ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42

8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elt-j-2014-enever-231-42 1/12

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Primary English teacher educationin Europe

Janet Enever

While substantial attention has been given to the introduction of English from the very start of schooling in many European countries today, thereremains an insufficient supply of motivated, well-prepared teachers available

and willing to meet this demand. This article reviews current mechanismsin Europe aimed at supporting the provision of quality language teacherpreparation courses and considers their weaknesses with regard to the needsof primary teachers. This analysis is discussed in relation to evidence ofteacher education provision in seven European countries and classroom datadrawn from the Early Language Learning in Europe (ELLiE) project. Theanalysis highlights current weaknesses in provision and concludes by arguingthat urgent attention should be given to more relevant guidance in the areaof primary teacher education at European level, together with a substantialincrease in the provision of continuing professional development in this field

across Europe.

As every parent of a six-year-old child knows, teachers of young childrenplay a crucial role in those early formative years of schooling. As thechild instructs their parent: ‘Mr Jones says I must wash my handsbefore lunch’ or ‘Miss Smith says I must work hard if I want to be anastronaut when I’m older’, it is evident how attitudes are shaped andchildren become accustomed to trusting the expertise of someoneoutside the immediate family grouping in matters of education. Inthe early years of pre-primary and primary schooling, the role of theteacher in the young child’s socialization and the development of theirattitudes to learning is crucial to the child’s ability in making progressacross all areas of the school curriculum. Indeed, Hattie (2003) arguesthat ‘… excellence in teaching is the single most powerful influence onachievement’ (ibid.: 4), suggesting that ‘It is what teachers know, do,and care about which is very powerful in the learning equation’ (ibid.:2). Thus, he proposes that teacher quality should be the focus of ourattention throughout the education system.

This article focuses on the particular significance of the languageteacher working in European contexts where children increasingly

learn English as a second or foreign language (FL) from the very start ofcompulsory schooling, if not before. Here, I discuss evidence collected

Introduction

ELT Journal Volume 68/3 July 2014; doi:10.1093/elt/cct079 231

a t U

ni v e r s i t y of H u d d e r s f i e l d onM a r c h 9

,2 0 1 6

h t t p : / / e l t j . oxf or d j o ur n a l s . or g /

D o wnl o a d e d f r om

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


during a study of early FL learning (Enever 2011), reviewing weaknessesin the system that remain despite a period of almost 25 years sincelarge-scale reforms first began in Europe (Edelenbos, Johnstone, andKubanek 2006). While my focus is on European countries, I anticipatethat many of the issues raised will be familiar to educators in otherparts of the world.

The education policies of each European Union (EU) memberstate are formulated at national level, enabling countries todevelop curricula that respond to local and national conditionsand cultural tradit ions. Increasingly, however, since theformulation of the Lisbon Agreement in 2000, there hasbeen a tendency for greater policy convergence as a Europeaneducation space has begun to emerge. Through a process knownas the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), representatives ofmember states collaborate in the preparation of advice, including:recommendations, reports, agreements, statistical publications,

and indicators, so education policy has risen in importance. Inthis process, multilingualism has become a perceived priorityfor increasing European competitiveness and ensuring sharedcultural understandings. (For a detailed discussion of the range ofdocuments relating to the priority of multilingualism in primaryeducation, see Enever (2012).) Here, I give a brief outline of thosethat address the topic of educating primary FL teachers at bothpre- and in-service levels.

This document proposes a framework of reference for language

education policymakers and teacher educators in Europe, supportingthem in establishing quality in language teacher education (Kelly andGrenfell 2004). Essentially, it provides a content checklist for currentprogrammes and a guideline for those yet to be developed.

The Profile adopts a generic approach with little reference to thespecific skills and expertise required by primary specialists and noattempt to address the model of a generalist primary teacher with aspecialism in teaching the FL (a model now quite widespread acrossEurope). The document appears to have some bias towards secondaryand tertiary FL learning, as exemplified by the section on Strategies

and Skills, which includes the following: ‘Trainee teachers are taughtto be responsive to the different reasons people have for learningforeign languages’ (ibid.: 26). This is followed by a reference tolearners with special educational needs and to people learning FLsfor vocational or professional purposes. Subsequently, there is alsobrief reference to the social and cultural needs of each age group (op.cit.: 26). There is no specific guidance on the quite different skillsand strategies training that is a priority for the teaching of FLs tochildren in the 3–10 years age group. Overall, it can be argued thatthe provision of such generic guidance promotes a model of the

specialist language teacher, assumed to have the versatility to teachat primary, secondary, and tertiary levels with an equal degree ofcompetence.

European context

European Profile

for languageteacher education

232 Janet Enever

a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


This document offers student teachers a framework for recording andevaluating their progress towards becoming effective FL teachers (Newby, Allan, Fenner, Jones, Komorowska, and Soghikyan 2007). It replicatesthe format of the European Language Portfolio, with a central self-assessment section covering seven main areas for reflection and self-assessment. Student teachers are invited to reflect on and record evidenceof personal progress throughout their teacher education courses.

All topics for self-assessment are generic, providing no alternativeoptions for students focusing on the primary, secondary, or tertiaryphases of language education. It seems possible that this approachmay have been taken in an attempt to establish some commonalitiesacross European teacher education provision; however, in omittingthe specifically primary-focused teacherly skills that are needed, thereappears to be an implication that these are either non-existent orconstitute only a minor variation on the generic. A further limitationof the document is its design for use with specialist FL teachers.Inevitably, this means that it is unlikely to be adopted by institutions

preparing generalist primary teachers to teach English as one of a rangeof curriculum areas.

In the Discussion section of this article, I will consider the impact ofthese two publications with reference to evidence presented in theresearch study ELLiE (Early Language Learning in Europe) (Eneverop.cit.), following brief details of the ELLiE research framework and asummary of data relating to pre- and in-service course provision.

The ELLiE research team undertook a transnational longitudinal study

of primary FL learning in state schools across seven European countrycontexts (Croatia, England, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden).Those languages studied were selected according to the most widely taughtFL nationally. For six countries, this was English, whilst in England, Frenchand Spanish were selected. A mixed method approach was adopted intracking the language learning experiences of over 1,400 children, theirteachers, school principals, and parents. A total of 12 different researchinstruments were developed and administered systematically across thefour years of the study. The transnational and longitudinal perspectivesfacilitated an analysis of both closely observed qualitative data and largerscale quantitative data, resulting in interpretations of the many factorscontributing to these children’s early FL experiences.

For the purposes of this article, I will draw on data from teacher andschool principal interviews, lesson observations, school records, andpolicy document analysis. All data presented here were collected andanalysed collaboratively by the ELLiE team.1

Evidence from Eurydice Reports on teaching languages in Europeanschools (EACEA/Eurydice 2012: 140) has revealed a diverse mix ofteacher models currently teaching FLs at primary level. These include

generalist primary teacher, specialist FL teacher, and semi-specialistFL teacher. A further category identified by the ELLiE study includedunqualified teachers (generally either native speakers of the FL or

European Portfoliofor StudentTeachers ofLanguages

ELLiE research

framework

Primary languageteacher educationin Europe

Primary English teacher education in Europe 233

a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


holding a degree in the FL). Eurydice (ibid.: 85) also reports thatwhile most education policies in Europe recommend a generalistmodel for primary FL teaching, there continues to be substantialdiversity in actual provision, both within and across countries.

All four teacher models were identified in the schools participating inthe ELLiE study (n = 44), as indicated in Figure 1. It should be noted,

however, that this sample does not always reflect the national pattern.

The seven ELLiE country contexts all reported a preference for ageneralist teacher model, with age-appropriate language teaching skillsand a good level of FL fluency. However, this was not always achievableand schools frequently appointed a specialist FL teacher in an effort toprovide a good language model, since their current staff may not yethave reached a level much beyond A2 competency, as defined by CEFRdescriptors (Council of Europe 2001).

Requirements for FL outcomes in pre-service courses varied across the

seven country contexts. Croatia, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, and Spaineither provided a FL skills course as a part of the qualification routeor specified a required competency level. Sweden and England do notspecify a minimum FL competency level. Italy requires a minimumachievement level of B2 (recently raised from B1). Poland also requires aB2 level, whilst Croatia and Spain set an internal exam at approximatelyB2 level as a component of the university qualification route. TheNetherlands expected that all undergraduate students accepted forteacher education courses would be of at least B2 level (Enever 2011:26). Despite these stated language competency levels, classroom

observations throughout the ELLiE study indicated that not all teachershad the necessary FL skills for the types of classroom interaction neededwith this primary age group. Teacher and school principal interviewdata confirmed teachers’ awareness of the challenges they experienced

FIGURE 1ELLiE studyteacher models

Pre-service course

provision

Teacherqualifications in

the ELLiE study

234 Janet Enever

a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


in coping with the spontaneous interactions that form an importantpart of facilitating young children’s confidence-building during thefirst few years of FL learning. Additionally, where specialist teacherswere employed, it was sometimes evident that they lacked the skills andexpertise relevant to this age group, whereas generalist primary teacherswere more likely to have these transferable skills as a result of theirteaching experiences across the broad primary curriculum.

The autonomous position of many higher education institutions inEurope with regard to defining their course provision tends to result insome lack of consistency across national providers in terms of courseavailability and content. None the less, today a great deal of convergenceis evident in the European higher education space as a consequence ofthe Bologna Declaration (1999). Figure 2 reflects the current positionin the ELLiE countries, indicating that all countries excepting Croatia (anew EU member in 2013) have established either a three- or four-yearroute in primary teacher education.

Five of the seven countries include a FL course and FL methodologycourse in their primary FL teacher qualification requirements. Swedenonly recently introduced this (2011), whilst it is not currently compulsoryin the Netherlands. In England, recent policy decisions on primary FLprovision are expected to become compulsory in September 2014, with apotential impact on initial primary teacher education requirements.

FIGURE 2

Initial primary FL

teacher educationrequirements in ELLiEcountry contexts


a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


The picture for in-service course provision is substantially more variedacross the ELLiE country sample. Inconsistency and under-provisionwere evident in many instances. Difficulties were experienced inattending courses where available, either because these were scheduled

for after-school hours or because funded provision of replacementteachers was not available. Figure 3 lists the various modes ofin-service course provision reportedly available locally. This erratic

In-servicecourseprovision

FIGURE 3

In-service primaryFL teacher educationprovision in sevenELLiE countries

236 Janet Enever

a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


picture is frequently subject to change, depending on perceivedpriorities, finance, and political will.

As illustrated, in England, Spain, and Sweden, annual attendance atin-service courses is entirely voluntary. In Croatia, Italy, Netherlands,and Poland, completion of a language course is a prerequisite forteaching a FL at primary level, whilst a primary FL qualification isadditionally required in Poland and Italy. Only in Croatia is annualattendance at in-service workshops/courses compulsory. Teachersin all countries excepting Croatia reported too few opportunities toattend courses, both for requalification and updating of expertise.

Given the varied quality of pre- and in-service provision for primaryFL teachers currently available in the ELLiE countries, it is inevitablethat classroom practices may not always meet learner needs. Thefollowing section provides an overview of English teachers based intwo different ELLiE countries—Sweden and Italy—as examples ofwhat might be considered fairly satisfactory provision, noting the

limitations outlined above.

The two selected countries have distinctively different histories inthe provision of early primary English and thus might be expectedto have very different teacher profiles. Italy was an early innovator ofprimary English in the 1980s. In contrast, Sweden has only recently(2011) introduced a compulsory strand for English language and age-appropriate methodology skills in all pre-service primary courses.

In the following section, I will introduce two teachers from each

country, drawing on data from teacher interviews and lessonobservation notes and commenting on the general skills of each teacher(see Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7).

Teacher profiles

Teacher professional background Lesson observations

code-switching within the sentence.

FIGURE 4

Classroom evidence:Sweden, School 62

Contexts,

teachers, andclassroomevidence2


a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


Sweden: School context 62Well-equipped new school on town outskirts. English from Grade1 introduced in 2002. Lesson frequency: approximately 20 mins./fortnight in Grade 1, rising to 50–60 mins./fortnight in Grade 2.English lessons frequently replaced by other priorities. Class (n = 29)divided in two for English lessons.

Sweden: School context 64Based in industrial outskirts of town. Built in 1970s, comprisingpre-primary plus primary Grades 1–3. A small school with oneclass entry. English taught from Grade 1. Lesson frequency: 25mins./week in Grade 1; increasing to 30 mins./week. Class (n = 24)divided in two for English lessons. New class teacher introduced inGrade 2.


Grade 1 teacher: qualiied generalist primary

teacher, also qualiied as speech therapist.

Completed English course, but no qualiication

in primary English methodology. Has taught

English for 15 years. Age: between 51–60 years.

Grade 2 teacher: qualiied generalist primary

teacher with no formal training as primary

English teacher. High-level luency in English.

Has taught English for ive years.

Both teachers had similar approaches, rarely

using coursebooks and teaching mainly

through use of games, songs, pictures, and

picture storybooks. Both would like more

speciic training, in particular how to keep

learners engaged and how to differentiate

effectively.

Learners plan and monitor their individual

development goals. In Grades 1 and 2, English

used for 25–50% of lesson time, with many

words/phrases immediately translated by

teacher. Picture storybooks often used

followed by related role play, games and

drama activities. Lesson often begins with group

sitting together on the sofa and stools.

Intimate setting used to respond to individual

needs and to set the ‘mood’. Learner

production mainly comprises teacher–student

questions or short dialogues/role play.

Frequent translation relects teacher language

anxiety and often results in children ‘waiting

for the translation’ in Grades 1 and 2.

Substantial methodology changes occur in

Grades 3–4 when teacher begins to use

interactive whiteboard together with a range

of other resources.

FIGURE 5

Classroom evidence:Sweden, School 64

Italy: School context 21High-ranked primary school in small town. Large school (24 primaryclasses), with approximately 30 per cent immigrant children. Englishintroduced in 1985. Start age lowered to Grade 1 in 2002. Lesson

frequency: 2 x 30 mins./week in Grade 1 rising to 2 x 55 mins./week inGrade 2. Class (n = 18 in Grade 1; n = 22 in Grade 2) taught as whole-class group.

238 Janet Enever

a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42



FIGURE 6

Classroom evidence:Italy, School 21


Teacher completed certiicate in primary

teaching in 1975 (no university degree

requirement then). Also completed national in-

service course (1998) for teaching primary

English. Has taught English for nine years. Now

teaches as semi-specialist teacher. Lacks

conidence in her use of English. Age: between

41–50 years. She enjoys teaching 8-year-olds.

Considers both oracy and literacy important.

Believes that there is insuficient support from

Ministry for FL teachers.

In Grades 1 and 2 lessons are strongly teacher-

directed. Seating arrangements in pairs, in

rows facing the front. L2 use mainly for

instructions and questions, limited L2 use in

activities. Substantial use of L1, particularly for

explanations. Coursebook regularly used, with

additional visual aids/realia. Lessons strongly

focused on elicited oral production using

questions. Some use of story CDs and writing

short sentences. Some use of choral repetition.

Teacher’s insecurity with English results in

routinized lessons with little spontaneity.

FIGURE 7

Classroom evidence:Italy, School 28

Italy: School context 28Infant/primary school (ages 3–10 years old) in low-incomeneighbourhood of town. Approximately 25 per cent intake of immigrant

children. English introduced from Grade 1 in 1996. Lesson frequency:2 x 30 mins./week in Grade 1 rising to 2 x 60 mins./week in Grade 2.Class (n = 21 in Grade 1; n = 24 in Grade 2) taught as whole-class group.


a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


The European Profile and Portfolio aim to contribute to establishingquality FL teacher education across Europe. Through this mechanism,there is the potential for greater convergence at all phases of languageteacher education facilitating the full recognition of teacher qualificationsacross borders to extend teacher mobility. At present, however, thereis quite limited evidence of such labour mobility, with a number ofcountries requiring requalification for migrant teacher appointments.

It is difficult to assess the impact of both the Profile and Portfolio onplanning for teacher education programmes. Newby (2012: 3) reportsthat the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL)has been translated into 14 languages, which suggests that it may havebeen introduced in a number of individual institutions. Certainly,there is evidence of the use of portfolios in language teacher education.Wright (2010: 279), in his review of second language teacher education,associates this with a shift away from a behaviourist approach towardsa reflective, constructionist approach. None the less, Williams, Strubell,and Williams (2013: 32) conclude ‘that at the primary level there

remains a centralised control of education in most states’. Given therelative autonomy of higher education institutions in many Europeancountries, it seems unlikely that national ministries of education wouldpropose inclusion of the current EPOSTL model in a primary educationprogramme, with its narrow focus on just one curriculum area.

The ELLiE classroom data samples reflect a number of weaknesses inthe FL education system which continue to need attention. Evidenceindicated teachers’ difficulty in moving away from the traditionalteacher-fronted position towards a more facilitative role during some

phases of the lesson. In three out of the four cases, there was evidence ofteacher anxiety in relation to language competency, a concern that maywell also relate to fear of losing control of the class. Whilst the use of L1has an important role in the first stages of young children’s introductionto learning a FL, these teachers tended to overuse it and sometimesfailed to strategically plan purposeful use. Their lack of expertise instructuring interaction tasks, in ways that could maximize FL productionin both controlled and free practice events, was particularly evident. Inthe case of the Swedish sample, lesson frequency and duration weresurprisingly low. However, since these lessons were conducted withhalf-class groups of 12–15 children, it is possible that the intensity ofprovision during each lesson was similar to that of the Italian sample.The more substantial exposure to the FL outside the classroom inSweden may partially compensate for the infrequency of the fortnightlylesson. Overall, there did not appear to be much difference in the areasof weakness indicated in the data that could be related to teachers’various qualification backgrounds. Data related to the one specialist FLteacher (Italy, School 21) did not highlight evidence of language anxiety,but the teacher appeared to experience many of the same difficulties asother teachers in classroom activities, lesson pacing, and use of the firstlanguage.

Reviewing this evidence in the light of ELLiE data on the provisionand availability of continuous professional development, the need for

Discussion

240 Janet Enever

a t U


,2 0 1 6




































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


a substantial increase in both the provision and consistency of qualityfor courses and frequent workshops at a local level is evident. Witha view to overcoming the existing weaknesses in the system in thelonger term, there is also a need to strengthen the quality of pre-serviceprovision, catering particularly for generalist teachers in addition tospecialist primary FL teachers.

Since the design and provision of adequate and appropriate primaryEnglish teacher education in Europe is evidently at an interim stageof development, I have attempted here to highlight continuingweaknesses and consider ways to address these, rather than drawingconclusions. At this point, I will therefore limit myself to just twoemerging indicators.

Firstly, it is evident that questions of course design for generalistteachers of primary FLs should be addressed at both national andEuropean levels, including a strategic plan for dissemination via theOMC. Secondly, there is an urgent need to substantially increase the

provision and availability of in-service courses and workshops forteachers if quality is to be improved and sustained.

Evidently, the above measures will take time and substantial funding.The extent to which such measures will be effective relies both onpolitical will and the engagement of schools and wider society over thelonger term. In the case of such a major reform, a long-term view mustinevitably be adopted.

Final version received August 2013

Conclusions

Notes1 I would like to thank my ELLiE colleagues for

the data sources that facilitated the preparationof this article and acknowledge the extent towhich our shared expertise has contributed tothe quality of the research findings.

2 My thanks to ELLiE team members Gun Lundberg(Sweden) and Lucilla Lopriore (Italy) for providingthe data sources used in Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7.

ReferencesCouncil of Europe. 2001. Common EuropeanFramework of Reference for Languages: Learning,Teaching, Assessment . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.EACEA/Eurydice. 2012. Key Data on TeachingLanguages at School in Europe. Brussels: EACEAP9 Eurydice.Edelenbos, P., R. Johnstone, and A. Kubanek.

2006. ‘Languages for the children of Europe:published research, good practice and mainprinciples’. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1

Study . Brussels: European Commission. Availableat http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/young_en.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2013).Enever, J. (ed.). 2011. ELLiE. Early LanguageLearning in Europe. London: British Council.Available at http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/publications/early-language-learning-europe (accessed on 5 August 2013).Enever, J. 2012. ‘Current policy issues in earlyforeign language learning’. CEPS Journal 2/3: 9–26.Hattie, J. A. C. 2003. ‘Teachers make a difference:what is the research evidence?’. Paper presented atthe Australian Council for Educational ResearchAnnual Conference on: Building Teacher Quality,October 2003, Melbourne, Australia.Kelly, M. and M. Grenfell. 2004. European Profileof Language Teacher Education. Southampton:University of Southampton. Available at http://www.lang.soton.ac.uk/profile/report/MainReport.

pdf (accessed on 5 August 2013).Newby, D. (ed.). 2012. Insights into the EuropeanPortfolio for Student Teachers of Languages


a t U


,2 0 1 6



http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/young_en.pdf


http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/publications/early-language-learning-europe


http://www.lang.soton.ac.uk/profile/report/MainReport.pdf











































8/19/2019 ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42


(EPOSTL). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: CambridgeScholars Publishing.Newby, D., R. Allan, A. Fenner, B. Jones,H. Komorowska, and K. Soghikyan. 2007.European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages(EPOSTL). Graz, Austria: ECML.Williams, G., M. Strubell, and G. O. Williams.

2013. ‘Trends in European language education’.The Language Learning Journal 41/1: 5–36.Wright, T. 2010. ‘Second language teachereducation: review of recent research on practice’.Language Teaching 43/3: 259–96.

The author Janet Enever is Professor of LanguageTeaching and Learning at Umeå University,Sweden specializing in the fields of languagepolicy, language globalization, and earlyforeign language learning. She has workedat universities in London, Poland, Hungary,

and now Umeå and has advised on languagepolicy, teacher education, and early languagelearning for ministries in a number ofcountries.Email: [email protected]

242 Janet Enever

a t U


,2 0 1 6



mailto:[email protected]?subject=


































mailto:[email protected]?subject=

Documents

ELT J-2014-Enever-231-42