degree in English education in the USA

More than 30 years

More than 15 years

(She was teaching English to the pupils in Year 5 with NE4 from the USA.)

A Master10 teacher of English

A TEE-M certificate from the SMOE

She had written English textbooks.

K10 H F A bachelor’s degree in primary education

An MEd degree in English education

(She had completed her doctoral course in English education.)

Almost 25 years

More than 15 years (It was the second year for her to teach in School H, and she was teaching English to the pupils in Year 3. Even though there was a native English-speaking assistant teacher in her school, she taught alone, and the native English-speaking assistant teacher was co-teaching with the other teachers who were teaching the pupils in Years 4, 5, and 6.)

She had written English textbooks, and she was still writing English textbooks for the new curriculum. (One of the writers who wrote the English textbooks which eight schools out of nine schools participating in the research were using)

10 Since 2012, South Korea has instituted the Master Teacher designation as one of three opportunities for promotion: becoming a Master Teacher; becoming a head teacher; and becoming an education specialist like a school inspector or a research (National Center on Education and the Economy, n.d.). Unlike head teachers or education specialists who do not teach, Master Teachers keep teaching for decreased class hours, and take on new responsibilities such as mentoring, providing professional development and curriculum design.

304

Varied experiences in planning and running projects related to English education in Seoul

K11 I F A bachelor’s degree in primary education

17 years 3 months

4 years and 3 months (It was the fifth year that she taught English as a subject teacher, and she was teaching English to the pupils in Year 5. She was also responsible for the school work related to English education.)

3 months intensive teacher training course of English language

K12 H F A bachelor’s degree in primary education (She had taken an intensive course of primary English education.)

(She was doing her MEd course in primary English education as a part-time student.)

6 years 3 months

1 year and 3 months (School H was her second school. In the previous school, she had taught English for one year. In School H, she was teaching English to the pupils in Year 4 with an English native assistant teacher.)

K13 A F A bachelor’s degree in primary education

(She had taken lectures related to primary English education at the university.)

Almost 10 years

4 years (In school A, she had taught English as a subject teacher for two years, but at the moment of research she did not teach English because she was teaching the pupils in Year 2 as a class teacher11.)

A TEE-A certificate

6 months intensive teacher training course in English language (Seoul and the UK)

11 Class teachers mean teachers who have responsibility for their general all-round education (Arnold

& Rixon, 2008).

305

K14 B F A bachelor’s degree in primary education

An MEd degree in primary English education

Almost 25 years

Almost 15 years

(She had taught English for two years in School B, but she was not teaching English at the moment of the research because she was teaching the pupils in Year 3 as a class teacher.)

A TEE-M certificate

She had taught the Korean pupils as a dispatched teacher in the Korean schools both in Singapore and in Taiwan.

She had written the English textbooks twice, and she was still writing the English textbooks with Teachers K10 and K15.

A talented teacher trainer and lesson consultant.

K15 E F A bachelor’s degree in primary education

An MEd degree in primary English education

(She had completed her doctoral course in English education.)

More than 15 years

Almost 10 years

(She had taught English as both a class teacher and a subject teacher, but at the moment she was not teaching English because she was teaching the pupils in Year 6 as a class teacher. Her pupils were learning English from K7 and NE3.)

She had written the English textbooks, and she was still writing the English textbooks with K10 and K14.

306

Table A4

The age range and school year of pupils participating in the questionnaire

School Year

Total 3 4 5 6

Age

7 1 0 0 0 1

8 146 3 0 0 149

9 79 119 1 0 199

10 0 72 152 3 227

11 0 1 83 136 220

12 0 0 0 80 80

Valid 226 195 236 219 876

Missing 1 0 1 2 4

Total 227 195 237 221 880

Table A5

The results of the validity and the reliability of Likert scale questions in the teacher-questionnaires

Construct

Components

Qeustions

Factor analysis Reliability

Factor loading

Communalities

Eigen values

Variances (%)

Cronbach’s

English reading and writing at school

Positive attitudes towards reading and writing in English textbooks

Q15 (10) .853 .794 7.202 36.010 .953

Q15 (06) .830 .739

Q15 (08) .824 .708

Q15 (07) .806 .678

Q21 (06) .806 .700

Q21 (02) .804 .677

Q15 (09) .793 .728

Q21 (07) .770 .734

Q21 (05) .729 .718

Q15 (05) .724 .655

Q15 (02) .700 .500

The academic burden of reading and

Q21 (04) .834 .748 4.151 20.754 .891

Q21 (03) .788 .744

Q15 (04) .782 .619

307

writing in English textbooks

Q15 (03) .771 .704

Q21 (01) .730 .610

Q15 (01) .730 .551

The effect of English lessons

Q04 (01) .836 .733 2.390 11.952 .795

Q04 (02) .833 .752

Q04 (03) .780 .652

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .895

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2170.258

df 190

Sig. .000

Table A6

The results of the validity and the reliability of Likert scale questions in the pupil-questionnaires

Construct

Components

Qeustions

Factor analysis Reliability

Factor loading

Communalities

Eigen values

Variances (%)

Cronbach’s

English learning and English reading and writing lessons

Positive attitudes towards English reading and writing lessons

Q 21 .861 .747 3.567 27.440 .901 Q 11 .808 .665

Q 19 .735 .728

Q 20 .730 .712

Q 10 .663 .708

Q 9 .619 .685

Positive attitudes towards English learning

Q 6 (1) .819 .798 2.989 22.991 .864

Q 6 (2) .812 .791

Q 6 (3) .737 .677

The learning load in reading and writing lessons

Q 23 .813 .673 2.504 19.262 .776

Q 13 .813 .662

Q 12 .704 .614

Q 22 .691 .601

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .861

308

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 6069.740

df 78

Sig. .000

Table A7

The outline of each observed lesson

Lesson

Teacher Unit Title

Stage Teaching and Learning

A K1

Unit 5. Where Is My Bag?

Goals ◦ Let’s read ‘My Messy Room’ Together. ◦ Let’s write a poem about a messy room.

I* ◦ Greeting & Review: Song - Flash movies, whole-class work** ◦ Key expressions and words - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Motivation: Book - My messy room - Storybook & PPT, whole-class work

D* <Pre-reading> ◦ New words - PPT, whole-class work

<While-reading> ◦ Reading, shared reading - PPT, whole-class work

<Post-reading> ◦ Making a poem - PPT, group work**, individual work**

C* ◦ Wrap-up: Reading Again - PPT, whole-class work

B K2, NE1

Unit 5. Whose Cap Is This?

Goals ◦ Let’s read the story. ◦ Let’s make a poster.

I ◦ Motivation - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Lesson goals & Activities ◦ Book cover

D <Presentation> ◦ Words, reading by the teachers - PPT, whole-class work (Gold Ax and Silver Ax)

<Practice> ◦ Quiz time - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Filling in the blanks (Making a dialogue) - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Roleplay - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Song: Whose tail? - Flash movies, whole-class work

<Production> ◦ Make a poster - Worksheet, group work

C ◦ Wrap-up: Reading a poster - Worksheet, whole-class work

309

C K3

Unit 5. What Does

He Look Like?

Goals ◦ Reading and writing ‘Where’s the ___?’ ‘Go straight, and turn ________.’

I ◦ Greeting, Date & Weather ◦ Motivation - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Lesson goal & activities

D <Presentation> ◦ Activity 1: Ready with Textbook - The textbook (p. 100, 101), the big picture,

individual work, whole-class work

<Practice> ◦ Activity 2: Testing the Sentence - PPT, picture cards, sentence cards, group work

<Production> ◦ Activity 3: Be Avengers - Sentence cards, group work

C ◦ Wrap-up - PPT, whole-class work

D K4 Unit 6. Help

Yourself

Goals ◦ We can say ‘Help yourself.’, ‘Do you want some more _____?’ and ‘Yes, please./ No, thanks. I’m full.’

I ◦ Greetings, date & weather ◦ Lesson goals & activities - Activity 1: Fun Time - Activity 2: Run Fast - Activity 3: Throw Bomb Game ◦ Review - Picture cards, whole-class work

D <Presentation> ◦ Activity 1: Fun Time - The textbook (p. 104), CD, PPT, whole-class

work (The Very Hungry Caterpillar)

<Practice> ◦ Activity 2: Run Fast - Picture cards, team work**

<Production> ◦ Activity 3 Throw Bomb game - PPT, cards, individual work

C ◦ Wrap-up - Whole-class work

E K5

Unit 6. Go

Straight and Turn Right

Goals ◦ We can read and complete a descriptive passage about a friend.

I ◦ Greeting & Review - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Motivation: The Rabbit - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Lesson goals & Activities - Mission 1: Read and Match! - Mission 2: Find the Spies! - Mission 3: Describe your Manito!

D <Presentation> ◦ Mission 1: Read and Match - The textbook (p. 86), PPT, Whole-class work

310

<Practice> ◦ Mission 2: Find the Spies! - PPT, mission cards, maps, Team and pair work

<Production> ◦ Mission 3: Describe your Manito - PPT, worksheet, Manito cards, pair work

C ◦ Write & Share - Worksheet, whole-class work ◦ Wrap Up - PPT, Whole-class work

F K6, NE2

Unit 5. Whose Cap Is This?

Goals ◦ We are going to learn how to read and write about the describing objects.

I ◦ Greeting & Weather ◦ Song - CD, flashcards, whole-class work ◦ Motivation: Guessing Game - Objects, whole-class work ◦ Review - PPT, whole-class work ◦ Lesson goals

D <Presentation> ◦ Let’s Read - The textbook (p. 84), CD, objects, picture cards,

whole-class work,

<Practice> ◦ Read and Check - CD, whole-class work, individual work ◦ Read and Role play - PPT, dialogue cards, pair work, whole class

work ◦ Read and Connect - Picture cards, sentence cards, PPT, group work,

whole-class work

<Production> ◦ Unscramble Game - PPT, whiteboards, group work

C ◦ Wrap-up: Reading aloud - Big sentence sheet on the board, whole-class work

G K7, ME3

Unit 5. What Does

He Look Like?

Goals ◦ We are able to speak and read the sentences asking and describing appearance.

I ◦ Greeting & Lesson Goals

D <Presentation> ◦ Pass the ball: practice - PPT, ball, whole-class work

<Practice> ◦ Whisper Game - Cards, PPT, whole-class work based on group

work

<Production> ◦ Guess Who? - Sentence cards, worksheet, PPT, group work

311

C ◦ Review - Worksheet, whole-class work ◦ Next lesson

H K8

Unit 6. Do You Have a Pencil?

Goals ◦ Let’s read and write the words or the phrases asking and answering the owner of the object.

I ◦ Greeting & Review - Flash (song), whole-class work

D <Presentation> ◦ Let’s Read and Write - The textbook (p. 66), CD, whole-class work,

individual work

<Practice> ◦ Let’s Write - The textbook (appendix), individual work

<Production> ◦ Snakes and Ladders Game - PPT, game board (worksheet), pair work

C ◦ Wrap-up

I K9, NE4

Unit 4. May I Take a

Picture?

Goals ◦ Let’s read ‘Kevin and the Giving Tree’. ◦ Let’s do roleplay and complete the sentences

asking the permission. I ◦ Song (music video)

◦ Review: Stop Game - Flashcards, whole-class work

D <Presentation> ◦ The Teachers’ Roleplay ◦ Read & Role-play - CD, the textbook (p. 64-65), whole class work

<Practice> ◦ Read after the NT & Take a role and read - CD, the textbook, whole-class work, pair work ◦ Memorise the Story - Blackboard, whole class work ◦ Show the Role-play: Teachers’ demonstration ◦ Role-play - The textbook, pair work

<Production> ◦ Write (Complete) five sentences & Read - Worksheet, individual work ◦ Game using five sentences they made - Worksheet, pair work

C ◦ Wrap-up

J K9, NE4 Unit 6. Help

Yourself

Goals ◦ Let’s read a comic recommending food. ◦ Let’s do an activity to write a text to introduce food, and do a pretending game to serve the guest.

I ◦ Greeting ◦ Motivation: Showing a poster - Poster, whole-class work ◦ Lesson Activities

312

D <Presentation> ◦ Reading a Comic (textbook) - The Textbook, individual work, whole- class work (The Very Hungry Caterpillar)

<Practice 1> ◦ Guiding the Activity: Practicing the Key Expressions

- Poster, whole class work <Production 1> ◦ Making a Poster - Coloured A4 paper, individual work

<Practice 2> ◦ Reading Practice - Pupils’ work (poster), group work <Production 2> ◦ Pretending Game - Pupils’ work (poster), pair work

C ◦ Wrap-up - Whole class work

K K10

Unit 7. Look!

It’s Very Big

Goals ◦ We are going to describe size, length and appearance.

I ◦ Greeting, Lesson Goals & Activities ◦ Motivation: Gogo’s movie - Animation, whole-class work

D <Presentation> ◦ Let’s Read - The textbook, whole-class work ◦ Song: ‘M Is a Consonant Song’ - Flash, whole-class work

<Practice> ◦ Game 1: Words Starting with M -Speed Word Game

- Group work, whole-class work

<Production> ◦ Game 2: Word Lotto - Worksheet, secret bag, individual work

C ◦ Wrap-up: Song

L K11

Unit 5. May I Drink Some

Water?

Goals ◦ We are going to learn about asking someone for permission.

I ◦ Greeting, Lesson Goal and Activities - Activity 1 p. 88-89 - Activity 2 Four-Cut Cartoon - Activity 3 Battleship

D <Pre-reading> ◦ Words - CD, whole-class work

<While-reading> ◦ Silent reading: ‘Mr. Tree, Please!’ - The textbook, individual work ◦ Comprehension Check - Whole-class work ◦ Watching (Listening to) the Story - CD, whole-class work

313

<Production> ◦ Make a Four-cut Cartoon - PPT, worksheet, group work

C ◦ Wrap-up: Reading the friends’ work - Individual work

* Introduction Development: P-P-P (Presentation, Practice, Production), or Pre-reading, While-reading, Post-reading Closing

** Individual work means working individually or producing individual output whether or not there is competition with the others.

Pair work means working collaboratively in pairs, playing games with pairs, or producing collaborative output with pairs whether or not there is competition with the other pairs.

Group work means working collaboratively in groups, playing games in groups, or producing collaborative output with group members whether or not there is competition with the other groups.

Teamwork means working collaboratively in teams, playing games in teams, or producing collaborative output with team members whether or not there is competition with the other teams. Usually, a team could be composed of a couple of groups or girls versus boys.

Whole-class work means working together in class with a teacher.

Table A8

Reading activities used mainly by teachers

[T-Q18]

Reading the texts in the textbooks in

various ways

Doing reading

activities in the

textbooks

Reading various reading

materials

Playing reading games

Doing activities

with authentic purpose

Total

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 70 46.7 39 26.0 7 4.67 19 12.7 15 10.0 150 100.0

Rank 2 26 17.6 50 33.8 11 7.43 44 29.7 17 11.5 148 100.0

Rank 3 24 16.2 18 12.2 25 16.9 49 33.1 32 21.6 148 100.0

Total 120 80.5 107 71.8 43 28.9 112 75.2 64 43.0 446 400.0

Weighted total

286 235 68 194 111

Average 1.92 1.58 0.46 1.30 0.75

Rank 1 2 5 3 4

No Choice 33 46 110 41 89

Missing 38 38 38 38 38

Total 191 191 191 191 191

314

Table A9

Writing activities used mainly by teachers

[T-Q24]

Activities in the textbooks

Writing games

Writing various kinds of texts in meaningful situations with authentic purpose

Writing sentences based on patterns of model sentences

N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 89 62.2 27 18.9 11 7.7 8 5.6

Rank 2 12 8.5 57 40.1 16 11.3 22 15.5

Rank 3 12 8.5 30 21.1 34 23.9 25 17.6

Total 113 79.6 114 80.3 61 43.0 55 38.7

Weighted total

303 225 99 93

Average 3.03 2.25 0.99 0.93

Rank 1 2 3 4

No Choice 30 29 82 88

Missing 48 48 48 48

Total 191 191 191 191

Writing freely in terms of given topics using given words or expressions

Copying words, sentences or texts exactly

Writing freely in terms of given topics

Total

N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 6 4.2 2 1.4 0 0 143 100.0

Rank 2 16 11.3 16 11.3 3 2.1 142 100.0

Rank 3 18 12.7 18 12.7 5 3.5 142 100.0

Total 40 28.2 36 25.4 8 5.6 427 300.0

Weighted total

68 56 11

Average 0.68 0.56 0.11

Rank 5 6 7

No Choice 103 107 135

Missing 48 48 48

Total 191 191 191

315

Table A10

Teachers’ considerations in designing reading and writing activities

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

161 84.3% 30 15.7% 191 100.0%

[T-Q8]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Pupils’ interest 135 22.0 83.9

Pupils’ confidence 86 14.0 53.4

Pupils’ communicative competence based on the integrated use of four language skills

121 19.7 75.2

Pupils’ reading and writing ability 92 15.0 57.1

Meaningful situations 106 17.3 65.8

Easy ways of making materials 27 4.4 16.8

Spending appropriate time during classes 46 7.5 28.6

Other 1 0.2 0.6

Total 614 100.0 381.4

Table A11

The ways teachers integrate the language skills for teaching reading and writing

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

170 89.0 21 11.0 191 100.0

[T-Q5]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

I teach reading and writing respectively 13 5.2 7.6

I integrate reading and writing 85 34.1 50.0

After teaching reading and writing respectively, I offer integrated reading and writing activities.

32 12.9 18.8

I integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing 83 33.3 48.8

After teaching listening, speaking, reading and writing respectively, I present the integrated activities of four language skills

36 14.5 21.2

Other 1 0.4 0.6

Total 250 100.0 147.1

316

Table A12

The ways to have pupils interested in English reading and writing

[T-Q10]

Fun activities

Aid materials

Activities appropriate for pupils’ English abilities

Various reading

materials

Activities appropriate for pupils’ cognitive

levels

Total

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 67 42.4 52 32.9 20 12.7 8 5.1 11 7.0 158 100.0

Rank 2 46 29.1 42 26.6 35 22.2 17 10.8 18 11.4 158 100.0

Rank 3 21 13.2 32 20.1 54 34.0 32 20.1 20 12.6 159 100.0

Total 134 84.8 126 79.7 109 69.0 57 36.1 49 31.0 475 300.0

Weighted total

314 272 184 90 89

Average 1.98 1.72 1.16 0.57 0.56

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

No Choice 26 34 51 103 111

Missing 31 31 31 31 31

Total 191 191 191 191 191

Table A13

The requisites for pupils to be good at English reading and writing

[T-Q3]

Interest in English reading and writing

The ability to communicate in spoken English

Mother tongue literacy

Understanding the relationship between sounds and spellings (phonics) and reading aloud the words

N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 37 22.0 36 21.6 66 39.5 18 10.7

Rank 2 42 25.0 40 24.0 12 7.2 28 16.6

Rank 3 31 18.5 26 15.6 13 7.8 35 20.7

Rank 4 21 12.5 25 15.0 17 10.2 25 14.8

Rank 5 21 12.5 19 11.4 14 8.4 24 14.2

Rank 6 14 8.3 13 7.8 14 8.4 25 14.8

Rank 7 2 1.2 8 4.8 31 18.6 14 8.3

Total 168 100.0 167 100.0 167 100.0 169 100.0

Weighted total

843 813 768 705

Average 5.02 4.87 4.60 4.17

Rank 1 2 3 4

317

No Choice 3 4 4 2

Missing 20 20 20 20

Total 191 191 191 191

Knowing a lot of English words and understanding their meanings

Confidence in English reading and writing

Understanding English grammar rules and using them

Total

N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 7 4.2 7 4.2 0 0 171 100.0

Rank 2 27 16.1 22 13.1 0 0 171 100.0

Rank 3 34 20.2 21 12.5 10 6.0 170 100.0

Rank 4 35 20.8 35 20.8 9 5.4 167 100.0

Rank 5 27 16.1 35 20.8 25 15.0 165 100.0

Rank 6 35 20.8 27 16.1 37 22.2 165 100.0

Rank 7 3 1.8 21 12.5 86 51.5 165 100.0

Total 168 100.0 168 100.0 167 100.0 1174 700.0

Weighted total

675 606 321

Average 4.02 3.61 1.92

Rank 5 6 7

No Choice 2 3 4

Missing 20 20 20

Total 191 191 191

Table A14

The ways teachers teach pupils with different English proficiency

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent 161 84.3 30 15.7 191 100.0

[T-Q13]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Offering same activities, but having pupils complete them according to their proficiency

144 23.9 89.4

Placing pupils at different English proficiency levels within the same group

124 20.6 77.0

Offering different activities according to pupils’ English proficiency

111 18.4 68.9

Instructing low-level pupils individually during lessons

106 17.6 65.8

318

Instructing low-level pupils individually in extra time

60 10.0 37.3

Placing pupils at a similar English proficiency level within the same group

50 8.3 31.1

Assigning pupils to the different English classes according to their English proficiency

8 1.3 5.0

Total 603 100.0 374.5

Table A15

The difficulty level of writing activities chosen by teachers

[T-Q23] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid Very easy level 16 8.4 11.3 11.3

Slightly easy level 86 45.0 60.6 71.8

Slightly difficult level 39 20.4 27.5 99.3

Very difficult level 1 0.5 0.7 100.0

Total 142 74.3 100.0

Missing 49 25.7

Total 191 100.0

Table A16

The difficulty level of reading activities chosen by teachers

[T-Q17] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid Very easy level 10 5.2 6.6 6.6

Slightly easy level 97 50.8 63.8 70.4

Slightly difficult level 44 23.0 28.9 99.3

Very difficult level 1 0.5 0.7 100.0

Total 152 79.6 100.0

Missing 39 20.4

Total 191 100.0

Table A17

The learning organisation used by teachers for reading activities

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

150 78.5 41 21.5 191 100.0

319

[T-Q16]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Individual work 56 19.9 37.3

Pair work 95 33.7 63.3

Group work 96 34.0 64.0

Whole-class work 35 12.4 23.3

Total 282 100.0 188.0

Table A18

The learning organisation used by teachers for writing activities

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

143 74.9 48 25.1 191 100.0

[T-Q22]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Individual work 114 42.7 79.7

Pair work 59 22.1 41.3

Group work 70 26.2 49.0

Whole-class work 24 9.0 16.8

Total 267 100.0 186.7

Table A19

The materials used when teaching English reading and writing

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

171 89.5 20 10.5 191 100.0

[T-Q6]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Textbooks and CD ROMs 127 27.8 74.3

Word cards or sentence cards 77 16.8 45.0

PowerPoint materials 103 22.5 60.2

Worksheets 103 22.5 60.2

Authentic materials 42 9.2 24.6

Other 5 1.1 2.9

Total 457 100.0 267.3

320

Table A20

The ways to gain materials when not having enough materials from the textbooks

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent 161 84.3 30 15.7 191 100.0

[T-Q14]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

I make the materials myself. 96 20.0 59.6

I use materials downloaded from teachers’ online communities.

149 31.1 92.5

I make and share materials with my colleagues. 32 6.7 19.9 I use authentic materials (e.g. English

storybooks, newspapers, and magazines). 57 11.9 35.4

I search for and use materials on the Internet. 118 24.6 73.3 I use commercial resource books or workbooks. 27 5.6 16.8

Total 479 100.0 297.5

Table A21

The ways teachers alter the contents in the textbooks

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

160 83.8% 31 16.2% 191 100.0%

[T-Q7]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Adding more words than those in the textbooks 51 18.5 31.9

Adding more language expressions than those in the textbooks

69 25.0 43.1

Changing the activities in the textbooks 130 47.1 81.3

Reordering the units in the textbooks 23 8.3 14.3

Other 3 1.1 1.9

Total 276 100.0 172.5

Table A22

Teachers’ own evaluation of English reading and writing lessons

(1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neutral 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree)

[T-Q4] (F: Frequency

VP: Valid Per cent)

Valid

Missing Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

321

Pupils’ interest in English reading and writing was improved through lessons.

F 5 15 54 80 17 171 20 191

VP 2.9 8.8 31.6 46.8 9.9 100.0

11.7 31.6 56.7 100.0

Pupils’ confidence in English reading and writing was improved through lessons.

F 7 11 65 69 18 170 21 191

VP 4.1 6.5 38.2 40.6 10.6 100.0

10.6 38.2 51.2 100.0

Pupils could improve their ability of English reading and writing through lessons.

F 3 12 39 82 34 170 21 191

VP 1.8 7.1 22.9 48.2 20.0 100.0

8.9 22.9 68.2 100.0

Table A23

English language learning interest

Table A24

English language learning confidence

[P-Q6 (3)] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 82 9.5 277 31.9 Disagree 195 22.5

Agree 375 43.3 590 68.1 Strongly agree 215 24.8

Total 867 100.0 867 100.0

Missing 13

Total 880

[P-Q6 (2)] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 51 5.8 184 21.1 Disagree

133 15.3

Agree 375 43.0 688 78.9

Strongly agree 313 35.9

Total 872 100.0 872 100.0

Missing 8

Total 880

322

Table A25

English language learning preference

[P-Q6 (1)] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 49 5.6 179 20.5

Disagree 130 14.9

Agree 409 46.8 694 79.4

Strongly agree 285 32.6

Total 873 100.0 873 100.0

Missing 7

Total 880

Table A26

The interest in English reading lessons

[P-Q9] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 52 5.9 174 19.8

Disagree 122 13.9

Agree 372 42.5 701 80.1

Strongly agree 329 37.6

Total 875 100.0 875 100.0

Missing 5

Total 880

Table A27

The preference for English reading lessons

[P-Q10] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 61 7.1

234 27.1 Disagree 173 20.0

Agree 351 40.6 630 72.9 Strongly agree

279 32.3

Total 864 100.0 864 100.0

Missing 16

Total 880

323

Table A28

The interest in English writing lessons

[P-Q19] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 83 9.5 266 30.5

Disagree 183 21.0

Agree 340 38.9 607 69.5

Strongly agree 267 30.6

Total 873 100.0 873 100.0

Missing 7

Total 880

Table A29

Pupils’ preferences for English writing lessons

[P-Q20] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 98 11.3 314 36.1

Disagree 216 24.8

Agree 321 36.9 557 63.9

Strongly agree 236 27.1

Total 871 100.0 871 100.0

Missing 9

Total 880

Table A30

Pupils’ favourite reading activities

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

870 98.9 10 1.1 880 100.0

[P-Q15]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Various reading materials 338 24.6 38.9

English reading games 658 48.0 75.6

Reading activities in the textbook 303 22.1 34.8

Other 73 5.3 8.4

Total 1372 100.0 157.7

324

Table A31

Pupils’ favourite writing activities

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

860 97.7% 20 2.3% 880 100.0%

[P-Q25]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Controlled writing 81 6.0 9.4

Guided writing 230 17.0 26.7

Free writing (creative writing) 511 37.9 59.4

Doing writing activities in the textbook 451 33.4 52.4

Other 77 5.7 9.0

Total 1350 100.0 157.0

Table A32

The difficulty of English reading lessons

[P-Q12] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 446 51.1 701 80.3

Disagree 255 29.2

Agree 111 12.7 172 19.7

Strongly agree 61 7.0

Total 873 100.0 873 100.0

Missing 7

Total 880

Table A33

The difficulty of English writing lessons

[P-Q22] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 404 46.3 687 78.8

Disagree 283 32.5

Agree 134 15.4 185 21.2

Strongly agree 51 5.8

Total 872 100.0 872 100.0

Missing 8

Total 880

325

Table A34

The heavy workload in English reading lessons

[P-Q13] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid

Strongly disagree 284 32.6 581 66.7

Disagree 297 34.1

Agree 211 24.3 289 33.3

Strongly agree 78 9.0

Total 870 100.0 870 100.0

Missing 10

Total 880

Table A35

The heavy workload in English writing lessons

[P-Q23] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 264 30.2 604 69.2

Disagree 340 38.9

Agree 192 22.0 269 30.8

Strongly agree 77 8.8

Total 873 100.0 873 100.0

Missing 7

Total 880

Table A36

The effect of English reading lessons

[P-Q11] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 80 9.7 267 32.3

Disagree 187 22.6

Agree 371 44.8 561 67.7

Strongly agree 190 22.9

Total 828 100.0 828 100.0

Missing 52

Total 880

326

Table A37

The effect of English writing lessons

[P-Q21] Frequency Valid

Per cent Frequency Valid

Per cent

Valid Strongly disagree 91 11.0 297 35.8

Disagree 206 24.8

Agree 353 42.5 533 64.2

Strongly agree 180 21.7

Total 830 100.0 830 100.0

Missing 50

Total 880 100.0

Table A38

The reasons for the positive effect of English reading lessons in the open question

N2421 (low: 17, intermediate: 190, high: 214 pupils)

[P-Q11-1] Low Intermediate High Total

n % n % n % n %

Learning more through lessons

9 52.9% 72 37.9% 57 26.6% 138 32.8%

Teachers’ teaching 5 29.4% 27 14.2% 38 17.8% 70 16.6%

Repeated reading 0 0 22 11.6% 27 12.6% 49 11.6%

Interesting activities 2 11.8% 22 11.6% 22 10.3% 46 10.9%

Easy and basic reading 0 0 8 4.2% 18 8.4% 26 6.2%

Review of what they had already known

0 0 3 1.6% 14 6.5% 17 4.0%

Others 1 5.9% 36 18.9% 38 17.8% 75 17.8%

Total 17 100% 190 100% 214 100% 421 100%

Table A39

The reasons for the positive effect of English writing lessons in the open question

N2382 (low: 16, intermediate: 186, high: 180 pupils)

[P-Q21-1] Low Intermediate High Total

n % n % n % n %

327

Learning something through lessons

8 50.0% 73 39.2% 44 24.4% 125 32.7%

Repeated writing and review

1 6.3% 42 22.6% 51 28.3% 94 24.6%

Teachers’ teaching 3 18.8% 10 5.4% 14 7.8% 27 7.1%

Working hard 1 6.3% 13 7.0% 13 7.2% 27 7.1%

Interesting activities 0 0 5 2.7% 14 7.8% 19 5.0%

Easy and basic writing 1 6.3% 8 4.3% 8 4.4% 17 4.5%

Review of what they had

already known 0 0 3 1.6% 7 3.9% 10 2.6%

Others 2 12.5% 32 17.2% 29 16.1% 63 16.5%

Total 16 100% 186 100% 180 100% 382 100%

Table A40

Pupils’ favourite learning organisation for English reading activities

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

869 98.8 11 1.3 880 100.0

[P-Q14]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Individual work 239 13.3 27.5

Pair work 388 21.6 44.6

Group work 581 32.4 66.9

Teamwork based on whole class 575 32.0 66.2

Other 12 0.7 1.4

Total 1795 100.0 206.6

Table A41

Pupils’ favourite learning organisations for English writing activities

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

867 98.5 13 1.5 880 100.0

[P-Q24]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Individual work 266 15.2 30.7

328

Pair work 383 21.9 44.2

Group work 573 32.7 66.1

Teamwork based on whole class 521 29.8 60.1

Other 7 0.4 0.8

Total 1750 100.0 201.8

Table A42

Teachers’ challenges in teaching English reading and writing

[T-Q9]

Pupils with various

English levels

Pupils’ lack of interest

Pupils’ lack of confidence

Limitations of the

national curriculum

Total

N % N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 86 53.8 26 16.3 13 8.1 17 10.6 · ·

Rank 2 32 20.0 25 15.6 36 22.5 31 19.4 · ·

Rank 3 18 11.3 33 20.6 32 20.0 23 14.4 · ·

Rank 4 10 6.4 23 14.6 19 12.1 34 21.7 · ·

Total 146 91.8 107 67.3 100 62.9 105 66.0 · ·

Weighted Total

486 268 243 241 ·

Average 3.05 1.68 1.53 1.51

Rank 1 2 3 4 ·

No Choice 15 54 61 56 ·

Missing 30 30 30 30 ·

Total 191 191 191 191 ·

Class hours Teaching materials

Teaching methods

Teachers’ English

proficiency Total

Valid

Rank 1 7 4.4 3 1.9 5 3.1 3 1.9 160 100.0

Rank 2 17 10.6 7 4.4 4 2.5 8 5.0 160 100.0

Rank 3 22 13.8 13 8.1 8 5.0 11 6.9 160 100.0

Rank 4 30 19.1 13 8.3 21 13.4 7 4.5 157 100.0

Total 76 47.8 36 22.6 38 23.9 29 18.2 637 400.0

Weighted Total

153 72 69 65 ·

Average 0.96 0.45 0.43 0.41

Rank 5 6 7 8 ·

No Choice 85 125 123 132 ·

Missing 30 30 30 30 ·

Total 191 191 191 191 ·

329

Table A43

Teachers’ perception of the difference in pupils’ English proficiency

[T-Q11] Frequency (N)

Per cent (%)

Valid Per cent

Cumulative Per cent

Valid Almost no difference 0 0 0 0

A slight difference 9 4.7 5.7 5.7

A wide difference 150 78.5 94.3 100.0

Total 159 83.2 100.0

Missing 32 16.8

Total 191 100.0

Table A44

Teachers’ perceptions about the reasons for the difference in pupils’ English Proficiency

[T-Q12]

Private English

language lessons

Pupils’ fundamental cognitive

abilities

Parents’ English

education commitment

Pupils’ interest in English

Pupils’ confidence in English

Total

N % N % N % N % N % N

Valid

Rank 1 118 73.8 20 12.5 11 6.9 9 5.6 2 1.3 160

Rank 2 26 16.5 30 19.0 56 35.4 27 17.1 19 12.0 158

Rank 3 6 3.8 57 35.6 17 10.6 45 28.1 35 21.9 160

Total 150 94.3 107 67.3 84 52.8 81 50.9 56 35.2

Weighted Total

412 177 162 126 79

Average 2.59 1.11 1.02 0.79 0.50

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

No Choice

11 5.8 54 28.3 77 40.3 80 41.9 105 55.0

Missing 30 15.7 30 15.7 30 15.7 30 15.7 30 15.7

Total 191 100.0 191 100.0 191 100.0 191 100.0 191 100.0

Table A45

The time when the pupils started to learn English

[P-Q1] The Time Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid Younger than 3 years old 66 7.5 7.5 7.5

Kindergarten (3 to 5) 467 53.1 53.4 60.9

Year 1 128 14.5 14.6 75.5

Year 2 88 10.0 10.1 85.6

330

Year 3 126 14.3 14.4 100.0

Total 875 99.4 100.0

Missing 5 .6

Total 880 100.0

Table A46

The time when the pupils started to learn English (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

782 88.9 98 11.1 880 100.0

[P-Q1] The Time

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

0 ~ 3 years old Count 0 11 48 59

% 0.0 3.2 12.8 7.5

3 ~ 5 years old Count 25 183 207 415

% 40.3 52.9 55.3 53.1

Year 1 Count 4 47 65 116

% 6.5 13.6 17.4 14.8

Year 2 Count 6 41 29 76

% 9.7 11.8 7.8 9.7

Year 3 Count 27 64 25 116

% 43.5 18.5 6.7 14.8

Total Count 62 346 374 782

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 91.927a 8 .000

Likelihood Ratio 89.737 8 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 63.750 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 782

a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.68.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 45.700 a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 48.076 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 33.032 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 720

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 28.35.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 20.749a 4 .000

331

Likelihood Ratio 20.288 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 14.427 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 408

a. 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.67.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 75.071a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 63.373 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 53.524 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 436

a. 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.98.

Table A47

The place where the pupils started to learn English

[P-Q2] The Place Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid At home 149 16.9 17.0 17.0

At nursery or kindergarten 274 31.1 31.3 48.3

At English kindergarten 80 9.1 9.1 57.5

At English language academy or through personal English tutorials

238 27.0 27.2 84.7

At primary school 102 11.6 11.7 96.3

In the foreign country 25 2.8 2.9 99.2

Other 7 .8 .8 100.0

Total 875 99.4 100.0

Missing 5 .6

Total 880 100.0

Table A48

The place where the pupils started to learn English (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

781 88.8 99 11.3 880 100.0

[P-Q2] The Place

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

At home Count 10 52 72 134

% 15.9 15.2 19.2 17.2

332

At nursery or kindergarten Count 22 125 103 250

% 34.9 36.4 27.5 32.0

At English kindergarten Count 0 16 52 68

% 0.0 4.7 13.9 8.7

At private English language institution or through personal English tutorials

Count 11 88 107 206

% 17.5 25.7 28.5 26.4

At primary school Count 18 55 23 96

% 28.6 16.0 6.1 12.3

In a foreign country Count 0 4 17 21

% 0.0 1.2 4.5 2.7

Other Count 2 3 1 6

% 3.2 0.9 0.3 0.8

Total Count 63 343 375 781

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 76.964a 12 .000

Likelihood Ratio 80.829 12 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.260 1 .133

N of Valid Cases 781

a. 4 cells (19.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 47.102a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 49.093 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association .606 1 .436

N of Valid Cases 718

a. 2 cells (14.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.91.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 12.130a 6 .059

Likelihood Ratio 14.208 6 .027

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.229 1 .268

N of Valid Cases 406

a. 5 cells (35.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .62.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 51.086a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 50.477 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.430 1 .119

N of Valid Cases 438

a. 3 cells (21.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .43.

333

Table A49

The ways pupils learned in an early stage of English learning

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent 873 99.2 7 0.8 880 100.0

[P-Q3] The Ways

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

English storybook CDs 457 16.4 52.3

English storybook reading by parents or teachers 312 11.2 35.7

English animated cartoons 253 9.1 29.0

Various activities 560 20.1 64.1

English lessons in school 90 3.2 10.3

Reading and writing the alphabet letters 643 23.1 73.7

Phonics 433 15.5 49.6

Other 38 1.4 4.4

Total 2786 100.0 319.1

Table A50

The ways pupils learned in an early stage of English learning (by English proficiency)

[P-Q3] The Ways

English proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

English storybook CDs Count 21 155 232 408

% 33.3 45.1 62.0

English storybook reading by parents or teachers

Count 9 108 153 270

% 14.3 31.4 40.9

English animated cartoons Count 17 79 128 224

% 27.0 23.0 34.2

Various activities (games, workbooks, tasks, songs etc.)

Count 30 203 264 497

% 47.6 59.0 70.6

English lessons at school Count 19 37 25 81

% 30.2 10.8 6.7

Reading and writing the letters of the English alphabet letters

Count 42 263 273 578

% 66.7 76.5 73.0

Phonics Count 16 153 224 393

% 25.4 44.5 59.9

334

Other Count 1 13 19 33

% 1.6 3.8 5.1

Total Count 63 344 374 781

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

150.410 16 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the high and intermediate group) df Sig.

72.107 8 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

42.257 8 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the low and high group) df Sig.

110.102 8 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Table A51

Learning Experience in English-speaking countries or schools

[P-Q4] The Duration Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid No 766 87.0 88.8 88.8

Less than 6 months 48 5.5 5.6 94.3

6 months to less than 1 year 11 1.3 1.3 95.6

1 year to less than 2 years 21 2.4 2.4 98.0

More than or equal to 2 years 17 1.9 2.0 100.0

Total 863 98.1 100.0

Missing 17 1.9

Total 880 100.0

335

Table A52

Learning Experience in English-speaking countries or schools (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

774 88.0 106 12.0 880 100.0

[P-Q4] The Duration

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

No Count 63 314 311 688

% 98.4 92.1 84.3 88.9

Less than 6 months

Count 1 14 25 40

% 1.6 4.1 6.8 5.2

6 months to less than 1 year

Count 0 3 7 10

% 0.0 0.9 1.9 1.3

1 year to less than 2 years

Count 0 6 14 20

% 0.0 1.8 3.8 2.6

More than or equal to 2 years

Count 0 4 12 16

% 0.0 1.2 3.3 2.1

Total Count 64 341 369 774

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 18.238a 8 .020

Likelihood Ratio 22.176 8 .005

Linear-by-Linear Association 16.114 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 774

a. 6 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .83.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 10.830a 4 .029

Likelihood Ratio 11.178 4 .025

Linear-by-Linear Association 9.822 1 .002

N of Valid Cases 710

a. 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.80.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.615a 4 .461

Likelihood Ratio 5.861 4 .210

Linear-by-Linear Association 3.225 1 .073

N of Valid Cases 405

a. 6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .47.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

336

Pearson Chi-Square 9.457a 4 .051

Likelihood Ratio 15.120 4 .004

Linear-by-Linear Association 7.892 1 .005

N of Valid Cases 433

a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.03.

Table A53

Extra English language learning outside of school

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

868 98.6 12 1.4 880 100.0

[P-Q5] The Types

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

No extra English learning 156 17.2 18.0

English workbooks at home 76 8.4 8.8

English after-school programmes 71 7.8 8.2

English language academy (hakwon) 492 54.3 56.7

The personal English tutor 58 6.4 6.7

Other 53 5.8 6.1

Total 906 100.0 104.4

Table A54

Extra English language learning outside of school (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

775 88.1 105 11.9 880 100.0

[P-Q5] The Types

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

No English learning Count 26 87 28 141

% 41.9 25.4 7.5

English workbooks at home

Count 6 34 30 70

% 9.7 9.9 8.1

English after-school programmes

Count 3 35 25 63

% 4.8 10.2 6.7 Private English language institute (hakwon)

Count 21 157 261 439

% 33.9 45.9 70.4

Count 4 16 31 51

337

The personal English tutor

% 6.5 4.7 8.4

Other Count 3 22 23 48

% 4.8 6.4 6.2

Total Count 62 342 371 812

775 Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

130.139 12 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the high and the intermediate group) df Sig.

93.442 6 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

12.552 6 .051

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the low and the high group) df Sig.

89.603 6 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Table A55

English language learning interest (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent 79 88.5 101 11.5 880 100.0

[P-Q6 (2)]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 18 12 18 48

% 28.1 3.5 4.8 6.2 Disagree Count 25 75 19 119

% 39.1 21.9 5.1 15.3

Agree Count 12 179 137 328 % 18.8 52.3 36.7 42.1

Strongly agree Count 9 76 199 284

% 14.1 22.2 53.4 36.5

Total Count 64 342 373 779 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

338

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 93.991a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 98.160 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 55.871 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 715

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.35.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 65.279a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 53.888 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 41.651 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 406

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.73.

(between the low and the high group)

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 121.495a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 96.350 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 90.844 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 437

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.27.

Table A56

English language learning confidence (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

775 88.1 105 11.9 880 100.0

[P-Q6 (3)]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 39 28 7 74

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 190.395a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 171.989 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 119.479 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 779

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.94.

339

% 60.9 8.3 1.9 9.5

Disagree Count 17 132 20 169

% 26.6 38.9 5.4 21.8

Agree Count 6 153 178 337

% 9.4 45.1 47.8 43.5

Strongly agree Count 2 26 167 195

% 3.1 7.7 44.9 25.2

Total Count 64 339 372 775

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided) Pearson Chi-Square 422.936a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 367.758 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 290.196 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 775

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.11.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 198.922a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 221.183 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 181.653 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 711

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.69.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 111.137a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 90.417 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 72.569 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 403

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.45.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 253.117a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 198.823 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 201.575 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 436

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.43.

340

Table A57

English language learning preference (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent 780 88.6 100 11.4 880 100.0

[P-Q6 (1)]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 17 12 16 45 % 26.6 3.5 4.3 5.8

Disagree Count 28 73 20 121 % 43.8 21.3 5.3 15.5

Agree Count 11 194 147 352 % 17.2 56.7 39.3 45.1

Strongly agree Count 8 63 191 262 % 12.5 18.4 51.1 33.6

Total Count 64 342 374 780 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 207.736a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 187.892 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 131.923 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 780 a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.69.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 100.528a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 105.296 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 63.896 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 716

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.37.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 68.764a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 59.485 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 44.982 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 406

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.57.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 134.864a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 106.488 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 97.317 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 438

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.82.

341

Table A58

The interest in English reading lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

784 89.1 96 10.9 880 100.0

[P-Q9]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 11

40 62.5

16

75 21.7

19

43 11.5

46

158

20.2

% 17.2 4.6 5.1 5.9

Disagree Count 29 59 24 112

% 45.3 17.1 6.4 14.3

Agree Count 17

24 37.5

179

270 78.3

135

332 87.5

331 626

79.8

% 26.6 51.9 36.0 42.2

Strongly agree Count 7 91 197 295

% 10.9 26.4 52.5 37.6

Total Count 64 345 375 784 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 137.292a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 124.723 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 87.277 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 784

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.76.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 59.048a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 60.370 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 34.474 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 720

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.77.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 45.443a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 40.737 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 35.990 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 409

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.22.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 102.082a 3 .000

342

Likelihood Ratio 84.754 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 73.364 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 439

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.37

Table A59

The preference for English reading lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

774 88.0 106 12.0 880 100.0

[P-Q10]

English Proficiency

Total low Intermediate high

Strongly disagree Count 19

48 77.4

15

95 27.8

19

63 17.0

53 206

26.6%

% 30.6 4.4 5.1 6.8

Disagree Count 29 80 44 153

% 46.8 23.4 11.9 19.8

Agree Count 8

14 22.6

184

247 72.2

122

307 83.0

314

568

73.4

% 12.9 53.8 33.0 40.6

Strongly agree Count 6 63 185 254

% 9.7 18.4 50.0 32.8

Total Count 62 342 370 774

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 189.370a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 168.188 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 111.199 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 774

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.25.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 82.527a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 85.330 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 43.383 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 712

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.33.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

343

Pearson Chi-Square 74.461a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 66.138 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 53.149 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 404

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.22.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 104.158a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 91.146 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 88.525 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 432

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.45

Table A60

The interest in English writing lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

781 88.8 99 11.3 880 100.0

[P-Q19]

English Proficiency

Low Intermediate High Total

Strongly disagree

Count 17

43 67.2

27

109 31.6

29

88 23.7

73

240

30.7

% 26.6 7.8 7.8 9.3

Disagree Count 26 82 59 167

% 40.6 23.8 15.9 21.4

Agree Count 10

21 32.8

165

236 68.4

121

284 76.3

296

541

69.3

% 15.6 47.8 32.5 37.9

Strongly agree Count 11 71 163 245

% 17.2 20.6 43.8 31.4

Total Count

64 345 372 781

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 94.873a 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 88.744 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 52.715 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 781 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.98.

344

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 45.812a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 46.785 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 20.853 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 717 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 26.95.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 36.819a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 35.606 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 21.957 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 409 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.89.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 50.301a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 45.723 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 42.405 1 .000

N of Valid Cases a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.75.

Table A61

Pupils’ preferences for English writing lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

780 88.6 100 11.4 880 100.0

[P-Q20]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 18

49 76.6

34

138 40.0

33

99 26.7

85

286

36.7

% 28.1 9.9 8.9 10.9

Disagree Count 31 104 66 201

% 48.4 30.1 17.8 25.8

Agree Count 8

15 23.4

150

207 60.0

124

272 73.3

282

494

63.4

% 12.5 43.5 33.4 36.2

Strongly agree Count 7 57 148 212

% 10.9 16.5 39.9 27.2

Total Count 64 345 371 780

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

345

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 102.111a 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 99.694 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 66.084 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 780 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.97.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 50.494a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 51.947 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 28.784 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 716 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 32.28.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 34.133a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 34.764 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 24.208 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 409 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.14.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 50.301a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 45.723 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 42.405 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 436

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.75.

Table A62

The reasons why pupils do not like English reading lessons in school

[P-Q10-1] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid It is too easy. 46 5.2 20.3 20.3

It is too difficult. 66 7.5 29.1 49.3

English reading activities are too boring.

91 10.3 40.1 89.4

Other 24 2.7 10.6 100.0

Total 227 25.8 100.0

No Choice 635 72.2

Missing 18 2.0

Total 653 74.2

Total 880 100.0

346

Table A63

The reasons why pupils do not like English reading lessons in school (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

202 23.0 678 77.0 880 100.0

[P-Q10-1]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

It is too easy. Count 1 4 36 41

% 2.1 4.3 59.0 20.3

It is too difficult. Count 30 27 2 59

% 63.8 28.7 3.3 29.2

English reading activities are too boring.

Count 13 50 17 80

% 27.7 53.2 27.9 39.6

Other Count 3 13 6 22

% 6.4 13.8 9.8 10.9

Total Count 47 94 61 202

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 107.837a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 107.093 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 10.155 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 202

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.12.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 61.758a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 67.638 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 28.373 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 155

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.48.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 16.055a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 16.046 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 8.630 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 141

a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.67.

347

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 58.306a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 71.231 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 6.907 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 108

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.92

Table A64

The reasons why pupils do not like English writing lessons in school

[P-Q20-1] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid It is too easy. 42 4.8 13.8 13.8

It is too difficult. 81 9.2 26.6 40.3

English writing activities in school are too boring.

151 17.2 49.5 89.8

Other 31 3.5 10.2 100.0

Total 305 34.7 100.0

No Choice 559 63.5

Missing 16 1.8

Total 575 65.3

Total 880 100.0

Table A65

The reasons why pupils do not like English writing lessons in school (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

278 31.6 602 68.4 880 100.0

[P-Q20-1]

English proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

It is too easy. Count 0 8 31 39

% 0.0 6.0 32.3 14.0

It is too difficult. Count 33 38 6 77

% 68.8 28.4 6.3 27.7

English writing activities in school are too boring.

Count 14 66 53 133

% 29.2 49.3 55.2 47.8

Other Count 1 22 6 29

% 2.1 16.4 6.3 10.4

348

Total Count 48 134 96 278

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 94.995a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 97.698 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association .677 1 .411

N of Valid Cases 278

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.01.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 42.276a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 45.268 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 11.193 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 230

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.69.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 26.636a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 29.504 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 11.315 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 182

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.11.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 67.461a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 75.403 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association .018 1 .892

N of Valid Cases 144

a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.33.

Table A66

The difficulty of English reading lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

784 89.1 96 10.9 880 100.0

[P-Q12]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 3 10 15.6

99 276 80.0

305 347 92.5

407 633

% 4.7 28.7 81.3 51.9

349

Disagree Count 7 177 42 226 80.7

% 10.9 51.3 11.2 28.8

Agree Count 35

54 84.4

55

69 20.0

9

28 7.5

99

151

19.2

% 54.7 15.9 2.4 12.6

Strongly agree Count 19 14 19 52

% 29.7 4.1 5.1 6.6

Total Count 64 345 375 784

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 413.683a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 384.479 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 229.138 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 784

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.24.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 221.213a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 235.903 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 107.291 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 720

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.81.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 112.811a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 102.999 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 90.357 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 409

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.16.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 233.191a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 193.444 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 179.503 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 439

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.54.

Table A67

The heavy workload in English reading lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

781 88.8 99 11.3 880 100.0

350

[P-Q13]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 10

29 45.3

65

209 60.8

187

293 78.5

262

531

67.9

% 15.6 18.9 50.1 33.5

Disagree Count 19 144 106 269

% 29.7 41.9 28.4 34.4

Agree Count 26

35 54.7

108

135 39.2

51

80 21.5

185

250

32.0

% 40.6 31.4 13.7 23.7

Strongly agree Count 9 27 29 65

% 14.1 7.8 7.8 8.3

Total Count 64 344 373 781

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 103.510a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 105.290 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 62.292 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 781

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.33.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 84.310a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 87.211 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 48.703 1 .843

N of Valid Cases 717

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 26.87.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 6.076a 3 .108

Likelihood Ratio 5.879 3 .118

Linear-by-Linear Association 4.389 1 .036

N of Valid Cases 408

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.65.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 39.466a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 38.308 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 30.968 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 437

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.57.

351

Table A68

The difficulty of English writing lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

780 88.6 100 11.4 880 100.0

[P-Q22]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 9

25 39.1

91

247 71.6

269

343 92.5

369

615

78.8

% 14.1 26.4 72.5 47.3

Disagree Count 16 156 74 246

% 25.0 45.2 19.9 31.5

Agree Count 24

39 60.9

81

98 28.4

16

28 7.5

121

165

21.1

% 37.5 23.5 4.3 15.5

Strongly agree Count 15 17 12 44

% 23.4 4.9 3.2 5.6

Total Count 64 345 371 780

% 100.0% 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 237.952a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 232.052 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 174.389 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 780

a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.61.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 160.933a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 169.412 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 117.232 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 716

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.97.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 36.370a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 30.748 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 27.512 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 409

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.01.

352

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 131.121a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 108.761 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 118.620 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 435

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.97.

Table A69

The heavy workload in English writing lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

781 88.8 99 11.3 880 100.0

[P-Q23]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 6

32 50.0

62

211 61.2

173

296 79.6

241

539

69.1

% 9.4 18.0 46.5 30.9

Disagree Count 26 149 123 298

% 40.6 43.2 33.1 38.2

Agree Count 24

32 50.0

106

134 38.8

44

76 20.4

174

242

31.0

% 37.5 30.7 11.8 22.3

Strongly agree Count 8 28 32 68

% 12.5 8.1 8.6 8.7

Total Count 64 345 372 781

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 99.714a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 104.020 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 58.014 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 781

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.57.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 79.905a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 82.728 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 44.381 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 717

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 28.87.

353

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.441a 3 .218

Likelihood Ratio 4.669 3 .198

Linear-by-Linear Association 4.306 1 .038

N of Valid Cases 409

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.63.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 43.229a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 44.878 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 29.247 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 436

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.87.

Table A70

The effect of English reading lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

736 83.6 144 16.4 880 100.0

[P-Q11]

English ability

Total low Intermediate high

Strongly disagree

Count 12

34 58.6

17

81 25.9

47

126 34.4

76

241

32.7

% 20.7 5.4 12.8 10.3

Disagree Count 22 64 79 165

% 37.9 20.5 21.6 22.4

Agree Count 20

24 41.4

179

231 74.1

126

240 65.5

325

495

67.3

% 34.5 57.4 34.4 44.2

Strongly agree Count 4 52 114 170

% 6.9 16.7 31.1 23.1

Total Count 58 312 366 736

% 100.0 100.0 100.0% 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 66.169a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 66.872 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 8.096 1 .004

N of Valid Cases 736

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.99.

354

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 43.980a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 44.884 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association .039 1 .843

N of Valid Cases 678

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 29.45.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 28.727a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 25.564 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 25.318 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 370

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.55.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 18.412a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 21.383 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 15.573 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 424

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.07.

Table A71

The effect of English writing lessons (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

743 84.4 137 15.6 880 100.0

[P-Q21]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Strongly disagree Count 16

41 69.5

15

95 29.4

52

135 37.4

83

271

36.5

% 27.1 4.6 14.4 11.2

Disagree Count 25 80 83 188

% 42.4 24.8 23.0 25.3

Agree Count 15

18 30.5

176

228 70.6

120

226 62.6

311

472

63.6

% 25.4 54.5 33.2 41.9

Strongly agree Count 3 52 106 161

% 5.1 16.1 29.4 21.7

Total Count 59 323 361 743

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

355

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 81.220a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 82.328 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 10.473 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 743

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.59.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 47.574a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 49.058 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association .417 1 .518

N of Valid Cases 684

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 31.64.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 49.309a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 42.180 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 40.959 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 382

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.79.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 24.953a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 28.167 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 22.760 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 420

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.55.

Table A72

The negative responses to the effect of English reading lessons in the open question

N2214 (low: 24, intermediate: 65, high: 125 pupils)

[P-Q11-1] Low Intermediate High Total

n % n % n % n %

Having already learnt before lessons.

2 8.3% 28 43.1% 67 53.6% 97 45.3%

Too easy activities 0 0 3 4.6% 32 25.6% 35 16.4%

Insufficient reading time and materials

0 0 7 10.8% 10 8.0% 17 7.9%

Too difficult activities 9 37.5% 4 6.2% 2 1.6% 15 7.0%

356

Ascribing the reason to themselves (e.g. ‘I did not do my best’ or ‘I was originally poor at reading’)

10 41.7% 5 7.7% 0 0 15 7.0%

Teachers’ teaching 0 0 3 4.6% 4 3.2% 7 3.3%

Too boring activities 2 8.3% 2 3.1% 3 2.4% 7 3.3%

Others 1 4.2% 13 20.0% 7 5.6% 21 9.8%

Total 24 100% 65 100% 125 100% 214 100%

Table A73

The negative responses to the effect of English writing lessons in the open question

N2234 (low: 29, intermediate: 74, high: 131 pupils)

[P-Q21-1] Low Intermediate High Total

n % n % n % n %

Having already learnt before lessons.

1 3.4% 28 37.8% 69 52.7% 98 41.9%

Too easy activities 0 0 2 2.7% 28 21.4% 30 12.8%

Insufficient writing time and materials

1 3.4% 8 10.8% 15 11.5% 24 10.3%

Too difficult activities 7 24.1% 7 9.5% 6 4.6% 20 8.5%

Ascribing the reason to themselves (e.g. ‘I did not do my best’ or ‘I was originally poor at writing’)

13 44.8% 10 13.5% 0 0 23 9.8%

Teachers’ teaching 0 0 3 4.1% 0 0 3 1.3%

Too boring activities 2 6.9% 4 5.4% 2 1.5% 8 3.4%

Others 5 17.2% 12 16.2% 11 8.4% 28 12.0%

Total 29 100% 74 100% 131 100% 234 100%

Table A74

Pupils’ favourite support when doing English reading activities

[P-Q17] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid I do not need any help. 157 17.8 18.1 18.1

I like to look up the dictionary. 114 13.0 13.1 31.3

I like to ask my friends. 155 17.6 17.9 49.1

357

I like to ask my teachers. 411 46.7 47.4 96.5

Other 30 3.4 3.5 100.0

Total 867 98.5 100.0

Missing 13 1.5

Total 880 100.0

Table A75

Pupils’ favourite support when doing English reading activities (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

776 88.2 104 11.8 880 100.0

[P-Q17]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

I do not need any help. Count 3 35 107 145

% 4.8 10.2 28.8 18.7

I like to look up the dictionary. Count 8 33 60 101

% 12.9 9.6 16.1 13.0

I like to ask my friends. Count 17 87 33 137

% 27.4 25.4 8.9 17.7

I like to ask my teachers. Count 29 185 154 368

% 46.8 54.1 41.4 47.4

Other Count 5 2 18 25

% 8.1 0.6 4.8 3.2

Total Count 62 342 372 776

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 97.723a 8 .000

Likelihood Ratio 104.054 8 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 31.229 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 776

a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.00.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 83.167a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 87.707 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 26.796 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 714

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.58.

358

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 19.730a 4 .001

Likelihood Ratio 14.090 4 .007

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.204 1 .272

N of Valid Cases 404

a. 0 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.07.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 29.632a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 31.016 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 11.749 1 .001

N of Valid Cases 434

a. 0 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.29.

Table A76

Pupils’ favourite support when doing English writing activities

[P-Q27] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid I do not need any help. 152 17.3 17.7 17.7

I like to look up the dictionary. 145 16.5 16.8 34.5

I like to ask my friends. 152 17.3 17.7 52.1

I like to ask my teachers. 390 44.3 45.3 97.4

Other 22 2.5 2.6 100.0

Total 861 97.8 100.0

Missing 19 2.2

Total 880 100.0

Table A77

Pupils’ favourite support when doing English writing activities (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

771 87.6 109 12.4 880 100.0

[P-Q27]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

I do not need any help. Count 1 36 102 139

% 1.6 10.7 27.6 18.0

I like to look up the dictionary. Count 9 46 74 129

% 14.3 13.6 20.0 16.7

359

I like to ask my friends. Count 19 81 37 137

% 30.2 24.0 10.0 17.8

I like to ask my teachers. Count 33 172 143 348

% 52.4 50.9 38.6 45.1

Other Count 1 3 14 18

% 1.6 0.9 3.8 2.3

Total Count 63 338 370 771

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 81.364a 8 .000

Likelihood Ratio 88.111 8 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 33.310 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 771

a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.47.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 62.975a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 65.248 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 25.860 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 708 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.12.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.846a 4 .211

Likelihood Ratio 7.857 4 .097

Linear-by-Linear Association 2.163 1 .141

N of Valid Cases 401

a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .63.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 36.355a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 42.038 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 14.605 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 433

a. 0 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.18.

Table A78

Pupils’ favourite learning organisations for English reading activities (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

778 88.4 102 11.6 880 100.0

360

[P-Q14]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermed

iate High

Individual work Count 12 64 137 213

% 20.0 18.6 36.6

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 20.7 18.7 36.9

Pair work Count 20 156 174 350

% 33.3 45.3 46.5

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 34.5 45.5 46.9

Group work Count 38 247 233 518

% 63.3 71.8 62.3

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 65.5 72.0 62.8

Teamwork based on whole class

Count 29 225 260 514

% 48.3 65.4 69.5

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 50.0 65.6 70.1

Other Count 4 2 5 11

% 6.7 0.6 1.3

Total Count 60 344 374 1606

778

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests **

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

N=772 ** 50.668 8 .000* Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level. **. This is the result of excluding ‘Other’ option (The number of the pupils selecting only ‘Other’ option was 6).

Chi-square (between the high and intermediate group) df Sig.

N=717 38.055 4 .000* Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

N=401 8.786 4 .067 Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable.

Chi-square (between the low and high group) df Sig.

N=429 18.315 4 .001* Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Table A79

Pupils’ favourite learning organisations for English writing activities (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

777 88.3 103 11.7 880 100.0

361

[P-Q24]

English Proficiency

Total Low Interme

diate High

Individual work Count 15 78 146 239

% 24.6 22.8 39.0

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 25.9 22.8 39.1

Pair work Count 23 157 163 343

% 37.7 45.9 43.6

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 39.7 45.9 43.7

Group work Count 37 243 233 513

% 60.7 71.1 62.3

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 63.8 71.1 62.5

Teamwork based on whole class

Count 27 205 234 466

% 44.3 59.9 62.6

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 46.6 59.9 62.7

Other Count 4 1 1 6

% 6.6 0.3 0.3

Total Count 61 342 374 1567

777

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests **

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

N=773 ** 35.556 8 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level. **. This is the result of excluding ‘Other’ option (The number of the pupils selecting only ‘Other’ option was 4).

Chi-square (between the high and intermediate group) df Sig.

N=715 28.978 4 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

N=400 5.937 4 .204

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable.

Chi-square (between the low and high group) df Sig.

N=431 9.659 4 .047*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

362

Table A80

Pupils’ favourite reading activities (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

779 88.5 101 11.5 880 100.0

[P-Q15]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Various reading materials Count 13 102 190 305

% 21.3 29.7 50.8

English reading games Count 38 273 274 585

% 62.3 79.4 73.3

Reading activities in the textbook Count 25 134 118 277

% 41.0 39.0 31.6

Other Count 8 23 33 64

% 13.1 6.7 8.8

Total Count 61 344 374 1231

779

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

60.181 8 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the high and the intermediate group) df Sig.

42.344 4 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

13.357 4 .010*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the low and the high group) df Sig.

24.683 4 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

363

Table A81

Pupils’ favourite writing activities (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

771 87.6 109 12.4 880 100.0

[P-Q25]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Controlled writing (copying words or sentences)

Count 11 37 18 66

% 18.0 10.9 4.9

Guided writing Count 19 110 78 207

% 31.1 32.4 21.1

Free writing (creative writing) Count 27 175 260 462

% 44.3 51.5 70.3

Doing writing activities in the textbook

Count 32 189 189 410

% 52.5 55.6 51.1

Other Count 5 25 38 68

% 8.2 7.4 10.3

Total Count 61 340 370 1213

771

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

64.082 10 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the high and the intermediate group) df Sig.

50.241 5 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

3.877 5 .567

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable.

Chi-square (between the low and the high group) df Sig.

33.723 5 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

364

Table A82

Pupils’ preference in difficulty level of English reading activities

[P-Q16] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent

Cumulative Per cent

Valid Very easy activities 168 19.1 19.5 19.5 Slightly easy activities 231 26.3 26.8 46.3 Slightly difficult activities 338 38.4 39.3 85.6 Very difficult activities 124 14.1 14.4 100.0 Total 861 97.8 100.0

Missing 19 2.2

Total 880 100.0

Table A83

Pupils’ preference in difficulty level of English reading activities (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

773 87.8 107 12.2 880 100.0

[P-Q16]

English proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Very easy activities Count 32 66 55 153

% 55.2 19.3 14.7 19.8 Slightly easy activities Count 16 138 48 202

% 27.6 40.4 12.9 26.1 Slightly challenging activities Count 7 125 171 303

% 12.1 36.5 45.8 39.2 Very challenging activities Count 3 13 99 115

% 5.2 3.8 26.5 14.9

Total Count 58 342 373 773

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(amongthe the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 174.831a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 175.914 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 111.024 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 773

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.63.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 116.608a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 127.109 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 69.805 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 715

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 53.57.

365

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 37.387a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 34.420 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 23.198 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 400

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.32.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 71.513a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 67.951 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 62.656 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 431

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.61.

Table A84

Pupils’ preference in difficulty level of English writing activities

[P-Q26] Frequency Per cent Valid

Per cent Cumulative

Per cent

Valid Very easy activities 192 21.8 22.5 22.5

Slightly easy activities 238 27.0 27.9 50.5

Slightly difficult activities 304 34.5 35.7 86.2

Very difficult activities 118 13.4 13.8 100.0

Total 852 96.8 100.0

Missing 28 3.2

Total 880 100.0

Table A85

Pupils’ preference in difficulty level of English writing activities (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

766 87.0 114 13.0 880 100.0

[P-Q26]

English proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Very easy activities Count 34 79 58 171

% 57.6 23.4 15.7 22.3

Slightly easy activities Count 13 137 60 210

% 22.0 40.7 16.2 27.4

Slightly challenging activities Count 10 102 163 275

% 16.9 30.3 44.1 35.9

366

Very challenging activities Count 2 19 89 110

% 3.4 5.6 24.1 14.4

Total Count 59 337 370 766

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Chi-Square Tests

(among the three groups) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 142.287a 6 .000

Likelihood Ratio 137.858 6 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 99.184 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 766

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.47.

(between the high and intermediate group) Value Df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 91.386a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 96.018 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 63.672 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 707

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 51.48.

(between the intermediate and the low group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 28.785a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 26.137 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 17.596 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 396

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.13.

(between the low and the high group) Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 62.286a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 58.335 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 56.732 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 429

a. 0 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.04.

Table A86

Teachers’ perceptions of English reading in the national curriculum and textbooks

(1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neutral 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree)

[T-Q15]

Valid

Missing Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

The achievement standards for English reading in the national curriculum are high.

F 9 43 70 23 4 149 42 191

VP 6.0 28.9 47.0 15.4 2.7 100.0

34.9 47.0 18.1 100.0

367

The reading contents are systematically presented to achieve the target goals fully of each unit.

F 6 21 43 69 11 150 41 191

VP 4.0 14.0 28.7 46.0 7.3 100.0

18.0 28.7 53.3 100.0

The amount of English reading in the textbooks is large.

F 17 57 59 11 4 148 43 191

VP 11.5 38.5 39.9 7.4 2.7 100.0

50.0 39.9 10.1 100.0

Reading texts in the textbooks are difficult.

F 18 60 51 17 4 150 41 191

VP 12.0 40.0 34.0 11.3 2.7 100.0

52.0 34.0 14.0 100.0

Reading texts in the textbooks are well created in order to interest pupils.

F 11 42 55 37 5 150 41 191

VP 7.3 28.0 36.7 24.7 3.3 100.0

35.3 36.7 28.0 100.0

Reading activities in the textbooks are well created in order to interest pupils.

F 12 31 53 52 2 150 41 191

VP 8.0 20.7 35.3 34.7 1.3 100.0

28.7 35.3 36.0 100.0

Reading texts in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ confidence in English reading.

F 5 31 65 45 4 150 41 191

VP 3.3 20.7 43.3 30.0 2.7 100.0

24.0 43.3 32.7 100.0

Reading activities in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ confidence in English reading.

F 3 34 53 54 6 150 41 191

VP 2.0 22.7 35.3 36.0 4.0 100.0

24.7 35.3 40.0 100.0

Reading texts in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ reading ability fully.

F 7 41 57 41 4 150 41 191

VP 4.7 27.3 38.0 27.3 2.7 100.0

32.0 38.0 30.0 100.0

Reading activities in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ reading ability fully.

F 11 35 53 43 6 148 42 191

VP 7.4 23.6 35.8 29.1 4.1 100.0

31.0 35.8 33.2 100.0

Table A87

Teachers’ perceptions of English writing in the national curriculum and textbooks

(1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neutral 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree)

[T-Q21]

Valid

Missing Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

368

The achievement standards for English writing in the national curriculum are high.

F 8 37 70 24 4 143 48 191

VP 5.6 25.9 49.0 16.8 2.8 100.0

31.5 49.0 19.6 100.0

The writing contents are systematically presented to achieve the target goals fully of each unit.

F 5 24 54 53 7 143 48 191

VP 3.5 16.8 37.8 37.1 4.9 100.0

20.3 37.8 42.0 100.0

The amount of English writing in the textbooks is large.

F 13 46 64 16 3 142 49 191

VP 9.2 32.4 45.1 11.3 2.1 100.0

41.6 45.1 13.4 100.0

Writing activities in the textbooks are difficult.

F 15 54 55 17 1 143 48 191

VP 10.6 38.0 38.7 12.0 0.7 100.0

48.6 38.7 12.7 100.0

Writing activities in the textbooks are well created in order to interest pupils.

F 12 39 54 30 8 143 48 191

VP 8.4 27.3 37.8 21.0 5.6 100.0

35.7 37.8 26.6 100.0

Writing activities in the textbooks are well created to improve pupils’ confidence in English writing.

F 7 32 53 44 7 143 48 191

VP 4.9 22.4 37.1 30.8 4.9 100.0

27.3 37.1 35.7 100.0

Writing activities in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ writing ability fully.

F 6 40 52 39 6 143 48 191

VP 4.2 28.0 36.4 27.3 4.2 100.0

32.2 36.4 31.5 100.0

Table A88

The English language skills teachers think their pupils are good at

[T-Q1]

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Sum Average Rank

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Listening 108

(58.7) 47

(25.5) 24

(13.0) 5

(2.7) 184

(100.0) 626 3.40 1st

Speaking 41

(22.3) 75

(40.8) 49

(26.6) 19

(10.3) 184

(100.0) 506 2.75 2nd

Reading 35

(18.9) 59

(31.9) 88

(47.6) 3

(1.6) 185

(100.0) 496 2.68 3rd

Writing 2

(1.1) 2

(1.1) 24

(13.0) 157

(84.9) 185

(100.0) 219 1.18 4th

369

Table A89

The most interesting English language skill

[P-Q7 (1)]

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total

Sum Average Rank N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Listening 346

(39.7) 185

(21.2) 154

(17.7) 186

(21.4) 871

(100.0) 2433 2.79 1st

Speaking 232

(26.7) 251

(28.9) 251

(28.9) 136

(15.6) 870

(100.0) 2319 2.67 2nd

Reading 177

(20.3) 296

(34.0) 271

(31.1) 127

(14.6) 871

(100.0) 2265 2.60 3rd

Writing 148

(17.0) 162

(18.6) 143

(16.4) 417

(47.9) 870

(100.0) 1781 2.05 4th

Table A90

The most interesting English language skill (by English proficiency)

English Proficiency N (%)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sum Average Rank

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Low Listening 64

(100) 38

(59.4) 12

(18.8) 9

(14.1) 5

(7.8) 211 3.30 1st

Speaking 64

(100) 9

(14.1) 21

(32.8) 14

(21.9) 20

(31.3) 147 2.30 3rd

Reading 64

(100) 8

(12.5) 24

(37.5) 23

(35.9) 9

(14.1) 159 2.48 2nd

Writing 64

(100) 12

(18.8) 10

(15.6) 13

(20.3) 29

(45.3) 133 2.08 4th

Intermediate

Listening 343

(100) 163

(47.5) 78

(22.7) 52

(15.2) 50

(14.6) 1040 3.03 1st

Speaking 342

(100) 74

(21.6) 109

(31.9) 102

(29.8) 57

(16.7) 884 2.58 2nd

Reading 343

(100) 56

(16.3) 111

(32.4) 120

(35.0) 56

(16.3) 853 2.49 3rd

Writing 342

(100) 55

(16.1) 59

(17.3) 47

(13.7) 181

(52.9) 672 1.96 4th

High Listening 343

(100) 106

(28.3) 78

(20.9) 83

(22.2) 107

(28.6) 931 2.49 3rd

Speaking 342

(100) 130

(34.8) 92

(24.6) 108

(28.9) 44

(11.8) 1056 2.82 1st

Reading 343

(100) 95

(25.4) 130

(34.8) 100

(26.7) 49

(13.1) 1019 2.72 2nd

Writing 342

(100) 67

(17.9) 74

(19.8) 64

(17.1) 169

(45.2) 787 2.10 4th

370

Missing Listening 90

(100) 39

(43.3) 17

(18.9) 10

(11.1) 24

(26.7) 251 2.79 1st

Speaking 90

(100) 19

(21.1) 29

(32.2) 27

(30.0) 15

(16.7) 232 2.58 3rd

Reading 90

(100) 18

(20.0) 31

(34.4) 28

(31.1) 113

(14.4) 234 2.60 2nd

Writing 90

(100) 14

(15.6) 19

(21.1) 19

(21.1) 38

(42.2) 189 2.10 4th

Table A91

The most confident English language skill

[P-Q7 (2)]

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Sum Average Rank

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Listening 337

(38.7) 203

(23.3) 158

(18.1) 173

(19.9) 871

(100) 2446 2.81 1st

Speaking 201

(23.1) 268

(30.8) 219

(25.1) 183

(21.0) 871

(100) 2229 2.56 3rd

Reading 200

(22.9) 285

(32.7) 279

(32.0) 108

(12.4) 872

(100) 2321 2.66 2nd

Writing 175

(20.1) 160

(18.3) 148

(17.0) 389

(44.6) 872

(100) 1865 2.14 4th

Table A92

The most confident English language skill (by English proficiency)

English Proficiency N (%)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Sum Average Rank N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Low Listening 64

(100) 45

(70.3) 9

(14.1) 4

(6.3) 6

(9.4) 221 3.45 1st

Speaking 64

(100) 4

(6.3) 27

(42.2) 12

(18.8) 21

(32.8) 142 2.22 3rd

Reading 64

(100) 6

(9.4) 23

(35.9) 24

(37.5) 11

(17.2) 152 2.38 2nd

Writing 64

(100) 8

(12.5) 13

(20.3) 15

(23.4) 28

(43.8) 129 2.02 4th

Intermediate

Listening 341

(100) 150

(44.0) 92

(27.0) 57

(16.7) 42

(12.3) 1032 3.03 1st

Speaking 341

(100) 67

(19.6) 116

(34.0) 89

(26.1) 69

(20.2) 863 2.53 3rd

Reading 342

(100) 69

(20.2) 102

(29.8) 125

(36.5) 46

(13.5) 878 2.57 2nd

Writing 342

(100) 68

(19.9) 53

(15.5) 43

(12.6) 178

(52.0) 695 2.03 4th

371

High Listening 374

(100) 105

(28.1) 87

(23.3) 79

(21.1) 103

(27.5) 942 2.52 3rd

Speaking 374

(100) 111

(29.7) 96

(25.7) 92

(24.6) 75

(20.1) 991 2.65 2nd

Reading 374

(100) 108

(28.9) 126

(33.7) 98

(26.2) 42

(11.2) 1048 2.80 1st

Writing 374

(100) 80

(21.4) 74

(19.8) 79

(21.1) 141

(37.7) 841 2.25 4th

Missing Listening 92

(100) 37

(40.2) 15

(16.3) 18

(19.6) 22

(23.9) 251 2.73 1st

Speaking 92

(100) 19

(20.7) 29

(31.5) 26

(28.3) 18

(19.6) 233 2.53 3rd

Reading 92

(100) 17

(18.5) 34

(37.0) 32

(34.8) 9

(9.8) 243 2.64 2nd

Writing 92

(100) 19

(20.7) 20

(21.7) 11

(12.0) 42

(45.7) 200 2.17 4th

Table A93

The most difficult English language skill

[P-Q7 (3)]

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Sum Average Rank

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Listening 177

(20.5) 160

(18.5) 165

(19.1) 363

(42.0) 865

(100) 1881 2.17 4th

Speaking 211

(24.4) 253

(29.3) 242

(28.0) 158

(18.3) 864

(100) 2245 2.60 2nd

Reading 121

(14.0) 314

(36.3) 255

(29.5) 175

(20.2) 865

(100) 2111 2.44 3rd

Writing 372

(43.1) 162

(18.8) 137

(15.9) 193

(22.3) 864

(100) 2441 2.83 1st

Table A94

The most difficult English language skill (by English proficiency)

English Proficiency N (%)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sum Average Rank

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Low Listening 62

(100) 8

(12.9) 11

(17.7) 5

(8.1) 38

(61.3) 113 1.82 4th

Speaking 62

(100) 18

(29.0) 16

(25.8) 22

(35.5) 6

(9.7) 170 2.74 2nd

Reading 62

(100) 15

(24.2) 21

(33.9) 21

(33.9) 5

(8.1) 170 2.74 2nd

Writing 62

(100) 30

(48.4) 17

(27.4) 6

(9.7) 9

(14.5) 192 3.10 1st

372

Intermediate

Listening 339

(100) 55

(16.2) 61

(18.0) 73

(21.5) 150

(44.2) 699 2.06 4th

Speaking 338

(100) 80

(23.7) 107

(31.7) 103

(30.5) 48

(14.2) 895 2.65 2nd

Reading 339

(100) 47

(13.9) 141

(41.6) 89

(26.3) 62

(18.3) 851 2.51 3rd

Writing 338

(100) 159

(47.0) 45

(13.3) 54

(16.0) 80

(23.7) 959 2.84 1st

High Listening 371

(100) 90

(24.3) 69

(18.6) 73

(19.7) 139

(37.5) 852 2.30 4th

Speaking 371

(100) 86

(23.2) 99

(26.7) 95

(25.6) 91

(24.5) 922 2.49 2nd

Reading 371

(100) 43

(11.6) 127

(34.2) 112

(30.2) 89

(24.0) 866 2.33 3rd

Writing 371

(100) 152

(41.0) 81

(21.8) 60

(16.2) 78

(21.0) 1049 2.83 1st

Missing Listening 93

(100) 24

(25.8) 19

(20.4) 14

(15.1) 36

(38.7) 217 2.33 4th

Speaking 93

(100) 27

(29.0) 31

(33.3) 22

(23.7) 13

(14.0) 258 2.77 1st

Reading 93

(100) 16

(17.2) 25

(26.9) 33

(35.5) 19

(20.4) 224 2.41 3rd

Writing 93

(100) 31

(33.3) 19

(20.4) 17

(18.3) 26

(28.0) 241 2.59 2nd

Table A95

The language skill pupils study most

[P-Q7 (4)]

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total

Sum Average Rank N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Listening 214

(25.9) 142

(17.2) 142

(17.2) 327

(39.6) 825

(100) 1893 2.29 4th

Speaking 176

(21.3) 243

(29.5) 227

(27.5) 179

(21.7) 824

(100) 2066 2.50 3rd

Reading 189

(22.9) 273

(33.1) 250

(30.3) 113

(13.7) 825

(100) 2188 2.65 2nd

Writing 302

(36.6) 194

(23.5) 124

(15.0) 206

(24.9) 826

(100) 2244 2.72 1st

373

Table A96

The language skill pupils study most (by English proficiency)

English Proficiency

N (%)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Sum Average Rank N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Low Listening 60

(100) 18

(30.0) 12

(20.0) 6

(10.0) 24

(40.0) 144 2.40 4th

Speaking 60

(100) 12

(20.0) 16

(26.7) 17

(28.3) 15

(25.0) 145 2.42 3rd

Reading 60

(100) 14

(23.3) 21

(35.0) 18

(30.0) 7

(11.7) 162 2.70 1st

Writing 60

(100) 21

(35.0) 13

(21.7) 3

(5.0) 23

(38.3) 152 2.53 2nd

Intermediate

Listening 320

(100) 91

(28.4) 50

(15.6) 55

(17.2) 124

(38.8) 748 2.34 4th

Speaking 320

(100) 59

(18.4) 117

(36.6) 80

(25.0) 64

(20.0) 811 2.53 2nd

Reading 320

(100) 59

(18.4) 97

(30.3) 113

(35.3) 51

(15.9) 804 2.51 3rd

Writing 321

(100) 124

(38.6) 72

(22.4) 39

(12.1) 86

(26.8) 876 2.73 1st

High Listening 360

(100) 74

(20.6) 65

(18.1) 68

(18.9) 153

(42.5) 780 2.17 4th

Speaking 360

(100) 82

(22.8) 90

(25.0) 107

(29.7) 81

(22.5) 893 2.48 3rd

Reading 360

(100) 99

(27.5) 123

(34.2) 95

(26.4) 43

(11.9) 998 2.77 2nd

Writing 360

(100) 137

(38.1) 88

(24.4) 61

(16.9) 74

(20.6) 1008 2.80 1st

Missing

Listening 85

(100) 31

(36.5) 15

(17.6) 13

(15.3) 26

(30.6) 221 2.60 2nd

Speaking 85

(100) 23

(27.1) 20

(23.5) 23

(27.1) 19

(22.4) 217 2.55 3rd

Reading 85

(100) 17

(20.0) 32

(37.6) 24

(28.2) 12

(14.1) 224 2.64 1st

Writing 85

(100) 20

(23.5) 21

(24.7) 21

(24.7) 23

(27.1) 208 2.45 4th

374

Table A97

Teachers’ perceptions about the necessity of English reading and writing

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

171 89.5 20 10.5 191 100.0

[T-Q2]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

In order to enter a university 69 14.2 40.4

In order to devote themselves to academic pursuits at university or at graduate school

57 11.7 33.3

In order to communicate with foreigners in the age of globalisation

132 27.1 77.2

In order to explore the new areas and to gain more information and knowledge

116 23.8 67.8

In order to acquire English more effectively 29 6.0 17.0

In order to read books or newspapers in English as a hobby or for self-development

20 4.1 11.7

In order to work effectively in professional areas 62 12.7 36.3

Other 2 0.4 1.2

Total 487 100.0 284.8

Table A98

Pupils’ perceptions about the necessity of English reading and writing

Cases

Valid Missing Total N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

874 99.3 6 0.7 880 100.0

[P-Q8]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

In order to enter the university 448 14.6 51.3

In order to communicate with foreigners 757 24.7 86.6

In order to explore new areas and to gain more information and knowledge

521 17.0 59.6

In order to learn English more effectively 389 12.7 44.5

In order to read English books or newspapers as a hobby or for self-development

368 12.0 42.1

In order to work effectively in professional areas

516 16.8 59.0

Other 65 2.1 7.4

Total 3064 100.0 350.6

375

Table A99

Pupils’ perceptions about the necessity of English reading and writing (by English proficiency)

[P-Q8]

English proficiency

Total Low Interme

diate High

In order to enter the university

Count 36 177 187 400

% within English

proficiency12 57.1 51.5 49.9

In order to communicate with foreigners

Count 47 290 339 676

% 74.6 84.3 90.4

In order to explore new areas and to gain more information and knowledge

Count 32 173 257 462

% 50.8 50.3 68.5

In order to learn English more effectively

Count 29 142 174 345

% 46.0 41.3 46.4

In order to read English books or newspapers as a hobby or for self-development

Count 21 123 184 328

% 33.3 35.8 49.1

In order to work effectively in professional areas

Count 33 189 238 460

% 52.4 54.9 63.5

Other - The answers

Count 8 20 33 61

% 12.7 5.8 8.8

▪ The necessity for their future dream (16 pupils) ▪ The importance of English as a global language (5 pupils) ▪ Parents encouraging them to learn reading and writing (8 pupils)

Total Count 63 344 375 782

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

69.920 14 000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

12 When contrasting the results according to English proficiency, each percentage (%) means that it is calculated within English proficiency.

376

Chi-square (between the high and intermediate group) df Sig.

53.763 7 000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable.

*. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and low group) df Sig.

8.924 7 .258

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable.

Chi-square (between the low and high group) df Sig.

30.711 7 000* Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Table A100

Teachers’ challenges in teaching English reading

[T-Q20]

Teaching low-level pupils to read well

Checking if they teach reading adequately

Lack of time for teaching English reading

Teaching how to read sentences aloud

Teaching how to comprehend sentences

N % N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 66 46.5 7 4.9 17 12.0 14 9.9 14 9.9

Rank 2 24 17.9 24 17.9 19 14.2 14 10.4 10 7.5

Rank 3 26 21.0 25 20.2 15 12.1 12 9.7 10 8.1

Rank 4 12 10.7 15 13.4 14 12.5 15 13.4 20 17.9

Rank 5 4 3.9 12 11.8 12 11.8 19 18.6 15 14.7

Total 132 21.5 83 13.5 77 12.5 74 12.1 69 11.2

Weighted total

532 248 246 211 195

Average 4.33 2.02 2.00 1.72 1.59

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

No Choice 24 73 81 82 87

Missing 35 35 33 35 35

Total 191 191 191 191 191

Offering reading materials and activities for high-level pupils

Teaching the relationships between sounds and letters (Phonics)

Teaching how to comprehend short stories

Teaching how to sound out words

Total

Valid

Rank 1 1 0.7 19 13.4 2 1.4 2 1.4 142 100.0

Rank 2 24 17.9 9 6.7 2 1.5 8 6.0 134 100.0

Rank 3 16 12.9 3 2.4 11 8.9 6 4.8 124 100.0

Rank 4 11 9.8 6 5.4 15 13.4 4 3.6 112 100.0

Rank 5 14 13.7 7 6.9 11 10.8 8 7.8 102 100.0

377

Total 66 10.7 44 7.2 41 6.7 28 4.6 614 100.0

Weighted total

185 159 92 76

Average 1.51 1.29 0.75 0.62

Rank 6 7 8 9

No Choice 90 112 115 128

Missing 35 35 35 35

Total 191 191 191 191

Table A101

Teachers’ challenges in teaching English writing

[T-Q26]

Teaching systematically low-level pupils to write well

Teaching pupils to write phrases and sentences accurately

Teaching pupils to express their thoughts in the written form with confidence

Giving suitable feedback to pupils in writing

N % N % N % N %

Valid

Rank 1 35 25.7 33 24.3 14 10.3 6 4.4

Rank 2 29 21.0 18 13.0 18 13.0 18 13.0

Rank 3 23 17.4 9 6.8 26 19.7 18 13.6

Rank 4 10 8.5 13 11.1 10 8.5 21 17.9

Rank 5 10 9.8 9 8.8 15 14.7 18 17.6

Total 107 17.1 82 13.1 83 13.3 81 13.0

Weighted total

390 299 255 216

Average 3.12 2.39 2.04 1.73

Rank 1 2 3 4

No Choice 36 61 60 62

Missing 48 48 48 48

Total 191 191 191 191

Lack of time for teaching English writing systematically

Teaching pupils to complete a text from sentences

Teaching pupils to write the accurate spellings of the words

Offering writing activities for high-level pupils

Valid

Rank 1 10 7.4 11 8.1 20 14.7 1 0.7

Rank 2 12 8.7 13 9.4 6 4.3 17 12.3

Rank 3 24 18.2 11 8.3 5 3.8 7 5.3

Rank 4 18 15.4 8 6.8 4 3.4 8 6.8

Rank 5 8 7.8 12 11.8 7 6.9 7 6.9

Total 72 11.5 55 8.8 42 6.7 40 6.4

378

Weighted total

214 168 154 117

Average 1.71 1.34 1.23 1.42

Rank 5 6 7 8

No Choice 71 88 101 103

Missing 48 48 48 48

Total 191 191 191 191

Teaching pupils to understand the characteristics of each genre, and write a text appropriately

Giving suitable feedback to pupils in writing because I lack English writing ability and English expressions

Total

Valid

Rank 1 5 3.7 1 0.7 136 100.0

Rank 2 5 3.6 2 1.4 138 100.0

Rank 3 6 4.5 3 2.3 132 100.0

Rank 4 10 8.5 15 12.8 117 100.0

Rank 5 5 4.9 11 10.8 102 100.0

Total 31 5.0 32 5.1 625 100.0

Weighted total

88 53

Average 0.70 0.42

Rank 9 10

No Choice 112 111

Missing 48 48

Total 191 191

Table A102

Teachers’ perceptions about difficulties that pupils are likely to perceive in English reading

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent 149 78.0 42 22.0 191 100.0

[T-Q19]

Responses Per cent of

Cases N Per cent

Memorising the English alphabet letters 7 2.5 4.7

Reading aloud words 44 15.7 29.5

Understanding the meanings of the words 37 13.2 24.8

Reading and understanding phrases and sentences

101 35.9 67.8

Reading and understanding a text (more than one paragraph)

90 32.0 60.4

Other 2 0.7 1.3

Total 281 100.0 188.6

379

Table A103

Teachers’ perceptions about difficulties that pupils are likely to perceive in English writing

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

143 74.9 48 25.1 191 100.0

[T-Q25]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Memorising and writing the English alphabet letters 17 5.8 11.9

Spelling words correctly 57 19.5 39.9

Writing phrases and sentences accurately according to the grammatical order

101 34.6 70.6

Completing a text from sentences 44 15.1 30.8

Understanding the characteristics of each genre, and writing a text appropriately

20 6.8 14.0

Expressing their thoughts in the written form with confidence

51 17.5 35.7

Other 2 0.7 1.4

Total 292 100.0 204.2

Table A104

Pupils’ difficulties in English reading

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

876 99.5 4 0.5 880 100.0

[P-Q18]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Memorising the English alphabet letters 101 8.7 11.5

Reading aloud words 109 9.4 12.4

Understanding the meanings of words 159 13.7 18.2

Reading and understanding phrases and sentences

168 14.4 19.2

Reading and understanding a text 222 19.1 25.3

No difficulty 385 33.1 43.9

Other 20 1.7 2.3

Total 1164 100.0 132.9

380

Table A105

Pupils’ difficulties in English reading (by English proficiency)

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

784 89.1 96 10.9 880 100.0

[P-Q18]

English Proficiency

Total Low Intermediate High

Memorising the English alphabet letters

Count 20 50 21 91

% 31.3 14.5 5.6

Reading aloud words Count 22 49 22 93

% 34.4 14.2 5.9

Understanding the meanings of words

Count 28 78 37 143

% 43.8 22.6 9.9

Reading and understanding phrases and sentences

Count 29 90 34 153

% 45.3 26.1 9.1

Reading and understanding a text

Count 27 111 63 201

% 42.2 32.2 16.8

No difficulty Count 6 96 245 347

% 9.4 27.8 65.3

Other Count 3 7 7 17

% 4.7 2.0 1.9

Total Count 64 345 375 1045

784

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

369.662 14 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the high and intermediate group) df Sig.

212.880 7 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

62.078 7 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the low and high group) df Sig.

293.430 7 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

381

Table A106

Pupils’ difficulties in English writing

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

869 98.8 11 1.3 880 100.0

[P-Q28]

Responses Per cent of Cases N Per cent

Memorising and writing the English alphabet letters 132 9.5 15.2

Spelling words correctly 193 13.8 22.2

Writing phrases or sentences according to the grammatical order

208 14.9 23.9

Completing a text from sentences 153 11.0 17.6

Understanding the characteristics of each genre and writing a text properly

215 15.4 24.7

Expressing myself in the written form with confidence

202 14.5 23.2

No difficulty 282 20.2 32.5

Other 10 0.7 1.2

Total 1395 100.0 160.5

Table A107

Pupils’ difficulties in English writing (by English proficiency)

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Per cent N Per cent N Per cent

778 88.4 102 11.6 880 100.0

[P-Q28]

English Proficiency

Total Low Interme

diate High

Memorising and writing the English alphabet letters

Count 24 60 31 115

% 37.5 17.5 8.3

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 37.5 17.7 8.4

Spelling words accurately

Count 34 106 40 180

% 53.1 31.0 10.8

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 53.1 31.3 10.9

Writing phrases or sentences

Count 30 87 74 191

% 46.9 25.4 19.9

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 46.9 25.7 20.1

382

Completing a text Count 30 77 31

138 % 46.9 22.5 8.3

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 46.9 22.7 8.4

Writing a text based on each genre

Count 31 106 54

191 % 48.4 31.0 14.5

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 48.4 31.3 14.7

Writing with confidence

Count 26 90 70 186

% 40.6 26.3 18.8

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 40.6 26.5 19.0

No difficulty Count 4 66 182 252

% 6.3 19.3 48.9

% (excluding ‘Other’ option) 6.3 19.5 49.5

Other Count 0 3 5 8

% 0.0 0.9 1.3

Total Count 64 342 372 1261

778

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

Pearson Chi-Square Tests

Chi-square (among the three groups) df Sig.

N=771 ** 358.413 14 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level. **. This is the result of excluding ‘Other’ option (The number of the pupils selecting only ‘Other’ option was 7).

Chi-square (between the high and intermediate group) df Sig.

N=707 192.419 7 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the intermediate and the low group) df Sig.

N=403 70.840 7 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

Chi-square (between the low and high group) df Sig.

N=432 293.453 7 .000*

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost subtable. *. The Chi-square statistic is significant at the .05 level.

383

Appendix D

Questionnaire for Pupils

1. Korean Version

초등학교에서의 영어 읽기 및 쓰기 교육에 관한 설문

안녕하세요? 저는 휴직을 하고 영국 런던대학교 UCL IOE에서 박

사과정을 공부하고 있는 교사 안수해입니다. 영어 읽기∙쓰기 학습

에 대해 여러분들의 경험과 의견을 듣고자 합니다. 여러분들께서

답해주신 내용은 연구 목적으로만 이용할 것입니다. 설문조사에 관해 궁금한

점이 있으면 언제든지 질문해 주세요. 설문에 참가하는 여러분들께 진심으로

감사드립니다.

2015년 5월

UCL Institute of Education

안 수 해 드림

※ 여러분 개인에 관한 다음 질문을 읽고 해당하는 것을 쓰거나 알맞은 것을

선택하세요 (A~E).

A. 어느 초등학교에 다니나요? 서울( )초등학교

B. 알맞은 성별에 표시하세요. 남 ( ) 여 ( )

C. 언제 태어났는지 고르세요 ( ).

① 2002년 5월 1일 ~ 2003년 4월 30일 (만 12세)

② 2003년 5월 1일 ~ 2004년 4월 30일 (만 11세)

③ 2004년 5월 1일 ~ 2005년 4월 30일 (만 10세)

④ 2005년 5월 1일 ~ 2006년 4월 30일 (만 9세)

⑤ 2006년 5월 1일 ~ 2007년 4월 30일 (만 8세)

⑥ 2007년 5월 1일 ~ 2008년 4월 30일 (만 7세)

D. 몇 학년인지 표시하세요.

3학년 ( ) 4학년 ( ) 5학년 ( ) 6학년 ( )

384

E. 학교에서 나의 영어실력이 어디에 해당되는지 표시하세요.

상 수업 내용을 잘 알아듣고 주어진 학습과제를 매우 잘 할 수 있으며

학습내용이 쉽다고 생각한다.

중 수업 내용을 중간 정도 이해할 수 있고 주어진 학습과제를 어느 정도 할

수 있다.

하 수업 내용을 잘 이해할 수 없거나 주어진 학습과제가 어렵다고 생각한다.

※ 영어 학습 경험에 관한 질문을 잘 읽고 답해 보세요 (1번~5번).

1. 영어를 언제 처음 배우기 시작하였나요? ( )

① 유치원 보다 더 어릴 때 (4살 이하) ② 유치원 때 (5살~7살)

③ 초등학교 1학년 때 ④ 초등학교 2학년 때

⑤ 초등학교 3학년 때

2. 영어를 어디에서 배우기 시작하였나요? ( )

① 집에서 ② 어린이집이나 유치원에서 ③ 영어유치원에서

④ 영어학원에서 ⑤ 학교에서 ⑥ 외국에 살면서 자연스럽게

3. 영어를 주로 어떻게 배우기 시작하였나요? 해당하는 것은 모두 고르세요.

① 영어동화책의 CD를 들으면서 배웠다.

② 부모님이나 선생님께서 영어동화책을 읽어주셨다.

③ 영어 애니메이션을 보면서 배웠다.

④ 여러 가지 다양한 활동 (게임, 학습지, 과제 해결, 노래 등)을 하며

배웠다.

⑤ 학교 수업시간에 처음 배웠다.

⑥ 알파벳을 읽고 쓰는 것부터 배웠다.

⑦ 파닉스(소리와 철자의 관계)부터 배웠다.

⑧ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

4. 영어권 국가나 영어를 사용하는 외국 학교에서 공부한 경험이 있나요? ( )

① 없다.

② 6개월 미만의 기간 동안 공부한 적이 있다.

③ 6개월 이상 1년 미만의 기간 동안 공부한 적이 있다.

④ 1년 이상 2년 미만의 기간 동안 공부한 적이 있다.

⑤ 2년 이상의 기간 동안 공부한 적이 있다.

385

5. 현재 학교 수업 외에 영어를 배우고 있나요? 해당하는 것은 모두 고르세요. ( )

① 배우고 있지 않다. ② 집에서 영어학습지를 하고 있다.

③ 방과후 영어수업에 참여하고 있다. ④ 영어학원을 다니고 있다.

⑤ 영어 개인 과외를 받고 있다.

⑥ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

※ 영어학습 및 영어 학습 활동에 대해 어떻게 생각하는 지와 관련된 질문을 잘

읽고 답해 보세요 (6~7).

6. 다음 영어 학습에 대한 질문을 읽고 알맞은 곳에 표시하세요.

(1) 영어를 배우는 것을 좋아하나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

(2) 영어를 배우는 것이 재미있나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

(3) 영어에 자신 있나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

7. 다음 영어 학습 활동에 대한 질문을 읽고 순위를 정해 보세요.

(1) 가장 재미있는 영어 학습 활동은 어느 것인지 1부터 4까지 순서대로 순위를 정해

보세요. (가장 재미있는 것 1, 가장 재미없는 것 4)

듣기 말하기 읽기 쓰기

(2) 가장 자신 있는 영어 학습 활동은 어느 것인지 1부터 4까지 순서대로 순위를 정해

보세요. (가장 자신 있는 것 1, 가장 자신 없는 것 4)

듣기 말하기 읽기 쓰기

(3) 가장 어려운 영어 학습 활동은 어느 것인지 순서대로 순위를 정해 보세요. (가장

어려운 것 1, 가장 쉬운 것 4)

듣기 말하기 읽기 쓰기

(4) 학교 수업 이외에 집이나 학원 등에서 가장 많이 공부하는 영어 학습 활동은 어느

것인지 1부터 4까지 순서대로 순위를 정해 보세요. (가장 많이 공부하는 것 1, 가장

적게 공부하는 것 4)

듣기 말하기 읽기 쓰기

386

※ 영어로 읽고 쓰는 것에 관한 질문을 잘 읽고 답해 보세요 (8).

8. 영어로 읽기와 쓰기를 왜 배워야 한다고 생각하는지 아래 이유 중에서 모두

고르세요.

① 대학교에 합격하기 위해서 배워야 한다.

② 세계화 시대에 다른 나라 사람들과 의사소통하기 위해 배워야 한다.

③ 새로운 세계를 탐색하고 더 많은 정보와 지식을 얻기 위해서 배워야

한다.

④ 영어를 보다 효과적으로 배우기 위해서는 영어 읽기와 쓰기를 배우는

것이 중요하다.

⑤ 영어로 된 책이나 신문 등을 보는 것과 같이 취미 생활이나 나의 발전을

위해 배워야 한다.

⑥ 회사 등에서 일할 때 자기 분야에서 일을 잘 수행하기 위해서 배워야

한다.

⑦ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

※ 학교에서 배우는 영어 읽기 수업에 관한 질문을 잘 읽고 답해 보세요 (9~18).

9. 학교에서 배우는 영어 읽기 수업이 재미있나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

10. 학교에서 배우는 영어 읽기 수업을 좋아하나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

11번 문항으로 10-1번 문항으로

10-1. 학교에서 배우는 영어 읽기 수업을 좋아하지 않는 이유는 무엇인가요? ( )

① 읽기 수업 내용이 너무 쉬워서 ② 읽기 수업 내용이 너무 어려워서

③ 읽기 활동이 재미없고 지루해서

④ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요: ( )

11. 학교 영어 수업을 통하여 영어 읽기를 잘 할 수 있게 되었다고 생각하나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

11-1. 왜 그렇게 생각하나요?

387

12. 학교에서 배우는 영어 읽기 수업이 어려운가요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

13. 학교에서 영어 읽기 수업을 할 때 공부해야 할 학습 내용이 많다고 생각하나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

14. 학교에서 영어 읽기 수업을 할 때 어떤 방식으로 하는 것을 좋아하는지 모두

고르세요. ( )

① 혼자서 활동이나 과제를 수행하는 것을 좋아한다.

② 짝과 함께 하는 활동이나 게임, 과제를 좋아한다.

③ 모둠별로 함께 하는 활동이나 게임, 과제를 좋아한다.

④ 학급 전체가 팀 별로 나뉘어 하는 활동이나 게임, 과제를 좋아한다.

15. 영어 읽기 수업시간에 공부하고 싶은 활동은 어느 것인지 모두 고르세요.

( )

① 영어 동화책, 영어신문, 영어만화 등 다양한 읽을거리 읽기

② 영어 읽기 게임 하기

③ 교과서에 있는 읽기 활동하기

④ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요: ( )

16. 읽기 활동이나 과제는 어떤 것이 가장 좋은가요? ( )

① 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 쉽게 할 수 있을 정도로 아주 쉬운 것

② 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 할 수 있을 정도로 약간 쉬운 것

③ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요할 정도로 약간 어려운 것

④ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요할 정도로 많이 어려운 것

17. 학교 수업 시간에 영어 읽기 자료가 어려울 때 어떤 도움을 받는 것이 가장

좋은가요? ( )

① 도움을 받지 않고 혼자 해결하기 ② 사전 등의 자료 찾기

③ 옆 친구에게 물어보기 ④ 선생님께 여쭈어보기

⑤ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

( )

18. 현재 영어 읽기를 할 때 느끼는 어려움을 모두 고르세요.

① 알파벳을 기억하는 것

② 낱말을 소리 내어 읽는 것

③ 낱말의 의미를 아는 것

④ 어구나 문장을 읽고 이해하는 것

388

⑤ 담화 (본문/글)를 읽고 이해하는 것

⑥ 특별히 큰 어려움이 없다.

⑦ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

※ 학교에서 배우는 영어 쓰기 수업에 관한 질문을 잘 읽고 답해 보세요 (19~28).

19. 학교에서 배우는 영어 쓰기 수업이 재미있나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

20. 학교에서 배우는 영어 쓰기 수업을 좋아하나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

21번 문항으로 20-1번 문항으로

20-1. 학교에서 배우는 영어 쓰기 수업을 좋아하지 않는 이유는 무엇인가요? ( )

① 쓰기 수업 내용이 너무 쉬워서 ② 쓰기 수업 내용이 너무 어려워서

③ 쓰기 활동이 재미없고 지루해서

④ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요: ( )

21. 학교 영어 수업을 통하여 영어 쓰기를 잘 하게 되었다고 생각하나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

21-1. 왜 그렇게 생각하나요?

22. 학교에서 배우는 영어 쓰기 수업이 어려운가요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

23. 학교에서 영어 쓰기 수업을 할 때 공부해야 할 학습 내용이 많다고 생각하나요?

매우 그렇다. 그렇다. 그렇지 않다. 전혀 그렇지 않다.

24. 학교에서 영어 쓰기 수업을 할 때 어떤 방식으로 하는 것을 좋아하는지 모두

고르세요. ( )

① 혼자서 활동이나 과제를 수행하는 것을 좋아한다.

② 짝과 함께 하는 활동이나 게임, 과제를 좋아한다.

③ 모둠별로 함께 하는 활동이나 게임, 과제를 좋아한다.

④ 학급 전체가 팀 별로 나뉘어 하는 활동이나 게임, 과제를 좋아한다.

389

25. 영어 쓰기 수업 시간에 공부하고 싶은 활동은 어느 것인지 모두 고르세요

( ).

① 잘 된 것을 보고 그대로 베껴 쓰기 ② 잘 된 것을 참고하여 살짝 고쳐 쓰기

③ 내가 쓰고 싶은 대로 자유롭게 쓰기 ④ 교과서에 있는 활동하기

⑤ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

( )

26. 쓰기 과제는 어떤 것이 가장 좋은가요? ( )

① 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 쉽게 할 수 있을 정도로 아주 쉬운 것

② 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 할 수 있을 정도로 약간 쉬운 것

③ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요할 정도로 약간 어려운 것

④ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요할 정도로 많이 어려운 것

27. 학교 수업 시간에 영어 쓰기 자료가 어려울 때 어떤 도움을 받는 것이 가장

좋은가요? ( )

① 도움을 받지 않고 혼자 해결하기 ② 사전 등의 자료 찾기

③ 옆 친구에게 물어보기 ④ 선생님께 여쭈어보기

⑤ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

( )

28. 현재 영어 쓰기를 할 때 느끼는 어려움을 모두 고르세요.

① 알파벳을 기억하여 쓰는 것

② 배운 낱말의 철자를 바르게 쓰는 것

③ 알맞은 문법적 배열에 따라 어구나 문장을 바르게 쓰는 것

④ 각 문장을 모아 하나의 글로 표현하는 것

⑤ 글의 종류별(시, 일기, 편지, 메일, 동화 등)로 특징을 알고 알맞게 쓰는

것

⑥ 내 생각을 글로 자신감 있게 표현하는 것

⑦ 특별히 큰 어려움이 없다.

⑧ 기타 의견이 있다면 직접 적으세요:

29. 학교에서 배우는 영어 읽기, 쓰기 학습에 대해 더 말하고 싶은 것이 있다면 어떤

것이든지 적어 주세요.

설문에 참여해 주셔서 감사합니다.

390

2. English Version

Questionnaire on English Reading and Writing

in the South Korean State Primary School Context

Hello. I am a research student pursuing a PhD in Education at the

University College London Institute of Education, and a primary school

teacher who has taken leave to study. I would like to listen to your

experiences and opinions on English reading and writing learning. The results will be

used for the purpose of research. If you need any help, please ask me/ your teacher.

Thank you very much for your kind participation.

Yours sincerely,

Suhae An

PhD candidate

UCL Institute of Education

※ These are the questions about yourself (Questions A to E).

A. Which primary school do you attend? Seoul ( ) primary school

B. What is your gender? Male ( ) Female ( )

C. When were you born? ( )

① 1st May 2002~30th April 2003 (12 years old)

② 1st May 2003~30th April 2004 (11 years old)

③ 1st May 2004~30th April 2005 (10 years old)

④ 1st May 2005~30th April 2006 (9 years old)

⑤ 1st May 2006~30th April 2007 (8 years old)

⑥ 1st May 2007~30th April 2008 (7 years old)

D. What grade are you in?

Grade 3 ( ) Grade 4 ( ) Grade 5 ( ) Grade 6 ( )

E. What English level do you think you belong to?

High I can understand what I learn during lessons and do activities very well, thinking these are easy.

Intermediate I can understand moderately what I learn during lessons, and do activities to a certain degree.

Low I cannot understand what I learn during lessons, or I think activities are difficult.

391

※ These are the questions about your English learning experience (Q1 to Q5).

1. When did you start to learn English? ( )

① Younger than 3 years old ② Kindergarten (3 to 5 years old)

③ Grade 1 ④ Grade 2 ⑤ Grade 3

2. Where did you start to learn English? ( )

① At home ② At nursery or kindergarten

③ At English kindergarten ④ At English language academy

⑤ At primary school ⑥ In a foreign country

⑦ Other: ( )

3. How did you usually start to learn English? Choose all that apply.

① Through English storybooks, listening to audio CDs

② My parents or teachers read English storybooks

③ Through watching English animations

④ Through various activities (games, workbooks, tasks, songs etc.)

⑤ Through English lessons at school

⑥ Through reading and writing the letters of the English alphabet

⑦ Through learning phonics (letter-sound relationships)

⑧ Other:

4. Have you ever studied in English speaking schools in other countries? ( )

① No. ② Yes, less than 6 months.

③ Yes, 6 months to less than 1 year. ④ Yes, 1 year to less than 2 years.

⑤ Yes, more than or equal to 2 years.

5. Do you learn English except for regular English classes at the school? Please select

all that apply.

① No.

② Yes, through English workbooks at home.

③ Yes, in the English after-school programmes.

④ Yes, in English language academy.

⑤ Yes, from personal English tutorials.

⑥ Other:

392

※ These are the questions about how you think English learning and English language

skills (Q6 to Q7).

6. Do you agree with the following statement?

(1) I like English learning.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

(2) I have fun with English learning.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

(3) I have confidence in English learning.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

7. These are the question about English language skills. Please rank the four English language skills with each question.

(1) What is your most interesting English language skill? Please rank the following from the most interesting skill to the least interesting one. (12the most interesting, 42the least interesting)

listening speaking reading writing

(2) What is your most confident English language skill? Please rank the following from the most confident skill to the least confident one. (12the most confident, 42the least confident)

listening speaking reading writing

(3) What is your most difficult English language skill? Please rank the following from the most difficult skill to the least difficult one. (12the most difficult, 42the least difficult)

listening speaking reading writing

(4) Except for English lessons at school, what language skill do you study most at home or at an English academy? Please rank the following. (12most, 42least)

listening speaking reading writing

393

※ These are the questions about what you think about reading and writing in English.

8. Why do you think you need to learn English reading and writing? Choose all that apply.

① In order to enter the university

② In order to communicate with others from other countries in the age of globalisation

③ In order to explore new areas and to gain more information and knowledge

④ In order to learn English more effectively

⑤ In order to read English books or newspapers as a hobby or for self-development

⑥ In order to work effectively in professional areas

⑦ Other:

※ These are the questions about your English reading lessons at school (Q9 to Q18).

9~14. Do you agree with the following statement?

9. I have fun with English reading lessons at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

10. I like English reading lessons at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Go to question 11 Go to question 10-1

10-1. What is the reason why you do not like English reading lessons at school? ( )

① It is too easy. ② It is too difficult.

③ English reading activities are too boring. ④ Other: ( )

11. I think I could develop my English reading ability through English reading lessons at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

11-1. Why do you think so?

12. English reading lessons at school are difficult.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

394

13. I think I have many things to study in English reading lessons at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

14. How do you like to learn English reading in your classes? Choose all that apply.

( )

① I like to do activities and tasks individually.

② I like to do activities, games and tasks in pairs.

③ I like to do activities, games and tasks in groups.

④ I like to do whole class work through team-based activities, games and tasks.

⑤ Other: ( )

15. What kinds of activities do you like for your English reading classes? Choose all

that apply. ( )

① Reading various materials such as English storybooks,

English newspapers or English cartoons

② Playing English reading games

③ Doing reading activities in the textbooks

④ Other: ( )

16. Which difficulty level of English reading activities do you like best?

① Very easy activities which do not require any help or hint.

② Slightly easy activities which do not require any help or hint.

③ Slightly difficult activities which require some help or hints.

④ Very difficult activities which require some help or hints.

17. What kind of help do you like best when reading materials are difficult? ( )

① I do not need any help. ② I like to look up the dictionary.

③ I like to ask my friends. ④ I like to ask my teachers.

⑤ Other: ( )

18. What is currently your difficulty in English reading? Choose all that apply.

① Memorising the English alphabet letters

② Reading aloud words

③ Understanding the meanings of words

④ Reading and understanding phrases and sentences

⑤ Reading and understanding texts

⑥ No difficulty

⑦ Other:

395

※ These are the questions about your English writing lessons at school (Q19 to Q28).

19~24. Do you agree with the following statement?

19. I have fun with English writing lessons.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

20. I like English writing lessons at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Go to question 21 Go to question 20-1

20-1. What is the reason why you do not like English writing lessons? ( )

① It is too easy. ② It is too difficult.

③ English writing activities at school are too boring.

④ Other: ( )

21. I think I developed my writing ability through English writing lessons at school.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

21-1. Why do you think so?

22. English writing lessons are difficult.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

23. I think I have many things to study in English writing lessons.

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

24. How do you like to learn English writing in your classes? Choose all that apply. ( )

① I like to do activities, and tasks individually.

② I like to do activities, games and tasks in pairs.

③ I like to do activities, games and tasks in groups.

④ I like to do whole class work through team-based activities, games and tasks.

⑤ Other: ( )

396

25. What kinds of activities do you like for your English writing classes?

Choose all that apply. ( )

① Controlled writing (copying words or sentences)

② Guided writing (rewriting the sample writing)

③ Free writing (creative writing)

④ Doing writing activities in the textbook

⑤ Other: ( )

26. Which level of English writing activities do you like best? ( )

① Very easy activities which do not require any help or hint.

② Slightly easy activities which do not require any help or hint.

③ Slightly difficult activities which require some help or hints.

④ Very difficult activities which require some help or hints.

27. What kind of help do you like best when writing materials are difficult? ( )

① I do not want any help. ② I like to look up the dictionary.

③ I like to ask my friends. ④ I like to ask my teacher.

⑤ Other: ( )

28. What is currently your difficulty in English writing? Choose all that apply.

① Memorising and writing the English alphabet letters

② Spelling words correctly

③ Writing phrases or sentences in terms of the grammatical order

④ Completing a text from sentences

⑤ Understanding the characteristics of each genre (e.g. poems, diaries, letters, stories) and writing a text properly.

⑥ Expressing myself in the written form with confidence

⑦ No difficulty

⑧ Other:

29. Please write down what you want to tell more about learning English reading and

writing at school.

Thank you very much for answering all the questions. I really appreciate your help and time.

397

Appendix E

Questionnaire for Teachers

1. Korean Version

초등학교에서의 영어 읽기 및 쓰기 교육에 관한 설문

초등영어교육의 현장에서 열정을 갖고 학생들을 지도하고 계신 선생님들께,

안녕하십니까? 학년말 업무로 바쁘신 가운데 귀한 시간을 내어 설문에 참여해주시

는 선생님들께 진심으로 감사드립니다. 저는 현재 유학 휴직을 하고 영국 런던대학

교 UCL Institute of Education (IOE)에서 박사과정 중에 있는 안수해라고 합니다. 본

설문을 통해 서울시 관내 공립초등학교에서 근무하고 있는 선생님들을 대상으로 영

어 읽기, 쓰기 교육과 관련된 경험 및 인식을 조사하고자 합니다. 설문에 답해 주신

내용은 연구 목적 이외에는 이용하지 않을 것입니다. 궁금한 것이 있으시면 언제든

지 문의해 주시기를 바랍니다. 감사합니다.

2015년 12월

안 수 해 드림

UCL Institute of Education

A. 기본 정보

a. 선생님께서 소속된 교육지원청에 표시하십시오.

① 동부 ② 서부 ③ 남부 ④ 북부

⑤ 중부 ⑥ 강동송파 ⑦ 강서 ⑧ 강남

⑨ 동작관악 ⑩ 성동광진 ⑪ 성북

b. 해당하는 교직 경력에 표시하십시오.

① 1년 미만 ② 1년 이상 3년 미만 ③ 3년 이상 5년 미만

④ 5년 이상 10년 미만 ⑤ 10년 이상 20년 미만 ⑥ 20년 이상

c. 해당하는 영어지도 경력 (담임교사, 영어전담교사 모두 포함) 에 표시하십시오.

① 1년 미만 ② 1년 이상 3년 미만 ③ 3년 이상 5년 미만

④ 5년 이상 10년 미만 ⑤ 10년 이상 15년 미만 ⑥ 15년 이상

398

d. 다음 중 본인에게 해당하는 것에 모두 표시하십시오.

교대에서의 영어심화과정 졸업

교대 또는 일반대학(초등교육 전공)에서 초등영어교육 관련 강의 이수

일반대학에서의 영어교육과 졸업

대학원 석사과정에서의 영어교육 전공

TEE-M (Teaching English in English Master)

TEE-A (Teaching English in English Ace)

해당되는 내용이 없음

기타 (예, TESOL 등):

e. 지금 근무하고 계시는 학교 학생들의 전반적인 학습 수준이 어느 정도라고 생각하십니까?

상

중

하

잘 모르겠다.

(기타)

f. 지금 근무하고 계시는 학교 학생들의 영어 학습 수준이 어느 정도라고 생각하십니까?

상

중

하

잘 모르겠다.

(기타)

g. 지금 현재 영어를 가르치고 계십니까?

가르치고 있지 않다.

영어전담교사 (3학년) 로서 가르치고 있다.

영어전담교사 (4학년) 로서 가르치고 있다.

영어전담교사 (5학년) 로서 가르치고 있다.

영어전담교사 (6학년) 로서 가르치고 있다.

학급담임 (3학년)으로서 가르치고 있다.

학급담임 (4학년)으로서 가르치고 있다.

학급담임 (5학년)으로서 가르치고 있다.

학급담임 (6학년)으로서 가르치고 있다.

399

B. 언어 기능 (Language Skills)

1. 수업 시간에 학생들이 가장 잘하는 언어 기능은 어느 것인지 순서대로 1위부터 4위까지 숫

자로 적어 주십시오. (가장 잘하는 것이 1, 가장 못하는 것이 4)

듣 기 말하기 읽 기 쓰 기

C. 영어 읽기 및 쓰기 교육

2. 우리 나라는 한국어만을 사용하는 나라입니다. 이러한 우리 나라 상황(monolingual society)

에서 영어로 읽고 쓰는 것이 왜 필요하다고 생각하는지 가장 크게 동의하는 것을 3가지만

고르십시오.

① 대학에 들어가기 위해 필요하다.

② 대학 이상의 고등 학문에 정진하기 위해 필요하다.

③ 세계화 시대에 다른 나라 사람들과 의사소통하기 위해 필요하다.

④ 새로운 세계를 탐색하고 더 많은 정보와 지식을 얻기 위해서 필요하다.

⑤ 영어를 보다 효과적으로 습득하기 위해서 필요하다.

⑥ 영어로 된 책이나 신문 등을 보는 것과 같이 취미 생활이나 자기 개발을 위해 필

요하다.

⑦ 자기 전문 분야에서 직무를 원활히 수행하는데 필요하다.

(기타)

3. 초등학교에서 어린이들이 영어 읽기 및 쓰기를 잘 하려면 어떤 요건이 뒷받침되어야 한다

고 생각하십니까? 가장 중요한 것부터 순위를 매기십시오. (가장 중요한 요인이 1, 가장 중

요하지 않은 요인이 7)

① 우리말로 읽고 쓸 수 있는 능력

② 영어(듣기 및 말하기 중심의 음성언어)로 의사소통할 수 있는 능력

③ 영어의 소리와 철자와의 관계를 이해하여 낱말을 소리 내어 읽는 능력

④ 영어 낱말을 많이 알고 이해하며 바르게 쓸 수 있는 능력

⑤ 영어 문법을 알고 활용할 수 있는 능력

⑥ 영어 읽기, 쓰기에 대한 흥미와 관심

⑦ 영어 읽기, 쓰기에 대한 자신감

4. 초등학교에서 이루어지고 있는 영어 읽기 및 쓰기 수업에 대한 다음 설명을 읽고 알맞은

곳에 표시하십시오. (5: 매우 그렇다, 4: 그렇다, 3: 보통이다, 2: 그렇지 않다, 1: 전혀 그렇지

않다.)

5 4 3 2 1

영어 읽기 및 쓰기 수업을 통해서 읽기, 쓰기에 대한

학생들의 관심과 흥미가 높아졌다.

400

영어 읽기 및 쓰기 수업을 통해서 읽기, 쓰기에 대한

학생들의 자신감이 향상되었다.

영어 읽기 및 쓰기 수업을 통해서 영어 읽기, 쓰기능

력을 향상시킬 수 있었다.

5. 영어 읽기 및 쓰기를 지도할 때 주로 어떻게 지도하는지 모두 고르십시오.

① 읽기와 쓰기를 각각 지도한다.

② 읽기와 쓰기를 통합하여 지도한다.

③ 읽기와 쓰기를 각각 지도한 후, 두 가지 언어 기능을 통합하여 진도한다.

④ 듣기, 말하기, 읽기, 쓰기를 통합하여 지도한다.

⑤ 듣기, 말하기, 읽기, 쓰기를 각각 지도한 후, 네 가지 언어 기능을 통합하여 지도한

다.

(기타)

6. 영어 읽기 및 쓰기를 지도할 때 가장 많이 사용하는 자료 3가지를 고르십시오.

① 교과서와 CD

② 낱말이나 문장 카드

③ 파워포인트 자료

④ 학습지

⑤ 실제적인 자료 (영어동화책, 신문, 만화, 잡지 등)

(기타)

7. 영어 읽기, 쓰기를 지도할 때 교과서를 재구성한다면 주로 어떻게 하는지 해당하는 것을 모

두 고르십시오.

① 학생들의 수준을 고려해서 더 많은 단어를 지도한다.

② 학생들의 수준을 고려해서 더 많은 언어 표현을 지도한다.

③ 학생들의 수준과 흥미를 고려해서 교과서 활동을 다른 활동으로 바꾼다.

④ 난이도 등을 고려해서 지도하는 단원의 순서를 바꾼다.

(기타)

8. 읽기, 쓰기를 위한 활동을 만들 때 가장 중점적으로 고려하는 것 4가지를 선택하십시오.

① 학생들의 흥미

② 학생들의 자신감 향상

③ 4가지 언어 기능의 통합적인 사용을 통한 학생들의 의사소통능력 향상

④ 읽기 및 쓰기 능력 향상

⑤ 의미 있는 상황 제시

⑥ 자료 제작의 용이성

⑦ 수업 시간 내에 적절한 시간 배분

(기타)

401

9. 영어 읽기 및 쓰기를 지도하면서 가장 어려운 점을 1, 2, 3, 4순위까지만 선택하십시오.

① 학생들이 영어 읽기, 쓰기에 대해 흥미가 없다.

② 학생들이 영어 읽기, 쓰기에 대해 자신감이 없다.

③ 다양한 수준의 학생들을 한 교실에서 지도하기 어렵다.

④ 교육과정에 제시된 문자지도가 충분하지 않다.

⑤ 읽기 및 쓰기에 배당된 시간이 부족하다.

⑥ 교사 자신의 영어 읽기, 쓰기 능력이 부족하다.

⑦ 읽기 및 쓰기 지도 방법에 대한 이해가 부족하다.

⑧ 지도 자료가 충분하지 않다.

10. 학생들이 영어 읽기 및 쓰기 학습에 대해 흥미를 갖게 하기 위해 선생님께서 자주 사용하

는 방법을 1, 2, 3순위까지만 고르십시오.

① 파워포인트 자료나 시청각 자료 등과 같은 보조 자료를 적절하게 활용

② 교과서 이외에 다양한 다른 읽기 자료 (예, 이야기책, 신문기사, 만화, 잡지 등) 제공

③ 게임 위주의 재미있는 활동 제시

④ 학생들의 영어 수준에 맞는 활동이나 과제 제공

⑤ 학생들의 인지적 수준에 맞는 활동이나 과제 제공

11. 학생들이 영어 읽기 및 쓰기 능력에서 수준 차이가 있다고 생각하십니까?

① 영어 읽기 및 쓰기에 있어서 학생들 간에 수준 차이가 별로 나지 않는다.

② 영어 읽기 및 쓰기에 있어서 학생들 간에 수준 차이가 조금 있다.

③ 영어 읽기 및 쓰기에 있어서 학생들 간에 수준 차이가 크다.

12. 학생들이 영어 읽기 및 쓰기 능력에 있어서 수준 차이가 있다면 그 이유가 무엇인지 1, 2,

3순위까지만 고르십시오.

① 학생들의 기본적인 인지능력의 차이

② 영어 읽기 및 쓰기에 대한 학생들의 흥미 차이

③ 영어 읽기 및 쓰기에 대한 학생들의 자신감 차이

④ 학생들이 경험한 영어사교육 차이

⑤ 학부모들의 관심 차이

13. 영어 수준이 다른 학생들을 평소에 어떻게 지도하는지 4가지만 고르십시오.

① 학생들을 수준별로 나누어 각각 다른 반으로 편성한다.

② 학생들을 한 학급 내에서 수준별 그룹으로 편성한다.

③ 한 학급 내에서 다양한 수준의 학생들을 같은 그룹으로 편성한다.

④ 학생들의 수준에 맞도록 활동 과제를 다르게 제시한다.

⑤ 같은 과제를 제시하되 학생들이 각자 수준에 맞게 해결하도록 한다.

⑥ 못 하는 학생들은 수업 시간에 개별적으로 지도한다.

⑦ 못 하는 학생들은 별도의 시간에 따로 불러 지도한다.

402

14. 교과서에 제시된 읽기, 쓰기 지도 자료가 충분하지 않을 때, 어떤 노력을 하는지 3가지만

고르십시오.

① 자료를 직접 제작한다.

② 교사들의 자료 공유 사이트에서 자료를 다운 받아 사용한다.

③ 학교 내의 동료교사들과 함께 자료를 제작하여 공유한다.

④ 실제적인 자료(영어동화책, 영어신문, 영어잡지 등)를 활용한다.

⑤ 인터넷에서 자료를 검색하여 사용한다.

⑥ 시중에 나와 있는 활동집 또는 자료집 등을 이용한다.

(기타)

D. 읽기

15. 영어 교육과정이나 교과서에 제시되어 있는 영어 읽기에 대한 다음 의견을 읽고 알맞은

곳에 표시하십시오. (5: 매우 그렇다, 4: 그렇다, 3: 보통이다, 2: 그렇지 않다, 1: 전혀 그렇지

않다.)

5 4 3 2 1

① 교육과정 상의 읽기 성취기준의 수준이 높다.

② 한 단원 내에서 다루어야 할 읽기 학습 목표를 충

분히 달성할 수 있도록 학습내용이 체계적으로 제시

되어 있다.

③ 교과서의 읽기 학습량이 많다.

④ 교과서의 읽기 학습자료(texts, 읽을거리)가 어렵다.

⑤ 교과서의 읽기 학습자료(texts, 읽을거리)가 학생들

의 흥미에 맞게 잘 구성되어 있다.

⑥ 교과서의 읽기 활동(activities)이 학생들의 흥미에

맞게 잘 구성되어 있다.

⑦ 교과서의 읽기 학습자료(texts, 읽을거리)가 학생들

의 영어 읽기에 대한 자신감을 향상시킬 수 있도록 잘

구성되어 있다.

⑧ 교과서의 읽기 활동(activities)이 학생들의 영어 읽

기에 대한 자신감을 향상시킬 수 있도록 잘 구성되어

있다.

⑨ 교과서에 제시된 읽기 학습자료(texts, 읽을거리)가

학생들의 읽기 능력을 충분히 발달시킬 수 있도록 잘

구성되어 있다.

⑩ 교과서에 제시된 읽기 활동(activities)이 학생들의

읽기 능력을 충분히 발달시킬 수 있도록 잘 구성되어

있다.

403

16. 영어 읽기 활동을 제시할 때 주로 어떤 형태의 학습 조직을 선호하는지 2가지만 선택하

십시오.

① 개인별 활동

② 짝 활동

③ 모둠별 활동

④ 전체 활동

17. 학생들을 위한 읽기 활동을 제작하거나 선택할 때 난이도를 어느 수준으로 고려하십니까?

① 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 할 수 있을 정도의 아주 쉬운 수준

② 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 할 수 있을 정도의 약간 쉬운 수준

③ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요한 약간 어려운 수준

④ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요한 아주 어려운 수준

18. 영어 읽기 수업시간에 중심활동으로 주로 어떤 활동을 하시는지 1, 2, 3순위를 고르십시

오.

① 교과서에 나온 읽기 자료(texts, 읽을거리)를 다양한 방법으로 읽기 (예, 속으로

읽기, 소리 내어 읽기, 따라 읽기, 같이 읽기, 역할 나누어 읽기 등)

② 교과서에 나온 읽기 활동(activities)하기

③ 영어 동화책, 영어신문, 영어만화 등 다양한 읽을거리 읽기

④ 읽기 게임 하기

⑤ 실제적인 상황 (authentic situation)에서 읽어야 해결할 수 있는 여러 가지 활동

하기 (예, 위치를 안내하는 글을 읽고 약도에서 해당 위치 찾기, 사람을 소개하는

글을 읽고 여러 사람 중에서 해당하는 사람 찾기 등)

19. 학생들이 영어 읽기를 할 때 느끼는 가장 큰 어려움은 무엇이라고 생각하는지 두 가지만

선택하십시오.

① 알파벳을 기억하는 것

② 낱말을 보고 소리 내어 읽는 것

③ 낱말을 보고 그 의미를 아는 것

④ 어구나 문장을 읽고 뜻을 이해하는 것

⑤ 문단 이상의 글을 읽고 뜻을 이해하는 것

(기타)

20. 영어 읽기를 지도하면서 선생님께서 느끼는 어려움이 무엇인지 1, 2, 3, 4, 5순위까지만

선택해 주십시오.

① 소리와 철자의 관계(Phonics)를 지도하기가 어렵다.

② 낱말을 소리 내어 읽는 방법을 지도하기가 어렵다.

③ 발음이나 억양을 고려하여 문장을 유창하게 읽는 방법을 지도하기가 어렵다.

④ 문장을 읽고 그 의미를 이해하는 방법을 지도하기가 어렵다.

⑤ 짧은 글을 읽고 그 의미를 이해하는 방법을 지도하기가 어렵다.

404

⑥ 하위 수준의 학생들이 읽기를 잘 할 수 있도록 체계적으로 지도하기가 어렵다.

⑦ 상위 수준의 학생들의 읽기 능력에 맞는 읽기 자료와 활동들을 제공하는 것이

어렵다.

⑧ 학생들의 머리 속에서 이루어지는 읽기 과정을 확인하기가 어려워 읽기를 제대

로 지도하고 있는가를 알기가 어렵다.

⑨ 읽기를 체계적으로 지도할 시간이 충분하지 않다.

E. 쓰기

21. 영어 교육과정이나 교과서에 제시되어 있는 영어 쓰기에 대한 다음 의견을 읽고 어느 정

도 동의하는지 알맞은 곳에 표시하십시오. (5: 매우 그렇다, 4: 그렇다, 3: 보통이다, 2: 그렇

지 않다, 1: 전혀 그렇지 않다.)

5 4 3 2 1

① 교육과정 상의 쓰기 성취기준의 수준이 높다.

② 한 단원 내에서 다루어야 할 쓰기 학습 목표를 충

분히 달성할 수 있도록 학습내용이 체계적으로 제

시되어 있다.

③ 교과서의 쓰기 학습량이 많다.

④ 교과서의 쓰기 활동이 어렵다.

⑤ 교과서의 쓰기 활동이 학생들의 흥미에 맞게 잘

구성되어 있다.

⑥ 교과서의 쓰기 활동이 학생들의 영어 쓰기에 대

한 자신감을 향상시킬 수 있도록 잘 구성되어 있다.

⑦ 교과서에 제시된 쓰기 활동이 학생들의 쓰기 능

력을 충분히 발달시킬 수 있도록 잘 구성되어 있다.

22. 영어 쓰기 활동을 제시할 때 주로 어떤 형태의 학습 조직을 선호하는지 2가지만 선택하

십시오.

① 개인별 활동

② 짝 활동

③ 모둠별 활동

④ 전체 활동

23. 학생들을 위한 쓰기 활동을 제작하거나 선택할 때 난이도를 어느 수준으로 고려하십니까?

① 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 할 수 있을 정도의 아주 쉬운 수준

② 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트 없이 혼자 할 수 있을 정도의 약간 쉬운 수준

③ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요한 약간 어려운 수준

④ 다른 사람의 도움이나 힌트가 필요한 아주 어려운 수준

405

24. 영어 쓰기 수업시간에 중심활동으로 주로 어떤 활동을 하시는지 1, 2, 3순위까지만

고르십시오.

① 교과서에 있는 쓰기 활동하기

② 쓰기 게임 하기

③ 잘 된 것을 보고 그대로 베껴 쓰기

④ 잘 된 것을 참고하여 살짝 고쳐 쓰기

⑤ 주어진 낱말이나 표현 등을 참고하여 주제에 따라 자유롭게 쓰기

⑥ 주어진 주제에 따라 자유롭게 쓰기

⑦ 실제적인 상황 (authentic situation)을 제공하고 그에 따라 여러 가지 종류의 글

쓰기 (예, 포스터 만들기, 편지 쓰기, 일기 쓰기, 보물지도를 작성하고 보물이 있

는 곳을 글로 나타내기, 이야기 만들기 등)

25. 학생들이 영어 쓰기를 할 때 느끼는 가장 큰 어려움은 무엇이라고 생각하는지 두 가지만

선택하십시오.

① 알파벳을 기억하여 쓰는 것

② 낱말의 철자를 정확하게 쓰는 것

③ 알맞은 문법적 배열에 따라 어구나 문장을 정확하게 쓰는 것

④ 각 문장을 모아 하나의 글로 완성하는 것

⑤ 글의 종류별(예, 일기, 카드, 편지, 시, 이야기, 대본, 만화, 포스터, 광고 등)로 특

징을 알고 알맞게 쓰는 것

⑥ 자신의 생각을 글로 자신감 있게 표현하는 것

(기타)

26. 영어 쓰기를 지도하면서 선생님께서 느끼는 어려움이 무엇인지 1, 2, 3, 4, 5순위까지만

선택해 주십시오.

① 낱말의 철자를 정확하게 쓰도록 지도하기가 어렵다.

② 알맞은 문법적 배열에 따라 어구나 문장을 정확하게 쓰도록 지도하기가 어렵다.

③ 각 문장을 모아 하나의 글로 완성할 수 있도록 지도하기가 어렵다.

④ 글의 종류별(예, 일기, 카드, 편지, 시, 이야기, 대본, 만화, 포스터, 광고 등)로 특

징을 알고 알맞게 쓰도록 지도하기가 어렵다.

⑤ 자신의 생각을 글로 자신감 있게 쓰도록 지도하기가 어렵다.

⑥ 하위 수준의 학생들이 잘 쓸 수 있도록 체계적으로 지도하기가 어렵다.

⑦ 상위 수준의 학생들의 쓰기 능력에 맞는 쓰기 활동을 제공하는 것이 어렵다.

⑧ 쓰기를 체계적으로 지도할 시간이 충분하지 않다.

⑨ 학생들의 쓰기 결과물에 대해 적절한 피드백을 제공하기 위한 교사의 시간적인

부담이 크다.

⑩ 교사의 영어 쓰기 능력이 부족하거나 영어식 표현에 대한 이해가 부족하여 학

생들의 쓰기 결과물에 대해 적절한 피드백을 제공하기 어렵다.

지금까지 설문에 참여해 주신 선생님들께 진심으로 감사드립니다!

406

2. English Version

Questionnaire on English Reading and Writing

in the South Korean State Primary School Context

Dear the teachers who are teaching with passion in South Korean state schools

Hello. I appreciate your precious participation in this survey even with your busy schedule at the end of the school year. I am a research student pursuing a PhD in Education at the University College London Institute of Education, and a primary school teacher in Seoul who has taken leave to study.

I would like to investigate how the teachers perceive and teach English reading and writing in the South Korean public primary school setting. I undertake to keep details of the teachers who do respond absolutely confidential. If you need any clarifications on the study, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Suhae An

PhD candidate

UCL Institute of Education

A. General Information

※ Please tick (√) one box/boxes in each section or write words/sentences as

appropriate.

a. Which District Office of Education in Seoul does your school belong to?

① Dongbu ② Seoubu ③ Nambu ④ Bukbu

⑤ Jungbu ⑥ Gangdong Songpa

⑦ Gangseo ⑧ Gangnam

⑨ Dongjak Gwanak

⑩ Seongdong Gwangjin

⑪ Seongbuk

407

b. How long have you taught in primary schools?

① Less than 1 year ② 1 year to less than

3 years

③ 3 years to less than 5 years

④ 5 years to less than 10 years

⑤ 10 years to less

than 20 years

⑥ More than or equal to 20 years

c. How long have you taught the English language in primary schools? (Including

teaching English both as a class teacher and as an English language subject teacher)

① Less than 1 year ② 1 year to less than

3 years

③ 3 years to less than 5 years

④ 5 years to less than 10 years

⑤ 10 years to less

than 15 years

⑥ More than or equal to 15 years

d. Please select all that apply to you.

Intensive course of primary English education in National University of Education

Taking lectures related to primary English education in university (major in primary education)

A bachelor’s degree in English education major in university

A master’s degree in English education

TEE-M (Teaching English in English Master)

TEE-A (Teaching English in English Ace)

N/A

Other (please specify, e.g. TESOL) :

e. What academic standards do you think your school pupils are generally in?

High

Intermediate

Low

I do not know

(Other)

408

f. What standards of English language proficiency do you think your school pupils

generally have?

High

Intermediate

Low

I do not know

(Other)

g. Do you teach the English language now?

No.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 3 as a subject teacher.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 4 as a subject teacher.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 5 as a subject teacher.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 6 as a subject teacher.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 3 as a class teacher.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 4 as a class teacher.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 5 as a class teacher.

Yes, I teach English to the pupils in Year 6 as a class teacher.

B. Four English language skills

1. What English language skills do you think your pupils are good at? Please rank the following language skills in order. (1= the best language skills, 4= the poorest language skills)

listening speaking reading writing

C. Teaching of English reading and writing

2. Korea is a monolingual country. Even though people use just Korean as a mother tongue in ordinary life, why do you think people need English reading and writing? Please choose three main factors.

① In order to enter a university

② In order to devote themselves to academic pursuits at university or at graduate school

③ In order to communicate with people from other countries in the age of globalisation

④ In order to explore new areas and to gain more information and knowledge

409

⑤ In order to acquire English more effectively

⑥ In order to read books or newspapers in English as a hobby or for self-development

⑦ In order to work effectively in professional areas

(Other)

3. What are the important factors for primary school pupils to be good at English reading and writing? Please rank the ideas below from the most important factor to the least important one. (12the most important, 7 the least important) If you have the other comments, please write them down.

① Mother tongue literacy (the ability to read and write in mother tongue)

② The ability to communicate in spoken English such as listening and speaking

③ Understanding the relationship between sounds and spellings (phonics) and reading aloud the words in English

④ Knowing a lot of English words and understanding their meanings

⑤ Understanding English grammar rules and using them

⑥ Interest in English reading and writing

⑦ Confidence in English reading and writing

4. Please choose how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(5: Strongly agree, 4: Agree, 3: Neutral, 2: Disagree, 1: Strongly disagree)

5 4 3 2 1

(1) Pupils’ interest in English reading and writing was improved through English lessons.

(2) Pupils’ confidence in English reading and writing was improved through English lessons.

(3) Pupils could improve their ability of English reading and writing through English lessons.

410

5. When teaching English reading and writing, how do you mainly teach? Please select all that apply to you.

① I teach reading and writing respectively.

② I integrate reading and writing.

③ After teaching reading and writing respectively, I offer integrated reading and writing activities.

④ I integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

⑤ After teaching listening, speaking, reading and writing respectively, I present the integrated activities of four language skills.

(Other)

6. When teaching English reading and writing, what materials do you mainly use? Please choose three materials that you use most.

① Textbooks and CDs

② Word cards or sentence cards

③ PowerPoint materials

④ Worksheets

⑤ Authentic materials (e.g., English storybooks, newspapers, comics, magazines)

(Other)

7. When you want to adapt the English textbooks for your pupils in teaching reading and writing, how do you mainly do? Please select all that apply to you.

① I teach more words than the words in the textbooks, considering the pupils’ ability.

② I teach more language expressions than the language expressions in the textbooks, considering the pupils’ ability.

③ I change the activities in the textbooks, considering the pupils’ ability and interest.

④ I reorder the units in the textbooks, considering the difficulty.

(Other)

411

8. What are your primary concerns in designing reading and writing activities? Please choose four factors.

① Pupils’ interest

② Improving pupils’ confidence

③ Improving pupils’ communicative competence based on the integrated use of four language skills

④ Improving pupils’ reading and writing ability

⑤ Presenting meaningful situations

⑥ Easy ways of making materials

⑦ Spending appropriate time during classes

(Other)

9. What are your difficulties in teaching English reading and writing? Please choose four main factors and rank them in order of difficulty from 1 to 4 where 1 is most difficult to you and 4 is fourth most difficult for you.

① Pupils do not show interest in English reading and writing.

② Pupils do not have confidence in English reading and writing.

③ It is difficult to teach pupils with various English levels in one classroom.

④ Reading and writing in the national curriculum is not sufficient.

⑤ I do not have enough class hours for English reading and writing.

⑥ I have low proficiency in English reading and writing.

⑦ I do not understand teaching methods for English reading and writing enough.

⑧ I do not have enough teaching materials.

10. In order to have your pupils interested in English reading and writing learning, please choose three ways you use most and rank them from 1 to 3 where 1 is the most used way by you and 3 is the third-most used.

① Utilising appropriate aid materials such as powerpoint materials or visual aids.

② Offering various reading materials (e.g. storybooks, newspapers, comics or magazines) except for the textbooks.

③ Offering interesting activities centred on games.

④ Offering activities or tasks appropriate for pupils’ English abilities.

⑤ Offering activities or tasks appropriate for pupils’ cognitive levels.

412

11. Do you think there is a gap between pupils’ proficiency in English reading and writing?

① There is almost no gap between pupils’ proficiencies in English reading and writing.

② There is a slight gap between pupils’ proficiencies in English reading and writing.

③ There is a wide gap between pupils’ proficiencies in English reading and writing.

12. If there is a gap between pupils’ abilities in English reading and writing, what are the main reasons for that? Please choose three main reasons and rank them from 1 to 3 where 1 is the biggest reason, and 3 is the second biggest reason.

① The difference in pupils’ fundamental cognitive abilities

② The difference in pupils’ interest in English reading and writing

③ The difference in pupils’ confidence in English reading and writing

④ The difference in private language lessons pupils have taken

⑤ The difference in parents’ attention

13. Please choose four ways you normally teach the pupils with different English levels.

① I/we assign pupils to the different English classes according to their English levels.

② I place pupils at a similar English proficiency level within the same group.

③ I place pupils at different English proficiency levels within the same group.

④ I offer different activities according to pupils’ English proficiency.

⑤ I offer the same activities but have pupils complete the tasks according to their proficiency.

⑥ I instruct low-level pupils individually during lessons.

⑦ I instruct low-level pupils individually in extra time.

14. When you do not have enough teaching materials from the textbooks, please select three things that you are doing.

① I make materials myself.

② I use the materials downloaded from teachers’ online communities.

③ I make and share materials with my colleagues.

④ I use authentic materials (e.g. English storybooks, newspapers, and magazines).

413

⑤ I search for and use the materials on the Internet.

⑥ I use commercial resource books or workbooks.

D. Reading at school

15. The statements about your beliefs or opinions about English reading offered in

the National curriculum or the textbooks are presented below. Please select only

one option in each row from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

(1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neutral 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree)

1 2 3 4 5

(1) The achievement standards for English reading in the national curriculum are high.

(2) The reading contents are systematically presented in order to achieve the given goals fully within one unit.

(3) The amount of English reading in the textbooks is large.

(4) Reading texts in the textbooks are difficult.

(5) Reading texts in the textbooks are well created in order to interest pupils.

(6) Reading activities in the textbooks are well created in order to interest pupils.

(7) Reading texts in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ confidence in English reading.

(8) Reading activities in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ confidence in English reading.

(9) Reading texts in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ reading ability fully.

(10) Reading activities in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ reading ability fully.

414

16. What kind of learning organisation do you prefer when you offer English reading activities? Please select two ways you usually prefer.

① Individual work

② Pair work

③ Group work

④ Whole-class work

17. When you make or select reading activities for your pupils, what difficulty level do you consider is appropriate?

① Very easy level which does not require any help or hint

② Slightly easy level which does not require any help or hint

③ Slightly difficult level which requires some help or hints

④ Very difficult level which requires some help or hints

18. What main activities do you usually offer in English reading classes? Please choose three kinds of activities and rank them from 1 to 3 where 1 is the most used activity, and 3 is the third most used activity.

① Reading the texts in the textbooks in various ways (e.g., reading silently, reading aloud, reading after CDs or teachers, reading together, taking turns in reading)

② Doing reading activities in the textbooks

③ Reading various reading materials such as English storybooks, newspapers, and comics

④ Playing reading games

⑤ Doing activities for pupils to read with authentic purpose (e.g., reading a text to give directions and find the place in a map, or reading a text to explain a person and find the person among many people)

19. What do you think is the biggest difficulty that your pupils perceive in English reading? Please choose two below.

① Memorising the English alphabet letters

② Reading aloud words

③ Understanding the meanings of the words

④ Reading and understanding phrases and sentences

⑤ Reading and understanding a text including more than one paragraph

(Other)

415

20. What are your difficulties in teaching English reading? Please choose five, and rank them from 1 to 5 where 1 is most difficult and 5 is fifth most difficult.

① It is difficult to teach the relationships between sounds and letters (Phonics)

② It is difficult to teach how to sound out words

③ It is difficult to teach how to read sentences fluently along with suitable pronunciation and intonation

④ It is difficult to teach how to comprehend sentences after reading them

⑤ It is difficult to teach how to comprehend short stories after reading them

⑥ It is difficult to teach systematically low-level pupils to read well

⑦ It is difficult to offer reading materials and activities appropriate for high-level pupils

⑧ It is difficult to check if I teach reading adequately because investigating the reading process in pupils’ brain is not easy.

⑨ We do not have enough time for teaching English reading systematically.

E. Writing at school

21. The statements about your beliefs or opinions about English writing offered in the National curriculum or the textbooks are presented below. Please select only one option in each row from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

(1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neutral 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree)

1 2 3 4 5

(1) The achievement standards for English writing in the national curriculum are high.

(2) The writing contents are systematically presented in order to achieve the goals fully within one unit.

(3) The amount of English writing in the textbooks is large.

(4) Writing activities in the textbooks are difficult.

(5) Writing activities in the textbooks are well created in order to interest pupils.

(6) Writing activities in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ confidence in English writing.

(7) Writing activities in the textbooks are well created in order to improve pupils’ writing ability fully.

416

22. What kind of learning organisation do you prefer when you offer English writing

activities? Please select two ways you usually prefer.

① Individual work

② Pair work

③ Group work

④ Whole-class work

23. When you make or select writing activities for your pupils, what difficulty level do

you consider is appropriate?

① Very easy level which does not require any help or hint

② Slightly easy level which does not require any help or hint

③ Slightly difficult level which requires some help or hints

④ Very difficult level which requires some help or hints

24. What main activities do you usually offer in English writing classes? Please

choose three kinds of activities and rank them from 1 to 3 where 1 is the most used

activity, and 3 is the third most used activity.

① Doing activities in the textbooks

② Playing writing games

③ Copying words, sentences or texts exactly

④ Writing sentences based on the patterns of the model sentences

⑤ Writing freely in terms of the given topic using the given words or expressions

⑥ Writing freely in terms of the given topic

⑦ Writing various kinds of texts in meaningful situations with authentic purpose (e.g., making a poster, writing a letter, writing a journal, making a treasure map and writing instructions for someone to find the treasure, or making a story)

417

25. What do you think is the biggest difficulty that your pupils perceive in English

writing? Please choose two below.

① Memorising and writing the English alphabet letters

② Writing the accurate spelling of words

③ Writing phrases and sentences accurately according to the grammatical order

④ Completing a text from sentences

⑤ Understanding the characteristics of each genre (e.g., journals, cards, letters, poems, stories, scripts, comics, posters and advertisements), and writing a text appropriately

⑥ Expressing their thoughts in the written form with confidence

(Other)

26. What are your difficulties to teach English writing? Please choose five, and rank

them from 1 to 5 where 1 is most difficult, and 5 is fifth most difficult.

① It is difficult to teach pupils to write the accurate spellings of words.

② It is difficult to teach pupils to write phrases and sentences accurately according to the grammatical order.

③ It is difficult to teach pupils to complete a text from sentences.

④ It is difficult to teach pupils to understand the characteristics of each genre (e.g., journals, cards, letters, poems, stories, scripts, comics, posters and advertisements), and write a text appropriately.

⑤ It is difficult to teach pupils to express their thoughts in the written form with confidence.

⑥ It is difficult to teach systematically low-level pupils to write well.

⑦ It is difficult to offer writing activities appropriate for high-level pupils.

⑧ We do not have enough time for teaching English writing systematically.

⑨ It is difficult to give proper feedback to pupils in writing because it is too time-consuming.

⑩ It is difficult to give proper feedback to pupils in writing because I lack in English writing ability and English expressions.

Thank you so much for your participation and cooperation.

418

Appendix F

Interview Topics for Pupils

1. Personal information

- School year, age and English proficiency

- The experience of studying in English speaking schools in other countries

- The initial experience of learning English (age, place, methods, etc.)

2. English learning experience at the moment of the research

- Private tutoring

- Personal preference, interest, and confidence in English learning

- Favourite/ most confident/ most difficult language skill and which language skill they study most

3. The experience or perception of English reading and writing

- The necessity of English reading and writing in their context (such as country, primary school)

- The experience of English reading and writing outside the school

4. English reading lessons at school

- Interest, the degree of difficulty, the extent of heavy workload, preference and the reasons,

- The effect of English reading lessons for their English reading proficiency

- Preferred learning organisations, reading activities, the difficulty level in English reading activities or tasks and type of support, and biggest difficulty in reading

5. English writing lessons at school

- Interest, the degree of difficulty, the extent of heavy workload, preference and the reason

- The effect of English writing lessons for their English writing proficiency

- Preferred learning organisations, writing activities, the difficulty level in English writing activities or tasks and type of support, and biggest difficulty in writing

419

Appendix G

Interview Topics for Teachers

1. Background information

- Academic background, teaching experience, English teaching experience,

certificates for teaching English and other careers in English education

- The information about the school and their pupils

2. The school policy of assigning English language teachers

3. Four language skills

- Less confident/ difficult language skills (pupils)

- Less confident/ difficult language skills to teach

4. The necessity of English reading and writing in their context

5. Challenges in teaching English reading and writing

- Reasons and how to manage them

- The difference among pupils in English proficiency, its reasons, and their effort to

overcome the difference

6. Reading and writing of the national curriculum and the English textbooks

7. Their teaching practice

- Teaching materials, adaptation of the textbooks

- Teaching reading and writing in an integrated manner or in a separate way

- Grouping

- Activities

- The ways of co-teaching in teaching English literacy

- Difficulties in teaching reading and writing individually

8. Reflection on their English lesson(s)

420

Appendix H

Interview Topics for Head Teachers

1. Academic background and careers in English education

2. The government policy of English education and English reading and writing in

state primary schools

3. The policy of assigning English language teachers in the individual schools (as a

class teacher or a subject teacher; and the selection criteria to choose English

subject teachers among school teachers) and the change of the government

policy on hiring English native-speaking assistant teachers

4. The fundamental background of the school, teachers and pupils

5. Special English programmes of the school

6. Suggestions for effective English reading and writing instruction at the primary

school level