The Young Language Learner by Fagbokforlaget

Bjørn Sørheim is a Reader in Linguistics and English Language Didactics at Sogn og Fjordane University College. He has long experience as an English teacher and teacher trainer at all levels. He has published EFL course books and a book on EFL teaching methodology.

The Young Language Learner

Ion Drew is Associate Professor of English and Literacy Studies at the University of Stavanger. His main fields of teaching, research and publication are EFL reading and writing development, and EFL teacher competence and teaching methodology.

Angela Hasselgreen | Ion Drew | Bjørn Sørheim (eds.)

Angela Hasselgreen is Professor of English Language Didactics at Bergen University College. She has many years of experience as an English teacher and teacher trainer. She has led international research projects and has published books and articles on language assessment.

This book comprises 16 chapters on a wide range of topics within the growing international field of Young Language Learner (YLL) research. In this context Young Language Learners span the ages of six to 16. Through research carried out in Norway and beyond, the book sheds light on how to go about investigating YLLs, what works in their classrooms, their language ability and development and how to assess this, and how their teachers perceive and address the challenges facing them. For anyone researching, teaching or studying this group, this book has much to offer.

Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning

ISBNł978-82-450-1197-5

,!7II2E5-abbjhf!

Angela Hasselgreen Ion Drew Bjørn Sørheim (eds.)

The Young Language Learner Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning

Angela Hasselgreen, Ion Drew and BjĂ¸rn SĂ¸rheim (eds.)

The Young Language Learner Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning

ISBN 978-82-450-1197-5

Spørsmål om denne boken kan rettes til: Fagbokforlaget Postboks 6050, Postterminalen 5892 Bergen Tlf.: 55 38 88 00 Faks: 55 38 88 01 E-post: fagbokforlaget@fagbokforlaget.no www.fagbokforlaget.no

Materialet er vernet etter åndsverkloven. Uten uttrykkelig samtykke er eksemplarfremstilling bare tillatt når det er hjemlet i lov eller avtale med Kopinor.

Contents Introduction Angela Hasselgreen and Ion Drew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Part I Classroom practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway Heike Speitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 Supporting and encouraging the implementation and use of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) in Norwegian classrooms Deborah L.S. Larssen and Harald Høie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3 Does reading stories enhance language learning? Anna Birketveit and Hege Emma Rimmereide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4 Approaches and practices relating to the teaching of EFL reading at the Norwegian primary level Rebecca Charboneau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5 Readers Theatre: a group reading approach to texts in mainstream EFL classes Ion Drew and Roar R. Pedersen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Part II Pupils’ language development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6 Incidental foreign language learning in young children Samúel C. Lefever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7 Basic skills: orthography and sentence complexity in written English from grades 7 to 10 Guri Figenschou Raaen and Tale M. Guldal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Contents

8 Phonological competence in English among Norwegian pupils and implications for the teaching of pronunciation in the English classroom Kåre Nitter Rugesæter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 9 Investigating vocabulary development in English from grade 5 to grade 7 in a Norwegian primary school Agnes Scott Langeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 10 A comparative study of the vocabulary of 7th and 10th graders in scripts from the National Test of Writing in English Hildegunn Lahlum Helness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Part III Teachers’ perceptions and understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 11 Action Research in TEYL: reflections on the global picture from 1996 to 2010 Annie Hughes, Helen Marjan and Nicole Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 12 Teacher cognition and the teaching and learning of EFL vocabulary Torill Hestetræet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 13 Adapted Education: teachers’ perceptions and practices and the impact of the ELP Mette-Lise Mikalsen and Bjørn Sørheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 14 Curriculum practice: English teachers’ understanding and realisation of the new national curriculum, LK06 Ingebjørg Mellegård and Karin Dahlberg Pettersen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Part IV Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 15 Developing a framework for assessing writing in primary school Angela Hasselgreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 16 Genre and situational features in oral exam tasks in 10th grade Lynell Chvala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

the young language learner

Introduction Angela Hasselgreen Ion Drew

This book began, as so many good things do, as an idea over a cup of coffee. A number of us were concerned about the status of research in the area we felt passionate about – the language learning of younger school children. Traditionally, research funding and higher education structures have combined to favour the language learning of young (or older) adults. Yet things had already begun to change. Internationally, conferences were starting to devote time to young language learners (YLLs) and articles and books on the subject were trickling out (e.g. Drew & Hasselgreen, 2008; Moon & Nikolov, 2000; Nikolov, 2009; Philp et al., 2008; Rixon, 2000). In Norway (where our idea took root), teacher education faculties were starting to produce impressive research of their own – both at staff and student level. We were aware that we were not alone in our pursuits, and that individuals around the country – and beyond – were looking at aspects of YLLs we would like to hear about and learn from. Our own individual research projects were, in fact, the tip of an iceberg. Thus it was that we decided to form a research network, to explore what was going on, and to exchange ideas, methodological hurdles and findings. In 2007 we had our first meeting, and it snowballed from there. There is scarcely a higher education institution in Norway that has not been represented at our meetings. What was so striking from the start was the sheer diversity of the research that has caught our interest. Some have looked at particular ways of developing pupils’ language, others at the language itself, and others at issues that teachers struggle with. Even better, our net has spread to include the Universities of Iceland and York. This has added further perspectives to our discussion – we see the effect of leaving English learning until later than we are used to, and find out how teachers internationally have gone about Action Research,

Introduction

in a fascinatingly diverse range of contexts. But, equally importantly, it has let us see that, while certain situational aspects of YLLs may be country-specific, the essential nature of YLLs, and what we can expect of them is, in fact, universal. However you define YLLs (some say up to 16, others up to about 12), few groups can be more rewarding to work with, but perhaps few pose so many challenges. What we soon realised was that we were exploring issues and making findings that were too good to be kept to ourselves. We are still at the tip of an iceberg, but perhaps know more about what lies below the surface. This book, we feel, is a goldmine. Covering 16 different approaches to a wide range of topics, it gives very concrete examples of how to go about investigating YLLs, and it sheds light on what works for them, what they can do, how they develop, and how their teachers perceive and address some of the many challenges that face them. For anyone researching, teaching or studying this group for any reason, we believe the book has something to offer. The book is divided into four main parts, which seem to reflect the main interests of YLL researchers in our own network and beyond: 1. Classroom practices 2. Pupils’ language development 3. Teachers’ perceptions and understanding 4. Assessment The five chapters in Part I focus on classroom practices. Chapter 1, by Heike Speitz, presents the results of a pilot project in 12 schools to introduce second foreign languages into the primary level in Norway. The reactions of teachers, pupils, parents and head teachers are presented and a number of important issues are addressed, such as teacher qualifications and the need to incorporate second foreign languages into teacher training. Chapter 2, by Deborah L.S. Larssen and Harald Høie, addresses the extent to which teacher development courses can be used to support the implementation of the European Language Portfolio (ELP), thereby enhancing the emphasis of learner autonomy in Norwegian classrooms. Chapter 3, by Anna Birketveit and Hege Emma Rimmereide, is a case study of an extensive reading project based on picturebooks and illustrated books. The authors study the effects of extensive reading on pupils’ motivation and language learning, and on their own perceptions of this learning. Chapter 4, by Rebecca Charboneau, presents findings from a Norwegian national questionnaire about English as a foreign language (EFL) reading instruction and development at the primary level. The study focusses on literacy approaches and

the young language learner

practices used by teachers in the 4th and 5th grades. Chapter 5, by Ion Drew and Roar R. Pedersen, presents a qualitative study of Readers Theatre (RT), a group reading aloud activity, in two mainstream 8th grade classes in a Norwegian lower secondary school. The study explores the benefits and challenges of using RT in mainstream EFL classes and how the pupils and teacher experience and evaluate its use in three different variants. The next five chapters, in Part II, address pupils’ language development. Chapter 6, by Samuel C. Lefever, differs from many of the other contributions in the book in that it presents research from Iceland, where the starting age for learning English in schools is around nine. The study investigates the extent to which Icelandic children have incidentally learnt English by the age of 8, before they start formal schooling. Chapter 7, by Guri Figenschou Raaen and Tale M. Guldal, presents a longitudinal study of the development of formal aspects of written English in a large group of pupils from grades 7 to 10. The authors explore the development of orthographic and grammatical competence among these pupils, who come from different schools in the same municipality. Chapter 8, by Kåre Nitter Rugesæter, presents a study of phonological competence in English among Norwegian 11–13-year-olds and discusses implications for the teaching of English pronunciation in the Norwegian primary school classroom. The study investigates to what extent the pupils are able to distinguish actively and systematically between English phonemes that are known to create difficulties for Norwegian learners. Chapter 9, by Agnes Scott Langeland, presents the findings of a study of the vocabulary development in a cohort of young learners of English in a Norwegian primary school from 2008 to 2011. The study is partly based on computerised vocabulary profiling of the writing of pupils as they move from the 5th to 7th grades. The author investigates receptive and productive vocabulary growth, and considers gender, individual differences and the effect of reading on vocabulary development. Chapter 10, by Hildegunn Lahlum Helness, also presents a study of vocabulary which uses computerised tools, but here the focus is on comparing the vocabulary of pupils at grades 7 and 10 who have been judged to be at the same level of overall language proficiency. The aspects measured and compared are vocabulary variation and lexical density, as well as text length in the pupils’ writing. In Part III, four chapters deal with teachers’ perceptions and understanding. Chapter 11, by Annie Hughes, Helen Marjan and Nicole Taylor, is a study of 75 Action Research projects carried out by students from around the world participating in an MA programme run by the University of York. It investigates certain aspects of the projects, with particular focus on methodology, problems and patterns emerging from the projects, and the extent to which they have had an impact on students’ professional development. Chapter 12,

Introduction

by Torill Hestetræet, is about teacher cognition and the teaching and learning of vocabulary in Norwegian 7th grade EFL classrooms. Through a nationwide survey, the author investigates 7th grade English teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to the teaching of vocabulary. Chapter 13, by Mette-Lise Mikalsen and Bjørn Sørheim, studies how teachers approach Adapted Education (AE) in their language classes. Two groups of teachers, one using the European Language Portfolio (ELP) and one not, are compared with respect to their perceptions of AE and how they put it into practice. Chapter 14, by Ingebjørg Mellegård and Karin Dahlberg Pettersen, focusses on the effect of curriculum change on English teachers. Through a series of group focus interviews, the study addresses how teachers have perceived and implemented the Knowledge Promotion Curriculum (KL06). The last two chapters, in Part IV, focus on assessment. Chapter 15, by Angela Hasselgreen, which has a clear focus on development, describes the procedures followed in the European Centre for Modern Languages’ AYLLIT project, involving the assessment of writing in the upper primary school. It presents the assessment framework developed, demonstrating how this can be used to facilitate the assessment of writing in the language classroom. Finally, Chapter 16, by Lynell Chvala, gives an account of a study of locally-produced (teacherwritten) oral exam tasks for English at the end of the 10th grade in Norwegian lower secondary schools. The author investigates the extent to which genre and situational features are defined in oral exam tasks and how these affect the general aims of the curriculum. References Drew, I. & Hasselgreen, A. (2008). Young language learner (YLL) research: an overview of some international and national approaches. Acta Didactica, 2/1. Moon, J. & Nikolov, M. (eds.) (2000). Research into teaching English to young learners. Pécs: University Press Pécs. Nikolov, M. (ed.) (2009). Early learning of modern foreign languages: processes and outcomes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Philp, J., Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2008). Second language acquisition and the younger learner. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rixon, S. (2000). Young learners of English: background and issues. Modern English Teacher, 9(4), 5–10.

the young language learner

Part I Classroom practices

Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway Heike Speitz

Introduction Foreign languages other than English have been taught only exceptionally at the primary level in Norway. Although this possibility was introduced in the Report to the Storting No. 30 (2003–2004),1 only a few schools (or teachers) have ventured to offer other languages than English in primary education. In 2005–2007, the first national project with an earlier start to foreign languages other than English (ESFL) was carried out in 12 schools in Norway. This chapter presents results and discussions from the evaluation of the 2005–2007 primary languages project. The evaluation was initiated by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, results were presented to the Ministry of Education, and reports are available in Norwegian online (Speitz et al., 2007). Considered successful in many respects, this first national project led to a second larger one, from autumn 2010 until spring 2012. A new curriculum for foreign languages for the 6th and 7th grades was developed especially for this pilot project, which includes 47 schools and about 100 pupil groups. Updated information can be found at the homepage of the Norwegian Centre for Foreign Languages in Education.2 A final report from this second project will be available at the end of 2012. In order to be able to analyse the results of the 2005–2007 projects in a wider perspective, a short overview will first be given of the situation of for-

Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway

eign languages in Norway and then a European perspective on the field of early language learning will be provided. Modern foreign languages in Norway In Norway, and indeed in Scandinavia generally, there is a significant difference between attitudes towards English compared to other modern foreign languages in educational contexts. This difference became obvious in the latest Norwegian school reform (LK06), when education authorities decided to develop one national curriculum for the subject of English and another one for all other foreign languages. English is no longer considered a foreign language, but has become almost a second language for pupils in Norwegian schools. Competence in English is taken for granted by today’s younger generation. Pupils’ and parents’ attitudes towards and associations with other foreign languages in Norway are very different from attitudes towards English. This is especially the case with German and French, as they have been associated with rather academic teaching and a high degree of difficulty because of strong grammar traditions and because of their status as optional subjects only (e.g. Speitz & Lindemann, 2002). Seen from the outside, this seems a paradox, because a more practical and communicative approach to foreign languages has been emphasised in recent school reforms, especially in L97 and LK06. Gjørven and Johansen (2007) illustrate the dilemma in foreign language teaching in Norway after LK06 by depicting two foreign language classrooms, both fulfilling the framework of LK06, but with very different approaches. Most recently, Spanish as a foreign language (FL) has entered and altered the picture of foreign languages in Norway, an extremely popular alternative so far, partly because it is largely associated with holidays, and partly because it is perceived as being free from the academic traditions discussed above. Apart from teaching traditions, another difference between English and other languages is the pupils’ starting age. An expert report from the Council of Europe, in co-operation with the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research,3 highlighted the fact that pupils start learning a second foreign language as late as in the 8th grade: The age factor It can also be argued, that to begin teaching and learning a language at age 14 is ill advised, especially when the first foreign language has been introduced very early at age 6. Students feel inhibitions, are frustrated by the limitations of beginner language, and do not apply themselves to developing a cumulative knowledge of language. They may also feel frustration at the difference between their competence in English and in

the young language learner

the Second Foreign Language at an age – approximately 14–16 – when they wish to talk about significant issues in their lives, and in their own and other societies. The Quality Commission in its report pointed this out and emphasised that the second foreign language is introduced already in the Primary Stage (‘barnetrinnet’) in other countries. It acknowledged however the difficulties with respect to the qualifications of teachers and the selection of languages to be offered mentioned earlier. (p. 20)

As a consequence, the Report to the Storting No. 30 (2003–2004) opened up discussions for the possibility of an earlier start with a second foreign language. Norway has a long tradition of participating in language policy in the Council of Europe (CoE). For English, this goes back to the 1970s (Threshold Level) and 1980s (e.g. VOLL4). More recently, Norway has participated in the CoE’s project on the Common European Framework for Languages (CEFR) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP). Norway has developed two European Language Portfolios for general education, one for learners of 6-12 years (validated in 2009), and one for learners of 13-18 years (validated in 2008). Both are downloadable.5 The ELP for young learners has been included in the curriculum for the ongoing pilot project for foreign languages in the 6th and 7th grades. A European perspective An earlier start with several languages has been one of the central topics in European language policies since the 1990s, in both the Council of Europe and the EU. One of the central documents is the CoE’s Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States in 1998, which recommends the following for early language learning (up to age 11): • •

• • •

Ensure that, from the very start of schooling, or as early as possible, every pupil is made aware of Europe’s linguistic and cultural diversity; For all children, encourage and promote the early learning of modern lan guages in ways appropriate to national and local situations and wherever circumstances permit; Ensure that pupils have systematic continuity of language learning from one educational cycle to another; Develop appropriate forms of evaluation and recognition of early language learning; Devise appropriate policies and methods, based on analysis and comparison of results achieved by modern language programmes for young learners.

Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway

An early start to foreign languages has also been one of the main priorities in the EU action plan on language learning and linguistic diversity (Commission of the European Communities, 2003: 7): It is the priority of the Member States to ensure that language learning in kindergarten and primary school is effective, for it is here that key attitudes towards other languages and cultures are formed, and the foundation for later language learning is laid â&#x20AC;Ś Early learners become aware of their own cultural values and influences and appreciate other cultures, becoming more open towards and interested in others.

Education authorities in several countries have established centres or networks for early start, with their own web pages. Examples are the National Advisory Centre on Early Language Learning/NACELL6 in Great Britain and the National Network for Early Language Learning/NNELL7 in the USA. In France, a website for early start called PrimLangues8 was established. These websites provide very useful information about, for example, early start, teaching and learning, and resources. A number of studies and research documents have been produced internationally, but most of these focus on the early introduction of a first foreign language (primary or pre-primary), and thus most often on English. The European Language Portfolio (ELP) is an initiative by the Council of Europe, which has supported the early introduction of several languages. Countries like Spain, France, England and Ireland have developed ELPs for young learners, some of them including the pre-school level. Along with the ELP and the CEFR, the term plurilingualism was introduced and has gained growing interest. The learning of a second foreign language is often referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tertiary language learningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (e.g. Hufeisen & Neuner, 2004). While first foreign language learning in school for most pupils only builds on their first language (or mother tongue), second foreign language learning builds on both the mother tongue and the first foreign language. Obviously, a growing number of bi- and plurilingual pupils (with e.g. a home language and a language of schooling) make this picture much more complex. In Hufeisen and Neuner (2004), central questions for discussion are: What are the roles of the mother tongue and mother tongue education for tertiary language learning? What is the role of the first foreign language, and how can first foreign language learning in school be organised in order to open new paths for more languages? One of the authors in this collection of articles, Krumm (2004: 43), suggests: When pupils learn more than one foreign language, the learning of the different languages should be interrelated. The teaching of the first foreign language should help prepare the pupil for the learning of other languages, for instance, by developing learn-

the young language learner

ing strategies for learning words and understanding texts, and, generally, by inculcating language awareness. Language teaching in the first language provides a window on other languages – it creates language awareness. The teaching of subsequent foreign languages should then systematically use what has already been learned. A second foreign language, for example, following English, should not be taught as if the classroom were full of absolute beginners.

A large European study (Edelenbos et al., 2006) was published about halfway into the Norwegian early start project. This gave us the opportunity to compare results from the Norwegian study with this much larger international study, which presents pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. Some aspects will be discussed in the last section of this article. The Norwegian Early Start to Foreign Languages project In the Norwegian Early Start to Foreign Languages (ESFL) project, schools were free to choose which languages they wanted to offer, at which age/grade they wanted to start, and whether they wanted to offer one language for the whole project period or introduce several languages to their pupils. There was no national curriculum available for schools, and very few textbooks. Most schools chose to teach without a textbook. For the evaluation of the project, the overarching research questions were: •

How is primary foreign language teaching organised at the project schools? • Which aims are defined and which methodological approaches chosen? • Do teachers have a special qualification for teaching young learners? Which teachers are chosen for the project? • How do those involved in the project describe their experiences with an earlier start? Methods/procedures of evaluation This research-based evaluation was carried out with the following evaluation methods: document studies, a questionnaire for head teachers and class teachers, classroom observations and interviews with pupils, teachers, and head teachers. In the first phase, an online survey provided information on how schools had decided to organise early second language learning (language choice(s), for example whole lessons or ‘showers’, integration of other school subjects/ CLIL), which teacher competence was available, and how many and which pupils were chosen to participate. This first phase provided important background Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway

information for the second phase, which consisted of classroom observations and interviews with teachers, pupils and head teachers. During this second phase, all 12 schools were visited twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of the project. In the following section, some of the most central results from the pilot project will be presented, with a special focus on the research questions presented above. Results Organisation: introduce several languages or start one language earlier?

The 12 schools which participated in the pilot project chose different ways of ‘starting early’ – they included pupils from the 2nd to the 7th grades. Although it could be claimed that 7th grade is not really an ‘early start’, it is nevertheless earlier than the system otherwise requires. During the first year, schools struggled with defining aims and plans for their second foreign language teaching, as well as forms of organisation. In the course of the second year, however, most schools seemed to have found their model, i.e. a model that fitted their size, pupil groups, teacher competence and school budget. Taking into consideration the extreme freedom schools were given in the project, it was surprising to observe that the schools’ organisation and aims of early FL instruction could be summed up in the following two models: Introduction model: Shorter or less comprehensive language education, usually in two or three languages taught in sequence, with the main aim of introducing pupils to those languages. One intention with this model is to provide pupils with a basis for their choice of language in the 8th grade. • Progression model: More or less comprehensive language education in only one language, over a longer period of time and often with defined competence aims. The main intention in this model is to improve pupils’ progression in one language by starting earlier, but also to make use of the advantages of introducing language learning earlier (see Johnstone, 2002; Speitz & Simonsen, 2006). Another aim is to bridge the age gap between pupils’ introduction to their first foreign language, English, and the subsequent foreign language. •

As a result of the 2005–2007 project, these two models were integrated in the pilot curriculum ‘foreign languages in 6th and 7th grades’ for the period 2010–2012.

the young language learner

Young learners’ experiences and teachers’ comments

Many pupils commented that they found second foreign language lessons very different from English lessons when it comes to activities, materials, and methods: It is fun. We do many different things which are not as usual otherwise. We talk more, and we don’t just repeat things. There is a big difference between English and French lessons: there are many more games in French; in English, we use the course book.

Teachers’ comments suggest a strong awareness that they were working with young pupils and therefore had to use a different approach. Another reason for the difference between English and a second FL could be the fact that almost all teachers taught without a textbook and instead used materials and activities from different sources, or even produced them on their own. Many of the pupils who learned German showed an impressive awareness of similarities between German, English and Norwegian, and many pointed out that German was an easy language to learn: ‘German looks a bit like Norwegian and French doesn’t look like anything else.’ This was an interesting finding, considering the traditional image of German in Norwegian education. As mentioned before, German has been regarded as the most difficult foreign language and therefore the best choice for academically strong pupils only. Based on the data from our evaluation, we assume that the difference we observed in the early start project is grounded in a practical approach and focus on listening and oral communication. Teachers also noticed that German became a popular choice for their pupils: Those who choose German say ‘I have to choose German, because I have problems with Norwegian, and I feel that German is easier for me’. And many of the weak pupils choose German.

Teachers of all three languages commented that the second FL had a positive effect on academically weaker pupils: I have the same pupils in Norwegian and mathematics. The two most demanding pupils in the group have been very positive [in 2nd foreign language lessons], and they think it is fun. […] Especially one of them has done very well, and I think that she has gained self-confidence. Maybe that is because we have mainly worked orally.

Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway

Several teachers said that they had had such positive experiences in the project that they had changed their opinion about which pupils could succeed in languages, and they made it clear that from now on they would recommend many more pupils to choose a second foreign language in lower-secondary school than before. Teachers were also surprised by their pupilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; speed of progression and the importance of the teacher as a linguistic model: I have discovered that younger pupils repeat easily [what I say], that they learn pronunciation easily, and that I am very important as a linguistic model.

When we asked pupils whether they thought that second foreign languages should be offered to all pupils before lower-secondary school, there was no doubt: Everybody can do this. Why should we say no to other pupils having the same fun as we do, and getting the same knowledge, if they can do it just as well?

The Norwegian early start project lasted for only two years. It is uncertain how many of the positive reactions from pupils are due to the fact that they participated in a special project, and that the subject was something new and out of the ordinary for them. It is interesting to note, however, that a Swedish study on learner attitudes, prior and subsequent to the introduction of a new foreign language into the curriculum, points in the same direction. Results of this study reveal that although pupilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; enthusiasm for their new FL declined after a year, it was nevertheless stronger than for English (Henry & Apelgren, 2008). Their study seemed to indicate that pupils attached greater value to second foreign language proficiency than to fluency in English, which is so commonly encountered in their everyday lives. These are very interesting motivational aspects which would be worth following up in other studies in Scandinavia. Teacher competence

An aspect which must not be underestimated is teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; competence for teaching foreign languages to young learners. In the Norwegian project, many teachers were surprised at both how fast their pupils were progressing in languages and how much competence they felt was necessary for the teacher, both in languages and in general didactics for the age group. Edelenbos et al. (2006) mention teacher competence as one of the main success criteria for teaching languages to young learners. They point out that interactive language use between teachers and pupils is crucial for this age group, and it will only be successful if teachers are sufficiently confident and fluent in the language.

the young language learner

In Norway, many teachers at the primary level are generalist teachers. In the early start project, schools often had to make a choice of teacher: either a generalist who most likely was not formally educated for teaching foreign languages or a subject teacher who typically was ‘headhunted’ from a lower secondary school. According to Edelenbos et al. (2006: 25), this is a general challenge for early language education: In contrast to their colleagues in secondary school, primary school teachers are generally not specialized in a foreign language and its education. Therefore they have very important training needs, whether these relate to enhancing their initial teacher training or the language skills they acquired when at school.

Several of the teachers in the Norwegian project participated in in-service training or language studies parallel to the project. It soon became clear, however, that there would be a very high demand for in-service training for language education at the primary level if early second language learning were to become more common in Norwegian schools. Discussion and classroom implications The evaluation of the Norwegian early start project showed overwhelmingly positive responses from almost all participants – teachers, pupils, parents and head teachers. Participants gained new and valuable insight into young learners’ capabilities, as expressed by this head teacher: I hope that one thing can come out of this study, and that is that there is much more space in the heads of children, for many more languages than people are aware of. And I hope that it can lead to a 2nd foreign language being introduced for all pupils from 5th grade, just as we have English for all pupils from 1st grade, given the proviso that for some pupils just one language may be enough.

Taking into consideration what was said earlier in the chapter about the low status of second foreign languages in Norway, it seems that an earlier start with other languages than English would open access to languages and new cultures to many more pupils than is currently the case. With a starting point in this evaluation, we can assume that a revival of the teaching of second foreign languages could in fact start at the primary level. Some of the most important success criteria that can be defined on the background of the evaluation of the Norwegian Early Start project are:

Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway

• • • • •

A strong focus on communicative activities and use of the target language Varied teaching materials Flexibility in teaching, in order to be able to respond to young learners’ spontaneity and interests Teachers’ competence, both linguistic and didactic, related to the age of the learners Leadership support at schools

Not surprisingly, most of these aspects are also discussed in the large European study carried out by Edelenbos et al. (2006). Teacher competence is mentioned as one of the most crucial aspects in early language learning. In the Norwegian context, this means that several languages would have to be introduced in general teacher education, and especially in teacher education for the 5th–10th grades, with both linguistic and didactic elements. When the Norwegian Early Start project came to an end, an important question naturally arose for the participating schools: How could they provide a good transition for their pupils to lower-secondary schools? If they allowed pupils who had followed the progression model to start in a language class with beginners, this would be potentially disastrous for pupils’ motivation. We do not know how schools solved this challenge as our evaluation stopped at the end of the project. This is a crucial question, however, which should be followed up. In a next step, curriculum questions would have to be discussed. Introducing more languages earlier will have consequences for the subsequent educational levels. It could also be an opportunity to take tertiary language learning seriously and to build curriculum and actual teaching on pupils’ previous linguistic and cultural competences. Future research could combine both qualitative and quantitative studies to provide a broader picture of the issues in question. Notes 1 Stortingsmeld. nr. 30 (2003–2004). 2 Norwegian Centre for Foreign Languages in Education: www.fremmedspraksenteret.no 3 Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet & Council of Europe (2003–2004). 4 Vocational Oriented Language Learning. 5 ELP: www.fremmedspraksenteret.no/elp 6 National Advisory Centre on Early Language Learning/NACELL: http://www.primarylanguages.org.uk 7 National Network for Early Language Learning/NNELL: http://nnell.org/ 8 PrimLangues: http://www.primlangues.education.fr/

the young language learner

References Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/ linguistic/cadre_en.asp, accessed 13.6.2011). Commission of the European Communities (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: an action plan 2004–2006. (http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/eu-language-policy/doc112_en.htm, accessed 13.6.2011). Council of Europe (1998). Recommendation No. R (98) 6. of the committee of ministers to member states concerning modern languages. (https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Command=com.instranet.CmdBlob Get&DocId=459520&SecMode=1&Admin=0&Usage=4&InstranetImage=42951, accessed 26.5.2011). Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. Languages for the children of Europe. Published research, good practice & main principles final report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 study. European Commission (http://ec.europa. eu/education/languages/pdf/doc425_en.pdf , accessed 25.5.2011). Gjørven, R. & Johansen, S. (2007). Fremmedspråk – til glede og nytte for alle elever. In Mikkelsen, R. & Fladmoe, H. (eds.). Lektor – adjunkt – lærer. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Henry, A. & Apelgren, B.M. (2008). Young learners and multilingualism: a study of learner attitudes before and after the introduction of a second foreign language to the curriculum. System 36: 607–623. Hufeisen, B. & Neuner, G. (2004). The plurilingualism project: tertiary language learning – German after English. Council of Europe. Johnstone, R. (2002). Adressing ‘the age factor’: some implications for languages policy. Council of Europe. Language Policy Division, Strasbourg http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/ johnstoneen.pdf Krumm, H.-J. (2004). Language policies and plurilingualism. In Hufeisen, B. & Neuner, G. (2004), 35–49. Language education policy profile – Norway (2003–2004). Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Ministry of Education and Research, Norway. Lindemann, B. & Speitz, H. (2002). “Jeg valgte tysk fordi hele familien min ville det, men jeg angrer”, Status for 2. fremmedspråk i norsk ungdomsskole, rapport 03/2002, Telemarksforsking-Notodden. Speitz, H. & Simonsen, T. (2006). Evaluering av prosjektet “Forsøk med tidlig start av 2. fremmedspråk”. First partial report. Report nr. 2/2006. TelemarksforskingNotodden (http://www.udir.no/upload/Rapporter/Tidlig_start_Delrapport_1. pdf, accessed 20.6.2011).

Experiences with an earlier start to modern foreign languages other than English in Norway

Speitz, H., Simonsen, T. & Streitlien, Å. (2007). Evaluering av prosjektet “Forsøk med tidlig start av 2. fremmedspråk”. Final report. Report nr. 3/2007. Telemarksforsking-Notodden (http://www.udir.no/upload/Rapporter/ Sluttrapport_Tidlig%20start_TFN.pdf, accessed 6.5.2011). Stortingsmeld. nr. 30 (2003–2004). Kultur for læring. Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet. Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet & Council of Europe (2003–2004). Language education policy profile – Norway. (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/ Profile_Norway_EN.pdf, accessed 6.3.2012).

the young language learner

Supporting and encouraging the implementation and use of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) in Norwegian classrooms Deborah L.S. Larssen Harald Høie

Introduction and aims The focus of this chapter is to discuss the extent to which teacher development courses can be used to support the implementation of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) in Norwegian classrooms. With the introduction of the LK06 curriculum in Norway in 2006, learner autonomy was highlighted as an important educational factor which could improve learning outcomes for young learners in all subjects and throughout the education system. As the introduction to the English curriculum in LK06 points out: When we are aware of the strategies we use to learn a foreign language…the acquisition of knowledge and skills will be easier and more meaningful. Being able to assess one’s own language use…and select strategies and ways of working are requirements for

attaining this.

Within the teaching of foreign languages, the ELP was developed to support teachers and their young learners as they work towards these learning competencies. The chapter presents an overview of the background, rationale and aims of the ELP and how it can be related to and support the English curriculum in LK06 in Norway. It then addresses the role of learner autonomy in the language

The European Language Portfolio (ELP)

classroom and the ways that it can be developed in young learners and their teachers. Finally, it presents findings from recent research carried out by one of the authors which has focussed on the implementation of the ELP among a group of teachers in the local area who participated in a teacher development course. Throughout the course the teachers were informed and encouraged to try out the ELP in their classrooms. The primary aim of the research was to discover from teacher questionnaires, at the beginning and at the end of the course, whether and to what extent teachers implemented, or intended to implement, the ELP in their own classrooms. The questionnaires also asked teachers to report on changes in both their English content knowledge and their teaching approaches as a result of their participation. Because LK06 includes learner autonomy as an important competency in language learning and encourages the use of the ELP to support this, an important issue is how these types of teacher-development courses can better support the implementation of these new materials and approaches. Background The European Language Portfolio

In 2006, LK06 was implemented in mainstream education in Norway for school children aged 6-19 (grades 1 to 13). Although not explicitly referred to in the English curriculum in LK06, much of the curriculum and many of the national tests for English are built upon the Common European Framework for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). The ‘can do’ statements which exemplify the competence aims to be reached at the end of grades 2, 4, 7, 10 and 13 are implicitly linked to the levels in the CEFR (Hasselgreen, 2005). Thus, for example, after two years of English children should be approaching the CEFR A1 level and after seven years should be in the CEFR range A2-B1. While the CEFR levels were not explicitly stated in the curriculum, the State Board have invested heavily in translating and disseminating materials, such as the ELP, to support both teaching and learning in the English classroom in line with LK06. Published in 2007, the Norwegian version of the ELP for young learners was launched by the National Resource Centre for Languages (Fremmedspråksenteret), in association with Telemark Forskning, initially for learners in grades 8 to 13, and subsequently for those in grades 1 to 7. The portfolio has two complementary functions: an educational function (helping pupils to reflect on their learning and objectives) and a reporting function (providing a record of their language skills in terms of the levels of the CEFR). Both versions of the ELP have similar formats and are divided into three sections: a language passport, which provides an overview of the individual’s

the young language learner

proficiency in foreign languages; a language biography, which facilitates the learner’s involvement in planning, reflecting upon and assessing his/her learning processes and progress; and a dossier, where a learner places work illustrating his/her language achievements. The language biography includes sections specifically designed to encourage discussion and reflection around learning strategies which reflect the competence aims for language learning in LK06. There are also lists of ‘can do’ sentences which clearly reflect the competence aims for the main area of ‘Communication’ in the curriculum. Unlike LK06, which functions as a working document for teachers and therefore uses formal language and style to describe the competence aims, the ELP is a document which is produced for learners and their teachers to use together, thus being age appropriate in its design and language use. The ‘can do’ sentences in the ELP are in essence LK06 competence aims which have been broken down and simplified, making them more accessible as lesson aims for both teachers and their learners. Thus, for example, in the LK06 competence aims after the 2nd grade, children are expected to ‘use the most basic English phonology and language rhythms through practical-aesthetic forms of expression’, while in the ELP, children can assess whether they can ‘understand and sing a song they have practised’. Moreover, this simplification also facilitates better classroom assessment practices, as the focus of such assessment is both on the product of such lessons and on the processes involved in reaching the learning objective, and thereby on the learning strategies and knowledge that support learner autonomy. Learner autonomy in the language classroom

Since the publication of Holec’s book Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning (Holec, 1981), learner autonomy has been widely discussed in relation both to the practices and principles of language learning. As Little (2003: 1) notes, while the term ‘learner autonomy’ has been difficult to define precisely, there is now broad agreement that: Autonomous learners understand the purpose of their learning programme, accept responsibility for their learning, share to some extent the setting of learning goals, take initiatives in planning and executing learning activities, regularly review their learning, and evaluate its effectiveness.

Such a definition captures the essence and the challenges of learner autonomy and takes a holistic view of the learner, requiring teachers to engage with them in the cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective and social dimensions of language learning.

The European Language Portfolio (ELP)

The Young Language Learner

Angela Hasselgreen | Ion Drew | Bjørn Sørheim (eds.)

Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning

ISBNł978-82-450-1197-5

,!7II2E5-abbjhf!

Angela Hasselgreen Ion Drew Bjørn Sørheim (eds.)

The Young Language Learner Research-based Insights into Teaching and Learning