Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 11:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Education 3-13: International Journalof Primary, Elementary and Early YearsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20
Pupils' perceptions of foreign languagelearning in the primary school –findings from the Key Stage 2 LanguageLearning Pathfinder evaluationCynthia Martin aa Formerly at the Institute of Education, University of Reading ,Reading , UKPublished online: 29 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: Cynthia Martin (2012) Pupils' perceptions of foreign language learning in theprimary school – findings from the Key Stage 2 Language Learning Pathfinder evaluation, Education3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 40:4, 343-362, DOI:10.1080/03004279.2012.691373
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.691373
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Pupils’ perceptions of foreign language learning in the primary school –
findings from the Key Stage 2 Language Learning Pathfinder evaluation
Cynthia Martin*
Formerly at the Institute of Education, University of Reading, Reading, UK
(Received 8 September 2010; final version received 16 September 2011)
This article presents findings on pupil attitudes towards learning foreignlanguages in Key Stage 2 (ages 7–11) in primary schools in England. As aconsequence of the National Languages Strategy, the University of Warwick wascommissioned by the then Department for Education and Skills to undertake anevaluation between 2003 and 2005 of 19 Pathfinder local authorities which werepiloting language learning at Key Stage 2. As part of this investigation ofdeveloping primary language practice, a total of 319 pupils in 41 case studyschools were interviewed. Findings indicate that, despite the majority of childreninterviewed being positive about their initial language learning experience, as timewent on the need for differentiation and challenge emerged. Furthermore, anumber of pupils would have welcomed feedback about their own progress. Theseare all aspects of early language learning which continue to merit attention, asshown by more recent studies such as by C. Cable and colleagues.
Keywords: primary languages; pupil attitudes; motivation; feedback
Introduction
Initiatives to introduce language learning into primary schools are part ofdevelopments affecting most countries in Europe. In the present NationalCurriculum for England, however, languages are non-statutory in Key Stages 1and 2 (ages 5–11), although an ‘entitlement’ to language learning in Key Stage 2(ages 7–11) now exists (DfES 2002, 15). Furthermore, language learning at primaryschool in England continues to be beset by shifts in government policy and has beenmarked by a series of false starts. Thus, in 1995, the Centre for Information onLanguage Teaching and Research (CILT, now the National Centre for Languages)reported that approximately 21% of primary schools in the survey sample had somekind of language provision, although this was largely in clubs rather than incurriculum time (CILT 1995). Five years later the then Qualifications andCurriculum Authority (QCA) undertook a study to establish the feasibility ofintroducing a language into the curriculum at Key Stage 2. As part of the QCAstudy, a survey by Powell et al. (2000) also estimated that 21% of schools wereteaching languages at Key Stage 2, although, again, this was not necessarily in lessontime. These initiatives were influenced by the Nuffield Languages Inquiry (Nuffield
*Email: [email protected]
Education 3–13
Vol. 40, No. 4, September 2012, 343–362
ISSN 0300-4279 print/ISSN 1475-7575 online
� 2012 ASPE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.691373
http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Foundation 2000), which assessed the language needs of the UK for the twenty-firstcentury. Recommendation 6 stated:
The government should declare a long term commitment to early language learning bysetting up a national action programme for languages in primary school education withinthe framework of the national strategy for languages. (Nuffield Foundation 2000, 89)
Consequently, the National Languages Strategy (DfES 2002) was published withthe entitlement for all children to learn a modern language at Key Stage 2 by 2010. In2004, the baseline study by Driscoll, Jones, and Macrory (2004) noted that thenumbers of schools offering languages to pupils in Key Stage 2, albeit with diversemodels of provision, either in class or as an extra curricular activity, had risen to44%, although, in fact, just 3% of these were teaching across Key Stage 2, asrequired by the National Languages Strategy (DfES 2002). The most recent surveyby Wade and Marshall (2009) on behalf of the National Foundation for EducationalResearch for the Department for Children, Schools and Families estimates that, inautumn 2008, 92% of schools were offering languages in class time to pupils in KeyStage 2, a rise of 8% from 2007 and a 22% increase from 2006, when their 3-yearsurvey started. This steady growth suffered a setback when a change of governmentin 2010 led to the rejection of recommendations in The Independent Review of thePrimary Curriculum (Rose 2009) that languages become a statutory part of the KeyStage 2 curriculum, and to a withdrawal of funding for the National LanguagesStrategy in April 2011. Many schools faltered in their provision of languagesteaching during the subsequent period of uncertainty about the status of languages,whilst a further review of the national curriculum was undertaken. In June 2012, theSecretary of State for Education announced that foreign languages would be astatutory foundation subject throughout Key Stage 2, from Year 3 to Year 6 (Gove2012, 4).
Literature review
These aforementioned studies have mainly attempted to assess developments in theintroduction of this new dimension, a foreign language, to the primary curriculum,tracking the expansion of early language learning in England and the characteristicsof different types of delivery models. In keeping with this trend, the NationalLanguages Strategy (DfES 2002, 21–2) proposed the establishment across thecountry of 19 Language Pathfinders, based on local authorities and schools workingtogether to pilot ways of delivering the primary entitlement to language learning in arange of ways. Schools were to be a mix of primary schools with excellent practice toshare and those with little or no language provision that wished to introduce orstrengthen language learning. The intention was to pilot ‘tried and testedmethodology’ for early language teaching and learning and existing good practiceto increase understanding of the most effective ways to teach languages to primarychildren (DfES 2002, 21).
At the same time, as languages were being introduced into primary schools,moves were afoot to change the status of languages at Key Stage 4 (ages 14–16) andto make them optional rather than a statutory part of the National Curriculum.Thus, the government announced that languages would be removed from the corecurriculum for 14- to 16-year olds with effect from September 2004. This decision islikely to be reversed by the recommendation that modern foreign languages should
344 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
be a foundation subject at Key Stage 4 (DfE 2011, 25). This change was anticipatedby increasing numbers of state maintained secondary schools, and the results of astudy conducted in 2003 by the Association for Language Learning, CILT, theNational Centre for Languages and the University Council of Modern Languagesindicated that post-14 languages had already been given optional status in 43% ofthe schools surveyed. In 2004, fewer than one-third of state schools required 14- to16-year olds to learn a language up to 16. By 2005, the proportion of statemaintained schools with languages as a compulsory element in the Key Stage 4curriculum had declined still further from one-third in 2004 to one-quarter. Thechange in status of languages at Key Stage 4 also increased the importance of theKey Stage 2 language learning experience being a positive one – which wouldmotivate learners to want to continue with their language learning beyond the newend to statutory language learning at age 14. Indeed, the subsequent Dearing reviewof the 14–19 curriculum suggested that the introduction of languages into theprimary phase had the ‘potential to feed through into the secondary schools,improve performance and encourage pupils as they reach Key Stage 4 to continuewith languages’ (Dearing and King 2007, 3).
It is worth noting that according to the National Languages Strategy, (DfES2002, 4) schools were tasked with providing an ‘opportunity to harness children’slearning potential and enthusiasm’.
Hasselgreen (2000) suggests that young language learners are special on accountof their enthusiasm and openness to the learning of new languages, and studies suchas those by Blondin et al. (1998) and Donato et al. (2000) have indicated thatmotivation and positive attitudes to learning a second language (L2) can indeed befostered in primary aged learners.
Ever since the late 1950s, researchers in social psychology and education haverecognised the importance of motivation for successful foreign language learning,described by Dornyei (1994) as one of the main determinants of L2/foreign languagelearning achievement. The L2 motivation research has its birth place in immersionsettings in Canada, where the Anglophone and Francophone communities coexistand where it was initially dominated by social psychologists of whom the mostinfluential include Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert. In early formulations,Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972; Gardner 1985) argued that the successfulacquisition of a foreign language depends on specific motivational factors such thatan individual’s motivation to learn an L2 is sustained by both attitudes towards theL2 community and the orientations sought through acquisition of the language.Integrative orientation refers to the desire to learn the L2 in order to have contactwith the target language community, in contrast to instrumental orientation, thewish to learn the L2 to achieve some practical goal. Gardner and Lambert claimedthat learners with an integrative orientation would demonstrate greater motivationaleffort in learning an L2 and thus achieve greater L2 competence. Later andcomplementary models (Oxford and Shearin 1994; Deci and Ryan 1985) posit twoother general types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, both associated with self-determination theory. Intrinsic motivation is based on motivation to engage in anactivity on account of interest in the activity per se and because the activity isenjoyable and satisfying. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), intrinsic motivation isfounded upon innate needs for competence and self-determination. In contrast tointrinsic motivation, extrinsically motivated behaviours are carried out to achievesome instrumental end extrinsic to the activity itself, such as earning a reward. These
Education 3–13 345
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
authors contrast intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with amotivation, whichadversely affects the learner’s self-confidence and refers to situations, where learnersperceive the consequences of their actions as arising from factors beyond theircontrol.
In fact, affective variables, such as attitude, orientations, anxiety and motivation,have been shown to be at least as important as language aptitude for predicting L2achievement. A number of studies of language learning in the primary phase(Tierney and Gallastegi 2005) have confirmed the high levels of motivation that canbe engendered amongst young learners, particularly when oracy is prioritised andchildren experience early success, as was happening in the Pathfinder case studyschools.
The Pathfinder evaluation
A Pathfinder has been defined by Enever and Watts (2009, 231) as a ‘pilotprogramme’ delivered in selected local authorities prior to being rolled outnationally. In 2003 the University of Warwick was commissioned by the thenDepartment for Education and Skills to evaluate the Pathfinder programme between2003 and 2005 (Muijs et al. 2005).
The main aim of the Pathfinders was to try out a number of ways of providingthe primary language learning entitlement, hence to focus on organisational andlogistical issues. Since the nature of the language learning experience prior tosecondary school had become even more important with the demise of languagespost-14, one of the strands of the Pathfinder evaluation was to investigate children’sattitudes to this new curriculum subject and whether or not positive attitudes werebeing promoted.
This article therefore presents findings from the Pathfinder evaluation relating topupils’ perceptions of language learning and attitudes towards their experiences.
Methodology
The evaluation as a whole was conducted using a mixed methods approach,including telephone interviews, questionnaires and case studies. In addition to asurvey study of all 19 Pathfinder local authorities, case studies were carried out of asample of eight local authorities. These were considered in depth, in order to explorethe operation of the Pathfinders on the ground, with a total of 41 case study schoolsin the sample, including one special school, one specialist language college and onesecondary school which, although not a specialist language college, nonetheless hadan outreach programme with seven feeder primary schools. Case study schools wereselected according to the following criteria:
. The identification of different models of provision, through telephoneinterviews with local authority personnel in the first research phase and
. by socio-demographic and geographic diversity.
The 41 schools reflected different socio-economic groupings, i.e. schools inchallenging circumstances and schools in more affluent contexts, schools of differenttypes and sizes, in different locations, i.e. inner city, rural, metropolitan and boroughschools, and schools which were performing or improving at different rates.
346 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Three main methods were used to explore the different case study sites: lessonobservations, semi-structured interviews with head teachers, teachers, foreignlanguage assistants (FLAs) and pupils, and perusal of documentary evidence suchas school Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) reports, post-Ofsted planning,performance and assessment reports, school improvement plans and local authorityreports. These provided contextual information, alongside resources, schemes ofwork and lesson plans, where available. The information derived from all thesesources was triangulated to allow a robust picture of how different Pathfinderauthorities were working in practice in schools.
Wherever possible, consistency of data sources across the 41 case study schoolswas maintained, and the total number of interviews is as follows:
. 72 head teachers on two occasions
. 68 teachers in these 41 schools, also on two occasions. Wherever possible, thiswas the teacher with the main responsibility for languages in the school
. 16 adults teaching languages who came from outside the school, i.e. visitingteachers
. FLAs where available
. 319 pupils, usually in groups of four to six children, selected by the teacher(Muijs et al. 2005, 13).
The pupil interviews took place in two occasions, once towards the end of the firstyear of the evaluation in 2004 and again in the second year in late spring/early summer2005. In each school, only one focus group met with the researcher and the year groupsfrom which the children were drawn, depended on the teacher and on the children’stimetables for the day. Thus, in some schools, pupils came mainly from a single yeargroup, such as Year 6 or Year 5, of a mixed Year 5/6 class. In others, children from eachof Years 3, 4, 5 and 6 met the researcher. Where possible, the researcher attempted tointerview at least some of the children again on the second visit, but this was not alwayspossible. The pupil interviews lasted between 20 and 30 minutes.
Further evidence of pupils’ perceptions was derived from responses by theirteachers relating to pupil enjoyment in two questionnaires administered in the firstand second years of the evaluation study, as well as teachers’ and head teachers’views about children’s attitudes in adult interview data.
The pupil interview schedule included the following questions:
. Do you like learning French? (or foreign language taught in the school)
. What do you like best about doing French?
. What do you like the least about doing French?
. What do you usually do during the French lesson?
. Have you ever done any French before?
. Do you think learning French helps you learn other subjects better?
. What do you think about the way your teachers teach French?
. How do you feel you’re doing in French – are you learning and remembering itwell?
. Do your teachers tell you how well you’re doing in French and how you couldimprove?
. Would you like to continue to learn French in the future/in secondary school?
. Would you like to learn another language?
Education 3–13 347
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Pupils were encouraged to respond frankly and the researcher assured them thattheir responses would be confidential and would not be shared with their teachers.
Analysis
All interviews were audio-recorded and 25% were transcribed. Analysis was carriedout by repeated listening to the audio recordings and by rereading the transcripts onseveral occasions, noting emerging themes by hand. Transcripts were checked foraccuracy by a second listener/reader. No software was used in the interview analysis.This article draws particularly on the pupil interviews with the pupil voice providedby citations from these transcripts.
Findings and discussion
The National Languages Strategy (DfES 2002) did not stipulate which languagesshould be taught in the primary school. However, French was by far the mostdominant language in the Pathfinders, as continues to be the case today (Wade andMarshall 2009; Cable et al. 2010). The evolving primary language curriculum waslargely topic-based, with an emphasis on enjoyment through speaking and listening.There was relatively little written work or attention to structures, and in the majorityof observed lessons pupils were working at basic word level, although in a minorityof cases children were familiar with a range of structures. A variety of resources werein use. Teachers were a mix of visiting specialist teachers, often from associatedsecondary schools, and generalist primary teachers, the latter mostly without or withlimited linguistic training.
Pupils’ perceptions
Most teachers interviewed said that children thoroughly enjoyed their languagelessons and felt that motivation was high. As one language teacher described:
They love it. If they can come and speak to me in another language, they think it’sabsolutely brilliant. They’re equally stunned when I reply in French and that throwsthem a little. They’re thrilled, because they want to know ‘what does that mean?’ Whatshould I be saying back to you? So, it is a motivation.
This positive reaction also involved children with special educational needs(SEN), as one teacher confirmed:
Everybody is involved, the special needs are catered for, everyone’s joining in, no one’ssingled out and there’s really an emphasis at the moment on speaking and listening. Ihad a lovely incident on Monday, where J. came down and he said, ‘I can speak French’and I said, ‘You’re getting there J.’ But he was SO enthusiastic; they [the pupils] reallyare full of enthusiasm.
The children interviewed and observed were also generally overwhelminglypositive towards their language learning experiences in all the Pathfinders and acrossall year groups. They were typically enthusiastic and attentive, and regarded theirlanguage lessons as both fun and useful. This was true of both the first and secondyear of the Pathfinder. Indeed, in several cases pupils found it hard to cite any aspectof language learning which they did not enjoy (Muijs et al. 2005, 44).
348 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
There were several examples of children telling parents about their languagelessons, which prompted enquiries about foreign language work. Elsewhere, olderchildren were teaching younger brothers and sisters. As one language teacherexplained (Muijs et al. 2005, 44):
In Year 3 today, because we’ve not yet done Quelle est la date de ton anniversaire? I hadone child come up and say, ‘I can answer another question. I can answer, Quelle est ladate de ton anniversaire? And I said, ‘How do you know that? and she said, ‘because mysister’s doing it in Year 5.’ Or children will come up and say, ‘When are we doing thesong?’ [from another year group]. Children are teaching each other at home.
What children liked
Children generally displayed a strong degree of motivation at the classroomlevel (Dornyei 2001b). Indeed, the motivational influence of the learning environ-ment should not be underestimated, since the immediate classroom setting producesa direct effect on the L2 learning process (Wu 2003). So what were children enjoyingabout their language lessons? Particular likes expressed were to do with lessoncontent – topics and tasks. Children often spoke of specific language topics, whichthey enjoyed (e.g. numbers and days of the week). There was evidence too in pupils’responses of growing understanding of language issues, for instance, links andsimilarities or differences between languages.
Some children also said that they enjoyed learning about the culture in theforeign country, although the inclusion of intercultural understanding as a specificlesson focus was as yet, not very developed across the Pathfinders, possibly partlybecause the Key Stage 2 Framework for Languages (DfES 2005), whichincorporates an intercultural understanding strand, was not yet published.
Dornyei (2003) comments on the quality of activities and how the way in whichthey are presented impacts upon language attitudes. Tasks are significant in shapinglearners’ interest and enthusiasm. Children spoke extensively about the range ofactivities which they enjoyed, including:
. Songs (often to familiar tunes)
. Games (although enthusiasm declined somewhat for older children).
Wu (2003) suggests that where young learners have opportunities to workindividually or to collaborate with each other in small groups or pairs, and to workat their own pace, this contributes to intrinsic motivation. In the Pathfinder study,children also talked about the techniques their teachers used to support theirlanguage learning. They appreciated
. The use of actions
. Visual and kinaesthetic aids
. Speaking in pairs and groups
. Team activities.
Pupils were perceptive of effective methodological approaches, for example,the benefits of vocabulary learning strategies or the need to learn questions aswell as answers. Several children mentioned that they enjoyed memorising newwords and phrases, and some teachers provided pupils with strategies for
Education 3–13 349
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
memorising vocabulary, which children appreciated and used willingly. Somepupils felt learning languages helped them improve their memory skills moregenerally (Muijs et al. 2005, 45–7).
Although oracy was predominant (and enjoyed), a few children commented onhow they liked
. Learning to spell as well as speak
. Putting the words together in sentences.
These types of activities clearly set language lessons apart from the rest of thecurriculum, and pupils mostly described their lessons with enthusiasm and obviousenjoyment. Resources such as the interactive whiteboard were mentioned positivelyby some children and there was an increase in the use of information andcommunication technology (ICT) in the second year of the Pathfinder.
Other factors on which children commented related to teacher behaviour and themajority of children interviewed showed strong affiliative motivation – they likedtheir teachers and wanted to please them. Some pupils appreciated their teachers’fluency and subject knowledge. Despite this vote of confidence, other childrenmentioned what they described as ‘proper French’, showing awareness of thedifference sometimes between their own class teacher and the visiting teacher ornative speaker FLA. In one school, pupils preferred the visiting teacher.
She knows all the words correctly and she doesn’t get mixed up. She is good at thegames, has all the right equipment.
As we have seen above, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are associated with self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 1985). Extrinsically motivated behaviours arethose performed in order to gain some extrinsic reward such as good marks, andsome children acknowledged the importance for them of rewards, praise andencouragement.
Pupils in one school were given a ‘special mention’ and a sticker for French at theend of the week. Some children had a chart in the classroom and once this wascomplete, they received a commendation. House points were awarded if teams didwell in oral games. On the whole though, marks were not awarded (see section onassessment).
Praise, according to Dornyei (1994) is a type of ‘informational’ feedback, and toavoid the amotivation commented on by Deci and Ryan (2002, cited in Dornyei2003), praise should attribute success to effort and ability, implying that similarsuccesses can be expected in the future. Praise should avoid the inclusion of‘controlling’ feedback through the comparison of the learners’ performance with thesuccesses or failures of others.
With intrinsically motivated behaviour the rewards are internal – the enjoymentassociated with exploring new ideas and developing knowledge or satisfyingcuriosity. A few children displayed the beginnings of intrinsic motivation, definedby Lamb (2001, 85) as ‘the desire to learn for its own sake’, expressing not onlyenjoyment but also pride, saying that they liked ‘feeling grown up’ doing a language.
What children did not like/wanted changed
Hardly any children claimed to dislike language learning entirely. Occasionally,however, teachers perceived pupils’ reactions as mixed, and there were some aspects of
350 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
language learning which children viewed more negatively, for example, the use of thetarget language, leading some children to express anxiety about lack of comprehension‘Not understanding what was being said/going on’. According to some children, thiscould be on account of the speed of the tapes played or confusing visuals.
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s judgement of his/her ability to perform aspecific action. Oxford and Shearin (1994, 21) comment that many language learnersare not convinced of their own self-efficacy and report feeling ‘lost in the languageclass’. However, it is possible to help them develop a sense of self-efficacy by providingmeaningful, achievable and success-engendering language tasks (Dornyei 1994, 277).
By contrast, other children felt that they were growing in confidence and skill atdeciphering what was happening:
We can pick up stuff even if she is not teaching it. She keeps on saying something andyou realize you understand what she’s saying without really learning it.
In this context, it should be noted that a contributory factor related to lack ofunderstanding of classroom routines may be because the target language of theclassroom was not explicitly being taught:
Last lesson she told us to put up our hands if we were eight or nine . . .We don’tnormally know things like ‘put your hands up,’ so we have got like to guess.
The dynamic character and temporal variation of motivation (Dornyei 2003, 17)were also already evident. Some children who had been learning a foreign languagefor more than a year were beginning to suggest that they were losing interest in theteaching:
In German, all we have to do is repeat what the teacher says – that’s a bit boring.
According to Dornyei (2003, 17) ‘learners tend to demonstrate fluctuating levels ofcommitment even within a single lesson’. Learners tend to demonstrate fluctuatinglevels of commitment, even within a single lesson, and variations in motivation maybecome very marked over a longer period. Several pupils expressed frustration at
. Learning pronunciation
. Just repeating
. Memorising lots of words
. The overuse of games.
It’s a fair lesson but sometimes when you do games, it’s pushing it a bit over the edge. Wedon’t want to waste our time. We want to go to school and learn. French games go on toolong.
This view was endorsed by a teacher who commented that older pupils ‘becomeserious learners’. Another teacher also explained how difficult it was to maintainchildren’s enthusiasm,
The only difficulty in a way is that with the older children . . . it’s just trying, particularlywhen you are dealing with the Year 6 post SATs, [10–11 year olds, post standardizednational tests in English, Mathematics and Science]. it is trying to keep them on task andmotivated. But they have enjoyed very much what we have been doing, because it hasbeen something different and something new.
Low levels of incipient language anxiety were also emerging in a few cases,related to
Education 3–13 351
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
. Difficulties with reading and writing
. Spelling in the target language (silent letters, for example)
. Confusion if learning two or more languages
Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) have noted the role of language anxiety asstemming from the social and communicative aspects of language learning. So, a fewchildren mentioned embarrassment, when they forgot something orally. As one girlexpressed it:
Once we had this lady who taught us Spanish, and she sometimes went round the classsaying Hola and you have to say something back to her, but I didn’t know what to say,because once I said something wrong . . . and I felt being put on the spot and all the classwas watching me . . .
On the other hand, there was also evidence of teachers providing a supportive class-room environment, which meant that children did not feel inhibited about responding.
If she says it fast, she’ll say it again and then, if some people don’t get it, she’ll keepsaying it. She doesn’t go on to the next thing. When she says something too fast and wedon’t understand, she breaks it down for us.
Differentiation
Whilst many pupils appreciated whole class teaching, others were beginning to findthe lack of differentiated group work frustrating. Several children (as young as Year3) were aware of the need to differentiate and wanted to progress at a speedcommensurate with their abilities.
Some pupils are at different levels. We need three groups: low, medium and high.
Dornyei (1994, 282) suggests matching the difficulty of tasks with learners’abilities, raising their expectations of success as long as they put in reasonable effort.However, generally across the Pathfinders, there appeared to be little evidence ofdifferentiated provision, although some schemes of work and associated materialsdid incorporate differentiated activities, and some lesson plans indicated thatdifferentiation should be included. Where visiting teachers visited a large number ofschools differentiation could be challenging. This applied especially to FLAs, whoserole took them into several schools and brought them into contact with manychildren, often rotating small groups for short periods of time. Thus, FLAsfrequently relied heavily on the teacher’s knowledge of the different abilities of thechildren.
Some teachers did not feel it was necessary to differentiate.
No, there is no particular need to differentiate, because it’s something that is very new tomost children. Everybody’s starting from the same baseline, which has helped somechildren who are less confident with their work, because they know that they are startingfrom the same point as many others . . . .
As an alternative to differentiation, there was an emphasis on involving allchildren. One response from an outreach teacher was typical of what was observed(Muijs et al. 2005, 48):
352 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
The one thing which we don’t do is differentiate in lessons. It’s normally, ‘This is whatwe’re going to be able to do at the end. Everyone involved’.
Provision for learners with SEN
Primary languages had been integrated successfully in one special school visited,where pupils were enthusiastic and an FLA had made a very positive contribution.
We feel quite positively that because we are a special school, why shouldn’t we havethese opportunities? So, you know, we weren’t providing them, so it’s a very positivestep [that languages were now on the curriculum]. (Muijs et al. 2005, 51)
Many interviewees were adamant that ‘all were included’ but remained vagueabout any differentiation involved. Nonetheless, teachers’ responses to thequestionnaires demonstrate their conviction that generally pupils with SEN werebenefiting from languages. From interviews too, the impression was conveyed thatlanguages can be a real boost for shy or less able pupils.
At times they find it difficult because they find their own language difficult, but becauseit’s fun, it doesn’t seem to be in the same pressure for them. Their own expectations arethat they can do it, because they are encouraged by other members of the class. (Muijset al. 2005, 50)
Initially, some teachers perceived children with SEN as indistinguishable from allother pupils and welcomed this as evidence of a ‘level playing field for all’.
It almost lends itself because they’re back to speaking and listening which I think is agreat leveler because they haven’t done it before. A boy who is statemented with SENin my class has greater confidence in French – he would not do as much in English.They’re not always struggling with the written word. Perhaps because it’s a levelplaying field, no one’s fluent in French, so they’re ready to have a go. There’s totalinclusion. (Muijs et al. 2005, 50)
However, it is interesting to note Burstall’s comment from a much earlier studythat children do not start equal at language learning and that children with aprevious history of failure in school tend to develop low aspirations and a negativeview of their learning potential . . . ‘such children in no way approach the newlearning situation on a footing of equality with children whose previous record ofachievement has led to high aspirations and a confident expectation of furthersuccess’ (1975, 6).
On occasions, the current emphasis on speaking and listening was cited as ajustification for the lack of need for support:
Weare notmaking any special provision for special needs pupils, becauseall ourwork is oral.They can access visually or orally the same as the other children in the class, so there isn’treallyaproblemandwedon’t havebehaviourproblemsas such in the classroom.There reallyisn’t the need for the support, because we don’t do the written work.
In view of the fact that the Key Stage 2 Framework for Languages (DfES 2005)incorporates literacy related activities from Year 3 (ages 7–8), this is an aspect ofprovision which will require further attention, and which was already beginning toemerge as problematic in the second year of the Pathfinder, when children in anumber of schools were reported as struggling.
Education 3–13 353
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
They’re just taught along with the rest of the class. It’s great to start with and thenafter a couple of months they can’t cope with the additional demands of vocabulary.If you feel they are going to struggle you differentiate, so put them with partnersthat will help. (Muijs et al. 2005, 50)
Some teachers were worried about the ability of less able pupils being able tokeep up when all the four skills including reading and writing were involved. Forexample, oral work was described in one school as popular with pupils including thelower achievers, but there were a few children who found working with the pupil’sbook hard, on account of reading and writing difficulties they already had in English.Finding ways to support them was an issue. Some schools used specific ICTresources and software for pupils with SEN, such as Clicker. Children too wereaware of the fact that some of their classmates were ‘getting left behind’ andexpressed concern for their well-being.
In some schools, more able pupils were used to support lower achievers, althoughthis begged the question of the extent to which this strategy benefited the brighter child.
With Gifted and Talented you make use of their expertise . . . if we are playing a game ofsnap, then you’d pair up a G and T pupil with one of the special needs and make use ofthem in that way. (Muijs et al. 2005, 51)
In other schools, teachers spoke of gifted and talented pupils being role modelsfor other children.
Gifted and talented learners
In the first year of the Pathfinder, even in schools with established provision, theapproach still appeared to be ‘whole class’ teaching. Where an investigativeapproach (as part of a multilingual project) was being adopted, this was felt to bebeneficial to gifted and talented children (Muijs et al. 2005, 51):
With the gifted and talented, the investigative [multi-lingual] approach actually lendsitself quite well to stretching them at their own level.
However, generally teachers admitted:
There may well be children who are gifted and talented in French or know a lot ofFrench already and it’s not utilized perhaps as much as it could be.
In other schools, there appeared to be an assumption that more able pupils wouldsomehow be able to develop themselves, without teacher intervention.
I think the Gifted and Talented pupils go with what they find and by virtue of the fact thatthey are so gifted and talented, they will take it that one step further themselves.
However, this was not always an adequate solution, as one girl explained:
I think in class we could do a little bit more, because some of the stuff we’re doing is abit easy . . . A challenge or something . . . to make it more exciting.
Some brighter children felt they were being held back to allow others to speakand get the points, when they already knew the answers.
One child wished to continue French only ‘if we had a teacher who knew ourlevel’ (Muijs et al. 2005, 52).
354 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
In the same school, another pupil mentioned the need for challenge:
It would be more fun, if may be, if we could have a challenge, something that wouldchallenge us, because some people who do know it, don’t put in so much effort, becausethey think, I know it.
These pupils recognised that the visiting teacher from the secondary school wasunaware of their prior experience and of how much they could do. They had severalsuggestions for ways of improving the situation
. Any visiting teacher should start by giving a short test, which would enable herto know at what level to start
. The teacher should allow different amounts of time before expecting an answer
. The class should be divided into groups: expert, intermediate and beginners.
In one school, the presence of a native speaker had allowed the teacher to dividethe class for some activities:
When we have the FLA and do the reading, some of them are so good, she took thebrighter ones and gave them a chance of talking to her, and reading with her and theygot on very quickly. (Muijs et al. 2005, 48)
Towards the end of the 2-year Pathfinder evaluation, there was a trend evident insome Pathfinders towards developing more challenging work for higher abilitypupils. One school provided an Easter school initially for gifted and talented pupils,but then offered it more widely, with a carousel for languages. Another Pathfinderhad provided dedicated sessions to more able children in the first year but took thedecision not to repeat this in the second year, on account of the time-consumingnature of the provision.
Most teachers seemed to differentiate by outcome for more able learners, butsome reference was made to speaking faster or involving pupils as demonstrators ofthe language. There were instances, however, of differentiation strategies other thanby outcome for both SEN and G and T pupils (Muijs et al. 2005, 48). So forexample, there might be less text or larger font for children with SEN, or the teacherwould circulate during the activity to offer ‘on the spot’ support.
It was also the case that when teachers were less confident, stretching able pupilswas particularly challenging. Some teachers freely acknowledged limitations in theirsubject knowledge and therefore the difficulty of making the language moredemanding.
You might be able to stretch children but this is harder for the non-specialist. You’renot fluent, that’s the frustrating thing. (Muijs et al. 2005, 51)
In the words of one head teacher,
One of the things the Pathfinder has made the school more aware of is that at the topend of the school, the French has not been challenging enough. The same sort of effectas when ICT began to filter through. (Muijs et al. 2005, 78)
In her study of Chinese 4- to 6-year olds learning English, Wu (2003) suggeststhat moderately challenging tasks, accompanied by instructional support, contributetowards enhancing young learners’ self-perceptions of L2 competence. Indeed,
Education 3–13 355
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
higher-level tasks can be motivational as long as they involve collaboration, task-sharing and encourage creativity.
Pupils’ perceptions of their own progress
As Hunt (2009) points out, progression and assessment are vitally important inavoiding the risks of repetition of work. As the Pathfinder was only a 2-yearprogramme of activity, there was insufficient evidence to measure progression fully.Our observations showed that in the main, there were no very substantial differencesas noted between activities undertaken by younger and older pupils. The emphasiswas on the informal monitoring of work in class, the observation of pupilparticipation and checking on the extent of children’s understanding through the useof mini-whiteboards and ‘show me’ techniques. Significantly, however, as thePathfinder period went on, progression was beginning to be perceived as becomingmore problematic. Interestingly, the lack of progression was in some cases, beingnoticed and remarked upon by children, when they compared their lessons in Frenchwith the rest of the curriculum, especially literacy. In the words of one Year 6 boy:
As you get older they (the French teachers) they don’t so much move it on. Like withliteracy, as you get older, they move you on to words . . . . With French, as you get older,they don’t progress, the words . . . they just keep them the same.
In the same school, the elementary level of French was actually perceived to be aninadequate preparation for secondary school.
When I go to secondary school, I don’t really want to continue with French, because if Idid continue, we have been taught basically [sic] in primary school . . . and they don’tupgrade it, I think it would like be like from one really small step to the top of the stepsin one big jump . . . .
Provision of feedback
In some cases, though assessment schemes were provided for in a scheme of work,interviews with children and teachers indicated that their performance was not markedin any way, other than through general encouragement to the class as a whole.
They just say, ‘Tres bien’ but they don’t tell you individually, they just say it to thewhole group. (Muijs et al. 2005, 87)
Assessment for learning can provide feedback which is vital for every learner. AsMuijs et al. (2005, 76) state, ‘positive, supportive feedback with constructivemessages about concrete ways to improve can be encouraging and motivating andcan be a factor in increasing confidence’. Significantly, several pupils claimed thatthey would appreciate feedback on how to improve and make progress.
I think it would be nice if they told us how we were doing, because if we weren’t doingwell, they could actually help us.
In this context, we may note findings from attribution theory, which according toDornyei (2003) is important owing to the generally high frequency of languagelearning failure worldwide. Attribution theory links past experiences with futureachievement. Weiner (1992, cited in Dornyei 1994), for example, claims that thesubjective reasons to which we attribute our past successes and failures shape
356 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
motivational disposition. Thus, if learners attribute their failure to low ability, or tothe difficulty of a task, expectations of future success decrease, and they willprobably not attempt the activity again. By contrast, if they attribute failure to lackof effort, or inappropriate learning strategies, they are likely to try once more.
Feedback should therefore attribute success or failure to controllable variables.Dornyei (1994, 2003) suggests that there are two types of feedback – informationalfeedback, which comments on competence, and controlling feedback, which judgesperformance against external standards. In his view, informational feedback shouldbe dominant, since protecting learners from negative influences of failure is onemeans of instilling confidence in them (Wu 2003).
Comments that emphasise self-improvement help raise intrinsic motivation andrather than negatively impacting on learners’ perceived competence are likely tostimulate them to work harder. It is therefore vital that young foreign language learnersknow how to develop through feedback which shows them what they need to do inorder to improve further. Reasonable and appropriate targets must be set, and learnersmust be engaged in this process themselves. As Jones and McLachlan (2009) stress,
Learners need to be encouraged to be aware of and define their achievements, to setpersonal learning goals, and to understand and plan what they need to do to moveforward in their learning.
With reference to progression and assessment they go on:
Teaching, learning and assessment form a triangle that provides the frame for languagelearning and serves as an integral mechanism for progression. The triangle is firmlylocated in an Assessment for Learning approach in which assessment becomes formativewhen it drives learning forward on the basis of the feeding back. (2009, 82)
Oxford and Shearin (1994, 19) claim that setting targets can stimulate L2motivation, and in order for this to occur, goals should be specific, hard butachievable and accompanied by feedback about progress. In the primary languagelearning context, the strategy of ‘two stars and a wish’, – where the two starsrepresent two positive aspects of the piece of work, and the wish an area fordevelopment – can be an effective mechanism for both self- and peer-assessment,although as Jones and McLachlan (2009) point out, pupils require training andpractice in developing these techniques.
In the Pathfinder, there was a deliberate lack of formalised assessment, particularlysummative assessment. A typical reaction to themention of the word ‘assessment’ was,‘That is something we are going to put into next year’s development plan’. Indeed,there was some resistance to the notion of an imposed scheme and the concern thatintroducing assessment would change the whole nature of the language learningexperience. However, as Jones and McLachlan (2009, 82) remind us,
Assessment, no longer seen as inappropriate or a dampener on the fun of primarylanguage learning, has become a key way to focus and progress learning . . .
In order to maintain motivation longer term, Dornyei (1994) has advocated theneed to set clear but challenging proximal sub-goals, and indeed, tests can serve asproximal motivators, functioning as markers of progress that help mobilise andmaintain effort, although the manner in which the marks are fed back needs to besensitive. Ames (1992, cited in Dornyei 1994) cautions that social comparison,considered detrimental to intrinsic motivation, is often imposed in a variety of ways
Education 3–13 357
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
in the classroom, including in the announcement of marks or in grouping accordingto ability.
In many Pathfinder schools, even when scores were kept of tests, children did notreally know how they were getting on, because although the teachers kept a record,they rarely shared this information with the children and as one child pointed out:
You need to know whether you need to concentrate more.
In the Pathfinder evaluation, as was the case with differentiation, there weredifficulties for visiting teachers. For example, one such teacher taught 19 classes andadmitted she found it almost impossible to learn pupils’ names. She could giveinformation regarding bandings of ability but would need assistance from the classteacher for names in recording assessment levels later.
Continuing with the foreign language at secondary level
Many children could articulate a range of positive reasons for language learning,saying it helped with
. spelling in English
. listening skills
. memorising
. communication
. self-confidence (an important dimension of self-concept and linked to self-efficacy).
Yet other children explained:
. It is an advantage to learn when younger.
Instrumental motivation is related to the potential pragmatic gains of L2proficiency such as obtaining a better job. Children also exhibited instrumentalmotivation, explaining that the early start to language learning would be useful
. at secondary school (‘The Year 6 pupils will know in high school what to say inFrench – It will get you further when you go to secondary school’)
. in a future career
. for travelling abroad – some children stated that it would enable them to ‘helptheir parents’ when buying food.
Integrative motivation implies openness and respect for other cultural groupsand is associated with a positive disposition towards the L2 group and the desire tointeract with them. The view expressed by one girl was typical of many children’sreasons and showed the beginnings of integrative motivation:
Learning more (French) so that if you go to France, you can talk to French people. So ifI go to France, I can communicate with people there.
Learning a new language or additional languages
Many children were keen to take up a different language and a variety of languageswere suggested, some, such as Spanish being based on favourite holiday destinations.
358 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Limitations of the study
The investigation of pupil attitudes formed only a very minor part of the Pathfinderevaluation. Had the main aim of the evaluation been the investigation of pupilattitudes, more precise information regarding developing attitudes could have beengained by interviewing pupils in each of the 4-year groups in Key Stage 2, or at leasthaving a focus group in Year 3 and in Year 6. However, at the time of thePathfinders, this was difficult to achieve since the majority of schools were only juststarting language teaching and it was rare for several year groups to be learning aforeign language. Transcription of all the pupil data would also have strengthenedreliability.
Quantitative data could have been gained through a pupil survey orquestionnaire such as that used in the evaluation of the pilot projects in Ireland(see Harris and Conway 2002).
Conclusions
Motivation is one the main determinants of language learning achievement (Dornyei1994), and this paper has concentrated on capturing the perceptions of pupilslearning a modern language as a new subject in curriculum time within Key Stage 2.A key objective of the Key Stage 2 Framework for Languages (DfES 2005) was forthe language learning experience to be enjoyable and motivating. Motivatinglearners is important, particularly if the renaissance in language learning which theDearing report (Dearing and King 2007) anticipated is to come to fruition.
The evaluation (Muijs et al. 2005) showed that the Pathfinder had made asignificant contribution to either building on existing foreign language provisionor to the introduction of languages. The Pathfinder had generated a great deal ofenthusiasm amongst participating pupils, teachers and head teachers, who appearedconvinced of the advantages of language learning in terms of cognitive developmentand cultural understanding.
Children in the case study locations were generally very positive about theirlanguage learning experiences, displaying aspects of integrative and instrumentalmotivation, as well as extrinsic orientation and in a few cases intrinsic features. Theymentioned social contact, travel and employment as reasons for starting languagelearning in the primary school. They appreciated the interactive teaching and multi-sensory approaches used by many of their teachers and the variety of game-likeactivities, which contributed to making language learning ‘fun’.
It is noteworthy that it was often also apparent that their teachers’ enthusiasm orconfidence ‘rubbed off’ on the children, highlighting the importance of motivatingprimary language teachers, because of the affect of their attitudes on children’smotivation. Where teachers showed interest in languages, for example by remainingin the classroom to observe a visiting teacher, children noticed their commitment andwere positive themselves. They also remarked on instances when their languagelessons were cancelled and were usually unhappy about this.
Dornyei (2003, 26) too has stressed the role of the motivational characteristics ofthe language teacher, saying,
Teacher motivation is an important factor in understanding the affective basis ofinstructed second language acquisition, since teacher motivation has significant bearingon learners’ own motivational dispositions.
Education 3–13 359
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
It will therefore be vital to re-introduce funding continuing professionaldevelopment for teachers long term, to build up their confidence and maintain theirenthusiasm for language teaching in the primary school, even at a time of economicstringency.
The early study by Burstall et al. (1974; Burstall 1975) indicated that the mereprocess of foreign language learning is not, in itself, sufficient to promote positiveattitudes towards either language learning or the target culture. Alongside thesesuccesses, the present study points to a number of areas for development in languageeducation in primary schools in England. Despite children’s largely positiveresponses, there were slight indications that there might be a mismatch betweensome classroom activities and the learning preferences, particularly of boys. A fewchildren felt frustrated at their own limited progress and complained about theamount of repetition and lack of challenge in some lessons. This article hashighlighted the fact that differentiation which caters fully for the needs of childrenwith special educational needs and gifted and talented pupils required considerabledevelopment, despite the many examples of general good classroom practiceobserved. Similarly, progression and assessment were understandably not a priorityat this early stage in the introduction of language learning in Key Stage 2.
These issues of differentiation, challenge and the need for feedback have yet to befully resolved, as more recent studies such as Cable et al. (2010) have shown. Even inthe most favourable circumstances, we must not assume that children’s positiveattitudes will remain constant over time, as motivation is dynamic and everchanging. Burstall (1975) too suggested that the acquisition of foreign language skillsand the development of attitudes towards language learning during later years maybe powerfully influenced by the learner’s initial and formative experience of successor failure in the language learning situation. As the novelty effect of learning a newsubject begins to wane, it will be especially important to overcome any suchemerging negative attitudes in order to sustain the enthusiasm of primary agedlearners longer term.
Finally, the Pathfinder evaluation showed that language learning in the primaryphase tends to be a light-hearted, fun experience (Muijs et al. 2005, 113) with anemphasis on oracy and interaction which pupils, with very few exceptions, enjoyedimmensely. However, in order to sustain pupils’ enthusiasm, more variety in lessonsmust be provided, including more challenging work in order to create a motivatinglanguage learning environment. This can be achieved by moving beyond games andsongs to robust curriculum content; complementing this predominantly oracy focusedcurriculum with challenging text-based work, especially for upper Key Stage 2;matching content and tasks more appropriately to children’s stage of cognitivedevelopment; increasing pupils’ expectancy of task fulfilment by sharing learningintentions and success criteria; decreasing language learning anxiety by teaching thetarget language of the classroom and providing a supportive classroom environment;maintaining motivation through appropriate informational feedback and differen-tiated target setting; ensuring clear progression from year to year; raising the status ofthe foreign languages in learners’ minds so that it is seen; to be more than just a breakfrom ‘real’ lessons and continuing to support primary teachers in particular, both intheir personal language learning and in their language teaching pedagogy.
Despite the limited nature of the present study as just one element of a largerinvestigation, it is evident that a pupil perspective can generate informationpotentially useful to teachers, particularly as languages become established in the
360 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
new 2014 National Curriculum. With the renewed advent of statutory languagesprovision once more on the horizon, it is therefore timely to explore the implicationsfor primary languages pedagogy of children’s fluctuating attitudes towards this newcurriculum subject.
Acknowledgements
Funding from the former Department for Education and Skills which made the Pathfinderevaluation possible is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Blondin, C., M. Candelier, P. Edelenbos, R. Johnstone, A. Kubanek-German, and T.Taeschner. 1998. Foreign languages in primary and pre-school education: A review of recentresearch within the European Union. London: CILT.
Burstall, C. 1975. Factors affecting foreign language learning: A consideration of some recentresearch findings. Language Teaching 8, 5–25.
Burstall, C., M. Jamieson, S. Cohen, and M. Hargreaves. 1974. Primary French in the balance.Slough: NFER.
Cable, C., P. Driscoll, R. Mitchell, S. Sing, T. Cremin, J. Earl, I. Eyres, B. Holmes, and C.Martin. 2010. Language learning at Key Stage 2: A longitudinal study. Research Report198. Nottingham: DCSF.
Centre for Language Teaching and Research (CILT). 1995. Modern foreign languages inprimary schools: CILT report. London: CILT.
Centre for Language Teaching and Research (CILT), Association for Language Learning(ALL) and University Council of Modern Languages (UCML). 2003. Language trends2003. London: CILT.
Centre for Language Teaching and Research (CILT), Association for Language Learning(ALL) and Independent Schools Modern Languages Association (ISMLA). 2004.Language trends 2004. London: CILT.
Centre for Language Teaching and Research (CILT), Association for Language Learning(ALL) and Independent Schools Modern Languages Association (ISMLA) 2005.Language trends 2005. London: CILT.
Dearing, Sir, R., and L. King. 2007. Languages review. Nottingham: DfES.Deci, E., and R. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour.
New York: Plenum.Department for Education (DfE). 2011. The framework for the national curriculum. A report by
the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review. London: Department for Education.Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2002. Languages for all: Languages for life. A
strategy for England. Nottingham: DfES.Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2005. Key Stage 2 Framework for Languages.
Nottingham: DfES.Donato, R., G.R. Tucker, J. Wudthayagorn, and K. Igarashi. 2000. Converging evidence:
Attitudes, achievements, and instruction in the later years of FLES. Foreign LanguageAnnals 33: 377–93.
Dornyei, Z. 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. ModernLanguage Journal 78: 273–84.
Dornyei, Z. 2001a. Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.Dornyei, Z. 2001b. Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Dornyei, Z. 2003. Attitudes, orientations, and motivation in language learning: Advances in
theory, research and applications. Language Learning 53: 3–32.Driscoll, P., J. Jones, and G. Macrory. 2002. The provision of foreign language learning for
pupils at Key Stage 2. DfES Research Report 572. Nottingham: DfES.Enever, J., and C. Watts. 2009. Primary foreign language pathfinders: The Brighton and Hove
experience. Language Learning Journal 37, no. 2: 219–32.Gardner, R. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning. The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Arnold.
Education 3–13 361
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
Gardner, R., and W. Lambert. 1959. Motivational variables in second language acquisition.Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266–72.
Gardner, R., and W. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R., and P. MacIntyre. 1993. A student’s contributions to second-language learning.Part 11: Affective variables. Language Teaching 26: 1–11.
Gove, M. 2012. Letter to Tim Oates, Chair of the Expert Panel on the New Curriculum.12 June 2012. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/l/secretary%20of%20state%20letter%20to%20tim%20oates%20regarding%20the%20national%20curriculum%20review%2011%20june%202012.pdf (accessed June 16, 2012).
Harris, J., and M. Conway. 2002. Modern languages in Irish primary schools. An evaluation ofthe National Pilot Project. Dublin: Institiuid Teangeolaiochta Eireann.
Hasselgreen, A. 2000. The assessment of the English ability of young learners in Norwegianschools: An innovative approach. Language Testing 17, no. 2: 261–77.
Hunt, M. 2009. Progression and assessment in foreign languages at Key Stage 2. LanguageLearning Journal 37, no. 2: 205–18.
Jones, J., and A. McLachlan. 2009. Primary languages in practice. Berkshire: Open UniversityPress.
Lamb, T. 2001. Metacognition and motivation: Learning to learn. In Reflections onmotivation, ed. G. Chambers, 85–93. London: CILT.
Muijs, D., A. Barnes, M. Hunt, B. Powell, E. Arweck, G. Lindsay, and C. Martin. 2005. Theevaluation of the Key Stage 2 Language Learning Pathfinders. Nottingham: DfES.
NuffieldLanguages Inquiry. 2000.Languages: The next generation. London: NuffieldFoundation.Oxford, R., and J. Shearin. 1994. Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical
framework. Modern Language Journal 78: 12–28.Powell, R., D. Wray, S. Rixon, J. Medwell, A. Barnes, and M. Hunt. 2000. Analysis and
evaluation of the current situation relating to the teaching of modern foreign languages atKey Stage 2 in England. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Rose, Sir J. 2009. The independent review of the primary curriculum. London: DCSF.Tierney, D., and L. Gallastegi. 2005. Where are we going with primary foreign languages? The
Language Learning Journal 31: 47–54.Wade, P., and H. Marshall with S. O’Donnell. 2009. Primary modern foreign languages.
Longitudinal survey of implementation of national entitlement to language learning at KeyStage 2. Research Report RR127. London: DCSF.
Wu, X. 2003. Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of the classroomenvironment. System 31: 501–17.
362 C. Martin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
11:
51 0
6 O
ctob
er 2
014
