Twenty Students One Classroom

Language IssuesVolume 25 Number 1 Summer 2014

Contents 3 Editorial

Jo-Ann Delaney and Sally Bird

NATECLA Conference Keynote 4 Developing classroom interactional competence

Professor Steve Walsh

Peer reviewed articles 9 Making observation feedback effective

Sarah Boodt 16 ESOL for social justice? The opportunities and limitations

within mainstream provisionJill Court

23 The volunteer ethos and utopian impulse in the ESOL classroom Julia Podziewska

Articles 29 Web-based technologies and beginner ESOL learners:

an exploration of learner and tutor attitudes and experiencesKatharine Stapleford

35 Part 1 summary of “Own-language use in ELT: exploring global practices and attitudes” by Graham Hall and Guy CookNaeema Hann

Voices from the classroom 44 Cultural differences in the language classroom

Lesya N. Bobkova 47 Twenty students, one classroom: formulating learning

objectives and strategies for students with diverse language learning needs Katya Kitchingman

Research tasters 54 In the shadows of language: a process of othering

Kirandeep Kaur 57 Ears to authentic materials – using authentic listening

materials in the classroomJennifer Pang

Reviews 59 New language, new literacy: teaching literacy to English

language learners, Jill Sinclair BellReviewed by Allegra Carlton

62 Innovations in English language teaching for migrants and refugees, edited by David MallowsReviewed by Jo-Ann Delaney

64 Current developments in English for work and the workplace: approaches, curricula and materials, edited by: Mark KrzanowskiReviewed by Alexander Braddell

Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 2

Language Issues is published by NATECLANational Association for Teaching English and other Community Languages to Adultswww.natecla.org.ukhttp://www.natecla.org.uk/content/483/ Language-Issues-The-journal-of-NATECLA

Jane ArstallNATECLA National CentreSouth and City College BirminghamHall Green CampusCole Bank RoadBirmingham b28 [email protected]

ISSN 0263-5833

Copyright remains with the author. No fees paid.Guidelines for authors can be found at: http://www.natecla.org.uk/uploads/media/208/3041.pdf

Design and production: Waysgoose, SouthamptonOur thanks to MWL for all their work for the journal printing - excellent job

Advertising Cover full page £250 Inside full page £200 Inside half page £150Contact Jane Arstall at [email protected]

EditorsJo-Ann Delaney and Sally Bird

Editorial BoardRakesh BhanotAnn CowieNaeema HannAlison Schwetlick

Advisory BoardElsa Auerbach University of Massachusetts BostonMike BaynhamUniversity of LeedsRon CarterUniversity of NottinghamDr Balasubramanyam ChandramohanUniversity of BedfordshireGuy CookKings College, LondonDavid CrystalUniversity of Wales, BangorPamela Frame Institute of Education University of LondonJennifer JenkinsUniversity of SouthamptonBraj KachruUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignRobert LeachESOL consultantMaria Isabel Maldonado-GarciaInstitute of Languages, University of the PunjabKimerly MillerMinnesota Advocates for Immersion Network, USABarry O’SullivanRoehampton UniversityMario RinvolucriPilgrims Language CoursesCelia RobertsKing’s College, LondonSheila RosenbergIndependent ESOL writer/researcherPhilida SchellekensESOL ConsultantJames SimpsonUniversity of LeedsTove Skutnabb-KangasÅbo Akademi University, Vasa, FinlandHelen SunderlandESOL ConsultantArturo TosiRoyal Holloway, University of LondonMahendra K VermaUniversity of YorkCatherine WallaceInstitute of Education University of LondonBencie WollUniversity College London


EditorialThis edition of Language Issues is the first to reach you in electronic format. As we outlined in the last editorial, we hope that the new format will increase the accessibility and reach, ensuring a growth in our readership and a strong future for the journal. Limited paper copies will be available at the NATECLA conference. We hope you will enjoy reading the journal in its new format.

To whet your appetite for the upcoming conference, our first piece is a summary of last year’s keynote speech: E is for Englishes. In it Professor Steve Walsh highlights the role of classroom interactional competence (CIC) and how it creates learning spaces and opportunities in a multilingual classroom, where it allows a focus on communication rather than correction.

Our peer reviewed articles include a focus on teacher education for ESOL. Sarah Boodt considers approaches to giving feedback on ESOL teaching used on the CELTA (Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) course in Making observation feedback effective. Through an analysis of views on effective feedback she draws some conclusions that would be relevant to ESOL teacher educators. For those familiar with the CELTA course format there are some interesting suggestions drawn from both trainer and trainee that would help structure and run teaching practice feedback sessions.

The theme of social justice is raised in the peer reviewed articles by Jill Court and Julia Podziewska. In ESOL for social justice?, Jill Court looks at the way mainstream ESOL provision is organised and funded and questions the extent to which language classes can actually contribute to social justice for adult migrants. She argues that the different policy agendas influencing the content of provision limits the contribution made to the achievement of true equality.

Julia Podziewska continues the theme by looking at the impact of voluntary ESOL teachers. In The volunteer ethos and utopian impulse in the ESOL classroom she provides a comprehensive overview of the strong historical trend of volunteering in the ESOL teaching profession. She then situates this tradition within current debates about the professionalization of the workforce and draws out some interesting points for consideration for all ESOL teachers.

Drawing on her experience of teaching Russian to Chinese learners, Lesya Bobkova discusses the interplay between language teaching as a transfer of knowledge and skills and the way in which learners’ personal and social cultures play a role. Her experiences will no doubt reflect those of ESOL teachers working with different nationality groups.

The place for the development of digital literacy with beginner ESOL students is the theme of Katharine Stapleford’s article Web-based technologies and beginner ESOL learners. In it she challenges the assumption that beginner learners are too concerned with the development of their language to use digital tools effectively. The findings of her study suggest that

the use of technology with beginners not only enhances their language learning but can give them an additional life skill.

Katy Kitchingman’s article Twenty students, one classroom is also a study of classroom practice, this time into the diagnostic assessment practices she has experienced. She follows two students through their assessment and the design of learning outcomes and teaching and learning strategies for them. The article raises a number of issues about the effectiveness of our assessment practices, but also illustrates the skilful way that teachers work with the outcomes of assessment to provide tailored learning opportunities.

We are very pleased to have the opportunity to publish extracts from the study undertaken by Graham Hall and Guy Cook on Own-language use and ELT originally published as a British Council research paper. In this edition, Naeema Hann introduces the study, provides a summary of the literature review, gives us an overview of the methodology and presents some of the key findings. Part 2 will feature in the next edition, where Naeema will present the remaining findings and some of the conclusions. We would like to thank the British Council and the authors for allowing us to publish extracts from this interesting review.

In this edition we have started a new section entitled Research Tasters. In this section we would like to include short pieces from those engaged in a research project who would like to introduce the broad themes of their research rather than detailed findings. For our first research tasters, two authors have contributed pieces on topics that will feature in our next edition as full articles. Kirandeep Kaur considers how English may act as a communication tool but also play a role in social inequality in his summary In the shadows of language: a process of othering. Jenny Pang introduces her research into using authentic listening materials in Ears to authentic materials. We hope that this new section will encourage those engaged in research, but perhaps not yet ready to publish, to share their insights into new themes in the field of ESOL.

We hope you find the new format accessible. We will continue to work on making the journal as widely available as possible to individuals and institutions. We would welcome any feedback you may have on the electronic version through the NATECLA office.

Sally Bird and Jo-Ann Delaney Co-editors [email protected]

Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 n at e cl aco n f e r e n ce k e y n o t e 4

Developing classroom interactional competenceSteve WalshProfessor Steve Walsh, Newcastle University, was the keynote speaker at the 2013 NATECLA national conference. This article reflects the content of his speech.

AbstractIn this article, I present an overview of Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC) (Walsh 2013) and consider how it can be characterized in different contexts. Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC) is defined as, ‘Teachers’ and learners’ ability to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning’ (Walsh 2013, p67). It puts interaction firmly at the centre of teaching and learning and argues that by improving their CIC, teachers will immediately improve learning and opportunities for learning. My aim is to show how teacher development might benefit from an understanding of CIC and have a positive impact on learn-ing, especially where learning is regarded as a social activity which is strongly influenced by involvement, engagement and participation; where learning is regarded as doing rather than having (cf Sfard 1999; Larsen-Freeman 2010).

Interactional competenceBefore considering CIC in some detail, this section considers some of the work which has been completed on interactional competence, a term first coined by Kramsch (1986, p370):

I propose (…) a push for interactional competence to give our students a truly emancipating, rather than compensating foreign language education.

Kramsch’s main argument is that the focus of language education should be directed towards helping learners to use their existing skills and knowledge to interact by making the focus of attention interactional competence. More than twenty years ago, then, Kramsch was arguing that a focus on interactional competence would allow teachers to concentrate more on the ability of learners to communicate intended meaning and to establish joint understandings. Essentially, interactional competence is concerned with what goes on between interactants and how that communication is managed.

More recent studies of interactional competence have looked at the ways in which learners use a range of resources to interact proficiently and participate competently in different L2 encounters. In one of the most comprehensive and convincing accounts of interactional competence, Kelly Hall et al (2011) start from the position that learners, rather than being ‘deficient’, have a range of interactional competencies which need to be described and understood. Other studies have

considered phenomena such as the influence of task-type on learners’ use of interactional resources (Mori 2002), features of participant frameworks between speakers of English and German (Kasper 2004), and the interactional resources used by teachers to create learning opportunities (e.g. Hellermann 2008, Koshik, 2002, Walsh 2002).

All of these studies share common perspectives on IC. For example, they emphasize the fact that interactional competence is context specific and concerned with the ways in which interactants construct meanings together. They acknowledge, for example, that different interactional resources are needed in a context where the emphasis is on a transaction, such as ordering a coffee, to those required to participate in a multi-party conversation. Clearly, in the first context, a basic knowledge of English will allow you to order a coffee with minimal interactional competence. In the second, however, and in most classroom contexts, much more sophisticated interactional resources will be required if you are to successfully compete for the floor, gain and pass turns, attend to what the speaker has said, interrupt, clarify and so on. We can see, from these two examples, that interactional competence is highly context specific and related very closely to speaker intent and to audience.

At the time of writing, important studies are underway which will contribute to our understanding of interactional competence, both in an educational setting and in more everyday contexts. One such project, English Profile, led by Cambridge University Press, working with a number of partner institutions (http://www.englishprofile.org ), recognizes that there is much work to be done in terms of characterizing interactional competence as the ‘fifth skill’ (in addition to speaking, listening, reading and writing). It is almost certain that the results of this and related research projects will have enormous implications for language teaching, language testing and materials design. There is certainly likely to be, at the very least, a shift in emphasis towards language as interaction, as a means for communication, rather than an academic discipline. Interactional competence is very likely to become the main enterprise of future English language teaching.

Classroom interactional competence Turning now to a conceptualisation of classroom interactional competence (CIC), the starting point is to acknowledge the centrality of interaction to teaching and learning. As in any institutional setting, the core business (here, learning a language) is accomplished through interaction; some would even go as far as to say that the interaction which takes place IS the learning. CIC focuses on the ways in which teachers’


and learners’ interactional decisions and subsequent actions enhance learning and learning opportunity. In the discussion which follows, I present an initial conceptualisation of CIC and consider how this might be used to promote teacher development.

While it is true to say that CIC is highly context specific, not only to a particular class, but to a specific moment in the discourse, there are a number of features of CIC which are common to all contexts. First, teachers may demonstrate CIC through their ability to use language which is both convergent to the pedagogic goal of the moment and which is appropriate to the learners. Language use and pedagogic goals must work together. This position assumes that pedagogic goals and the

language used to achieve them are inextricably intertwined and constantly being re-adjusted (see, Walsh 2003; Seedhouse 2004). Any evidence of CIC must therefore demonstrate that interlocutors are using discourse which is both appropriate to specific pedagogic goals and to the agenda of the moment.

To demonstrate this alignment between pedagogic goal and language use, consider extract 1 below. The data presented here were collected using a stimulated recall methodology: essentially, on the left we see the actual classroom interaction and on the right we have the teacher’s commentary on his teaching. The class is of intermediate ability and the students, all adults, are recalling amusing experiences from their school days.

Extract 11. T: what was the funniest thing that happened to you at

school (1) Tang?2. S1: funniest thing?3. T: the funniest 4. S1: the funniest thing I think out of school was go to

picnic5. T: go on a picnic? So what happened what made it

funny?6. S1: go to picnic we made playing or talking with the

teacher more closely because in the school we have a line you know he the teacher and me the student=

7. T: =so you say there was a gap or a wall between the teacher and the students so when you=

8. S1: if you go out of the school you went together with more (gestures ‘closer’ with hands)=

9. T: =so you had a closer relationship [outside the school]10. L1: [yeah yeah]

Basically he’s explaining that on a picnic there wasn’t this gap that there is in a classroom – psychological gap – that’s what I’m drawing out of him. There’s a lot of scaffolding being done by me in this monitoring, besides it being managerial, there’s a lot of scaffolding because I want to get it flowing, I want to encourage them, keep it moving as it were. I’m clarifying to the class what he’s saying because I know in an extended turn – a broken turn – and it’s not exactly fluent and it’s not articulate – I try to re-interpret for the benefit of the class so that they’re all coming with me at the same time and they all understand the point being made by him

A cursory analysis of this extract reveals, I believe, the extent to which this teacher’s pedagogic goals and the language used to achieve them are aligned, or working together. Essentially, his comments indicate quite clearly why certain interactional decisions were taken. For example, in the classroom interaction, we see evidence of the teacher constantly seeking clarification, affirming and re-affirming and helping the learner to articulate a full response (in 5, 7 and 9). Each of these responses is designed, according to the teacher to ‘get it flowing’ and ‘to reinterpret for the benefit of the class’. Not only is he helping the learner to articulate his ideas more clearly, he is helping the rest of the class to understand what is being said. It is apparent that not only are his pedagogic goals and the language used to achieve them at one, but also that this teacher knows why he has made certain interactive decisions. He is able to articulate quite clearly the interactive decisions taken with this group of learners, a key element of CIC.

Turning now to a second feature of CIC, and one which, I believe, is common to all language teaching contexts, is the extent to which it facilitates interactional space; learners need space for learning to participate in the discourse, to contribute to class conversations and to receive feedback on their contributions. In short, CIC creates ‘space for learning’ (Walsh

and Li 2012). There are a number of ways in which space for learning can be maximised. These include increased wait-time, by resisting the temptation to ‘fill silence’ (by reducing teacher echo), by promoting extended learner turns and by allowing planning time. By affording learners space, they are better able to contribute to the process of co-constructing meanings – something which lies at the very heart of learning through interaction.

Creating space for learning may entail a re-thinking of the role of the teacher so that interaction is more carefully understood, and so that the teacher plays a more central role in shaping learner contributions. Shaping involves taking a learner response and doing something with it rather than simply accepting it. For example, a response may be paraphrased, using slightly different vocabulary or grammatical structures; it may be summarised or extended in some way; a response may require scaffolding so that learners are assisted in saying what they really mean; it may be recast (cf Lyster 1999): ‘handed back’ to the learner but with some small changes included. By shaping learner contributions and by helping learners to really articulate what they mean, teachers are performing a more central role in the interaction, while, at the same time,


maintaining a student-centred, decentralised approach to teaching.

What is evident from the discussion here is that feedback is one of the most important interactional practices a teacher can master since it has the greatest potential to influence learning. The ways in which teachers acknowledge a contribution, evaluate it and make modifications is a skill which requires detailed understanding and practice. All too often, when we look at recordings of teachers, the feedback offered tends to be evaluative, normally comprising a brief comment such as ‘thanks’, ‘right’, excellent’, and so on. While this kind of feedback does have its place, more subtle types of shaping are necessary, I suggest, if we are to really help learners communicate their intended meaning. Excessive use of acknowledgement tokens (typically discourse markers such as right, ok, great, excellent, etc.) may actually close down an interaction and signal the end of an exchange.

Looking at the notion of shaping in some data now, consider extract 2 below, in which the teacher is working with a group of upper-intermediate learners, studying at a private language school in the UK and preparing to do a listening comprehension about places of interest. There are a number of features in the extract which show evidence of CIC, especially this teacher’s ability to manage feedback in a more open and more effective way.

Extract 21 T: okay, have you have you ever visited any places

outside London?=2 L1: =me I stay in (.) Portsmouth and er in Bournemouth3 T: [where’ve you been?4 L1: [in the south5 T: [down (.) here? (pointing to map)6 L1: yeah yeah7 T: why?8 L1: er my girlfriend live here and (.) I like this student 9 place and all the people’s young and a lot (.) er go

out 10 in the (.) evening its very [good11 T: [right12 T: anybody else? (4) Have you been anywhere Tury?13 L2: Yes I have been in er (.) Edinbourg

((mispronounced)), 14 (())=15 T: =so here here ((pointing to map))=16 L2: =yes er Oxford (.) Brighton (.) many places (())=17 T: =and which was your favourite?=18 L2: =my favourite is London19 T: (.) why?20 L2: because it’s a big city you can find what what you

[want

20 L2: because it’s a big city you can find what what you [want

21 T: [mmhh

22 L2: and do you can go to the theatres (1) it’s a very (.) 23 cosmopolitan [city24 L: [yes25 L2: I like it very much=26 T: =do you all (.) agree=27 LL: =yes (laughter)28 T: ((3)) laughter)29 T: has anybody else been to another place outside

London?30 L: no not outside inside31 T: (.)mm? Martin? Anywhere?32 L3: =no nowhere=33 T: =would you like to go (.) [anywhere?34 L3: [yes yes35 T: [where?36 L3: well Portsmouth I think it’s very (.) great=37 T: =((laughter)) cos of the students [yes (.) yes38 LL: [yes yes39 L3: and there are sea too40 T: Pedro?41 L4: it’s a (.) young (.) place42 T: mm anywhere else? (3) no well I’m going to talk to 43 you and give you some recommendations about

where you44 can go in (.) England (.) yeah

(Carr 2006) DVD 12 task-based learning)

From our knowledge of classrooms and from previous experience, we can ascertain that the teacher’s main concern here is to elicit from the students which places of interest they have already visited during their stay in the UK. As a micro-context, the pedagogic goal is to establish a context using students’ personal experiences and the main interactional feature is the use of referential (or genuine) questions. One of the most striking features is the lack of repair, despite the large number of errors throughout the extract (see, for example, lines 2, 8, 13, 36, 39), the teacher chooses to ignore them because error correction is not conducive to allowing learners to have space to express themselves.

Second, the questions she asks are often followed with expansions such as ‘why’? (see for example, 7, 19) which result in correspondingly longer turns by learners (in 8, and 20). Again, I would suggest that both the teacher’s questioning strategy and the longer learner turns are evidence of CIC since they facilitate opportunities for both engaged interaction and learning opportunity. Third, we note that there are several attempts to ‘open the space’ and allow for wider participation of other learners. This occurs, for example, in 12 (anybody else plus a 4-second pause), in 26 (do you all agree?), in 42 (anywhere else plus a 3-second pause). On each of these occasions,


the teacher is attempting to include other students in the interaction in a bid to elicit additional contributions. Again, her use of language and pedagogic goals are convergent, ensuring that learning opportunities are maximised.

Other features which show evidence of CIC include:

• The use of extended wait time, pauses of several seconds (in 12 and 42) which allow learners time to think, formulate and give a response.

• The use of requests for clarification (in 3, 5, 15) which serve to ensure that understandings have been reached.

• Minimal response tokens which tell the other speaker that understandings have been reached without interrupting the ‘flow’ of the interaction (see, for example, 11 (right), 21(mmhh).

Classroom interactional competence and teacher development The broad aim of this section is to suggest ways in which teachers might use the notion of CIC in their own professional development through the use of appropriate tools and a more sophisticated use of terminology (or metalanguage). The discussion which follows outlines a number of ways in which teachers can develop CIC by incorporating data-led adjustments to professional practice.

Untranscribed lesson recordingsOne of the most daunting features of research on classroom interaction is that of transcription. It is perhaps one of the main reasons why second language teachers do not engage in professional development activities which are based on recordings and transcripts of their teaching. Here, I argue that much can be achieved without transcribing, and that there is considerable merit in using untranscribed audio- or video-recordings. Rather than transcribe, then, I am proposing that teachers should be given some kind of a tool or framework which helps them to focus on particular aspects of their teaching. The SETT framework (Self Evaluation of Teacher Talk, Walsh 2006) is one such instrument which falls under the ad hoc self-observation scheme advocated by researchers like Wallace (1998). It allows self-observation and analysis, but avoids wholesale transcription.

The principal advantages of using untranscribed recordings are summarised below:

• Short extracts from a recording permit extended discussion during reflective feedback interviews; longer stretches of discourse become more difficult to analyse, since underlying patterns are lost in the discourse.

• A 15-minute lesson extract can be analysed in 45–50 minutes when only one or two features are being investigated. A full transcript of a whole lesson might take 4–5 hours.

• Because the process is repeated, a wider range of lesson-types can be analyzed over a relatively short period of time.

• The perspective is that of the teacher rather than an outside researcher; understanding of the interaction is derived from the inside, allowing smaller amounts of data to be utilised.

“Snapshot” lesson extractsAgain, much can be learnt from what I am calling ‘snapshot recordings’, lasting 10–15 minutes and taken from different stages of a series of lessons. Arguably, there is more to be gained from repeated analysis of partial lessons than one analysis of a single lesson, particularly if recordings are taken from different classes and at different times in a lesson.

A fine-grained treatment of a relatively small amount of data, following a specific procedure which is repeated, is more likely to foster awareness than more complex analyses of longer transcripts. The advantage of lesson ‘clips’ is that a variety of contexts is encountered, permitting comparison of the interactional organisation of different classes: levels, nationalities, class composition, lesson types, teaching aims can be contrasted and recurrent patterns identified. In addition, teachers are free to select which part of a lesson to use.

Stimulated recall proceduresAs a procedure for second language teacher development, this has much to commend it, offering, as it does, the potential for interaction and interactive decision-making to be compared simultaneously (See extract 1 for an example). The voices and actions of teachers can consequently be analysed side by side, offering a multi-layered, fine-grained and insider perspective of any teaching encounter. In its most straightforward form, stimulated recall involves making a recording, analysing it and then commenting on particular issues as they arise, usually with another colleague or trusted ‘critical friend’ (for a full account see Lyle, 2003). Although the procedure was originally intended to help participants recall and explain past actions, it is a very useful means of accessing the complex practices and procedures which make up teaching. It provides a springboard for discussion and supplies the evidence needed to make informed judgements.

The main advantages of stimulated recall are:

• It offers scope for clarification and question and comment generation on classroom interaction as it unfolds. Misunderstandings can be eradicated, ensuring that a common perspective on the discourse is attained.

• The commentary and accompanying interaction are extremely transparent. There is considerable richness in the presentation of the data, including the potential for checking and cross-checking of ‘reality’.

• There is considerable scope for raising awareness since fine-grained analysis of the interaction is possible and there is the potential for repeated playback and reviewing.

ConclusionIn this article, I have presented and characterized the construct classroom interactional competence. Placing interaction at the centre of learning, I have argued that in order to enhance learning and learning opportunity, teachers should begin by developing their own interactional competence. While I suggest that classroom interactional competence is highly context specific (both in the general social/geographic sense and in the more specific sense of ‘context of the moment’),


there are certain features of CIC which can be encouraged and promoted in any setting. By adopting specific interactional strategies, CIC can be greatly enhanced. These strategies include the need for teachers to create space for learning, the importance of jointly created understandings, the value of shaping learner contributions, the need to engage and involve learners in dialogue, and so on.

Clearly, it is important for teachers to decide for themselves how to improve their CIC. What I have attempted to do in this article is to offer some thoughts on the various elements which make up CIC and suggested how teachers might enhance their own understandings. Like all professional development, there is no one ‘right way’ to improve. However, understanding a specific context and developing skills appropriate to that context are central to any endeavour towards becoming a better teacher. Developing an understanding of classroom interaction and improving the way that interaction is managed are, I suggest, central to improving teaching.

References Carr, D. (ed.) (2006) Teacher Training DVD Series (Set of 15 DVDs). London: International House.

Hellermann, J. (2008) Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kasper, G. (2004) ‘Participant orientations in German conversations-for-learning’. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 88: 551–567.

Kelly Hall, J., Hellermann, J., and Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.) (2011), The Development of Interactional Competence. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Koshik, I., 2002. ‘Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences’. Research on language and social interaction 35: 277–309.

Kramsch, C. 1986. ‘From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence’. The Modern Language Journal, 70 (4): 366–372.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010) ‘Having and doing: learning from a complexity theory perspective’. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, C. Jenks (eds.) Reconceptualising learning in applied linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lyle, J. (2003) ‘Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research’, British Educational Research Journal, 29: 861–878.

Lyster, R. (1998). ‘Recasts, Repetition and Ambiguity in L2 Classroom Discourse’.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 51–81.

Mori, J. (2004) ‘Pursuit of understanding: Conversation analytic account of a small-group activity in a Japanese language classroom.’ In R. Gardner and J. Wagner (eds.), Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, 157–177.

Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Second Language Classroom: a conversational analysis perspective, Oxford: Blackwell.

Sfard, A. (1997) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’, Educational Researcher, 27: 4–13.

Wallace, M. (1998) Action Research for Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walsh, S. (2002) ‘Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom’, Language Teaching Research, 6: 3–23.

Walsh, S. (2003) ‘Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom’, Language Awareness, 12:124–142.

Walsh, S. (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse, London: Routledge.

Walsh S. (2011) Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge.

Walsh, S. (2013) Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Walsh, S. and Li, L. (2012) ‘Conversations as space for learning’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (in press).

Steve Walsh is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences at Newcastle University. He is committed to teacher education, especially second language teacher education, and enjoys working with teachers to develop a closer understanding of teaching and learning in all contexts. His research interests include all aspects of classroom discourse, especially the relationship between ‘talk’ and learning. In addition to describing the interaction which takes place in a range of contexts, he is interested in developing interactional awareness among both teachers and learners.

Email: [email protected]

Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 p e e rr e v i e w e da r t i cl es 9

Making observation feedback effectiveSarah Boodt

AbstractThis study was conducted in 2013 as part of an MA disser-tation. The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of trainer behaviour during verbal feedback on observed teaching practice (TP) of ESOL trainee teachers. Findings from the study were used to identify a typology of trainer behaviours which were found to make this feedback effective. These include verbal and non-verbal communication and how trainers structured the feed-back process. Although the context was the Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (CELTA), since TP is a key element of most Initial Teacher Training (ITT) programmes, findings from this study may also have relevance in the wider context of generic ITT courses where trainees need to demonstrate both practical skills and the-oretical knowledge. Although TP involves the assessment of trainees’ practical teaching skills, and trainees must pass this component to be awarded the certificate, for the trainers and trainees in the study the process of TP and subsequent feedback was considered to be an invaluable developmental tool. Consequently, this study may also have useful implications for classroom observations in Lifelong Learning, where the developmental potential of observations is increasingly being undermined by the requirements of performance management systems (O’Leary, 2014).

The teacher training contextCELTA is an internationally recognised initial qualification to teach English language. Trainees learn the theoretical principles of effective teaching, and gain a range of practical skills for teaching English to adult learners through hands-on teaching experience. Courses comprise a minimum of 120 guided learning hours and can be part-time over several months, or full-time completed within four weeks. Assessment includes written assignments, and a total of six hours’ TP at two different student levels. Trainees are separated into TP groups, and share the lesson for TP with other trainees, teaching between 20 minutes and one hour, depending on the stage of the course. TP times are rigorously adhered to, and trainees rarely have an opportunity to re-teach ‘unsuccessful’, or ‘below standard ‘lessons. The pressure on trainees in the TP element therefore is intense (Copland, 2010:467).

During TP trainees are expected to apply theoretical knowledge gained on the course, and trainers assess how effectively they achieve this, providing developmental feedback afterwards.

TP feedback has several purposes: to help trainee teachers develop their teaching skills, build confidence, highlight areas for development, and motivate and encourage them to take responsibility for their own learning (Nicol, & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Feedback is conducted in TP groups, and takes the form of a discussion with the trainer, lasting approximately one hour. Trainees reflect on their own teaching, which is also evaluated by the tutor and by peers acting as critical friends supporting each other to improve their teaching (Randall with Thornton, 2001). CELTA trainers, therefore, need to facilitate the development of trainees’ critical evaluative skills and teach them the value of reflective practice so that they become autonomous, reflective practitioners in their own right.

Many trainees report that they find the process of peer feedback invaluable, though some lack confidence in their ability to critique others’ teaching and for them it can be a source of anxiety. Copland (2010: 467) notes the challenge that this can present for new teachers, who need to simultaneously develop a range of skills as they learn what is required during TP: how to observe, record and evaluate their peers’ teaching; provide appropriate, constructive feedback; and develop increased self-awareness to critically evaluate their own teaching. CELTA trainers must manage the anxieties and tensions that subsequently arise for trainees, but also reconcile their role as assessors, ensuring that Cambridge criteria for practical teaching skills are met, whilst providing developmental feedback to promote learning.

Background research Existing literature (Casey, Derrick, Duncan and Mallows 2007) on the practical element of ITT programmes notes that the ways in which initial teacher trainers manage this element of these programmes can have a major impact on the trainee teacher’s experience and that ‘constructive feedback on TP observations is an essential part of teacher training’ (ibid: 25). Most studies about feedback to improve teaching, termed as ‘developmental feedback’, focus on the kind of information that trainee teachers receive, rather than the process by which this information is conveyed, with little analysis of the way in which the trainee receives this information (Brinko, 1993; Randall with Thornton, 2001). This study attempts to bridge that gap.

Feedback is ‘information supplied to trainees concerning some aspect of their performance on a task, by a peer or a tutor, with a view to enhancing practice’ (Brandt, 2008:39). It can be deemed to be effective if it leads to progress and success on the course, as measured by trainees’ ability to meet the competency descriptors set by Cambridge ESOL.


During TP the CELTA trainer’s role is to assess trainees’ teaching and learning by making judgements against the competency descriptors, and also provide developmental feedback to help trainees meet those criteria. Trainees need and want immediate feedback on failing lessons so that they have adequate time to demonstrate improvement (Brandt, 2006). The need to maintain a supportive and valuing atmosphere whilst simultaneously raising critical comments about a lesson creates a tension for both trainers and trainees alike (Wallace, 1995). Givers and receivers of feedback have very different roles and attitudes towards the feedback process, and these may change over the duration of the course. What trainers consider to be their primary role may impact on the way they give verbal feedback, and potentially on trainee attitudes to TP.

Trainees who equate TP with assessment may experience anxiety, coupled with fear of being judged and criticised. This presents a further complication for the trainers, since if those in receipt of feedback are in a state of anxiety, they may be unwilling or unable to effectively process it. As a consequence, the impact of this invaluable developmental tool is significantly diminished. How trainers reconcile the need to assess with the developmental element of their role is a focus of this study.

Brinko (1993) identified a number of conditions for effective feedback, some of which relate to trainer behaviour. Feedback which promotes an incremental approach to intelligence, where negative performance is attributed to use of the wrong strategy or insufficient effort, is more effective than that which implies a fixed personality trait (Dweck, 2011:114). Negative feedback information is deemed to be more constructive and less likely to produce a defensive reaction if it is delivered from the trainer’s perspective e.g. ‘I wasn’t sure I understood…’ rather than as a description of what the trainee did wrong (Brinko, 1993: 586). Conversely, positive feedback is more powerful when personalised i.e. ‘you did…’ (ibid, 1993:586). Feedback should take into account the trainees’ experience and developmental stage, and contain relevant, meaningful, concrete information and irrefutable evidence (ibid). For CELTA, this could involve making explicit reference to the competency descriptors. Finally, feedback should be a two-way process which involves and engages the trainee in a setting that is psychologically safe, which may be particularly important when giving negative feedback.

Mortiboys (2012) argues for an emotionally intelligent approach to teaching, seeing it as crucial to the value of a teacher’s knowledge of their subject, and their learning and teaching methods:

‘The teacher who pays attention to the emotional dimension of the classroom experience is more likely to develop a state in their learners which is conducive to learning.’

(Mortiboys, 2012:4)

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor your own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide your own thinking and action (Salovey and Mayer, 1997). Majors and Fung (2011:3) use the term ‘emotional literacy’ to describe the learned and conscious

application of EI, as evidenced by knowing what to say, how to say it and when to say something. If teachers (and therefore teacher trainers) are to motivate, inspire and communicate effectively with their learners, then the affective dimension, which relates to emotions, values and attitudes, cannot be ignored.

Hayes (2003) highlights the impact of emotions on trainee teachers’ ability to function effectively. He found that the range of conflicting emotions trainee teachers experienced could act as a motivator, but also create a psychological barrier. If we agree with Plato that all learning has an emotional base, then it follows that emotions merit a significant place in teacher training (Hayes, 2003), since teachers have a significant role in shaping those emotions (Mortiboys, 2012). Teacher trainers therefore, need to create an environment where trainees feel safe in the knowledge that they can count on course tutors to help them succeed, so that they see a difficult task as a welcome challenge, rather than a source of stress (Weare, 2004).

Perhaps one of the most useful functions of the trainer might be to use observation tasks and subsequent feedback on them to help trainees see beyond themselves and how well they perform their role as teachers, to a focus on the impact of what they do on their students. For many trainees this presents a significant challenge, as for them, learning is about learning to teach. Lidstone and Hollingsworth (1983) suggest that this may be a staged process in which new teachers focus on only a few skills or concepts at a time until these have been routinised, and no longer require conscious thought, freeing up cognitive space to focus on more advanced concepts and pedagogical practices. For example, a trainee’s knowledge of classrooms progresses from an initial focus of attention on their role in classroom management and organisation, to learning activities, and finally to what students are learning from the activities.

According to constructivist theory, learning is an active process in which learners construct their own knowledge, using their existing structure of knowledge, concepts, skills and attitudes. Learning takes place when a learner’s understanding is challenged, causing them to select information and create new hypotheses, and understanding. On CELTA programmes, this would relate to trainees’ previously constructed beliefs about what teachers do and how people learn, and the cognitive dissonance that is generated when those beliefs are challenged (Hollingsworth, 1989) during TP and the ensuing group feedback discussion. Trainers giving developmental feedback may use Socratic questioning techniques to scaffold trainees’ thought processes, gradually moving them to more complex levels of thinking, and developing their understanding of increasingly complex concepts. This helps trainees take ownership of their feedback, and promotes the development of an ‘inner dialogue’ which can then be used as a model for later internal dialogue (Randall with Thornton, 2001) and reflection.

Schön (1987) identifies two types of reflection that the reflective practitioner engages in: ‘reflection-in-action’, which is a professional’s ability to ‘think on their feet’ using their experiences, feelings and understanding of theory to develop


new knowledge to inform their actions as a situation unfolds; and ‘reflection-on-action’, which is conducted after the event, perhaps through discussions with colleagues, to analyse what was happening and why they behaved as they did. Through this process of reflection the practitioner acquires a repertoire of ideas, examples and actions that they can draw on in future situations, to help them formulate theories and responses that fit the new situation. A fully reflective teacher is able to use this process of continuous reflection and analysis to develop their professional autonomy and their practice, since ‘the process of reflection is itself an instrument of change’ (Thornbury, 1991: 146). This implies that teacher trainers should also foster the development of trainees’ critical evaluative skills and teach them the value of reflective practice so that they become autonomous, reflective practitioners in their own right. Managed effectively, the collaborative model of TP offered by CELTA is an ideal forum in which to develop these skills.

Aims and research questions The research question to be answered in this study is:

Which trainer behaviours during verbal TP feedback effectively promote CELTA trainees’ development as teachers?

MethodologyThe central purpose of this enquiry was to establish a typology of trainer behaviours to promote effective verbal feedback on TP. A case study involving qualitative methods of enquiry was used, so that data could be interpreted and themes could emerge. The sample comprised five experienced CELTA trainers from three different centres, and a focus group of three trainees from one of these centres.

Data collectionData was collected using the following research tools:

• Semi-structured interviews with CELTA teacher trainers to identify what they perceive to be helpful behaviours

• Semi-structured interview with a focus group of CELTA trainees to identify their perceptions of the impact of trainer behaviour on their learning

• Videoed observation of a CELTA trainer during TP feedback to one group of trainees to provide triangulation of findings from the interviews.

The methodology included two phases over a four month period.

In the first phase interviews were conducted with CELTA trainers and data from these interviews were analysed in order to establish common behaviours employed by trainers and generate the typology. In phase two a focus group of trainees was interviewed to test the typology against the group’s experience of TP feedback.

The final TP feedback session was filmed so that actual trainer behaviours could be analysed and compared with

data gathered from trainer and trainee interviews, producing methodological triangulation.

FindingsThe findings in relation to the questions given to trainers and trainees are now considered.

Analysis of teacher trainer interviews

Question 1: What do you consider your primary role to be when giving TP feedback? • developing trainees’ skills and understanding of teaching?• or assessing their performance?

Trainers were emphatic that their primary role during feedback was developmental, but at the same time recognised the need to assess within that developmental role. However, when giving feedback they made allowances for individual differences between trainees and their stage of development. It would appear that for stronger trainees nearing the end of the course, the focus shifted slightly towards assessment, possibly to justify awarding a higher grade:

‘It’s a delicate balance between the two, and it may depend on the trainee of course, at a given time’;

‘To develop them, absolutely! … But we have to grade it at the end’.

Question 2: Do you use a set of teacher competency descriptors e.g. the CELTA checklist when giving feedback on TP? All five trainers said they complied with the criteria on the CELTA checklist and were very familiar with it, but didn’t directly use it to mark off competencies during TP feedback, as such overt use of the criteria would be restrictive and false:

‘The goal posts are always moving and I’m not going to be tied down to that particular set of criteria.’

All trainers however, said they referred directly to the criteria in tutorials, using them to support general feedback on trainee progress. This would also ensure the validity of the assessment.

Question 3: How do you give negative feedback? The need to take into account the trainees’ feelings was very prominent in trainer responses, with four out of five trainers saying they would take the trainee aside to tell them that their lesson was below standard in order to avoid embarrassment. Two trainers said they referred explicitly to the Cambridge criteria when giving feedback on a below standard lesson because they felt this externalised it and helped protect the trainer/trainee relationship which was considered to be key for the trainees’ development:

‘… it takes the edge off being so judgemental’.

All trainers stated that they would only tell a trainee that their lesson had been below standard after giving feedback, as knowing beforehand might distract them and inhibit their


ability to listen to feedback. They also all reported that they were careful to first identify the strengths of a lesson before discussing weaknesses, though they didn’t consciously use a ‘feedback sandwich’ (positive, negative, and positive).

Question 4: What behaviours do you consciously employ when giving feedback?All trainers said they tried to be supportive and encouraging, though felt they didn’t consciously employ set strategies or behaviours unless they had a particularly challenging trainee. There could be several reasons for this, including ensuring there was no foundation for potential complaints, or perhaps a high level of emotional literacy in CELTA trainers.

The behaviours included both verbal communication, such as making particularly encouraging remarks;

e.g. ‘I found myself being extra, extra, extra nice and, like, bending over backwards to help him’

and non-verbal communication e.g. smiling. Although trainers did not comment specifically on their non-verbal communication, trainees noted that their trainers smiled a lot and used ‘soft intonation’ (trainee interview). This was also evident in the observed feedback session.

It was felt that being supportive and encouraging needed to be coupled with being direct and honest i.e. ‘not beating round the bush’. Trainers valued the emotional experience of the trainees, encouraging them to use their emotions both when teaching and to inform reflection on their teaching:

‘How do you feel it went today?’; ‘How did it feel when you praised the students?’

(Observed feedback session).

Trainees were also encouraged to use an emotionally intelligent approach for their future practice:

‘So, remember what that feels like so you can use it in your future teaching’.

Question 5: What strategies, if any, do you employ during peer feedback?In response to this question trainers discussed how they structured TP feedback. A variety of feedback formats were identified including: asking trainees to give feedback to the trainee in front of the trainer; asking trainees to feed back to each other in small groups or pairs, and then nominating a spokesperson to summarise feedback to the rest of the group, followed by trainer input; setting trainees specific observation tasks to feed back on (although this tended to be in the initial stages of the course); identifying a common theme for feedback; and trainer-led feedback, although this was more often a feature of the later stages of the course, when trainees were under more pressure and just wanted to be told what to do to pass. This suggests that trainers may become more aware of the assessor element of their role in the later stages of the course. Interestingly, the rationale for a more trainer-led approach was to meet the needs of weak trainees, suggesting a supportive focus to feedback and indicating the ability of trainers to empathise with their trainees:

‘There are some struggling, needy trainees that tend to hang on to the every word of the trainer, they’ll pay lip service to getting feedback from their peers, cos, really, all they want to hear is their trainer’.

Trainers also stressed the need for feedback to be very specific. They commented on the importance of teaching trainees to give balanced, constructive feedback, supported by evidence from TP, and to help them develop their reflective and analytical skills through TP feedback. One trainer saw this as a specific aim of the course.

Another trainer overtly gave feedback to trainees on their feedback in order to encourage reflective practice:

‘I give feedback on their feedback, just to give them status.’

Analysis of trainee responsesOnly three trainees agreed to be interviewed from the cohort, and so whilst their responses provide an insight into the impact of trainer behaviours, they cannot be said to be representative of the whole group which consisted of ten trainees. Trainees were asked five key questions and those interviewed placed very high value on TP feedback. One trainee referred to it as ‘amazingly important’.

Question 1: Do you consider the main purpose of TP to be assessment or development?Although all trainees were aware that they were being assessed, they equated TP with development, stating that they felt very secure and confident to experiment with new ideas and approaches and to put into practice things they had learnt during input sessions. The trainees were given TP points which identified the learning outcomes of their lesson with suggestions for approach, but were free to use a different methodology if they wanted to. They commented that as a result they felt empowered to try new approaches and make their own decisions about their teaching, taking ownership of their development:

‘You could customise (the lesson) essentially, which I think helps you understand what kind of teacher you are as well.’

Trainees felt very secure to make mistakes, and valued them as opportunities to learn, demonstrating a mastery response to challenge (Dweck, 2011).

Question 2: How did you feel about feeding back to your peers and evaluating your own teaching during TP feedback? How did the trainer help with this?Trainees reported that initially they had found it very difficult to feed back to their peers, particularly when trying to strike a balance between positive and negative feedback when they had not yet developed their personal awareness of what constituted good teaching. They found the feedback form very useful for structuring their feedback, and giving them a focus while observing. It also helped them provide balanced feedback, gave them permission to critique their peers, and set the expectation that feedback was intended to promote their development, ‘and not to put someone down’.


The trainees also commented that from the very beginning of the course the trainers had established an environment in which it was all right to make mistakes. The trainers’ modelling of excellent practice when giving feedback provided an example that the trainees followed, which they claimed made it easier for them to give and receive negative feedback.

Question 3: Was there a set format for TP feedback?Trainees had experienced a range of formats for TP (see analysis of trainer interviews, question 5). Their preferred model was when a non-teaching trainee was paired with a teaching trainee and given responsibility for leading peer feedback to their partner. A structured feedback sheet identifying positive points, areas for development, and general comments on the lesson overall was found to be particularly useful for providing trainees with a focus for peer feedback.

When identifying areas for development, trainees reported that their trainers used issues from TP to discuss alternative approaches. This was achieved through scaffolded questions to prompt reflection and guide trainees to think for themselves:

e.g. ‘What do you think about…? What about…? Why do you think … happened? How could you do … differently?’

Trainees appreciated the fact that the trainers gave ‘very direct’ feedback, as it meant they knew exactly what they had done well and which specific areas they needed to improve on. Sometimes, however, particularly in the early stages of the course, the trainers used a more indirect approach, where they asked the trainees as a group what they thought of a particular approach without attributing it to the trainee who used it, followed by feedback to individual trainees:

e.g. ‘What do you think of doing it that way? Do you think it’s right?’

Trainees said this helped them recognise and focus on their mistake, without feeling singled out or embarrassed by it. They felt this gave them time to reflect and made them more receptive to the individual feedback that followed.

Trainees liked the fact that their trainers supported them to draw their own conclusions, but would also suggest alternative approaches if required. Trainers were only prescriptive when trainees repeated the same mistake over several TPs e.g. too much teacher talking time. However, this was not stated in terms of failing TP, but rather as an error that was hindering the trainee’s development as a teacher.

Question 4: What was the most useful aspect of trainer feedback? Trainees found it very beneficial to spend time in small groups away from the trainer to self-evaluate and peer assess each other, which one trainee referred to as ‘talking to someone as opposed to being talked to’.

They also valued being asked to give their own opinion of TP before hearing the trainers’ views, and felt that the trainers’ use of questioning made them think for themselves and take ownership of the feedback. One trainee described this as ‘always being involved with my story, never being a passive listener’.

Question 5: Did you learn any skills other than practical teaching skills from TP?The trainees all agreed that they had learnt a lot more than just teaching skills from TP. Chung (2002) suggests that high quality feedback develops a teacher’s capacity to evaluate and improve their practice, and all three trainees were emphatic that they had become more self-aware about how they used language, how they performed the teacher role, and their potential as a teacher. They attributed this mainly to the time they spent in small groups participating in self and peer assessment, before coming together as a single group with the trainer. Initially the trainer would sometimes interrupt, directing them to specific issues to structure their feedback, but as they developed their knowledge of teaching and learning this happened less frequently.

Table summary of findingsData from trainer and trainee interviews and the observed TP session can be categorised according to strategies, including verbal and non-verbal communication, and how trainers structured TP feedback (see table on next page). I have also included trainer and trainee views as to whether the primary purpose of TP is developmental or for assessment as I believe this has a significant impact on how feedback is given and received.

The typology generated from this study indicates a strong emphasis on TP as a developmental process that should take place within a positive, supportive environment. Verbal and non-verbal communication was used to encourage trainees and build their confidence, and negative feedback was delivered objectively, with reference to the CELTA competency descriptors so that it was externalised and potentially more readily received. There was a strong focus on the affective dimension and the data suggest that the trainers used an emotionally literate approach when giving feedback. Trainees were encouraged to use their emotions to inform their reflections, and a psychologically safe environment was created by first of all noting the strengths of TP and celebrating progress made. This is likely to promote high levels of trainee engagement in critical discussion, and is particularly important when giving negative feedback. It may also develop trainees’ use of emotional intelligence in their own teaching.

Questions were very effective in stimulating dialogue and collaborative reflection on individual TP; a distinctive characteristic of the CELTA model for TP. This was supported through the allocation of roles to trainees, use of prompt sheets to guide their reflections and physical classroom layout. As a result trainees were empowered to take ownership of their learning, and an expectation was set that they would do so, developing their autonomy as teachers. Question tags promoted active listening during trainer feedback and prompted trainees to consciously acknowledge strengths from lessons, which is important for developing self-esteem.

It was interesting to note how classroom layout was used to signal different stages of feedback. Tables were arranged to facilitate small group discussion during peer feedback, which


Table summary of findings

Typology Trainer Interview

Trainee Interview

Video of feedback session

Primary purpose of TP: developmental

Strategies: verbal communication

Trainer provides very positive verbal communication:e.g. ‘Right, two really good lessons. A really good way to finish the course’; ‘so today it all came together’;when trainees have finished giving feedback e.g. ‘excellent’; ‘so what a transformation, well done!’

✓ ✓ ✓

Trainer highlights positive points e.g. ‘so what things did we like today?’ ✓ ✓ ✓

Very specific trainer feedback; states what has been done well and why it’s good with specific examples from TP ‘so what was very strong in X’s lesson today was…’ encourages trainees to be equally specific in their own feedback, giving examples to support their observations.

✓ ✓ ✓

Supportive and encouraging during peer feedback e.g. laughs with trainees, makes odd comment in response to trainees when they’re laughing. Contributes to collaborative, positive atmosphere – TP feedback clearly enjoyable experience.

✓ ✓ ✓

Trainer encourages trainees to talk about their feelings: ‘so how did it feel when you were praising the Students?’

✓ ✓

Trainer emphasises relevance of feedback for trainees’ future practice: ‘so, remember what that feels like so you can use it in your future teaching’.

✓

Trainer is very patient; gives instruction and waits. Doesn’t repeat instruction verbally, but may gesture e.g. to come to front table.

✓

Trainer uses Q tags to engage trainees and acknowledge their agreement when he’s made a positive observation e.g. ‘it’s good, isn’t it?’

✓

Strategies: non-verbal communication

Trainer indicates listening by smiling, inclining head and nodding. ✓ ✓ ✓

Trainer remains unobtrusive during peer feedback; hands clasped in lap, little movement except to check own notes.

✓ ✓

Trainer has open body language – gestures, eye contact, nodding agreement. ✓

Trainer uses soft intonation. ✓

Structure of TP

Prompt sheets to structure peer feedback. ✓ ✓ ✓

Trainees invited to give feedback first, followed by trainer input. Emphasised by room layout – trainees at other end of room on 2 separate tables, then invited to all sit at front during whole group feedback.

✓ ✓ ✓

Finishes on positive point: ‘Excellent, well done, some really good teaching.’ ✓ ✓

Uses Cambridge competency descriptors in CELTA 5 booklet to externalise points for below standard TP.

✓ None of interviewed candidates had received below standard


was the initial stage of the process. The trainer sat apart but indicated he was listening using non-verbal communication. The trainees seemed to use this for occasional reassurance. Trainees then moved to the front of the room which had been set up to enable the whole group to sit together with the trainer for the final stage. Trainees were clearly familiar with this practice and took an active role in arranging tables.

A key feature of the feedback was that it was very specific and supported by evidence from the observed lesson. This was apparent in peer and trainer feedback. Trainees, therefore, were not only learning practical teaching skills, but also valuable lessons about how to give effective feedback.

ConclusionDue to the small size of this study the findings cannot be said to be generalisable. However, they do suggest that there are certain behaviours that CELTA trainees find effective when receiving feedback on their teaching practice, and many of these behaviours may be usefully transferred to the context of generic ITT programmes and also classroom observations of qualified teachers.

The trainees appeared to be confident, highly motivated and enthusiastic, and whether there is a correlation between increased trainee confidence and the emotional literacy of the trainers is a question that merits further study. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate whether an emotionally literate approach by trainers promotes greater use of emotional literacy by their trainees in their own teaching. This could be further extended to explore whether their students in turn, develop their own emotional intelligence.

The study also shows that it is possible for trainers to manage the TP feedback process to combine assessment with development. The collaborative feedback discussion provides trainees with opportunities to gain a range of skills and knowledge and to develop as autonomous, reflective practitioners. Trainees receive feedback from multiple perspectives, learn how to give and receive feedback, and perhaps most importantly, learn that mistakes are an essential part of the learning process. Whilst it may not be possible to transfer the CELTA model of TP to generic ITT courses or management observations, there may be elements of the feedback process, and in particular trainer behaviours, which could be usefully transferred, to the benefit of trainee and qualified teachers, and organisations as a whole.

ReferencesBrandt, C. (2006) Allowing for practice: a critical issue in TESOL teacher preparation ELT Journal Vol. 60/4

Brandt, C. (2008) Integrating feedback and reflection in teacher preparation ELT Journal Vol. 62/1

Brinko, T. (1993) The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: what is effective? Journal of Higher Education 64/5: 575–93

Casey, H., Derrick, J., Duncan, S., Mallows, D. (2007) Getting the practical teaching element right: A guide for literacy, numeracy and ESOL teacher educators NRDC

Copland, F (2010) Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: an alternative view Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 466–472

Dweck, C. (2011) Self-theories, their roles in motivation, personality, and development Psychology Press

Hayes, D. (2003) Emotional preparation for teaching: a case study about trainee teachers in England Teacher Development, 7 (2), 2003, 153–172

Hollingsworth, S. (1989) Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach American Educational Research Journal 26(2), 160-189

Lidstone, M. & Hollingsworth, S. (1992) A longitudinal study of cognitive change in beginning teachers: two patterns of learning to teach Teacher Education Quarterly, pp 39–57

Majors, R. & Fung, S. (2011) The Applied Centre for Emotional Literacy, Leadership & Research (ACELLR), City of Wolverhampton College

Mortiboys, A. (2012) Teaching with emotional intelligence: a step by step guide for higher and further education professionals (2nd Edition), Routledge

O’Leary, M. (2014) Classroom Observation: a guide to the effective observation of teaching and learning Routledge, London & New York

Randall, M. with Thornton, B. (2001) Advising and Supporting Teachers Cambridge Teacher Training and Development

Salovey, P. & Mayer, (1997) Emotional Intelligence and emotional development Basic Books

Wallace, M. (1991) Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach Cambridge University Press

Weare, K. (2004) Developing the emotionally literate school Sage publications Inc.

Sarah Boodt is an initial teacher educator at Hadlow College, where she coordinates the Diploma in Education and Training programme with Canterbury Christchurch University. She has worked in initial teacher education for 10 years. She is also a registered CELTA trainer and taught EFL and ESOL for 20 years before moving into teacher training.

Email: [email protected], [email protected]


ESOL for social justice? The opportunities and limitations within mainstream provisionJill Court

AbstractAdult migrants often experience disadvantage and mar-ginalisation in their ‘host’ country and attending language classes is often seen as a way to improve a migrant’s situa-tion. This article draws on concepts devised by social justice theorists to explore the extent to which mainstream ESOL provision in England and Wales can achieve social justice for adult migrants. It examines the ways in which ESOL pro-vision can improve the position of migrants but highlights how the nature of funding and the government agendas surrounding ESOL provision influence classroom content, and can impede the achievement of true equality for migrants. It concludes that although there is scope within mainstream ESOL for students and practitioners to resist these agendas, the potential for social justice for migrants to be achieved via language provision is severely curtailed by the ‘human capital approach’ to ESOL policy taken by the current government administration.

IntroductionAs a teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) to adult migrants, I have seen many changes to provision since I started teaching in classrooms in 2000. Like many other ESOL teachers I am not just concerned with the language needs of my learners, but with how what I teach in the classroom can help the students’ lives outside the classroom. However, with changes in government policy and cuts in funding for ESOL in the last few years, it is becoming ever more challenging to address what the students may really need in their outside lives. In addition, these changes have often resulted in circumstances that appear to be at odds with the aim of meeting learners’ needs and improving their lives. In order to examine this issue, I will attempt to apply a framework of social justice theories to the situation of ESOL learners and provision, and use it to explore how effective ESOL provision is in providing social justice for migrants.

Social justice theoriesTikly and Barrett discuss social justice in terms of children’s education and global development; they outline Amartya Sen’s (1999, 2009; in Tikly and Barrett 2011) capabilities approach to development: ‘capabilities are the opportunities that

individuals have to realise different ‘functionings’ that they may have reason to value’ (Tikly and Barrett 2011:7). Walker (2004) clarifies the difference between capabilities and functionings as the difference between the ‘opportunity to achieve and the actual achievement’ (Walker 2004:2). For example, being able to speak a language could be seen as a capability, but using that language to benefit oneself would be a functioning. The characteristics of a capability are determined by the values and needs of the individual and /or their community. The notion of ‘agency freedom’ is integral to Sen’s capabilities approach; this is an individual’s freedom to pursue and achieve goals that they value. (Tikly and Barrett 2011, Walker 2004).

Regarding education, Unterhalter, Vaughan and Walker (2007) stress that focussing on capabilities would require examining whether individuals or groups have been able to exercise real and informed choice in their educational outcomes. They stress that we cannot merely focus on opportunities and resources available to a group, but need to evaluate the potential for each individual to achieve the outcomes; in other words ‘whether learners are able to convert resources into capabilities, and thereafter potentially into functionings’ (Unterhalter, Vaughan and Walker 2007:2). Therefore in evaluating education we should consider how it meets the needs and values of each person.

Consequently the capabilities approach to education challenges the human capital approach, which judges the effectiveness of education on how well it serves the needs of the labour force and increases a person’s employability and productivity. The capabilities approach also extends the human rights approach to education by looking not just at rights but how to ensure people have the capability to properly exercise those rights (Tikly and Barrett 2011; Walker 2004). Thus it is necessary not just to ensure a person’s right to an education, but to consider how well that education facilitates that person’s desired capabilities and functionings.

Tikly and Barrett draw on Fraser’s work to describe how ‘institutionalised obstacles’ (such as economic structures and dominant discourses) have to be overcome in order to achieve Fraser’s ‘three dimensions of social justice’ (Fraser 2008: cited in Tikly and Barret 2011). These are: redistribution of resources to enable learners ‘to become economically productive, healthy, secure and active citizens’ (Tikly and Barrett 2011:6); recognition, which involves “first identifying and then acknowledging the claims of historically marginalised groups” (Ibid:6) and participation – the right to a voice in


debates and decision making. Paying attention to these three issues is necessary to facilitate capabilities. With regard to migrants, they may have rights to access and participate in aspects of society, but they may not have the capabilities to function within these. This article will explore how far ESOL classes can go towards developing the capabilities of individuals.

Migrants and English languageWhere I use the terms ‘migrants’ and ‘ESOL learners’ it must be remembered that many migrants are proficient in English either as a native or second language, and equally many ESOL learners may not see themselves as migrants. As Ward (2008) points out, there is a lack of data on the language needs of migrants, however, in the 2011 Census 1.6% of the UK population reported either that they ‘cannot speak English well’ or ‘cannot speak English’ (Office for National Statistics 2013). ESOL learners are from diverse backgrounds and therefore have diverse needs (Williamson 2011). Those from settled communities include long settled migrants, recent arrivals and refugees. Pakistani and Bangladeshi people often have low levels of English and this affects their employment prospects. Gender is an issue in this group as there are lower levels of English fluency amongst Pakistani and Bangladeshi women (Tackey et al 2006). This is partly due to cultural factors such as lack of independence and lack of family support in learning English, and the culturally defined role of women as carers of children inside the home. These are reinforced by structural factors, such as a shortage of accessible provision and childcare.

People with refugee status and asylum seekers waiting for a decision on their claim are another significant group. These people will come from a variety of different backgrounds but are likely to have had traumatic experiences and often arrive in the UK without money, belongings or documents and may have no family or support networks within the UK. The refugee dispersal policy, introduced in 1999 by the Labour government has meant that asylum seekers often end up in areas with little appropriate support or services. Refugees often experience poverty and many are not allowed to work; those that can work are more likely to be unemployed (Bloch 2004). All these factors mean that these groups are vulnerable to issues such as low self-esteem, trauma and poor mental health. Dumper (2002) describes how female refugees and asylum seekers are often further disadvantaged; she cites evidence that they are often isolated, especially if they are lone parents, have less access to support and a third have suffered verbal or physical abuse leading to a tendency to stay inside their homes.

Migrant workers are another diverse group which includes those from outside and inside the EU, undertaking a range of occupations from unskilled to professional. They are more likely to be in low skilled, low paid work with less job security and are vulnerable to poor working conditions. (Ward 2007:26). Low levels of English make it difficult for these groups to overcome these conditions, and their working patterns may be a barrier to attending classes. Ward points out that these categorisations of migrants are problematic as a person’s

identity may be different from their legal status, for example ‘when does a refugee stop being a refugee?’ (Ward 2007:17); many EU ‘migrant workers’ actually have a long term desire to settle in the UK, and what is the identity of a Somali who sought asylum in the Netherlands, now holds a Dutch passport and has come to the UK as an EU member?

With all groups of migrants, language is not the only cause of inequalities, but there are many reasons why a migrant may want to learn English. It may be as a means to obtain work or get a better job. Migrants are more likely to earn less than average, and have higher rates of unemployment than the general population (Vertovec 2006). Those proficient in English have a 20% higher chance of being employed, and are likely to receive approximately 20% higher earnings, compared to migrants with low levels of English (Dustmann and Fabbri 2003). The latter are generally in low paid unskilled jobs with little progression; often in roles which do not reflect their previous experience, education, skills or personal qualities (Williamson 2011). Some groups are more disadvantaged than others; for example Polish workers are more likely to be employed, although they may still be in unskilled roles. Less than 50% of working age adults of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, and 12.2% of Somalis are in work (Ward 2007:11). Women have a generally lower employment rate than men, especially Pakistani and Bangladeshi women (Tackey et al 2006). Finding and progressing in work can facilitate successful settlement in a country, as it can provide financial independence, improved self-esteem and opportunities to socialise and improve English language skills (Ward 2007:10).

Apart from employment purposes, speaking English can help migrants with their daily lives; students say they need it for helping their children with their schoolwork, talking to teachers at school, dealing with health services, talking to English people, reading bills and letters, or for further studies. Cooke and Simpson (2009) describe how ESOL learners value ESOL classes as a space for learning and practising English and also often as a source of ‘stability and security that is often missing from migrants’ lives’ (Cooke and Simpson 2009:19).

Background to ESOL provisionThe following applies to adult ESOL in England and Wales where ESOL provision relies on government funding and has experienced many changes since I started teaching in classrooms in 2000. In 2001 ESOL became included in the new government Skills for Life strategy which was set up in 2000 to improve adult literacy and numeracy in England and Wales. This led to increased funding and regulation of provision, including the introduction of the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum (DfES 2001), the publication of national Skills for Life learner materials and the development of specialised, mandatory ESOL teacher training and qualifications. In 2005 the government introduced new language and knowledge of the UK requirements for migrants applying for naturalisation. These took the form of the Life in the UK Test, or for those with lower language skills, completion of a nationally accredited ESOL qualification and attendance of ESOL classes that cover citizenship topics. (Taylor 2007). In 2006 automatic fee


remission for ESOL for those not on means tested benefits was withdrawn, and asylum seekers in the country for less than 6 months lost the right to free ESOL (Hamilton and Hillier 2009). In November 2010, the Government announced cuts to ESOL funding which included the reduction in the proportion of the course cost met by the government, and restrictions in fee remission for many ESOL students. This means that free ESOL is only available to those on ‘active’ benefits (Job Seekers Allowance or Employment Support Allowance) and to those on ‘inactive’ benefits (e.g. Housing Benefit, Income Support, Working Tax Credit and Asylum Support) who can declare that they are studying ESOL in order to gain skills to find a job (Greater London Authority 2012). Everyone else has to pay course fees, even if working part time and /or on a low income. These funding cuts also meant that child care provision was withdrawn in many ESOL settings. Policy and funding now prioritises helping people off benefits and into employment (Simpson and Hepworth 2010, Department for Business Innovation and Skills 2010). The Skills for Life programme has now ended, and in 2012 the government announced further changes to ESOL policy and funding. At the time of writing the implications of these changes for ESOL provision are unclear, but the likelihood is that further funding cuts are on their way.

ESOL and social justiceWhen discussing social justice and ESOL, Ward describes social justice as the ‘drive to combat social exclusion’ (Ward 2007:12). She points out that social exclusion is the result of many factors relating to inequalities; therefore lack of skill in English is generally only one of the causes. However, although improving language skills is generally not the only solution to exclusion, it can play a significant part. Given the current social and political context, to what extent can ESOL help to redress the inequalities experienced by these groups? I will discuss the possibilities and limitations of ESOL learning in regard to Fraser’s ‘three dimensions of social justice’.

RedistributionRegarding ESOL learners and migrants, redistribution could mean improving their economic situation, supporting their children’s education and accessing health services. However, the government’s neo-liberal agenda which links ESOL provision with labour force requirements limits ESOL’s potential for redistribution. An important factor in whether ESOL can contribute to redistribution and social justice is access to appropriate English language classes. One of the major problems surrounds eligibility for government funding towards the cost of course fees. Many people now have to pay for classes and most of these simply cannot afford to access ESOL provision. These include full time carers, people on low wages, and newly arrived asylum seekers who generally do not have permission to work which can create a situation of boredom and isolation. Although jobseekers are entitled to free provision, pressure to take work means that many migrants then abandon their studies for low-waged, low skilled employment below their potential (Ward 2007). Spouses of settled community residents are excluded from government

funded provision for the first 3 years of residence or 1 year if they are married to an EEA national (GLA 2012:11). These spouses are more likely to be women, and as Ward (2007) points out, those who need to learn English are disqualified from free ESOL provision at a time when they need support to settle, which can exacerbate isolation and marginalisation for these women.

Women can face other barriers to accessing ESOL provision. Childcare is an important factor affecting access to ESOL provision. Reduction in funding has meant the loss of many on-site crèches and nurseries, and less money available in the forms of hardship funds for childcare. This is more likely to affect women who often have primary childcare responsibilities. Dumper found that 50% of refugee women could not access classes due to lack of childcare facilities (Dumper 2002:1). Even for those whose children are at nursery or school, they can only access ESOL classes if the timetabling is compatible. In some cultures women are expected to prioritise their responsibilities in the home, therefore community or home based provision is needed for these women (Ward 2007:19), but this is expensive, and if they are not looking for work, they are not a funding priority. Furthermore, since I started teaching in 2000, I have seen community provision significantly reduced in my city and I have also seen many women give up ESOL classes due to drastically reduced availability of childcare at these venues.

Low levels of literacy and education in the first language often affects progress in the ESOL context, where a great many learners have had limited or no formal education in their country of origin and therefore lack literacy and study skills. These learners are often women, and/or often from developing countries. They generally make slower progress as they have to acquire the ‘cultural capital’ of the classroom at the same time as learning a language (Curry 2008). As practitioners, ESOL teachers are very aware of this and take this into account when teaching and planning. However, the nature of ESOL provision means that these learners are often in classes with those with a much higher level of education, and this makes it difficult for the teachers to meet their needs effectively. Furthermore, cuts in funding have meant that class sizes are getting bigger, making it even harder to support those who need more support within a class. Thus the potential for ESOL to achieve redistribution for migrants in general; and marginalised groups such as women, those on low incomes, those without a formal education, and those from developing countries in particular, is compromised by the neo-liberal agenda surrounding ESOL policy.

Recognition Recognition, in regards to ESOL learners and migrants, would include the recognition of the right to learn English and be economically mobile (not just to obtain, and function in low-skilled jobs), the right to maintain their cultural identity and language, and the right to have racist and xenophobic assumptions about migrants and ESOL learners challenged. The last decade has seen a shift away from public discourses of multiculturalism to those of integration and assimilation


(Zetter et al 2006:3). Cooke and Simpson (2009) describe how a ‘pervasive anti-migrant and xenophobic discourse’ around immigration in the popular media means that ‘ESOL students, as migrants to the UK, are positioned in public and everyday discourse as being of a lower status than the local-born population’ (Cooke and Simpson 2009:20). Public debates about immigration are often couched in terminology which demonises those who cannot speak English (Cameron 2013). In addition to their inferior positioning, they do not have a voice; they are inaudible. Audibility is not simply related to language ability, but also to the social and cultural capital (resources, knowledge, education and status) necessary to operate in a society on an equal footing (Cooke and Simpson 2009). In addition, ESOL’s dependence on government funding and policy which currently prioritises the agendas of employability and citizenship, means that students are offered ‘limited and deficit subject positions (identities): primarily as immigrants, skills trainees, and prospective employees in low-paid work’ (Simpson and Gresswell 2012:1).

Apart from the ideological implications, linking ESOL with employability also affects what is being taught, and how far teachers can tailor their courses to the needs of their learners. Although there is a genuine need for many ESOL learners to improve their English for employment purposes, many have other needs as well or instead. Also, the intent of this policy focus on employability is to move unemployed migrants into any work, (which is likely to be low paid and low status) after which they then become ineligible for free ESOL. Lack of sufficient income to pay class fees means many people often cannot improve their language skills further which makes it difficult then to progress further in the job market, regardless of level of previous education or experience. This narrow emphasis restricts learners’ ‘agency freedom’ and thus their capability to participate in the world of work in a way meaningful to them.

The increasing emphasis on accreditation and employability in ESOL can exclude learners who have skills and aspirations unrelated to exams or work (Kliffen 2012). For example, there are many women with low English skills whose main priority is the education of their family and not themselves. Kliffen describes her class for parents in a primary school supported by a sympathetic head teacher, where there was no pressure to meet enrolment or achievement targets. This meant that as a teacher, Kliffen was free to respond to the needs of her learners, which were mainly to develop confidence in their English skills and to be able to support their children’s schooling. In my experience, classes like this are increasingly rare; when I taught a class for parents in a school, the course was only funded for 10 weeks, and funding dictates meant the aims and content had to be devised before I had even met the students. Marginalised groups like these women are therefore increasingly unlikely to have their needs met, and thus are less likely to be able to fulfil their capability to function in UK society.

The other strong influence on the content of ESOL classes is the government agenda surrounding citizenship and ‘integration’. In order to gain citizenship, migrants have to take the Life in the UK test, but prior to 2013, if their language level was too low they had the alternative of attending ESOL classes

where ‘ citizenship’ materials were used. This has meant that many ESOL classes now contain citizenship elements (as for example, in the college where I teach). Although many students in a class will be applying for citizenship, many will not be, or will already have it, and yet all will have to cover these ‘citizenship topics’. Teaching these subjects within the language classroom can further serve to remind learners of their status as ‘immigrants’ who need to learn about and conform to ‘British society’ (Cooke and Simpson 2009).

As the nature of classes is increasingly dictated by funding requirements, teachers are continually forced to juggle the diverse learning needs of the students with curriculum demands determined by these political agendas. Fortunately, in my experience ESOL teachers recognise the importance of ensuring their lessons and materials are relevant to learners’ lives. In addition there are many examples of innovative teaching and learning projects which can offer learners the chance to explore their situations, for example Simpson and Gresswell describe a music video made by young ESOL learners in which they sing about their experiences and which contains the repeated line “immigrant isn’t my identity” (Simpson and Gresswell, 2012). Similarly, Reflect for ESOL is a teaching resource which was developed by adapting literacy learning methods based on Freire’s ‘critical pedagogy’ for use in the mainstream ESOL classroom. In Reflect for ESOL, language is learnt through students (known as ‘participants’) reflecting on and analysing their own needs and experiences (Moon and Sunderland 2008).

Despite the professionalism and innovation of many ESOL teachers, I would contend that the pressure to adhere to curricula determined by the neo-liberal agenda and discourse is making it harder to address what students really want or need. Not only then, does government discourse and policy place limitations on the relevance of the content of ESOL courses, it can also serve to re-enforce negative identities of groups of migrants, and further negate their claims for recognition.

Participation In relation to ESOL students, participation means the acquisition of language skills, and the knowledge of institutions and systems, in order to participate in them in a meaningful way, for example schools, community or neighbourhood groups, or local or national politics. Provided the barriers to learning are removed, ESOL classes can enable greater participation by facilitating the gaining of language and social knowledge necessary to access services and giving learners a voice, for example at school meetings or interacting with utilities companies. It can enable marginalised groups, such as women who would otherwise be at home, to have a space where they can meet, share experiences and practise language to help them to participate independently in society.

Whilst there is a negative side of associating citizenship with ESOL, there are positives too. Many migrants want or need citizenship status, and the ESOL and Citizenship classes have helped them to achieve this without the higher literacy levels that the Life in the UK test requires (provided they can access a


class). However, the new citizenship requirements introduced in 2013 demand that all applicants pass the Life in the UK Test (Home Office 2013), so it will be interesting to see if this affects the curriculum of mainstream ESOL classes. This, combined with the higher language requirement which has also been introduced will make attaining citizenship much more difficult for those who struggle to progress in language learning, either through lack of education in their mother tongue, or inability to access adequate provision. The potential for ESOL classes to facilitate participation for these groups will thus be further restricted.

Taylor (2007) argues that covering the citizenship topics helps learners acquire knowledge of mechanisms such as parliament and the electoral system, which potentially encourage participation (for example, one activity within this topic is ‘writing to your MP’). Topics such as human rights and volunteering can elicit useful language for learners to talk about a range of experiences. I would add to this that if the topics are engaged with critically, taking into account learners’ previous experiences as citizens of their ‘home’ countries, it could enable them to be active citizens, participating in society, rather than passive citizens. Examples of how ESOL can encourage active participation include the Reflect for ESOL project, which encourages the participants to identify actions for improving their situations; and also the Action for ESOL campaigns against funding cuts which saw students writing letters to, and meeting local MPs, and travelling to London to lobby parliament. However the extent to which ESOL can facilitate participation is contingent on access to classes and recognition of the true needs of the learners.

ConclusionThe neo-liberal agenda influencing ESOL classes limits migrants’ ability to exercise their ‘agency freedom’ to pursue outcomes that they value, however there is some scope inside and outside classrooms for learners and teachers to convert opportunity into valued capabilities with which migrants can function within systems such as community groups, schools or the workplace. Regarding Fraser’s three dimensions of social justice, ESOL can be a means of redistribution as it can help some migrants to find work or progress in the job market, however, many are not even able to access provision and therefore do not have this opportunity. Where the opportunity exists, a learner’s ability to convert this into a capability (a desired level of English for example) can be restricted by factors such as low literacy or inappropriate curricula. Although the formal structures of ESOL may fail to challenge the negative views of migrants, there is scope within classrooms for learners and teachers to challenge these by exploring issues meaningful to learners and thus begin the process of recognition that the rights of ESOL learners and migrants are not subordinate. ESOL can facilitate participation in society in many ways, but again, learners need first the opportunity of a class and then the ability to convert this into a capability such as community involvement. Consequently, given the right circumstances, ESOL does have the potential to enable learners to develop the capabilities to function as socially

mobile, equal, and valued members of society. However, some groups, such as asylum seekers, some women, and those with low literacy levels are less likely to be able to develop these capabilities. Furthermore, ESOL’s potential for social justice through redistribution, recognition and participation for adult migrants has limitations due to the ‘human capital approach’ to ESOL policy which the current government administration takes, and thus the ‘institutionalised obstacles’ of the economic structure and immigration discourses in the UK are unlikely to be overcome any time soon.

ReferencesBloch, A. (2004) ‘Labour Market Participation and Conditions of Employment: A Comparison of Minority Ethnic Groups and Refugees in Britain’, Sociological Research Online, vol.9, no.2. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/bloch.html

Cameron, D. (2013) Language, Lies and Statistics http://www.languageonthemove.com/language-migration-social-justice/language-lies-and-statistics [accessed 26 March 2013]

Cooke, M. and Simpson, J. (2009) ‘Challenging agendas in ESOL: Skills, employability and social cohesion’ Language Issues 20 (1):19–30

Curry, M.J. (2008) ‘A Head Start and a Credit: analyzing cultural capital in the basic writing/ESOL classroom’. In Albright, J. Luke, A. Eds. Pierre Bourdieu and Literacy Education. New York: Routledge

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010) Skills for Sustainable Growth Strategy Document. London: DBIS

Department for Education and Skills (2001) Adult ESOL Core Curriculum. London: DfES

Dumper, H. (2002) Is it safe here? Refugee women’s experiences in the UK, London: Refugee Action http://www.refugeeaction.org.uk/assets/0000/5475/Is_It_Safe_Here_Report_2002_Refugee_Action.pdf [Accessed 18.6.13]

Dustmann, C., and Fabbri, F., (2003) Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK. The Economic Journal, 113 (July): 695–717

Greater London Authority (2012) English Language for All. London: GLA

Hamilton, M. and Hillier, Y. (2009) ‘ESOL Policy and Change’, Language Issues 20 (1): 4–18

Home Office (2013) Tougher language requirements announced for British citizenship https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tougher-language-requirements-announced-for-british-citizenship [Accessed 20.6.13]

Kliffen, E. (2012) ‘Teaching them what they ask for: the value of non-accredited ESOL provision outside the Skills for Life (SfL) strategy’. Language Issues 23 (2): 75–81


Moon, P. and Sunderland, H. (2008) Reflect for ESOL Evaluation: final report. London: LLU

Office for National Statistics (2013) 2011 Census Analysis, Language in England and Wales http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/language-in-england-and-wales-2011/index.html [accessed 21 March 2013]

Simpson, J. and Hepworth, M. (2010) Identities Online: Multilingual language learners’ textual identities in and out of class. University of Leeds

Simpson, J. and Gresswell, R. (2012) ‘ESOL learners online: New media as a site of identity negotiation’ in M. Hamilton, L. Tett and J. Crowther (eds.) Powerful Literacies (second edition). Leicester: NIACE

Taylor, C. (2007) ESOL and Citizenship: A Teachers’ Guide. Leicester: NIACE

Tackey N.D., Casebourne, J., Aston, J., Ritchie, H., Sinclair A., Tyers, C., Hurstfield,J., Willison, R., and Page, R., (2006) Barriers to employment for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Britain. DWP Research Report DWPRR 360. London: DWP available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_360.asp [accessed 20 June 2013]

Tikly, L. and Barrett, A. (2011) ‘Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in low income countries’, International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1): 3–14

Unterhalter, E., Vaughan, R. and Walker, M., (2007) The capability approach and education http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/educationresearchprojects/documents/developmentdiscourses/rpg2008walkermclean9.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2013]

Vertovec, S. (2006).The Emergence of super-diversity in Britain, Working Paper No25. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.

Walker, M. (2004). ‘Human capabilities, education and ‘doing the public good’: towards a capability-based theory of social justice in education’, In Australian Association for Research in Education Doing the public good: Positioning education research, Melbourne, Australia 29 November – 2 December 2004. http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/wal04164.pdf [Accessed on 14 March 2013]

Ward, J. (2007) ESOL: The Context for the UK today. Leicester: NIACE

Ward, J. (2008) ESOL: The Context and Issues. Leicester: NIACE

Williamson, E. (2011) ‘Skills on the Agenda: reconfiguring the ESOL classroom as a communicative democratic space’ Language Issues 22:1 pp20–36

Zetter, R., Griffiths, D., Sigona, N., Pasha, T., and Beynon., R, (2006) ‘Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: What are the links?’ York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

AcknowledgementMany thanks to the staff at the University of Bristol and in particular Professor Leon Tikly for his support.

Jill Court is an ESOL lecturer at City of Bristol College and has also taught in various community settings in Bristol. She is currently working towards a Masters in Education at the University of Bristol.


Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 a r t i cl es 22

Low-Educated adult Second Language and Literacy Acquisition

Conference on Research, Practice, Policy, ICT and Multimedia for LESLLA learners

10th LESLLA conference 28–30 August 2014 Radboud University Nijmegen Netherlands

Plenary speakersFalk Huettig: How literacy acquisition affects the illiterate mind

James Simpson: Adult language education and migration: Challenging agenda in policy and practice

Inge Schuurmans and Frieke van Zundert: Learning Dutch: It takes two to tango

Roeland van Hout, Jeanne Kurvers, Ineke van de Craats: A decade of LESLLA: Footprints for the future

Plenary workshopThe team of the Digital Literacy Instructor

For more information and registration http://leslla2014.orgFor questions [email protected]


The volunteer ethos and utopian impulse in the ESOL classroom Julia Podziewska

AbstractA growing demand for ESOL provision has prompted his-torical enquiry into the emergence of ESOL. This research reveals that the motor generating this field of adult education is, broadly speaking, to be located in a network of community and volunteer based projects set up in the 1970s in response to Commonwealth immigration into the UK. The efficacy of such community based provision has been recognised in – and championed by – reports published by the government sponsored research council NRDC, as well as Ofsted, NIACE and the IfL. The ESOL organ-isational format of swift responsiveness to an increasingly transnational world at the local level, together with its respectful learner-centred philosophy of the classroom signalled a prefigurative model that moved beyond the paternalism of the post-war welfare-state and seemed to herald further emancipatory victory. However, in the inter-vening years, the main road to freedom has been trodden by those advocating the free market and free trade. The impact of this encroaching marketisation on ESOL has been summarily expressed in a manner that will ring true to many involved in ESOL teaching: ‘provision is tailored to maximize funding even if it is not in the best interests of the students’ (Vargas in, 2009: 473).

This paper argues that things can be otherwise. It does so by returning to what is often seen as ESOL’s weak spot – the voluntary profile of its inaugural workforce, which has been linked to the low pay and poor conditions persisting in this sector. Opening with an explanation of the term ‘voluntary ethos’, followed by a brief history of English teaching to new arrivals, it then attempts to conceptualises the volun-tary ethos in terms of mutually emancipatory aspiration. Next, it outlines present-day conditions of employment: the setting from within which an alternative future will be imagined. It then frames the voluntary ethos in terms of Jürgen Habermas’s concept of ‘the public sphere’ and relates it to Edward Said’s notion of the amateur; and subsequently concludes with suggestions for action. The ‘weak spot’ thereby appears as a fulcrum from which ESOL teachers can apply the lever to their advantage and that of their students.

ContextThis enquiry uses the term ‘voluntary ethos’ in preference to ‘volunteer’ because it concerns today’s paid ESOL tutors and

their students and analyses their situation in relation to the unpaid tutors with whom ESOL began, who have always been involved and who are reappearing as the present administration narrows paid provision. The notion of ethos is employed for its etymological evocation of character, custom and place; it alludes to all those nuanced classroom relations and exchanges alien to the technological-reductionalist quantifying systems imported from the world of business to monitor and measure classroom output and achievement. ESOL tutors often seem to elude standardised contractual identity. Research shows that they commonly go the extra mile, and a considerable distance more: ‘ESOL professionals are also juggling roles as teachers, advice workers, counsellors, therapists and cultural brokers’ (Baynham et al., 2007: 55). Essentially, paid ESOL tutors often practice, sometimes willingly, sometimes unwillingly – and are often viewed – as volunteers. Although this appears more prevalent in community settings which target both difficult-to-access and funding-ineligible learners, those working in the more formalised setting of FE colleges also speak of supporting students beyond the lesson plan.

Peer-reviewed research into post-compulsory education points out the ubiquity of unpaid, voluntary work, alongside the more regular low-paid work undertaken by ESOL tutors. The NIACE report More than a Language comments on the frequency with which ESOL tutors, in both FE and community settings, respond to ‘the often difficult personal circumstances of ESOL learners […] with great dedication and skills, even though it is beyond their responsibilities.’ (2006: 6). Another study, looking into the working practice of part-time staff, noted that ‘amounts of “underground” working occurred whereby tutors routinely engaged in working well beyond their job descriptions’ (Jameson and Hillier, 2008: 42), and that part-time staff undertook ‘goodworks’ for relatively low wages’ (ibid: 46). This is confirmed elsewhere: ‘[the] support role, often outside the classroom […] is usually time consuming, unrecognised, and unpaid.’ (Ward, 2007: 21). Such behaviour is not confined to the UK. US research sees ESL employees as ‘“intrinsically motivated, focusing on rewards that are less tangible than financial compensation or professional status and recognition: social service, creativity, connectedness to others, and a sense of accomplishment.”’ (Florez, 1997, qtd. in Sun. 2010). Locating the emergence of this voluntary trend will inform the development of strategy that ensures that the decision to support students in a non-remunerated manner can be harnessed to empower teachers and students, rather than to enable employers to further erode tutors’ pay and conditions of work and the service they provide learners. But why is this voluntary ethos a feature of ESOL in particular?


HistoryESOL classrooms are distinctive because, as policy documents recognise, they are uniquely marked by a ‘potentially fragile classroom ecology, where so many vulnerable people are gathered together’, people who have ‘complex and often difficult lives’ frequently compounded by ‘the stresses of being asylum seekers, living in fear, uncertainty and recent trauma’ (Baynham et al., 2007: 68 and 64). From the inception of ESOL until today, classes often, and sometimes wholly, contain those forced to migrate by war, persecution or destitution, in the early days mostly people displaced from the British Commonwealth and today from Eastern Europe. Certainly, taken in isolation, no student profile can account for why an educational field might be infused with a particular ethos, but it can contribute to understanding. Nor in the case under discussion can this ethos be accounted for in terms of long standing traditional practice. Historical research points to earlier waves of immigrants, even more vulnerably placed and without access to welfare provision, receiving professional rather than volunteer language teaching. In the late nineteenth-century, trained teachers employed by municipal authorities gave English tuition to those arriving from the shtetls of the Russian Empire; likewise, the British Council was given the task of organising language teaching for the 200,000 arrivals affected by the Polish Resettlement Act of 1947. In neither instance is significant volunteer activity recorded (Rosenberg, 2008).

The emergence of state organised and/or state funded voluntary provision is a more recent phenomenon. Accordingly, the voluntary ethos appears to be generated by elements in the socio-historical formation beyond simply that of sympathy for disadvantaged new arrivals. Justin Davis Smith argues that a broad revitalisation of the British mutual-aid and self-help traditions took place from the 1960s onwards, as a backlash, or at least wash-back, to ‘the perceived inadequacies in welfare provision’ of the post-war settlement (Smith, 1995: 2). Hamilton and Hillier place ESOL within this context, identifying it as ‘a field of policy and practice’ rather than, as some teachers and linguists have been wont to do, conceiving of it in linguistic and /or pedagogical terms. (2007: 1). Using an analytical model that enables the identification of complex and messy social networks, dynamics and relationships, rather than the simple binaries of state and recipient, voluntary and paid work and so on, these authors show voluntary work to have been constitutive of ESOL in the 1960s and 1970s, even though it was a response to the very first wave of immigration to attract specific ESOL provision, namely ‘Section 11’ funding, from the Home Office (ibid.: 2 and 9). This confluence of grassroots social action and the government department responsible for security, law and order and immigration signals the liminal quality of volunteering, its capacity to operate to conserve the status quo and perpetuate social injustice as much as to propel transformation to a more equitable distribution of resources and power. An examination of a more historically specific and critically analytic notion of volunteerism will aid the categorisation of volunteering with ESOL provision.

Charity or mutual aidDocumenting the history of the charity and voluntary sectors, Justin Davis Smith argues that, in the UK, volunteerism has always consisted of two streams, namely philanthropy and mutual aid, the former characterised by time and/or resources given for free; and the latter by collectivity and two-way support (1995). This dual model illuminates the wave of volunteerism that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, its impact on ESOL and on the native-speaker adult Literacy Campaign of the period (Hillier, 2006). The motivation impelling volunteers to support the literacy campaign is documented as mostly philanthropic. Hillier records that ‘volunteers came forwards in droves from fashionable middle class areas, but the learners were mainly (though not exclusively) to be found elsewhere’. She quotes one organiser recalling that: “There was a lot of blue rinse wanting to do … volunteering … I think there were quite a lot of bored housewives.” (2006: 66–69). By contrast, Hamilton and Hillier note that the sentiment behind offers to help immigrants with ESOL was more that of mutual aid. They regard it as ‘demand-led’ rather than imposed from above, and record that those interviewed ‘recalled how provision in the late 1960s and 1970s was largely developed by local practitioner activists, frequently in people’s homes or in local adult community settings.’ (2007: 3). This is not to say that the literacy campaign was bereft of impulse for broader social amelioration; blindspots, naiveties and vulnerabilities can be discerned in the emancipatory impulses of the ESOL campaign.

Hillier reminds us of the landscape of pre-Thatcher England in general with her own words: ‘the 1970s were an era of social action aimed at achieving social justice’ (2006: 70), and a quote from one of her interviewees: ‘“We all had a bit of passion for the work, so there was a political dimension to it.”’ (ibid: 70). This 1970s activism took many forms: workers in heavy industry and the public sector fought pay cuts; Irish Republicans challenged British domination; women increasingly questioned and challenged their subordination – a strike by Ford machinists won the right to equal pay for equal work (1970), activism led to the right to obtain contraception from the NHS and the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission to oversee the Sex Discrimination Act in 1974. The institution, shortly after, of the Race Relations Commission (1977), charged with overseeing the Race Relations Act (1976), hints at a broad emancipatory impulse during this period. More immediately related to ESOL, 1971 saw the arrival of 27,000 Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin, fast on the heels of the 5,000 Kenyan Asians who had come in 1968. The appearance of these Commonwealth British citizens, expelled from former colonies prioritising their own nationals, confronted settled residents with Britain’s history of colonial domination. A two-year long strike (1976–78) at the Grunwick film-processing laboratories in North London shattered prevailing preconceptions of South-East Asian working-class women as silent, docile and submissive.

Though the spirit of cooperation rather than charitable impulse appears to have motivated early ESOL volunteers, it still remains difficult to conceive of this in terms of mutual aid because of the different market positions and cultural assets


held by the teachers and their students respectively. However, it is rendered possible if we consider the mutual aid of the 1970s to have been generated by an identification of the Other involving recognition of a parallel emancipatory impulse: identity politics. The period in which ESOL emerged was one in which the politics of redistributive justice or class was being overtaken by the politics of identity affiliation. Accordingly, activists against oppression, whether that took the form of challenging gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality or any other inequality, sometimes including class and the distribution of resources, at times formed alliances to challenge various and generalised subordination. ESOL can thus be envisaged as a space in which women allied themselves with the displaced from the colonies: initial provision was mostly set up in community settings, staffed by women and involved women learners. (Empirical corroboration of this may be found in the data sets and documentary archives collated by Hamilton, Hillier and Parsons, held at Lancaster University and collated by as part of their ESRC-funded Changing Faces project as interviewed participants in non-institutionalised policy activism). As most ESOL teachers are now in paid employment, today’s point of mutual recognition needs be sought elsewhere: in workplace conditions.

Conditions of employmentAmidst constant policy shifts, funding stream adjustments, new nomenclature, and a culture of sub-contracting, reliable comparative data relating to pay and conditions is hard to find. There are no data sets of national employment statistics that distinguish ESOL tutors from others teaching functional skills, or FE teachers more generally. Evidence of poor reward appears in a variety of forms, including research: ‘There are not enough trained and qualified teachers. Potential [ESOL] recruits such as new graduates and EFL teachers […] are deterred by pay, conditions of employment and lack of career structure.’ (Ward: 2006). Current rates of pay for individual posts can be found using internet searches. West Sussex County Council is advertising for ESOL tutors, qualified with SfL level 5 subject specialism, as part of the family learning team, at: ‘£21.64 per hour to include preparation time and travelling.’ The specialist recruitment agencies such as Morgan Hunt and Protocol, which have emerged in response to public education spending cuts, offer pay ranging from £16.00–£21.00 and £17.70–£30.00 per hour respectively. Other agencies offer similar rates. As hourly rates frequently include preparation and travel time, these are not competitive rates of pay (and they compare poorly with the £12.76 per hour I was receiving in 2010 from a local authority for a package of an hour’s contact with an hour’s preparation).

Remuneration is not the only issue; there is the matter of job security, too. A full-time, permanent post in ESOL employment is rare in both community and college settings. Underlying this is the ever-changing government funding policy which leaves employers in fear of redundancy pay-outs; hence the use of agencies, zero and temporary contracts. US research into international ESOL employment conditions likewise shows that worldwide ‘full-time positions are scare and the majority

of teachers work part-time’, most programmes employing 80% part-time workers (Sun, 2010: 145 and 146 ). Advertisements that offer tutors sessional, temporary and part-time work often claim that these may lead to permanent, full-time work in colleges. The likelihood of this occurring may be gauged from the website of one of the UK’s leading FE education recruiting bodies, Protocol, which says something very different when addressing employers. Its headline banner offers ‘The Benefits of Flexibility’ that ‘enables you to take little or no financial risk and can also help you balance your budget [… p]aying only for the hours delivered […with… r]isk free capacity management.’ Flexibility is the watchword in a world governed by responses to stock market fluctuations.

Hamilton and Hillier directly connect these ‘largely part-time, marginal posts’ with the fact that ‘ESOL provision was originally staffed by volunteers’ (2007: 2). When ESOL was introduced, flexibility was demanded by its teachers rather than imposed on them. As volunteers, those offering support would not have wanted or been able to devote a full-working week to teaching. This may explain a history of the low level of unionisation and demand for job security among a social group who otherwise, due in large part to their contact with ESOL students, show a relatively high level of awareness and concern with social justice. Research shows that fewer than 50 per cent are in full time permanent posts (Baynham et al., 2007:35); and that in Adult and Community Learning, this figure drops to 10 per cent (Ofsted, 2008: 28). Once the flexible, part-time model became established, ESOL teaching would have been targeted as a suitable activity for women with children, women who couldn’t work full time, who didn’t want to or didn’t need to. However, as the economy changed, and an increasing proportion of women entered paid employment, and as the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act shifted ESOL provision away from its community base into colleges, with their ‘contract culture’ and ‘quality control’ audits, fewer ESOL teachers felt satisfied with the ‘flexible’ arrangements offered them (Hamilton, n.d: 7) Tables were turned and ‘flexibility’ was felt as ‘casualisation’. Nowadays casualisation is generating anxiety.

Recent UK data findings show ‘widespread cultures of fear with a consequent feeling of disempowerment’ among younger trainee Skills for Life [including ESOL] teachers, which was linked to ‘ a career that was likely to involve fragmentary, part-time work spread across multiple sites and drawing on previous careers as a safety net’ (O’Leary and Smith, 2012). This echoes a study of international ESOL trainees and tutors’ views about their conditions of employment, which reveal deep rooted anxiety and dissatisfaction: “Our students and our teachers are often treated like second class citizens’; ‘Part-time ES[O]L instruction offers […] no respect as a professional at this institution’ one study documents (Sun, 2010). Such conditions apply to those employed in colleges as much as those employed in community settings. Along with job insecurity and low rates of pay, opportunity for continuous professional development is scarce and the status of ESOL teaching low (Sun, 2010; O’Leary and Smith, 2012). All these seem to have grown worse as adult education provision, and staff contracts, previously overseen and administered by local government controlled further education colleges and adult


and community learning units have been devolved to the private sector and community organisations.

As levels of ESOL pay and conditions for teachers deteriorate it may still be presumed that in the great majority of cases the income and assets of tutors are greater than those they teach. Time and again, ESOL learners are identified as belonging to low-income social groups (Cuban, 2010; DIUS, 2009). Although the situation of ESOL teachers is more advantageous than that of their students, it compares unfavourably to their peers in the education sector. Hence both teacher and students stand on low rungs of their respective peer status ladders. Nevertheless, despite an acute awareness of a difference in cultural and material assets, teachers have reason to identify with their students’ economic and other related insecurities. As neoliberal policy impacts on an increasingly larger section of those reliant on paid labour, and in its absence, welfare benefits, new common ground can be found within the ESOL classroom: vulnerability in the face of neoliberal state-enabled marketisation. Post-colonial, post-industrial neoliberal finance programmes such as the GATS agreement (1995) and the programmes known as the Washington Consensus (1989), globally liberalising and marketising, reducing public welfare, privatising public assets, cutting taxes for the rich and deregulating labour, generate insecurity for both teachers and students: this is our common ground. How we conceptualise the ESOL classroom to augment the chances of this being recognised is suggested by a key analytical framework from critical theory.

The public sphere, commerce and the state Jürgen Habermas’s notion of the public sphere allows us to see how an affiliation between ESOL teachers and ESOL learners could come about, to deepen our understanding of the utopian, emancipatory elements of the voluntary ethos imbuing ESOL, and to recognise that both paid and unpaid support offered by tutors to students might more usefully be linked to mutual aid than philanthropy. Habermas, it will be recalled, identified the public sphere with freedom to engage in rational critical debate in contrast to the private sphere which he associates with motivation for commercial gain and the sphere of public authority which was linked to state coercion. ESOL, viewed through the prism of Habermassian critical theory, plays a role in all three spheres.

As regards the private sphere, ESOL is imbued with the language of commodification: courses are ‘delivered’ and eligibility for free ESOL classes depends on demonstrating that the learner intends to become a wage labourer, that is, is in receipt of an ‘actively seeking work’ benefit. ESOL relates to the sphere of public authority in its connections with the Home Office. When the above-mentioned Section 11 funding (1966–1999) was transferred to the Department for Education and Employment, an alliance between ESOL and the Home Office remained, e.g. ESOL and its related citizenship exams count as criteria for citizenship. ESOL tutors are subordinately positioned in these two spheres. They have a weak market position and little influence vis-à-vis state policy, nevertheless

they are pressurised by the task-focused, performative, audit-trail demands of management (Ball, 2003) to treat language as a commodity, to tailor teaching to maximize funding and collect fees, and to support the implementation of state immigration and border control by filtering eligible students and tracking and monitoring student ‘pathways’. It thus comes as no surprise that ‘[f]eelings of relative powerlessness’ and low morale are reported to be characteristic of part-time FE employees (Jameson and Hillier, 2008: 42); and it is possible that pressure from line-managers in respect of performance indicators and measuring outcomes leaves the teacher questioning like the interviewee quoted in the Guardian: ‘What happened to my creativity? What happened to my professional integrity? What happened to the fun in teaching and learning? What Happened? ‘ (Ball 2003: 216). Further, it is also possible to work against the grain and to establish a classroom ‘where talk is work’ (Baynham and Roberts, 2006), where there is dialogue between students and between teachers and students, a scenario – in an effective language classroom – that evokes the public sphere.

The institution of such a classroom does not mean overturning the money-lenders’ tables in the temple. Indeed, the money-lenders can come and observe, for this type of classroom practice is valorised by subject specialist researchers who are ‘very positive about group learning, [and] the opportunities to talk in English that this offers, and the social communal nature of ESOL classrooms’(Baynham et al., 2007: 64). Scholarship shows that ‘This strong social function of group classes’ is recognised as ‘a crucial element in helping relative newcomers to ‘belong’, whereas ‘focus on individual learning and ILPs can be at the expense of group progress and classroom talk’. (NRDC, 2007: 64 and 70). ‘Socio-interactive practices’, that is, classroom procedure embedded in ‘real life’ practice and procedures rather than abstract, school-room behaviour is especially valuable for those with no or little formal education according to ESL research conducted in the US (Ramirez-Esparza et al., 2012: 543). NIACE echoes this recognition of the ‘civic and cultural life’ (2006: 5), depicting the ideal ESOL classroom as a microcosm of the public sphere, something also implied in the title of the report, More than a Language (NIACE, 2006). Effective engagement in the ESOL classroom, freedom to forge meaning, to discuss social issues that matter to you, to learn how to express your ideas, desires and thoughts and to listen to others do the same, prepares all the members of the class for activity beyond the classroom in all three of Habermas’s spheres. That space in which people’s experience and knowledge is respected can be imagined as the public sphere, or more pedagogically, a classroom based on the Freirian learner-centred principles of participatory methodology. The Reflect for ESOL classroom (see http://www.reflect-action.org/reflectesol) generates the conditions for linking the micro with the macro, for connecting classroom presence with the economic and political disruption that has driven people away from their homes and to the UK, and potentially, for enabling teacher and learner to recognise how each is caught up in a transnational system of flexible labour.


Classroom practice: amateurism versus professionalismThe classroom as a microcosm of the public sphere, a place of potential autonomy, agency, and freedom, is not simply of benefit to – and a delight for – students, but one of the key rewards for those teaching ESOL, and what often keeps teachers there despite the low pay and poor conditions. This sounds contradictory, but ESOL is riven with ambivalence, tensions, conflicts, contradictions and struggles. Indeed, it was born from the mésalliance of a bottom-up grassroots voluntary activism and a top-down Home Office grant. It is ESOL’s threshold position that gives it such potential for social transformation: it can be shifted towards authoritarianism and instrumentality or nudged, as it was at its inception, by the voluntary ethos in the other direction, impelled by utopian emancipatory impulses.

Awareness of ambivalence and an ability to conceptually and critically frame it in order to get a sense of what lies beyond and behind it is one of the things that makes ESOL a creative, exciting place to work . Other ambivalences include students wanting to learn English to gain more control over their lives within a learning process bound up with state regulation in respect of work, welfare and residence rights. Additionally, teachers enjoy flexibility but not the disempowering casualisation that accompanies it. They can feel deskilled by training courses run under the rubric of professionalism, but other features of the new workplace regime, isolation and lack of support, can also be exploited and enjoyed as creative freedom and imaginative possibility. This would accord with the findings of a research project into the motivation and satisfaction of part-time further education staff, namely, that part-time employment can liberate teachers ‘from being locked into patterns of control and de-professionalisation’ by regimes of ‘authority-compliance management’ (Jameson and Hillier, 2008, p.46 and p. 43) and give a sense of autonomy and agency.

The term, ‘de-professionalisation’ merits consideration. Up to this point, the notion of volunteer has been contrasted with paid worker rather than amateur. The professional/amateur binary can be identified as a further ambivalence in ESOL that has come about as the sector has generally recruited from a pool of women rather than men. Hillier, writing of 1970s adult education, rightly warns us not to interpret volunteer activity as synonymous with amateur, uninformed or non-professional: ‘volunteers are not a homogeneous group […] many of them had valuable experience from working as primary school teachers, social workers, librarians and a range of other similar careers.’ (2006: 69); she notes that ESOL recruitment drew on ‘a more specialized and better organized professional group’ than literacy and numeracy. (Hillier n.d: 6). Jameson and Hillier’s accounts of the ESOL classroom underscore its emancipatory potential for its teachers, rather than, as is more often the case, simply for its students. Their work focuses on the social transformation than can take place in the classroom and in a manner that evokes Edward Said’s account of the work undertaken by the amateur and the professional in his Reith Lectures (1993), Representations of the Intellectual. Said

interrogates the increasingly bandied notion of professionalism as:

‘something you do for a living, between the hours of nine to five with one eye on the clock, and another cocked at what is considered to be proper professional behaviour – not rocking the boat, not straying outside the accepted paradigms or limits, making yourself marketable and above all presentable, hence uncontroversial and unpolitical and ‘objective’. (1994: 55)

This notion of the professional mirrors the ideal worker in a marketised education where ‘individual practitioners [are required] to organize themselves as a response to targets, indicators and evaluations’ (Ball, 2003: 215) even though research maintains that ‘cutting up learning into bite-sized modules and SMART targets shows no understanding of incremental second language learning processes’ (NDRC, 2007: 70). According to Stephen Ball, the new ‘professional’ in education, like Said’s, is expected to ‘[t]o set aside personal beliefs and commitments and live an existence of calculation’ (2003: 215). Accordingly, the very structures put in place to ensure quality, the task-focused, performative, audit-trails advocated in Breaking the Language Barriers (DfEE, 2000) – and the 2008 Ofsted report – and demanded by professional managers, hamper the work recommended by specialist scholars. NDRC research points to the detrimental impact technocratic rationalism has on ESOL, noting that ‘[m]any of the factors that distract from rather than enhance effective practice relate to policy and institutional requirements [which] shape a top down notion of “effective practice” not always attuned to the reality of ESOL teaching and learning’ (ibid: 66). Executed under the rubric of ‘professionalism’, such practice overlooks materialist understanding of language (e.g. Vygotsky, Bakhtin and Luria), that language is dialogic, always an utterance, socially situated and not an asset that can be ‘delivered’.

Said’s description of the amateur, on the other hand, evokes the ethos that coursed through ESOL’s early days, when it was staffed by volunteers and informed by identity politics:

‘someone who considers that to be a thinking and concerned member of society one is entitled to raise moral issues at the heart of even the most technical and professionalized activity as it involves one’s country, its power and its mode of interacting with its citizens as well as with their societies.’ (ibid: 61).

This profile corresponds to recommendations made by specialist ESOL educationalists and the practice of skilled teachers. The teacher as ‘amateur’, who thinks creatively, engages with moral issues, and interacts with students as citizens of a shared world, in rational debates, will create a public sphere microcosm that can empower both members of the classroom and the teacher herself.


ConclusionThis paper focuses on ESOL as part of a dialectical historical process, from the vantage point of the teacher. It has encouraged us to be spurred by radical emancipatory impulses from the past, whilst simultaneously flagging up the problems we face because of missed opportunities. One of these was the failure to recognise the pernicious aspect of flexible teaching conditions and the way neoliberal education policy crept upon us in the guise of women’s liberation and the devolution of power, and took advantage of the utopian aspects of the voluntary ethos. Within the scope of this paper it has only been possible to open the debate and to gesture in the direction that classroom practice and further research might take: the creation of micro-public sphere classrooms and recognition of ESOL’s place within transnational labour flexibility and capital flows.

ReferencesBall, S. (2003) ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’ Journal of Education Policy 18/2: 215–228

Baynham, M. and C. Roberts (2006) ‘Where work is talk: the social contexts of adult ESOL classrooms’ Linguistics and Education 17/1: 1–106.

Baynham, M. and C. Roberts et al. & National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (2007) Effective Teaching and Learning: ESOL. London, NRDC. http://www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=89# (accessed December 2009)

Cuban, S. (2010) ‘Aspiring migrants are happy to make easy money doing unskilled work’: the role of ESOL workplace education in changing skilled migrants’ downward trajectories’ Language Issues 21/2: 19–32

DfEE (2000) Breaking the Language Barriers: Report on the working group on ESOL. http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/esol/report.pdf (accessed December 2009)

DfES (2003) Planning Learning and Recording Achievement in Adult Literacy, Numeracy and ESOL: A Guide for Practitioners http://rwp.excellencegateway.org.uk/readwriteplus/LearningInfrastructurePlanningLearning. (accessed December 2009)

DIUS (2009) A New Approach to English for Speakers of Other Languages ESOL http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publications/E/esol_new_approach (accessed January 2010)

Hamilton, M. (n.d.) ‘From Adult Literacy Campaign to Basic Skills Provision: A policy analysis: ESRC End of Award Report’ R000239387. Swindon, ESRC http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/R000239387/outputs/Read/0c72de03-2b4b-4965-a8fb-f5c1eb9bfbe3 (accessed April 2014)

Hamilton, M. and Y. Hillier (2007) ESOL Policy and Change http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/doc_library/edres/hamilton_07_esol_policy_and_change.pdf (accessed December 2009)

Hillier, Y. (2006) ‘Professionalising the do-gooders: the deployment of volunteers in adult basic skills from 1970’ Voluntary Action, 7/3: 63–78

Jameson, J. and Y. Hillier (2008) ‘”Nothing will prevent me from doing a good job”. The professionalism of part-time teaching staff in further and adult education’ Research in Post-Compulsory Education 13/1: 39–53

NIACE (England and Wales) (2006) More than a language: NIACE Committee of Inquiry on English for Speakers of Other Languages: Final Report, October 2006 Leicester, niace

Ofsted (2008) ESOL in the Post-Compulsory Learning and Skills Sector: An Evaluation. London, Crown Copyright.

O’Leary M. and R. Smith (2012) ‘Earthquakes, cancer and cultures of fear: qualifying as a Skills for Life teacher in an uncertain economic climate’ Oxford Review of Education, 38 (4) : 437–454

Ramirez-Esparza, N. et al. (2012) ‘Socio-interactive practices and personality in adult learners of English with little formal education’, Language Learning 62/2: 541–570

Rosenberg, S. & National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (England and Wales) (2007) A Critical History of ESOL in the UK, 1870–2006 Leicester, Niace

Said, E. (1994) Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures. London, Vintage

Smith, J.D., C. Rochester & R. Hedley (1995) An Introduction to the Voluntary Sector London, Routledge

Sun, Y. (2010) ‘Standards, Equity, and Advocacy: Employment Conditions of ESOL Teachers in Adult Basic Education and Literacy Systems’ TESOL Journal 1/1: 142–142

Vargas, K. ‘The ESOL/EFL divide’, in R. Bhanot, E. Illes & National Association for Teaching English and Other Community Languages to Adults eds (2009), Best of Language Issues: Articles from the first 20 Years of NATECLA’s ESOL Journal, London, LLU

Ward, J. (2006) Building Barriers, Guardian, Thursday, 26 October 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/oct/26/asylum.education (accessed December 2009)

Ward, J. of Adult Continuing Education (England and Wales) (2007) ESOL: The Context for the UK Today, Leicester, Niace

Julia Podziewska is currently completing a doctoral thesis at Sheffield Hallam University on the representation of property transfer in the Victorian novel and its relation to corporate capital. For as long as she can remember she has questioned and challenged the inequitable distribution of resources on the grounds of class/gender/nationality/race, and following a cycle-collision injury, disability, too.



Web-based technologies and beginner ESOL learners: An exploration of learner and tutor attitudes and experiencesKatharine Stapleford

AbstractThe aim of this study was to explore the use of web-based technologies by learners with minimal language, literacy and digital skills. The technologies used in this context are those which are freely available on the internet rather than published software specifically designed for language learning, or ‘computer assisted language learning’ (CALL). Although substantial research literature exists in the field of CALL and in the field of educational technology, little is known about the experiences of beginner ESOL learners using generic technology for learning. This study adopts an interpretive case study design in order to gather qualitative data regarding beginner ESOL learners and technology in an attempt to address this research gap. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, observations, and learner evaluations. The findings sug-gest that experiences and attitudes of learners and tutors regarding the use of technologies for learning are gener-ally positive and both regard digital literacy as an essential life skill. Minimal language, literacy and computer skills prevented learners engaging with the technologies. The report discusses a range of further practitioner research opportunities related to e-learning for ESOL learners that this research has initiated.

IntroductionTechnology is often seen as a means to achieving economic well-being and social cohesion and governments have been keen to promote Information and Communications Technology (ICT) both as a means of improving the quality of adult education as well as widening participation (Selwyn, Gorard & Furlong, 2006; Ecclesfield & Garnett 2006; Olesen-Tracey 2010). Organisations (BECTA JISC) have been established to research, develop and support innovative practice in the use of educational technologies. Additionally, campaigns such as ‘Go ON UK’ have actively promoted ‘digital inclusion’ (Cameron 2012) by bringing ‘the benefits of the internet to every individual and every organisation in every community across the UK’ (Go ON UK 2012). So, there is clearly a top-down drive to embrace digital technology.

With regard to Skills for Life and adult ESOL in particular, the use of ICT to enhance teaching and learning is recognised as good practice (DfES, 2001; Mellar, Kambouri, Sanderson & Pavlou, 2004; Ofsted, 2008). However, my experience is that ICTs are not fully embraced, particularly with beginner ESOL learners. The literature tends to focus on more advanced language learners and are classroom based; very few success stories involve beginner learners using technologies beyond the classroom. One study which did (Davis, Fletcher & Absalom, 2010) found self-access elements were problematic for learners with low levels of English. The starting point for my research then, is to gain a deeper understanding of beginner ESOL learners’ use of technologies for learning and the benefits and impediments they experience.

Little is known about the experiences of ESOL learners with minimal language and digital skills who are often from lower socio-economic groups. This study seeks to address this research gap by asking:

1. What are the experiences and attitudes of beginner ESOL learners and their tutors regarding the use of web-based technologies as language learning tools?

2. What obstacles and opportunities do web-based techno-logies present for beginner ESOL learners?

Data collectionStudent interviewsI interviewed eleven female1 Entry 1 ESOL learners aged between 20 and 69 from Pakistan, India, China, Poland, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Libya. Their first languages include Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati, Chinese, Polish, Ndebele and Arabic. Most of them have had at least primary schooling with one learner not having received any education in her home country and only two progressing beyond secondary school. Due to the limited language of the participants, the interview comprised only four simple questions, establishing the general learning preferences of the learners and exploring their experiences and opinions of using the internet in and beyond the classroom. These formed the basis for discussion.


Tutor interviewsI conducted semi-structured interviews with all the Entry 1 tutors within the ESOL department as well as the ESOL manager. The sample comprised six females and one male aged between 40 and 60, with teaching experience from three to nine years. All are qualified to the national standards required in the lifelong learning sector, with two having a level 7 qualification in teaching ESOL. The questions were designed to discover how and why tutors use or do not use digital technologies with learners and to explore their attitudes towards digital literacy and ESOL teaching. Interviews were recorded with the agreement of participants and later transcribed.

ObservationsDue to the language barriers and power imbalance noticed during the student interviews, non-verbal behaviour became an important source of data in my study. My observations were recorded as field notes and provided the means to reflect on and question my motives in conducting the research. It highlighted the researcher bias as I recorded my frustrations with the apparent lack of ‘success’ of the digital technologies as learning tools. It also brought to light some factors I had not previously considered relevant such as the amount of peer collaboration which occurred as a side-effect of the digital sessions. However, some disadvantages of being a participant observer became apparent during the course of the study. Firstly, I was often interrupted whilst observing as my role as class tutor resulted in my observation data becoming occasionally disjointed and lacking in certain details. Secondly, as my field notes testify, there is some evidence that, as I became aware of emergent themes during the study, I began to actively seek these out whilst observing, in order to confirm or contradict them, thereby potentially not noticing behaviour which was not pertinent to these themes. It has therefore been necessary to return to all sources during analysis in order to allow reinterpretation of original data (Silverman, 2011).

Results and discussionDemographic characteristics and internet usageAgeA recurrent theme throughout the tutor interviews was how age impacts on internet usage and digital literacy as they perceived that youth equated to increased and more effective internet usage. This comment is representative:

T4: Usually the younger ones, again, they’re quite computer savvy.

This reflects Prensky’s (2001a) concept of ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’ although data from my observations was inconclusive in this regard. The weakest learner in terms of computer skills was also the oldest at 69, whereas the most ‘digitally adept’ learners were aged 30, 31 and 42 so not necessarily ‘digital natives’, the youngest learners aged 25 and 28, were only average in terms of computer skills. So, I would suggest that for these learners, educational, cultural and

social backgrounds impact on their digital ability more than age alone.

Gender, culture and educationSeveral tutors believed that men were more likely to engage with web-based technologies than women as were those from educated, modern backgrounds:

T3: Well, it depends on their background really. If they’re Polish students, they use quite a lot and they have computers at home. Asian students, not all of them have computers. Well, most of them now, but men use computers more than women.

No significant patterns were observable to confirm or contradict these perceptions with my small sample of learners as they were all female and largely of Asian ethnicity with only a minority from other ethnic backgrounds. The more regular and adept users of technology were a Polish learner who had the highest level of education and a Chinese learner, thus confirming the theory, but the other two skilled users were a young Pakistani housewife, and a 31 year-old Libyan refugee both with minimal education. Correlations were found in a more extensive study by Selwyn, Gorard and Furlong (2005) in terms of education and socio-economic status, although the differences in gender were less apparent.

Thus, the tutors’ perceptions were not reflected in the reality observed among my sample of learners. The data show that students’ experiences and attitudes vary in a more arbitrary manner than tutors would assume based on demographic characteristics. The observation data are not sufficient to show categorically that tutors are under a misapprehension due to the size of and gender bias of the sample, but they do indicate a need for more extensive research on differences between tutor perceptions and learner realities. While current research indicates that education and socio-economic status influence internet usage (Selwyn et al, 2005), specific studies with beginner ESOL learners are not available. It should also be noted that the studies mentioned focus on general usage rather than usage as a learning tool.

With regard to obstacles and opportunities, the data indicate that demographic characteristics alone do not prevent or facilitate learners’ use of the internet as a learning resource, although they do suggest that level of education has more effect than age. More extensive research with a larger sample of mixed gender learners is needed to investigate any causal links between demographic characteristics and successful internet usage for language learning with beginner ESOL learners.

Limited language/literacy and digital skillsThe findings from observations seemed to contradict the notion that a low level of language and literacy equates to a low level of digital ability. The weakest learner in terms of language in the sample, Maram, was one of the most skilful and engaged users of web-based technologies and she was often pivotal in assisting learners less familiar with digital technology, thus reflecting the socio-cultural theory of learning with technology, albeit indirectly. This was a significant finding.


By offering her the opportunity to become a valued member of the group, it may have increased her self-esteem thereby allowing more learning to take place in the long term, although this requires further investigation. On the other hand, Maram’s case would seem to contradict Davis et al’s (2010) finding that digital competence correlates to literacy development and gaining employment, as I did not observe any improvement in Maram’s language. Maram used the internet almost wholly in her first language indicating that English language ability and effective internet usage are unrelated in this instance.

The majority of comments from the tutor interviews indicated that language is considered a barrier to Entry 1 ESOL learners using the internet effectively for learning without any guidance from tutors. The tutor beliefs were borne out to some extent by the learners’ interview comments and suggest a need for a ‘more knowledgeable other’ reflecting the social constructivist claims of e-learning. My observations also indicated that generally, learners need some guidance and support with understanding text and instructions on screen.

Other tutor comments, however, indicated that low levels of language were not necessarily a barrier:

T6: There’s some young learners who really don’t have any literacy skills but who do know how to use a computer and who do know how to use mobiles and texts.

I would summarise these contrasting views by suggesting that a low level of language is a barrier to accessing web-based technologies without any guidance at all, which is in line with Davis et al’s (2010) finding as well as Coryell and Chlup’s (2007) findings which highlighted support and collaboration as important when implementing e-learning with adult ESOL learners.

These obstacles highlight an overlap between digital literacy and traditional literacy. For example, mistyping passwords could be a typing error, or an inability to recognize the difference between letter ‘o’ and number ‘0’, involving accuracy of spelling and letter recognition skills, but they only become apparent when using the computer. For example, one learner set up a Facebook account using her Hotmail address, which she typed as ‘hotmial’, meaning she was permanently excluded from her Facebook account because, in order to confirm her identity, she was required to access an email Facebook had sent to ‘hotmial’, which did not exist. This learner was a stronger learner in terms of language and literacy, but this small typing error led to significant problems, so I would place it in the digital literacy category.

Nonetheless, comments from learner interviews and reflective evaluations emphasise that spelling was problematic. My field notes also showed spelling issues were a regular feature of the lessons using computers. This may be considered an opportunity for learning: ESOL learners often struggle with spelling and the fact that inaccurate spelling prevented learners from accomplishing computer mediated tasks, could be viewed as a positive learning experience as it provided regular, contextualised opportunities to develop spelling strategies by using online spelling tools and the Google translate application. Learners were forced to adopt coping

strategies, seek out guidance from myself, other students or the online tools, and by doing so, to move forward. I felt this was a significant opportunity for self-directed learning albeit on a small scale.

Digital literacy As an ESOL teacher, it is my role to enable learners to use language in order to function effectively in the modern world, something I do not think is possible without engaging with digital media. This informed one of the tutor interview questions as I was interested in investigating their beliefs about digital literacy and their professional role in this regard. Their answers revealed that although they believed digital literacy was an integral part of language learning, they were less sure about whether ESOL tutors should teach it:

T3: I understand that in the 21st century everybody should use computers in the modern world and in this society, so it’s one of the skills everybody should learn, but I think the aim in our class is to learn language itself, and computer skills they include technical skills.

Most tutors felt that lessons focussing on web-based technologies are a luxury due to the reduced guided learning hours and the pressures of achieving targets.

So, despite the acceptance by policy makers, researchers, practitioners and learners that digital literacy is an essential life skill and an integral part of language learning, it is not tested summatively nor is it recognised as a component of language learning in the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum. Consequently it is neglected by tutors in favour of the more ‘urgent’ content that learners will be tested on.

The data from the tutor interviews reveal a certain amount of regret with regard to not developing learners’ digital literacy and taking advantage of the learning opportunities available online. None expressed personal or pedagogical doubt about the effectiveness of technology enhanced learning and only two commented on feeling apprehensive about using technology in a more learner-centred way due to their own levels of confidence and technical expertise. It would seem then, that the barriers to using learner-centred digital technologies are predominantly due to reduced class contact time and the scarcity of bookable IT facilities in college, neither of which are in tutors’ control.

Teacher control and learner independenceSome tutors highlighted the importance of monitoring and controlling their learners’ progress:

T7: How do you assess what they’ve done? … you, as a teacher, need to know, you know, need to assess what they’re actually doing and what they’re actually learning …

This approach can perhaps be traced back to the language teaching models such as Audiolingualism and The Direct Method which view mistakes negatively and to be avoided while the tutor retains tight control over the learning. It may also be a result of the lesson observation criteria which require regular formative assessment of learners’ progress which may


be at the expense of more innovative and creative approaches. This is unfortunate as Ofsted encourage innovation and creativity which promote learner autonomy and independent learning (Ofsted, 2012).

This desire to control is common within ESOL as one tutor observed:

T6: I think the one of the problems that erm, becomes sort of inherent with the lower level learners, is that we sort of lead them by the hand everywhere

Needing to protect learners or lacking confidence in their abilities may prevent them experimenting and viewing mistakes as evidence of learning. The same tutor commented:

T6: Any encouragement to work on their own will just benefit their learning because they’ll go and discover things for themselves, ... and struggle and learn through that struggle.

This learning through struggle is evident in this comment from a learner who had experienced technical difficulties:

Salma: Because my many many time problem password, and I came computer class and my mood: ‘Oh my god’, because my computer work and not working and I go home… Today is OK and I’m happy, I’m good. This time is good, no problem and OK, because you my password is fine, sort out.

I believe this highlights a need to allow our learners more freedom. Encouraging ESOL learners to develop their digital literacies in this way may enable them to become ‘proactive’ and take responsibility for their learning (Knowles, 1990).

This type of learning led me to consider the importance of establishing ‘e-concepts’ with my learners. Data from the learner interviews and my field notes occasionally indicated that learners did not understand some of the digital applications they were using. The example below indicates that Zoya may be confusing an online translator tool with email:

Zoya: I like learning email.

R: Why?

Zoya: Because need more, speak need English college. Doctor different, learning good, can change to what you mean learning good, speak Gujarati, Urdu.

The lack of clarity here, a result of her minimal language skills, suggests an alternative interpretation may be possible, so in these instances the data is not as meaningful as could be hoped. Particularly as later she seems to demonstrate some understanding of email: ‘Email, it’s good, friends, family. Me no, but if … email, help.’, although again, this is somewhat lacking in clarity.

Several learners discussed the importance of being independent and having more control over their lives as well as their learning. They revealed that they used web-based technologies such as Moodle and translator tools to consolidate and expand their learning beyond the class as reflected by Zuza’s comments:

Monday, Tuesday, learn class. I go home. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, I’m computer college Moodle.

Zuza also talked about using the computer to translate information she receives from her daughter’s nursery and needing to develop her English skills in order not to have to rely on a translator: ‘Come doctor, I plus translator, no good.’

Digital technologies and communication I anticipated that learners would extend their use of technologies beyond the classroom to communicate and network with each other thus providing an opportunity for further language practice as well as improved class dynamics and friendship networks. The student interview data showed that this was not the case for the majority. Only three learners reported emailing each other and none posted anything onto the Facebook group page or participated in the interactive Moodle facilities outside the classroom. So, this study does not reflect the common finding that e-learning platforms can promote interaction between learners and facilitate language learning (Lee, 2008; Pegrum, 2009). There are several explanations for this including the sample’s limited computer skills, the restricted access experienced by some, a lack of motivation to engage in this mode of communication, a lack of language with which to express themselves and perhaps a lack of understanding of the concept of asynchronous communication. It was difficult to ascertain whether any one factor was dominant in preventing learners from engaging with the Web 2.0 technologies, due to the language and power issues, however, my impression, based on the following comment and on my observations, is that all of the above factors played a role:

Salma: Because computer is use and very good … email … and everything very useful computer, but English, no English and I can’t easy computer using. My home is already three, four laptop and computer my husband is work, but I can’t use … because I’m too much watching TV (laughs) and movies and drama and …

A further interpretation of this lack of interaction is that the course only briefly introduced Web 2.0 technologies in the expectation that learners would develop their skills and usage beyond the classroom. In reality, these technologies require a certain amount of digital competence before they can be used independently2. Finally, the level of importance placed on computer mediated interaction could also play a part in its uptake (Lee, 2008) as my learners were not formally required to participate beyond the classroom.

So, authentic communication in English did not often occur between learners via the web with this particular sample, but an unanticipated increase in peer collaboration was witnessed in the classroom, particularly in classes involving technologies. This was first commented on by the department’s technician after he assisted with a session in which the sample had used laptops. He remarked on the social aspect of the more adept technology users assisting the less adept users. This socio-cultural element continued and developed into a regular collaborative learning environment which I noted regularly in my field notes. Often, this did not occur in English but in the


learners’ first language, indicating that language development was secondary to general learning and computer skills, as shown here:

Lots of collaborative learning going on and general computer skills as well as increased confidence and familiarity with ICT concepts. But minimal language learning, just the odd spelling.

(Field notes, 06.02.12)

However, opportunities for language learning were observed on several occasions:

Some nice collaboration: Maram corrected Anisa’s pronunciation of ‘pizza’.


Lots of peer collaboration re: mechanical skills and language skills – especially spelling.


Lots of collaboration and interaction – not all in English but... mostly regarding spellings and the odd technical thing.


This is significant as the majority of learners stated interaction and collaboration as their preferred learning activities.

A further aspect of collaboration was commented on by a tutor, who found that learners were keen to share information regarding useful websites and this was particularly effective in breaking down some cultural divisions within the class:

T4: I think it’s a massive advantage in that they’ll be sharing information, sharing it correctly for the right reasons and even across that Poles sit that side and Asians sit that side, it’s now, “Tell me about that website you were talking about …”

A reason for this increased collaboration during digital sessions is perhaps the significant gap in abilities and the ease with which learners can assist each other through demonstrating. There may also be fewer stigmas associated with a lack of computer skills than a lack of language skills, so learners are more willing to seek help.

These data indicate that using web-based technologies is a useful and worthwhile exercise for beginner ESOL learners as a general learning and life skill, if not as a specific tool for language development, as it activates the socio-cultural aspect of learning, which claims that knowledge is a result of social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978 cited in Gutierrez, 2003). Gutierrez’s (2003) study is particularly reflective of the situation with my learners as the interaction which occurred was facilitated by but did not occur via the medium of the computer.

ConclusionWhat are the experiences and attitudes of beginner ESOL learners and their tutors regarding the use of web-based technologies as language learning tools?The findings from this small-scale research project have demonstrated that both learners and tutors value web-based technologies as a learning tool, as well as a means to develop the literacies vital for integration in today’s digital society. In terms of language learning, the Computer Assisted Language Learning activities were considered by both groups of participants to be more beneficial and accessible than the Web 2.0 technologies. For both groups, their experiences of using web-based technologies can be troublesome and often frustrating, but it is a worthwhile and necessary struggle potentially leading to peripheral learning opportunities including autonomy, confidence and collaboration. The study has also demonstrated that tutors’ attitudes and perceptions are not always reflected in the reality experienced by their learners.

What obstacles and opportunities do web-based technologies present for beginner ESOL learners?The findings indicate that the most significant obstacle for learners is their lack of familiarity with web-based technologies and their low levels of digital literacy. Spelling was another obstacle often mentioned by learners and was observed to frustrate learners and prevent them from engaging fully with the technologies independently. However, by addressing these issues, with the support of a tutor, peer or family member, the opportunities that web-based technologies present for these learners are a more socio-cultural learning experience and potentially ‘self-directed, empowered adults’ (Brookfield, 1986: 11). A third obstacle is one I have termed ‘e-concepts’, which I equate to Meyer and Land’s (2003) Threshold Concepts theory. E-concepts are the understanding and ideas beginner ESOL learners need to acquire before effectively engaging with web-based technologies. These include the basic concepts of what the internet is and how the institution’s Moodle relates to that; what email is, the different email providers; what websites are and how they differ from emails; what search engines are and how to make use of search results. I suggest that learning these concepts can be compared to learning a language, in that native speakers or ‘digital natives’ acquire them implicitly, whereas non-native speakers or ‘digital immigrants’ need to be taught explicitly. Observations of learners demonstrating the physical skills of sending emails, accessing Moodle and visiting websites without much true understanding of what they were doing indicate that these learners need a deeper understanding of the concepts behind the technologies in order to use them effectively and with understanding.

The obstacles of time and access from tutors’ point of view would seem more prohibitive than learners’ language, literacy and computer skills. Although, these too, can be overcome with determination and collaboration and with the recognition that digital literacy is an integral part of language and literacy.


This study has highlighted several avenues worth investigating further such as developing beginner ESOL learners’ ‘e-competencies’; focussing on a particular Web 2.0 tool over a period of time to assess its effectiveness with beginner ESOL learners; the quality and emotional effects of collaboration resulting from using Web 2.0 technologies in class and researching a larger, mixed gender sample to explore possible links between background and effective digital practices for language learning with beginner ESOL learners.

ReferencesBrookfield, S. (1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Cameron, D. (2012) Foreward. [online] Available at: http://raceonline2012.org/manifesto/1 [Accessed June 20, 2012].

Coryell, J. E. & Chlup, D. T. (2007) ‘Implementing E-Learning Components with Adult English Language Learners: Vital factors and lessons learned’. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 20 (3), pp. 263–277.

Davis, N.,Fletcher, J. & Absalom, I. (2010) E-learning for adult literacy, language and numeracy: A case study of a polytechnic. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

DfES (Department for Education and Skills). (2001) Skills for Life: The national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills. London: DfES.

Ecclesfield, N. & Garnett, F. (2006) E-learning and Public Value. [online] Available at: http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss4/eccelsfield-garnett.pdf [Accessed August 10, 2012].

Go ON UK (2012) Home page. [online] Available at: http://www.go-on-uk.org/ [Accessed August 6, 2012].

Gutierrez, G. A. (2003). ‘Beyond interaction: the study of collaborative activity in computer-mediated tasks’. ReCALL, 15 (1), pp. 94–112.

Knowles, M. (1990) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company

Lee, L. (2008) ‘Enhancing Learners’ Communication Skills through Synchronous Electronic Interaction and Task-Based Instruction’. Foreign Language Annals. 35 (1), pp.16–24.

Mellar, H.; Kambouri, M.; Sanderson, M. & Pavlou, V. (2004) ICT and adult literacy, numeracy and ESOL. London: NRDC.

Meyer, J. & Land, R. (2003) ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the discipline’. In C. Rust (ed.) Improving Student Learning – 10 years on. Oxford: OCSLD, pp.412–424.

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) (2008) ESOL in the post-compulsory learning and skills sector: an evaluation. London: Ofsted.

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) (2012) Handbook for the inspection of further education and skills from September 2009. Manchester: Ofsted.

Olesen-Tracey, K. (2010) ‘Leading Online Learning Initiatives in Adult Education’. Journal of Adult Education. 39 (2), pp.36–39.

Pegrum, M. (2009) ‘Communicative Networking and Linguistic Mashups on Web 2.0’. In M. Thomas (ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. London: Information Science Reference, pp. 20–41.

Prensky, M. (2001a) ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’. On the Horizon. 9 (5), pp.1-6.

Selwyn, N.; Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2005) ‘Whose Internet is it Anyway? Exploring Adults’ (Non) Use of the Internet in Everyday Life’. European Journal of Communication. 20 (1), pp.5–26.

Selwyn, N., Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2006) Adult learning in the digital age: information technology and the learning society. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.

Silverman, D. (2011) Interpreting Qualitative Data. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Endnotes1. The class consisted of all female learners purely by

chance; the class is not a ‘women only’ class. 2. This suggests that more meaningful data regarding levels

of web-based interaction could be gained by focussing on one of these technologies to enable learners to become familiar and confident users. By minimising the variable of lack of familiarity with the technology, subsequent analysis of levels of interaction would be more meaningful. However, this study did not seek to analyse the effectiveness of any one technological tool.

Katharine Stapleford was an ESOL tutor and teacher trainer in FE for 11 years and is currently an academic skills tutor and ESOL teacher trainer in an HE setting. She is interested in the opportunities technology offers students and educators as well as the concept of digital literacy.



Own language use in ELT: exploring global practices and attitudesGraham Hall and Guy Cook

Adapted by Language Issues from the British Council ELT Research Paper 13-0

We are pleased to present an abridged version of a seminal report about own language use in ELT classrooms. The data comes from 2,785 teachers of English in 111 countries. The report was published as a British Council research paper in 2013; it is presented here in the first of two parts. The first part introduces the report with a brief review of relevant literature, an overview of the methodology adopted and findings for the first two of four research questions. We have retained the original text in order to preserve the cogency and quality of the argument, with shorter versions of the introduction, the participant profiles and the methodology.

The second part, to follow in the next edition of Language Issues, will recap some of the background information and report findings for the third and fourth research questions.

The full report can be found at http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/research-papers/own-language-use-elt-exploring-global-practices-and-attitudes

The research study was conducted by Graham Hall, Northumbria University, and Guy Cook, Kings College London.

AbstractThroughout the 20th century, debate within ELT (English language teaching) assumed that English is best taught and learned without the use of the students’ own language(s). This English-only assumption has been increasingly ques-tioned recently and the role of own-language use is being reassessed. However, there are substantial gaps in our knowledge in this area.

This paper reports on the project Own-language use in ELT: exploring global practices and attitudes, a survey of the extent to which, how, and why teachers deploy learners’ own-language in English language classrooms around the world. The findings offer clear evidence of widespread own-language use within ELT, and suggest that teachers’ attitudes towards own-language use, and their classroom practices, are more complex than usually acknowledged. Although there is variation between individuals and groups of teachers, the survey shows that own-language use is an established part of ELT classroom practice, and that teachers, while recognising the importance of English

within the classroom, do see a range of useful functions for own-language use in their teaching.

Consequently, the report provides a resource for teachers, confirming the validity of own-language use and touching on a range of ideas as to how and why learners’ own lan-guages can play a role within ELT classes. The findings also suggest that there is a potential gap between mainstream ELT literature and teachers’ practices on the ground.

A note on terminologyIn this research, the term ‘own language’ is used in preference to ‘first language’ (L1), ‘native language’ or ‘mother tongue’, all of which seem unsatisfactory. For example, in many language classrooms, the most common shared language of the learners is not the first or native language of all students. Furthermore, the term ‘native language’ is imprecise – it mixes several criteria and can mean the language someone spoke in infancy, the language with which they identify, or the language they speak best; these are not always the same (see Rampton 1990 for further discussion). Finally, ‘mother tongue’ is not only an emotive term but also inaccurate – for the obvious reason that many people’s mother tongue is not their mother’s mother tongue!

Own-language use in ELT: theoretical background and current debatesFor much of the 20th century, the assumption was that a new language should be taught and learned monolingually, without reference to or use of the learners’ own language in the classroom (Howatt with Widdowson 2004; G Cook 2010; Littlewood and Yu 2011; Hall and Cook 2012).

Within the ELT literature, grammar translation had been rejected in the late 19th century, criticised for focusing exclusively on accuracy and writing at the expense of fluency and speaking, and for being authoritarian and dull. In effect, claims against grammar translation were used as arguments against any and all own-language use within ELT (Cook 2010: 15, original emphasis).

Support for and acceptance of monolingual approaches can be ascribed to a number of factors including: classes in which


learners speak a variety of own languages, the employment of native-speaker English teachers (NESTs in Medgyes’ [1992] terminology) who may not know the language(s) of their learners, and publishers’ promotion of monolingual course books which could be used by native-speaker ‘experts’ and be marketed globally without variation. Furthermore, the perceived goals of language teaching changed from the so-called traditional or academic aim of developing learners’ abilities to translate written texts and appreciate literature in the original to the (often unstated) goal of preparing learners to communicate in monolingual environments and emulate native speakers of the target language. It is worth noting, however, that for many learners, this goal was, and is, not necessarily useful, desirable or obtainable (Davies 1995; 2003) in a world in which learners need to operate bilingually or use English in a lingua franca environment with other non-native speakers of English (Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011). In addition, an increasing amount of communication is no longer face-to-face but via computer.

What is fashionable in the literature does not necessarily reflect what happens in classrooms in all parts of the world, and, despite its disappearance from ELT theory and methodological texts, the use of learners’ own languages in ELT classrooms has survived. The grammar translation method was employed in China until the late 20th century (Adamson 2004) and V Cook observes that the approach carries an ‘academic … seriousness of purpose’ which may seem appropriate in those societies that maintain a traditional view of learner and teacher roles in the classroom (2008: 239). Thornbury (2006), meanwhile, notes that the continued survival of grammar translation may be a consequence of its ease of implementation, especially with large classes.

However, beyond traditional grammar translation, a wider recognition and re-evaluation of the use of the learners’ own language in the ELT classroom is now emerging, drawing upon a range of theoretical and pedagogical insights into the nature of language learning and its broader social purposes.

Pedagogic functions of own-language usePedagogic arguments for own-language use include the efficient conveying of meaning, maintenance of class discipline and organisation, and teacher-learner rapport and contact between the teacher and learners as real people (e.g. Polio and Duff 1994; V Cook 2001). Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008) classify these pedagogic functions in terms of teachers’ ‘medium-oriented goals’ and their ‘framework goals’, that is, teaching the new language (the medium) itself (e.g. explaining vocabulary items or teaching grammar) and framing, organising and managing classroom events (e.g. giving instructions or setting homework). Meanwhile, Kim and Elder (2008) identify a similar distinction, additionally suggesting that the learners’ own language is often used for the social goal of expressing personal concern and sympathy. Similarly, a number of studies highlight the role of own-language use in potentially establishing more equitable intra-class relationships between the teacher and learners than via the exclusive use of the target

language (e.g. Auerbach 1993; Brooks-Lewis, 2009). Indeed, Edstrom (2006) proposes that debates surrounding own-language use go beyond concerns about language learning processes or classroom management and involve value-based judgments in which teachers have a moral obligation to use the learners’ own language judiciously in order to recognise learners as individuals, to communicate respect and concern, and to create a positive affective environment for learning.

Theorising own-language useReference to the role of the learners’ own language as a natural reference system and a pathfinder for learning new languages is widespread (e.g. Butzkamm 1989; Stern 1992; Butzkamm and Caldwell 2009). Socio-cultural theories of learning and education suggest that learning proceeds best when it is ‘scaffolded’ onto existing knowledge (Vygotsky 1978), while notions of compound or integrated bilingualism (in which knowledge of two or more languages is integrated in learners’ minds rather than kept separate) emerge from cognitive approaches to second-language learning (V Cook 2001; Widdowson 2003). Thus, because languages are said to interact and to be interdependent in the minds of language learners (who are bilingual language users), learning is likely to be more efficient if teachers draw students’ attention to the similarities and differences between their languages (Cummins 2007).

Meanwhile, the potential benefits of own-language use and translation as an effective language-learning strategy have been identified (e.g. Oxford 1996), while the ways in which learners use their own language to guide and direct their thinking about the new language and during language tasks has also been discussed (e.g. Anton and DiCamilla 1999; Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez Jiménez 2004). Similarly, own-language use has been identified as the most effective way of learning vocabulary, via learners’ use of bilingual dictionaries and also as a teaching strategy (e.g. Celik 2003; Nation 2003; Laufer and Girsai 2008).

How much own-language use?The idea of judicious own-language use has already been touched upon, and there have been a number of calls for research to find an appropriate or optimal amount of own-language use in class (e.g. Stern 1992; Macaro 2009), one which is ‘principled and purposeful’ (Edstrom 2006) and which identifies when and why the learners’ own language might be used (Turnbull and Arnett 2002). While recognising the reality of own-language use and its beneficial effects in many ELT contexts, it is clearly important that learners obtain new language input and practice opportunities. There is therefore concern among some researchers that, in the absence of clear research findings or other sources of guidance, that teachers may be devising arbitrary rules concerning the use of the learners’ own language. And yet, teachers are also best placed to decide what is appropriate for their own classrooms (Macmillan and Rivers 2011).


Researching predominantly communicative language classrooms, Macaro (1997) has identified three perspectives that teachers hold about own-language use:

• the classroom is a virtual (and unattainable) reality that mirrors the environment of first-language learners or migrants to a country who are immersed in the new language. Macaro points out that these perfect learning conditions do not exist in language classrooms.

• aim for maximal use of the new language in class, with own-language use being tainted, thereby leading to feelings of guilt among teachers.

• the optimal position, in which own-language use is seen as valuable at certain points during a lesson, providing advantages to learners and learning beyond using only the target language. This optimal use of the learners’ own language requires principled and informed judgments by teachers, but is also very difficult to define precisely or to generalise across contexts, classrooms and groups of learners.

The current research draws upon Macaro’s analysis as we attempt to understand what kind of position teachers hold about own-language use, and what an optimal position might involve for participants in this project.

Teachers’ and learners’ attitudesClearly, the extent to which own-language use occurs in a class depends on the attitudes of teachers and learners towards its legitimacy and value in the ELT classroom, and many studies report a sense of guilt among teachers when learners’ own languages are used in class (e.g. Macaro 1997, 2009; Butzkamm and Caldwell 2009; Littlewood and Yu 2011).

Beyond teachers’ guilt, however, a range of more complex attitudes have been identified. Summarising the literature, Macaro notes ‘the overwhelming impression that bilingual teachers believe that the L2 should be the predominant language of interaction in the classroom. On the other hand, … [we do not find] a majority of teachers in favour of excluding the L1 altogether’ (2006: 68, original emphasis).

Clearly then, not all teachers hold the same attitudes to own-language use, and there is some evidence that attitudes and beliefs might vary according to teachers’ cultural backgrounds and the educational traditional in which they work. For example, while many studies report a belief that the balance between own and new language use in class is most consistently affected by learners’ and/ or teachers’ ability in English (e.g. Macaro 1997, and Crawford, 2004 for the former, Kim and Elder 2008 for the latter), van der Meij and Zhao (2010) find that English teachers working in Chinese universities perceive no such link. Meanwhile, potentially differing attitudes between teachers who do or do not share the learners’ own language have been noted (Harbord 1992). Yet even here, the picture is not clear cut; McMillan and Rivers (2011) more recent study of NEST and non-NEST attitudes in a specific Japanese teaching context finds little difference of opinion between the two groups – both favouring an ‘English mainly’ rather than ‘English only’ approach in the classroom.

Although learners’ attitudes will clearly affect the extent and role of own-language use in the classroom, there has been less research into learner perceptions of the issue. That said, a number of studies have uncovered positive attitudes, particularly as a way of reducing learners’ anxiety and creating a humanistic classroom (Harbord 1992; Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney 2008; Brooks-Lewis 2009; Littlewood and Yu 2011). Thus, twelve years into the 21st century, the reality and value of learners’ own-language use in class is now more widely recognised and researched.

Justification for the studyDespite the recent focus upon this issue, however, there remain substantial gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the extent to which, and how, learners’ own languages are used in ELT classes, and the attitudes practising teachers hold towards own-language use. A global survey of classroom practices, teachers’ attitudes and the possible reasons for these attitudes provide a wide-ranging empirical base for further discussion about the role of own-language use within ELT, while also allowing for and acknowledging the differences in perspectives which may emerge as a consequence of contextual factors.

Research methodologyAims and research questionsThe project aimed to investigate the ways in which learners’ own languages are used in English-language teaching around the world, to explore teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards the use of learners’ own languages in the ELT classroom, and to investigate the factors that influence teachers’ reported practices and attitudes. Consequently, the study addressed the following research questions:

1. What types of own-language use activities do teachers report that they and learners engage in?

2. What are teachers’ reported attitudes towards and beliefs about own-language use in the ELT classroom?

3. What are teachers’ perceptions of their institutional culture, and the culture/ discourse of ELT more broadly, in relation to own-language use?

4. To what extent are teachers’ reported levels of own language use practices associated with specific background variables such as type of institution, learners’ English language level, and teachers’ experience?

Research designThe project explored teachers’ insider perspectives on own-language use in their classroom teaching (Davis 1995). We pursued a mixed-method research design (Dörnyei 2007; Borg 2009), combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a broad, yet in-depth picture of teachers’ reported classroom practices and attitudes. Quantitative data was collected via a survey of teachers’ perceptions of own-language use, gathered from a global sample of ELT practitioners. A copy of the final questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1 of the full report. Qualitative data was collected


through semi-structured interviews with teachers who had completed the questionnaire and volunteered to participate further.

a. The questionnaireIn designing our questionnaire, it was essential to ensure that individual items were clearly written, while the survey as a whole needed to be relevant and interesting to respondents, and straightforward for them to complete (see also Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012). Having identified key themes and debates within the literature surrounding own-language use, we needed to balance this at times more theoretical background with the practical experiences and attitudes of participating teachers. Key issues that we wished to investigate with teachers included:

• how and to what extent teachers used the learners’ own language in their teaching

• how and to what extent learners used their own language in class

• teachers’ attitudes towards own-language use in class• teachers’ evaluation of the arguments for and against own-

language use in ELT• teachers’ perceptions of general attitudes towards own-

language use in their schools/institutions and within the profession of ELT more generally.

Additionally, we required relevant biographic data including an understanding of the participants’ professional contexts and their professional qualifications and experience.

The questionnaire was piloted with 19 English language teachers working in 16 different countries around the world, and drawn from private and state institutions within the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors (pilot participants were known to the researchers through their professional contacts). Subsequent revisions were made to the questionnaire’s length, wording and overall structure in light of their feedback. It should be noted that this data represents reported rather than actual own-language practices.

The only criterion for participation was that respondents were practising English language teachers. The survey was administered with a total of 2,785 teachers from 111 countries responding.

b. The interviewsFollow-up interviews were conducted to explore teachers’ responses to the questionnaire in more detail. The aim was to provide greater insight into the thinking behind teachers’ answers to questions in the survey, and also to elicit reasons for using or not using the students’ own language which had not been envisaged in the questionnaire.

From those who volunteered to be interviewed, a sample of 20 teachers was invited for interview from a variety of contexts so that interviewees reflected key criteria in the same proportions as the wider survey group. These criteria were:

• sector: primary, secondary or tertiary level• geographical spread: by country/continent• monolingual or multilingual classes (learners share or do

not share the same own language)

Due to online difficulties, 17 teachers were interviewed in total, from the following sectors/countries:

• Primary: China, Indonesia, France, Estonia*, Argentina• Secondary: Malaysia*, Saudi Arabia, Latvia, Spain, Greece,

Egypt• Tertiary: Armenia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Portugal*, Turkey

Note: Learners shared own language in all classes except those marked *

Although the interview sample aimed to reflect the wider survey group as closely as possible, countries and educational sectors are not homogenous contexts – differences exist within national populations and between institutions. Consequently, the interviews provide illustration and insights into, rather than full representation of, the survey data. Furthermore, as the list of interviewees indicates, there is an absence of inner-circle contexts (e.g. the UK, USA, Australia), meaning that the data provides little information on the Anglophone private language-school sector, in which mixed nationality classes (and where learners do not share a common own-language) are often the norm. Issues surrounding own-language use in this sector clearly differ from those in other ELT contexts.

(For the detailed methodology section we recommend that readers go to the full report, editors).

ResultsIn this section, the profile of respondents is outlined first before presenting a summary of results in response to the research questions outlined in the section on Methodology.

Profile of respondentsThe survey respondents constituted a non-probability sample of 2,785 teachers working in 111 countries. Five countries returned 100 or more responses to the survey: the People’s Republic of China (227), Portugal (190), Spain (189), Indonesia (108) and Turkey (105). A further 11 countries returned 50 or more responses: Latvia (98), United Arab Emirates (83), India (79), Saudi Arabia (79), United Kingdom (71), Egypt (64), Lithuania (61), Netherlands (58), Mexico (55), France (54) and Japan (50).

Most respondents worked in state schools/institutions (58.7 per cent of the sample), and the vast majority taught classes in which learners shared a common own language (87 per cent). Almost two-thirds (62.5 per cent) of participants classed themselves as expert or native speakers of their learners’ language, with a further 7.9 per cent identifying themselves as advanced-level speakers of that language.

Participants generally taught classes of less than 30 students, with around one-third teaching groups of 11–20, and a further third teaching classes of 21–30.

Participants’ ELT experience ranged from 0–4 years (15.8 per cent) to over 25 years of teaching (16.3 per cent), with 5–9 and 10–14 years of experience being most common (20.4 per cent and 20.7 per cent respectively). Just 1.8 per cent of the sample reported that they held no relevant qualifications for English


language teaching, while 41.4 per cent held a Master’s level qualification and 5.9 per cent a Doctorate.

RQ 1: What types of own-language use activities do teachers report that they and learners engage in?

a. Teachers’ own-language use in the classroomAccording to the survey, many teachers and learners make use of the learners’ own language in the classroom.

The majority of teachers who participated in the survey reported using the learners’ own language sometimes (30.1 per cent), often (25.7 per cent) or always (16.2 per cent) to explain when meanings in English are unclear; likewise, a total of 61.5 per cent of participants also explained vocabulary via the own language sometimes, often or always. Furthermore, over half the teachers in the survey report a similarly frequent use of own language to explain grammar (58.1 per cent of responses), to develop rapport and a good classroom atmosphere (53.2 per cent) and to maintain discipline (50.4 per cent). The learners’ own language was less frequently deployed to give instructions to learners, correct spoken errors, give feedback on written work or test and assess learners.

In addition to the nine teacher activities highlighted within the survey (and listed in Figure 3 from the original report), a number of respondents noted other ways in which they made use of the learners’ own language. Several highlighted its role in language-awareness activities, identifying the way in which they contrasted English grammar with that of the learners’ own language. Others identified own language as the most appropriate medium for meta-cognitive work, such as discussing with students their learning strategies and study skills or engaging in needs analysis. A number of respondents suggested that own-language use was appropriate in the first few weeks of a course before being phased out or reduced over time. Several suggested that their use of own language would change according to the learners’ age and English-language level.

Figure 3: Reported frequency and functions of teachers’ own language use in class.

0 500

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

expl

ain

voca

bula

ry

give

in

stru

ctio

ns

expl

ain

gram

mar

deve

lop

rapp

ort

and

a go

od

clas

sroo

m

atm

osph

ere

corre

ct s

poke

n er

rors

expl

ain

whe

n m

eani

ngs

in

Engl

ish

are

uncl

ear

give

feed

back

on

writ

ten

wor

k

test

and

ass

ess

lear

ners

mai

ntai

n di

scip

line

Always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Within this survey sample, and, in keeping with key themes and trends identified within the literature surrounding the issue, many respondents acknowledged a range of medium-oriented, framework and social functions underlying own-language use in their classes (e.g. explanations of vocabulary and grammar (the medium), giving instructions and classroom management (framework tasks), and maintaining rapport

(a social function); this framework has been described in the theoretical background section above. However, it is also worth noting that while own-language use appears to be part of many teachers’ everyday classroom practice, for each of the functions suggested within the survey, between 20 and 35 per cent of respondents reported that they used only English. Within ELT generally, there is clearly a wide variation in teacher practices.

b. Learners’ own-language useSurvey responses focusing on the extent and functions of learner own-language use clearly illustrate that the vast majority of learners use their own language at some point in class. Indeed, only 10 per cent of participants suggest that learners never use bilingual dictionaries/word lists and never compare English grammar to the grammar of their own language (in fact, over 70 per cent of learners reportedly use bilingual vocabulary resources and actively compare English and own-language grammar items). And even though a substantial proportion of learners reportedly never engage in spoken or written translation activities (31.1 per cent and 40.2 per cent respectively), 43.2 per cent of learners do participate in oral translation tasks sometimes, often or always (with around one third of learners engaging in written translation equally frequently). These trends are illustrated in Figure 4 (from the original report).

Survey respondents’ additional comments (from 219 participants) add further detail to the quantitative summary of learner behaviour. Many responses highlighted the way in which learners themselves use own language to understand and manage their participation in classroom activities, i.e. own language is used by learners for framework functions such as checking teacher instructions with peers and understanding how classroom interaction is to be organised during classroom activities (especially in the early stages of pair and group work). Understandably, learners also appear to use their own language to develop and maintain friendships (i.e. to perform a social function within the classroom). The data thus emphasises the active way in which learners as well as teachers deploy own language to establish and maintain the classroom as a pedagogical and social environment in which language learning can take place.

Finally, a number of respondents also acknowledged the difficulty they had in evaluating how much learners use their own languages in class. This raises the possibility that some respondents may have underestimated the amount of own-language use that occurs in their classes. Given that the data so far reveals reasonably significant levels of own-language use in ELT, the possibility that the data may in fact under-report such activity is potentially significant.


Figure 4: Reported frequency and functions of learners’ own-language use in class

0 500

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

use bilingual dictionaries orword lists

compareEnglishgrammar to the grammar of their ownlanguage

watch Englishlanguage TV/video withown-languagesubtitles

do spokentranslation activities

do writtentranslationexercises

prepare fortasks andactivities intheir ownlanguagebeforeswitching to English

Always

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

RQ 2: What are teachers reported attitudes towards and beliefs about own-language use in the ELT classroom?In Section 2 of the survey, teachers were asked to summarise their overall attitude towards own-language use in their teaching, to evaluate a range of arguments for and against its use in class, and to consider the relationship between own-language use and class variables such as learner age, English-language level and group size.

a. Teachers’ general attitudes towards own-language useAs Figure 5 shows, the majority of teachers suggested that they try to exclude or to limit own-language use (61.4 per cent of respondents strongly agree or agree with excluding own language, with 73.5 per cent reporting that they ‘allow own-language use only at certain points of the lesson’).

Superficially, therefore, this attitudinal data seems to suggest that teachers continue to reject own-language use within ELT. And yet, as we have seen, survey respondents also reported a notable amount of own-language practices in their classrooms. How might we account for this apparent paradox?

Evidently, the survey data is not as straightforward as it at first appears. For example, while the vast majority of participants clearly believe that ‘English should be the main language used in the classroom’ (less than 4 per cent of respondents disagreed with this statement), over one third of survey respondents did not agree with the statement ‘I try to exclude own-language use’. Similarly, the 73.5 per cent of surveyed teachers who ‘allow own-language only at certain parts of a lesson’ may be indicating an acceptance that its use is inevitable. Indeed, it seems possible that this particular set of responses may reflect a search by some teachers for Macaro’s optimal position (1997; see Section 2), in which own-language use is seen as valuable at certain points during a lesson. Furthermore, only around one third of survey respondents reported that they felt guilty if languages other than English are used in class, while the majority of participants (56.7 per cent) agreed that own-language use helped learners to express their own identity during lessons.

The survey data therefore suggests that teachers’ attitudes towards own-language use are more complex than are sometimes acknowledged. Those who accommodate the use of learners’ own languages in class are not isolated examples of poor practice within ELT, but are, in fact, typical of many

ELT practitioners around the world, albeit teaching in ways that have been widely ignored by the language teaching and learning literature over the past century. In essence, the data supports Macaro’s suggestion (2006; see theoretical background section above) that many teachers recognise the importance of English as the predominant, but not necessarily the only language in the classroom. Clearly, however, it is possible that teachers’ attitudes and own-language practices may be associated with variables such as their professional context, experience and type of institution (i.e. the discussion in this section outlines only aggregate trends within the survey data).

b. The case for and against own-language use: teachers’ perceptionsThis section of the questionnaire brought together key arguments which potentially support or discourage own-language use in ELT. Respondents evaluated the strength of each point for and against own-language practices on a seven-point Likert scale.

Figure 5: Teachers’ views of own-language use in their classroom

0 500

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

I try to excludeown-languageuse

I allow own-language useonly at certainpoints of a lesson

English shouldbe the mainlanguage usedin the classtoom

I feel guilty if languages other than English areused in theclassroom

Own-languageuse helpslearnersexpress theircultural andlinguisticidentity moreeasily

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

Respondents generally judged those arguments which point out the disadvantages of (excessive) own-language use in class to be stronger than those which can be categorised as generally supportive of own-language practices. This trend is consistent with the discussion of respondents’ general attitudes already noted, whereby teachers regard English as the primary language within the classroom and allow (or aim to allow) own-language use only at certain points of lessons.

However, examining the data in more detail reveals that some key arguments seem to be more plausible to survey participants than others. The potential for own-language use to deprive learners of both speaking and listening practice in English was identified as the strongest argument against own-language activities. Meanwhile, respondents perceived the role of own-language interference (negative transfer) into English as being a less significant concern. However, implicit in these findings, and central to a key theme that is becoming clear within the data, is that a substantial minority of respondents did not rate each of the arguments against own-language use listed within the survey as strong or very strong. Indeed, around 20 per cent of all responses evaluated them as weak to very weak. This is, of course, not surprising given the range of professional contexts within global ELT; yet this diversity of attitudes and contexts is often forgotten in the research and methodological literature of our field.


Similarly, when participants evaluated the case for own-language use, the way in which learners might relate new English-language knowledge to existing own-language knowledge and its role in reducing learner anxiety were seen as the two strongest arguments (with mean ratings of 4.21 and 3.98 respectively). Interestingly, however, the very practical suggestion that ‘conveying meaning through the own-language saves time’ was not quite so well regarded (mean = 3.51). This is potentially encouraging for those calling for principled or judicious own-language use (see theoretical background section above) as it seems to imply that teacher decision-making may centre more on issues of learning and pedagogy rather than expediency and convenience (that said, saving time is clearly an essential part of classroom and course management on occasion!).

c. Own-language use and learner/class characteristicsThe survey also examined the extent to which participants consider own-language use more appropriate with some groups of learners than with others. The results describe the extent to which survey participants perceived the appropriateness of own-language use according to: learners’ English-language level, age, class size, the extent to which learners’ own-languages are similar to English, the language backgrounds of the class group (students sharing the same language or a mixed language background).

Interestingly, the majority of survey respondents believed that own-language use is more appropriate with lower-level learners than higher-level students, with 56.2 per cent of the sample agreeing with this view (and less than one third or 32.1 per cent disagreeing).

In contrast, most participants did not think that own-language use is more appropriate with younger learners or with larger classes. Clearly, there may be a tendency for younger learners to be studying English at a lower level than older learners, but according to many teachers participating in this survey, age alone should not determine the extent of own-language use.

Perspectives on the relationship between the learners’ own-language background and its use in class are less clear-cut. Although many respondents were undecided as to the importance of own-language background, there was a slight tendency for participants to disagree with the notion that own-language use ‘is more appropriate where the learners’ own-language is particularly different from English (e.g. uses a different writing system or has a very different grammar)’. Additionally, while the majority of responses note that own-language use is more appropriate with classes where learners share an own language, a sizeable minority disagreed with this perspective, presumably on the basis that own-language use is to be avoided (rather than suggesting its use is equally appropriate with classes in which learners share an own language compared to those where they do not).

Summary for results from questions 1 and 2The data for research questions 1 and 2 suggests that teachers make decisions about own language use in the classroom in response to a number of factors including the aims for that part of the lesson, the level of the students, the language mix within the classroom and class size. Above all, this data suggests that while teachers acknowledge the importance of maximum target language use in the classroom, local constraints mean that own language is also used.

The second and final part of this report appears in the next issue of Language Issues and will include a summary of the findings.

ReferencesAdamson, B. (2004) Fashions in Language Teaching Methodology, in Davies, A and Elder, C (eds), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Blackwell, 604–622.

Antón, M. and DiCamilla, F. (1999) Socio-Cognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom. Modern Language Journal 83/2: 233–247.

Auerbach, E. (1993) Re-examining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27/1: 9–32.

Borg, S. (2009) English Language Teachers’ Conceptions of Research. Applied Linguistics 30/3: 358–388.

Borg, S. and Al-Busaidi, S. (2012) Learner Autonomy: English Language Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices. British Council ELT Research Paper 12–07. London, British Council.

Brooks-Lewis, K. (2009) Adult Learners’ Perceptions of the Incorporation of their L1 in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. Applied Linguistics 30/2: 216–235.

Butzkamm, W. (1989/2002) Psycholinguistik des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Natürliche Künstlichkeit: Von der Muttersprache zur Fremdsprache. Tübingen: Francke. (Nature and Artifice. From Mother Tongue to Foreign Language: a Psycholinguistic Approach) English summary in Weinstock, H (ed), (1991) English and American Studies in German. A supplement to Anglia: Tübingen: Neimeyer, 171–175.

Butzkamm, W. and Caldwell, J. (2009) The Bilingual Reform: a Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language Teaching. Tubingen: Narr Studienbücher.

Celik, M. (2003) Teaching Vocabulary Through Code Mixing. ELT Journal 57/4: 361–369.

Centeno-Cortés, B. and Jiménez Jiménez, A. (2004) Problem-solving Tasks in a Foreign Language: the Importance of the L1 in Private Verbal Thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14/1: 7–35.

Cook, G. (2010) Translation in Language Teaching: an Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: OUP.

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. 4th Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Crawford, J. (2004) Language Choices in the Foreign Language Classroom: Target Language or the Learners’ First Language? RELC Journal 35/1: 5–20.

Cummins, J. (2007) Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual Classrooms Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL)/revue canadienne de linguistique appliquee (RCLA), 10/2: 221–240.

Davies, A. (1995) Proficiency or the Native Speaker: what are we trying to achieve in ELT? In Cook, G and Seidlhofer, B (eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP, 145–159.

Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Davis, K. (1995) Qualitative Theory and Methods in Applied Linguistic Research. TESOL Quarterly 29/3: 427–453.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and Processing. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.

Edstrom, A (2006) L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teacher’s Self-evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review 63/2: 275–292.

Hall, G. and Cook, G. (2012) Own-language Use in Language Teaching and Learning: State of the Art. Language Teaching 45/3: 271–308.

Harbord, J. (1992) The Use of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom. ELT Journal 46/4: 350–355.

Howatt, APR with Widdowson, HG (2004) A History of English Language Teaching (2nd ed) Oxford: OUP.

Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: OUP.

Kim, E.Y. (2011) Using Translation Exercises in the Communicative EFL Writing Classroom. ELT Journal 65/3: 154–160

Kim, S.H. and Elder, C. (2008) Target Language Use in Foreign Language Classrooms: Practices

and Perceptions of Two Native Speaker Teachers in New Zealand. Language, Culture and Communication 21/2: 167–185.

Laufer, B. and Girsai, N. (2008) Form-focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: a Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation. Applied Linguistics 29/4: 694–716.

Littlewood, W. and Yu, B.H. (2011) First Language and Target Language in the Foreign Language Classroom. Language Teaching 44, 64–77.

Macaro, E. (1997) Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Macaro, E. (2006) Codeswitching in the L2 Classroom: a Communication and Learning Strategy, in Llurda, E (ed),

Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. Amsterdam: Springer, 63–84.

Macaro, E. (2009) Teacher Codeswitching in L2 Classrooms: Exploring ‘Optimal Use’, in Yoshida, T, Imai, H, Nakata, Y, Tajino, A, Takeuchi, O and Tamai, V (eds), Researching Language Teaching and Learning: An Integration of Practice and Theory. Oxford: Peter Lang, 293–304.

Macmillan, B. and Rivers, D. (2011) The Practice of Policy: Teacher Attitudes Toward ‘English-only’. System 39/2: 251–263.

Medgyes, P (1994) The Non-native Teacher. London: Macmillan.

Nation, P. (2003) The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal 1, 35–39.

Oxford, R (ed) (1996) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Polio, C. and Duff, P. (1994) Teachers’ Language Use in University Foreign Language Classrooms: a Qualitative Analysis of English and Target Language Alternation. Modern Language Journal 78/3: 313–326.

Rolin-Ianziti, J. and Varshney, R. (2008). Students’ Views Regarding the Use of the First Language: an Exploratory Study in a Tertiary Context Maximizing Target Language Use. Canadian Modern Language Review 65/2: 249–273.

Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: OUP.

Stern, H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.

Thornbury, S. (2006) The A–Z of ELT. Oxford, Macmillan.

Turnbull, M. (2001) There is a Role for the L1 in Second and Foreign Language Teaching, But.... Canadian Modern Language Review 57/4: 531–540.

Turnbull, M. and 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.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

van der Meij, H. and Zhao, X. (2010) Codeswitching in English Courses in Chinese Universities. Modern Language Journal 94/3: 396–411.

Widdowson, H.G. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.


Graham Hall is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Northumbria University, UK, where he teaches on the university’s MA Applied Linguistics for TESOL and MA TESOL programmes. He has been involved in English language teaching/TESOL for 20 years, working as a teacher and teacher educator. His research interests range from classroom discourse to the cultural politics of TESOL. He is the editor of ELT Journal and has published Exploring English Language Teaching: Language in Action (Routledge, 2011), which was the winner of the British Association for Applied Linguistics Book Prize 2012.


Guy Cook is Professor of Language in Education at King’s College London, UK. He was formerly head of TESOL at the London University Institute of Education (1991–98), Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Reading (1998–2004) and Professor of Language in Education at The Open University (2005–12). He has published extensively on applied linguistics, English language teaching and discourse analysis. He was co-editor of the journal Applied Linguistics 2004–09, and was Chair of the British Association for Applied Linguistics 2009–12. His books include Translation in Language Teaching (Oxford University Press, 2010, winner of the International House Ben Warren Prize), Genetically Modified Language (Routledge, 2004), Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press, 2003), The Discourse of Advertising (Routledge, 2001) and Language Play, Language Learning (Oxford University Press, 2000, winner of the MLA Kenneth Mildenberger Prize).


Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 vo i ces f r o m t h e cl a ss r o o m 44

Cultural differences in the language classroomLesya N. Bobkova

IntroductionThe teaching process involves not just the transference of knowledge and skills but also interaction with the learners’ personal and social cultures. The latter becomes even more complex when the individuals in question are from linguistic/ethnic groups that hold different values and norms. It is important to appreciate that classroom activities cannot always be successful if there is little or no common understanding and/or desire for mutual cooperation. My experience of teaching Chinese students, who come to learn Commerce in Russian at the Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law, has highlighted some of these issues. In this article, I would like to show how we try to address some of the cultural differences that can be a barrier in our classroom interactions.

While I am working in the context of teaching Russian to Chinese learners studying in Russia, I believe the issues I explore relate also to the context of teaching English to learners studying in English speaking countries.

This report is based on my personal experiences in a particular setting. Clearly, it is not possible to generalize about all members of an ethnic/linguistic group. Younger generations of Chinese learners who have been exposed to other cultures may not always react in the ways that my students have hitherto. We, as professional teachers, need to be alert to the fact that all students have different and differing needs, and that we, as professional teachers, should be skilled and prepared to adapt our teaching styles to accommodate the variety of learners in the classroom.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the Russian language among the nations that border the country to the east. Russia is seen as a major economic, political and cultural partner by countries of the Asian-Pacific region. This has led to a considerable increase in the provision of Russian (as a foreign language) courses in many of our leading far eastern universities.

Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law (Eastern Siberia) has a long-standing partnership with Changchun University of Science and Technology (Northeast China) that enables Chinese and Russian students to obtain a BA degree in Commerce by studying at both educational institutions. The exchange programme offers students the opportunity to go to the other country after two years of studying both Commerce and the other language in the home country. Thus, it is vital to be fluent in both Russian and Chinese in order to complete the degree programme.

The Chinese students I worked with had been learning Russian for two years prior to their arrival in our institution. They had some general knowledge of Russian and the aim of our course was to develop their competence in Business Russian, which would enable them to build successful relationships with Russian partners. That is why the educational process mainly focused on business-oriented case-studies that would help the students to develop their skills in written correspondence and negotiating business deals.

Two of the most important aspects of Business Russian were ‘Cross-Cultural Communication’ (CCC) and Business Ethics. The Chinese students were expected to put into practice the theoretical knowledge they had acquired about Russian cultural life while studying in their own country. This included dealing with daily problems of living in Russia and coping with some aspects of cultural differences they faced during the classes when working with native speakers. In both cases, the Chinese students had to overcome cultural barriers in order to communicate successfully with the Russian students.

It is worth noting that, for my part as the teacher of Russian, I had refreshed my knowledge about some aspects of ‘Chinese cultural values’ (as I am aware that China is a vast country and has a great deal of diversity) before starting to work with Chinese students. First, it was essential to create a favourable climate in order to reduce psychological tension that could be felt during classes. Second, it was important to appeal to the students’ own cultural values if I wanted to use motivational strategies more efficiently in the educational process. This knowledge of the students’ cultural values helped me to understand some of their behaviour patterns, and to act accordingly. I had to pay close attention to their different ways of operating in class (and elsewhere). I discuss some of my strategies, below, under the headings: collectivism and relationship orientation.

CollectivismCollective behaviour is a feature of many Asian cultures and it was interesting to note how it was displayed by the Chinese students in my classes. For example, if a particular classroom task was set, then it was completed by all the students collectively, or it was not carried out at all. Later, I figured out that only some students had completed the task but the group members were unwilling to reveal this. The main reason for this behaviour was the need of the students who had less knowledge of Russian to ‘save face’. I saw how they supported one another and helped the weaker students to keep up. Such


cooperation provided a certain degree of security within the group and did not allow anyone to feel like an outsider.

However such ‘collective orientation’ did not meet my requirements during the class; my main concern was the weaker performance of some of my students. At the same time, the last thing I intended was to slow down the learning of the more successful students.

To solve this problem, I focused on the personal characteristics of the students and their individual learning skills. I worked out individual tasks based on the knowledge and skills of each student. I realized that the students did not expect such a development in our class, and it took me some time to organize and complete these individual tasks. I had to reconsider my tactics, and decided to organize students into small groups of two or three with a similar language level to carry out a particular task. For example, they got cards containing brief exercises on grammar or vocabulary development. When they had completed the task outlined on the card, they were given other cards with additional tasks. The idea was for the group to get through as many cards as possible. The winning group (the one that had completed the most cards) was, for example, not required to do any homework. As a result, some student groups were involved in the competition and managed to deal with all the tasks that had been prepared for them.

This kind of activity allowed students to teach each other, ask for advice when needed, explain any difficulties and discuss the result of their work. Weaker students found themselves in a situation where they did not need to hide behind the stronger ones. The latter did not suppress the initiative and independence of the weaker students. They understood that each of them was responsible for their contribution to their common successful performance, and thus tried to do their best.

Relationship orientation Relationship orientation is a value which I believe is found in both Chinese and Russian cultures. It can be identified as “one of the humanistic perspectives that shapes many key characteristics of the Eastern way of communication” (Qingwen & Day, 2004). Both Russian and Chinese cultures are concerned about the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of group members, focusing on providing support and building relationships with everyone involved in the group. At the same time, it is important to show respect for authority and not to interrupt a lot.

I strongly believe that successful learning depends on creating a favourable psychological climate among the learners. Despite a certain degree of formality, the classes were conducted in a friendly and informal atmosphere and my students accepted me as the leader of their group, and someone who could widen the horizons of their knowledge and enhance their Russian language skills. The teacher/educator inside me gave way to a facilitator who was ready to help if any difficulty appeared.

We should “realize that communication is more than just the words we use” (Sommerville, 2004). It is actually a more

complex psychological process. The fear of making a mistake is considered to be one of the psychological blocks (Lazareva, 2002) in language learning. The less the fear, the lower the “level of anxiety” and the students become “better equipped for success in second language acquisition” (Krashen in Schultz, 2007). On occasions, I faced a situation where students did not want to speak Russian at all because of this fear. I made efforts to change their attitude towards making mistakes, explaining that I preferred them speaking and making mistakes rather than keeping silent. It was important to encourage their own activity and initiative by decreasing the level of uneasiness and uncertainty which was shown in their replies. I was sympathetic and willing to help if my students faced any difficulties while speaking. “Building positive productivity requires a positive environment where individuals feel driven” (Anzalone, 2013).

Another thing that should be taken into consideration is that some students needed more time to do some of the exercises. For example, in developing speaking skills, it was fruitful to provide them with a short pause before giving an answer or response. It allowed them to collect their thoughts as the processes of information coding from a foreign language into their own, and back, went more slowly. When lexical or grammatical slips of the tongue happened to appear, they were corrected after the completion of the monologue, or the dialogue, and not immediately after the utterance. Thus, the communicative intention of the speakers was not interrupted and the students could express their thoughts freely. I had to be very careful while assessing their replies since my aim was to remove a barrier that could be easily created by a psychologically uncomfortable atmosphere in the group. First of all, I pointed out the strengths of the answer and only after that gave recommendations for addressing the weaknesses. I am sure that cooperation, patience, mutual respect and encouragement helped the students to gain courage and be more motivated to speak.

ConclusionI have touched on just a few aspects of intercultural communication (Chaney & Martin, 2007), but in doing so, I hope I have highlighted that as teachers of students from other cultural backgrounds, we need to be sensitive to, and to be aware of, much more than the rules of the grammar of the language we are teaching. Our professional skills may be challenged in terms of ‘filling the gaps’ in our knowledge about other cultures and acquiring relevant classroom skills for dealing with learners who have different pedagogic values and norms. However, unless we address these, we are likely both to fail our students and also to miss out on a valuable learning experience for ourselves.

To conclude, I would like to say that working with Chinese students, I have also gained valuable experience in teaching Russian as a foreign language. I have become more aware of Chinese culture(s) and values and this knowledge has helped a lot in gaining the trust of my students and building a cooperative working/learning environment for the mutual benefit of all.


ReferencesAnzalone, C. (2013) “Differences between Task-Oriented Leaders and Relational-Oriented Leaders”

Chan, J. “18 Practical Tips for Business Travelers in China” http://export.gov/newhampshire/build/groups/public/@eg_us_nh/documents/webcontent/eg_us_nh_053758.pdf (accessed December 2013)

Chaney, L. H. & Martin, J. S. (2007) Intercultural Business Communication, Pearson Prentice Hall (4th Edition)

Lazareva, L. (2002) “Psychology of Life Stability”, Published PhD thesis, Far East State University of Means of Communication http://www.any-book.ru/book/show/id/1698307 (accessed December 2013)

Orichinese website “Cultural Differences in China” http://orichinese.com/chineseculture/cultural-differences-in-china.html (accessed December 2013)

Dong, Q. & Day K. D. (2004) “A Relational Orientation to Communication: Origins, Foundations and Theorists” University of the Pacific http://www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2004v13n1/09%20Qingwen%20Dong%20&%20Kenneth%20D.%20Day.pdf (accessed December 2013)

Sommerville, J. (2004) “The 5 Keys to Interpersonal Success”http://www.acqyr.com/people-management/the-5-keys-tointerpersonal-success(accessed December 2013)

Schütz, R. (2007) Stephen Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html (accessed December 2013)

AcknowledgementI would like to acknowledge the encouragement, advice and helpful suggestions received from Rakesh Bhanot in the writing of this article.

Professor Lesya N. Bobkova is a teacher and researcher in the Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication Department at Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law, Khabarovsk, Russia.



Twenty students, one classroom: formulating learning objectives and strategies for students with diverse language learning needs Katya Kitchingman

AbstractA detailed account of two students’ journeys into assess-ment highlights the significant role of assessment in identifying clear, meaningful objectives as a means to devise suitable classroom strategies. This article tackles the greatest challenge for teachers, to find ways to attend to diverse, and seemingly competing, student needs, with a particular focus on aiding ESOL students on the interlan-guage continuum within a literacy setting.

A thorough analysis of Ieva and Ashfaq’s literacy skills, ref-erenced in detail to the Literacy Core Curriculum, provides insight into how this difficult balancing act can be achieved, while illuminating the limitations and usefulness of those various assessment methods commonly used in the con-temporary field, devised for use by native English speakers with schematic knowledge of indigenous social practices.

The article concludes that diverse and individual literacy goals can be achieved in unison; shared strategies can provide a holistic, universal approach and, with small adjustments, these can be relevant to multiple, individual targets.

IntroductionLiteracy comprises a “discrete set of skills” (Hughes and Schwab 2010, p8): reading, writing, speaking and listening, and yet, the interdependency of these skills, and the social contexts in which they are used, demand an all-encompassing assessment process. Assessment gauges current levels, measuring the distance between where students are now and where they need and want to be.

This mutually dependent skill set cannot be measured by any single method; there is no ready-made assessment available which fits this purpose, and so, it is the responsibility of the teacher to develop and combine strategies.

In my context at Bradford College, teaching Functional Skills English, initial assessment uses interactive BKSB (Basic and Key Skill Builder) software, often carried out before entry to the core course, identifying current working levels, using simple, multiple choice questions, adhering to a strict marking scheme.

This lends well to reliability but, like the online diagnostic assessment, has reduced validity because it only tests some of the necessary skills and works on the lower taxonomies. Multiple-choice questions cannot adequately gauge writing capabilities and, as the assessment is taken in silence, it fails to activate speaking and listening skills. It is therefore insufficient and should be supplemented with some real writing and spoken English assessment so that tutors can achieve a holistic view.

Indeed there is “always a trade-off between validity and reliability” (Gardner 2010, p.36), yet the combined worth of wide-ranging methods is increased, adding to validity. Such combined methods can be useful in the creation of SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound) targets which are then transferred into Individual Learning Plans (ILPs).

Assessment of speaking and listening skillsThrough speaking to students I was able to assess speaking, listening and communication skills to identify current levels, but also, crucially, to find out more about the learners and their own literacy requirements, in effect “bringing the outside in.” (Cooke and Roberts 2007, online).

Understanding student motivations informs teaching, in order to attend to real, pertinent needs, gauging the interests of learners which serve as useful indicators for determining strategies (Wallace 2001, p.51).

I referred to the City and Guilds criteria (2010, online) in order to establish an appropriate level for speaking and listening skills.

Ashfaq is a 20-year-old, Level 3 Construction student wishing to gain a Level 2 certificate quickly in order to enter higher education. English is his first language as he and his parents were born in the UK, his grandparents originating from Pakistan. He entered the class of younger, Level 2 construction students with confidence and his knowledge of his core subject is highly evident.

City and Guilds Functional Skills qualifications are offered at Entry Levels 1–3 (recognised as the basic knowledge and


skills needed to function in everyday situations under direct supervision or guidance) to Levels 1 and 2 (the levels affiliated with the world of work and commonly desired by employers).

The literacy curriculum, unlike the ESOL Core Curriculum (with its four categories), is divided into three broad categories: 1) reading 2) writing and 3) speaking, listening and communication, and these are indicated by R/W/Slc in the references, followed by the level, e.g. L2, and the particular skill. The curriculum is used in many contexts for the planning of Literacy programmes, though many institutions also use the Functional Skills English curriculum.

Ashfaq spoke eloquently about his construction management course, using some technical language from the specialist lexical field but with an obvious and skilful adaptation, a respect for me as audience having no knowledge of the industry. (SLd/L2.2) On describing the shed he had designed and built in his own back garden he used clear explanations (SLc/L2.3) and checked my understanding, showing me photographs from his mobile phone to illustrate his points (SLd/L2.4). He moved the discussion forward (SLd/L2.1), asking questions to gain the information he required regarding Functional Skills English (SLc/L2.2).

I identified that Ashfaq was working well at level 2 although his ability to speak clearly and confidently (Slc/L2.1) diminished in larger groups when he projected quietly and at great speed. Indeed it is common for learners to be “less experienced and less confident” (Hughes and Schwab 2010, p. 265) with the more formal genres of spoken language, and so a focus on the features of these skills is necessary. Ashfaq himself highlighted this as a skill he’d like to develop in preparation for university interviews which may include group discussions or presentations. “Students learn best what they want and need to know” (Gage and Berliner 1991) and so this student-teacher collaboration is key to the success of defining learning objectives. Indeed, selecting relevant objectives should “enable the learner to function in the contexts they have prioritised.” (Shellekens 2004)

Therefore, I was able to identify a learning objective for speaking and listening:

Speak clearly and confidently in order to give presentations and have group debates.

It was easy to identify that Ieva, like Ashfaq, needed to increase confidence, in order to interact in ways that “meet the demands of society.”(Hughes and Schwab 2010, p.8). Crucially, through spoken assessment I ascertained that those very ‘demands of society’ were different for each student and so too were the skills they needed to develop; while Ashfaq needed to develop Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) skills, assessment revealed that Ieva needed to develop Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) (Cummins 1979, online).

Ieva is a seventeen-year-old Latvian student and has been in the UK for a little less than a year. It was obvious from her hesitancy in the initial assessment that she needed to develop basic interpersonal communication skills, those skills needed to interact socially. It is suggested that BICS usually

takes around two years to develop (Cummins 1979) and so it seemed likely that Ieva would benefit from some practice in the classroom to accelerate the process. Ieva’s understanding skills were good, her responses to my questions always relevant, yet she sometimes lacked the vocabulary to explain herself coherently (“I’m sorry…I’m not sure how to…”) Her speech lacked the volume, speed and phrasing necessary to have a free conversation. Strategies would therefore focus on paralinguistic features, including elements of body language and the use of the voice in terms of “pitch, volume, speed of delivery and rhythm” (Hughes and Schwab, 2010 p.267).

Ieva demonstrated a confidence when speaking about her vocational course, construction, using a range of words from the lexical field “architecture, diploma, level 2, progress, plans, practical skill.”

Through assessment, I placed Ieva at Entry Level 3 for listening and responding skills, but Entry Level 2 for those skills in speaking to communicate. I was therefore able to identify a speaking objective for Ieva:

Speak clearly and confidently in class in order to share my opinions and views.

BKSB Diagnostic Assessment: limitationsThe BKSB online initial assessment signalled that Ashfaq was working well at Level 1, directing the assessment to a level 1 diagnostic. The interactive BKSB software detects gaps in learners’ knowledge and skills, pinpointing development areas. However, Ashfaq’s answer to a question on paragraph sequencing reveals one of the flaws within the assessment; the sequencing question, worth 5 marks, resulted in a score of 0 despite there being only one error. A gap fill question in Ieva’s assessment in the context of a prescription notice, revealed the difficulty in testing literacy skills for ESOL students; the question relied on schematic knowledge of pharmaceutical instructions (although it must be noted that later work with instructive texts confirmed this gap in Ieva’s knowledge signalling the need to recognise language and organisational features of instructional texts.)

A reading objective could therefore be identified for Ieva:

Recognise the features of instructional texts by Christmas.

The skills Ashfaq displayed in the spoken assessment were mirrored in the online diagnostic, revealing good vocabulary and an appreciation for audience. An analysis of incorrect answers by teachers is useful in prioritising objectives; while BKSB provide a general results page with recommendations for ‘topics to work on’ these are often questionable. For example, BKSB identified a clear need to cover apostrophes and inaccurately diagnosed sequencing. Arguably, apostrophe use could have been added to Ashfaq’s ILP, but this did not stand out as the most important objective. The issue raised in the diagnostic regarding reading comprehension is given little credence, yet it seemed fundamental to Ashfaq’s progression to Level 2 and Ashfaq identified reading comprehension as something he struggled with at GCSE. We were thus able to


identify a learning objective, crucial to summative success but also to developmental goals. Ashfaq worded the reading objective himself, which ensured it was meaningful:

Use different reading techniques to find the right information and use my own brain to interpret it.

Indeed, asking students to consider their own abilities and development areas fosters a reflective outlook from the outset (Bandura 1994, online; Gardner 2010, p.39) When writing SMART targets, teachers must resist any temptation to use ‘teacher speak’, “putting words into the mouths of learners.” (Hamilton 2006, online)

The BKSB assessment can be used as a signposting tool with the caveat that teachers use their own initiative and involve students in the process.

Free writing assessmentTo counteract the insufficiency of the online diagnostic, there should follow an assessment of ‘real’ writing, the formulation and representation of language. I approach the writing assessment with positivity, giving consideration to the strengths inherent in the students’ work as these can be developed and built upon. It is of course necessary to make note of errors and consider which are central to writing development and the BKSB results provide a useful reference point when prioritising.

Any evaluation of diagnostic assessment must include an analysis of free writing. My self-designed writing diagnostic provides scaffolding through the reinforcement of writing with structure. The inclusion of instructions can be seen to act as a teaching tool rather than an assessment tool and also relies upon good reading comprehension, a separate skill already tested in the BKSB diagnostic. It would have been more useful to give a much freer assessment without any ‘teaching’ of paragraphs and structure. Indeed the assessment neglects to test the first four of the ‘text focus’ writing outcomes at Level 2. (City and Guilds 2010, online).

Nevertheless the assessment was useful in diagnosing writing at sentence and word level.

In determining how to develop writing skills it is important to consider learner motivations for writing. Ashfaq is dedicated to his studies, as documented in his autobiographical piece and through my informal chats with him; he primarily writes for academic purposes. His desire to acquire a Level 2 qualification is directly related to his immediate desire to access higher education.

The assessment exposes a distinct plan for progression between curriculum elements, to close the gap between Ashfaq’s current, Level 1 writing and the academic standard of proficiency he requires; he misses opportunities to use complex sentences and his simple sentences are not always successful. The use of spliced sentences (e.g. “I enjoy spending time with family and friends, I also enjoy going gym with friends.”) reveals a lack of awareness surrounding sentence construction. I decided that a greater awareness of the structure of simple, co-ordinated and complex sentences

would improve his writing greatly, providing development towards Level 2.

I was therefore able to identify a learning objective congruent with Ashfaq’s need to write academically (Appendix 2):

Demonstrate the ability to use a range of simple, coordinated and complex sentences in a piece of writing (typed, 2 pages) in order to successfully describe a construction process.

The written assessment clearly identified that the focus for Ieva was to be at sentence level (“We went to Estonia with family and we walk around the old city”). At whole text level the autobiographical piece was highly successful in terms of being appropriate for the genre; her use of anecdote and the vivid description of her awakening to architecture in Estonia and her conversation with her father is commendable (I asked to my dad: “Who design these buildings?” Dad answered: “Hah, architects of course!” Then I looked at my dad and said: “I’ll be an architect!”), and, at word level, spelling and vocabulary were clearly of little concern.

At sentence level the piece had many English language learner features, the omission of articles (“I’ll be really good architect”), lack of subject-verb agreement (“When I start this course I didn’t knew that”) and the omission of ‘to’ in sentences with the same verb patterns (verb + infinitive of 2nd verb) expressing hopes and wishes (“Some days I wish [to] go back to Latvia”). While there was only one instance of an omission of pronoun ‘it’ (“how good and nice [it] is to be to be in Great Britain”) this did reoccur in later work highlighting the limitations of using one single piece of writing as a diagnostic.

Indeed it is important to “distinguish between errors and mistakes” (Ellis 1997, p.17) and suspicions of misunderstanding can only be substantiated by an assessment that is “sufficient”. In other instances pronouns were used successfully and there was one example of ‘to’ being successfully used in a verb+ infinitive sentence, “I like to go to the gym” yet ‘to’ had been crossed out, evidence of Ieva’s journey on the “interlanguage continuum” (Ellis 1997 p.33).

For writing, I placed Ieva at an Entry Level 2, working towards Entry Level 3 which created a ‘spiky profile’. A broad SMART target was used in order to tackle both articles and subject-verb agreement (Appendix 1):

Be able to write two paragraphs comparing my life in Latvia with life in the UK, using good basic grammar.

Individual Learning Plans: a tool for self-efficacyThe targets were then used to develop Individual Learning Plans (ILPs). While there are varied criticisms of the “audit culture”, particularly with reference to ESOL students whose progress cannot be measured precisely, (Sunderland 2008, online) the very process of creating ILPs “crucially shapes the teaching and learning relationship” (Hamilton, 2006, p.3, online) a contract and commitment by teacher and student to work towards shared goals. Indeed as Sunderland argues


“it’s the learners that keep us going” and I have found ways to incorporate those important ‘soft targets’ which, with their respect for how languages are learned, drive me more than those that attempt to be SMART. Indeed, even with their imperfections and difficulties, ILPs are integral to nurturing student-centred practice (Hillier, 1998) and can be conducive to self-efficacy, particularly important in a functional skills setting.

The formulation of teaching strategiesHaving identified objectives to be included in ILPs for each learner, it is then possible to formulate teaching strategies to address them. Formative assessment ensures that learners are given a range of opportunities to tackle each objective and good strategies will tackle all of the literacy skills simultaneously. Just as objectives are clearly linked to students’ ambitions and immediate demands, so too should the strategies employed.

Shared teaching strategiesThe great challenge for teachers is to find ways to attend to diverse, and seemingly competing, student needs. ILPs are seen to be as individual as the students they serve and yet, there are ways to resolve this conflict. Ieva and Ashfaqs’ objectives for spoken communication are clearly distinct, but I have identified a range of shared strategies focussing on different skills to support differentiation. Shared strategies provide a holistic, universal approach and with small adjustments these can be relevant to multiple, individual targets. First and second language students therefore learn together, through social constructivism, benefitting from diverse experiences and worldviews.

The communication strategies identified provide students with an abundance of opportunities to use speech in a variety of contexts, for real and hypothetical purposes. Role play is recognised as an invaluable aid to spoken language, (Dougill 1991, p.31) providing opportunities for students to use language differently, in a way they are unused to, exposing new ways of self representation and utilising listening, writing and reading skills.

The selected reading strategies are socially situated as evidence suggests that socially constructed texts are best decoded with others (Fairclough 1992), supportive of the interactionist view of language acquisition. (Lightbown and Spada 1993, p.16). NRDC publications recommend that teachers should work with “groups of similar ability” (NRDC 2004, online) to interact dynamically with a text. This is fortuitous for Ashfaq as one of three Level 2 students, but as the only Entry Level 3 student, Ieva may not benefit from this peer support.

Using Frith’s model of reading acquisition (Frith 1985, cited in Waxler and Hall 2011) we can deduce that Ieva, despite her short time in the UK, is already at the orthographic stage, where there is little requirement to sound out words. The continued development of speaking and listening skills will aid her integration with Level 1 groups, ensuring that her reading skills progress. Reading is a “psycholinguistic guessing game”

(Goodman 1967, cited in Hedge p.188) and through group discussion learners are able to activate prior knowledge and critically assess the purpose of texts and the intentions of writers, crucial in the achievement of Ieva’s reading objective.

The use of Directed Activities Relating to Text (DARTs) (Lunzer et al. 1984) fosters independent reading skills through the use of relevant, subject-specific texts. This elevates the learner to ‘expert’, an empowering stance when tackling trickier texts. Reading activities such as underlining, labelling and tabulation are proven to aid comprehension and Ashfaq, with his natural flair for drawing (inherent in the architectural elements of his construction course) may find that he can decode a complicated description of construction procedure through the creation of flow diagrams.

It is interesting to note that in Ieva’s first language, Latvian, articles are not used, rather the role they play is inferred by inflection. A genre approach to writing provides the best basis to tackle this; Ieva can see the use of ‘a/an/the’ in wide ranging texts (inductive), learn the rule through scaffolding (deductive) and begin to use articles in cloze exercises.

James Asher (1968, online) has proposed that ESOL students learn subject-verb agreement best through the use of language to describe a physical activity in progress. There are two other ESOL students in the class making this activity possible. Students combine action and speech to acquire rules of grammar. This could be extended to embrace a creative curriculum inspired by Ken Robinson (2010, online) using scripts and makeshift set pieces to represent stage directions.

Formative assessment provides a way to acknowledge “the things that we value rather than valuing only the things we can measure” (Fawbert 2003, p.272); learning can be enjoyable and removed from summative pressures.

The strategies employed to aid Ashfaq’s writing incorporate the use of already familiar meta-language, analysis of model academic texts and, most importantly, examples of his own academic writing which can then be adapted and improved.

ConclusionWhile assessment processes can be convoluted and not always designed for the growing number of ESOL learners in Functional English classrooms, a merging of inclusive strategies ensures that all student needs are met; skills are developed in a productive classroom, where practice is underpinned by theory.

ReferencesAsher, J. (1968) The Total Physical Response method for second language learning. Online at: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0674868

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press [On-line] USA: Available: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html [27 January 2012]


City and Guilds (2010) Qualification Handbook for Centres. Online. Available: http://cdn.cityandguilds.com/ProductDocuments/Skills_for_Work_and_Life/English_Mathematics_and_ICT_Skills/3748/Centre_documents/3748_Qualification_handbook_v1.pdf [3 February 2013]

Cooke, M. and Roberts, C. (2007) Developing adult teaching and learning: Practitioner guides – ESOL. London/Leicester: NRDC/NIACE

Cummins, J. (1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 19, 121–129. Online, available at: www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CIRCLE/Articles/Jim%20Cummins.pdf [01 February 2013]

Dougill, P. (1991) Developing English. Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Fairclough, N. (1992) Intertextuality in Critical Discourse Analysis. Linguistics and Education pp 295–311

Fawbert, F. (2003) Teaching in Post-Compulsory Education. London: Continuum International Publishing Group

Frith, U. (1985) Beneath the Surface of Developmental Dyslexia cited in: Waxler, R. P. and Hall, M. P. (2011) Transforming Literacy: Changing Lives Through Reading and Writing. Innovation and Leadership in English Language Teaching. Volume 3. Bradford: Emerald Group. p.114

Gage, N. L. and Berliner, D. C. (1991) Educational Psychology (5th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Gardner, J., Herlen, W., Hayward, L. and Stobart, G. (2010) Developing Teacher Assessment. Maidenhead: Open University Press

Goodman, K. (1967) Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist 6/4:126–35. Cited in: Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford University Press

Hamilton, M. (2006) Putting words in their mouths. Lancaster Literary Research Centre: Lancaster

Hillier, Y. (1998) Informal practitioner theory: eliciting the implicit. Studies in the Education of Adults 30 (1) pp35–52

Hughes, N., and Schwab I. (2010) Teaching Adult Literacy: principles and practice Maidenhead: Open University Press

Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1993) How languages are learned. Oxford University Press

Lunzer, E., Gardner, W., Davies, F. and Greene, T. (1984) Learning from the written word Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd

NRDC 2004 Adult literacy learners’ difficulties in reading (Chapter 9 p.102) online at http://www.nrdc.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=424&ArticleID=379 [06 January 2013]

Robinson, K. (2010) Changing education paradigms [Online] Available: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U [21 December 2012]

Shellekens, P. (2004) Individual learning plans: fit for purpose? Reflect Magazine: NRDC Issue 1 p.5

Sunderland, H. (2008) ESOL today: politics, pedagogy and performance measurement. Reflect online Issue 10 NRDC: Available at: http://www.nrdc.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=1411

Wallace, S. (2001) Teaching and Supporting Learning in Further Education. Exeter: Learning Matters

Katya Kitchingman qualified as a lecturer in literacy in 2013 and works in the Skills for Life Department and English Workshop at Bradford College. She is also a teacher educator working in the Post Compulsory Education and Training team.



Appendix 1: Ieva’s Learning ObjectivesLearning Objective Justification SMART?

Reading

Recognise the features of instructional texts by Christmas.

BKSB assessment identified as issue.

Ieva’s own instructions revealed lack of knowledge of instructional texts.

Skill would benefit progress on construction course.

Specific: one type of text identified ‘instructive’, finite features to recognise.

Measurable: can be tested verbally/through comprehension.

Attainable: will most likely be able to identify most features.

Relevant: objective is part of E3 assessment criteria.

Time-bound: ‘by Christmas’.

Writing

Be able to write two paragraphs comparing my life in Latvia with life in the UK, using good basic grammar.

Writing diagnostic.

Encompasses both articles and subject – verb agreement.

Ieva needs this skill to progress on course/fulfil goal to study architecture/own business.

Specific: two paragraphs on a specific subject.

Measurable: can be marked.

Attainable: ‘good’ allows some room for error.

Relevant: criteria linked (outcome Ws/E3.2)

Time-bound: no.

Speaking and Listening

Speak clearly and confidently in class in order to share my opinions and views.

Develop BICS – improve relationship with peers.

Will benefit writing skills.

Deserves voice to be ‘heard’ (in an all male class).

Developmental goal.

Specific: concise.

Measurable: quite- changes will be subtle- useful to record and compare.

Attainable: yes. Ieva wants to do this.

Relevant: imperative for course/personal development.

Time-bound: gradual (by end of course).


Appendix 2: Ashfaq’s Learning ObjectivesLearning Objective Justification SMART?

Reading

Use different reading techniques to find the right information and use my own brain to interpret it.

Ashfaq’s own words.

Supported by BKSB diagnostic.

Necessary for success at Level 2.

Specific: yes, focus on three different strategies.

Measurable: tested through comprehension using multiple texts.

Attainable: yes, strategies evidenced to work.

Relevant: necessary for Level 2/university.

Time-bound: by end of course for university offer.

Writing

Demonstrate the ability to use a range of simple, coordinated and complex sentences in a piece of writing (typed 2 pages) in order to successfully describe a construction process.

Academic writing requires complex sentences.

Objective for Level 2 exam/primary reason for written work being at level 1.

Ashfaq dictated length.

Specific: yes, three types of sentences/2 typed pages/process.

Measurable: can be marked/self-assessed against agreed criteria.

Attainable: unknown given time-frame.

Relevant to L2 assessment and own wish to write academically.

Time-bound: limited time.

Speaking and Listening

Speak clearly and confidently in order to give presentations and have group debates.

Mastery and developmental goals.

Congruent with City and Guilds criteria.

Crucial to Ashfaq’s personal/professional development.

University interview may include group discussion/presentation.

Specific: concise.

Measurable: against L2 SLC criteria/peer assessment.

Attainable: yes, if given opportunities.

Relevant: crucial to university interview, self-development/ L2 exam.

Time scale: gradual but as above.

Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 r es e a rch ta s t e r s 54

In the shadows of language: a process of otheringKirandeep Kaur

‘Just beyond the frontier between ‘us’ and the ‘outsider’ is the perilous territory of not belonging: this is to where in a primitive time peoples were banished, and where in the modern era immense aggregates of humanity loiter as refugees and displaced persons’

Edward Said, 2001:177 cited in Haddad, 2008:47

Every community has a boundary beyond which there are those who become labelled as the other. Edward Said notes that the boundary between communities is in flux, shifting who is accepted and able to access social rewards. Said further notes that migrants shape the communities that they enter as much as they adapt to them. Migrants, acting within a global framework of social change, ‘actively engage with changing linguistic and interactional repertoires’ (Besnier, 2013: 470). Over time elements of the migrants’ home cultures become assimilated into the host culture and their language, demonstrating that integration is a two-way process, which requires flexibility from governments and host communities (Said, 2001; Wilson and Lewis, 2006). This flexibility nonetheless is not always forthcoming. Language plays a vital role in shaping or acting as a gatekeeper to interaction with host communities. Through global and local processes communities of migrants, who additionally can be perceived as new speakers, are being ‘consigned to the margins’ (Rajaram, 2002:17 cited in Haddad, 2008:8).

This leads to the discussion of inclusion through the judgement of who is an authenticated speaker, what is the value of their voice and the influence it can have on others in society. Language and language learning impacts interactions and relationships formed by migrants with host communities. Learning and communicating in the host country’s language is often presented as essential, allowing individuals to access physical, financial, emotional and social resources. Furthermore, social hierarchies and the ability of communities to access these symbolic resources results from whether the linguistic product the community or individual offers is ‘an object of immediate utility’ in a particular context, or with particular communities (Manning, 2006:282; Besnier, 2013). Language learning itself is situated in a global economy, and learners are members of international networks related to businesses, universities, and community organisations along with marginalised groups. At some stage all individuals enter into a definition of new speaker, whether in learning a foreign language, heritage language or a new genre of a language, or within a new functional context. However, the value and status attributed to these new speakers and their language practices are mediated by ideologies, and shaped by perceptions of linguistic competency and authenticity (Besnier, 2013; Sung Yul Park and Wee, 2008).

English with its often perceived status as an international language is seen as a key facilitator of communication and integration between communities, yet may also play a role in the production and reproduction of social inequalities. ‘Language practices ... maps onto both new and old patterns of inequality in society and become intertwined with local power dynamics...through exposure to the global’ (Besnier, 2013:469). Language learners are therefore caught in a translation of global to localised change. This means it is important for language practitioners to recognise that local language inequalities are drawn from a globalised linguistic market.

Bourdieu’s concept of linguistic capital is closely related to issues of language, influence and power presents a useful lens to analyse these processes and their impact on language practice as a profession. The questions are raised into how the analysis of language usage and competency can shed light on areas such as the practical implications for language practitioners who work daily with migrants caught in discourses of othering.

A further implication and question suggested by this short summary discussion is how and to what extent is it possible for language practitioners to challenge localised structural inequalities created by a global linguistic market and work to support learners in the localised contexts of ESOL classrooms?

BibliographyBourdieu, P., 1977. The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges; Theories and Methods. Social Sciences Information, 16(6), pp. 645–668.

Haddad, E., 2008. The Refugee in International Society. First Edition ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Manning, P., (2006), Words and Things, goods and services: problems of translation between language and political economy, Language and Communication, 26, p.270–284

Rutledge, D. & Roble, A., 2010. The Infrastructure of Migration and the Migration Regime: Human Rights, Race, and the Somali Struggle to Flee Violence. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 3(2), pp. 153-178. [Online] Available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rac/summary/v003/3.2.rutledge.html [Accessed 06 04 2013].

Said, E., 2001. Reflections on Exile, and other Literary and Cultural Essays. London: Granta.

Sung-Yul Park, J. & Wee, L., 2008. Appropriating the language of the other: Performativity in autonomous and unified markets. Language & Communication, Volume 28, p. 242–257.


[Online] Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027153090800013X

Wilson, R. & Lewis, H., 2006. A Part of Society: Refugees and Asylum Seekers Volunteering in the UK, Leeds: Tandem.

Acknowledgements This article is drawn from implications of research conducted as part of an MSSc at Queens University Belfast, from 2012 to 2013.

The author is a member of the COST New Speakers in Multilingual Europe Network and has drawn on some of the concepts highlighted in discussions from working groups conducted in 2014.

Join the JISCmail discussion list [email protected] for further discussion of the issues raised.

Kirandeep Kaur is currently an EAP tutor and has been in the field of ESOL for ten years.



Kensington and Chelsea College Diploma in Education and Training: ESOL or Literacy specialist Validated by Canterbury Christ Church University

Start date: 25 September 2014 Duration: 2 years part-time Fees: £2,400 per year (Student Finance available) Day: Thursday Times: 9:30–13:30Venue: Kensington Centre Kensington and Chelsea College Wornington road London W10 5QQ

Our Specialist Teacher Training courses are suitable for applicants wishing to become fully qualified to teach Literacy or ESOL in the Lifelong Learning Sector. Successful completion of the full two year diploma will entitle teachers to apply for QTLS (Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills) status. In the second year graduate trainees can request to follow a PGCE pathway.

Applicants who hold a CELTA qualification can gain direct entry to the second module and would begin the course in January 2015.

How to apply

All prospective applicants must attend one of our Advice & Guidance sessions. These monthly events are hosted by a member of the Teacher Training Team and allow us to explain the various options available. It is also provides an opportunity for those present to ask questions and complete an initial assessment.

Details of the next Advice & Guidance session can be found under the ‘Help Enrolling’ section on our website www.kcc.ac.uk

For more information please contact Stuart Ward [email protected]


Ears to authentic materials: using authentic listening materials in the classroomJennifer PangThe topic of authentic materials has constantly been revisited. Definitions have centred on the fact that they are ‘exposure’ to real life language (Widdowson, 1990, Sanderson, 1999, Harmer, 1991). Other definitions state that authentic texts are texts that are not written for language teaching purposes (Jordan, 1997: 113). Geddes and White (1978) further point out that these materials will contain features that are likely to arise in real spoken communication. Features in genuine conversation might contain more fillers, unfinished utterances, contractions and ellipted forms than text specifically created for language learning purposes.

Authentic materials, especially for ESOL students, are important resources because motivation ‘is boosted enormously by evidence that they (learners) can apply classroom learning to instances of L2 in the real world’ (Field 2008: 277).

This article describes a small action research project undertaken to explore intensive listening materials with the features discussed by Geddes and White. The purpose was to find out about students’ views of activities which use noticing tasks (Batstone, 1996; Timmis 2005). These noticing tasks, essentially ‘spot the difference’ exercises as used by Timmis (2005: 121) in research into spoken corpora, were developed with principles from Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1986), where it is argued that, if students notice the ‘gap’ between their knowledge and where they want to be in their language learning, acquisition will take place.

The research was carried out to see if learners noticed a difference between more authentic texts compared to Skills for Life (SfL) materials by using noticing tasks. Another purpose was to explore the usefulness of noticing tasks as a means to practise intensive listening. Why choose listening? It is seen by many as the ‘Cinderella’ skill when learning a second language and has often been bypassed in importance by its ‘elder sister’, speaking (Nunan, 2002: 238). It is probably one of the skills that does not receive deserved attention as ‘it’s the hardest to assess as speaking is given more prominence’ (Schellekens, 2007: 67).

This research involved selecting materials from Skills for Life (SfL), the materials designed and published in 2003 to help teach the ESOL curriculum that was created at the same time. The materials were analysed for language content, and a prompt sheet was prepared for two teachers who agreed to be recorded for the purpose of creating ‘more’ authentic, natural materials for their students. The ‘authentic’ conversation was recorded after the actors had read the brief. To ensure the

materials were as natural as possible, there was no practice and the first attempt was recorded and used. I set out to create a set of texts that seemed more authentic than the scripted SfL materials and chose a conversation between neighbours meeting for the first time. I believed that it would be ‘of interest’ and ‘plausible as natural interaction’ (Timmis, 2005: 118) and was ‘culturally accessible’ (Tomlinson, 2000, cited by Timmis, 2005: 118).

Two colleagues re-enacted the chosen dialogue. I prepared prompt sheets to have a similar conversation so it would be comparable to the original text. My colleagues recorded the original transcript with adopted names, so that the learners would concentrate on the message and vocabulary not the speakers’ names and accents.

I created tasks following Field’s (2008) suggestion of pre-listening to activate schema. The second part was listening to identify items in the conversation. The third part contained the noticing tasks requiring the learners to listen intensively for the answers. A quantitative questionnaire asked learners to decide which text (the SfL published text or the authentic text we had recorded) sounded more natural and was easier to understand.

This project has shown that learners can cope with authentic materials, if practised in a principled way. The findings revealed that learners found the noticing tasks useful and became aware that things can be said differently. This also highlights the importance for ESOL learners to have opportunities to analyse discourse and explore genres to be informed of different ways to express themselves in interactional and transactional communication and combat the ‘ unequal balance of power’ (Cook & Simpson, 2008:73) they might feel.

The full article in a future edition of Language Issues will give suggestions about how to introduce more authentic materials into our classrooms and ‘prepare learners for the real world’ (Flowerdew and Miller, 1997, cited by Miller, 2003). It will also make suggestions on how to incorporate more authentic listening activities into lessons without eating in to too much of teachers’ valuable planning time.

Bibliography Cooke, M. and Simpson, J. (2008) ESOL: A Critical Guide. Oxford: OUP

Field, J. (2008) Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: CUP


Geddes, M. & White, R. (1978) The use of semi-scripted simulated authentic speech in listening comprehension. Audiovisual Language Journal, 16 (3), 137–145

Miller, L. (2003) Developing listening with authentic materials. ESL Magazine, March/April edition

Nunan, D. (1988) Syllabus Design. Oxford: OUP

Timmis, I. (2005) Towards a framework for teaching spoken grammar. ELT Journal Vol. 59.2 April 2005

Internet referencesSchmidt, R. (2010) Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Attention,%20awareness,%20and%20individual%20differences.pdf (retrieved 02/04/13)

Tamo, D. (2009) The use of authentic materials in classrooms. Article 9/LCPJ www.lcpj.pro/.../1277547685-74_pdfsam_LCPJ,%20Per%20shtyp.pdf (retrieved 03/04/13)

Williams & Williams (2007) http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/PDF//ESOL-EFL_Report_WEB%282%29.pdf (retrieved 28/04/12)

Jennifer Pang is an ESOL and EAP tutor in Manchester. She has recently completed an MA in English Language Teaching at Leeds Metropolitan University.


Language Issues 25.1 Summer 2014 r e v i e w s 59

New language, new literacy: teaching literacy to English language learnersJill Sinclair Bell Pippin Publishing, Ontario, Canada, 2013

Reviewed by Allegra CarltonThis is a comprehensive, well-written and readable book. It clearly encapsulates the experience of a lifetime of teaching literacy to English language learners and indeed its author, Jill Sinclair Bell, has taught in a wide range of countries and environments and has worked in teacher education; she is a Full Professor in the Faculty of Education at York University, Toronto and she has published a number of books about teaching ESL.

References throughout the book to the Canadian system suggest that North American teachers (USA and Canada) are the primary target audience, but most of what she describes, as it relates to learners and strategies for teaching them, is so similar to teaching experiences in the UK as to render any minor differences relatively unimportant. Despite this strength, however, this book has elicited something of a mixed response from me for reasons outlined later in this review.

The author states in her introduction that she is targeting teachers trying to address the thorny problem of teaching literacy skills to English language learners (ELLs) from widely ranging backgrounds and education, many of whose languages do not use Roman script and some of whom have low literacy in their first language. She assumes absolutely nothing about the experience, skills and resources available to the teachers she is addressing, and takes the reader on a journey which starts with exploring the different educational backgrounds of learners, and carries the reader right through to exploring how to develop a curriculum for them. She covers both theory and practical advice and provides ideas for materials and activities, case studies and sample lessons, with a lot of images demonstrating methods and materials. Throughout the book the author stresses the importance of selecting materials for learning activities with a focus on meaning and on constant reinforcement, reminding the reader that adult new readers and writers will inevitably learn slowly, despite their own (and our?) impatience.

The book is divided into three sections, ‘Understanding literacy and literacy learning’, ‘Deciding what and how to teach’, and ‘Developing a successful and coherent program’.

The first section outlines the very diverse backgrounds of learners needing to develop literacy skills in English, ranging from those who are new in a country right through to long term residents needing to improve skills, covering both the

variety of learner backgrounds and the varying challenges and problems different learners face, including the complexity of learners’ lives and their various motivations for learning. It explores what we mean by literacy, reading and writing, briefly outlines reading theory, and equally briefly discusses issues relating to teaching adult learners.

Sinclair Bell goes on to discuss how to develop a learner profile and how to identify literacy skills in English, including an interesting analysis of writing on the page to determine learner proficiency and understanding of the structure and information provided by writing.

The main section of the book is called ‘Deciding what and how to teach’. Throughout the section, Sinclair Bell makes detailed analyses of learner needs and ways of meeting them. She considers what to teach first, and goes on to discuss pre-literacy and the skills associated with literacy. She then focuses on teaching reading, with a particular emphasis on reading for meaning. In this section and indeed throughout the book, she stresses the importance of constant reinforcement of literacy learning through speaking and listening activities as well as reading.

In particular she discusses the Language Experience Approach and provides an extensive outline of techniques, text types and follow-up activities with a strong bias in favour of kinaesthetic learning. She comments on Total Physical Response as a useful approach for teaching reading to low level speakers, outlining possible activities, while pointing out that it has limited application. She dismisses the phonics approach as a primary approach to teaching reading, but comments on its value as an aid to spelling.

In terms of reading for meaning, she makes a powerful argument in favour of teaching low level readers critical reading skills and introducing telling stories from multiple points of view (for instance, people involved in a road traffic accident) in order to introduce the concept of the unreliable narrator – as she dryly comments, weak readers as well as strong readers get spam and may indeed be specifically targeted by scammers; if they automatically believe what they read, then they become easy prey.

Sinclair Bell then focuses on how to teach writing, from the point of view both of encoding and of developing meaning. She outlines the multiplicity of skills and components within


writing which learners have to master: vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, letter formation, content, format, sentence structure and above all, the importance of understanding that writing is generally for others, not for oneself, and how to teach this. She highlights the importance of encouraging learners to take risks in order to develop skills.

One suggestion she makes is the setting up of mailboxes physically in the classroom for learners to write notes to each other, but she does not mention using Moodle or other virtual learning environments as a means of communication between learners or between learners and teachers, the use of which can be a useful way of developing confidence and skills even at very low levels. Nor does she mention the use of mobiles and texting which I have used with very low literacy learners. She includes a very brief section on the use of technology to assist in the teaching of reading, mentioning email and the potential use of social media and citing a case study of a teacher who has set up a social networking page for learners, for what Sinclair Bell calls a’ technology supported version of a dialogue journal’ an excellent idea. Even more briefly she discusses the impact of technology on learners’ lives. She could usefully have expanded this section, given the impact on both learners and teachers of the rapidly proliferating opportunities to use e-learning even at very low levels of literacy.

The last thirteen pages of this section are headed ‘Challenging teaching situations: multilevel and more’. In this very short section Sinclair Bell addresses what actually seem to me to be some of the key problems addressed by the teachers of literacy to ELLs, the problems of meeting the needs of classes with learners with spiky profiles, learners with good, not so good and no literacy in their first languages, and learners combating other difficulties (for instance the learner whose apparent learning difficulties may be caused by PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], or the low-literacy learner whose poor memory for spellings may or may not indicate dyslexia). Sinclair Bell is the author of another book on teaching multi-level learners, which she signposts readers to, and this may be why she spends so little time on this topic, but for many of us this is one of the most pressing issues within our teaching of literacy to ELLs, and I was rather disappointed to find so little on this.

The final section, ‘Developing a successful and coherent program’, outlines how to develop a curriculum for learners, create a scheme of work and carry out initial and formative assessment (and presumably non-examined summative assessment). As various states in the USA, Canada and the UK all have their own ESL core curricula, I found myself wondering about the role of this section, and whether it was primarily targeted at teachers unable to access any of these, or whether Sinclair Bell has simply not found any of them useful; she does not reference any of them in the appendices. Again, her writing on how to create a scheme of work and a lesson plan and how to assess learners assumes complete lack of support from any organisation, leading me to wonder whether in reality the primary target for this book is teachers from voluntary sector organisations dealing with ELLs.

She concludes with appendices which include a number of sample lessons, which are extremely interesting, some useful materials, and a brief bibliography including Spiegel and Sutherland’s ‘Teaching Basic Literacy to ESOL learners’ (on which I think she has drawn more than a little) and a short list of carefully selected online resources.

For less experienced teachers, or for experienced teachers not used to working with learners with literacy needs, this could be a really useful resource and well worth taking the time to read very carefully. It can, however, be very wordy – there are occasions where I felt that a diagram or a flow chart might cut to the chase, as for instance when she painstakingly describes the spelling process well known to most teachers as “Look Say Cover Write Check” as a strategy for teaching spelling, but does not name it or show a diagram.

A further issue I have is that she does not include an index. While there are plentiful headings, if the reader wants to go back and check understanding or memory of something specific, this is not going to be easy unless they have an eidetic memory or are prepared to scan large tracts of text.

Another caveat I have is that the text is, I think, predicated upon the assumption of an environment in which a literacy class designed purely to meet the needs of learners is a possibility. Given existing funding exigencies affecting ESOL, at least in the UK, this is an extremely optimistic assumption, whatever the situation in Canada and the USA. For most of us, being able to provide coherent, planned and funded literacy learning targeted explicitly at English language learners is currently something of a pipe dream. This, of course, is a criticism of the current funding environment rather than of Sinclair Bell’s book, but she does not appear to take much account of funding exigencies.

This is not a read-at-a-sitting book, and indeed I spent several weeks working my way through it, trying out some of the techniques the author suggests and reflecting on them, and I suspect that many readers would respond similarly. I consider that this is in many ways an extraordinarily useful book, dense in information, theory, suggestions and ideas, yet while reading it I had reservations. In a sense, I feel that the author is trying to be all things to all teachers. The book feels, as I commented above, like the condensed experience of a lifetime, and it almost feels as though she has been unable to leave anything out that could be useful to an ESOL teacher. The comprehensive nature of the book is both a strength and a weakness; the target audience is not assumed to have any knowledge at all, but many teachers reading it will in fact bring considerable experience to bear and may feel that much that Sinclair Bell writes about is already known to them, while beginner teachers may feel somewhat overwhelmed by the amount and depth of information and number of ideas she provides.

Having said that, however, the author draws on such a wealth of experience that she continually surprises by the depth of insight, the thoroughness of her analysis and by the suggestions she offers, and for this reason I consider that this is a valuable addition to texts dealing with teaching low level learners.


Allegra Carlton is Community and Family Learning Coordinator in the Inclusive Learning Department of Southampton City College. From 2004–2011 she worked with refugees and asylum seekers for City Life Education and Action for Refugees in Southampton. Allegra is very interested in issues relating to teaching literacy to low literacy English language learners. Despite over 40 years in Southampton she considers herself to be a Yorkshire woman.



Innovations in English language teaching for migrants and refugees Edited by David Mallows, British Council Reviewed by Jo-Ann DelaneyThis collection of articles is part of the “Innovations in..” series commissioned and published by the British Council. It comprises contributions from a range of contexts where English is taught to migrants and refugees.

The book is organised by educational phases (primary, secondary, post 16/adult education). This certainly facilitates access to readers working in a particular phase, but it should not limit the reader’s focus as many of the articles cover themes in teaching and learning that have overarching significance. For example, Latika Davis’ article on developing vocabulary with primary school learners investigates aspects such as lexical relationships which would enhance any language learning classroom. Equally, John Sutter’s consideration of ways of reconstructing the language learning syllabus in adult learning would be of interest in any phase.

The title suggests that the focus of the book is on innovations. What are particularly powerful, however, are the voices of those who are engaged in those innovations. Many of the articles are based on projects and gather data using case studies, participant narrative and autobiographies and this lends a strong participant voice to the discussion. A particularly good example of this is Dimitrina Kaneva’s article which charts the progress of three newly-arrived students. The voices of the students are present in the description of their context and the direct quotes about their experience, but the teachers’ voices are also represented, recognising that successful teaching and learning is a collaborative process. If there is a drawback to the strong focus on participant voices, it is that those chapters which deal primarily with policy or changing trends seem a little flat in comparison. Sara Green’s excellent review of curriculum innovations for EAL students may not engage the reader as much as it should as it seems less grounded in the personal.

In tune with the digital innovations that have impacted on ESOL teaching in all contexts, many of the projects described include the use of digital media and through this provide illustration of how such media can be best harnessed for the benefit of ESOL learners. There are more of these in the articles focussing on post 16 education with Richard Cresswell and James Simpson looking at learners’ engagement with online blogs and how it helped them develop their writing skills. The article by Carol Savill-Smith and colleagues is particularly revealing on the issue of how we can make technology serve the learners. None of the elements of the mobile technology discussed (web access, Skype, Facebook) are new. The innovation for teachers is to see their value in enhancing language learning. Another project illustrated the possibility of using technology to

integrate the learning of migrants with community needs. With a wonderfully bilingual sub-title of “Hey, hang on a minute, tha mise bilingual”, the article by Gordon Wells featured a project which used the production of bilingual videos to help learners with their language needs but also to provide an island community with promotional videos. The whole project seemed to take the notion of community integration to a new level by harnessing technology.

The inclusion of so many projects which focus on learners under the age of 16 is refreshing in such a publication. Often EAL (English as an Additional Language) is considered as a separate specialist area. Some of the articles highlight particularly effectively the role of the young person’s first language in their English Language learning. Clare Wardman, Judith Bell and Emma Sharp’s article on valuing home languages presents the case for more use of the learners’ first language in schools in a meaningful and academically worthwhile way. They highlight the issues for the learners themselves, but also the issue of teacher confidence and the contributing factor of the low recruitment of multi-lingual teachers. Given the current discussions around “languages” in primary schools, this article adds another dimension to the debate about how to acknowledge children’s language expertise rather than their language deficits.

Sometimes it takes a fresh eye to notice potential for innovation. It is a positive feature of the book that it has a number of contributions by, or in collaboration with new teachers. Dina MehmedbehovÍc’s project to use autobiographical activities with a year 7 class working on a presentation about “Places we had to leave” or “Places we want to go to” seemed to be generated by her ability to see beyond the learners’ current status of migrants and see them as people with a past and an aspiration for the future. Likewise Judith Bell and Emma Sharp as newly qualifying teachers, are able to provide an excellent critical perspective on the challenges faced by new entrants to the profession with existing accepted paradigms of what an ESOL learner can do and is not expected to do. These teachers’ voices act as “new arrivals” to our profession and provide valuable perspectives on what we may take for granted.

No doubt there was much thought put into the structure and organisation of the publication. With the current structure, there is a danger that readers may be drawn to the articles that are specific to their phase. As a reader I might be drawn to the post 16 articles and this would certainly mean that I would miss out on a wealth of insights from both the primary and secondary case studies. I wondered if perhaps the book might have been better organised into language learning themes (use


of L1, use of technology). This would only be to ensure that the findings reach all of those to whom they would be of value.

The book is an extremely interesting and insightful contribution to English language teaching. As a collection of research projects it would be of interest to teachers and researchers thinking of undertaking their own project. Most of the articles provide an account of their methodology and this could be a template for others. The outcomes of the projects could both inform and inspire other teacher in implementing similar innovations in their practice. Many of the articles could be used on teacher training courses, both for adult ESOL and EAP. Readers should not be discouraged by the educational phase in which each article is placed; there are lessons to be learned for all language teachers from all of the articles.

In combining the articles together in this volume much thought has been given to showing the unifying factors in the teaching of English language. This is encouraging to all teachers of English, who may sometimes find their search for a professional identity confused by the plethora of labels often ascribed to them. Are you EAL, ELT, EFL, ESOL, EAP etc? As the editor points out; “they are all language teachers”. This publication encourages us to look beyond differences and seek out the common strengths in our practice.

Jo-Ann Delaney is an ESOL teacher educator working at Canterbury Christ Church University. She has worked in the UK and abroad in English Language Teaching for a number of years. She is currently co-editor of the Language Issues journal.



Current developments in English for work and the workplace: approaches, curricula and materialsEdited by Mark Krzanowski Garnet Education (2012) ISBN: 9781859646533 Paperback: 174 pages £12.00

Reviewed by Alexander BraddellJust as work is thought to be responsible for most adult learning in general 1, it is surely possible that most adults learn English for vocational reasons – and certainly a great deal of English language learning happens in workplaces, all around the world, much of it informal.

There are many glimpses of such informal workplace language learning in the 12 peer-reviewed papers presented here, in what is Mark Krzanowski’s third collection for IATEFL’s English for Specific Purposes Special Interest Group, though the focus is on formal learning, mostly from the teacher’s perspective. Five of the papers come from Africa, three from the Middle East and one each from Brazil, India, New Zealand and Austria.

The majority describe practice around needs analysis, curriculum design and teaching, but there are also investigations of communicative practices in workplaces (South Africa), a macro analysis of supply and enterprise demand for English in Austria, a consideration of how best to meet Botswana’s needs for workplace English and a survey of English for Work practices over the last twenty years in Nigeria.

The learners in these papers include Saudi hospital operating room technicians, South African police officers and Omani air force ground crew, as well as learners hoping to enter the IT workforce in Brazil, the business and professional communities in Nigeria, the Yemen and India.

There is obvious interest in the descriptions of teaching and learning practices employed in these various settings, and perhaps even more in the descriptions of needs analysis and curriculum development – and some interesting contrasts to observe. Thus there are lone-practitioner accounts from the EFL teachers responsible respectively for the Saudi operating theatre and Omani ground crew courses, but also accounts from applied linguistics research teams in Brazil and New Zealand.

The paper from New Zealand is the only one in this collection that deals with English for migrants: a report on a learning programme for skilled migrants from New Zealand’s remarkable Language in the Workplace Project (responsible for ground-breaking investigations of workplace discourse 2). The paper describes how the programme drew on the project’s

extensive corpus of authentic discourse recorded in New Zealand workplaces to help learners who had achieved IELTS 6.5 to develop the sociopragmatic skills needed for effective communication – and employability – in New Zealand workplaces.

Notions of appropriateness and social convention arise frequently in these papers – almost always linked, as so much at work is, to power relations.

One of the learners on the New Zealand programme bears vivid testimony to the power of politeness when imposing on colleagues: ‘I want to get this information – get something done. I may say simply “could you do this for me?”, “could you find it for me?” … but during the course I also observed my teacher saying when [she] asked us to do something – the way is more politely and also very soft – the tone – so no matter how busy the work, don’t give the hard feeling to people. So “I wonder if you could” – that is the great wording – I use it all the time.’

In his account of teaching English to Omani air force ground crew, Neil McBeath notes that his learners imagined that ‘they would require English to write military letters and faxes,’ whereas the ‘writing of military letters is a privilege jealously guarded by the officers’!

The other strong theme running through the book is the role of English as an international language – in other words, a language of world trade and commerce.

Meenakshi Raman opens her paper on the use of English in workplace meetings and correspondence with this quotation from an Indian manager of a multinational company: ‘Sabre has approximately 9,000 employees in 59 countries, and there is a wide range of languages spoken by our employees – it is very important for us to understand our customers and each other – therefore it is very important to focus on nuances in communication such as pronunciation or accent. Our managers spend 75% of their time in communication – both oral and written. Grammatical accuracy and fluency is very important.’ Raman goes on to note that ‘people belonging to an Indian workplace always look up to their colleagues who express themselves in impeccable English.’


The tensions between global English and local languages find expression in Modupe Alimi’s report from Botswana – where press bemoan the workplace impact of a perceived fall in the ability of high school leavers and graduates to express themselves in English – and in Sunday Duruoha’s in a paper on teaching English in Nigeria, which notes ‘the demand for usage and policy focusing on the development of indigenous languages’ arising from ‘the desire for cultural and linguistic self-determination.’ Modupe Alimi advocates a ‘pragmatic approach [to teaching English] that is cognizant of the language ecology of the country on the one hand and the powerful forces of globalisation on the other.’

There are, of course, areas the book doesn’t touch on. Support for migrants in low-paid, low-skilled work – a major concern in the US and Canada, as well as the UK – is not touched on. Nor – and perhaps this is related – is workplace learning theory more generally. The contribution of workplace learning to organisational performance is well established and over the last decade a number of projects in the UK and Europe have used workplace learning theory to investigate the potential of work activity as a vehicle for language learning by migrants in low-skilled roles.

However, the collection offers a colourful, multifaceted picture of vocational English language learning in a range of contexts, and many of the papers offer useful pointers towards practice.

Notes1. E.g. EU Skills Panorama (2014) Adult learning Analytical

Highlight, prepared by iCF gHK and Cedefop for the European Commission http://euskillspanorama.cedefop.europa.eu/AnalyticalHighlights

2. See http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/centres-and-institutes/language-in-the-workplace ; also Holmes, J., and Stubbe M. (2003) Power and Politeness in the Workplace, A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. Harlow: Longman

Alexander Braddell is a practitioner-researcher specialising in workplace basic skills. He has extensive experience of workplace ESOL in the UK where recent work includes research for the Mayor of London’s office on supporting migrants in low-paid, low-skilled employment to improve their English. With colleagues from Germany, France and Spain, he is currently undertaking a project for the European Centre for Modern Languages to network European researchers, policy-makers and practitioners concerned with learning for migrant workers.

www.ecml.at/I2/tabid/891/language/en-GB/Default.aspx


Subscribe to Language Issues

Annual subscription – two journals per year (summer and winter) £25 for personal subscription £80 for institutional subscription

Preferential rates for NATECLA members £15 for personal members £45 for institutional members

How to subscribe Complete the subscription form below and send it to the co-ordinator at NATECLA with the payment: Co-ordinator, NATECLA National Centre, South and City College Birmingham, Hall Green Campus, Cole Bank Road, Birmingham B28 8ES, UK

Subscribe online Email: [email protected]

How to pay By cheque – payable to NATECLA/Language Issues By online payment to NATWEST, Sort Code 56-000-46, Account no. 58842594, Account name: NATECLA/Language Issues By debit or credit card: www.natecla.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=467

Subscription formI would like to subscribe to Language Issues from (date) D D M M Y Y Y YName:

Email:

Telephone/mobile:

Postal address:

Postcode:

Country:

Check relevant boxes

Personal subscription (member) £15 Personal subscription (non-member) £25 Institutional subscription (member) £45 Institutional subscription (non-member) £80 I am paying by cheque I am paying by online bank transfer I am paying by credit or debit card I am paying in cash I am not yet a member of NATECLA and would like information on how to join and receive Language Issues with my membership

A receipt will not be sent unless specifically requested. Data held by NATECLA is never passed to third parties

Twenty Students One Classroom

Documents

Transcript of Twenty Students One Classroom