DEVELOPING ‘ACADEMIC LANGUAGE’ FROM PRIMARY TO SECONDARY EDUCATION

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY BENCHMARKS IN IRISH PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Bronagh Ćatibušić

Trinity College, Dublin; St. Patrick’s College, Dublin

ww

ww

.coe.i

nt

Seminar organised by theLanguage Policy Unit - DG II Council of Europe, Strasbourg, Francewww.coe.int/lang

OVERVIEW• Support for children from migrant backgrounds at

primary school in Ireland• The English Language Proficiency Benchmarks –

describing L2 proficiency development• Relation of these ‘Benchmarks’ to actual English L2

acquisition – based on empirical evidence• How benchmarks/descriptors can support children’s

acquisition of the language of schooling

IRELAND: RECENT MIGRATION PATTERNS

• Late 1990s to present – significant immigration • 10% of primary school children from immigrant

backgrounds (DES & OMI 2010)• Majority of these children speak a home language

other than English or Irish (ESL pupils)• ESL pupils from wide range of linguistic

backgrounds• ESL pupils are enrolled in primary schools across

Ireland, but diversity greatest in urban areas

EDUCATIONAL PROVISION FOR ESL PUPILS

• English language support programme – introduced in late 1990s to provide L2 instruction for ESL pupils

• Duration: first 2 years of schooling in Ireland (from initial enrolment)

• Generally regular (daily) withdrawal lessons• ESL pupils spend c.80% of time in mainstream classroom

while receiving support (requires teacher liaison) • Guidelines for English language support: English

Language Proficiency Benchmarks for non-English-speaking pupils at primary level (IILT 2003)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY BENCHMARKS• Designed by Integrate Ireland Language and Training in

collaboration with primary school teachers• Describe English L2 proficiency development from the

earliest stages to a level at which the child can participate fully in mainstream education

• Curriculum-linked: function as an L2 ‘curriculum-within-the-curriculum’ (Little 2010: 19), can be flexibly applied across primary education (age: 4-12 years)

• Focus on language of schooling but basis for resources promoting plurilingual and intercultural education

FEATURES OF THE BENCHMARKS

• Derived from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001)

• Cover lower 3 levels of CEFR – A1, A2 and B1– English language support limited to 2 years– Appropriate to age and stage of cognitive development in primary school– By attaining B1 proficiency, children should be able to engage fully in

mainstream education; L2 learning continues more autonomously(NB. for younger ESL pupils, L2 literacy targets may be lower than B1)

• Reflect main themes of Irish primary school curriculum• Include CALP-related descriptors from earliest stages of

proficiency development – ESL pupils are learning through L2 from the very start

STRUCTURE OF THE BENCHMARKSPART I: Global Benchmarks of Communicative Proficiency:

• Listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, writing

Global Scales of Underlying Linguistic Competence:• Vocabulary control, grammatical accuracy, phonological control,

orthographic control

PART 2: 13 ‘Units of Work’:

• Describe L2 proficiency development re. curriculum themes in a flexible way to account for age / cognitive development

EXAMPLE: GLOBAL BENCHMARKS (RECEPTIVE SKILLS)

LISTENING - A1 Can understand simple questions and instructions when teachers

and other pupils speak very slowly

and clearly.

LISTENING - A2Can understand

a routine instruction

given outside school (e.g. by

a traffic warden).

LISTENING - B1Can understand

detailed instructions in all school contexts

(classroom, gym, playground etc.).

EXAMPLE: GLOBAL SCALES OF LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

VOCABULARY – A1Can recognize,

understand and use a limited range of basic vocabulary...

VOCABULARY – A2Can recognize,

understand and use a range of vocabulary

associated with concrete everyday needs or learning

experiences...

VOCABULARY – B1Can recognize,

understand and use a range of

vocabulary related to familiar classroom

themes, school routines and activities...

EXAMPLE: UNIT OF WORK (‘OUR SCHOOL’)

SPOKEN INTERACTION – A1Can ask for familiar classroom objects and materials (book,

crayons, paper, etc.).

SUPPORTING L2 LEARNING – BENCHMARKS & ELP

Benchmarks – teachers• Aim: to support an ‘action-oriented’ approach to L2 learning

through the functional description of achievable, curriculum-linked learning outcomes (classroom activities / assessment criteria)

European Language Portfolio: ‘Primary ELP’ – pupils• Aim: to ensure active involvement in own learning, self-

assessment, goal setting– My passport: summary of own L2 learning at specific points in time– My biography: ongoing record of own learning in relation to each of

the 13 ‘Units of Work’– My dossier: evidence of own learning

EXAMPLE: CHECKLISTFROM PRIMARY ELP BIOGRAPHY‘OUR SCHOOL’(IILT 2004)

Our school A1 I can understand some of the things that the teacher says in class and the names for things in the school

I can understand when my f riends tell me how to play a game

I can read the names and notices on the doors in my school and on the board

I can ask permission to go to the toilet

I can ask for things in the classroom

A2 I understand what the teacher says in P.E.

I can understand things that I must tell my parents

I can read words that I know in a book

I can give a message to the teacher or tell a teacher about a problem

I can tell the story of what I saw on television

I can write a little about my school and my f riends

I can write a little about what we are doing in class

B1 I can understand exactly what the teacher says to me

I can understand the other pupils in my class

I can read my textbooks in the class

I can ask the teacher questions in class

I can tell my class about things we are learning

I can write about my day at home or in school

I can write about my f riends and what we do together

BENCHMARKS’ RELATION TO L2 ACQUISITION?

• Feedback from teachers suggested Benchmarks were appropriate

• Research was required to examine this issue empirically

• Do the Benchmarks reflect the trajectory of ESL pupils’ L2 acquisition, and if so how / how well?– Focus of research was on pupils’ oral L2 use as best

evidence of their L2 acquisition (L2 learning inseparable from L2 use – CEFR’s approach to language learning)

– Evidence of L2 literacy development also considered

STUDY: ESL ACQUISITION IN IRISH PRIMARY SCHOOLS

• Longitudinal study conducted in school year 2007-08• 3 schools• 18 ESL pupils• 10 different national / linguistic backgrounds

– Pupils from: Poland, Romania, Pakistan, Serbia, China, Croatia, India, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal

• Age range: 4 – 10 years• 12 male, 6 female• 1st and 2nd year of English language support• Context: English language support lessons

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS• 154 English language support lessons producing:

– 80+ hours audio-recording of pupils’ oral L2 use (transcribed)– Sample of pupils’ written L2 production

• Function-form analysis of oral data (mixed methods):– Benchmark links to pupils’ spoken turns (functional analysis)– Linguistic features of pupils’ spoken turns (formal analysis)– Impact of interaction on pupils’ L2 use (conversation analysis)– 7455 oral turns-at-talk were analysed

• Analysis of literacy-related data (qualitative)• Consideration of influences on pupils’ L2 acquisition:

– Internal (age, home language, learning style)– External (classroom interaction patterns)

FROM INDIVIDUAL TO OVERALL RESULTS• For each pupil, a ‘profile’ was created which:

– Compared evidence of L2 oral proficiency development (derived from Benchmark links) to evidence of L2 acquisition (derived from 14 linguistic indicators – 10 grammatical, 4 lexical)

– Compared evidence of L2 literacy development to Benchmark descriptors for reading and writing

– Considered possible influences on L2 acquisition• Cumulative analysis of the 18 pupil profiles to

determine the relation, if any, of the Benchmarks to actual L2 acquisition among ESL pupils

RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS (1)

• Progression in ESL pupils’ L2 oral proficiency followed the sequence outlined by the Benchmark levels: A1 → A2 → B1

• This progression from proficiency associated with Level A1 to proficiency more associated with Level B1 occurred over 2 years of English language support – learning outcomes described by the Benchmarks reflect actual L2 oral development over a 2-year period

OVERALL BENCHMARK PROFICIENCY LINKS FOR PUPILS ACROSS THEIR ENGLISH LANGUAGE SUPPORT ALLOCATION

RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS (2)

• Most instances of pupils’ recorded L2 use could be linked to descriptors for the skills of spoken interaction and spoken production included in the Benchmarks (both ‘Global Benchmarks of Communicative Proficiency’ and ‘Units of Work’) – descriptors accurate

• Links to many of the Benchmark descriptors for listening could also be inferred from pupil’s L2 use in interaction

RESULTS OF FORMAL ANALYSIS

• Evidence of L2 grammatical and lexical development among ESL pupils corresponded closely to the progression of L2 acquisition suggested by the descriptors in the Benchmarks’ ‘Global Scale of Underlying Linguistic Competence’

• This research also illustrated specific features of L2 linguistic competence at A1, A2, B1 (e.g. typical structures, vocabulary range, error-types etc.)

RESULTS: GRAMMAR & LEXIS

B1

Increasing lexical range

Broadening and deepening of

semantic rangeDiversification of verb

lexemes producedWidening range of lexico-grammatical

features, with lexical development

apparent within these emerging categories

A1

B1

Increasing use of nouns, verbs, personal

pronouns, articles, prepositions,

auxiliaries.Increasing accuracy in

the use of these indicators (subject to

fluctuation as production rate

increases)Structural complexity

developing, from noun-based

production in the early stages of L2

development to more complex structures

Development in range and accuracy of

syntactical indicators: negative and question

formation, clause linkage

A1

Grammar

Lexis

EXAMPLE: PUPILS’ ORAL L2 VERB USEA1• This is eating. (re. picture of child eating)

Child from Latvia, 4 years old, c. 4 months support

A2 • Eh the- the three little pigs em eh and the wolf eh and .. I don’t know

how what that called, this yellow. (re. ‘straw house’ in story) Child from Serbia, 6 years old, c. 8 months support

• And in television I see one ship have- have all day he broke the ship and- and he- he- he- (re. film ‘Titanic’)

Child from China, 6 years old, c. 9 months support

B1• Because if somebody drinks lots of em whiskey and beer and- and- em

then- then they em the eyes start to close and em they start going in the road and then they fell down and eh and that’s why the- the police is there. (re. classroom talk about situations requiring an ambulance)

Child from Pakistan, 8 years old, c. 15 months support

L2 LITERACY DEVELOPMENT (1)

• Benchmark descriptors for reading and writing reflected the development of pupils’ L2 literacy skills

• Younger ESL pupils (under 7 years) began to acquire L2 literacy skills in English in a manner similar to native-English-speaking peers, BUT difficulties apparent e.g. regarding unfamiliar vocabulary

• The rate of L2 literacy development was generally faster among older ESL pupils (7-10 years), BUT curriculum literacy requirements much higher for these children

L2 LITERACY DEVELOPMENT (2)

• Pupils with some L1 literacy skills progressed faster in L2 literacy than those who did not (cf. Cummins 2000) – encouragement of L1 literacy development is important

• General literacy-related issues (non-language-specific reading difficulties) and the nature of any previous educational experience may also impact upon ESL pupils’ L2 literacy development

EXAMPLE: L2 LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Child from Poland, 4 years old, c. 5 months support

Child from Pakistan, 10 years old, 20 months support

Child from Portugal, 8 years old, 15 months support

EXAMPLE: THE CHALLENGE OF L2 LITERACYChild completing task (labelling pictures re. actions) with teacher’s assistance, comments on challenge of L2 writing:

I can write just only ‘s’ in Lithuania eh letter, we- we have lots of them …. the girl- (child writes 2nd sentence)

It’s very hard to me to write .. all the words ... (final comment at end of task)

Child from Lithuania, 8 years old, c. 4 months support, previous schooling in Lithuania

INTERNAL INFLUENCES ON L2 ACQUISITION • Age: older learners (7-10 years) appeared to acquire L2

English at a slightly faster rate than younger learners (under 7 years) – BUT higher curriculum demands on older learners

• Home language: evidence of cross-linguistic influence particularly re. phonology and grammar – useful to be aware of L1/L2 similarities and differences

• Personality and learning style: these factors may affect e.g. interactional preferences – consider learning environments/activities appropriate to individual child

INTERACTIONAL INFLUENCES ON L2 ACQUISITION• More ‘active’ types of discourse (e.g. ‘telling’,

‘elaboration’) corresponded with evidence of L2 use associated with pupils’ maximum L2 proficiency

• Encouraging collaborative pupil-pupil talk involving such ‘active’ discourse may create opportunities for further L2 learning (cf. Vygotsky 1978, 1986, Swain 2000) – children should not be restricted to responsive roles

DO BENCHMARKS WORK?The Irish case shows:• Benchmarks derived from the CEFR and rooted in the

themes and requirements of school curricula can provide flexible and accurate guidelines to support migrant children acquiring the language of schooling

• Benchmarks should be applied in an individually sensitive way

• CEFR-based benchmarks and tools (e.g. ELP) can support pedagogical practices which promote active and autonomous learning for effective L2 acquisition

ROLE OF BENCHMARKS IN PLURILINGUAL EDUCATION?

• Useful for L2 learning, but also can promote plurilingualism:– Through associated tools e.g. in Ireland Primary ELP, Together

Towards Inclusion (IILT & SELB 2007)– Through the creation of descriptors for home language

development• Using benchmarks which have a positive focus on the

individual child’s language learning experience within an intercultural educational environment may allow better recognition of learners’ plurilingual repertoires

Thank you

Merci

Hvala

Go raibh maith agaibh

REFERENCES• Cummins, J., 2000: Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters• Council of Europe 2001: The Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.

Cambridge University Press. Available at:http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp

• Department of Education and Skills / Office of the Minister for Integration 2010: Intercultural Education Strategy 2010-2015 (Executive summary). Dublin: DES/OMI. Available at: http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/mig_intercultural_education_strategy.pdf

• Integrate Ireland Language and Training 2003: English Language Proficiency Benchmarks for non-English-speaking pupils at primary level. Available at: www.ncca.ie/iilt

• Integrate Ireland Language and Training 2004: European Language Portfolio, Primary: Learning the language of the host community. Available at: http://www.ncca.ie/iilt

• Integrate Ireland Language and Training and Southern Education and Library Board 2007: Together Towards Inclusion: Toolkit for diversity in the primary school: Dublin/Armagh: IILT/SELB. Available at: http://www.ncca.ie/iilt

• Little, D. 2010: The linguistic and educational integration of children and adolescents from migrant backgrounds. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Language Policy Division. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/ListDocs_Geneva2010.asp

• Swain, M., 2000: The output hypothesis and beyond. Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97-114

• Vygotsky, L., 1978: Mind in Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press• Vygotsky, L., 1986: Thought and Language (2nd Ed). Cambridge MA: MIT Press