ELLiE - A longitudinal study of Early Language Learning in Europe: some preliminary results

Lucilla Lopriore,Roma Tre University, Rome

OUTLINE

• The Research Team • Reasons for the study• The Research Framework• Methodology• Research Instruments• First key findings• A country example: Italy• Next steps

• England – Dr. Janet Enever - Project Coordinator• Italy – Dr. Lucilla Lopriore• Netherlands – Dr. Evelien Krikhaar• Poland – Dr. Magdalena Szpotowicz• Spain – Prof. Carmen Muñoz• Sweden – Dr. Eva Lindgren • Croatia – Prof. Jelena Mihaljevic Djigunovic

This research has been supported by a European Commission grant under theLifelong Learning Programme, Project n°. 135632-LLP-2007-UK-KA1SCR. An additional British Council grant supported the Croatian team.

The ELLiE Research Team7 European countries

England

Italy

Netherlands

Poland

Spain

ELLiE ELLiE studystudyELLiE ELLiE studystudy

Sweden

Croatia

A transnational research studyA transnational research study

Country selection

• Northern/Southern Europe

• “old”/ “new”/candidate Europe

• Larger/smaller European states

• Romance, Germanic, Slavonic language

• Second/foreign language contexts

GLOBAL ISSUE?

• Beyond Europe – early language learning (ELL) policies across China, India and much of Asia.

• A paradigm shift towards English as a ‘basic skill’? (Graddol 2006)

Early Language Learning in Europe:

reasons for an early start

"…member states should move towards ensuring that foreign language learning at primary school and kindergarten is effective…"

(European Commission, 2004: 7)

Early Language Learning in Europe:

reasons for an early start

“An early start by itself […] guarantees nothing; it needs to be accompanied minimally by good teaching, by a supportive environment and by continuity from one year to the next…”

Edelenbos, Johnstone & Kubanek (2006: 147)

Language choice and start ageLanguage choice and start age

COUNTRY England Italy The Netherla

nds

Poland Spain Sweden Croatia

Lang.choice

free choice

EN EN EN/GER EN (mainly)

EN EN (mainly)

Startage

7 yrs 6 yrs 6-9 yrs 7 yrs 6 yrs 7-10 yrs 6/7 yrs

Teacher qualification requirements

qual T. qual primary T.

Qual. FL teacher

Qual FL primary T.

Preferred national model

England Generalist primary T with some FL fluency

Italy Generalist primary T with min B1 FL fluency

The Netherlands

Generalist primary T with FL fluency

Poland Generalist primary T with min B1 FL fluency

Spain Generalist primary T with min B1 FL fluency

Sweden Generalist primary T with FL fluency

Croatia Generalist primary T with additional FL qual

Primary Language Teacher Required Qualification

The Research Framework:A multinational longitudinal

projectA longitudinal and comparative study• Approx. 1200 children from 6/7 years to 10/11 years• 6/7 schools in each country• 6 focal learners in each class• 250 learner profiles• 45 teacher profiles• 45 school profiles

Longitudinal: 4 years– British Council (1 year)– European Commission (3 years)

PolicyPolicythe processes of policy implementation

Key Key criteriacriteria

factors contributing most effectively to the success of ELL

BroadBroadoutcomesoutcomes

the linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes of ELL

Impact of

digital media

Significance

of teacher’s

role

Study AimTo investigate the development of young

foreign language learners, gaining insights

into the factors that influence both learners’

perceptions of language learning and their

responses in schooled contexts, where a

quite limited amount of curriculum time is

available

Year 2 Year 3Year 1Scopingstudy

6 countriesB

ritish Council

support

7 countriesE

uropean

+BC

support

7 countriesE

uropean

+ BC

support

7 countriesE

uropean

+ BC

support

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10

LONGITUDINAL PERSPECTIVES

METHODOLOGY

• A multimethod approach drawing on:- qualitative alongside quantitative data;- 3-year data collection.

• The project is collecting data about both whole classes of children and about a selected group of 6 focal learners per class.

METHODOLOGY• It investigates a large number of case studies

using the same research approach and instruments across seven countries in Europe.

• Evidence is built in this way from which to draw out strands for comparative analyses.

• Analyses involve triangulation of data through different sources & participants.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

School Background

4

Principal Interview

4 4 4 4

Teacher Interview

4 4 4 4

Lesson Observation

4 4 4 4 4 4

Lesson Observation Focal Learners

4 4 4 4 4

Class Smiley Questionnaire

4 4 4 4

Class Listening tasks

4 4 4 4

Focal Learner Interview

4 4 4 4

Focal Learner Speaking Tasks (2)

4 4 4 4

Parents’ Questionnaire

4 4

Class Reading Task

4

Learning environment

• National language policies

• School profiles

• Classroom observation

• Parents’ questionnaires

• Common features (across countries)

Teachers’ roles

• Teachers’ interviews

• Teachers’ questionnaires

• Classroom observation

• A developing teacher profile

Learners’ attitudes• Focal Learners’ interviews

• Learner attitude questionnaires

• Classroom observations

• Parents’ questionnaires

• Teachers’ interviews

LISTENING in ELLiE

• What can we understand of children’s listening processes in L2?• What is the level of children’s performance on listening skills after one year and after 2 years?• What are the contributing factors on level of performance?• Can these factors explain different levels of performance and cross-country differences?

• Can we relate growth in comprehension with growth in vocabulary production and oral performance?

LISTENING in ELLiE: First 2 yrs conclusions

Good results are related to:• Positive attitude to L2 and learners’ self-perception• Country specific factors such as age and out-of-school exposure to L2 and are probably affected by: - % of L2 use in the classroom by teacher when self-confident- % of use of multimedia- task familiarityand probably have an effect on: • Vocabulary growth• Oral production

2008 FL - MC and Room - 5 countries

680,73

486,14

580,39

804,94

660,50

917,60

701,21

915,02

781,32

1080,57

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Italy Netherland Spain Sweden Croatia

Ras

ch m

ean

Multiple choice

Room

2007-2008 - FL 4 countries (149 sts)

511,31

595,56

933,04

676,12

464,01

487,00

582,97593,14

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2007 2008

Ras

ch m

ean

Italy (42 sts)

Spain (42 sts)

Sweden (17 sts)

Croatia (48 sts)

VOCABULARY production in ELLiE

- How many FL lexical items can students produce?

- What is the relation between FL school exposure and students’ FL output?

- What is the relation between FL out-of-school exposure and students’ FL output?

- What is the role of motivation in students’ FL output?

VOCABULARY production: First 2 yrs. conclusions

- In school exposure in terms of both quantity and quality seem important for children’s FL production

- Out-of-school exposure to e.g. cartoons and computer games seem to increase children’s FL output

- Variation between children that needs further investigation

- Time on task an important aspect that has to be better understood

ORAL PRODUCTION in ELLiE

1. What are the characteristics of YL’s oral performance in grade?

2. To what extent do variables from the wider social context, i.e. country context and socioeconomic background correlate with oral performance?

3. Can school and teacher variables explain differences in oral production outcomes?

ORAL PRODUCTION in ELLiE:First 2 yrs conclusions

• Differences in oral production between country contexts are significant at grade 2 already

• Socioeconomic background plays a significant role, but it may be superseded by teaching factors

• Quality of teaching (interaction style, use of materials, quality of L2 input, …) comes out as a determining factor in ss oral production

• Possible limitation from task type

Let’s focus on learners’ perceptions

Development of young learners’ perceptions of classroom

activities, of the importance of FLlearning and of their own learning

achievement and attitudes.

Aim• Investigate Focal Learners’ perception

of and attitude to foreign language classroom teaching & learning.

Looking at one country: ITALY

English: compulsory from grade 1 to 5

Teaching time:1st : 1 hr per week = 30’+30’2nd : 2 hrs per week3rd, 4th, 5th: 3 hrs per week

Teachers:Primary teachers specialised in teaching English as a foreign Language.

L2 exposure:Very limited exposure to English

outside the classroom.

QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)

sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.

ITALY: the context

Total sample: 169 students, 8 classes, 6 schools in central Italy (Latium).7 teachersFocal learners: 49 students.

Schools:• 2 in 2 small villages in the

countryside northeast of Latium;• 2 in a town northwest of Latium;• 2 in the outskirts of Rome.

Period: 1st yr 2006-2007 1st grade (6/7)2nd yr 2007-2008 2nd grade (7/8)

QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)

sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.

FOCAL LEARNERS: composition49 = 6/7 children in each class

Female: 26 Male: 23

Country of origin: 44 Italy, 5 other countries (India, Morocco, Colombia, Rumenia, Poland)

Initial selection criteria Class teacher selection based upon childrenachievement levels:

2 low, 2 average, 2 high

FOCAL LEARNERS: instruments

FLs’ perception and attitudes investigated both years by:

1. Smileys questionnaires (Yr. 1 Yr.2)2. Oral interviews (Yr. 1 Yr.2) 3. Classroom observation chart (Yr. 1 Yr.2)4. Teachers’ evaluation of the FL (Yr. 1 Yr.2)

2007 2008

SMILEYS

Tick one face that describes how you feel

1st year

How do you feel about:

- speaking English?- singing songs in your English classes?- learning new words in English?- listening to English?- talking to your friends in English when playing a game?

SMILEYS

Tick one face that describes how you feel

2nd year1. How do you feel about learning English this year?2. Compared to last year, do you like English more, the same or less this year?3. Is English easier, the same, or harder for you this year?4. How do you feel about learning new words in English this year?5. What’s your favourite activity this year?

Songs … Stories … Games … Role play … Worksheet tasks … Other …

5. What’s your favourite activity this year?

• SONGS: 30 combined with games, stories• GAMES: 29 combined with songs• STORIES: 27 combined with songs, stories• WORKSHEET TASK: 15 combined with songs,

stories, games, • ROLE PLAY: 14 combined with stories, songs,

games• OTHER: 11 (reading, writing, colouring,..)

ATTITUDES & MOTIVATION INTERVIEW

1. Which is your favourite school subject this year?2. What do you like best in English this year? • What do you dislike most in English this year?• Do you think that you learn English as fast as

other children in class, faster, or slower? • Is English easier or more difficult for you this

year than it was last year?3. Do you like your English classes this year more,

the same or less than last year? Why?7. Are your English classes different this year than

last year? How?

ATTITUDES & MOTIVATION INTERVIEW

8. Are your parents happy with what you are learning in English?

9. Do your parents / brothers / sisters help you with your English?

How do they help you?10. Have you ever met someone who can't speak

Italian? Could you say something to him/her in English? Did you understand when they spoke to you in English? How did it feel?

11. Look at these pictures of English classes. In which of these would you learn English best?

Why?

QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)

sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.

QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)

sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.

QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)

sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.

QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)

sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.

1 2

3 4

Preferences for classroom layout

Pairs Groups

Circle Mixed

Female 15 6 4

Male 8 4 2 2

Total 23 10 6 2

Reasons for preferences

1. Pairs

“Everybody is sitting quiet, so they can learn”

“I can understand and repeat what the teacher says”

“I can hear what the teacher says”

“The teacher writes on the board and I can see”

“The teacher tells us what to do”

2. Groups

“Children can listen to the teacher when she comes to the group”

“Teacher speaks with each child”

“It’s better for me, I can hear the other children and the teacher”

“Children work and can sing together”

“I like it because I can listen to songs”

3. Circle

“Children listen to music and sing along”

“In circle you study better”

“It’s good to hear the music”

“I can see all my friends”

4. Mixed

“Children are all together and play with the teacher. It’s fun”

“Children enjoy the English lesson, there are many things we can use”

Preliminary Conclusions (Italy)

Young learners • Are generally positive towards English language learning as

taught in their classes;• Regard English as a school subject;• Are aware of what goes on in the classroom;• Can distinguish between types of activities; • Can express preferences both in terms of activities, of classroom

setting and of teacher behaviour;• Have a clear perception of their level and of changes in their

progress;• Are aware of what they need in order to learn better;• Are eager to word their learning experiences;• Need constant attention and support from teachers.

Conclusions

Teachers• Can reasonably well predict their students’ progress;• Their approach to teaching English to young learners matches

traditional approaches to teaching FL to Young learners (classroom activities);

• Intervene quite often during lessons to elicit responses from learners who show less attention;

• Do not always pay enough attention to high achievers;• Their commitment is closely related to the context they teach in

(school internal policies).

ParentsAre generally very supportive of their children learning English.

www.ellieresearch.eu

Lucilla Lopriorellopriore@uniroma3.it

This research has been supported by a European Commission grant under the Lifelong Learning Programme, Project n°. 135632-LLP-2007-UK-KA1SCR. An additional British Council grant supported the Croatian team.

Project final dissemination event: University of Warsaw, Poland

26-29 October 2010

References

Commission of the European Communities (2007) 554 final Commission Working Document Report on the implementation of the Action Plan "Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity" SEC(2007)1222

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/com554_en.pdf

 Commission of the European Communities (2003). Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006 + COM (2003) 449. http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf.

Driscoll, P. & Frost, D. (eds.) (1999) The teaching of modern foreign languages in the primary school. London: Routledge.

Edelenbos, P, Johnstone, R.,Kubanek, A. (2006) The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. Languages for the children of Europe. Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 study. European Commission, Brussels:

http://europa.eu/languages/en/document/97/7

Genesee, F. (1978/9) Scholastic effects of French immersion: an overview after 10 years. Interchange 9,20-29.

Graddol, D (2006): English Next. The British Council.

Grin, F. (2002). Economics in Language Education Policy. Guide for the development of Language Education Policies in Europe. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Reference Study. Council of Europe, Strasbourg: Language policy Division.

Johnstone, R. (2008) An early start: What are the key conditions for generalised success? In: Enever, J., Moon, J. & Raman, U. Young Learner English Language Policy and Implementation: International Perspectives. Kent, UK: IATEFL.

Munoz, C. (Ed.). (2006) Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Singleton, D. & Ryan, L. (2004) Language acquisition: the age factor. Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.

Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. UK: Cambridge University Press.