wwww.coe.int
DEVELOPING ‘ACADEMIC LANGUAGE’ FROM PRIMARY TO SECONDARY EDUCATION
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
BENCHMARKS IN IRISH PRIMARY SCHOOLS
Bronagh Ćatibušić
Trinity College, Dublin; St. Patrick’s College, Dublin
Seminar organised by the
Language Policy Unit - DG II
Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France
www.coe.int/lang
OVERVIEW
• Support for children from migrant backgrounds at
primary school in Ireland
• The English Language Proficiency Benchmarks –
describing L2 proficiency development
• Relation of these ‘Benchmarks’ to actual English L2
acquisition – based on empirical evidence
• How benchmarks/descriptors can support children’s
acquisition of the language of schooling
IRELAND: RECENT MIGRATION PATTERNS
• Late 1990s to present – significant immigration
• 10% of primary school children from immigrant
backgrounds (DES & OMI 2010)
• Majority of these children speak a home language
other than English or Irish (ESL pupils)
• ESL pupils from wide range of linguistic
backgrounds
• ESL pupils are enrolled in primary schools across
Ireland, but diversity greatest in urban areas
EDUCATIONAL PROVISION FOR ESL PUPILS
• English language support programme – introduced in
late 1990s to provide L2 instruction for ESL pupils
• Duration: first 2 years of schooling in Ireland (from initial
enrolment)
• Generally regular (daily) withdrawal lessons
• ESL pupils spend c.80% of time in mainstream classroom
while receiving support (requires teacher liaison)
• Guidelines for English language support: English
Language Proficiency Benchmarks for non-Englishspeaking pupils at primary level (IILT 2003)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY BENCHMARKS
• Designed by Integrate Ireland Language and Training
in collaboration with primary school teachers
• Describe English L2 proficiency development from the
earliest stages to a level at which the child can
participate fully in mainstream education
• Curriculum-linked: function as an L2 ‘curriculumwithin-the-curriculum’ (Little 2010: 19), can be flexibly
applied across primary education (age: 4-12 years)
• Focus on language of schooling but basis for resources
promoting plurilingual and intercultural education
FEATURES OF THE BENCHMARKS
• Derived from the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001)
• Cover lower 3 levels of CEFR – A1, A2 and B1
– English language support limited to 2 years
– Appropriate to age and stage of cognitive development in primary school
– By attaining B1 proficiency, children should be able to engage fully in
mainstream education; L2 learning continues more autonomously
(NB. for younger ESL pupils, L2 literacy targets may be lower than B1)
• Reflect main themes of Irish primary school curriculum
• Include CALP-related descriptors from earliest stages of
proficiency development – ESL pupils are learning through
L2 from the very start
STRUCTURE OF THE BENCHMARKS
PART I:
 Global Benchmarks of Communicative Proficiency:
Listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, writing
•

Global Scales of Underlying Linguistic Competence:
Vocabulary control, grammatical accuracy, phonological control,
orthographic control
•
PART 2:
 13 ‘Units of Work’:
•
Describe L2 proficiency development re. curriculum themes in a
flexible way to account for age / cognitive development
EXAMPLE: GLOBAL BENCHMARKS (RECEPTIVE SKILLS)
LISTENING - A1
Can understand
simple questions
and instructions
when teachers
and other pupils
speak very slowly
and clearly.
LISTENING - A2
Can understand
a routine
instruction
given outside
school (e.g. by
a traffic
warden).
LISTENING - B1
Can understand
detailed
instructions in all
school contexts
(classroom, gym,
playground etc.).
EXAMPLE: GLOBAL SCALES OF LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
VOCABULARY – A1
Can recognize,
understand and use
a limited range of
basic vocabulary...
VOCABULARY – A2
Can recognize,
understand and use
a range of
vocabulary
associated with
concrete everyday
needs or learning
experiences...
VOCABULARY – B1
Can recognize,
understand and use
a range of
vocabulary related to
familiar classroom
themes, school
routines and
activities...
EXAMPLE: UNIT OF WORK (‘OUR SCHOOL’)
SPOKEN INTERACTION – A1
Can ask for familiar classroom
objects and materials (book,
crayons, paper, etc.).
SUPPORTING L2 LEARNING – BENCHMARKS & ELP
Benchmarks – teachers
• Aim: to support an ‘action-oriented’ approach to L2 learning
through the functional description of achievable, curriculumlinked learning outcomes (classroom activities / assessment
criteria)
European Language Portfolio: ‘Primary ELP’ – pupils
• Aim: to ensure active involvement in own learning, selfassessment, goal setting
– My passport: summary of own L2 learning at specific points in time
– My biography: ongoing record of own learning in relation to each of
the 13 ‘Units of Work’
– My dossier: evidence of own learning
Our school
A1
EXAMPLE:
CHECKLIST
FROM
PRIMARY ELP
BIOGRAPHY
‘OUR SCHOOL’
(IILT 2004)
I can understand some of the things that the teacher
says in class and the names for things in the school
I can understand when my friends tell me how to play a
game
I can read the names and notices on the doors in my
school and on the board
I can ask permission to go to the toilet
I can ask for things in the classroom
A2
I understand what the teacher says in P.E.
I can understand things that I must tell my parents
I can read words that I know in a book
I can give a message to the teacher or tell a teacher
about a problem
I can tell the story of what I saw on television
I can write a little about my school and my friends
I can write a little about what we are doing in class
B1
I can understand exactly what the teacher says to me
I can understand the other pupils in my class
I can read my textbooks in the class
I can ask the teacher questions in class
I can tell my class about things we are learning
I can write about my day at home or in school
I can write about my friends and what we do together
BENCHMARKS’ RELATION TO L2 ACQUISITION?
• Feedback from teachers suggested Benchmarks
were appropriate
• Research was required to examine this issue
empirically
• Do the Benchmarks reflect the trajectory of ESL
pupils’ L2 acquisition, and if so how / how well?
– Focus of research was on pupils’ oral L2 use as best
evidence of their L2 acquisition (L2 learning inseparable
from L2 use – CEFR’s approach to language learning)
– Evidence of L2 literacy development also considered
STUDY: ESL ACQUISITION IN IRISH PRIMARY SCHOOLS
•
•
•
•
Longitudinal study conducted in school year 2007-08
3 schools
18 ESL pupils
10 different national / linguistic backgrounds
– Pupils from: Poland, Romania, Pakistan, Serbia, China, Croatia,
India, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal
•
•
•
•
Age range: 4 – 10 years
12 male, 6 female
1st and 2nd year of English language support
Context: English language support lessons
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
• 154 English language support lessons producing:
– 80+ hours audio-recording of pupils’ oral L2 use (transcribed)
– Sample of pupils’ written L2 production
• Function-form analysis of oral data (mixed methods):
–
–
–
–
Benchmark links to pupils’ spoken turns (functional analysis)
Linguistic features of pupils’ spoken turns (formal analysis)
Impact of interaction on pupils’ L2 use (conversation analysis)
7455 oral turns-at-talk were analysed
• Analysis of literacy-related data (qualitative)
• Consideration of influences on pupils’ L2 acquisition:
– Internal (age, home language, learning style)
– External (classroom interaction patterns)
FROM INDIVIDUAL TO OVERALL RESULTS
• For each pupil, a ‘profile’ was created which:
– Compared evidence of L2 oral proficiency
development (derived from Benchmark links) to
evidence of L2 acquisition (derived from 14 linguistic
indicators – 10 grammatical, 4 lexical)
– Compared evidence of L2 literacy development to
Benchmark descriptors for reading and writing
– Considered possible influences on L2 acquisition
• Cumulative analysis of the 18 pupil profiles to
determine the relation, if any, of the Benchmarks
to actual L2 acquisition among ESL pupils
RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS (1)
• Progression in ESL pupils’ L2 oral proficiency
followed the sequence outlined by the
Benchmark levels: A1 → A2 → B1
• This progression from proficiency associated
with Level A1 to proficiency more associated
with Level B1 occurred over 2 years of English
language support – learning outcomes
described by the Benchmarks reflect actual L2
oral development over a 2-year period
OVERALL BENCHMARK PROFICIENCY LINKS FOR PUPILS
ACROSS THEIR ENGLISH LANGUAGE SUPPORT ALLOCATION
RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS (2)
• Most instances of pupils’ recorded L2 use
could be linked to descriptors for the skills of
spoken interaction and spoken production
included in the Benchmarks (both ‘Global
Benchmarks of Communicative Proficiency’
and ‘Units of Work’) – descriptors accurate
• Links to many of the Benchmark descriptors
for listening could also be inferred from pupil’s
L2 use in interaction
RESULTS OF FORMAL ANALYSIS
• Evidence of L2 grammatical and lexical development
among ESL pupils corresponded closely to the
progression of L2 acquisition suggested by the
descriptors in the Benchmarks’ ‘Global Scale of
Underlying Linguistic Competence’
• This research also illustrated specific features of L2
linguistic competence at A1, A2, B1 (e.g. typical
structures, vocabulary range, error-types etc.)
RESULTS: GRAMMAR & LEXIS
Grammar
Increasing use of nouns, verbs, personal pronouns, articles, prepositions,
auxiliaries.
A1
Increasing accuracy in the use of these indicators (subject to fluctuation as
production rate increases)
B1
Structural complexity developing, from noun-based production in the early
stages of L2 development to more complex structures
Development in range and accuracy of syntactical indicators: negative and
question formation, clause linkage
Lexis
A1
Increasing lexical range
Broadening and deepening of semantic range
Diversification of verb lexemes produced
Widening range of lexico-grammatical features, with lexical
development apparent within these emerging categories
B1
A1
EXAMPLE: PUPILS’ ORAL L2 VERB USE
• This is eating. (re. picture of child eating)
Child from Latvia, 4 years old, c. 4 months support
A2
• Eh the- the three little pigs em eh and the wolf eh and .. I don’t know
how what that called, this yellow. (re. ‘straw house’ in story)
Child from Serbia, 6 years old, c. 8 months support
• And in television I see one ship have- have all day he broke the ship
and- and he- he- he- (re. film ‘Titanic’)
Child from China, 6 years old, c. 9 months support
B1
• Because if somebody drinks lots of em whiskey and beer and- and- em
then- then they em the eyes start to close and em they start going in
the road and then they fell down and eh and that’s why the- the police
is there. (re. classroom talk about situations requiring an ambulance)
Child from Pakistan, 8 years old, c. 15 months support
L2 LITERACY DEVELOPMENT (1)
• Benchmark descriptors for reading and writing
reflected the development of pupils’ L2 literacy skills
• Younger ESL pupils (under 7 years) began to acquire L2
literacy skills in English in a manner similar to nativeEnglish-speaking peers, BUT difficulties apparent e.g.
regarding unfamiliar vocabulary
• The rate of L2 literacy development was generally
faster among older ESL pupils (7-10 years), BUT
curriculum literacy requirements much higher for
these children
L2 LITERACY DEVELOPMENT (2)
• Pupils with some L1 literacy skills progressed
faster in L2 literacy than those who did not
(cf. Cummins 2000) – encouragement of L1
literacy development is important
• General literacy-related issues (nonlanguage-specific reading difficulties) and the
nature of any previous educational
experience may also impact upon ESL pupils’
L2 literacy development
EXAMPLE: L2 LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
Child from
Poland, 4
years old,
c. 5 months
support
Child from Pakistan, 10 years old,
20 months support
Child from Portugal, 8 years old,
15 months support
EXAMPLE:
THE CHALLENGE
OF L2 LITERACY
Child completing task (labelling
pictures re. actions) with
teacher’s assistance, comments
on challenge of L2 writing:
I can write just only ‘s’ in
Lithuania eh letter, we- we
have lots of them …. the
girl- (child writes 2nd sentence)
It’s very hard to me to
write .. all the words ...
(final comment at end of task)
Child from Lithuania, 8 years old, c. 4 months
support, previous schooling in Lithuania
INTERNAL INFLUENCES ON L2 ACQUISITION
• Age: older learners (7-10 years) appeared to acquire L2
English at a slightly faster rate than younger learners
(under 7 years) – BUT higher curriculum demands on
older learners
• Home language: evidence of cross-linguistic influence
particularly re. phonology and grammar – useful to be
aware of L1/L2 similarities and differences
• Personality and learning style: these factors may affect
e.g. interactional preferences – consider learning
environments/activities appropriate to individual child
INTERACTIONAL INFLUENCES ON L2 ACQUISITION
• More ‘active’ types of discourse (e.g. ‘telling’,
‘elaboration’) corresponded with evidence of
L2 use associated with pupils’ maximum L2
proficiency
• Encouraging collaborative pupil-pupil talk
involving such ‘active’ discourse may create
opportunities for further L2 learning (cf.
Vygotsky 1978, 1986, Swain 2000) – children
should not be restricted to responsive roles
DO BENCHMARKS WORK?
The Irish case shows:
• Benchmarks derived from the CEFR and rooted in the
themes and requirements of school curricula can
provide flexible and accurate guidelines to support
migrant children acquiring the language of schooling
• Benchmarks should be applied in an individually
sensitive way
• CEFR-based benchmarks and tools (e.g. ELP) can
support pedagogical practices which promote active
and autonomous learning for effective L2 acquisition
ROLE OF BENCHMARKS IN PLURILINGUAL EDUCATION?
• Useful for L2 learning, but also can promote
plurilingualism:
– Through associated tools e.g. in Ireland Primary ELP,
Together Towards Inclusion (IILT & SELB 2007)
– Through the creation of descriptors for home language
development
• Using benchmarks which have a positive focus on the
individual child’s language learning experience within
an intercultural educational environment may allow
better recognition of learners’ plurilingual repertoires
Thank you
Merci
Hvala
Go raibh maith agaibh
REFERENCES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cummins, J., 2000: Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Council of Europe 2001: The Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment. Cambridge University Press. Available at:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp
Department of Education and Skills / Office of the Minister for Integration 2010: Intercultural Education Strategy 20102015 (Executive summary). Dublin: DES/OMI. Available at:
http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/mig_intercultural_education_strategy.pdf
Integrate Ireland Language and Training 2003: English Language Proficiency Benchmarks for non-English-speaking pupils at
primary level. Available at: www.ncca.ie/iilt
Integrate Ireland Language and Training 2004: European Language Portfolio, Primary: Learning the language of the host
community. Available at: http://www.ncca.ie/iilt
Integrate Ireland Language and Training and Southern Education and Library Board 2007: Together Towards Inclusion:
Toolkit for diversity in the primary school: Dublin/Armagh: IILT/SELB. Available at: http://www.ncca.ie/iilt
Little, D. 2010: The linguistic and educational integration of children and adolescents from migrant backgrounds.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Language Policy Division. Available at:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/ListDocs_Geneva2010.asp
Swain, M., 2000: The output hypothesis and beyond. Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J.
P. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97-114
Vygotsky, L., 1978: Mind in Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press
Vygotsky, L., 1986: Thought and Language (2nd Ed). Cambridge MA: MIT Press