An exploratory study of sociological and educational

espoused beliefs (With Reference to English as an Additional Language in Mainstream

classes.)

Abstract
Despite the reported powerful influence of teachers’ beliefs on their pedagogical practices in
the classroom, very few studies of teachers’ beliefs and the correspondence between their
beliefs and instructional strategies in the field of second language acquisition have been
internationally published – Woods (1996) being an important exception. Moreover, there has
been a scarcity of research in the context of EAL (English as an Additional Language) in
state secondary schools in England, where the expertise base with regard to EAL in the
school system is becoming scare, where resources are minimal and access to published
scholarship and research is limited.

The present qualitative study seeks to occupy this research space. Framed within an
ecological perspective on L2 learning, it explores the stated beliefs and reported practices on
the use of L1 in the classroom by a group of eight teachers with teaching experience ranging
from 2 years to 20 year and the factors shaping their beliefs. Eight interviews (ranging from
40 to 60 minutes long) were conducted to collect the data.

The findings reveal that the eight teachers show some marked differences in the use of L1 in
the classroom. These differences appear to fall within three categories: English Literacy
Oriented (ELO), transitionally supportive of biliteracy and bilingualism (TSBB) and strongly
supportive of biliteracy and bilingualism (SSBB).

This research points to the need for the development of a coherent theory of language with
more sustained discussions on the learning/teaching of EAL in policy documents and in EAL

0
guidelines. Results also identify a need for that pre-service and in-service teacher education
to equip all teachers with the tools to respond to language diversity of EAL learners in
schools and to support the bilingualism and language diversity of their learners.

Abstract 1

Chapter 1. Introduction chapter 5

1.1 Personal Investment in the Study 6
1.2 Overview of the issues 7
1.3 Statement of the problem 9
1.4 Aims of the study 10
1.5 Some Key concepts 11
1.6 Organisation of the study 12

Chapter 2. Conceptual background 14

2.1 1945 to the mid-1970s: From laissez faire to assimilationism 14
2.2 Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 19
2. 3 The Mid 1970’s to the present day 20
2.4 The Education Reform Act (1988) 25
2.5 EAL provision in England 27
2.6 Conclusion 33

Chapter 3. Review of the literature 35

3.1 Teacher cognition and mainstream/EAL Teachers 35
3.2 Factors that Shape Teachers Beliefs 37
3.3 Teaching and learning an additional language at school 41
3.4 Beliefs about using L1 in classrooms in SLA research 46
3.5 Ecological Approach in Language Education 48
3.5.1 Biliteracy Development 50
3.5.2 (Bi) literacy as a Social Practice 51
3.5.3 Studies on Out-of-school Language 52

1
 and (Bi) literacy Practices in L1
3.5.4 Studies on in-school (Bi) literacy Practices 55
3.6 Code switching 57
3.7 Translanguaging 58
3.8 Translation 61

Chapter 4. Methodology 64
4.1 The Research Framework 64
4.2 Epistemological Considerations 65
4.3 Ontological Considerations 66
4.4 Methodological Considerations 67
4.5 Previous studies of particular relevance 68
4.6 Theoretical framework for the research 70
4.7 Considering phenomenology 70
4.8 Data collection procedures 72
4.9 Phenomenological Method 72
4.9.1 Sampling the participants 72
4.9.2 About the participants 74
4.10 Data Collection 74
4.10.1 The Phenomenological Interview 74
4.10.2 Semi structured interviews 75
4.10.3 Skype interviews 76
4.10.4 Email correspondence 77
4.11 Qualitative Data Analysis 78
4.11.1 Data analysis: Reading teachers' narratives as’ text’ 78
4.12 Displaying the Data 81
4.13 Research quality 82
4.13.1 Reliability 82
4.13.2 Validity 83
4.13.3 Trustworthiness 84
4.13.4 Transferability 84
4.13.5 Objectivity 84
4.13.6 Ethical consideration 85

Chapter 5. Findings 87
5.1 Teachers ‘espoused beliefs about the use of L1 87
5.1.1 Teachers' beliefs about the use of L1 in 87
the classroom
5.1.2 Students' use of the first language in the classroom 88
is unfavourably regarded
5.1.3 Students' use of the first language in the classroom 89
is tolerated
5.1.4 Students' use of the first language in the classroom 90
is favourably regarded
5.2 How contextual factors shape teachers’ beliefs and practices? 92

2
 5.2.1 Lack of support 93
5.2.2 Learning from experience 95
5.2.3 Expertise 97
5.2.4 Professional Training 98

5.3 Teachers’ reported practices on the use of L1 100

5.3.1 Use of L1 is unfavourably regarded for in teachers’ practice 101
5.3.2 Context bound approach to L1 use 103
5.3.3 Positive ways of referring to L1 in mainstream class practice 105
5.3.4 Teachers' reported practice on peer input 107
5.3.5 Teachers' reported practices on the use of dictionaries 109
5.3.6 Teachers' reported practices on the use of other materials and 109
resources

Chapter 6. Discussion. 112

6.1 Teachers’ beliefs about the role of L1 in EAL context 112
6.2 English as ‘the common good’ 114
6.3 Congruence and dissonacne of teachers’ stated beliefs 116
with EAL discourse
6.4 Disjunctions between policymakers and implementers 117
6.5 Teachers’ reported practices on the use of L1 118
6.6 A possible paradigm shift 120

Chapter 7. Conclusion chapter. 123

7.1 Implications for the education of EAL students 124
7.2 Implications for language and linguistics in education 125
7.3 Implications for pre-service teacher education 126
7.4 Limitations of the Study 127
7.5 Suggestions for further research 128
7.6 Final thoughts 128
Appendices
Appendix 1 Participants ‘profiles 130
Appendix 2 Informed consent form 133
Appendix 3 Interview schedule 134
Appendix 4 Teacher’s individual grid 136
Appendix 5 Teachers’ mastergrid 137
Appendix 6 Excerpt from interview 143

References 146

3
 Chapter 1
Introduction chapter

England is currently experiencing an unprecedented increase in language diversity (Craig et

al.: 2010) transforming its schools and placing new demands on the preparation and
professional development of teachers. These patterns of immigration to United Kingdom
have resulted in pupils from widely disparate linguistic and cultural backgrounds being
educated in schools across the country. Many of these schools in the UK have little or no
history or experience of working with pupils from other than the dominant white, English-
speaking backgrounds (Bourne : 2008). As a result, most EAL students spend the majority of
their school days in classrooms with predominantly English-speaking teachers and
classmates, immersed in a language that they often do not understand (Leung : 2000).
However increasingly in urban state school settings, monolingualism tends to be less the
norm (Graddol: 2009).

While the most recent study of multilingualism in London records 233 languages spoken by
school pupils (Eversley et al.: 2010), one of the issues confronting EAL students in England
today is that the value of languages spoken by communities that originate in migration
remains ambiguous in the educational arena. Most of these languages, known as ‘community
languages’, do not have the status of the Modern Foreign Languages (MFL, such as French,
Spanish and German) traditionally taught in the curriculum of mainstream schools and as a
result they are not valued within the educational system (Leung: 2010; Creese: 2005; Franson
: 1999). However the distinction between community languages and Modern Foreign
Languages is increasingly blurred: French is now spoken as a “community language” by a
substantial resident population originating not only from France, but from Francophone
countries notably from the African continent and from all over the world. The same applies to
languages such as Portuguese and Spanish. On the other hand community languages such as
Arabic and Turkish are now more commonly found on the MFL curriculum (Anderson et al.:
2008).

4
Sook Lee and Oxelson (2006) argue that teachers’ recognition of the importance of
community language maintenance is crucial to the child’s holistic development. There is now
mounting evidence that keeping the two languages separate in schools at all times and
following only monolingual instructional strategies is not always appropriate (Creese &
Blackledge : 2010; Cummins: 2007). It is therefore essential that all students are afforded the
opportunity to develop their language skills to the fullest extent possible, in order to gain
maximum access to education and the structures and norms that constitute the society of their
new community. Nevertheless, based on professional literature on EAL Teaching/Learning
(Creese & Leung: 2003; Leung: 2001; Leung & Franson: 2001; Leung & Creese: 2010), it is
my belief that the National Curriculum attaches insufficient importance to language issues,
more specifically the community language knowledge and language development of EAL
children and provides insufficient guidance to teachers with regard to EAL (English as an
Additional Language) teaching/learning.

The focus of this investigation lies behind mainstream teachers’ practices with bilingual
pupils where the teachers are operating within limited policy guidance (Leung et al.: 2001;
Bourne: 1989; Bourne & McPake: 1991). This study examines specifically inner London
mainstream teachers' espoused instructional beliefs in relation to issues of L1as well as their
reported practices in EAL context. The beliefs and the practices that support language
ecology and the beliefs and practices that detract from language ecology with reference to
EAL teaching will be examined. The present study thus complements other studies conducted
elsewhere and adds to the body knowledge of second/ foreign language teachers’ beliefs in
general, but more specifically, to the beliefs and reported practices held by mainstream/EAL
teachers on the use of L1 in the classroom, which to date have remained unexplored.

1.1 Personal Investment in the Study

The origins of this study are rooted in two aspects of my personal experience, which may at
first appear rather dissonant. The first experience is that of being an Arabic-French bilingual
growing up in Grenoble, an area of France where, during my childhood in the early 1970s, a
significant portion of the population were bilingual (French and Italian). I was educated
bilingually at primary and secondary school and went on to study English, Spanish and
Italian to Degree level at Grenoble University in France. I used translation (unofficially) not
only for the acquisition of those languages but also outside school contexts as a means to
convey messages and overcome linguistics barriers between speakers of the aforementioned

5
languages: unofficially, because since translation has been banned in France by law since the
1950’s and the only official approach to teach languages is the communicative approach,
which assumes that immersion in the target language creates the best language learning
conditions. I then trained as a secondary English teacher, this time at an English university,
and subsequently worked in several schools in Australia, in America, in Mexico, in France
and in England while working in parallel as a freelance translator. Working in these
secondary schools provided the second of the personal experiences to have influenced this
study. Whilst working in a West London multilingual school, I saw echoes of my earlier life
experiences begin to emerge. At this school, nearly half the students consisted of young
people from homes where languages other than English were spoken. The majority of these
students came from Pakistani and Indian heritage families who spoke Punjabi, or dialects
such as Patwari or Mirpuri. I began to see a clear parallel between their situations and my
own―albeit the fact that I had a bilingual education and they did not. This study is rooted in
this interest in both the common ground I felt I shared with some of my students, as well as
the differences between our experiences.

In my work as a secondary school teacher, I became increasingly concerned about offering

coherent explanations for my work practices that included selecting a wide range of
translation texts, writing vocabulary lists that comprised technical terns and translating then,
despite decision making- hierarchy directives not to do so. As I continued on my learning
journey, my emergent understanding of the lack of visible focus on issues related to EAL has
prompted my awaking realisation of mismatches between learners’ lived experiences and
voices and representations in the discourse that dominates official pedagogic discourses that
relate to EAL. My interest in exploring the use of heritage language in the classroom is
motivated, partly by the National Curriculum writers’ neglect of this aspect of language and
partly by my intrinsic interest in the topic as I believe that the use of L1can create and enrich
learning experiences for immigrant learners. Mismatches between learners’ lived experiences
and the voices and representations in the discourse that dominates EAL can adversely affect
learners’ learning experience. In my experience, as both a student and teacher it seems that
discursive construction — speaking for purposes of communication — is when this
experience can be affected most strongly.

1.2 Overview of the Issues

6
One of the main challenges that face educators in the England is how to best instruct English
learners who have been mainstreamed into classrooms with students whose first language is
English. A fundamental and well-recognised pedagogical role of teachers in English-speaking
countries is that of supporting students to develop language and literacy skills that facilitate
participation in a broad range of powerful textual practices that require academic language
proficiency in English (Cummins: 2001; Gee: 1989). Currently, in schools in England, the
notion of language proficiency has become synonymous with mastery of skills related to
reading, writing, speaking and listening in English. However, in the British education
context, linguistic and cultural plurality has always been a reality – as everywhere else in the
world. Recent statistics show that England and notably London will become even more
diverse in the years to come. Statistics have predicted that immigration will continue to rise in
the coming years (Office for National Statistics: 2006, cited in Baker & Eversley: 2000)
which is likely to increase the use of UK community languages. Other recent studies indicate
that in London, for example, there are over 300 languages spoken by children of school age
(Baker & Eversley: 2000; Gundara: 2001). This compares with the last Language Census
conducted by the Inner London Education Authority in 1989 which revealed that there were
over 300 different languages represented in London's schools (ILEA: 1989). Westminster, at
the heart of inner London, is in many ways representative of London language trends. It
shows some of the most prominent features of multilingualism in London: an extraordinary
linguistic variety and consistent increases in the number of speakers and languages.
Westminster Language and Ethnic Minority Service records 143 languages used by
Westminster pupils (DfES: 2006).

This increased migration in recent years has contributed significantly to the “broadening of
cultural diversity spanning traditions and languages from around the world”, according to the
DES (Department of Education and Science). The twenty-first century has been characterised
by greater cultural and linguistic diversity in schools and society. Indeed Cline et al. (2002)
suggest that “the great majority of teachers across the country may now expect to work with
minority ethnic pupils at some point in their career, and mainly white schools in almost all
areas may expect to admit minority ethnic pupils more frequently than in the past”(Cline et
al., 2002: 2). The clientele of schools in England is drawn from an increasingly diverse
mélange of ethnic, community, and social class cultures, with a wide range of texts, interests
and group identities. The Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF), formerly

7
Department for Education and Skills (DfES), responsible for education in England, accepts
that EAL teaching is a significant activity: ‘All secondary schools in England, and about
three quarters of primary schools, have at least some minority ethnic pupils’ (DfES, 2004 : 2).
Government statistics (DfES: 2009) confirm that 824,380 (13.5%) pupils in secondary
schools have a first language other than English. Since the 1980’s the preferred approach has
been to teach English language to children for whom it is an additional language in the
context of other learning within the mainstream classroom (Wiles: 1985). This puts demands
on the classroom teacher to carefully consider the language needs of the bilingual child in
relation to the content of classroom teaching. Secondary school teaching is a challenging
occupation: effective teaching has been singled out as the most significant factor in
determining students’ academic success (Alton-Lee: 2003; Darling-Hammond, Bransford &
LePage: 2005).

1.3 Statement of the problem

The situation of language minority children in mainstream schools has attracted an increasing
number of researchers over the last three decades, with educational researchers and
policymakers being increasingly attuned to two major issues in secondary education: the
growing need to attend to adolescent literacy development if all students are to demonstrate
content-area mastery across the curriculum (Kennel : 2010 ; Biancarosa & Snow : 2004) and
the imperative to attend to school improvement for English language learners (EAL) at the
secondary level. The latter is a growing priority because of EAL students' poor educational
outcomes. Recent studies (DfES, 2005: 13; DfES, 2006: 61) identify clear gaps between the
educational attainment of pupils from minority ethnic backgrounds who are learning English
as an Additional Language (EAL pupils) and pupils from majority ethnic backgrounds for
whom English is a first language. Gillborn and Gipps’ (1996) review of research had
highlighted underachievement by pupils with EAL at all levels. More recent studies, for
example Andrews and Yee (2006), or Bhattacharya and al. (2003) have re-focused attention
on this issue. Overall ‘EAL’ students are said to be outperformed by their monolingual peers
(Strand & Demie: 2005; Demie & Strand: 2006).

A major concern within the area of minority language teaching has been the question of
pedagogy and how best to address the needs of a highly diverse group of learners for whom
neither a ‘foreign language’ approach nor a ‘mother tongue’ approach is appropriate

8
(Anderson: 2008a). As a result of a language policy in England which is monolingual in its
assumptions and which provides minimal opportunities for bilingual education, English tends
to become the dominant language for minority students. Various studies conducted in similar
settings as in England, notably in the United States, in Canada and in Australia have
concluded that a major factor enhancing the academic success of EAL students in mainstream
educations is the incorporation of their native language into instruction (Freeman & Freeman:
1993). The situation is not the same for pupils learning English in the context of UK
classrooms, wherein learners come to school with a variety of home languages, most of
which are not afforded the same status as English, and which are not supported or indeed
utilized to the same degree (Bourne : 2001;Verma et al.: 1995). Consequently many pupils in
England face a situation in which they cannot use their home language in the context of their
academic lives. In such situations, teachers and students alike are more likely to form a sharp
dichotomy between the environments in which to use their languages , an almost `diglossic'
situation (Romaine :1995; Baker :1994), and are more likely, therefore, to conceptualize
learning/teaching of English in English classrooms as an activity to be carried out exclusively
in English. Cummins (2005) uses the phrase‘ two solitudes’, while Creese and Blackledge
(2008) use the term ‘separate bilingualism’ to describe language learning classroom contexts
to describe the overall orientation of language policy and planning in the UK with regards to
language minority students. In the same vein, Kenner (2000) demonstrates that failing to
allow for the potential of individual bilingualism in the way that the school curriculum is
structured at an institutional level is a significant deficiency in current educational policy in
English dominant countries such as England.

Despite the growing quantity of research on language ecology and its connection to language
planning and policy, Creese and Martin (2003) identify a research gap with respect to this
topic of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards home language maintenance among children
acquiring English as additional languages in both primary and secondary school. Teacher
beliefs towards the use of L1 in the classroom and language diversity are part of the language
ideologies which underlie their language practices. Their assumptions about second language
teaching, bilingualism, the relative value of languages and the way schools respond to
diversity are central to their language policy making and to the shaping of their everyday
teaching practices (Skilton-Sylvester: 2003). Looking into teachers’ beliefs and their
underlying ideologies concerning languages on a micro-level is very important as they

9
represent a layer of language policy making and planning and affect school contexts (Ricento
& Hornberger: 1996).
1.4 Aims of the study
The study is concerned with teachers’ beliefs and reported practices of the use of L1 in
English Additional Language (EAL) context and the pedagogical issues associated with them.
Underpinning this is a concern with how the whole school community engages with
supporting teachers and children in this undertaking, in particular the policies and practices
that are in place. This study addresses the following research questions:

 What are mainstream/EAL teachers’ espoused beliefs in the use of L1 (or heritage
languages) with secondary EAL students?
 What are mainstream/EAL teachers’ reported practices in the use of L1 with
secondary EAL students?

Language Ecology: an Overarching Framework

An important underlying philosophical tenet of the approach to this research is the concept of
language ecology, as proposed by Hornberger (2002, 2003 and 2004) to be applied to
examining the potential for educational policies and practices that preserve and develop
language diversity, rather than suppressing it. Hornberger (2003) believes that “Multilingual
language policies are essentially about opening up ideological and implementational space in
the environment for as many languages as possible, and in particular endangered languages,
to evolve and flourish rather than dwindle and disappear” (Hornberger, 2003: 318).

1.5 Some Key Terms and Concepts

It is essential to discuss and define key terms and concepts that are central to the study
because this provides a sense of how they were used in this research. This section defines a
few key terms that are used throughout this study. Outlined below is a brief description of
some key terms and concepts as they have been applied in this study. In Chapter three some
of these are discussed in greater detail in relation to the research literature that has generated
them.

EAL
English as a second language (ESL), English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) and
English as a foreign language (EFL) all refer to the use or study of English by speakers with

10
different native languages. However in recent years in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand the
term ESL has been replaced by EAL (English as an Additional Language) when talking about
primary and secondary schools.

Continua of Biliteracy

One of the most innovative idea that shapes the present study is the work of Hornberger
(2002) who introduces an ecological approach in multilingual language policies and the
continua of biliteracy, the idea of “opening up ideological and implementational space in the
environment for as many languages as possible” (Hornberger, 2002: 30) especially in the
context of schools and their community

Biliteracy

Biliteracy at its most basic might be defined as reading and writing in two languages. A more
comprehensive definition for biliteracy has been given as being: “Any and all micro instances
of communication that take place along a continuum of bilingual-monolingual norms within
oral-literate modes and traditions that can change and be changed by macro social structural
contexts.” (Cahnmann, 2003: 188) Hornberger (1990: 213) defines biliteracy as being “any
and all instances in which communication occurs in two (or more) languages in or around
writing.”

Code-switching
Code-switching may be defined as the passage from one linguistic code to another one within
the same discourse or, to be more precise, “the juxtaposition within the same speech
exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or
subsystems” (Gumperz, 1982:59).

Translanguaging
Translanguaging is defined by Baker (2001) as the “concurrent use of two languages, which
may involve random switching to a more justifiable purposeful use of each language, varying
the language of input and output in a lesson (Baker, 2001: 292).

1.6 Organisation of the study

To answer the questions posed above and meet the objectives of this research, I present and
discuss in this thesis the following: chapter two details the context of the study familiarizing

11
the reader with EAL policy in England, chapter three provides a review of the literature that
is relevant to the present study and introduces the conceptual framework that guided the
research process. Chapter four outlines the philosophical and methodological issues that have
influenced the research approach adopted to meet the objectives of this study. This chapter
also provides a description of the research project design, an explanation of how data were
collected and analysed, and a discussion on the authenticity and trustworthiness of the study
along with a reflection on ethical considerations. Chapter five presents the analysis of the
data relating it to the conceptual framework introduced in chapter three. Chapter six provides
the interpretation of the data presented in the previous chapter and answering the research
questions posed. The final chapter, chapter seven provides the conclusion to this thesis and
discusses the various implications that the findings have for the profession.

12
 Chapter 2
Contextual background

The main aim of this chapter is to provide the context for the research carried out in the study
by giving a detailed description of the field of EAL. It is important to describe the
environment in which the participants work as well as the tensions and challenges they
encounter, in order to fully understand their contributions to this research. Throughout the
chapter, both the historical and current educational research standpoints relating to EAL will
be discussed, together with relevant policy documents that supports the various arguments
put forward .To this end, the first sections of this chapter trace the development of EAL
policy in Britain from the mid 1940's to current provision for EAL learners in the country.
This will not constitute a comprehensive or exhaustive account of the history of the field, but
rather will highlight the most significant developments in EAL policies, ideas, and systems in
the field, which have contributed to the characteristic nature of teaching English as an
Additional Language.

As well as providing a background to the current EAL provision, this will enable links to be
made with the development of EAL and official discourses on bilingualism. In order to
ascertain what the concerns of the classroom practitioners who participated in this study
really are, I have drawn not only on the National Association for Language Development in
the Curriculum (NALDIC) website (http://www.naldic.org.uk) which provides information
relating to teaching/Learning EAL in mainstream state schools but also on the Department for
Education and Skills (DfES) publications and Ofsted reports (Office for Standards in
Education, Children's Services and Skills) as an attempt to give a background to the

13
discourses and structures shaping the experiences of EAL mainstream/Teachers in
educational contexts.

2.1. 1945 to the mid-1970s: From laissez faire to assimilationism

The first significant government Act that shaped the structure of education in Britain of this
day is the Education Act 1944. It sets up the system for the management and organisation of
education in Britain. According to this system the Secretary of State for Education holds the
central authority for education and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
administers it (The British Council 1999b). In its opening section, the Act provided for the
creation of a Minister of Education who was to be responsible for attaining a standardized
national education service, hence: "It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister
(hereinafter referred to as 'The Minister'), whose duty it shall be to promote the education of
the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to
that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and
direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service
in every area. The Minister shall for all purposes be a corporation sole under the name of the
Minister of Education, and the department of which he is in charge shall be known as the
Ministry of Education."(The Education Act 1944, chapter 31: part 1).

The 1944 Education Act importantly introduced secondary ‘education for all’ and this
resulted in the official separation of primary and secondary education. The Act also
introduced a tripartite system of education, comprising grammar, secondary modem and
technical schools, each with emphasis of their own, but derived from a process of selection
based on the 11+ examinations. The selective factor was academic performance. Grammar
schools were for those deemed to be the most able whilst secondary modem schools catered
for the lesser able, and the technical schools offering a more technical, vocationally oriented
education. This categorisation was based on examination results (Cole: 1989).

Nevertheless, the underlying values of the Education Act of 1944 appeared to be vague. On
the one hand the Act provided a system of education for every member of society based on
the principles of meritocracy while on the other hand it neither acknowledged nor made
provision for the educational needs of non-English-speaking pupils. The passage of the
Education Act to some extent consolidated the largely ad hoc nature of EAL provision of the
time, which took as a given the preservation of the nation's language and culture and resulted

14
in marginalizing EAL students’ languages. During that period, Britain was faced with the
influx of tens of thousands of from post-war Europe immigrants (Martin: 1998) and
immigration from the Caribbean and South Asia in the 1950s and 1960s, as it gave British
and Commonwealth citizenship to the UK‘s former subjects‘(Gogolin: 2005). The resulting
mass immigration meant a rapid and steady increase in minority ethnic populations, which
was also driven by family reunification and natural population growth.

One government response to mass migration was expressed by the Ministry of Education,
which advocated a ‘policy of dispersal’ or ‘bussing’ as parents in areas where there were
large concentrations of EAL pupils were complaining about the emergence of ‘black majority
schools’. For instance, in 1963 White parents at two primary schools in Southall (West
London) organized a protest against the presence of immigrant children (mainly from India)
in these schools. Following this protest, the first official education publication relating to the
presence of immigrants in Britain, was published (Ministry of Education: 1963). Sir Edward
Boyle, the then Minister of Education, expressed the following view in the House of
Commons:

"In the first place, in the interests of the general policy for racial integration, it is my view that
efforts must be made to prevent individual schools from becoming only immigrant schools.
Secondly, there is the educational point of which we must not lose sight. If possible it is
desirable on educational grounds that no one school should have more than 30 per cent of
immigrants.....I am sure the educational problems that one gets above the level of 30 per cent
immigrant children become infinitely harder and perhaps impossible to tackle "
(Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (CIAC) report : 1964 cited in Saraga, 1998:
101).

This view expressed the overriding policy objective to protect the educational system and
placated fears of the white majority group. The prevalence of a laissez-faire ideology, which
took for granted the preservation of the dominant English-speaking Anglo-Saxon tradition,
resulted in the educational needs of linguistic ethnic minorities being largely neglected until
the 1960s. The second Report of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council in 1964
made few references about what should be taught in classrooms beyond a reference to the
following: “Any national system of education must aim at producing citizens who can take
their place in society properly equipped to exercise rights and perform duties the same as
other citizens. If their parents were brought up in another culture and another tradition,

15
children should be encouraged to respect it, but a national system cannot be expected to
perpetuate the different values of immigrant groups “(Second Report of the Commonwealth
Immigrants Advisory Council, 1964, Circular 7/65).

Because of parents’ complaints, the Ministry of Education, which was reorganized as the
Department of Education and Science in 1964, issued a set of guidelines for what they called
the dispersal of minority children. In their guidelines for this policy, they presented the
following rationale: "Experience suggests . . . that, apart from unusual difficulties (such as a
high proportion of non-English speakers), up to a fifth of immigrant children in any group fit
in with reasonable ease, but that, if the proportion goes over about one third, either in the
school as a whole or in any one class, serious strains arise. It is therefore desirable that the
catchment areas of schools should, wherever possible be arranged to avoid undue
concentrations of immigrant children. Where this proves to be impracticable simply because
the school serves an area which is occupied largely by immigrants, every effort should be
made to disperse the immigrant children round a number of schools and to meet such
problems of transport as may arise" (DES, 1965 : 4-5).

Of particular significance is the fact that the promotion of this dispersal policy was made
purely on the basis of an untested social assumption, namely that if the immigrant population
in a particular school were allowed to exceed one third, ‘serious strains’ would arise :“The
presence of a high proportion of immigrant children in one class slows down the general
routine of working and hampers the progress of the whole class, especially where the
immigrants do not speak or write English fluently. This is clearly in itself undesirable and
unfair to all the children in the class “(DES Circular 1965, cited in Carby, 1982: 185).

The belief that the learning of more English will help non-English Speaking immigrant
children to cope with their educational problems is revealed in DES Circular the same year as
follow: “From the beginning the major educational task is the teaching of English. Where
school contains a number of children with little or no knowledge of English, it is desirable to
arrange one or more special reception classes in which they may learn English as quickly and
as effectively as possible”(DES circular 1965, cited in Swann, 1985 : 194).

16
Within the assimilationist ideology that prevailed at the time, special provision was to be
made to accommodate new arrivals in reception language centres where students would be
inducted into the language and culture of the host society for a period of at least one term.
The reception centre system was based on the model of the USA who, from the beginning of
the twentieth century, had made the learning of English a central plank of immigration policy.
Children presented at schools with little or no English were taken to these reception centres,
the intention being that they should be taught enough English to undertake the normal
curriculum in mainstream schools.

The focus was on teaching English at the expense of the wider school curriculum and at the
expense of students' home language(s). As a consequence, many bilingual children missed
important part of the curriculum and the opportunity to interact with their monolingual peers.
In this way a kind of ‘segregated teaching’ satisfied the majority of English parents who
believed that migrant students should be in different classes, so that their own children’s
progress would not be stunted (Bourne: 1989). Up until the 1970s, minority languages were
seen as a problem for minority language pupils in that they prevented them from being
assimilated into British society. That is, minority language pupils could access to majority
culture only through learning the majority language, English. According to the Swann Report
(1985) from the late 1950’s onward, the provision which was implemented in the English
education system was ‘intensive English teaching’ for children for whom English was not
their first language. This provision was called ‘withdrawal’ according to which children were
excluded from either class or from the school and placed in a situation in which immigrant
children were given a special education that they were seen to need ( Swann Report, 1985:
387).

The critique that the Swann Report made retrospectively of this education policy was that
although withdrawal provision had the idea of helping pupils to reach the same level of
fluency in English as their native speaker peers, the thinking behind these centres can be
seen as an example of “institutional racism” .Whilst not originally discriminatory in intent,
the policy was discriminatory in effect in that it denied an individual child access to the full
range of educational opportunities available - in the case of full-time centres by withdrawing
them totally from the mainstream school and with part-time provision by requiring them to
miss a substantial part of the normal school curriculum (Swann Report, 1985: 389).

17
The ideology that prevailed was that the education of white monolingual majority pupils
should not be disrupted by the presence of the newly arrived migrant population. In terms of
educational approach to immigrant children it translated into quick learning of English with
the least possible disorder in the syllabus. The assimilationist phase, at both primary and
secondary school level, can be seen as characterized by ad hoc responses to the educational
needs of immigrant pupils designed on the one hand to 'compensate' for their assumed
'deficiencies' - primarily in being non-English speaking - and on the other hand to disrupt the
education of indigenous children a discourse was thus confronted with a growing problem
whose policy implications should no longer be simply ignored.

2.2 Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966

By 1966, the need for intensive English teaching for ethnic minority children was recognized
under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. The act constituted the government's
first attempt to deal with the educational needs of linguistic ethnic minorities. The purpose of
Section 11 as set out in the document is: "Subject to the provision of this section the
Secretary of State may pay to local authorities who in his opinion are required to make
special provision in the exercise of any of their functions in consequence of the presence
within their areas of substantial numbers of immigrants from the Commonwealth whose
language or customs differ from those of the community, grants of such amounts as he may
with the consent of the Treasury determine on account of expenditure of such descriptions
(being expenditure in respect of the employment of staff) as he may so determine ".( The
Home Office Circular no.781199, cited in Verma et al., 1995 : 272)

This piece of legislation was designed to increase financial resources available to local
authorities that had substantial number of immigrants’ settled in their catchment area. Those
resources were used for the purpose of education and social welfare. Educational provision
included projects to raise academic achievement among school children by strengthening
home/school liaisons, as well as the delivery of English language teaching in Further and
Adult Education. Social services grant-funded projects, on the other hand, comprised the
provision of interpreting and translation services, advice and training for adults, libraries and
information services, as well as support in overcoming homelessness and racial harassment
(Home Office : 1988). Those grants allocated by the central government to local authorities
were used to meet the costs of employing additional staff to help children and parents alike of
some ethnic minority groups to overcome language barriers in order to gain full access to

18
mainstream services and facilities. Schools employed additional teachers or classroom
assistants to teach ESL in schools or in language centres

The origin of the section 11 grant were very much in the assimilationist ideology that
prevailed at the time as it funded separate language teaching for EAL learners. This led the
Swan Report to comment that “it seems to have been assumed that the children's own
languages would simply die out and be replaced by English” (DES, 1985: 388). Nevertheless
this piece of legislation is essential as it led to the creation of current funds for EAL children
at both primary and secondary school levels.

2.3 The Mid 1970s to the Present Day

By the early 1970s there had been a marked shift from approaches which attempted to
'assimilate' ethnic minority children to a more pluralist, multicultural stance. The exclusive
focus on EAL provision as a means of meeting ethnic minority needs was gradually replaced
by arguments that minority children should be integrated in mainstream language and culture.
In parallel to the creation of the Race Relations Act, some significant progresses were made
during the late 1970's with the official end of dispersal policies. In addition, the policy of
withdrawal began to be questioned by educationalists in the late 1970's and 1980's when
landmark investigation into the EAL provision and practice of the Calderdale education
(LEA) authority, the Commission for Racial equality found the practice of providing separate
non-mainstream schooling for pupils with EAL to be racially discriminating and contrary to
‘the prevailing educational view’.

In particular, the Commission argued: "their curriculum is not always as extensive or of the
same depth as the curriculum in mainstream schooling". In addition, concerning EAL
learners, the report stated "their language development and learning process are hindered by
not taking place in an environment where they learn alongside native speakers of English
with a full curriculum (Commission for Racial Equality, 1986: 5- 6). However, Cable et al.
(2004) observe that even though segregated teaching disintegrated from public educational
discourse, in practice “off-site provision and language centres continued to operate in some
areas up until at least 1992 and many secondary schools continued to utilizes withdrawal
classes and induction programmes to support new arrivals” (NALDIC, 2004: 6).

19
The 1980s was a decade characterized by the policy of multiculturalism which saw a number
of social initiatives aimed at encouraging immigrants to retain their cultural and linguistic
heritage, as a counter to previous policies of assimilation and integration (Castles et al :
1992). For instance, the House of Commons Select Committee on Education argued that
immigrants should 'not be expected to get rid of all their own customs, history and culture',
but balanced the picture by asserting that 'those who come here to settle must, to some extent,
accept the ways of the country' (HMSO, 1973 : 34).

The decade also witnessed significant developments in the recognition of the language needs
of immigrant children. The move from the assimilationalist approach to the education of
immigrant children towards integrationalist thinking stemmed essentially from the Bullock
Report. The Bullock Report was significant in that it brought together reflections on the
teaching of mainstream English and discussion of principle in the teaching of English as a
second language. It was recognized there were insufficient EAL Teachers and EAL teaching
would often begin too late after the arrival of immigrant children and would end too soon:
“All teachers are language teachers.… It is clear that the children need linguistic help right
across the curriculum and that here the language specialist’s task...merges with that of the
subject specialist. ...” (Bullock Report, 1975: 20). This indicated that if ‘EAL’ pupils were to
succeed academically, language teaching needed to be integrated into the mainstream
classroom. Interest within education circles in England about the 'mother tongue' issue can be
seen to date back to the discussion in the Bullock Report of the language needs of 'children
from families of overseas origin', which as well as stressing the need for a positive attitude to
West Indian dialect, also emphasized the significance of there being large numbers of pupils
in British schools with 'mother tongues' other than English.

The Bullock Report also represented a milestone in an official viewpoint on language

minorities. It stated: "No child should be expected to cast off the language of the home as he
crosses the school threshold and the curriculum should reflect those aspects of his life” (DES,
1975: 286, cited in Leung & Creese, 2010: 16). The report went on to stress the importance of
bilingualism: “In a linguistically conscious nation in the modern world we should see mother
tongue as an asset, as something to be nurtured, and one of the agencies which should nurture
it is the school. Certainly, the school should adopt a positive attitude to its pupils’
bilingualism and whenever possible should help to maintain and deepen their knowledge of
their mother tongue” (DES, 1975: 294, cited in Auer & Wei, 2007: 496).

20
In the same year the Bullock Report was published, a Draft Directive from the council of
European Communities (EEC) requested European Member Stated to teach within the school
curriculum, the mother tongue and culture of origin of European migrant workers. The
Directive was passed in July 1977, allowing such education to be in accordance with national
circumstances and educational systems of EEC members. When the British education relayed
the directive to local educational authorities (LEAs) some schools in London began to
introduce tuition of mother tongues, Greek for instance, in the official syllabus, while
students had the right to choose subjects. Where such possibilities were not given, provision
in L1 was offered after school, but tuition was not considered as a legal right to individuals.
As a result, Bilingual education did not develop within state education. Hence, many of the
migrant communities themselves such as the Greek or the Turkish communities organized
language education for their members beyond the realm of education. For instance, the
Greek-Orthodox church in North London organized Greek lessons in the weekdays
afternoons or in Saturday mornings in church halls in London (Fris: 1982).

In the 1980’s, policy debates in Britain evolved from a focus on integration towards
multiculturalism, which stressed Britain‘s multi-ethnic society as cultural enrichment, at least
on a rhetorical level. This signifies a move away from attributing educational problems to
children and their families’ cultures towards questioning the education system itself (Race:
2011). Municipal multicultural and anti-racist education policies were implemented in many
urban areas (notably by the Inner London Education Authority), while the activism of
educators emerged in the early 1980s. Indeed a group made up of teachers in London, called
‘The New London Group’ which was set up in 1981, collected documentation which would
support the case for providing full access to mainstream education for all pupils in the
process of learning English. Their findings were instrumental in persuading the Department
of Education of Children from Ethnic Minorities groups (The Swann Committee) in
implementing ‘a move away from E2L provision being made on a withdrawal basis… (DES,
1985: 392) to full mainstreaming. This was one notable exception when a policy shift derived
from teachers themselves.

From 1980's onwards, the approach that has been adopted is to teach the English language to
foreign children in the context of other learning within the mainstream classroom. The Swann
Report recognized that withdrawal English language teaching was detrimental to the

21
education of bilingual pupils and recommended that EAL teaching should take place in the
mainstream school with the bilingual pupils integrated.

In terms of report, the Swann heralded the announcement of active multiculturalism in this
era, however, came with the publication of the Swann Report on Education for All (DES:
1985). Originally set up to investigate underachievement of African-Caribbean pupils in
mainstream schools , it was the first government report to mention racism as a problem in
British society and urged all schools, irrespective of ethnic composition, to confront the issue
of racism as part of political education The Committee of enquiry into the education of ethnic
minority children, chaired by Lord Swann , stated that "it is essential to change
fundamentally the terms of the debate about the educational response to today's multiracial
society and to look ahead to educating all children, from whatever ethnic group, to an
understanding of the shared values of our society as a whole as well as to an appreciation of
the diversity of lifestyles and cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds which make up
this society and the wider world” ( DES :1985: 316, cited in Craft, 1996 : 4). In the
conclusions and recommendations the report talks about combating racism and inherited
stereotypes and ensuring that multiculturalism permeates all aspects of a school's work
(Craft: 1996).

The Swann Report, which was published in 1985, reflected both the principles of the Bullock
Report and the new understanding of the nature of language advocated by researchers. The
classroom was recognized as a language rich environment with the potential for language
development and the language support teacher was moved into the mainstream classroom.
The discourse of ‘assimilation’ rather than integration can be found in many of the
government documents which make reference to the languages of the new minorities in
Britain and, indeed, in other contexts. Multicultural education within the UK context has been
interpreted largely as a ‘celebration’ of cultural diversity and a curricular programme that
helps to promote tolerance and harmony : “We believe it is essential to look ahead to
educating all children, from whatever ethnic group, to an understanding of the shared values
of our society as a whole as well as to an appreciation of the diversity of lifestyles and
cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds which make up this society and the wider
world. In so doing all pupils should be given the knowledge and skills needed not only to
contribute positively to shaping the future nature of British society but also to determine their
own individual identities, free from preconceived or imposed stereotypes of their "place" in

22
that society. We believe that schools also however have a responsibility. . . .to meet the
educational needs of all pupils in a positive and supportive manner, and this would include
catering for any particular educational needs which an ethnic minority pupil may have,
arising for example from his or her linguistic or cultural background”( The Swann Report,
cited in Craft, 1996 : 4).

The Report recognized that the multi-racial nature of British society had repercussions on the
education of all children, including the English-speaking indigenous majority. It consequently
explored every aspect of multicultural education in Britain. It addressed, among other issues:
the diverse nature of British society, the roots of racism, educational underachievement, SL
education policy, the employment of ethnic minority teachers, multi-ethnic and religious
education as well as language across the curriculum. It also dealt with the particular
educational needs of different linguistic minority groups, including speakers of Guajarati,
Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, and Panjabi.... Within this context, the Committee advocated
the development of what it called 'Education for All', understood as a national education
system which aimed to preserve the cultural diversity of the country's school population.
There were two distinct aspects of 'Education for All’: on the one hand, catering for any
particular educational needs, which ethnic minority pupils may have; and on the other hand,
enhancing the education offered to all pupils.

The educational strategy that the Committee proposed consisted of three basic elements.
First, any linguistic and cultural disadvantage that minorities were suffering should be
overcome, e.g. through the teaching of English as a second language. Second, all children,
minority and majority, should be encouraged to respect the richness of minority cultures.
Third, there should be no ethnic segregation within the public schooling system: EAL
teaching should take place in the mainstream, instruction in minority languages should be
open to all, and bilingual support staff should help everyone (DES, 1985: Ch. 7). The role of
state schools was to eliminate segregation and disadvantage, and to ensure that everyone
shared in whatever benefits minority students brought with them: rather than cultivating any
specialized cultural or linguistic resources that ethnic minorities might have, the Swann
Report sought in effect to nationalize them (‘Education for All’). Hence the Report
indicated: “In our view, 'Education for All' should involve more than learning more about the
cultures and lifestyles of various ethnic groups; it should also seek to develop in all pupils,
both ethnic majority and minority, a flexibility of mind and an ability to analyze critically and

23
rationally the nature of British society today within a global context. The reality of British
society now and in the future, is that a variety of ethnic groups, with their own distinct
lifestyles and value systems will be living together” (DES, 1985: 324, cited in Julios, 2008:
105).

Linguistic diversity was consequently regarded as a 'positive asset, one which the schools
should impart an understanding for all pupils. However the Report was unequivocal in its
provision in response to the provision for languages other than English. While recommending
that community languages should be valued in the mainstream curriculum, the Swann
committed was opposed to any separate provisions for language maintenance classes or
bilingual forms of education. They state that mainstream schools should “not seek to assume
the role of community providers for maintaining ethnic minority community languages”
(DES, 1985b:771, cited in Ager, 1996: 105). The Report went on to recommend changes
across a whole range of curricular areas, which would offer pupils a more balanced and
relevant view of the multi-ethnic society in which they lived in. In addition the report
highlighted concerns over differential performance of pupils from certain ethnic minority
background. It stated: “West Indian children as a group are underachieving in our education
system and this should be a matter of deep concern not only to all those involved in education
but also the whole community” (DES, 1985: 3).It is against this background, that the
Education Reform Act 1988 (ERA) was introduced.

2.4 The Education Reform Act (1988)

In 1988 the Education Reform Act was introduced in England and Wales. It set out a range of
subjects that pupils should study between the age of five and sixteen. The 1988 Education
Reform Act (ERA), which led to the establishment of the 1989 National Curriculum,
provided a legal entitlement for EAL pupils, along with all other pupils, to a broad and
balanced education. The ERA also authorized the setting up of the Curriculum Council for
Wales (CCW) as an independent body to give advice to the Secretary of State for Wales and
provide guidance and support to teachers in implementing and developing the National
Curriculum in Wales.

The first series of statutory National Curriculum orders, produced for both England and
Wales defined the subjects that should be studied in schools and placed them into a notional
hierarchy with ‘core’ subjects at the top, (English, Mathematics and Science) and

24
‘foundation’ subjects underneath (currently Art and Design, Citizenship, Design and
Technology, Geography, History, Information and Communications Technology, Modern
Foreign Languages, Music, Physical Education, Personal Social and Health Education and
Religious Education). In effect the curriculum specifications and assessment criteria for the
National Curriculum subject English and its associated literacy curriculum serve as a set of
common content specifications for both mother-tongue English speaking students and those
who are still in the process of learning EAL. EAL staff was encouraged to work
collaboratively with their subject colleagues in mainstream lessons.

The statements of attainment in all subjects (e.g. Maths, English, Science…) were arranged in
ten levels intended to track students’ progress from the start of their education to the end of
KS4. Over time, pupils were expected to progress through the levels as they got older and as
their knowledge, understanding and skills developed. Pupils were expected to move up one
level approximately every two years (DES: 1991). The progression was based on ‘notional
norms’ of age-appropriate attainment predicted for native-English speakers, not those who
were learning English as an additional language (Bourne: 1989). So whilst access to the same
‘broad and balanced curriculum’ to all learners was welcome on equality grounds, the
implicit assumption was that the curriculum needs of minority ethnic pupils were the same as
those for all other pupils. There has been an increasing focus on ensuring that EAL students
are fully included in teachers' thinking and their specific needs considered in teachers'
planning classroom and assessment strategies. The rationale underpinning the educational
inclusion of EAL learners is very much reflected in the following policy statement:
“Many children in English schools regularly speak a language other than English and about
200 different languages are used by pupils in the classroom. Such linguistic diversity is an
asset. It provides an opportunity for pupils to gain first-hand experience, knowledge and
understanding of other cultures and perspectives. It also helps to prepare pupils for life in a
multicultural society by promoting respect for all forms of language. Variety of language is a
rich resource which schools should use as they implement the National Curriculum
“(National Curriculum Council, 1991: 1).

In the above quotation linguistic diversity is presented as an asset in the creation of an

inclusive multicultural school environment. Minority languages are promoted for their role in
fostering diversity and plurality in schools and more broadly in society, but not for their role
in teaching and learning processes. Consequently this guideline is rather implicitly concerned

25
with making decisions about the use of the language of instruction. Although the National
Curriculum has been revised several times in recent years, notably in 1995, in 2000 and in
2008, the vision of a ‘common’ curriculum and the idea of the ‘mainstream’ have remained
unchanged. Those revised curricula did not have a direct impact on EAL as it is conceived as
a supra subject, a cross curriculum issue, a general learning/teaching issue.

In sum before the mainstream policy was put in place in the 1980’s, the approach to teaching
EAL was conceptually based on the recognition of students’ differences and how those
differences had to be contained not to impact the education of the majority. Summarizing the
issue, Bourne (2003) claims that in England “the focus has moved away from seeing learning
in a second language from a deficit perspective, towards a focus on providing equal
opportunities in the mainstream“(Bourne, 2003: 30).

2.5 EAL provision in England

In order to understand how EAL provision is organized in schools it is essential to examine
funding and staffing in schools. As previously mentioned, since 1966, EAL from Home
Office Section 11 was made available to local authorities with substantial numbers of New
Commonwealth origin pupils to help them overcome ‘linguistic and cultural barriers’ that
might hinder them from assimilating into British society (Bourne : 1989). Initially, much of
this funding was used to pay for staff working in Language Units where learners were taught
separately from the mainstream education provision offered in schools, often for quite long
periods of time (Bourne : 1989). Up until the late 1990’s this grant was commonly known as
Section 11 and used “to support the cost of employing additional staff to help minority ethnic
groups overcome linguistic and other barriers which inhibit their access to, and take up of,
mainstream services” (Ofsted, 1994: 1). Section 11 grant was replaced by the Ethnic Minority
grant (EMAG) in 2000, which is primarily concerned with provision for linguistic minorities
in school and is designed specifically to meet the particular needs of pupils for whom English
is an additional language (EAL students) and to raise standards of achievements for those
students who are at risk of underachieving (DES: 2002). A vast majority of EAL teachers,
often referred to as language support teachers, were employed through this scheme.

Unlike subject teachers who hold a higher degree in their specialization (e.g. English, French,
Science...) EAL teachers do not hold a specialist degree or teacher training, in spite of the fact
that they are described in policy statements as being ‘language experts’. In terms of teacher

26
preparation, EAL is not a main subject specialism in initial teacher training and there is no
compulsory specialist qualification. Consequently, is not possible to specialize in EAL in pre-
service teacher training programmes in the same way as for curriculum subjects. There are
EAL specialists in schools but these are not trained through pre-service programmes. In
other parts of the world it is possible to specialize, for example Australia (Victorian Institute
of Teaching 2003). Trainees in the state of Victoria can specialize in principles and
approaches for language teaching and assessment in a range of contexts, including: the nature
of English, acquiring English as a second or additional language, implications for pedagogy,
the role of the second language teacher in the school and wider community. In England, the
situation is different. No such specialization is available at pre-service level in England. The
last of the state-funded pre-service EAL (as subject specialism) teaching training courses in
higher education institutions were withdrawn in the early 1990s. In one official press release
it was reported that ‘the proportion of specialist staff with appropriate qualifications is now as
low as 3 per cent in some LEAs “(Ofsted: 2002, cited in Dillon & Maguire, 2001: 241).

Traditionally in England, secondary teachers have been valued for their specialist expertise in
a curricular domain (Franson: 1999). However, recently the demands on these teachers have
broadened beyond the subject-specific. The Training and Development Agency (TDA), the
body that was responsible for teacher education in England, expects EAL to be covered in all
programmes that it approves so that all new teachers are ready for multilingual classrooms.
Teaching pupils with EAL is seen ‘as a generalist skill desired of all teachers’ (Creese, 2004:
190). In other words, English as an Additional/Second Language (EAL) in state-sector
schools in England is regarded as a teaching and learning issue but it does not have
curriculum subject status in the National Curriculum.

In fact EAL Specialists are subject teachers who have moved into EAL once in the
mainstream setting. Mainstream school teachers and their EAL counterparts must hold
Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). The main route to the QTS in England consists of a
Bachelors’ degree followed by a Professional or Postgraduate Certificate in Education
(PGCE). Most NQTs enter the profession following a one-year Post-graduate Certificate in
Education (PGCE) programme or a three- to four-year BEd course. There are other routes
usually through school-based programmes but the one-year PGCE is the common path for
graduates. In the course of this 40-week programme, new teachers have to meet 33 standards
leading to Qualified Teacher Status (TDA: 2007a). In the national and political context,

27
raising the attainment of culturally diverse pupils continues to be an area of increasing
importance. This is especially true for training providers who have to ensure that trainee
teachers meet standards that relate to the inclusion of minority ethnic groups (TTA:2002).
NQTs have to demonstrate competence in 41 core standards (TDA: 2007b) in order to be
confirmed as fully qualified. EAL, despite its recognized importance, is not an individually
defined standard. It features as part of standard 19 under personalized provision (TDA:
2007a: 10; 2007b: 9). Pedagogically all teachers are expected to provide EAL development
opportunities through engagement with curriculum activities which allow active hands-on
participation and small group based learning. In support of this stance, the Professional
Standard for Qualified status require all new teachers, regardless of their subject expertise, to
provide evidence of their competence in planning for, teaching and assessing EAL learners.

Since the Calderdale Report (CRE: 1986) deemed segregated teaching to be discriminatory,
mainstream integration with in-class language support has been promoted by many as the
model of best practice (Bourne: 1989; Bourne & McPake: 1991). In endeavouring to meet
the needs of minority ethnic additional language learners and in utilizing EMAG funding in
England, one of the biggest areas of debate is over which model of support provision to
adopt. As seen in the beginning of the chapter over the past four decades, various models or
orientations have been adopted in the provision of support for EAL students. Former total
exclusion from mainstream activities for intensive language instruction was replaced by the
EAL child being involved in class work with support of teaching assistants (TAs) to give
children good models of English. However, EAL students may still work outside the
mainstream classroom: for example, pupils very new to EAL may work one-to-one with TAs
on basic vocabulary in a separate room (Guidance for Teaching EAL).

Teaching partnerships has become a common response to meeting the needs of students with
EAL in England (Leung & Davison: 2001) and has been described as the best practice in
diverse classroom in England and in other countries, notably in America, Canada and
Australia (Bourne: 1989, Bourne & McPake: 1991). Bourne and McPake (1991) explain that
Partnership Teaching is when subject teacher and EAL specialist (or groups of teachers) work
together to plan and to develop the lessons to all students’ language needs and abilities
irrespective of whether they are bilingual or not. The Partnership Teaching model (Bourne:
1989) has received greatest policy and structural support in England (DES: 1991; DfEE:
2001). In addition, National inspection reports in the past decade have endorsed the

28
partnership model or collaborative role of EAL specialists in the mainstream classroom
(OFSTED: 1994, 2001a, 2001b).

According to the Teaching model of mainstreaming EAL students, EAL specialists and
mainstream teachers must work collaboratively to support learners in acquiring both the
language (English) and the academic content taught through English. EAL support teachers,
where they are available, have multiple roles which include offering mainstream/subject
teachers advice and guidance on how to generate English language learning opportunities in
content lessons (including the use of students’ first language where possible and appropriate
as a transitional facility into English), and doing collaborative ‘support’ teaching in classes
where EAL students are present (Bourne, 1989: 107-8 ) for subject and EAL teachers to plan,
teach and develop the curriculum Partnership teaching model developed mainly in urban
schools in England in which English support language teacher work together with their
mainstream teacher counterpart to ensure EAL students access to the curriculum. In England,
Bourne and McPake (1991) argue that the fundamental aim of partnership teaching is to
develop to the language needs and abilities of EAL pupils. As Bourne (1997) argues:

"Partnership Teaching is not just another term for ‘co-operative teaching’. Co-operative
teaching is where a language support teacher and class or subject teacher plan together a
curriculum and teaching strategies which will take into account the learning needs of all
pupils, trying to adjust the learning situation to fit the pupils. Partnership Teaching is more
than that. It builds on the concept of co-operative teaching by linking the work of two
teachers, or indeed a whole department/year team or other partners, with plans for curriculum
development and staff development across the school" (Bourne,1997: 83).

Despite prevailing recommendations that best practice should promote full mainstream
integration and collaborative partnership teaching, in reality, however, a range of teaching
models have developed. According to Creese (2004: 200), ‘fully fledged cooperative
relationships’ or partnership teaching are rare: "In the worst case scenario the curriculum
support role played by the EAL teachers becomes part of the picture of deficit, not because
what the EAL teacher is doing is intrinsically unhelpful but because there are other
educational discourses and agendas more dominant in classroom life”(Creese, 2004: 191).

In addition Creese (2004) identifies ten modes of collaboration that range from EAL
language teacher specialist working alone in withdrawal settings with targeted EAL students,
through the EAL teacher working inside the classroom to support the language needs of AL

29
students to mainstream teachers working on an ad hoc basis with no support policy in place.
One central point about EAL pedagogy in English state School is that there is no shared or
agreed upon theoretical foundation from which teachers can draw an EAL adequate
pedagogy. Despite the importance of EMAG funding for catering the needs of EAL students,
it is loosely formulated in relation to pedagogy and vague in identifying what the role of EAL
specialists. Language and cultural diversity in the classroom is changing because of the
arrival of new immigrant groups, such as asylum-seekers and refugees. The importance of
this area is evidenced by the fact that the annual Teacher Training Agency (TTA) report on
the follow-up survey of newly qualified teachers (NQTs) has regularly recorded English as an
additional language (EAL) provision as an area where they would have liked better
preparation during their initial training (TTA : 2002).

As a result, the TDA has identified that there is a need for policy and practice to change. The
population of EAL learners in England has increased consistently in recent years and with it
demand for different types of EAL provision linked to new patterns of immigration.
According to NALDIC figures from the 2008 school census indicate that EAL pupil numbers
rose by approximately 25% between 2004 and 2008 to stand at 824,380, while the number of
specialists EAL/EMA teachers has increased by just 8% during the same period. These
figures demonstrate the mismatch in the system between demand and the available specialist
workforce. As a result, a shortage of EAL specialists in school leads to a situation where
EAL support work is entirely carried out by teaching Assistants, who are not qualified to
teach and leaving EAL child under the tutelage of the mainstream class.

Challenges for teachers have been raised throughout this chapter. However, one of the
biggest challenge facing teachers is their changes in their planning and instruction to meet the
needs of English learners. As argued above, educational policy in England encourages
secondary school language and content teachers to work together to plan and deliver lessons.
Nonetheless, formal collaboration, while considered desirable, is not a straightforward
process as structured opportunities for planning are often not available within schools. As a
result, the classroom teacher in English Secondary schools is the language planner in the
micro-context of the classroom. For pupils who are learning to use English as an additional
language Leung (1996) argues that the National Curriculum in England and Wales is:

30
---- de facto ‘double curriculum’: a curriculum of school subjects and a curriculum of the
English language. In these circumstances pupils with English as an additional language have
to work to English native speaker norms.
This language model, which can also be applied to various key stage curriculum guidelines in
England, may mean that the classroom teacher as language planner may be constrained to
plan within monolingual norms, resulting in difficulty in defining achievement and setting
targets for the bilingual pupils. Attention to the language demands of subjects and how
curriculum content is taught and learned through language enables mainstream teachers to
plan for these needs. Within any activity or topic, teachers can consider the ways in which
English language structures, as well as specific vocabulary, convey curriculum content and
develop pupils’ thinking skills. This practice also supports teachers in planning for English
across the curriculum.

The national curriculum provides the statutory framework for planning which determines the
subject-based goals of teaching and learning at KS3. In lessons where elements of subject
content are the priority goals, the language needed to fulfil them will be driven by the subject
content and the activities chosen to teach it. In lessons where skills are prioritised as the goals
of learning, the skills still have to be developed through subject content. Even where
activities are designed specifically to develop the skills, subject content will operate as a
central driver of language choice. At the very beginning of the introduction of the National
Curriculum teachers were advised that:
Like all students, bilingual students should have access to a stimulating curriculum
which, at the same time, helps their language development …
· • Oral and written responses at different attainment levels can be encouraged by the
use of a balance of open-ended and structured tasks.
· • Matrices, true/ false exercises … can help to ensure that achievement is not
entirely dependent on proficiency in English.
· • Exercises with some repetitive element/ such as science experiments … provide a
pattern which supports language development. (National Curriculum Council 1991: 1–2)

These statements show the ‘diffuse’ curriculum area (Leung: 2001) which is not articulated
as a distinct subject of learning although, like English, EAL crosses all curriculum subjects.
The National Curriculum proposes that all pupils, at any stage of language development, will

31
‘naturally’ access the curriculum as they learn English. One policy document describes EAL
teaching in the following terms.

“Effective teachers of Pupil learning EAL provide ample opportunities for pupils to hear and
read good models of a range of styles and registers of English. They take every opportunity
to extend pupils' English and provide' scaffolded' learning opportunities which match the level
of pupils' development to curriculum content.....pupils learning EAL will need additional
support, e.g. instructions, explanations, information, prior rehearsal of some points or use of
illustration to understand teacher 'input'...they will need the opportunities to practice
language. Well-structured group work and opportunities to work collaboratively are
particularly effective in helping pupils with EAL to learn English...” (TTA: 2000:47).

In this quote the importance of modelling English, scaffolding and providing opportunities
for group work in emphasized. However, the emphasis is on how to approach EAL learners,
rather than what to teach them. Without a defined curriculum for EAL the role of the
mainstream/EAL teacher is thus one of facilitating access to curriculum content, rather than
explicitly teaching EAL. Policy and official guidance focus mainly on every learner
accessing the curriculum (QCA: 2000). Furthermore, the National Curriculum proposes that
all pupils, at any stage of language development, will ‘naturally’ access the curriculum as
they learn English, which suggests to a large extent support of a laissez faire instructional
philosophy: “The whole curriculum is an ideal language-learning syllabus providing learners
get opportunities for speaking as well as listening and use the new language with peers as
well as adults “(DfES, Standards Site).

2.6 Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the relevant policy in regards to issues faced classroom teachers when
teaching EAL students. Historical developments have impacted on and changed classroom
teacher practice. There clearly has been a shift in England from viewing the languages of the
new minorities as a ‘problem’ to viewing them as a ‘resource’, although not always as a
‘right’. These terms are taken from the influential article by Ruiz (1994) on the various
orientations in language planning. Indeed, government policy responses to teaching EAL
students have taken place in two distinguished ways. The first was built on recognition of
difference and the need to erase those differences in the context of teaching/learning English
as an additional language. The emphasis of difference characterizes the dominant approach to
the teaching/learning EAL students up to the early 1980's.The second approach, since the
mid-1980s with the implementation of the National Curriculum, education response has been

32
in favour of mainstreaming all students, irrespective of ethnicity, language background,
culture, gender, ability, social background, sexuality, religion (DfEE, 1999:12).

In other words, policy for EAL in England has been viewed as either' distinct' or 'diffused'
curriculum concern (Leung: 2001: 38). It is now more widely accepted that the first
generation of children growing up in a new country are aided in their learning by drawing on
skills in first language. For example, in the UK the DfES (Department for Education and
Skills) recently stated that ‘continuing development in one’s first language can support the
learning of English and wider cognitive development’ (DfES, 2003: 31). There is increasing
recognition at national policy level in England that there are potential benefits if children can
use mother tongue alongside English in the mainstream classroom. A recent report on raising
ethnic minority achievement stated that ‘continuing development in one’s first language can
support the learning of English and wider cognitive development’ (DfES, 2003a: 31) and
gave examples of children using first languages to accomplish tasks through bilingual
‘partner talk’. The use of bilingual learning strategies is also recommended in the National
Literacy Strategy (DfES: 2002) and the Primary National Strategy (DfES: 2003b).

Policy developments appear to be catching up with what is actually happening in classrooms

in teaching multilingual, multiliterate students, who have increasingly become the norm in
large urban classrooms. There is increasing evidence that children’s L1 is becoming a
curricular and professional development issue for mainstream EAL Teaching in England. For
instance, a curriculum guidance document require teachers to plan "opportunities for children
to become aware of languages and writing systems other than English” (QCA, 2000: 44), and
adds that "children experience of different scripts at home should be acknowledged and built
on when learning about the conventions of English"(QCA, 2000: 44). Another example
National Literacy strategy training materials produced for supporting EAL students in the
mainstream context contain a module entitled "Use of first languages in the Literacy hour"
(DfES: 2002a), which gives examples of the use of L1 can be supported in the classroom,
providing home language support is available within schools. Teachers are now encouraged
and use them in the classroom (DfES: 2002a). However at the time of this writing, there is no
specific advice on how to tap in these activities or specific policy that sets out guidance for
teachers to establish a common national approach to supporting students’ bilingualism.

33
 Chapter 3
Literature Review

In the previous chapter, a contextual justification was offered for the research questions
governing this project. In this chapter, selected literature on the notions of beliefs’ and
‘literacy’ is reviewed in order to provide a theoretical framework related to this aspect of the
study. Of necessity, the chapter foregrounds those theories that have developed within the
context of first and second language pedagogy, and include those which take the larger
picture of the role of the L1 or heritage language in the classroom.

This chapter is divided into three parts. Part 1 of the literature review will discuss previous
research findings regarding teachers’ beliefs and more broadly teacher cognition, with a
particular focus on Teaching/Learning EAL in mainstream schools. Part 2 of the literature
review will focus on ways that research into language acquisition has informed EAL teaching
in schools in England. Finally Part 3 will attempt to consider key ideas emerging from
research on language maintenance and its benefits in mainstream classroom teaching and
focus on the potential for enhancing the learning of EAL learners informed by specialised
literature on the topic.

The next section will focus on studies of teachers’ personal beliefs, the area of teacher
cognition which is one of the main focuses of the present study.

34
3.1 Teacher cognition and mainstream/EAL Teachers
In the research literature, teacher cognition has been labelled, conceptualized and defined in
different ways. According to Kagan (1992), teacher cognition includes teachers’ thoughts
about instruction and beliefs about students, classrooms, learning, and their own teaching
performance.
Borg (2003) defines teacher cognition as “teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, theories, attitudes,
images, assumptions, metaphors, conceptions, perspectives about teaching, teachers, learning,
students, subject matter, curricula, materials, instructional activities, and self” (Borg , 2003
:41). In addition, there are various terms that have been used over past decades for teacher
cognition: among them are ‘teacher knowledge’ (Freeman: 2001), ‘teachers’ beliefs’ (Burns,
1992; Richards, 1998), ‘beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge’ (Woods: 1996), ‘teachers’
theories’ (Borg: 1999), and ‘teachers’ personal theories’ (James: 2001). These terms,
including teacher beliefs, teacher knowledge and teacher thinking comprise the broader
concept of teacher Cognition (Calderhead: 1996). Researchers in this field (Borg: 2003;
Freeman: 2001; Freeman & Richards: 1996) are interested in the thought processes of
teachers, what teachers know, how they come to know and how they draw on their
knowledge in their classroom teaching.

The concept of beliefs has proven resistant to consistent definition on a large scale, with
Pajares (1992: 2) labelling them a “messy construct [that] travels in disguise and often under
alias.” These aliases include “explicit propositions” (Nisbett & Ross: 1980), ‘teachers’
subjectivity reasonable beliefs’ (Harootunian & Yarger : 1981), ‘implicit theories’ (Clark &
Peterson :1986), “conceptions” (Ekeblad & Bond : 1994), “personal theories” (Borg : 1999),
“personal pedagogical systems” (Borg :1998), “judgements” (Yero : 2002) “untested
assumptions” (Calderhead : 1996), “perceptions” (Schulz : 2001), “pedagogical principles”
(Breen et al. : 2001), “theories for practice” (Burns :1996), “images” (Golombek :1988) and
‘maxims’ (Richards : 1996). A variety of scholars have defined the term in a variety of ways,
and no one definition has gained significant prominence. Although described as the most
valuable psychological construct to teacher education (Pintrich: 1990), beliefs have been
acknowledged as being notoriously difficult to define.

Beliefs are affective and evaluative components of the human experience that are organized
into systems and, as they act as filters through which new phenomena are interpreted (Chan:
2000; Rokeach: 1968). Each belief is a “simple proposition, conscious or unconscious,

35
inferred from what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by the phrase, ‘ I believe
that …’” (Rokeach, 1968 :113). Each is comprised of elements that are either cognitive
(derived from knowledge), affective (able to arouse emotion) or behavioural (activated when
action is deemed necessary) (Pajares: 1992). Beliefs can range from those that are central and
greatly resistant to change to those that are peripheral and easily modified. For example,
beliefs formed early in life or those based on life experience tend to be difficult to alter and
have significant impact on related, less central beliefs (Chan: 2000).

Beliefs can be organized into attitudes, values, and systems. Beliefs can be instrumental in
shaping an individual’s behaviour and organizing their knowledge through impacting on
interpretations, plans and decisions (Pajares: 1992). An attitude is a set of beliefs that focuses
on a specific circumstance or object and are predisposed to a behavioural response. A value is
one specific belief encompassing evaluative, comparative, and judgmental components that
replace the predisposition to action inherent in attitudes with an imperative to respond with a
preferred mode of behaviour (Pajares: 1992). According to Rokeach (1968) attitudes, values,
and individual beliefs are organised together to form a belief system; “a functionally
integrated cognitive system so that a change in any part of the system will affect other parts,
and will culminate in behavioural change” (Rokeach, 1968: ix).

The following sub-sections represent an attempt to arrange these studies on the basis of
similar findings about the factors that shape teachers’ beliefs and seek to impose some
coherence of these findings in light of the present study.

3.2 Factors that Shape Teachers Beliefs

Interest in the study of teacher cognition eventually impacted on the field of
second/additional language education. An interest in teachers’ prior learning experiences
dates back to 1975, when Lortie (1975) introduced the notion of ‘apprenticeship of
observation’ to refer to teachers’ early school experiences. This notion emphasises the fact
that before their teacher training experiences, teachers have spent thousands of hours in
classrooms as students, during which time they have internalised the teaching. These early
experiences mould teachers’ teaching philosophies and form their pre-training beliefs, which
are said to be resistant to change (Johnson: 1994; Kagan: 1992; Pajares: 1992) and which are
believed to filter the information teacher trainees are introduced to in teacher education
courses (Richards: 1998). Kennedy (1990) claims: “Teachers acquire seemingly indelible

36
imprints from their own experiences as students and these imprints are tremendously difficult
to shake” (Kennedy, 1990: 17).

Following the concept of the ‘apprenticeship of observation’, Lortie (1975) argues that the
hundreds of hours spent in school as a student helped an individual form certain beliefs about
what teaching is and these beliefs determined the approach the teacher would adopt in his/her
classroom. During this time, teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning are powerfully
influenced both positively and negatively by their experiences as learners (Pajares: 1992).
Several researchers have provided empirical evidence of the impact of teachers’ prior
learning experiences on their beliefs about teaching and learning (Block & Hazelip: 1995).
This ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie: 1975) can foster deeply held beliefs about
teaching that are carried with teachers as they enter L2 teacher professional development
programs. This is supported by Gardner & Miller (1999) who suggest that “these beliefs
come from how they were taught, their training and their experiences as teachers” (Gardner
& Miller, 1999: 40).

A good example that shows the power of ‘apprenticeship of observation’ in the context of
EAL Teaching is found in Creese (2005) who uses an ethnography of communication
perspective to analyse interview and classroom data and describe the power relations amongst
14 subject and 12 EAL teachers working collaboratively in a year-long study of three London
secondary schools (Creese: 2005, 2010). She found that there was rarely a focus on form
outside defining key terms and that the role of language in creating meaning was submerged
within the subject matter of the curriculum. In content-based EAL classes, content objectives
often edge out language objectives to the detriment of second language acquisition and to
learning in general (Creese: 2005). This originates from teachers' epistemological
backgrounds and beliefs that lead teachers to view pedagogic knowledge and skills
differently (Creese: 2005).

Creese (2005) argues that the result is an epistemological mismatch between EAL and subject
content language in the mainstream context that considers EAL only peripherally “when set
alongside the teaching of subject content” (Creese, 2005: 189). In fact one of the main
dangers in marginalizing EAL in many classrooms situations is that it "only marginalizes the
needs of ethnic minority students further (Creese: 2005, 2003). She concludes her study by
arguing that there is” an urgent need to move beyond the rhetoric of celebration of diversity

37
in policy documents to work on the development of bilingual strategies within the
mainstream for subject language teaching" (Creese: 2005, 2004).

Bailey et al. (1996) point out, the ‘apprenticeship of observation’ or any prior experience will
only influence teachers’ instructional behaviours to the extent that s/he permits (Bailey et al.:
1996). This leads to a second important source of teachers' beliefs, which is their own
language learning experience. Teachers bring assumptions about how language works based
on their own experiences that may have been reinforced during their secondary school and
University education (Borg: 2005; Woods: 1996). As emphasized by Bernat and Gvozdenko
(2005), “in the classroom context, the perceptions, beliefs, attitudes will inform teachers
practices in language teaching (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005: 1). Ellis (2002) interviewed 31
Australian EAL teachers to explore the interconnectedness between teachers' language
learning background and their professional knowledge and beliefs. The participants for the
study were selected from three main groups: native English speakers with a second language;
native English-speaker monolinguals and non-native speakers. She, therefore, aimed to
explore the links between teachers' language learning background and their pedagogical
beliefs. Participating teachers were asked to articulate their beliefs about approaches to
teaching EAL including the challenges of learning EAL for students and the challenges of
teaching EAL through the medium of English.

Ellis (2002) claims that teachers who have already experienced L2 learning will certainly
have different beliefs about L2 learning than a native speaker who has never had such an
experience. Personal language biographies about language learning and teaching were also
collected to elicit any influence of prior language learning experience on their current EAL
practices. The result shows that different kinds of L2 learning experiences are influential
resources for EAL teachers' professional knowledge and beliefs about language teaching in
EAL context. In her case study, Ellis (2002) reports how one of her case teachers, Lidia, uses
her experience learning English as a second language as a key resource in motivating,
reassuring and encouraging her students:

“I know how they suffer, and how frustrated they are when they can’t really get something.
And I normally tell them that I went through the same thing …so for them to see me teaching
it … is encouraging, so I just say look, if I could do it, you can do it too” (Ellis, 2002: 80).

38
Ellis (2006) further argues that those teachers’ previous learning experiences as language
learners contribute to their language teaching positively. She adds that teachers who
themselves have already experienced learning another language possess more functional
beliefs about language learning than monolingual ones. Ellis’ (2006) research findings
conclude that language learning experience builds in powerful insights which interact with
formal professional knowledge and beliefs gained through informal sources and life
experiences. She argues that late bilingualism through formal language learning gave teachers
direct experience of learning and communication strategies in L2.

A third source of teachers' beliefs is their own experience of teaching. In the context of EAL
teaching, Arkoudis (2003) notes that teachers’ own teaching experience represent an
important factor in their planning and implementation of the curriculum (Arkoudis, 2003:
164). She refers to research (Arkoudis, 2003: 162, 163) highlighting that subject disciplines
and departments in secondary schools not only shape teachers identities but also their
working practices and experiences. Arkoudis (2003) aims to explore the following issue:
''How we can best bring together teachers from different discourse communities and get them
into sustained and productive dialogue'' (Arkoudis, 2003: 172). In her study of the planning
conversations of a science and an EAL teacher in a Victoria secondary school in Australia,
she shows how the mainstream teacher assumed the authority of his traditionally respected
and clearly defined curriculum to dominate the interaction. In contrast EAL is a relatively
new and trans-curricular subject and the EAL teacher’s deference appeared to reflect the
uncertain status of her curriculum area.

In order to analyse how the two teachers position themselves, Arkoudis (2005) uses both
appraisal theory and positioning theory to reveal how teachers construct their views of reality
by the way they engage (position themselves) in conversations. Despite the EAL teacher’s
expertise “she allowed herself to be relegated to a subordinate position by her colleague”
(Arkoudis, 2005: 206). Arkoudis (2005) concludes her study by arguing that language
teachers' beliefs and conceptualizations are formulated from experiences that they have had
within a socio-cultural context. It is thus impossible for such teachers, as social beings, to
divorce themselves from beliefs constructed within varying social environments, which
powerfully influence their work experience and social practice within schools.

39
A fourth source of teachers' beliefs is teacher education. There has been much debate about
the impact of teacher education on teachers' beliefs, but there is increasing evidence that it
can influence them in a meaningful way (Borg: 1998a; Borg: 2005). However, as mentioned
in chapter two, EAL is not a subject specialism in teacher training in England and Wales. The
current conceptualisation of EAL in England is as an 'aspect' of compulsory education but as
a 'subject' in post compulsory provision. Franson et al. (2002) challenge the absence of any
tradition of systematic pedagogy in practice or policymaking in secondary education in
England with Franson (1999) describing the lack of an explicit programme of study for
teaching EAL learners at the initial teacher training level, while in the same vein Leung
(2001) speaks of a shortage of clear systematic training (Leung: 2001). Given absence of
specific national policy and core pre-service training, it is not uncommon that in-service
teacher training programmes in England are based on the assumption that teacher will 'learn
on the job ' and that Teaching EAL is a linear process, which is mainly rooted in mainstream
teachers’ professional knowledge and development. However several researches suggest that
Teacher training programmes in England have struggled to meet expectations (Smyth: 2000).

Franson (1999) notes that in the introductory section to the guidance and materials for initial
teacher trainers (TTA, 2000: 7-8), it is argued that trainee teachers need to understand the
part they must play in preparing all pupils to play a full part in a culturally diverse,
democratic society which values everybody and accords them equal rights. It further states
that schools have an important part to play in helping all pupils to become informed,
concerned citizens, and in increasing mutual understanding, respect and appreciation of
cultural diversity. However Cline et al. (2002) found that none of the 14 case study schools in
their study had developed a curriculum strategy for preparing teachers to work effectively
with EAL learners in line with EAL policy guidelines. Their research has also raised
concerns about teachers’ knowledge of, and experience of diversity and the effectiveness of
teacher training in enabling teachers to cover diversity issues (Cline et al.: 2002). Gillborn
(1990), Wright (1992) and Troyna and Siraj-Blatchford (1993) have also drawn attention to
the way in which EAL students, and especially Asian and black are particular targets of
negative stereotyping in schools by their teachers.

3.3 Teaching and learning an additional language at school

40
In this section the literature relevant to the study of the acquisition of English as an additional
language is reviewed with some of the studies and theories that have informed beliefs about
how languages are learnt with respect to EAL Teaching/Learning.

While the study of second language acquisition is not considered a content area in schools, its
application (applied linguistics) has informed approaches to foreign language teaching and
more recently English as additional language acquisition. The discipline of second language
acquisition (SLA) is generally accepted to have begun in the late 1960s (Ellis:1994) but the
first major theoretical position which has a bearing on the role of the first language came
from psycholinguists, the best known of whom is Skinner. Skinner (1957), working within a
behaviourist orientation to human learning, coined the term ‘verbal behaviour’ as a
description of language, and posited that second language learning was a matter of learning a
set of new “habits” which had to override and replace the old “habits” of the first language.
Behaviourism along with applied linguistics, developed detailed descriptions of the
differences between languages and had a great influence on language teaching. Theorists
believed that languages were made up of a series of habits, and that if learners could develop
all these habits, they could speak the language. They also believed that a contrastive analysis
of languages would be invaluable in teaching languages, because points in which the
languages were similar would be easy for students, but points in which they were different
would be difficult for students.

Methods which were based on this view of language such as audio-lingualism proceeded
from the belief that the first language should be avoided in the classroom. The concept of
‘interference’ was a part of this view and referred to the effect of the L1 patterns being
imposed on the L2, resulting in error. Training in L2 patterns (syntax, morphology,
phonology) was considered best done in complete isolation from the first language.

The Nativist perspective, referring initially to Chomsky’s (1965), is based on the belief that
the ability to learn a language and took the position that language is creative (not
memorized), and rule governed (not based on habit), and that universal phenomena of the
human mind underlie all language. Chomsky (1965), proposed a theory called
‘Transformational Generative Grammar ‘(TG Grammar), according to which learners do not
acquire an endless list of rules but a limited set of transformations which can be used
repeatedly. This universal grammar corresponds to an in-born capacity of the human brain for

41
learning a first language. Chomsky (1965) concurrently made a distinction between language
competence and language performance. Performance does not reflect competence as the latter
will be affected “by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations,
distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic)” (Chomsky,
1965:3). In Chomsky’s (1965) view, competence is characterised by what an individual
knows about his/ her first language, that is, an intuitive mental representation of linguistic
rules, where a native speaker would be able to pinpoint whether a construction is
ungrammatical but not necessarily be able to explain the reason of its non-grammaticality. In
other words, linguistic competence refers to the learners’ tacit grammatical knowledge of
their mother tongue. Performance, on the other hand is described as what an individual does
with this grammar knowledge in concrete situations.

From the second language acquisition perspective, Nativists believe that children are actively
generating and testing hypothetical grammars in their minds and, through inference and
practice, children learn to use and understand a language. This is one of the major differences
between behaviourist and nativist approaches since nativists believe humans have the
cognitive ability to learn language and not just form patterns of recognition. In other words,
the process of learning a language is completely different for nativists since they believe that
language learning is more unconscious than conscious. For this reason nativist ideas have led
many more psychological theories and hypothesis, both conscious and unconscious positions,
on the nature of language and language learning. Generally nativists believe that most
important learning is developed inside the mind, realizing that learning can be improved or
made worse by aspects of learning that occur in the environment outside the mind.

Since the 1980s, the pedagogical pendulum evolved towards a skills-based with the advent of
the communicative approach, which has its origins in the changes in the British language
teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. This approach varies from traditional
approaches because it is learner-centred. The need for the use of language for communication
led to the emergence of communicative language teaching or the communicative approach in
the 1970s. Littlewood (1981) states that: “one of the most important aspects of
‘communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as
structural aspects of language’ (Littlewood, 1981: 1). The major influence on the
development of Communicative Language Teaching was the work of Hymes (1972, 1977).
His 1972 paper ‘On Communicative Competence’ explicitly addressed language education

42
issues. It was in part a critique of Chomsky’s (1965) in which Hymes (1972) broadened
Chomsky’s theory of competence by arguing that linguistic theory should be extended from
linguistic competence to what he called ‘communicative competence’, defined as ‘what a
speaker needs to know within a speech community’ (Richards & Rogers, 2001: 159), thus
including both linguistic and socio-cultural dimensions. Hymes (1972) describes
Communicative Competence in terms of systemic potential, appropriateness, occurrence and
feasibility (Hinkel: 1999). In his view, being communicatively competent calls for speakers’
competence in producing the language to concern both grammatical and socio-cultural
acceptability in a speech community.

In language teaching and learning, communication in the target language is viewed as the
primary objective. Among mentalist and cognitive models that have influenced the EAL
language Teaching/learning classroom, two should be mentioned briefly. A particularly
influential idea is Krashen’s construct of language acquisition (Krashen: 1988). According to
Krashen (1988) acquisition takes place on a deeper, unconscious level as a result of ‘real’
communication, much like first language development. Learning, on the other hand, refers to
the conscious efforts of internalizing input (usually formal aspects) from instruction. A
consequence is a downplay of the role of formal instruction and a more constructivist
approach to language learning. Also, Krashen’s (1992) input hypothesis claims that learning
takes place when a learner is exposed to input that is comprehensible but slightly beyond the
learner’s current ability. In Krashen’s model, a teacher would be the primary source of
comprehensible input, a designer of learning environments that have few or no affective
filters, and an orchestrator of a rich mix of activities (Richards & Rodgers, 1986: 137 – 8).

Much of what is described as good practice in relation to the educational provision for
bilingual children (Levine: 1990; Gibbons: 1991; Mills & Mills: 1993; Gravelle: 1996)
appears to have been influenced by Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition, which
are premised on an understanding that second language acquisition mirrors first language
acquisition in many ways. A proponent of the monolingual approach, Krashen (1982) argues
that people learning foreign languages follow basically the same route as they acquire their
mother tongue; hence the use of mother tongue or L1 in the language learning process should
be channelised. In his view second language is most successfully acquired when the
conditions are similar to those present in first language acquisition: that is when focus is on
meaning rather than on form; when language input is at or just above the proficiency of the

43
learner; and when there is sufficient opportunity to engage in meaningful use of that
language. This suggests that the focus of the second language classroom should be on
something meaningful, such as academic content and that modification of the target language
facilitates language acquisition and makes academic content accessible to second language
learners (Crandall & Tucker: 1990). A teacher's role within this approach is to design
conformable situations where comprehensible messages can be exchanged.

However since the early 1980s in England, it is not SLA which has had the strongest
influence on EAL teaching but a theory of language and of language use. Halliday’s (1978,
1985) systemic functional model of language has been used extensively as the basis for the
development of curricula in mainstream EAL contexts as EAL as in teacher education
guidelines (Leung: 2001). Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is described by Halliday
(1994) as a linguistic model “that is functional from two points of view: the external, that of
the function of language in society, and the internal, that of the way a particular language is
organised to fulfil the functions it has to: to represent the world, to create relations between
those communicating and to signal the structure of text” (Halliday, 1994: 6). Its origins lie in
work done by Halliday and associates in the 1960s when they, as members of the University
of College London, were asked to submit a proposal to the Nuffield Foundation for a project
that would develop language education in the UK. Significantly, Halliday’s (1978, 1985)
theory of language has made an important contribution in the study of first language
development (Painter : 1991) but it does not include a theory of second language learning and
therefore does not in itself take a position on the role of the first language in SLA. The actual
teaching methods used in curricula based on a systemic view of language tend to be those of
the communicative approach. This includes the direct method practice of teaching wholly in
the target language. As a result there is no systematic inclusion of L1 in the classroom and it
tends to be left to individual teachers to decide its role.

Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) arises from understanding language as a system of

sharing meaning in a particular social context (Halliday & Hasan: 1985). As such it is not
absolute but adapts to specific participants and their purpose and context for the interaction.
This compares dramatically to a view of language as one prescribed system that all members
of a speech community should aspire to use. Halliday (1973; 1985; 1994) uses the term
functional in the sense of social function to explain some of the specific ways in which
language is used to serve social purposes. For instance, Halliday (1973) offers the following

44
examples of functions of language which he describes as socio-personal: “We use language
to approve and disapprove; to express belief, opinion, doubt; to include in the social group, or
exclude from it; to ask and answer; to express personal feelings; to achieve intimacy; to greet,
chat up, take leave of; in all these and many other ways” (Halliday, 1973: 41).

Teachers who apply the SFL approach analyse what structures are really used to achieve
particular social and academic purposes and then teach them to learners so learners can create
meanings in a similar context. Firstly, teachers who adopt this approach need to recognise the
particular language demands of their discipline. In order to plan effectively for additional
language development in the curriculum, subject knowledge and subject teaching expertise,
language knowledge and language teaching expertise all need to be brought together in an
integrated way. In practice there are a number of problems that can hinder this process. At the
planning stage, insufficient information about or understanding of the way in which the
contexts and content of subject learning determine language choice, makes it more difficult to
select and differentiate appropriate language models in advance. Secondly, a strong emphasis
in EAL practice on pupil-centred methodologies that promote interactive language use in the
classroom means that the forms of language used by pupils during activities can appear
largely unpredictable or uncontrolled. This may leave EAL students trying to make sense out
of the language input surrounding them in learning activities. This may also leave EAL
students relying upon a limited range of existing language resources to respond to a variety of
learning demands, without continually extending, expanding and refining them. Finally, in a
subject-based content-driven or skills-driven curriculum, learning goals are often constructed
in a way that does not clearly specify any role or purpose for language use. This makes it
more difficult to draw out information leading to the choice of language resources
appropriate to the goals of the lesson. In relation to the topic of the current study, this may
result in teachers adopting monolingual norms (Creese: 2008).

In summary thus far, the major theoretical language theories that have impacted EAL
teaching in England have been described. The next section considers the literature on beliefs
about using L1 in the classroom arising from Second Language Acquisition research.

3.4 Beliefs about using L1 in classrooms in SLA research

45
The issue of L1 use in L2 language classrooms has long been a controversial topic in the L2
literature. According to Macaro (2001), there are three positions of L1 use in language
classes:
a) The Virtual Position: In order to make the classroom a target language environment, the
exclusion of L1 is necessary. L1 use is of no pedagogical value.
b) The Maximal Position: L1 use is of no pedagogical value. However, perfect teaching and
learning conditions do not exist so that teachers have to resort to L1.
c) The Optimal Position: L1 use is of some pedagogical value. Some aspects of learning may
be enhanced by the use of L1. There should be an exploration of pedagogical principles
regarding in what ways L1 use is judicious.

The L2-only position dates back to the 1880s, when most teaching methods adopted the
‘direct method’ of avoidance of L1 use (Cook : 2001). Other contemporary methods such as
the ‘total physical response method’ (Asher: 1993) and the ‘natural approach’ (Krashen &
Terrell: 1983) have embraced second language exclusivity. As a result, Eldridge (1996),
Levine (2003), Turnbull and Arnett (2002) and Macaro (2001) all point out that there is
relatively little theoretical and empirical evidence to support pedagogical decisions
concerning when and how much L1 should be used in L2 classrooms. In the same vein,
Turnbull and Arnett (2002) conduct a review of theoretical and empirical literature on
teachers’ use of the target language (L2) and of L1 in second and foreign language teaching.
They conclude that there appears to be near consensus that L2 use should be maximised but
that more studies are needed to determine if judicious use of L1 might help input to become
intake. However, since their focus was largely on Second language acquisition and less on
EAL, a more relevant picture of current thinking is that Swan (1985) who argues: “As far as
the British version of the communicative approach is concerned, students might as well not
have mother tongues. Meanings, uses and communication skills are treated as if they have to
be learnt from scratch….communicative methodology stresses the English only approach to
presentation and practice that is the prominent feature of British ESL tradition” (Swan, 1985 :
85).

This position has been questioned by several language researchers (van Lier: 1995; Macaro:
1997; 2001; 2003; Cook: 2001). Both Kachru (1994) and Sridhar (1994) criticise the
discipline of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) for assuming a monolingual starting point.
Sridhar and Sridhar (1986: 5) point out that “SLA researchers seem to have neglected the fact

46
that the goal of SLA is bilingualism”, and it is also true to say that they have tended to
include third and subsequent language acquisition with SLA, assuming that the processes are
the same. Recently, the ‘interlingual’ (Tarnopolsky: 2000), ‘multilingual’ (Blyth: 1995) or
‘multicultural’ (Crawford: 2004) awareness, the result of interlingual comparison, on the part
of language learners has been emphasized by researchers in SL2 research. It is now believed
that interlingual awareness of students can foster the use of language transfer strategies
(Gabrys & Solska: 1997). Students will know the ‘bilingual mode’ of the L1 and L2. That is,
these two languages should be used simultaneously instead of the ‘monolingual mode’ in
which they are used separately (Grosjean: 1989).

Van Lier (2008) identifies two extremes in the theories of learning: the mentalist position and
the environmentalist position. The former position sees SLA primarily in psycholinguistic
terms and it concerns cognitive theories that posit learning primarily happening inside the
head of individual learners. The latter position concerns more socially and environmentally
oriented theories that place the locus of learning in the context. The interactionist position lies
in between the two extremes and the theories that reflect this position explore the
relationships between cognitive and environmental processes. These theories can broadly fit
under a general umbrella of sociocognitive theories (Atkinson: 2002). Atkinson (2002)
encourages SLA researchers to adopt a sociocognitive perspective on SLA which entails that
cognition of language is intertwined with and inseparable from experiences, cultural
knowledge, emotions and social identity.

Similarly, Block (2003) proposes a broader, socially informed SLA that does not exclude the
mainstream psycholinguistic approach but takes on board the complexity of the context. He
warns that the dominant line of the mentalist position might lead to a narrow view of the
complex SLA phenomenon and might widen the existing gap between researchers and
practitioners in this field because it “ignores the alternative views of what constitutes SLA
research” (Block, 1996 : 76). He argues for an expansion of the agenda for LA by taking into
account the cognitive and linguistic aspects as well as the learners’ social environment and
the interactions between them. He believes that it is desirable to explore alternative
paradigms and that the existence of pluralism appears to provide fertile ground for the
advancements of the SLA field.

47
Since the social and cognitive debate, the broadening of different perspectives of SLA has
opened the door for attention to context-sensitive approaches or sociocognitive approaches,
including sociocultural theory (Lantolf: 2000), language socialisation (Kramsch: 2002b) and
the ecological approach (van Lier: 2004). The common ground of these contemporary
socially influenced theories is the emphasis on the central role of learning context, and on the
idea of context being co-constructed. All of these recent influential perspectives on SLA
assume that it is not appropriate to separate variables.

In summary, while SLA researchers and applied linguists have not found a common voice
about the various issues related to use of L1 in the classroom, the assumption of the
monolingual norm in both SLA research and second language pedagogy is now being
challenged by a generation of researchers of the new paradigm of linguistic research, known
as ecolinguistics, ecological linguistic or the language ecology paradigm.

3.5 Ecological Approach in Language Education

The ecological approach provides an integrative perspective that also helps avoid
monolingual bias (van Lier: 1996). This dates back to Haugen’s (1972) work which looked at
the ecological nature of languages that come into contact with each other (Hornberger, 2003a;
Kramsch: 2002; van Lier: 2004). Language ecology was originally defined by Haugen (1972)
as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment” (Haugen,
1972: 325). He points out that the environment of a language refers to its social and natural
environment in which language exists in the minds of the users and functions in relating these
users to one another. Thus language ecology is both psychological and sociological. The
psychological part refers to the interaction between the language and other languages in the
minds of bilingual and multilingual speakers, whereas the sociological part refers to the
interaction between the language, which functions as a medium of communication, and the
society. The ecology of language, as Haugen (2001) goes on to argue, is “determined
primarily by the people who learn it, use it, and transmit it to others” (Haugen, 2001: 57).

Hornberger (2002) uses the ecology of language as a metaphor for language policy and
planning, suggesting that it:
… captures a set of ideological underpinnings for a multilingual language policy, in which
languages are understood to :
(1) live and evolve in an ecosystem along with other languages (language evolution);

48
(2) interact with their socio-political and cultural environments (language environment) and
(3) become endangered if there is inadequate environmental support for them in relation to
other languages in the eco-system (language endangerment). (Hornberger, 2002:35-36)

The metaphor of the ecology of language helps in conceptualizing influences on languages by

highlighting the fact “that languages, like living species, evolve, grow, change, live, and die
in relation to other languages and also in relation to their environment” (Hornberger,
2003:320).

Along a similar line, Kramsch and Steffensen (2007) argue that the language ecology
approach offers a rich holistic framework for studying linguistic phenomena, which are
described as interconnected, interdependent, and interactional. From the macro-perspective
on language education, researchers such as Hornberger (2002, 2003a, 2003b), Muhlhausler
(1996) and Ricento (2000) have applied ecological theory to the goal of language
maintenance and in the area of language planning and policy. From the micro-perspective on
language education within an ecological framework, research has been carried out to explore
the interaction between languages and their speakers in multilingual and multicultural
classrooms, the dynamics of multilingual classroom interaction and the positioning of
classroom languages and their speakers in dominant educational settings. Hornberger s’
(1998; 2004) work on educational language policy and planning have attempted to conceive
what ecological language planning might mean in real situations (Hornberger & King: 1996).
These studies are important in the context of this thesis because they show” how language
policy and planning can serve as vehicles for promoting social inclusion, the vitality of
languages and the linguistic rights of their speakers “(Hornberger, 1998: 439).

3.5.1 Biliteracy Development

In defining biliteracy, Hornberger (1989) points out that in the 1970s, the term carried
connotations of fluency or mastery in reading and writing of two or more languages.
Hornberger (2003: 35) defines biliteracy as: “any and all instances in which communication
occurs in two (or more) languages in or around writing”. It includes varying levels of
competencies, text, types (traditional and multimodal) and verbal and symbolic
communication. In this regard the continua of biliteracy model as developed by Hornberger
(1989) and revised by Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester (2000), offers a comprehensive
framework in which to situate research, teaching and language planning in linguistically

49
diverse settings. The model captures the development of biliteracy along intersecting first
language-second language, receptive productive and oral-written language skills continua,
through the medium of two (or more) languages and literacies. This research has resulted in
the development of a model referred to as "the continua of biliteracy" (Hornberger: 2003) that
has served to inform research on biliteracy and multiliteracy, not only in the USA but in key
research sites such as Wales (Baker: 2003), England (Creese & Blackledge: 2010) South
Africa (Bloch & Alexander: 2003) and Canada (Cummins: 1994). Hornberger (2003) makes
the case that further research is needed, in a wide range of settings and circumstances, to
enhance the model in ways that promote greater understanding of biliteracy and multiliteracy.

The continua model of biliteracy is premised on a view of multilingualism as a resource and

on the metaphor of ecology of language (Ruiz: 1995). The continua of biliteracy have been
used to explore the complexity of multilingual educational situations as well as the power
dynamics involved. With respect to languages other than English in mainstream schools, it
highlights the asymmetrical power relations between languages as schools usually take little
or no account of the home or community literacies nor of the knowledge that come with these
literacies that students bring with them to school (Martin-Jones & Jones: 2000). As a result,
only certain approaches to the written text are acceptable within the school context and the
expertise of minority parents are overlooked or marginalized (Skilton- Sylvester: 2003)

3.5.2 (Bi)literacy as a Social Practice

Historically, there have been two opposing views of literacy that have guided literacy
pedagogy and research: the autonomous and the sociocultural perspective. This debate is
significant to this thesis because the autonomous view of literacy stands in antithesis to a
language ecology approach. The two most commonly accepted views of literacy are ‘literacy
as skills’ and ‘literacy as a social practice’. Within the view of literacy as skills, literacy is
defined as a set of encoding and decoding skills. In this paradigm, literacy is autonomous,
cognitive and individual skills and abilities. In this sense, academic literacy is seen as “a
school-taught and classroom learned collection of skills” (Cook-Gumperz: 1986: 2). For
example, the UK National Literacy Strategy (DfEE: 1998), describes and prescribes literacy
teaching in schools and identifies literacy in terms of a set of 9 major competencies covering
the ability to engage with, read, analyse and produce texts in a range of fiction and non-
fiction genres. Those literacy competences are associated with phonological awareness,

50
phonic and spelling, grammar awareness, reading comprehension and writing composition of
fiction and non-fiction genres.

Underpinning this definition emerges a sharp distinction between the literate who possess
these skills and the illiterate who do not. As a leading voice of criticism of the skills model,
Street (1984, 1995) offers a helpful comparison between these two opposing views of
literacy, by making a distinction between the ‘autonomous’ and the ‘ideological’ model of
literacy’ (Street: 1995) In the autonomous model of literacy, literacy can be reduced to sets of
skills that can be broken apart into isolated components. Such skills are seen as neutral
technology that can be detached from social and cultural contexts. This model assumes that
these literacy skills can be measured by tests, and that the results accurately reflect students’
cognitive skills in literacy. The greatest problem of this view is that it suggests that when
learners come to the classroom they bring with them literacy practices that may or may not be
considered appropriate. Which is why, the ‘simple distinction’ that literacy is the ability to
read and write no longer holds true. There is now a large degree of agreement that literacy is
not an absolute or a single standard of competence to be reached; it is not a collection of
functional skills that are context- free and unified and it cannot guarantee economic benefits
(Street: 1995). While definitions still include the basic skills of reading and writing at the
core, they also include the ability to use these skills creatively and appropriately as a means
of empowering people to fully participate in society. For instance Barton (1994) finds in his
‘Literacy in the Community research project in England’ that it is not easy to separate literacy
practices into three literacy domains (i.e., school, home, and work) because sometimes
school, home and work literacies all mingle together. This concept finds support from Street
(1993b) who views literacy practices as constitutive of identity and personhood, as he
recognises that regardless of all forms of reading and writing, literacy practices are associated
with certain social identities and expected behaviours.

Barton and Hamilton (2000) suggest that literacy is a social practice. Literacy practices are
culturally patterned ways in which learners interact with their peers around the use of texts.
These literacy practices reflect learners’ values, attitudes, feelings and social relationships
(Barton & Hamilton: 2000). According to Barton and Hamilton: “Practices are shaped by
social rules which regulate the use and distribution of texts, prescribing who may produce
and have access to them” (Barton & Hamilton, 2000: 8). Under this theory, literacy practices
are tied to the specific contexts. As a result, there are different literacy practices connected to

51
different domains of life. Barton’s and Hamilton’s (2000) theory of literacy as a social
practice has implications for how biliteracy can be conceptualized. Barton (1994) states that:
“Being literate is always expressed in a particular language” (Barton & Hamilton, 2000: 69).
Biliterates have different literacy practices associated with their two languages. Literacy
practices in different areas of their lives (e.g. home, school, church) can be linked with either
one or both of the languages. Although some literacy practices are imposed in one language
(e.g. English in reading class), others are self-imposed by the individual (e.g. talking to
friends in one or both languages).

These recent changes in understanding literacy have given rise to new research in this field,
with some of it focussing on the relationship between literacy, identity, bilinguality and
culture, including the impact of L1 use in the classroom. The literature supports and reveals a
disparity in the school system which not only maintains the status quo but also aims to
promote monolingualism of the majority group (Nieto : 2004; Gravelle : 2003).

3.5. 3 Studies on Out-of-school Language and (Bi) literacy Practices in L1

It was against this backdrop that a growing body of ethnographic research has been published
in the last two decades, raising the issue of the dichotomous view of academic versus out-of-
school literacy practices in multilingual communities in urban Britain. Minns’(1990) research
of the language and literacy practices of five four-year old children from Afro Caribbean,
Asian and white families in Coventry stands as one of the pioneering studies that examined
issues of literacy practices of immigrant students outside of school settings. Her study
describes two children’s encounters with religious literacy (which has its own rules that the
children must abide by) and the family patterns which underlie the reading of sacred texts.
She found that each child’s experience was unique, but all had had many experiences of
literacy, which were not known by their teachers. Minns (1990) concludes her study by
stating that “children’s learning can be fully understood only within a framework that
acknowledges their lives at home and in their communities (Minns, 1990: 9).

In the same train of thoughts, Saxena (1994) identifies that England has largely remained a
monolingual, monocultural and monoliterate state which fails to recognise the multiliteracies
which students utilise. His research highlights the diversity within the Punjabi community in
Southall (London) and described the complex literacy awareness and three distinct script
choices associated with an individual’s religio-political affiliation and educational

52
background. For instance, reading the Gurmukhi script was symbolic of a Sikh identity whilst
Hindus had a historical attachment to reading the Devanagari script. On the other hand, Urdu
literacy, written using the Perso-Arabic script, acts as an informative function (e.g.
newspapers) for those who had their education in Urdu before the partition of India. As part
of his discussion on the complex multilingual reading and writing abilities of Panjabi
families, he describes the typical day of a 4 year old boy. The four year old son encounters a
wide range of languages as well as variety of scripts during a typical school day: his mother
is watching a film in Hindi, while his grandmother writes to relative in India in Panjabi-Hindi
mixed code using Devanagari script.

As a result, he can distinguish between three different types of script and switches between
different languages. Thus research points that such learners may in fact only be using English
for a narrow range of functions. Indeed, English occurs mainly at his primary school, as the
child enters the building he sees various bilingual signs in the Gurmukki and Devanagari
script, designed for the multilingual school community.

Research with older learners aged 9-20 in the Gujarati-speaking community in Leicester by
Martin-Jones and Bhatt (1998) focuses on the richness and variety of the lived experiences of
these speakers outside the boundaries of their educational institutions. The study highlights
that bilingual students in Leicester draw on different literacies in diverse ways their cultural
allegiances and their corresponding literacy practices change as they move through their
adolescent years. They give an example of a 20 year old Kenyan immigrant to England of
Indian descents who taught herself to read and write Gujarati so she could write to relatives
back home. Martin-Jones and Bhatt (1998) also found that most of the Muslim adults and
their children could read and write Urdu as well as Gujarati and were familiar with Qur’anic
Arabic for religious purposes. Similarly, Hindus use Sanskrit to recite the prayers and hymns
in the home, the temple and complementary schools. During this study, multilingualism
among Gujarati speakers was the norm rather than the exception. Other examples in their
study suggest that the literacy practice and literacy development are different for different
group in society, and for different families and individuals within those groups. In this, they
are often in conflict with the English monolingual ethos of educational discourse.

Brooker (2002) contests the common myth, held by some teachers, that there were low levels
of literacy amongst minority ethnic parents. This study counters the prevailing deficit views

53
of curriculum teachers of minority language children, who are often identified with literacy
learning difficulties. Instead she found that parents and older siblings played an active role in
literacy learning and biliteracy development and uncovered a wealth of reading practices and
materials in the community:

All the Bangladeshi parents cite daily reading of the Qur’an and other religious texts
or books of prayers, while some read extensively beyond this. Four families buy
Bengali newspapers locally, and read and discuss them in the family group, while
several mothers use the local library, or read their older children’s school books with
enjoyment and interest. Most families’ evening routines are built around the comings
and goings of the older children who attend mosque school, or have Arabic tuition at
home, and an hour set aside for homework, as well as around family prayers and
reading the Qur’an. (Brooker, 2002: 37)

While all aspects of students’ linguistic and cultural experiences should form the foundation
of an informed discussion of what pedagogy best fits the needs of individual EAL learners
who may be exposed to more than one language and more one writing system. However,
according to Lo Bianco (2001) the dictates of national curriculum initiatives in England and
Wales assume children with EAL to be pre-literate because assessments are based on English
literacy alone and ignore rather than identify with the complexity of their multiliterate lives.

3.5.4 Studies on in- school (Bi) literacy Practices

Research within the socio-cultural literacy tradition in Britain has demonstrated that many
children learning EAL in the UK experience discontinuities (linguistic and cultural) between
their home and school (Creese & Blackledge: 2010; Creese & Martin: 2003). The functions,
values and meanings which are attached to literacy by schools often vary from those held by
the communities they serve. Literacy in L1 and literacy in English have been shown to serve
different functions, to be learned in different ways and to be associated with different
practices in various samples of children and young people from linguistic minority
communities― a Chinese child in a reception class in London (Gregory: 1993), Gujerati
adolescents in Leicester (Martin-Jones & Bhatt: 1998), a Gujerati seven year old in London
(Kenner: 1999), Bangladeshi families in the West Midlands (Blackledge: 1999), and Sylhetti
pupils in Year 1 and their siblings in London (Gregory :1998).

In a typical study, the research of Kenner et al. (2004) is concerned with bilingual children in
London and discusses the ways in which young bilingual children understand the principles

54
underlying different writing systems. The project set out to explore ‘EAL learners’ parallel
world’, which they claim often goes unnoticed by curriculum teachers and investigated the
claim that learning two writing systems and speaking ‘community languages ‘cause
confusion for immigrant children. Six case studies were carried out involving school aged
children living in London who were learning to write in Chinese, Arabic, or Spanish at the
same time as English. In their study, two children were learning a logographic script,
Chinese, as well as English. Two were learning a non-Roman script with different
directionality, Arabic. Two were learning another Roman script, which differs in its written
and sound system of the alphabetic letters, Spanish. All children were born in England apart
from one Arabic boy who arrived when he was four year old. The children spoke English
fluently except for the Arabic child who was not born in England. All parents were eager for
their children to succeed in English literacy as well as to write in their first language:
Chinese, Arabic and Spanish. The children were all receiving more input in English (five
days a week) than the other languages (one morning a week on Saturdays).

The crucial issue for this study was that all children were exposed to two significantly
different writing scripts. In looking closely at the two children learning to write in their
heritage language, it was found that children developed the capacity to self-correct. The
children were not confused about directionality at the conceptual level. Rather they were
constantly engaged in moving between the two systems and in that process they encountered
moments of transition. This study also presented data which were not originally designed to
be part of the research study. The findings indicated that a number of the monolingual
classmates also showed a desire to investigate different writing systems during peer teaching
sessions.

The role of the mainstream school in supporting language maintenance has been found in
research conducted by Gravelle (2000) who provides research-based guidance for teachers on
including bilingual learners in their curriculum-planning. Her work draws on practitioners’
experience to enhance the learning of all pupils, both monolingual English or
bilingual/multilingual at primary and secondary level. In her study, she describes in detail the
use of the text entitled 'Mufaro’s beautiful daughters' by John Steptoe. As the teachers in the
study considered it a challenging text, they felt it was more suitable for shared rather than
independent reading. Through a number of tasks, the pupils were given the opportunity to
write their own version of the story, and given a writing framework to support their work.

55
Gravelle (2010) recounts the experience of one teacher who worked with a small group of
Year 3 pupils on this activity. Their backgrounds were Nigerian, Vietnamese, Nigerian,
Portuguese and two Cantonese. In this group, work takes place on a bilingual version of the
stories they had written about the selected text. Families and friends were also encouraged to
help, particularly if the child was not literate in their first language and taped oral accounts in
community languages were encouraged which subsequently could be transcribed. She goes
on to suggest steps towards developing an ‘interactive pedagogy for bilingual children’ in
which home and community knowledge is integrated into the classroom. In particular,
Gravelle (2010) recommends that classrooms be resourced in a wide range of multilingual
materials, although her preference is for these materials to reflect those found in a bilingual
home.

Although there have been only a few such studies in England designed to help teachers to
adapt their teaching methods to the language of EAL learners, there can be some confidence
in their findings because they are closely in line with findings in similar studies conducted in
settings in the US (Nieto, 2000; Skilton-Sylvester: 2003; Auerbach: 1995; Haywood &
Lorenzen :2003) and Canada (Cummins: 1996; Taylor et al.: 2001) and the Australia (Clyne:
1991; Clyne et al: 1995; Lotherington: 2002). There is a growing body of evidence that
teachers have the potential to foster multiliteracies in their classrooms, regardless of whether
the teacher her/himself has knowledge of the languages in question.

3.6 Code switching

One common observable feature in any multilingual society and a linguistic behaviour
present among bilinguals is code switching. Myers-Cotton (1988) describes code switching
as: “the use of two or more linguistic varieties within the same conversation, without
prominent phonological assimilation of one variety to the other” (Myers-Cotton, 1988: 157).
Language switching often occurs orally instead of in writing. Usually governed by function
and grammatical rules, code-switching takes place under many conditions. For example,
many bilingual speakers are more fluent in one language than in the other, or they find they
can express an idea more easily in one or the other. Heller (1992) points out that “code
switching may be conventional, or, on the contrary, anti-conventional” (Heller, 1992: 123). In
many contexts, particularly those that highlight the dominance of one linguistic group over
another, code switching is seen as ‘a conversational strategy used to establish, cross or
destroy group boundaries’ (Gal, 1988: 247). It is within this latter sense that code switching

56
has been examined within the field of interactional sociolinguistics as a practice which ‘is an
important part of social mechanisms of negotiation and definition of social roles, network and
boundaries’ (Heller, 1988: 1).

Although educators may have opposing views about the use of code switching in the
classroom, Wheeler (2005) states that teachers should have a heightened awareness of the
functions of code switching in the classroom. She claims that code switching helps teachers
and bilinguals identify and respect cultural values and norms and also celebrates their
linguistic competence. Moreover, “code-mixing and switching have a legitimate place in the
multilingual’s repertoire just as switching between registers and styles has its functions in a
monolingual’s linguistic behaviour” (Kachru, 2009: 31). Kachru argues further that there is
no reason for stigmatizing such a variety as it can be “exploited for effective language
teaching as can translation between languages and varieties” (Kachru, 2009: 31).
Additionally, Montes-Alcalá (2001) emphasises that both oral and written code switching, “is
an idiosyncratic phenomenon governed by rules, both social and grammatical, and that for an
individual to code switch, he or she must be proficient in both languages” (Montes-Alcalá,
2001: 194). Further, Buell (2003) indicates that the simultaneous use of two languages
creates a link between the two languages being learnt, as it is a strategy being used by
children in learning the required standard.

According to Baker (2002) code switching can be used to emphasize a particular point, to
substitute a word in place of unknown word in the target language, to express a concept that
has no equivalent in the culture of the other language, to reinforce a request, to clarify a point,
to express identity and communicate friendship, to ease tension and inject humour into a
conversation, and in some bilingual situations, code switching occurs when certain topics are
introduced Garcia (2005 ) notes that code-switching is often used for clarification or as a
teaching device, to reach out to the other person’s level of fluency, or even an as intermediate
stage in language learning (Garcia, 2005 : 28-29). This is supported by Rollnick and
Rutherford’s (1996) study of science classrooms found the use of learners’ main languages to
be a powerful means for learners to explore their ideas. They argue that without the use of
code switching, some students’ alternate conceptions would remain unexposed (Rollnick &
Rutherford: 1996). Researchers see using code switching in the classroom as a “legitimate
strategy” (Cook, 2001: 105) and no matter how it might be disruptive during a conversation
to the listener, it still provides an opportunity for language development (Skiba: 1997).

57
However many do not view the simultaneous use of two languages or code-switching as a
result of linguistic competence but as a negative influence on language learning strong
stigmatic believes about code switching. Code switching is still being regarded as an
unsystematic process which involves interference or negative transfer. Heller (1992) code-
switching has often been perceived as being of lower status, a strategy used by weak
language performers to compensate for language deficiency. This view of code-switching and
bilingual talk in general is more normatively based than research-based as pointed by Lin
(1996) who adds that such a view conveys little more than the speaker or writer’s normative
claims about what counts as standard or legitimate language asserts that the “absence of code-
switching can be as significant as the presence of it" (Lin, 1996: 124). In addition Montes-
Alcalá (2001) claims that the stigmatization of this phenomenon has meant that code
switching is closely “attributed to illiteracy, lack of formal education, and or/lack of
proficiency in one or both languages,” (Montes-Alcalá, 2001: 193).

3.7 Translanguaging
Another pedagogical theme that has received attention, primarily by Garcia (2007) and Baker
(2003) is the notion of translanguaging. Translanguaging is a concept first discussed by
Williams (2002) when he conducted research in Welsh secondary schools (Williams, 2002:
47). Williams (2002) emphasises that translanguaging refers to a different use of the two
languages a skill that is natural for any bilingual person: “translanguaging entails using one
language to reinforce the other in order to increase understanding and in order to augment the
pupil’s ability in both languages” (Williams, 2002 : 40). He goes on to describe the process
from the child’s perspective: pupils internalise new ideas they hear, assign their own
understanding to the message/concept, and simultaneously and immediately utilise the
message/concept in their other language(s). In doing so, they augment and supplement the
message/concept through dual language processing. In addition the process of
translanguaging uses various cognitive processing skills in listening and reading, the
assimilation and accommodation of information, choosing and selecting from the brain
storage to communicate in speaking and writing. Thus, translanguaging requires a deeper
understanding than just translating as it moves from finding parallel words to processing and
relaying meaning and understanding (Williams: 1996).

58
The overriding concern of translanguaging scholars has been with rectifying the Chomskyan
orientation, which represents language competence as innate, monolingual and arising from a
homogeneous environment. Scholars of translanguaging have invoked Cook’s (1999) notion
of multicompetence to challenge the Chomskyan’s notion of monolingual competence.
Translanguaging not only involves a person drawing from all the languages in his/her
repertoire to communicate, it also involves shuttling between the languages brought by the
other to co-construct meaning. Translanguaging is also performative. As Khubchandani
(1997) demonstrates, translanguaging is not a case of applying a linguistic predisposition like
translation. It is a creative improvisation according to the needs of the context and local
situation .It is an interactive achievement that depends on aligning one’s language resources
to the features of the ecology to construct meaning.

Creese and Blackledge (2010) push forward ‘translanguaging’ as a pedagogic teaching device
for learners who speak more than one language. They refer to “translanguaging” as the ability
to switch languages between L1 and L2. In developing this argument, they argue that there is
an interdependence of skills and knowledge across languages and that community and
mainstream languages can actually complement each other. Creese and Blackledge (2010)
suggest that as learners engage in flexible bilingualism, the boundaries between languages
become permeable. In rejecting the notion of language separation, trans-acquisition supports
Hornberger’s (1989: 287) theory that biliteracy and bilingualism do not develop along a
single directional continuum. Creese and Blackledge (2010) suggest that translanguaging
focuses more on the pupils’ use of two languages (and what they are able to achieve by using
both languages) rather than on the teachers’ role within the classroom, although it may be
engineered by the teacher. Sites for translanguaging can be settings that the children are
operating in and in which they are being exposed to speech and text in potentially at least two
languages , and where the use of the two languages is such that each may be employed to
promote understanding and language development in the other, for example, through
processes such as retelling of a story read in one language in the other, discussion of
meanings of words and phrases presented in one language and their translation into the other
language.

Effective translanguaging pedagogies are starting to be documented in England, especially in

urban schools where EAL learners represent a significant segment of the school population
and in complementary schools (Creese & Blackledge: 2010). For example, Al-Azami et al.

59
(2010) in a recent study detail transliteration of the Bengali script with children (7-9 year
olds) who had oral fluency in the home language but little script experience. In collaboration
with community language schools and researchers, Bilingual Teacher Assistants partnered
the class teacher in planning for children to record their oral Bengali in Romanised script.
Assistants liaised with community schools and worked as `teacher' to ensure all children in
pilot groups could use oral Bengali to construct texts. Evidence of the possibilities of
bilingual and multilingual `safe spaces' for bilingual children alongside bilingual teachers
indicated mediation of bilingual identities. They designed materials children designed activity
and materials with bilingual teaching Assistants from the community school and class
teachers to provoke the use of Bengali. Assistants liaised with schools and worked as
`teacher' to ensure all children in pilot groups could use oral Bengali to construct texts. In
depth metalinguistic activity, conceptual transfer as well as enjoyment of the use Bengali and
English affected identities and views of selves as bilingual learners (Al-Azami et al., 2010:
122).

In a further iteration of this project, observation of translanguaging techniques was

undertaken by Kenner (2010) who observed, Zainab, a primary Teacher proficient in Somali
in a complementary school in Tower Hamlet (London). The aim of the project was for
document strategies used in complementary schools, such as translanguaging, so that
mainstream teachers recognise the value of complementary teachers’ strategies. In this
project, Zainab, the Somali Teacher prepared questions that the children took home to their
parents about the meaning of key phrases in the song, along with the text in Somali and
English. Answers were brought back and shared in groups, before being presented by British
children of Somali background to draw on their cultural and linguistic heritage to engage with
complex issues and create personal meanings. Kenner (2010) argues that these hybrid
experiences should be recognized and built on in educational settings show that there is still
much to find out about the relationship between the literacy of ethnic minority children and
their use of both popular culture and digital media texts.

In sum, this study shows that translanguaging could be a naturally occurring phenomenon in
multilingual settings. Translanguaging is a conceptually transferable and transitional
language. It is emphasized, however, that the term is employed in a positive sense,
acknowledging its essential role in minority language development as a creative tool of

60
communication to supplement any lack of knowledge and experience. It should also be
stressed that although translanguaging is starting to be well documented in England and in
North America in particular, Creese and Blackledge (2010) emphasize “the need for further
research to explore what ‘teachable’ pedagogic resources are available in flexible, concurrent
approaches to learning and teaching languages bilingually” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010:
113).

3.8 Translation
A final pedagogical theme to be discussed here from the literature is translation as a teaching
device. Associated as it is with the grammar translation teaching method, it has been cast out
of communicative approaches to EAL teaching as irrelevant, difficult, boring, pointless and
uncommunicative (Duff : 1989). Several studies that have tackled commonly made criticisms
(e.g. translation teaches learners about language, and does not really help them learn how to
use it, or that it fosters the excessive use of the mother tongue) have demonstrated that these
objections are justified only if translation practice amounts to the regular combination of
grammar rules with translation into the target language as the principle practice technique.
They have also shown that if properly designed, translation activities can be employed to
enhance the four skills and develop accuracy, clarity and flexibility (Duff, 1989:7). As
regards the use of the native language, its effect on language acquisition has been the subject
of many debates lately. There has been a renewed interest on translation since the late 1980s’
with several scholars arguing for its place as a valid and valuable learning/teaching activity in
the classroom. Duff (1989) maintains for example that translation:

… Develops three important qualities essential to all language learning: accuracy, clarity and
flexibility. It trains the learner to search (flexibility) for the most appropriate words
(accuracy) to convey what is meant (clarity). This combination of freedom and constraint
allows the students to contribute their own thoughts to a discussion which has a clear focus –
the text (Duff, 1989: 7).

There is an argument that however much teachers ignore the learners’ L1, it is inevitable that
learners will refer back to it (Swan: 1985, Piasecka: 1988). Danchev (1992), in his
examination of the roles played by transfer and translation, and their interrelationship in
second language learning, maintains that translation is a natural, unconscious, spontaneous
process which cannot be checked, and that being so, teachers should try to “capture, channel
and exploit it” (Danchev, 1992: 51). He cites Halliday et al. (1964) who claim that: “… if one
is taught a second language...even by something approaching the ‘direct method’, one usually

61
sets up patterns of translation equivalence” (Halliday et al., 1964: 125). Several views
upholding the benefits of using L1 in L2 classrooms have been proposed. Atkinson (1987),
for instance, calls for its provision for three reasons. Firstly, translation is the preferred
strategy for the majority of learners. Secondly, it is a personal technique since it helps
learners to reveal their feelings and ideas. Finally, it is a valuable technique for exploiting
class time. In arguing for a greater role for bilingual teachers, Piasecka (1988) describes how
their knowledge of two languages can enable them to monitor this process of referring back
to L1 and help students to avoid false assumptions and analogies. Swan (1985), too,
maintains that “students are always translating into and out of their own languages – and
teachers are always telling them not to” (Swan, 1985: 85).

There has been very little research done on what use of translation is actually made in
practice in the classroom and what the beliefs of Teachers, students are on the topic.
Zabalbeascoa (1997) explains that it stems from the fact that translation as a pedagogic
device suffered a period of banishment, but maintains that it is now making a comeback. He
offers two solutions to the problem of its negative connotations: first, being aware of the
difference between translation pedagogy and pedagogical translation, and between translator
competence and linguistic competence, and second, integrating translation activities into an
eclectic, communicative methodology (Zabalbeascoa, 1997:122). Other authors who see a
useful role for pedagogical translation are Piasecka (1986), Atkinson (1987), Baynham
(1983) and Danchev (1992). As far as spontaneous mental or verbal translation is concerned
(as opposed to translation as a purposeful teaching activity) some claim that this is an
inevitable part of second language learning, which learners will do whether or not teachers
attempt to stop it (Swan :1985; Danchev : 1992). This being so, they argue, the tendency is
better harnessed and directed productively rather than ignored or prohibited.

Summary
This chapter has provided a review of literature addressing the key concepts and debates that
frame and provide a starting point for the investigation. It commenced with examining some
of factors that shape the beliefs and behaviour of teachers according to international studies.
It also examined the metaphor of language ecology as an approach to researching biliteracy
development of minority children, following up with detailed discussion of some of the most
influential approaches that have been adopted in the study of literacy, particularly, in relation
to literacy practices in and out of schools, as well as a discussion of the concepts of

62
translanguaging, code-switching and translation. This chapter was intended to provide only
an initial framing of the investigation and the debates and questions that it is interrogating.

The following chapter details the methodological approach taken in this study to gain and
analyse data relating to curriculum teachers’ beliefs and reported practices on the use of L1 in
the classroom.

Chapter 4
Methodology chapter

The preceding chapters outlined the theoretical perspective of this study, as well as reviewing
the relevant literature in the field, while the main focus of this chapter is to outline the
methodology employed in this thesis. As stated in chapter one, it is my hope that this research
will increase understanding of the teaching of EAL students in schools in England: what
actually happens in the classroom and more importantly, what mainstream/ EAL specialists
believe and act in response to the use of L1 in the classroom. The study is framed around two
key questions:

 What are mainstream/EAL teachers’ espoused beliefs in the use of first languages in
the classroom with secondary EAL students?
 What are mainstream/EAL teachers’ reported practices in the use of L1 with
secondary EAL students?

63
This chapter is organized as follows. After the introduction, sections 4.1 and 4.2 provide an
account of the theoretical perspectives that guided this research as well as a description of
how different social research theoretical perspectives have influenced the thesis theoretical
orientations. The second section overviews the data collection and data analysis procedures.
This section starts with explaining why interviews are used as the data collection tool. This is
followed by a review of the procedure for the selection of the research participants. Then, the
data collection and analysis procedures are presented in detail. Here, the choice of interview
as a research method is explained and approaches used in their analysis are detailed. The third
section is devoted to considerations of credibility and trustworthiness for the study. I describe
the research methodology and the steps followed to ensure this research was conducted
ethically and did not produce unnecessary harm or distress to participants.

4.1 The Research Framework

The framework for any research includes beliefs about the nature of reality and humanity
(ontology), the theory of knowledge that informs the research (epistemology), and how that
knowledge may be gained (methodology). A consideration of these three generic elements
must be a central feature of any discussion about the nature of social science research as these
elements give shape and definition to the conduct of an inquiry (Popkewitz et al.: 1979).

4.2 Epistemological Considerations

The philosophical stance that lies behind the choice of methodology attempts to explain how
it provides a logic, criteria and context for the research process. Inevitability there are a
number of assumptions about the chosen methodology and these assumptions need to be
stated by elaborating on my theoretical and epistemology perspective.

Epistemology deals with the nature of knowledge, its possibility, scope and general basis
(Hamlyn, 1995: 242). The relevance of epistemology can also be explained as being
concerned with providing a philosophical grounding for deciding what kinds of knowledge
are possible and how we can ensure that they are both adequate and legitimate‟ (Maynard,
1994:10). There are two broad epistemological positions: positivism and interpretivism.

For positivists the purpose of research is scientific explanation. Positivists argue that the
process of data collection and analysis is value-free as researchers only observe through a
‘one way mirror’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1998: 110). This implies impartiality between the

64
researcher and what is being observed. Given these assumptions, the objective of this form of
inquiry is to measure causal relationships between variables that are contextually consistent
over time (Guba & Lincoln: 1994), thus allowing true, replicatable and objective findings and
resultant value-free generalisations (Parkhe: 1993). The nature of social reality for positivists
is that: empirical facts exist apart from personal ideas or thoughts; they are governed by laws
of cause and effect; patterns of social reality are stable and knowledge of them is additive
(Crotty: 1998; Neuman: 2003). In the positivist paradigm an objective stance is demanded
and rigorous and exact measures are sought preferably through the use of precise quantitative
data gained from experiments, surveys, and statistics (Guba & Lincoln : 2005; Neuman:
2003). Explanations must be consistent with observed facts and have no logical
contradictions and, in terms of reliability, results must be able to be replicated by other
researchers (Neuman: 2003).

In contrast, interpretive researchers hold that there is no objective reality. In this paradigm the
goal of social research is to develop an understanding of social life and to discover how
people construct meaning in natural settings (Neuman: 2003). The interpretivist approach
holds that reality is subjective and that the role of the researcher is to understand how people
experience the world; how they make meaning of their experiences. This approach “sees
social reality consisting of people who construct meaning and create interpretations through
their daily social interaction” (Neuman, 2003: 77). Human experience is characterised as a
process of interpretation rather than sensory, material apprehension of the external physical
world and human behaviour depends on how individuals interpret the conditions in which
they find themselves (Usher: 1996).

4.3 Ontological Considerations

Ontological questions in social science research are related to the nature of reality. There are
two broad and contrasting positions: objectivism that holds that there is an independent
“reality” and constructionism that assumes that reality is the product of social processes
(Neuman, 2003: 63). An objectivist position holds that there is an external reality that both
exists and is discoverable; that is, “social phenomena and their meanings have an existence
that is independent of social actors” (Bryman, 2001: 17). In contrast is the constructionist
position that holds that people’s interactions and beliefs create reality, a view that allows for
multiple realities. Crotty (1998) describes the constructionist position as: “the view that all
knowledge and therefore meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices

65
being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world and
developed and transmitted within an essentially social context” (Crotty, 1998: 42).

Within constructivism, social constructionism has a core of basic tenets which emphasize the
way in which the social world is continually produced by individuals, rather than as
something which confronts them as an objective reality (Crotty: 1998). The strength of
constructionism for me is its focus on broader social processes and its emphasis on the
importance of social, political and economic context. It offers a dynamic and process-
orientated approach which seemed to be suitable to comprehend the shifting nature of
teachers’ beliefs. Indeed, the aim of this study was to gain a greater understanding of
curriculum teachers’ beliefs and reported practices on the use of L1 in the classroom. My
philosophic viewpoint is in tune with the interpretive approach which encompasses a
subjectivist epistemology (interaction between the researcher and participants co-create
understandings), a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities) and a naturalistic
methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) I as a researcher did not want to confront those
interviewed with the fait accompli that L1 should be used in the classroom in EAL settings.
Rather my role as a researcher was to gain teachers’ perspective and attitude towards L1 use
in the classroom. The next section discusses the methodological approach of the study.

4.4 Methodological Considerations

Methodology is a way of thinking about and studying social reality (Strauss & Corbin: 1998).
Sarantakos (2005: 30) defines methodology as a “research strategy that translates ontological
and epistemological principles into guidelines that show how research is to be conducted.”
Following is an overview of the two major social science methodologies that relate to the
positivist and interpretative paradigms: quantitative and qualitative.

The positivist research paradigm underpins quantitative methodology. The realist/objectivist

ontology and empiricist epistemology contained in the positivist paradigm requires a research
approach that is objective or detached, where the emphasis is on measuring variables and
testing hypotheses that are linked to general causal explanations. Positivist research uses
experimental designs to measure effects, especially through group changes. The data
collection techniques focus on gathering hard data in the form of numbers to enable evidence
to be presented in quantitative form (Neuman: 2003; Sarantakos: 2005).

66
In contrast, qualitative methodology is underpinned by interpretivist epistemology and
constructionalist ontology. This assumes that meaning is embedded in the participants’
experiences and that this meaning is mediated through the researcher’s own perceptions
(Merriman: 1998). Delamont (2002: 7) describes this as finding out “how the people you are
researching understand their world.” According to Holliday (2002a) researchers can only
explore, illuminate and interpret these pieces of reality. He states: “Interpretation is as far as
we can go” (Holliday, 2002:5). Thus the interpretivist paradigm is closely associated with the
view of qualitative research. There does not appear to be one definition of qualitative
methodology. Qualitative methodology has been described as an “umbrella term” (Merriam,
1998:10) comprising “diverse methods employed in the social sciences” (Sarantakos, 1993:
44).

Although there are many different research strategies available to researchers, Bogdan and
Biklen (2003) suggest that the strategies used in qualitative research share common
characteristics. These characteristics include investigating questions without hypothesis
testing, understanding and interpreting actions, objects, and social processes from the
participants’ point of view. Merriam (1998: 11) also identifies common characteristics of the
qualitative approach which include “the goal of eliciting understanding and meaning, I as
primary instrument of data collection and analysis, the use of fieldwork, an inductive
orientation to analysis, and findings that are richly descriptive.” Such rich descriptions are
called ‘thick’ (Geertz : 1973), a term that has been defined as “description that goes beyond
the mere or bare reporting of an act (thin description) but describes and probes the intentions,
motives, meanings, contexts, situations, and circumstances of action” (Denzin, 1988 : 39).

4.5 Previous studies of particular relevance

Since the mid-1980s, research on teaching and teacher education has shifted dramatically
from a focus on behaviours to an interest in cognition (Richardson: 1996) with the
recognition that teachers’ ways of thinking and understanding are essential components of
their practice (Pajares: 1992; Nespor: 1987). With this shift, beliefs and attitudes of teachers
in the classroom have become important concepts in understanding teachers’ thought
processes, classroom practices, change, and learning to teach (Richardson: 1996). Teacher
cognition research – research into the unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching— what
teachers know —believe and think— is a currently a burgeoning area in educational research

67
(Borg: 2003). This strand of research is based on the premise that teachers draw on complex,
personalised networks of knowledge to make their classroom decisions.

A review of the literature on teacher belief research shows that methods such as concept
maps (Kagan: 1990; Morine-Dershimer: 1993), repertory grids (Munby: 1984), interviews
(Samuelowicz & Bain: 1992; Burns: 1996), metaphors (Bullough & Stokes: 1994),
autobiography (Trumbull: 1990), narrative (Beattie: 1995), and life history (Fang: 1996) have
all been adopted by researchers studying teachers’ beliefs. Direct observation (1992),
stimulated recall interviews (Burns: 1996; Fang: 1996), and document analysis (Freeman:
1991) have been used to access teachers thinking in action. However, each of the methods
noted above has its own strengths and potential limitations, and therefore no single method is
free of problems (Borg, 2006: 279).

Several data collection techniques appropriate to a qualitative inquiry were considered for
this research study. I initially considered using different modes of data collection as this
might have increased the depth and quality of personal reflection from those involved. For
example I intended to use classroom observation to explore the topic under investigation.
However, as mentioned the previous chapter, beliefs are psychological products that cannot
be directly observed. Arguably, beliefs about language and its use represent one of the most
highly complex belief systems and as such it is not easy for individuals to express their
beliefs completely and accurately without some form of careful reflection. Borg (2006),
discussing specifically data collection strategies in researching teachers’ beliefs, made the
point that: “Given that teacher cognition research is interested in phenomena which are not
directly observable, a key challenge for researchers has been to identify data collection
strategies through which these phenomena can be elicited” (Borg, 2006: 167). Leaders in the
field, such as Breen et al. (2001) and Allwright (2006) Bailey (1996) and Pajares (1992)
highlight the limitations of observational research when examining teachers’ beliefs, as
“beliefs cannot be directly observed or measured but must be inferred from what people say,
intend, and do – fundamental prerequisites that educational researchers have seldom
followed” (Pajares, 1992 : 314).

For this study I had to construct and interpret meaning from teachers’ beliefs of their teaching
situation (Brown, 2008; Myers, 1997). Because the participants’ beliefs could be portrayed
only after being filtered through my understanding of their meaning, it was clear that this

68
study required interpretive methodology (Strauss & Corbin: 2008). In other words, this study
did not begin with a particular theory to test. It derived from “an interest in understanding
how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world, [striving]
for a depth of understanding as an end in itself“ (Winegardner, 2007: 2).The purpose was to
gain an emic perspective by talking to teachers to see whether and how common beliefs and
practices might emerge in answer to the research question as: “Qualitative studies are usually
exploratory and more hypothesis generating rather than testing” (Strauss & Corbin, 2008:
25). While it was expected that teachers were likely to express domain-specific knowledge
and demonstrate different epistemological bases for their practices (Sachs: 2001), the
relationship between domain and discipline was unclear at the outset of the study (Buehl &
Alexander: 2006).

The current study had many characteristics of phenomenological research. This focus was on
eight mainstream EAL/ teachers who worked in mainstream state schools in London and who
qualified in the UK and, as such, is a bounded phenomenon. The goal of the current study
was to provide an understanding of EAL/mainstream teachers’ beliefs on the use of L1 in
EAL context. Qualitative phenomenological research according to Byrne (2001) concentrates
on non-statistical methods of inquiry to answer question about a phenomena through the
subject lived experiences.

As outlined in the conclusion chapter, this approach has its limitations, as does any other
research approach. However, I decided that, on balance, interviewing teachers and trying to
understand their beliefs on L1 use in the classroom would be a fruitful way of uncovering and
more fully understanding the complex pedagogic and social reality of language classrooms.

4.6 A theoretical framework for the research

As outlined in the previous chapter, despite the growing quantity of research on language
ecology, and its connection to language planning and policy, Creese and Martin (2003) claim
that there are few studies which focus specifically on the field of EAL in England. The
present study was planned to make a contribution in filling this gap and it adopted an
ecological approach

Thus any examination of this issue is likely to be breaking new ground. At the beginning of
the research process I entered the field with a general question in mind: What are the beliefs

69
and practices of mainstream teachers concerning the role of L1 in their classroom? For this
reason, phenomenology, with its interest in the exploration of human experience through
detailed descriptions of the people being studied was the most appropriate theoretical
perspective for this research. Phenomenology translates into studying a small number of
participants through extensive engagement and strives to portray phenomena from the
personal and contextual perspective of those who experience them (Wilson Mott: 1992).

4.7 Considering phenomenology

Phenomenology is a strategy of enquiry that examines how human beings construct and give
meaning to their actions in concrete social situations (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994: 204). It
focuses on understanding the meaning events have for persons being. The term
phenomenology is derived from the two Greek words phainomena or ‘appearance’ and logos
meaning ‘reason’ or word’, thus it could be translated to mean ‘reasoned inquiry’ regarding
the world we experience, the world of phenomena. Though the term phenomenology has
been used by many philosophers (e.g. Hegel, Kant, Marx, etc.) the philosophical school of
phenomenology was founded in the early twentieth century by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938).
Husserl’s aim was to develop a science of phenomena or an inquiry into how objects are
experienced, how they present themselves through our subjective consciousness and the
content of our subjective experiences (Kockelmans: 1994).

In developing an approach to inquiry that is generally known as the phenomenological

method, Husserl rejected the rationalists’ approach to hypothetical speculations and
emphasized reflective attentiveness in order to disclose an individual’s lived experience.
More specifically, Husserl (1973) rejected the traditional doctrine of evidence and argued that
the notion of evidence has to be differentiated from the conviction that something is true. He
voiced that evidence is subjective and an essentially private experience and he aligned the
idea of evidence with the phenomenon of ‘seeing’. Literal seeing is, according to Husserl the
paradigm example of evidence, as Levinas (1995) points out: “Husserl was looking for the
primary phenomenon of truth and reason and he found it … in ‘vision’, the ultimate source of
all reasonable assertions. Vision has ‘justification’ as its object in a direct manner; in as much
as vision realizes its object, it is reason” (Levinas, 1995: 117). Husserl aimed to develop
phenomenology as a discipline that would allow for the suspension of judgment and that
would rely on an intuitive grasp of knowledge, free of preconceptions, assumptions and
intellectualizing (Levinas : 1995).

70
According to this method, researchers should begin their study by examining their own
prejudices, commitments and assumptions in order to set them aside or ’bracket’ them out, in
order to arrive at a more adequate knowledge or better understanding of reality. However,
Heidegger (1962) – a student of Husserl – doubted that the removal of prejudices was
actually possible and suggested that the term ‘highlighting’ be used rather than bracketing.
While taking account of Heidegger’s ideas about highlighting, I nevertheless empathize with
Husserl’s (1965) central argument that we do not experience the world as it is, in its real
state; rather the world we experience is an interpreted world that has been determined and
shaped by experience based on values, beliefs, attitudes and biases.

In Husserl’s phenomenology, lived experiences are comprised of two parts: an objective

component and a subjective element. The two cannot be separated; they are a cohesive unit
(Moran: 2000). The objective and subjective components of lived experiences are referred to
as noema and noesis, respectively. The noema component is the object of the lived
experience. The noesis is the perception of the object. It is possible for two individuals to
have the same noema of the object of an experience, but the noesis will differ. The noesis is
developed from past experiences, personal backgrounds, and beliefs (Sokolowski: 2000). For
example, one is experiencing a tree and calls it a red oak tree. A botanist is experiencing the
same tree and calls it Quercus falcate, whereas a carpenter may call it a ‘piece of wood’. All
experience the tree, but their perceptions of it are unique. These unique perceptions are based
on the background of the individual and the context of the experience.
I have chosen to pursue a phenomenological approach as I feel an interpretative and
idiographic understanding of the participants stated beliefs and reported practices is the most
valid way in which to access and understand teacher’s experiences of working with EAL
pupils.

Phenomenology, as a guiding theoretic appeared to mesh well with the structural intentions of
this study which are first to acquire a framed knowledge of a phenomenon in order to pose
informed questions, then to bracket this knowledge in an investigation of what is as yet
unknown.

4.8 Phenomenological Method

71
Caelli (2001) notes that in the phenomenological literature, no method enjoys preference over
another, as phenomenology is a philosophy more than a methodology in the strict sense. IPA
focuses upon the idiographic rather than the nomethetic which can mean that generalising the
findings to the wider population is problematic. However an idiographic focus upon the
particular does not merely refer to the study of the individual, as the phenomenological
approach is more nuanced than this and takes account of the world of relationships that an
individual resides within (Smith & Eatough : 2006). IPA conceptualises the individual as a
cognitive, linguistic, affective and physical being, connecting the things people say with their
thoughts and emotional responses (Smith & Osborn: 2003).

4.9 Data collection procedures

In this section I explain how I piloted my research instruments and collected data for the
study. The first subsection describes the sampling strategy for this study.

4. 9.1 Sampling the participants

Qualitative samples are usually small in size and in the case of this research it was decided
that the target sample size should be approximately 10 successfully completed interviews,
based on previous studies on teachers ‘cognition (Borg: 1993). In qualitative research there is
no requirement to ensure that the sample is of sufficient scale to provide estimates, or to
determine statistically significant discriminatory variables, therefore a smaller number of rich
and detailed responses was considered appropriate (Ritchie & Lewis : 2003).

Qualitative research requires the purposeful selection of participants that will best help
understand the research question (Creswell, 2003: 185). In contrast to what is typically found
in quantitative research, a qualitative approach does not necessarily require random sampling
or selection of a large number of participants and sites. As Merriam (1998) suggests,
probability sampling (of which random sampling is the most familiar example) allows the
investigator to generalize results of the study to the population from which it was drawn
(Merriam, 1998: 61). Since generalization in a statistical sense is not a goal of qualitative
research, probabilistic sampling is not necessary. Non probabilistic sampling is the method of
choice for most qualitative research.

The sampling selection used in this study matches Merriam’s (1998) description of what is
usual in qualitative research, namely, that it was “non-random, purposeful, and small”

72
(Merriam: 1998: 8). Non-random sampling has the advantages of being simple, cheap, and
easy to set up and is considered adequate when generalizability is not an issue (Merriam,
1998). Delamont (2002: 84) believes that more important than the actual method used to
obtain participants is “honesty and reflexivity” in recording how the sample was obtained and
the effect the sample had on the data. There are various types of non-random sampling
(Neuman: 2003). The sampling strategy used in this research has features of “convenience
sampling” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004: 49), “opportunistic sampling” (Bryman, 2001: 323)
and “haphazard sampling” (Neuman, 2003: 211), in that the process for selecting the sample
began with all those who responded to the invitation to supply expressions of interest and
then to attend the focus group sessions as outlined later in this chapter. My choice of
sampling strategy was based on factors to do with time and availability of respondents
(Merriam, 1998).

Although Neuman (2003) cautions against the use of haphazard or convenience sampling,
Cohen et al. (2000) note the increasing use of this approach, given the proliferation of
qualitative research and the associated difficulty of accessing potential participants.
Furthermore Cohen et al. (2000) assert that convenience sampling is not problematic as long
as it is recognised that the sample represents no other group than itself and therefore
generalisations to wider populations cannot be made. In this study, the sampling was done
with a specific purpose in mind, which was to select participants who had a significant a
number of EAL students in their classroom. It can therefore be viewed as a form of
‘purposive sampling’. Neuman (2003) suggests that purposive sampling is appropriate in
situations where it is necessary to “select members of a difficult-to-reach, specialized
population” (Neuman, 2003: 213). In this study, the specialized population are curriculum
teachers who had been appointed to teaching positions in secondary schools in London,
teaching their specialized subjects as well as EAL.

The selection of the participants took place over three months. I interviewed eight qualified
mainstream/ EAL Teachers who had confirmed that they wished to be part of the study when
I contacted them early February 2010. This linked with another pragmatic reason – that of
time. According to Neuman (2003) knowing when you have enough information relies on
recognizing the point of data saturation, acknowledging when you “reach a point of
diminishing returns … which is the period when you learn a decreasing amount for the time
you spend” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003 : 62).

73
4.9.2 About the participants
With the sampling strategies described above, I approached eight teachers, six females and
two males (teachers’ profile in Appendix 1). The participants in the study have varying
professional backgrounds, teaching various subjects ranging from mathematics to Modern
Foreign Languages and Art, differ in their years of experience in teaching but they are all
mainstream teachers and as such they qualify to teach EAL. The background of those eight
participants follows. It is important to stress that despite my seeking teachers from different
curriculum areas, individual teachers cannot be positioned as representative of their
discipline. Instead each provides a snapshot of a teacher’s beliefs that may or may not be
shared across a discipline.

4.10 Data Collection

4.10.1 The Phenomenological Interview
As it has been discussed earlier, a key objective of this study, as it evolved, was to examine
teachers’ espoused beliefs and practice with regard to the use of L1 in EAL settings in inner
city London. The interpretive approach adopted for the study is consistent with a
phenomenological approach, which focuses on the subjectivity and explanation from the
perspectives of the participants (Burns: 1996; Freeman: 1996). To this end, the use of
interviews emerged as an adequate and powerful means to serve the purposes of this research.
The decision to use semi-structured interviews as a data collection tool reflected the
fundamental assumption that some phenomenon, such as beliefs and understandings, are not
amenable to direct observation. The choice to interview was based on the premise that if
researchers want to understand what people believe and think or how they evaluate a situation
it is best to ask them (Mason: 1996).

Interviewing is accepted as one of the most powerful ways by which the social world may be
explored, especially in relation to the world of beliefs and meanings, if not of actions
(Fontana & Frey: 2000). An interview can be simply described as a purposeful conversation
usually between two people that is directed by one in order to get information (Bogdan &
Biklen: 1992). An important component of researcher reflexivity in conversations with
participants must be the acknowledgement that we are living in an interview society
(Atkinson & Silverman: 1997). The interview is an all-pervasive feature of modern life
across multiple settings: medical clinic, job interview, restorying through counselling, and
business market research (Fontana & Frey: 2005) amongst other manifestations. Within this

74
context, I attempted to move beyond a stimulus-response interview model, in which the
respondent offers information from his or her personal cache of experiential knowledge
(Gubrium & Holstein, 2002: 3) and whose questions are treated as requests for clarification.
The interviewer, on the other hand, manages the exchange (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002: 3)
and controls the agenda. This perspective transforms the interview into a ‘modern
panopticon’, since it offers a window onto another’s thoughts, feelings, opinions and
practices.

4.10.2 Semi structured interviews

In this exploratory study designed to gain an understanding of teachers ‘espoused beliefs and
reported practices on the use of L1 in EAL context, a semi structured personal interview
provided an appropriate method. The choice of semi-structured interviews permits a degree
of structure to an interview where pre-identified issues can be explored and discussed
(Denscombe: 1998). The structure and organisation of the interview schedule was carefully
planned. It was considered appropriate to have an introductory stage where general
information and instructions were conveyed to the participants; followed by a series of set
interview questions, beginning with some questions to put the respondent at ease, and further
probing questions when necessary; and finally a summary and closure stage that completed
the interview. The interviews were very much in the ‘genre of a conversation’ which the
interviewer let flow naturally, however, the series of set questions and prompts helped to
focus the interview (Gillham: 2000).

In terms of question types, the interview schedule was divided into 3 sections including:
(1) Teachers Beliefs’ about the role of first language (e.g. Translation) in EAL
Teaching/Learning.
(2) General questions about EAL Teaching/Learning
(3) Teachers’ reported pedagogical practices with regards to the use of L1 in the classroom.

The interviews were guided by a loosely defined series of questions covering different
themes related to form-focused instruction, but the wording of questions in the actual
discussion varied, as did the order of different themes. A series of open-ended questions to
the research questions under exploration were identified along with associated prompts to
further stimulate conversation (Cohen et al.: 2007; Robson: 2002). The drafting of an
interview schedule (Appendix 3) allowed me to prepare for the encounter and set a loose

75
agenda to guide the interview if required. However it was also acknowledged that the
interview may proceed organically and a strict set of questions ‘to adhere to’ needed to be
avoided (Smith & Eatough: 2006). Open-ended questions were adopted within the interviews
and were designed to prompt in-depth participant responses and allow the interview to
proceed in a more naturalistic manner, producing “richer, more genuine and realistic
information on the interviewees own terms” (Coolican, 2004: 155). Each interview was tape
recorded with the consent of the participants in order that a verbatim account of the interview
could be gained for data analysis. In addition hand notes were taken to note particular non-
verbal behaviours or topics to return to later in the interview.

4.10.3 Skype interviews

Because of practical constraints, face to face interviews were not possible. I therefore decided
to conduct the interviews using available distance technologies including specifically Internet
Skype telephone and video services. All participants (eight) were interviewed using that
particular computer software.

In order to test my chosen method of data collection I used the first two interviews I
conducted as the pilot study for this research project. The pilot study phase of the interview
was carried out with the aim of examining the intelligibility of the questions, obtaining
information from the participants regarding the ways in which they interpreted and reacted to
interview questions, identifying anyone reluctant about answering any questions, and
developing a coding system for data analysis (Cohen et al. : 2000). The other main rationale
for the pilot study phase of the interviews was to test the equipment.
Following the interview I discussed the process with the participant to examine their
experience of the interview and identify any changes or refinements that may need to be
made. Based on this discussion, and a further discussion with my thesis supervisor, as well as
my own reflections on the process, I judged my interview style and approach was in keeping
with the IPA method, and the identified questions were suitable as a basis for discussion
within the interviews to follow. However I was mindful to reflect on the process following
each interview in order to ensure consistency and suitability of the questions and approach
more generally. The data set from the pilot study was not included within the report.

For those eight interviews, all participants used their computers in the comfort of their homes.
Using a headset, I was able to interview participants while recording the telephone

76
conversations. The participants and I found this long-distance interviewing a very convenient
and reasonable way of collecting data. Given the hectic nature of a secondary school
teachers’ work, it was somewhat understandable that the logistics of the interviews did not
feature as a key priority on many occasions; this meant that interviews had to be postponed
on a few occasions. These Skyping sessions took about 45mn to 1 hour during which I took
notes and later completed the notes (not word by word).

The use of new and effective technologies in data collection and analysis is not new for
researchers. Various strategies such as telephone interviewing and computer assisted
interviewing have been used by social researchers as data gathering tools for many years
(Shuy : 2002; Couper & Hansen : 2002). The Internet as a medium for interviewing has also
been used in many studies (Mann & Steward: 2002). Recent developments have presented
opportunities for computer users to simulate face-to-face interviews by communicating
synchronously by talking and seeing each other. This is achieved through the use of web
cameras and a microphone, along with computer software (Skype).

4.10.4 Email correspondence

The use of electronic communication for this research project proved to be a crucial tool for
both the participants and myself. With the expansion of the Internet, email correspondence
has become part of teachers’ culture. Participants were invited to take part in the research
study via an initial email letter explaining the project and then a follow-up phone call or
email to determine their acceptance to participate. An email was used as the initial contact
for recruiting participants and was chosen as the first step, because the email allowed
participants the opportunity to decline participation without feeling committed to the project.
After the participant indicated their willingness to partake in the interview process, I had
planned to follow up with a telephone script to schedule the interview. Yet, in nearly every
case, correspondence by email to set up the interview time was preferred on the part of the
participant so time, date and any other final details were finalized by a short email. Once the
time and date were set for the telephone interview, I sent a reminder notice, the consent form
and the interview questions to each of the participants 24 hours before the interview.

4.11 Qualitative Data Analysis

Once data collection process was completed, the next stage was to analyse the data collected
from the interviews. Qualitative data analysis involves ‘organising, accounting for and
explaining the data’ (Cohen et al., 2007: 461). The qualitative data gathered through

77
interviews were made available in textual form by transcribing the tapes which were recorded
during the interviews.

4.11.1 Data analysis: Reading teachers narratives as’ text’

I wanted to approach this study from a qualitative orientation, but with an approach rooted in
an inherently psychological stance that illuminates the inherent complexity of teachers’
beliefs (Borg: 2003). Consequently IPA was chosen as the research method as the study was
concerned with how participants experience and make sense of their world in relation to the
phenomena the use of L1 in EAL context and working with EAL children within their
particular school contexts (Smith & Osborn : 2003. I also aimed to develop an account which
would illuminate the lived experiences of a small sample of teachers and subject the data to
detailed analysis, rather than developing broader theories that are necessarily applicable to
the wider population.

Data analysis involves organizing, accounting for and explaining the data in terms of the
participants’ definitions of the situation, noting patterns, themes, categories and regularities
(Cohen et al. : 2000). The approach I had first planned to use to analyse the narratives
generated from the interviews was a constructivist, grounded theory approach Grounded
Theory (GT) as a tool for data analysis and interpretation. I reconceptualised my approach to
‘data analysis’ as ‘reading’ the teachers’ narratives as ‘text’ (Britzman: 2000). While the
grounded theory approach has many advantages, the categorical approach to data was
unsuitable for expressing the complexity of the relationships between EAL policy, teachers’
espoused beliefs and practices with regards to the use of L1 in that particular context. A
possible explanation for this is the tendency of grounded theory to read the similarities and
not the differences in the text (Stronach et al: 2002).

I sought a process which could read across narratives that express multiple, uncertain,
conflicted and complex interactions with the diverse discourses constituting professional
knowledge regarding which stories and personal narratives can and should be used to inform
education policy is examined. Britzman (2000), in her study of teachers’ trainees learning to
teach, suggests focusing on the narratives rather than the narrators and treating the narrative
accounts of interviewees as texts. She describes this process as reading the different
discourses within and between the actual interview data—the contradictions (competing
regimes of truth), dramas of misunderstandings, conflicting espoused beliefs and the

78
difficultly of translating espoused beliefs into practice. She changes the focus of her study
from depicting the student teachers’ perceptions of their experience in favour of telling how
they construct their stories and what discourses run through them—the conflicting,
contradictory, competing discourses—their own espoused beliefs and those that are imposed
upon them by. Similarly, my approach to interpreting the data has been multi-faceted. In the
process of reading, writing, talking and listening to the range of interacting discourses—that
is EAL educational and language policy and teachers’ responses to the interview questions, I
attempted to link the findings back to the original research questions.

In order to develop a framework for analysing the interview data, I repeatedly read through
the interview transcripts to make sense of what teachers had said during these interviews. As
Marshall and Rossman (2006: 158) note “reading, reading, and rereading through the data
once more forces the researcher to become intimately familiar with those data”. With my
research questions in mind, I looked for comments related to beliefs teachers' held, influences
on these beliefs, and other factors which influenced the way teachers interpreted and
implemented the EAL curriculum. This phase of analysis, called data reduction (Miles &
Huberman: 1994) led to second phase of analysing, data display (Miles & Huberman: 1994),
in which the data were organised and assembled then displayed in narrative form. Following
conventional cut-and-paste techniques, I gathered all the chunks of data belonging to the
same category together (Almarza: 1996) by seeking the smallest “units of information” or
“incidents” (Guba & Lincoln: 1994) in the data that can stand by themselves, i.e., key words
and phrases in the interview data.

I employed a deductive strategy as the initial approach to data categorisation. This means my
coding was based on initial categories derived from my original research aims and those were
suggested in the literature on form-focused instruction (Ellis: 2006) and are similar to those
used by Phipps and Borg (2009). I also looked into categories that emerged from the data. As
Miles and Huberman (1994) show, the final stage of analysis was conclusion drawing phase,
involving interpreting and giving meaning to the data. In this stage data were read again and
again to split and/or combine and/or add new categories, by going through the transcripts
with special attention to the highlighted/underlined substantive statements in the early stages
of analysis. The data were transferred, through coding or writing actual statements, into A3
size analysis sheets. In the writing up process, the research findings were presented thorough

79
narrative writing, using also some tables, grids and graphs. In writing up the analysis, all
participants’ names were anonymised.

Themes that emerged from the data include: Learning from experience, lack of support, lack
of school policy, respect for community languages, English only approach and overcoming
the English only approach. Thus, data were arranged according to guided categories
(Freeman: 1996), which “spring from a priori categories that previous knowledge and
experience might suggest about the topic, [but also] they respond to what the researcher
actually finds in the data” (Freeman, 1996: 371-372). My initial attempt at coding the data
resulted in a large number of codes which were difficult to work with. In order for these
codes to be grouped under broader categories, I went through all the teachers' interview
transcripts to group the codes that share common characteristics together under a more
general category. For example, the interview data revealed that in justifying their
instructional decisions, teachers frequently made comments in relation to students' language
abilities (in English), the necessity for their students to learn English, students' expectation
and student’s academic performance. All these comments reveal teachers' beliefs about
English learning. All codes including teachers' comments about students were thus
categorized under teachers' ‘beliefs about the English only approach’.

Teachers also articulated their beliefs about the practices that support the language ecology
paradigm. All coded comments which referred to teachers' beliefs about bilingualism and
biliteracy of EAL students’ were grouped and categorized under ‘Overcoming the English
only approach’. In addition, teachers made comments in relation to the lack of structural
support they received at the local level. These comments were categorized under ’lack of
school policy’. The interview data also showed that teachers made reference to other
contextual factors which had an influence on how they interpreted and implemented the
curriculum. For example, teachers made comments about the lack of training relating to EAL
teaching and about their lack of understanding of EAL policies and these comments were
coded and categorized under ‘lack of support’. However, when reading through the interview
transcripts, I realized that I needed to add another category to group the coded statements
where teachers talked about their experiential knowledge in relation to EAL teaching. All the
statements which refer to teachers' experiential knowledge were categorized under ‘learning
from experience’.
Below is an example of how data was coded from a question:

80
 Researcher:
“What do you think is the role of the first language for an EAL learner in learning English?”
Respondent (Lindsay).
“L1 is so fundamental to EAL students. I try to show that I am interested in their language
because English is so powerful. I do not want to bombard them with my English. L1 is crucial
for their cognitive development, culture; sense of being…..valuing students’ L1 is valuing
their identities; well I mean it is so important”.

Lindsay response suggested two codes: beliefs of the use L1 that was coded under the
‘respect of community language’ category and her beliefs of English language learning that
was categorised under the use of ‘English only approach’ in the classroom.

4.12 Displaying the Data

Miles and Huberman (1994:11) define the display of data as ―an organized compressed
assembly of information that permits conclusion-drawing and action. There are many
methods of displaying data such as matrixes, tables, networks and charts (Miles &
Huberman: 1994; Dey: 1993). This involves organizing and displaying the information by
using some methods such as charts, matrices, networks (Robson: 2002). This phase allowed
me to highlight respondents’ beliefs/reported practices and to identify any possible
relationships between the data which might help to interpret the data and draw meaning
(Saunders et al.: 2009).

Data display in this study was performed with the aid of individual teacher grid (Appendix 4).
In this instance tables showing the quotation of participants under each theme enabled a
comparison between the respondents’ espoused beliefs and reported practises. In this phase I
took the reduced data and displayed it in an organised, compressed way so that initial patterns
might be identified. Eight grids for each teacher were completed. Additionally on the basis
of techniques described by Miles and Huberman (1984), summaries for each interview were
arranged on a Master grid (Appendix 5) according to the thematic codes developed for the
study, with subject identification numbers along the left-hand side of the grid and code names
along the top. The master grid facilitated a cross-case analysis for common themes and
patterns for each research aim: (1) teachers’ beliefs on the use of L1 in EAL context, (2)
teachers’ reported practices on the use of L1 in EAL teaching/learning. .

4.13 Research quality

Qualitative researchers, according to Denzin and Lincoln (1994), acknowledge that there is
no value-free or bias free design. In order to make research findings convincing and
trustworthy, I have acknowledged biases by considering the issues of validity, trustworthiness

81
(or reliability), transferability (or generalizability), objectivity and ethicality of the research
methods employed. Denzin and Lincoln (1994:100) define internal validity as the degree to
which findings correctly map the phenomenon in question, external validity as the degree to
which findings can be generalized to other settings similar to the one in which the study
occurred, reliability (trustworthiness) as the extent to which findings can be replicated, or
reproduced by another inquirer; and objectivity as the extent to which findings are free from
bias.

4.13.1 Reliability
Reliability is known as to what extent the research findings can be replicated, if another study
is undertaken using the same research methods (Ritchie & Lewis: 2003). Ritchie and Lewis
(2003) assert that “the reliability of the findings depends on the likely recurrence of the
original data and the way they are interpreted” (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003:271). Furthermore,
Marshall and Rossman (1999) and Seale (1999) claim that the absolute replication of
qualitative studies is very difficult to achieve since they reflect realities at the time they were
collected and in a situation which is likely to change. It is often referred to as an unrealistic
demand. Phenomenological research may be difficult to repeat because it depends generally
on unstructured data collection methods (Gray: 2004). Instead, a good practice of reliability
can be enhanced through an aspect of reflexivity, which is “showing the audience of research
studies as much as possible of the procedures that have led to a particular set of conclusions”
(Seale, 1999: 158).

A number of measures were undertaken to enhance the reliability of the current research. All
interviews were recorded to present more reliable evidence and avoid any bias which might
happen if I attempted to remember the conversation. Gray (2004) notes that: “in terms of
reliability, it is fairly obvious that taped conversations will tend to present more reliable
evidence than hastily written field notes” (Gray, 2004: 345). Also, all the questions were
worded clearly and asked in a natural tone of voice. If there was any misunderstanding the
question would be repeated in order to enable the interviewee understand what s/he was
asked for. Moreover, all interviewees were given the opportunity to explain their own beliefs
and thoughts freely without any intervention either with comments or gestures, which would
create bias in the interviewee’s response to the question being asked.

4.13.2 Validity

82
Hammersley (1987:69) asserts that “an account is valid or true if it represents accurately
those features of the phenomena, that it is intended to describe, explain or theorise”. Insofar,
validity is concerned with two main issues: whether the instruments used for measurement
are accurate and whether they are actually measuring what they want to measure (winter:
2000). Ritchie and Lewis (2003) indicate that the validity of research is conceived as the
precision or correctness of the research finding. Arksey and Knight (1999) identify two
different dimensions to the concept of validity, namely internal and external validity. Internal
validity ensures that the researcher investigates what he claims to be investigating. External
validity concerned with the extent to which the research findings can be generalised to wider
population.

I recorded the conversations for accurate interpretations (Maxwell: 1992), took notes while
participants engaged in discussions and incorporated member checking (Padget: 1998) by
returning transcripts to participants for respondent’s verification. Research tools were double
checked for clarity and the time taken to administer them. My personal assumptions and
preconceptions may affect preferences in participant selection or even the questions asked
and data selected for reporting and analysis. In order to avoid this, I firstly endeavoured to
clarify my world view and theoretical assumptions in the preceding chapters. Secondly, in
keeping with the phenomenological stance of this study, I considered the importance of
reflexivity, i.e. an awareness of the ways in which I as an individual with a particular social
identity and background has an impact on the research process (Robson, 2002: 172).
Moreover, all the questions posed in the interviews were directly linked to the research’s aim
and objectives and covered all aspects of the topic.

4.13.3 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness in qualitative research is concerned with dependability (Lincoln & Guba:
1985) or the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned to the same category by
different observers or by the same observer on different occasions. (Silverman, 2000: 188). I
tried to increase dependability in my research in three ways. Firstly, all interviewees were
provided with the same standardised questions that had been carefully worded after piloting
(Robson: 2002). Secondly, interviews were transcribed as accurately as possible and returned
to participants for verification. Lastly, as Kirk and Miller (1986) recommend, I documented
all procedures of my research including transcripts, individual teacher grid, a master grid and

83
final reviews of data, according to which the research process could be replicated or
reconstructed.

4.13.4 Transferability
In qualitative research transferability refers to whether findings are transferable to other
similar contexts. Since qualitative interpretive research is time and context bound, and limited
to a small number of participants, findings are rarely representative of the sample or even
generalizable /transferable to external contexts. However, as Radnor (2001) advocates, an
explicit description of the research process and methods used in data collection and analysis,
together with a thorough analysis, give insight of how the research was done. As a result
theoretical propositions arise and generate conceptualisations for researchers in other contexts
to explore. I have attempted to make this possible in the following chapters by providing rich,
accurate, detailed and complete descriptions of my data collection, analysis and
interpretations.

4.13.5 Objectivity
Trustworthiness in interpretive research is thus extremely valuable to assess the research
quality. Hence, while I acknowledge the subjective nature of my research, I have attempted to
the best of my capability to present an accurate, detailed, complete and bias free account of
participants’ perceptions, views and feelings as they were experienced by participants and as
they were revealed to me.

4.13.6 Ethical considerations

Ethical issues in research may stem from the kinds of problems investigated by social
scientists and the methods they use to obtain valid and reliable data (Cohen &Manion: 1994).
Ethicality in research is thus an important concern related to rules of conduct; typically, to
conformity to a code or set of principles in research (Reynolds: 1979). Although the nature of
my research study in itself did not pose any kind of ethical problems, the research procedures
adopted along with the possibility of my research being published required me to take the
following steps to prevent any possible problems.

Certificate of ethical research approval

As a first step in doctoral research, I was required by the University of Exeter to submit a
Certificate of ethical research approval‟ to the Chair of the School of Education and Lifelong
Learning Ethics Committee. This contained a brief description of my research project, details

84
of participants and their context, details of ethical issues considered prior to data collection
and how I intended to deal with these.

Informed consent
Polit and Beck (2004: 720) define informed consent as an ethical principle that requires
researchers to obtain the voluntary participation of research participants, after informing them
of possible risks and benefits. I explained to the participants that participating in the study
was voluntary and they were further informed that they could withdraw from the study at any
time if they so wished.

I adapted the consent form available on the University of Exeter School of Education and
Lifelong Learning website. It included details of my study, addressed participants willingness
to participate and be recorded on conditions of anonymity and confidentiality, as well as the
right to withdraw from the study at any time. Besides, prior to being involved in my research
all participants had the opportunity to discuss any concerns to verify the research ethics that
would be followed in data collection. While I ensured that participants in my research had
continual access to my current contact details, I also communicated with them for reminders
and scheduling appointments. Member checking of transcribed interviews was also done for
participants to review and omit any inaccurate or sensitive information that might cause
unintended negative consequences.

Conclusion
The aim of this exploratory study was to gain a greater understanding of teachers’ espoused
beliefs and reported practices on the use of L1 in EAL context from the standpoint of the 8
participants. This chapter, Chapter Four, outlines the methodology and methods used in this
study. A qualitative, interpretative strategy is employed - specifically a phenomenological
approach was adopted and the rationale for adopting semi structured interviews was detailed.
The process of selecting the participants was identified and outlined, as were the ethical
considerations that guide this research. Data were gathered over several weeks by way of
interviews using Skype technology, supplemented by email correspondence. The interviews
were tape recorded and transcribed to provide text for analysis through coding and
categorization. Explanations and theory that emerged are grounded in the data. Issues relating
to criteria for validity, trustworthiness and transferability were also addressed. Chapter Five
reports the results of the research.

85
 Chapter 5
Findings Chapter

This chapter is concerned with highlighting and examining the beliefs of the teachers that
emerged within the interview process. The section begins with an overview of the themes
identified which provides a framework for the more detailed discussion of the themes that
follows.
The presentation of the research findings is an iterative account of how interviewees
responded to the interview questioning. The empirical data is displayed as summative, textual
representations and segmented into elements of data that best illustrate the research problem
(Miles & Huberman: 1994). The format of this chapter is therefore presented in a semi-
naturalistic format that uses quotations that are identified in italics from the interviewees to
compare and contrast their views. The data has been categorised and thematically organized

86
so as to contain and present the richness of the data gathered in this investigation and the
language used as far as possible has been the language used by the interviewees as they have
responded to the interview questions. To ensure the confidentiality of participants,
pseudonyms have been used to refer to the eight interviewed teachers who have participated
in the research.
This chapter has been divided into three main sections following the format of research
questions identified in Chapter one.

5.1 TEACHERS' ESPOUSED BELIEFS ABOUT THE USE OF L1: DATA

FOR RESEARCH QUESTION ONE
Research question 1 sought to probe the breadth and depth of teachers' beliefs about L1 use in
the classroom (in EAL context). What is presented below is an analysis of the beliefs the
teachers in this study held about the potential role of L1 in learning English language with
reference to the context of EAL in secondary schools.
5.1.1 Teachers' beliefs about the use of L1 in the classroom
This section explores the espoused beliefs of the participants of this study. Once the theme of
‘beliefs about the use of L1 in the classroom was identified, the interviews were read
repeatedly looking for any indications of teachers’ views on these. Opinions ranged from
dissuading L1 in the classroom to considering the use of L1 to have academic benefit.
Teachers’ stated beliefs of L1 in the classroom were divided into those which regard it
unfavourably, those which tolerate its use and those which favour L1 use in the classroom.

5.1.2 Students' use of the first language in the classroom is unfavourably regarded
The importance of students learning the proper structures of Standard English at young age
was highlighted as a major factor in assisting EAL students in becoming successful
academically. Some teachers in this study appeared to view monolingualism as
unproblematic and perceived L1 use as counterpoint to language learning for EAL students.
For instance Marcia stated:

"Children when they are young enough, they learn naturally, you know. I think many children
learn English naturally. I have seen many children learning English, learning naturally, not
making comparison with their previous language. Children learn naturally. For example I
have a German child; she came to school when she was about 12. She learnt English in a
matter of 3 of 4 months, without o being able to speak it before. She never made consciously
the connection to German, she learnt English by itself. Because children have got this ability,
and this ability gets lost when we become adults. Children have that special ability to learn
language fast" (Marcia).

87
Marcia’s comments could be interpreted as expressing a belief in the intrinsic qualities of
academic English and, in a wider context, a belief in the educational necessity of providing
students with access to the dominant language code. Similarly, Nadia held a positive attitude
toward the use of 'English only' in the classroom. She thought that a teacher who used
English as the medium of instruction provided input as stimuli and the students would have
more opportunity to develop their language skills faster. She stated:

"In my experience, students who come from abroad who are 'falling' into English only
classroom has learnt English extremely fast. Yeah, within three months. I have seen that
myself with my students. So I think it has advantages. Students after a period of adaptation
can learn English extremely fast" (Nadia).

Steeve held a similar attitude toward the use of target language in the classroom. He believed
that creating a whole-English environment is crucial for EAL learners as stated in the excerpt
bellow:
"I believe an English approach, yeah, is suitable for children. I am not a language specialist
or a linguist but I believe, the more English, the better. I guess. I believe the more general
instruction and ordinary conversation in English. I believe it is more useful that way.
Children should be immersed in the target language as soon as they join schools" (Steeve).

Language learning was thus believed to be at least partly a function of time spent listening to
and speaking the target language. This is reminiscent of Krashen and Terrell’s (1992)
‘Natural Approach’ but without one of its key components: Krashen‘s (1992) insistence that
students learn language through hearing comprehensible input. It appears that these teachers
believed that the input they provide for their EAL students in class, coupled with the input
students receive from their environment would expose them to the target language and allow
them to practice of the communicative linguistic functions in Standard English. Steeve
further commented that English as the medium of instruction could not only make EAL
students more proficient but also help those learners to understand English use in their social
interaction with their peers and in their home lives as they could become effective translators
for their parents.

5.1.3 Students' use of the first language in the classroom is tolerated

Whereas the three aforementioned teachers appeared to be applying their own preferences
and judgements to the question of L1 use, there was also a recurrent theme among two other
teachers which suggested that they favourably viewed the use of L1 under particular

88
circumstances. These respondents appeared to be less wary about the uses of the child's first
language. Occasionally during the interviews teachers expressed affects towards certain
languages. One explanation for this is their experience of speaking another language with
Sheila who grew up in a Hindi-speaking family and Luke who described himself as a fluent
speaker of French and Spanish. Both teachers, who worked in schools from traditionally large
EAL population, referred to their understanding of French, Spanish and Hindi as being useful
in this way.

“I sometimes use French or Spanish in class….but I teach in a school where over 80

languages are spoken…..I can't find ways to relate to their languages “.(Luke).

Luke believed he was able to create spaces in his classroom for some of his EAL learners,
based in his proficiency in French and Spanish that he described in confident terms. However
the excerpt also conveys the view that linguistic barriers are difficult if not impossible to
overcome in multilingual settings. Underpinning this belief, there are also other layers of
meaning in this excerpt which highlight the dilemmas that teachers face in their attempt to
conceptualize L1 use in mainstream classes. This has two main implications for classroom
teachers. Firstly, a subfield of teacher cognition reviewed in chapter 3, termed Teacher
Language Awareness (TLA) focuses on the beliefs and attitudes of individuals attitudes
English and other languages in education, ideology about bilingualism and language diversity
in the curriculum. In a UK context, language awareness (TLA) has been defined as
“Language awareness is a person's sensitivity to and conscious awareness of the nature of
language and its role in human life” (James & Garrett, 1991: 18). A teacher's heightened
language awareness is believed to have a significant impact on teachers apprehend and
respond to bilingualism in multilingual settings. The second point mirrors Baker’s (2000b)
argument that support for speakers of who speak high status languages such as French or
Spanish might be expected in educational settings. In contrast, languages that are considered
low status may be frowned upon in schools in Europe and restricted to private domains or
home use.

Sheila accepted that using the L1 had some benefits in particular for students for spoke little
or no English. She claimed that one of her major strengths as a teacher was ability to interact
with the students with whom she shared the same linguistic background (Hindi and Punjabi).
However her belief toward L1 use was reshaped working in a school’s culture which very

89
radically different in comparison to previous school experiences in the sense that it did not
encourage or support L1 use:

"I used to allow translation especially in my old school. Before in my old school where you
know you had a bilingual dictionary, they could access they looked at things. But recently, not
really. It (L1) is not being used. Students kind of go around. I try to give them model example
I write in their books to show them. And hopefully they pick up and learn doing it that way".
(Sheila).

This excerpt suggests that context-related factors appeared to be of particular importance to

this teacher in her beliefs and attitudes towards the use of L1 in the classroom. This teacher,
in contrast with the other teachers cited above, seemed to take an instrumental view of
language as a medium of instruction, which suggests that if L1 in the classroom ‘gets the job
done’ it can be used. However such an instrumental view of language is riddled with a major
problem: how can L1 be used without adequate material and resources?

5.1.4 Students' use of the first language in the classroom is favourably regarded
The positive ways of referring to L1 tended to reflect an empathic, pastoral view of the role
of L1 rather than a view of it as positive in the language learning process. Teachers who
support L1 use give reasons based on a humanistic view of the teacher’s role rather than a
linguistic or pedagogic view of the role of L1 in second language learning. Clara for instance,
stated:

I studied French but, you know, schoolgirl French, and one year of university Spanish.
They’re not good enough really … but I feel that if I … was to take on any further study, to
help with my job, I feel that it would be to learn another language myself fluently. (Clara).

Clara’s statement here positions learning a foreign language (Italian) as work-related. She
saw her limited study of Italian and French as insufficient and considered fluent ability in
another language to be an important skill for a mainstream/EAL. Clara seemed to be attuned
to the intent and underlying philosophies of ecology approach which seeks to support and
develop linguistic diversity. This except suggests that learning a foreign language is a
powerful catalyst for heightening teachers’ language awareness. The value of exploring and
contrasting structures between languages is “the “most educative' aspect of learning foreign
languages” (Hawkins, 1999: 135).

Lore appeared to take a political stance in the following excerpt, as she challenged what she
posited to be ‘good classroom practice’ in relation to EAL learners:

90
 "I think the idea of excluding the first language - especially in cases where the teacher
speaks the first language of his pupils was a cul- de - sac. Students have acquired a
first language, their worldview, identity; cognitive development is connected with
their first language. To exclude it is to deprive students of a whole range of cognitive
capabilities. In this context, I see translation as an anti-colonial strategy" (Lore).

In this excerpt, Lore was referring to communicative language teaching (CLT) and other
teaching methods such as the audio lingual methods, which either prohibited or limited the
use of L1 in the classroom. The way schools in England have traditionally responded to
language diversity created concerns for Lore as it challenged her sense of understanding of
inclusion and fairness with regards to language minority students. Lore displayed an
engagement with beliefs that she had come up against in teacher education, in her practice
and in educational policy that suggested possible ways forward. She did not portray her EAL
pupils, as they were frequently described by other respondents (as needing support in
English), but instead reconstructed understandings of those learners as individuals who may
have the intellectual, cognitive and linguistic advantages.
This reframing of EAL students could be an important key to understand how teachers and
policy makers can change expectations and therefore pupils ‘achievement.

Lindsay's strongly bilingual-supportive argument stated that:

"I feel that first language and translation and are so fundamental to their culture and if I can
show that I can speak or I know a little bit of their language because I feel that because
English is so powerful I make their culture valuable. (Lindsay).

In this excerpt Lindsay seemed to imply that students gain confidence if they are made to be
proud of their LI. Lindsay further asserted that her entire approach to teaching was based on
resisting the' English only 'axiom and made several references which suggested at her a
micro-teaching level, she attempted to overcome the monolingual principle. However
Lindsay could not articulate a systematic and principled approach in the class to the inclusion
of L1 in the classroom, (Collingham: 1988; Harbord: 1992) which inevitably involved setting
some limits on its use. Lindsay’s comments brings to mind Nespor's (1987) recognition that
teachers' beliefs include conceptualisations of ideal situations that differ from reality, may be
explained in terms of what teachers would like to ideally be able to achieve, even though they
knew that it was difficult to implement in practice.

91
Summary of teachers’ beliefs about language learning
This section has considered mainstream teachers’ varying beliefs of L1 use in the classroom.
There were clear differences between mainstream teachers in terms of how they viewed L1
use in the classroom and in language learning. As indicated in the literature review chapter,
teachers’ beliefs are shaped by multiple factors such as their formal knowledge gained from
pre-service and in-service training, their everyday knowledge including their norms and
values, their experiential knowledge, their experience as language learners and their concerns
about their own teaching context including contextual factors such as the learning
environment, the students, the course book, the educational goals, materials and their own
professional community. The most influential factors that shape mainstream/EAL Teachers’
beliefs and practice will be highlighted with reference to the literature in the next section.

5.2 How contextual Factors shape teachers’ beliefs and practices

One of the first themes to emerge from the interview data concerned the personal and
professional challenges associated with working with EAL students. As mentioned in chapter
two, a defining characteristic of EAL, differentiating it from other school subjects is that EAL
is a 'diffused' curriculum concern in England whereas EAL is an explicit and implicit
language teaching issue in Australian policy documents for example. Thus the participants’
most pervasive beliefs were revealed as centring on their experiential knowledge and their
practices as subject teachers. As a result, I conflated several coding categories, which resulted
in four dominant themes: lack of support, learning from experience, expertise and
professional training.
5.2.1 Lack of support
In the absence of school policy and procedures for dealing with EAL learners and perhaps
due to a lack of awareness of existing policies, teachers appeared to be caught off guard and
unprepared to answer questions relating to EAL learning/Teaching. A central problem in this
study was that teachers appeared to have insufficient knowledge on EAL policies both at the
local and national level. For instance Clara and Nadia work in schools in West London with a
significant EAL population, notably from India, Pakistan and Eastern Europe, seemed to be
unaware of any school policy for EAL learners in their respective schools:

“There is no school policy in my school concerning EAL. However I have a friend (Steeve)
who can help you with that. He teaches in a school that has a documented policy EAL policy.
He teaches in a multicultural school in West London. Maybe you should contact him; he
would be in a better position to help you than I am" (Nadia).

92
Her comment was echoed by Clara, an experienced art teacher who asked:
"I am confused. What does EAL stand for? Can you remind me?"
Interviewer: "Teaching English as an Additional language".
Clara: "Do you mean ESL policy? I am not aware of any ESL policy in my school, sorry I
can't help."

Thus, the excerpts discussed here suggest that teachers do not subscribe to one understanding
and do not simply implement policies or strategies in a systematic and unproblematic way.
Although other respondents initially professed to be aware of EAL policy, most interviewees
seemed to struggle to articulate a clear view in relation to it. While Clara confused the
acronym EAL with ESL, more surprisingly perhaps, Lore confused EAL policy with her
specialized Modern language curriculum. She stated:

"Since the 1980'and 1990' we have been encouraged to speak to EAL students in either
French or German. Outside the classroom, in the hall for instance I speak German and
French to my EAL students. The rational is to help EAL learners to pick up modern foreign
languages fast. So for the past twenty years or so I paid extra attention to them in line with
the requirements of inclusion policies" ...You were to use the foreign language even when you
met students outside the classroom and the classroom was supposed to look as foreign as
possible. Teachers in some schools put labels with instructions in German/French all around
the school. Heads of Departments had to enforce this policy. This only started to change later
in the 90s when you were allowed to at least explain grammar in the first language".

Lore perceived EAL to be a:

"Policy in English secondary schools to attempt total immersion when teaching a foreign
language. As far as I know there is the National Curriculum policy and expected e.g. Ofsted
inspections .The immersion idea I think came from research into the acquisition of the first
language. Also from concepts introduced by Krashen and of from teaching English as a
foreign language, where in a group with different first languages it was more or less a
necessity. This is still based on the colonial idea of spreading English culture and power with
the spread of English as a global language” (Lore).

Lore's comments suggested that while she attempted to endorse an inclusive and progressive
policy designed to meet the needs of her students in the disciplines she taught (French and
German) she seemed to feel no responsibility for meeting English language and learning
needs of her EAL students. This tension, perhaps understandably, produced ambivalent
responses from other participants as they failed to grapple with the duality of their teaching
role ( teaching their specialized subject role and their EAL teaching role) as empathically
stated in EAL policy guidelines: “Language teaching is the professional responsibility of all
teachers. "The National Curriculum is for all pupils except the few for whom modification

93
and disapplication is appropriate. Providing access to the curriculum for bilingual pupils
means planning and implementing schemes of work which meet individual needs. The pupil's
own level of language development should provide the starting point for work” (NCC, 1991:
1). This reciprocal and dual teaching relationship made it difficult to attune teachers to the
linguistic, social and academic needs of their EAL learners. This ambiguity permeated most
interviews with Lindsay stating:

"There is no language policy in my school unfortunately at the moment. It is very ad-hoc”

(Lindsay).
Or Steeve:
"No I am not aware of any EAL school policy. Unfortunately, here has been a gradual
dispending of EAL services in the borough where I work"(Steeve).

Only one respondent claimed to be aware of a written policy in her school ( Sheila), which
consisted of lists identifying EAL and SEN students, while another (Luke) stated there was
no specific EAL policy in his school, but instead 'word of mouth'. Marcia, the language
specialist, argued that EAL policy and practice were beyond her professional scope as:

"I am teaching a language, you know, I teach a foreign language as a subject. So these
children would not be sent to us. When they are, I usually know what to do with them"
(Marcia).

The notion of subject-specific pedagogy, as posited by Biglan (1973a), arose during the
interviews when some of the participants explained that a number of their pedagogical
decisions were based on the nature of their respective subject. As data collection continued, it
was evident that the teachers considered that the nature of their subject directly impacted
upon their pedagogy. Teachers who endeavour to support EAL development within the
subject-based curriculum have often found difficulty in identifying the role that EAL plays in
mainstream teaching, and the purposes for which it is used, in the service of subject learning
goals. Teachers' comments about their teaching approaches both positioned them in relation
to one another (subject to subject), and also appeared to inform their opinions about they
approached EAL:

"I teach art and I think EAL issues are more relevant to English classes. I don t teach
literature you see, in art you can get by without being fully proficient English. You can get a
lot across without using the language "(Clara).

94
 "I teach a language, a foreign language. Learning a foreign language occurs in a second, no
in a third context. It is not like in English classes "(Marcia).

Respondents in this study repeatedly stressed the peculiar nature of their subject area when
discussing their approaches to teaching EAL students. Although the interviews revealed some
cross-disciplinary ideas about what good teaching might entail, it was clear that many
teachers' beliefs were closely bound to their beliefs about what it means to be the teacher of a
particular subject. In fact, very few of the stated beliefs of these teachers derive from
literature on language teaching and learning by relied instead vastly on what they on their
school (sub) culture. Teachers applied subject-specific approaches to teaching EAL students
as opposed to adapting approaches from applied linguistics or educational linguistics to their
subject. This idea of defining best practice for teaching EAL students from the viewpoint of
what is required to achieve in a subject area may be conducive to what Creese (2005) refers
to as ”hierarchies of knowledge" where teaching content matter takes priority over
developing linguistic knowledge "(Creese, 2005: 193).

5.2.2 Learning from experience

Given the lack of training opportunities relating to pre-service or in-service EAL teaching
offered to mainstream Teachers in England, personal constructs appeared to be a powerful
contributor to their daily professional practice. An example of a belief based on experiential
ground is that EAL students need explicit focus on the target language:

"In my school, it has been decided that the focus would be on the English only approach for
EAL students. We (teachers) try to give them as much input as we can” (Nadia).

As Luke stated:
"We are not supposed to use L1 in my school I try not to. I have failed my last observation
with the head (of school) because I did not break down the language in my (science) lesson".
(Luke).

"I have been told to teach English with no reference to other languages. Fortunately or
unfortunately English is an international language. Focussing on English is a successful
strategy, whether we like it or not" (Marcia).

The teachers' discomfort with their school policy was reflected in the distancing phrases
created by the passive constructions "I have been told ", which also convey his lack of
detailed knowledge of his school policy. While appearing to be echoing the opinions of their
school officials without specifically relating to any specific episode or fact, these teachers

95
voiced a belief commonly held by most participants that L1 use conflicted with school
educational practices and goals. This, in turn, is underpinned by a belief that it is preferable
for all EAL students to assimilate into the dominant language and culture of educational
institutions and society.

As seen in chapter two, partnership teaching has been described as the 'best approach' to EAL
teaching in England. Nonetheless the working relationships between curriculum and EAL
specialist were never mentioned by any of the interviewees. In many cases the curriculum
teacher had no knowledge of EAL specialists working in their respective schools. Two MFL
teachers (Lore and Marcia) and the maths (teacher) stated that their students would be
withdrawn from their lessons and believed they worked with teachers assistants in "separate
units". Steeve, a former EAL specialist himself, stated:

"When there were EAL staff within the schools, actually bought in by the school from their
borough, they would provide insets regularly to, teachers especially NQT. At the moment all
that is in the process of being devolved to more special need side of thing, which is really an
entirely different of area of need. But now what we call AEN, Additional Educational Need
Department advice on EAL students, and it has gone this way as a money saving
device" (Steeve).

These latter comments show how little or no interaction with EAL specialist may have
resulted in a lack of understanding that EAL specialists could add value to what they already
did as subject specialists. Throughout the interviews, teachers lamented the lack of
opportunities to access specialist language expertise. Interviewees recognized the benefits of
specialist training and acknowledged opportunities to develop language expertise and
unanimously identified access to specialist EAL expertise as a positive feature for their
teaching linguistic minority students.

5.2.3 Expertise
Expertise was a significant issue that emerged on a number of occasions during the
interviews. All of the participants revealed a sense of lack of expertise which was perceived
to act as a significant barrier to their work with their EAL students'. This feeling of
inadequacy might have been exacerbated by the fact that EAL does not have a curriculum in
states Secondary schools in England. In response to a question asking them to explain
whether teachers had been given any guidance on how to approach EAL teaching, the
majority of respondents expressed feelings of inadequacy in relation to their responsibility to

96
meet the distinct needs of bilingual pupils while functioning in a teaching role within the
mainstream classroom. Despite the fact that Steeve was specifically trained to teach English
and that he received additional training to teach EAL students, he described himself as non-
specialist who has recently "moved on". His feelings of uncertainty emerge as strongly:

"I am not an expert in teaching EAL student. I feel more qualified to meet the needs of other
children, of SEN kids. I have had specific training on teaching children with dyslexia. I feel I
am more competent working with SEN children" (Steeve).

His feeling of inadequacy was echoed by Clara who stated:

"I don't really feel that I know exactly what I should be doing to meet the needs of ESL
students. My role is to teach them art. I'm not qualified in English literature or anything"
(Clara).

These comments indicate the challenge inherent in bridging the gap between subject and
language teachers' expertise. Sheila who claimed she held expertise in teaching EAL
students, described her role mainly in procedural terms, equating understanding EAL policy
with knowing and differentiating her students, based on the linguistic codes that typify
various groups she taught:

"I am a Maths teacher obviously. My training is in teaching. As a teacher, you are aware of
your students. We look at the SEN register and we look at how many are, say, on special
needs and have a statement so we know what the statement is, and what their targets are so
we can help them"(Sheila).

The parallel that Sheila made between EAL and SEN learner seemed to indicate her
uncertainty about whether a particular student's lack of understanding was a language or
content issue, despite her attempt to differentiate these categories. It also suggests that
disciplinary allegiance is paramount in most teachers' lives, as she emphatically stressed "I
am a Maths Teacher obviously". Therefore, inclusive practises (in this case EAL) and that
transcend any particular subject area were seemingly met with difficulties. It seems that
beliefs about EAL teaching are based on the premise that teachers progress from novice to
expert in a linear fashion according to a relatively fixed structure. Nonetheless a fairly recent
NALDIC report has recently stated that: "Many class and subject teachers are struggling to
offer the kind of language conscious pedagogy necessary to enable EAL learners to engage
with the language and content of the curriculum" (NALDIC: 2006).

97
5.2.4 Professional Training
Many of the comments made by respondents related to their lack of training in the area of
EAL. Insufficient opportunities for teachers in relation to the education of students with EAL
is in fact a recurrent theme in EAL literature as mentioned in chapter two .While general
comments were made about the need for continuous professional development and in-service
support for all support for EAL learners, teachers were critical of the lack of guidance and
support in relation to teaching English as an additional language (EAL) at secondary level.
Nadia, for instance spoke of the need for more input at undergraduate level for teachers of
students from minority ethnic and /or minority language groups as she struggled to recall any
relevant training in relation to language input for EAL learners during her own teacher
training. She stated that she had:

"Very little training. It was quite general. A couple of things were said during my training,
training practise. It was such a long time ago. I would not remember now" (Nadia).

Nadia's account highlights how minimally prepared she felt was for this role and how
precarious the 'learning on the job' experience could be for teachers operating in multicultural
schools. Her comments are echoed by Marcia, another language specialist.

"I think we should have been taught how to better approach these children. You know. To be
able to understand what they would have been capable to do. To learn a third language as
well" (Marcia).

While all interviewees frequently lamented the lack of opportunities for professional
development with regards to EAL teaching, no such sentiments were expressed as far as
educational development relating to their specialized subjects. Most of the other respondents
echoed the comments made by Nadia about the poor preparation they had received in respect
of their initial teacher education. Training in this area had, at best, been minimal whether
teachers were recently out of training or whether the initial course had been many years ago
and regardless of whether it had been a short postgraduate or a longer undergraduate one.

Steeve understands education as market oriented ― students have an unequal right to receive
and have access to an education. He also appeared to have a philosophy that teaching in
general has become labour oriented and market oriented, hence the money saving schemes of

98
schools in his borough that hinder professional developments for teachers to adequately teach
EAL learners :

"In the borough I work there has been a gradual dispending of EAL services purely as a
money saving, hum, device, because of the budget constraints on school and now they are
training people within the school to try to cascade what they learn from going on a course on
EAL to other people rather than having full time specialist people within the school" (Steeve).

As Steeve sees it, boroughs and schools authorities have to provide training opportunities that
lead to expertise, a perspective that budget constraints of schools render impossible. Steeve's
narrative raises a relevant point as it highlights the irreconcilable ideologies of a market
economy and equity policies. The market model has perhaps changed the way power
operates, in terms of decisions about training, funding, educational policies and social justice
in general.
Respondents offered insights on seeking professional development with regards to EAL
teaching. Some teachers gave specific advice about receiving training related to the language
proficiency needs of their students. One teacher shared the following statement:

"I believe there are still courses you can go on for EAL. The trouble is you really need to do
that because certainly, it is much, much harder for teachers in England to be given time to
attend training....and also the cost of training is prohibitive" (Steeve).

In sum this section that addressed the views expressed by respondents on the themes
'lack of support',' learning from experience', 'expertise' and 'professional training' and has
shown similarities to Cline et al. 's (2002) study, which also highlight how teachers
mainstream teachers feel minimally prepared to cater for the needs of bilingual learners.
Some teachers seemed to suggest that they believed that teaching language learners equated to good
subject teaching. These teachers appeared confident that they had the skills to support language
learners and thus did not feel any imperative to seek support from their colleagues. Others perceived
that teaching students who are learning a new language might involve skills in addition to their
disciplinary expertise but deplored the fact that there was no EAL specialist in theirs schools.

Returning to the constructs about teacher cognition which were reviewed in Chapter 3, it
seems that experiential knowledge and subject matter knowledge were the factors that
emerged as the most common influence on teachers’ decisions about using the L1. Thus
teachers’ experience of being in the classroom appeared to out-weighed their knowledge and
experience of learning in an additional language. This fits with literature suggesting that,

99
“subject subcultures may be characterised both by beliefs about the subject matter that bind
teachers together and by norms regarding teacher practice, curricular autonomy, and
coordination” (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995: 8).

5.3 TEACHERS’ REPORTED PRACTICES ON THE USE OF L1 THE

CLASSROOM
The next main section of this chapter explores the second research question concerning the
extent to which teachers stated beliefs concerning the use of L1 in the classroom are reflected
in their reported classroom teaching. Information on their practice was drawn from interview
data.
Because the main area of focus of this study is the use of L1 in EAL context, it is thus
essential to examine teachers' reported practices on the topic. The participants knew I was
interested in how they supported EAL students’ language learning through their teaching.
The eight mainstream classroom teachers demonstrate different ways of supporting
biliteracy/bilingualism in their classroom. They interpreted the term L1 use in several ways
but the most significant aspect of was how much or how little L1 they reported using in their
practice. Secondly there was a perception that some topics were language-free and therefore
easier for L1 use. The third theme running through their answers were classroom-based
practices which allowed children to incorporate their own languages and cultures into
classroom work.

5.3.1 Use of L1 is unfavourably regarded for in teachers’ practice

Most of the interviewees referred to student literacy at some point during the study. Although
literacy is frequently discussed in schools and the participants used the term confidently, their
responses seemed to be centred on narrowed views of literacy. Indeed there was a pervasive
understanding among most respondents that learning an additional language equated
supporting the language development in English. As a result excluding the first language
from the classroom would often be framed as an inevitable part of ensuring that students have
enough input in English and practise it sufficiently. Literacy was primarily seen as a set of
skills that students lacked but required in order to access subject matter. It seemed also
include students’ general ability (or inability) to read and write, an area where students in
remedial English support was needed.
For instance, Steeve, teaching in a multicultural school with low literacy levels, viewed his
school as having effective or, at least, well-intentioned procedures and practices in place to

100
respond to bilingualism. Steeve referred multiculturalism, which suggested a homogenising
of all languages and cultures. He stated:

"We celebrate different cultures. Especially with certain groups that underachieve big
time in England, it is important to raise their self-esteem, get them to value their
education.... Certain groups really need to be targeted such as Somalis…… that
includes white boys"(Steeve).

The concept of multiculturalism seemed to be understood in terms of ‘meeting the needs’ of

particular groups of pupil—targeting students by categories of ethnicity and improving
academic outcomes for the targeted pupils. This view relates to what Baker (2001) refers to
as to 'weak' forms of multiculturalism, which focuses on “'cultural artifacts' such as beliefs,
values, eating habits, dress and gestures but does not focus on the home language of the
students” (Baker, 2001: 405). When Steeve mentioned multicultural policies, he did so in
positive way, which translated in his practise as providing input in fluent, idiomatic, native-
like English and any that language lapse (or attrition) could be remedied by using more input
in the target language. He stated:

" …..Amongst friends in their social time, I don't think it is a problem. But really in lessons
where they are trying to learn English, it is not particularly helpful to use their language…its
is important to welcome them in English, and by using, you know body language, directions
and using facial expressions, I believe you can get a lot actually that way. It will become
more and more natural for them to be successful in an environment in English. Oh yeah that
way you can teach them"(Steeve In class, the more English the better"(Steeve).

In the above excerpt, L1 use seemed to be regarded as an occasionally permissible lapse from
the (English-only) method he reported using, which is restricted to social interactions outside
the classroom. It occurs in parentheses (i.e. during breaks and lunch hours), as an ‘aside’ to
what Language In the following excerpt. Steeve also claimed he could overcome language
barrier by incorporating in his lessons non-verbal instructional strategies whenever his EAL
students as a means to avoid the use of L1. The status quo of English-only can then be seen as
ideological rather than being an overt policy based on a consistent theory: it has become
naturalised and thus needs little defence or justification (Fairclough :1989).

Two other teachers (Marcia and Nadia) could also be classified as English literacy oriented in
their practice as they paid scant attention to home language in the classroom. More
specifically, Marcia stated that her focus on teaching Italian and German, which occurred in a
third context for her EAL learners, would consequently naturally exclude any languages other

101
than English taught in their classes (French, German and Italian). The target of their literacy
teaching and learning is only English as Nadia said: “… Students should only speak English
in class”. Whilst they reported they tolerated children speaking their home languages to each
other in the classroom, they discouraged L1 use, pretending not to notice the language being
spoken and responding to it rather negatively. In fact, translation was referred to as
'undesirable'. In the contexts in which it was discussed L1, Nadia stated:

"I don't encourage translation. If I did (EAL) students would never pick up English" (Nadia).

L1 was often described as unnecessary, hindering progresses and something that would
eventually be abandoned by EAL students on their path of becoming successful English
speakers. Other comments pertained to the belief that the desired aim of thinking
monolingually would be compromised by translation.

Consistent with this is the statement by those three aforementioned teachers that the literacy
practices they reported paid scant attention to students’ prior topic-related life experiences
and/or language background. Underlying these stated aims, a powerful Master model
influencing teachers' beliefs in relation to bilingual pupils as well as a number of associated
cultural models which derived from this Master Model. According to the Master model,
English is best taught monolingually (that is without recourse to L1) ― students need to
operate monolingually in order to succeed academically (Gee: 1999). As a consequence, it
appeared that a widely held belief among the teachers in this study that eliminating the first
language from the language learning process as far as possible is conducive to increasing the
amount of English heard and spoken, and that this is unquestionably the desired goal for EAL
learners. As will be shown in the following sections of this chapter, L1 then is not always
prohibited as a ‘bad thing’ in itself but as taking up valuable time which would be better
spent speaking, listening to and thinking in English.

5.3.2 Context bound approach to L1 use

The previous section focussed on teachers’ reported practices which consisted of excluding
the first language, framed as an inevitable part of ensuring that students have enough input in
English and practise it sufficiently. An underlying assumption of those practices is that it is
preferable for all groups and individuals to assimilate into the dominant culture of

102
educational institutions. In contrast, three teachers felt that although maintaining and
encouraging the home language would be a suitable approach to EAL students, secondary
school structures associated with certain discursive practices were perceived as prohibiting
factors in promoting L1 use in the classroom. These were primarily due EAL students being
withdrawn from class for language support in language units within the school. In addition,
several teachers reported sheltered instruction strategies within their classroom in which
Teaching assistants (TA) work in the mainstream class to provide language support in
English to EAL students. This strand of data on literacy practices was shown through these
comments as a response to difficulties on implementing L1 strategies also by a large degree
in how teachers define the intent of EAL practices in terms of language teaching.

Where three teachers specifically talked about their reported practice on the use of L1 in the
classroom, they focused on the benefits of using the child's first language in order to facilitate
a transition to English. In subjects such as mathematics, art and science while L1 use was
perceived favourably, these teachers reported adapting their output to make it more comprehensible
to the EAL students and regularly recapitulated key concepts.

Sheila attempted to create a learning environment, which addresses potential language

barriers to learning in her maths lessons. She reported adjusting her instruction in order to
make her classroom practice accessible to EAL learners by attending certain features of
instruction, for instance the selection of key vocabulary that enhanced understanding in
lessons or the provision of a range of assignment involving key vocabulary to make
classwork and homework comprehensible to EAL learners.

“When planning for your teaching as such that you take into account the language. I need to
take into account the language. My subject is Maths and although there might be not so much
language, some worded problems. You have to look at accessible ways to make it easy for
them.......I use maths they are familiar with and concepts. For example what does solve
mean? Equation? That is written there for them. So that they can look up at the math vocab.
So I guess in other subjects as well that language is there to help them familiarize the more
they can come across it, the more they will pick up"(Sheila).

Marcia’s practice is supported in the literature by writers such as Carrasquillo and Rodríguez
(2002: 162), who state: “Mathematical language must be used in order for it to develop and
be mastered. Encourage the use of English, but do not discourage students from using their
first language” (Carrasquillo and Rodríguez, 2002: 162).

103
Another common topic in the comments was the emphasis on subject area learning rather
than language learning in the lessons. They also felt that it was possible to separate language
from concepts:

"I have no problems if my students use their L1 in my classroom. Obviously if they

able to understand another language, they are allowed to apply it. For instance in
Maths we do objectives in the lessons, they know what they are expected to learn at
the end, we have a starter in terms of the objectives we have keyword…..if they can
identify the key words in the lesson and translate them, that is fine" (Sheila).

Several teachers of the practice in the context of their curriculum classes would be sufficient to
address any language challenges posed by their subject.

“I pick up their work in and mark it every two weeks…… I tell them what they need to do next
and what they haven’t done properly…. There is not so much language involved in art classes
and in art in general…You can get a lot across without using the language”

This excerpt illustrated how teachers would sometimes depict their specialized curriculum
area as subjects beyond the scope of languages. It was not uncommon for these teachers to
comment that the linguistic aspects of their subject posed no language problems for learners.

Luke reported that his school policy and practice with regards to EAL were incongruent with
his own approach that sought to promote L1 use in the classroom. He commented on the
institutional constraints imposed by his school hierarchy, which he thought acted as
significant barriers to the inclusion of L1 in his practice. He reported that during his
classroom observations, he was repeatedly told by his school principal to remove content that
was deemed challenging from his lessons for his EAL learners and explained how he was
expected to break down the language into “comprehensible chunks” in order to make it
accessible to them. In other words classroom observation can be seen in this context as a
discursive practice ‘guiding’ language ideologies and language use in the classroom.
Furthermore he understood the language demands mainly in terms of vocabulary learning. He
stated:

"In the back of their science textbook we do a glossary when we add a new term, or a term
that they haven't used much before, and write what it is, and discuss what it means, and
they'll write down what it means, and have some examples of that"(Luke).

However this description seems to imply a simple and unproblematic equation of language
and vocabulary which, examined more closely might suggest that “academic language is….

104
just a long list of key content words” (Zwiers, 2008: xiii). In this conception, language may
be viewed as a general cross-curricular skill, separated from subject content, where it is
merely a means to an end rather than a goal of learning in itself.

The abovementioned experts imply that in a supportive linguistic cultural and organisational
context, teachers can respond to the use of L1 in positive ways, whereas in a non-supportive,
cross-linguistic and cross-cultural school context, distancing, confusion and frustration may
result.

5.3.3 Positive ways of referring to L1 in mainstream class practice.

Of the positive references to the use of the first language was to draw on students’ prior
experiences. Two teachers (Lindsay and Lore) created a picture of themselves as teachers
with contrasting practices—teachers who were prepared to adapt their teaching to suit their
students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Lindsay posited that teachers who were not
showing a strong form of multiculturalism in their practice are missing an important
dimension in their classroom. She stated:

"To recognize multiculturalism is valuing their language. The power of English is so strong, it
is important to give value to their language as well" (Lindsay).

She reported she used students' prior linguistic and cultural knowledge of her EAL students
as a means to help bridge the discontinuities between language use in the home and school.
She commented:

"Particularly with young learners. Especially with learners with no particular high standard
of English… it is rather fun sometimes with idioms, seeing the cultural things in proverb,
seeing cultural things in proverbs I use that sometimes. The difference between the cultures,
between words used or the phrases used for similar situation through idioms and proverbs
are important in my English classes"(Lindsay).

This approach strayed away from monolingual instructional approaches and fits Garcia’s
(2010) translanguaging that she defines as “a pedagogical activity where children and
teachers perform and negotiate multi-lingual roles signifying access to social justice, rather
than tolerance of bilingualism” (Garcia, 2010: 531). The above excerpt shows that some of
the literacy practices Lindsay reported using were ways of consolidating and confirming her
EAL students' language and culture in the classroom. The comparative and contrastive
techniques between languages that Lindsay reported using (i.e. words, proverbs idioms) can

105
help students to acquire awareness of the conceptual, formal and cultural differences between
their own language and English (Hopkins :1988).

Lore stated she explicitly promoted members of the class as knowers who possessed rich
funds of knowledge that their classmates should exploit. She argued:

“I encourage students to teach us relevant things regarding their native language and I
attempt to create an environment where students do not feel penalized for their native
language” (Lore).

She described how this approach solved tension between L1 and L2 and led her students
(monolingual and EAL) and herself to an awareness of alternative language models. Lore
seemed to situate her classroom within an ecological perspective as opposed to a cognitive
perspective that emerged in most participants’ individual interviews. In contrast to cognitive
views on language learning, which perceive language learning as a uniform cognitive
process, the ecological approach views the classroom as a place where “there is room for all
languages, where the goodness of diversity is a given” (Edwards, 2004: 469).

In summary, insofar as it is possible to summarise interviewees’ reported practice on the use

of L1 in the classroom, their responses are problematic in a number of ways. First teachers’
beliefs and approaches to language learning did not appear to be informed by any consistent
Second Language acquisition theory derived from the literature. As a result the teachers who
supported the use of ‘English only’ in the classroom tended to equate language learning
exclusively with 'English language input'. This seems to be common in educational settings,
for example May (2002) notes that teachers sometimes refer to EAL students as having “no
language” (May, 2002: 9). Secondly, the confusion between ‘literacy’ learning and learning
an additional language was also noticeable among teachers who were categorized a
transitionally supportive of L1: their views, which included encouragement of occasional use
of L1, were uninformed by EAL policy guidelines or any consistent educational philosophy
that focusses on the use of L1 in the classroom. Third, none of the teachers who were
categorised a ‘strongly supportive of L1 use in the classroom’ articulated a systematic and
principled approach to the inclusion of L1 as called for by Collingham (1988) and Harbord
(1992) nor did they mention a range of possibilities for incorporating L1 into meaningful
communicative cross-lingual activities such as those presented by Atkinson (1993) or
Rinvolucri (2001).

106
The next sections detail overlap in techniques that teachers reported using in their practice
that sought promote the continua of biliteracy in their classroom activities. In fact, the data
obtained from interviewees tended to suggest that they considered the first language as
inevitable and unavoidable and therefore they considered the kinds of situations in which it
might be advantageous for learners to use the first language.

5.3.4 Teachers' reported practice on peer input

Of the positive references to the use of the first language, the strongest overall theme was
grouping and pairing of EAL as a means to promote L1 use in classroom practices. Teachers
described how they paired or grouped EAL students who spoke the same L1 but had different
levels of English proficiency to serve as tutors or mentors for each other. Most of the teachers
believed that the usefulness of peer input as well as input provided by language assistants and
volunteers, while Lindsay expressed the belief that learners or language assistants provide a
useful source of input in L1:

"But not parents because they are teenagers, but we have assistants in the class. And that is
very useful for breaking up into smaller group or even to language room. We have guys from
Afghanistan. Not sort of separate. But sometimes they have that possibility for their mother
tongue, during the groups or in class. Assistant yes, but not parents" (Lindsay).

In articulating their rationales interviewees referred to various factors shaping their views.
Aspects of language maintenance conceived by these teachers involved essentially
understanding key concepts in L1 from peers, as well as using translation for pastoral
purposes, to reassure students or to establish a basis of equality within their classroom. Sheila,
for example stated:

"Obviously in terms of needs, like the subjects are, they are taught in English. But in terms of
if in another language it can be explained, sometimes you have an EAL pupil and they don t
speak the language so well, but you have someone else who speaks the same language so you
look at paring them up. Even if they learn in their own language it is fine; in terms of for
maths, as long as you understand the concept, it is good"(Sheila).

The main reason why Sheila claimed she encouraged peer tutoring was because she wanted to
clarify gaps in learning, maintain her EAL students' attention and trigger her learners'
motivation. Placing students in the position of helper in her classes was a useful means of
supporting students to attain understanding of concepts in maths. This points to Swain’s
‘collaborative dialogue’ (2000) or to Meier‘s language apprenticeship (2004) who claim that

107
the assistance given by speakers of the same language may have a positive effect on the
language development and language maintenance of immigrant children,

Teachers also reported promoting the use of the home language in the classroom for the new
students who came to their class and who did not understand English at all. For example in
assisting the new arrivals, Clara stated she used the other child from the same language
background to help the new comers in her classroom understanding the classroom instructions.
At the same time Lindsay and Lore appreciated the value of peer input in terms of language
maintenance. Language maintenance describes a situation where speech communities or
social settings sustain the use of their languages despite competition (Pauwels, 2004: 719).
Lore thought that peer input allowed students to exchange ideas and fostered a sense of 'being
together' among speakers of the same language, which resonated with Kenner's (2010)
research in southern England or with Martin's (2003) study in London.

5.3.5 Teachers' reported practices on the use of dictionaries

Throughout the interviews, developing communication ability ― both in basic conversation
and in their subject content knowledge― was consistently found to be one of the most
important goals of teachers for EAL learners. However the idea of total prohibition or
avoidance of L1 in the teachers' classroom practice was not supported by any of the
respondents. There were overlaps and contradictions in the way teachers expressed their
adherence to these cultural models but there is enough evidence for each to suggest that they
are distinct models, derived from the master model, which was used to inform teachers’
beliefs and practices in relation to the bilingual pupils in their classrooms. This was
evidenced by Nadia's insistence in the interview of the necessity for her EAL pupils to use
bilingual dictionaries in Nadia claimed that dictionaries and translation could “be used for the
most difficult concepts, not necessarily for every single word for every single word”. “Nadia)

5.3.6 Teachers' reported practices on the use of other materials and

resources
A final theme that emerged from participant responses was the use of material and
integrating technology as a means to promote bilingualism and biliteracy development.
Teachers noted a number of ways they either used or could use native language materials in
the instruction of their EAL students. Especially common was the use of visuals such word

108
walls, labels, posters, and flashcards in both English and the native language. The
interviewed teachers expressed positive opinions related to use of the visuals, For instance,
teacher Marcia declared:

"Visuals, signs up in the classroom using several languages, using pictures. That is what we
have in schools. We have signs for 'good morning' and many things in several languages.
That gives an idea of multiculturalism, which I think is very good. You can do it for a few
words, but not for the entire dictionary.

Steeve echoed her comment:

"Visuals, I think everything in the class has to be visual. Keywords, words they use regularly.
Mostly words in their language, so that they feel welcome in the language (English). That's
should be part of normal schooling". (Steeve).

Finally teachers felt that ICT (Information and communications technology) was not only a
useful teaching and learning tool in language classrooms but also possibly a means to
overcome the hegemony that supports the dominant culture and language in schools. Their
comments included the following:

"I am encouraging them to use computers, online bilingual dictionaries…. They are allowed
to use online dictionaries definitely”. (Lindsay)
"I use computers with my EAL learners. However, not systematically. ….It has to be targeted"
(Nadia).
"Well I believe computers and new technology in general are essential for EAL learners.
(Luke).

Nevertheless respondents stated they faced barriers in incorporating computer technology and
resources to incorporate L1 use in instruction, which emerged in many participant responses.
Teachers commented on how difficult it was to find materials and resources in the L1 when
they were already pressed for time with their regular lesson plans. They also expressed
frustration with lack of funds and support from the school in obtaining L1 resources as well
as the limited access to computers in schools.

Summary
The types of beliefs and approaches of interviewed teachers in relation to the use of L1 in the
classroom have been described and discussed in this chapter. The continua of biliteracy
model, as proposed by Hornberger (2002), were foundational for synthesizing teacher’s
stated beliefs in this study. Indeed the Micro and Macro level of context on the Continua of

109
biliteracy, which proposes that English at the Macro level is the most powerful language and
that the speaker’s L1 is marginalized, serve as a frame for organizing and discussing the
major themes that have emerged from my analysis. While some interviewees (i.e. Nadia,
Marcia and Steeve) constructed the school classroom as an English only zone, other
teachers’ discourses (i.e. Lore and Lindsay) opened possibilities toward transforming formal
classrooms into translanguage spaces in which more than one language is spoken-might be
beneficial for EAL Teaching/learning.

The analysis in this chapter has also shown that teaching is not a linear, regimented process,
showing instead that the formation of teacher professional knowledge and beliefs is dynamic
and that this is particularly pronounced in the context of EAL teaching. In sum links between
teachers’ reported lack of support from their respective schools, teachers’ experiential
knowledge, their expertise and professional training remained unclear until the data was
analysed and interpreted. As teachers reflected and reported on these subthemes, a pattern
emerged: merely learning-on-the-job is not producing teachers who feel entirely competent
to support the language development of their EAL students nor does it enable to articulate a
theoretically informed approach to EAL Teaching. The diverse interpretations and practices
of EAL teaching by respondents may signal a lack of clear and coherent understanding of
EAL pedagogy on their part.

Nonetheless, despite teachers’ varied stated beliefs in the use of L1 in the classroom,
interviewed teachers were able to draw on various points of the biliteracy continua as
proposed by Hornberger (1989, 2002, 2003 & 2004). Most respondents were able to draw on
powerful end of the biliteracy continua by means of materials such as bilingual dictionaries,
the use of computer in the classroom, visuals and posters and developing students'
metacognitive skills through peer tutoring, introducing cultural elements such as idioms,
proverbs…

The last section of the chapter provided some specific evidence in support of Hornberger's
(2002) concept of language ecology utilising Hornberger’s proposal the continua of biliteracy
(Hornberger, 2002: 30)

110
 Chapter 6
Discussion of the findings

Chapter six presents the findings related to the research questions. This chapter provides a
detailed analysis of key research findings with reference to each of the research questions.
The results of the study are also discussed in relation to previous research studies. The first
section (Section 6.1) discusses the teachers’ beliefs about the role of L1 in the classroom. The
extent to which these beliefs are reflected in their reported classroom in the context of a EAL
in mainstream secondary school secondary school are presented in Sections 6.2 and 6.3,
which is followed by a discussion of the contributions of this study to a theoretical
understanding of teacher cognition.

6.1 Teachers ‘beliefs about the role of students’ first language in EAL
context
One of the most recurrent themes and one which is considered important for illuminating the
research question was teachers’ beliefs about L1. Initially, some respondents reacted
negatively, but after careful probing, they clarified that their answers associated this
negativity with their insecurity in speaking the language of their students. Other respondents
thought that non-native speakers who use English at home and in places beyond the school
The most important point to make about the teachers’ expressed views about the role of L1 is
that they were often based on poorly articulated or even erroneous theoretical foundations.

111
An English-only classroom was frequently posited as the only way to achieve sufficient
comprehensible input (Krashen: 1982). This view recalls Bourne’s (2007) contention that one
of the basic tenets of the EAL teaching is that maximising exposure to English will improve
learning, whereas there is no evidence to support this belief. Bourne (2007) further argues
that the belief that learners can acquire an additional language by being immersed in the
target language has added support to the practice of mainstream integration. However, in
mainstream classrooms, where lessons are driven by national curriculum subject learning
goals, the language used by class teachers and expected of EAL students is often pitched at
the majority of the class with assumptions about their linguistic capabilities based on native-
speaker norms (Harklau: 1994). This can result in a tension between the teaching of subject
‘content’ and the teaching of English as an Additional language.

Nonetheless the term ‘immersion’ (2007) was repeatedly used in the interviews both as in
‘the immersion method’ (Marcia) and in a general sense that students benefit from being
‘immersed in the language’ (Steeve). Three teachers asserted that adopting a monolingual
approach meant that students would be proficient in English more quickly. More quickly than
what research suggest and in fact it would be very difficult to investigate empirically a
statement such as: “I had a German student who learnt English in 3 months” (Marcia). The
rationales articulated by Marcia and Nadia were based on insubstantial evidence and on long-
standing practice which was seen to be self-evident. Fairclough (1992) refers to the tendency
to see a dominant discourse type as “commonsense” as “the naturalization of a discourse
type” (Fairclough, 1992 : 91) which is a process by which discourse types appear to be
neutral, obvious, in the best interests of all, and divorced of any link with the interests of
groups or individuals. Teachers expressed the view that the students were there ‘to learn
English’ and that students had to be exposed to English.

Talking about her ideal way of teaching a second language, three respondents maintained that
the immersion method would be far more productive. Teachers often used the watery
metaphor of immersion or submersion by maintaining that an English-only classroom was
effective because: “I think you immerse in the target language, they learn much more”
(Marcia). This quote suggests that the term ‘immersion’, meaning something like ‘completely
surrounded by and enveloped in the target language with no intrusion of the first language
have entered teachers’ vocabulary to the point that it appeared almost devoid of any

112
connotation. The term has thus lost its specific meaning used in the literature on bilingual
education. It is probable that most teachers were unaware of its origins in Canadian research
into the education of English-speaking children through the medium of French (Hamers &
Blanc: 2000).

There are three problems with this blurring of the meaning of the term ‘immersion’. First, the
teachers quoted here appear to be claiming the benefits of ‘immersion’ while not actually
implementing it in accordance with the principles or design of the programs whose success
has led to the popularisation of the term. In discussing evaluations of bilingual programs,
Cummins (1988) points out those key features of the Canadian French immersion programs
often quoted as successful are: bilingual teachers, modified input in L2, and a strong focus
on the development of L1 literacy skills. In other words, immersion has a component of L1
education and certainly has a principled approach to the place of L1 within the L2
instructional environment. In contrast, the teachers reported here appear to see a limited place
for L1 in the class and did not articulate a principled approach to its role within the
curriculum. ‘Immersion’ has become equated with the ‘direct method’ practice of minimising
L1 use in the classroom.

The second problem is that immersion is may not be an appropriate model for EAL children.
As Auerbach (1995: 25) points out, immersion research has been carried out on second
language acquisition in children and results suggest that immersion instruction is effective
only for learners from dominant language groups who enjoy support for and approval of their
L1 at home and in society, which is not the case for most linguistic minorities in England.
Studies conducted in England suggest that EAL learners become ‘submersed’ rather than
‘immersed’ in a language that they do not understand, which can result in demotivation and
lack of learning (Franson: 1999). The third implication is that, under this mindset students
who do not succeed academically or who have difficulties in accessing and mastering the
mainstream academic discourse are likely to be viewed as needing remediation and
accordingly placed in low-streamed classes. When discussing the situation in the England,
Bourne (2007) cautions against: …”placing of early stage learners of English as a second
language in ‘low ability’ groups, often alongside children with behavioural and other
problems. In this way, these students are trapped into a remedial curriculum of facts and basic
skills, while others are introduced to ways of accessing, interpreting and questioning
knowledge, learning to control and produce the symbolic order” (Bourne, 2007: 7).

113
6.2 English as ‘the common good’
The rationale for minimising L1 was to force EAL students to communicate and express
meaning in lessons in the target language. Interviewees were also specifically asked about
their teaching approaches and the modifications that they made to respond to the needs of the
bilingual pupils. They responded with comments such as “I suppose I just gradually
explained the language” (Sheila) or “I try to break up the language when necessary” (Mike).
It seemed that respondents were drawing upon their general teaching knowledge and common
sense in describing how they approached the teaching of EAL teaching. Thus in the given
situation of no consistent policy for bilingual learners the classroom, most interviewees
demonstrated a limited understanding of how language is acquired in a mainstream classroom
environment. Beliefs such as, “hopefully it will just arrive”(Nadia) or “young children pick
up so fast” (Clara) indicated a lack of understanding of the optimal conditions and various
processes needed for bilingual pupils to learn the language necessary for accessing the
mainstream curriculum. Interviewed teachers also alluded to this ‘naturally occurring
phenomenon’ in statements such as, “children learn naturally” (Marcia). This meant in
practice that there was little understanding among those respondents about the processes of
second language acquisition or how to plan to best meet the needs of bilingual children.

Consideration of respondents’ stated beliefs indicated that there is not a clear and systematic
way of describing a pedagogic approach to teaching EAL students. Respondents’ reported
practices seemed to be influenced by the belief that bilingual children needed to be
monolingual in order to succeed, which suggests that the focus for academic success must be
on the development of English at the expense of other languages pupils. Talking about their
ideal way of learning a second language, their responses to the question asking about their
views on the ‘English only’ approach in the EAL classroom revealed not only feelings related
to a lack of specific training on teaching EAL but also reflected a lack of consistent support
for the teaching of EAL in schools. In both theoretical terms and methodological terms,
excluding the first language from the classroom was often framed as an inevitable part of
ensuring that EAL students had enough input in English to cope with the national curriculum.
Consequently most informants were either unaware of ― or in disagreement with the large
body of international research and literature pointing to the value of a bilingual approach
(Baker: 1996; Grosjean: 1995; Pavlenko: 2003a; Cook: 1995, 1999, 2007).

114
To a large extent, the data findings echoed Nieto’s (2004) findings from her case studies in
the United States. Nieto (2004) is particularly critical of the dominance of subject matter on
pedagogy in secondary schools. Nieto claims that teachers’ pedagogy is influenced by their
lack of knowledge and/or understandings concerning the diversity of their students and
information about how this may affect learning (Nieto: 2004). Her particular criticisms, that
subject matter dominates pedagogy in secondary school education, and that teaching from the
point of view of students is language and culture is uncommon, raised important issues
aligned well with the findings of this thesis. Nieto (2004) interrogates whether teachers
employ constructivist techniques, in which students’ knowledge and experience is closely
integrated into their learning or whether they are simply grafted on to otherwise traditional,
instrumental or institutional modes of teaching. In Nieto’s (2004) view, most educational
policy still reflects a monolingual and monocultural bias, many teachers attempt to treat all
students in the same way, reflecting the assumption that “equal means the same” (Nieto,
2004: 107) but instead she insisted that teachers should” learn about and from their students”
(Nieto, 2004: 161).

6.3 Congruence and dissonance of teachers’ stated beliefs with EAL

discourse
Although there might be advice and materials produced to schools and/or Local Educational
authorities (LEAs) in order to assist mainstream teachers to meet the need of their EAL
students in terms of support, advice and access to materials (i.e. LEAs, central government
and TDA websites) there is no agreed framework of EAL development that will help teachers
to plan, monitor and evaluate the progress of their EAL learners. Furthermore, there is no
nationally recognised EAL specialist teaching qualification that would help bring consensus
to the knowledge and expertise of the EAL teachers working in the field, nor is there
inclusion of an explicit programme of study for teaching EAL learners at the initial teacher
training level. As a result of this, from an early stage in the data analysis it was evident that
the participants of this study did not understand the theoretical challenges associated with
EAL teaching. Teaching their own their subject specialism as well as planning for the
language learning for EAL students require additional elements that were not evident in most
participants’ teaching repertoires (Gibbons: 2009).

In fact, where language was concerned, the participants of this study appeared to be unclear
about what aspects to teach (subject knowledge) and how to teach it (pedagogical content

115
knowledge) and whether or not the use L1 could be beneficial in the context of EAL
teaching. The challenges for EAL Teaching that emerge from international literature include
inter alia, recognising the language demands of a subject (Coffin: 2006a); amplification
rather than simplification of teaching materials in order to provide high challenge lessons
with high support (van Lier & Walqui: 2010) and extensive and methodical use of oral
language including strategic use of students’ L1 (Zwiers: 2006). In order to respond
effectively to the need of bilingual learners, professional knowledge in the context of EAL
must emerge through an interweaving of policy knowledge, an understanding of second
language acquisition theories and planning models of language to use with EAL pupils. One
of the consequences of this is that the teachers in the context of EAL are bound to work out
their own viewpoints in relation to EAL policy and practice.

Interviewees interpreted and responded to EAL teaching practice in ways which reflected a
blend of personal and professional concerns. When one of the teachers claimed for instance
“I cannot use [students’ L1] …the best way to go about to teach them the target language”
(Nadia), it was a highly personal response. When another teacher claimed that “my aim is to
get them to understand. I tolerate L1 use in my classroom but ultimately, students will have to
learn English” (Luke) it was a professional response invoking the concern of a subject
teacher to help students understand content. In fact, while interviewees felt relatively
confident in discussing ways they implemented inclusion strategies for their EAL learners in
their classroom, they seemed less skilful in describing issues relating to language such as how
they engaged students in academic discourse, how they assisted the language development of
their EAL students, or establishing whether L1 should be used. Creese (2002) acknowledges
the unequal status difference between EAL and other subject area and the unequal balance of
attention to language versus content teaching. An emphasis on language issues targeted to the
language and culture needs of EAL students, coupled with systematic institutional support
structure in providing adequate language training seem essential to the effective balance of
language versus content teaching in teachers’ repertoires.

6.4 Disjunctions between policymakers and implementers

An incidental finding from the interviews is worthy of mention given the frequency with
which it was mentioned. When discussing EAL policy, seven interviewees mentioned that
they no knowledge of their school policy in relation to EAL teaching. As a result many
teachers’ responses were based on their hypothesising on what should be the best teaching

116
approach for EAL learners rather than on sufficient theoretical awareness of EAL teaching..
Contrary to the current emphasis on providing students with both high challenge and high
support (Gibbons: 2009), it was not easy for interviewees to describe specific teaching
techniques to support language learning. Two teachers (Mike and Sheila) believed that EAL
students benefit from generic teacher practices and explained that EAL teaching involved
reducing content to simple concepts to make it accessible to learners, while two others (Clara
and Lore) considered English language learning to be an issue outside the remit of content
instruction. These views are problematic in the context of EAL teaching as “it creates an
environment where students’ opportunities to learn are restricted” (Wedin, 2010: 181). In
other words, identifying clear models of language directly related to the substance of subject-
oriented lessons and stretching students both linguistically and cognitively in lessons is not
linear and straightforwardly topdown (Yanow: 1996).

Another major tension that emerged from the interviews was the place of the first language in
the classroom. There were marked differences among teachers in their espoused beliefs on
the use of L1 in the classroom. Their approaches fell into three categories: Strongly
Supportive of Biliteracy and Bilingualism (SSBB); Transitionally Supportive of Biliteracy
and Bilingualism (TSBB); and English Literacy Oriented (ELO), and led to some quite
distinctive differences in their reported practices. This is unsurprising due to fact that there is
no is no consensus in policy statements about whether schools and teachers should view
student’s bilingualism as means of facilitating transition into English, which was its
perceived role for many years under Section 11, or whether teachers should use EAL
students’ languages “ as they implement the National Curriculum. (NCC, 1991: 1). This
illustrates the consequences of teachers’ being caught in the policy and practice nexus
(Stronach et al., 2002) where teachers were negotiating not only discourses and policies about
their specialized subjects but also how they mediate EAL practice in the light of their own
beliefs about teaching and the constraints that operate on them in the classroom.
.
Indeed, as noted by several respondents, the language ‘policy vacuum’ in secondary schools
has resulted in ad hoc arrangement in terms of support services and resources for bilingual
pupils. An important example of this is the concept of withdrawal from the classroom for
language study. Some respondents reported that their schools still retained an approach of
placing new arrivals into Language Units despite condemnation from the Commission for
Racial Equality (CRE) who considers such segregated provision as a form of institutionalised

117
racism (CRE :1986). The argument put forward by the CRE is that withdrawing children and
young people from mainstream classrooms results in stigmatization, reinforces the notion of
‘deficit’ and ‘difference’ and restricts learners’ access to the full curriculum available in
schools. Schools across London operate some withdrawal provision, however, despite its use
being mentioned as a real cause for concern by some researchers from cognitive and social,
as well as linguistic perspectives (Franson: 1999). According to Bourne and McPake (1991)
where learners are ‘withdrawn’ from the mainstream classroom, this can be a sign of
institutional failure, although within the institution concerned, the ‘problem’ is likely to be
located in the individual learner.

6.5 Teachers’ reported practices on the use of L1

The second research question was framed to draw out understandings of L1 and its
relationship to teachers’ practices and planning. In terms of the teachers’ role in facilitating
and supporting L1 of minority children in the classroom, de Jong and Harper (2005) argue
that mainstream classroom teachers are influenced by their way of using English as a
language of instruction for their students and do not realise how important their approach is
within their classroom for the use of L1. This happens according to them because they may
have a misleading understanding by seeing the use of L1 as a barrier in learning English,
instead of considering how the use of L1 can support their students’ academic learning. As a
result, those teachers in this category may promote using only English in their classroom and
encourage the students and their parents to use only English in their communication when
this is actually detrimental potentially to their bilingual students’ development.

The data seemed to support the proposition that insights from practice inform professional
knowledge and beliefs, sometimes reinforcing them and sometimes challenging them. Of the
several ways that native language use in instruction could be successfully implemented
included teachers pairing students with the same L1 but different levels of English
proficiency and experience. This strategy allowed more fluent students to help the less fluent
ones with language to clarify instructions and to assist in explaining content-area material.
This appeared to be something important to many teachers, as expressed in this comment:
question for her” “explain[ing] it to each other” ”telling them what to do in Persian”. The
help, then, seemed to involve both linguistic and procedural elements. The linguistic elements
are translation of a word, into or out of L1, or the explanation of an English concept in L1,

118
while the procedural elements are asking a question on behalf of another student, or relaying
the teacher’s instructions for an activity.

Another practice consisted of teachers encouraging EAL students to use bilingual dictionaries
when they did not understand instructions in English, to look up unfamiliar words or to
confirm their understanding of partially known L2 lexical. One persistent problem for
secondary school EAL students to acquire the medium to high frequency vocabulary is to build
up and expand their vocabulary repertoire to cope with the monolingual curriculum, which may
take up to 5-6 years of language study according to Nation (Nation :2003). Coady (1997b)
calls this ‘the beginner's paradox’ and provides some answers to the dilemma: The solution
that he offers is teaching around 3,000 most frequently occurring words which would
supplement the learners’ extensive reading. Coady (1997b) also talks about how translating a
second language (L2) word into a first language (L1) equivalent is essential. In the same train
of thoughts, Nation (2003) suggests providing a list of high frequency words in English and
their translation in different languages and adds: ‘‘forget all the criticism you have heard
about rote learning and translation; research has repeatedly shown that such learning is very
effective’’ (Laufer et al., 2005 : 6).

The positive ways of referring to L1 tended to reflect an empathic, pastoral view of the role
of L1 rather than a view of it as positive in the language learning process. Teachers who
supported L1 use gave reasons based on an ecological perspective. Of the teacher’s role
rather than a linguistic or pedagogic view of the role of L1 in second language learning. One
participant shared classroom strategies indicative of such practices: “I encourage students to
teach us relevant things regarding their native language and I attempt to create a safe
environment where students do not feel penalized for their native language” (Lore).
These comments confirm that there are indeed a number of feasible and practical ways that
mainstream teachers can successfully incorporate the native languages of their EAL students
into classroom practices (Freeman & Freeman: 1993; Lucas & Katz: 1994; Tikunoff: 1991).

Other common classroom strategies included was the use of visuals such as such as pictures,
charts, semantic mapping intended to help bilingual students negotiate meaning and make
connections between lessons content and their prior knowledge. These strategies are in tune
with Duverger‘s (2005) ‘micro-alternation’, which he describes as the use of hybrid language
and instructional practices by both teachers and students (Duverger; 2005, 93). While macro-

119
alternation is programmed and institutionalised, micro-alternation adds flexibility and
suppleness in terms of language choice and practice (Duverger: 2005). Because EAL does not
have clear curricular arrangements for macro-alternation of languages, the micro-alternation
of languages adds both coherence and credibility to an ecological approach to EAL teaching.

6.6 A possible paradigm shift

A starting-point for language teaching could be the recognition that the second language user
is a particular kind of person in their own right with their own knowledge of the first
language (L1) and the second language (L2), rather than a monolingual with an added L2
(Cook: 2001). The importance is highlighted even more by the fact that the students’ culture
is part of their language and by neglecting their language the teacher, in a monolingual
classroom, neglects their culture, which leads to the danger of neglecting their identity as
bilingual learners. What is more, there is no valid database that could confirm the standpoint
that the monolingual approach in teaching is the best one. The disregard of the students’
mother tongue can in fact de-motivate the students and be counterproductive. Therefore, there
is neither a scientific nor a pedagogic reason to exclude L1 in the classroom. Harmer (2001)
contends that translation is a natural thing to do in learning a language, and code-switching
between L1 and L2 is regarded as ‘naturally developmental’. He argues “No one is in any
doubt that students will use their L1 in class, whatever teachers say or do” (Harmer: 2001).

In reflecting on possible ways forward, there appears to be a particularly critical link between
teachers ‘espoused beliefs about the use of L1 in the classroom and language awareness.
James and Garrett (1991) describe the concept of language awareness in Language
Awareness in the Classroom (1991) where they divide the concept of LA into five different
domains, which are:
 Affective: The feelings of learners towards language awareness or language learning
activities.
 Social: The improvement of inter-ethnic relations through an understanding of
language variety.
 Power: An understanding of the ways language can be used to manipulate others by
those who have access to the media such as governments, churches, or commercial
organisations.
 Cognitive: The analysis of forms and functions of language.

120
  Performance: The issue of whether knowledge about language affects language
behaviour.

From a teacher’s perspective, it is a main concern that the concept of language awareness is
incorporated into teacher education. Wright (2002) argues that a major goal of L2 teacher
education should be “to develop an overall sensitivity to language—their [teachers’]
linguistic radar, as it were” (Wright, 2002: 115). He adds that: “A linguistically aware teacher
not only understands how the language works, but understands the students’ struggle with
language and is sensitive to errors and other interlanguage features. The linguistically aware
teacher can spot opportunities to generate discussion and exploration of language, for
example by noticing features of texts which suggest a particular learning activity “(Wright,
2002: 115)

Raising teachers’ language awareness (TLA) may enable them to draw on various points of
the continua of biliteracy model which is “about opening up ideological and
implementational space in the environment for as many languages as possible” (Hornberger,
2003: 318). Recent developments in computer assisted language learning, together with the
greater availability of computers in the classroom might provide challenge the literacy
practices in the community and school classrooms. Although ‘computers have been used for
language teaching since the 1960s’ (Warschauer & Healey, 1998: 57), widespread use of
information and communication technology (ICT) in language teaching and learning has only
really occurred over the past decade with the development of multimedia resources and the
Internet. Warschauer and Healey (1998) maintain that computer-assisted language learning
(CALL) has mirrored the broad progression of educational theory as regards foreign language
learning from behaviourist to communicative to the post-communicative phase.

In their overview of the history and development of CALL, Warschauer and Healey (1998)
identify four CALL ‘stages’ – namely, ‘Behaviouristic’ CALL (from the 1960s to the 1970s)
‘Communicative’ CALL (from the 1970s to the 1980s); ‘Integrative’ CALL (from the 1980s
to the 1990s); and finally ‘Intelligent’ CALL (from 2000s onwards). The last stage is the
focus of current researches since this can be seen to represent the future in terms of IT in the
EAL classroom. The rationale for the ‘Intelligent’ CALL stage (Warschauer & Healey: 1998)
is that the intelligent power of the computer could be utilised to for language maintenance
purpose. Intelligent CALL may provide a link between home and school literacies via

121
interactive and communicative support for listening, speaking, reading, and writing, including
extensive use of the Internet for biliteracy development and bilingualism in mainstream
schools (Chambers & Davies : 2001).

Chapter 7
Conclusion chapter

This final chapter evaluates the study by restating its aims and looking at the key findings of
the research project. Further implications for educational policy and practice in multilingual
England will be explored and suggestions are put forward for further research action.
The aim of the research was to explore mainstream teachers’/ EAL teachers’ beliefs and
reported practices on the use of L1 in EAL context in secondary schools in London
(England). The nature of phenomenological research is to generate discussion, rather than
reach any firm conclusions because it suggests a finality and surety which cannot be defended
(Moustakas: 1994). However this section provides an opportunity to acknowledge that the
study is not coming to a firm conclusion but to consider implications or ways forward in
policy, practice and research which bears close relationship to the interpretations of the
research. The emerging picture from the research can be summarized as follow:

In order to seek answers to the research questions established for the present study, I
employed a qualitative study with a single instrument, which relied heavily on interviews
being used to collect the data. The data were collected within a period of seven months, from
October 2008 to April 2009, then analysed according to themes in order to throw light on the
research questions. Because teachers’ beliefs are tacit, unobservable and context-bound, and

122
teachers may have difficulties in articulating them, the use of appropriate research strategies
to make those beliefs explicit is critical. Hornberger’s (1989, 1990, 2002, 2003 & 2004)
continuum of biliteracy approach was helpful and informative as a heuristic contextualising
the study of teacher's beliefs and reported practices on the use of L1 in mainstream
classroom. It has proved to be a useful framework to assist not only in understanding
teachers' cognition on the topic, but also in teasing out the range of contextual factors that
may be impacting on individual experience and practice.

In Chapter five, I discussed the findings of the study with reference to the research questions
and in relation to previous research studies. The aim of this final chapter is to provide some
policy recommendations to the DfES, to LEAs and schools based on the research findings
and to make some suggestions about further research work in relation to understanding the
educational needs of mixed EAL pupils.

7.1 Implications for the education of EAL students

While government discourse on the use of L1 in school context may be more positive than it
was over the past few decades as seen in chapter two, the discourse of linguistic assimilation
is still prevalent in many of the government documents which make reference to the
languages of immigrants in Britain (Leung : 2011). In spite of the fact that positive references
are increasingly being made about bilingualism, the concept does not translate into National
Curriculum content, where the use of L1 in the classroom is still barely mentioned. In chapter
two, I explained how EAL pupils have been over the years invisible from school and LEA
policy and that as a consequence of this, their specific needs in terms of language
maintenance are not being fully met within the educational system. For example, primary
schools are authorised to teach any language but only 1% choose to teach the languages
spoken in the homes of their pupils (Anderson et al: 2008). Some secondary schools offer
community languages at GCSE but their number is very small. Evidence from the Turkish
community (Dedezade: 2011) suggests that this is increasingly being offered out-of-hours,
rather than as part of the time-tabled curriculum.

The recognition in official educational documents of 'Languages Other than English' does
little to challenge the overwhelmingly monolingual orientation of the National Curriculum as
whole, which makes very little reference to bilingualism and consequently, there are
particular gaps in the approach for children who use more than one language. However, there

123
is an increasing criticism of this ‘rich resource’ view of other languages as it does little more
than ‘celebrate’ bilingualism to indicate moral and social approval (Bourne :2001; Creese:
2000; Martin-Jones & Saxena: 1996). In fact, the underlying philosophy of EAL educational
policies and practices tends to have a monoglossic orientation that considers that English
must ‘sheltered’ from students’ other languages. For instance, research shows that neither in
policy documents nor in practice, bilingual teachers and bilingual assistants receive any
encouragement to expand their role in using other languages for the teaching of the subject
curriculum beyond transition to English (Creese, et al. 2003).

Although it is evident that fresh thinking is required to align EAL teaching with government
rhetoric which refers to the “mother tongue as an asset, something to be nurtured” (DES,
1975, 293-294), there are a number of hopeful signs to suggest that an interest in linguistic
diversity and language policy formation has certainly increased since constitutional change in
England. The DfES has recently contributed in putting the language needs of EAL learners
onto the agenda of LEAs and schools and in particular to create an awareness of the needs to
value their language heritage. For instance in a document entitled ‘Aiming High: Raising the
Achievement of Minority Ethnic Pupils’, the DfES presented a case study of a primary school
that ‘has developed a programme of support for promoting the use of pupils’ first language
with the aim of raising achievement’, describing the strategies the school has employed and
the ‘focused and targeted teaching which draws on pupils’ bilingual skills. Pupils are
encouraged to use their first language skills by ‘partner talk’ during whole class teaching,
paired or small group independent work and effective use of adults who share first languages
with the pupils’ (Bourne, 2002: 31). Strategies for drawing on children’s first languages at
school have been proposed and exemplified in UK policy documents (DfES: 2003a; DfES:
2006). However, to be most effective, schools and teachers need to go further in ensuring that
the model is not simply one of transitional bilingualism, where the first language is used only
to the extent necessary for a child to achieve competence in the second language.

7.2 Implications for language and linguistics in education

The second implication of the findings of this study relates to the first, but extends the lack of
theory in education to the uneasy and uncertain relationship between linguistics and language
in education. A significant finding from this study is that where teachers have limited or
almost no access to SLA theories, they tend to rely on their own experiential knowledge and
the experiential knowledge of others in their community of practice. A more robust theory of

124
language in education would take account of the similarities of cognitive, social and linguistic
developmental needs of children from all backgrounds.

As seen in chapter 2, historically both the national and local governments have implemented
policies to discourage teaching and learning of non-English ‘mother tongues’. Little, if any,
status was given to Gujarati, notwithstanding government rhetoric which, for example,
referred to the ‘mother tongue as an asset, something to be nurtured’ (DES, 1975, 293-294).
Despite this, there are still particular gaps in the approach for children who use more than one
language. Thus, what is needed for the future is language education policy that is a more
sustained language policy that could be used as guidance for teacher on how to support
students’ bilingualism, regardless of their own language abilities. Therefore the task of all
educators in London today is to pay attention and support the singularities of students’
language practices in the pluralities that make up London’s classrooms in the present.

Language education policies should involve teachers in negotiating the moment-by-moment,

sense-making, instructional decisions (Garcia: 2010). This study supports the proposition of
van Lier (2002) that teachers should take a moment-by-moment ecological approach to
teaching. That is, teachers should realise that both the students and themselves are placed in
charge of a ‘sensitive learning ecology’ (Hornberger: 2006) In other words curriculum
teachers as language planners should “reflect critically on the context and content of their
teaching, and to uncover the communicative repertoires that students bring to school and that
can serve as resources for their language and literacy development” (Hornberger, 2004 :168).
The paradigmatic nature of the challenge for teachers, schools and policy makers is to
overcome dichotomies found in linguistics and education (i.e. L1/L2, native speaker/non-
native speakers…) and adopt an ecological perspective, in order to re-conceptualize
language learning as always contextualized, which is of particular relevance for EAL
Teaching.

Continua of Biliteracy are best summed up by Baker (2003) who states: “The Continua
prompt us to ask an extensive and expansive set of questions about literacy evaluation,
seeking re-framing and re-analysis and avoiding a standard description or a simplistic
conclusion”(Baker, 2003: 75).

7.3 Implication for Teacher education and language diversity

125
The third implication from this study is that mainstream teachers in England are being
inadequately prepared for providing support to the increasing numbers of bilingual children
in mainstream schools. The majority of teachers who participated in this study indicated that
they had received no training, either pre-or in-service training in Teaching EAL. This does
entail an over-reliance on Teachers’ disciplinary thinking. This oversight may suggest to
teachers that language is of either little or no consequence in comparison to subject matter,
or, that there are few connections between language and disciplinary thinking. In this way,
the status quo, where secondary teachers operate in silos of disciplinary expertise is
maintained.

Consequently if curriculum teachers’ beliefs about L1 use and more broadly about language
learning are to change, initial teacher education needs to include explicit and pre service or in
service training. The PGCE (Post-graduate Certificate in Education) programme might be a
good place to start with helping teachers to cater for the linguistic needs of EAL students.
Additionally appropriate training through the form of induction courses for in-service
teachers in the areas of language awareness would be most useful in helping them to put their
instinctual understanding of issues around L1 maintenance and L2 acquisition. Van Lier
(1995) describes the approach as follow: “Language awareness work relies on noticing the
language around us, and examining it in a critical manner“(van Lier 1995: 10). Without these
actions, it is unlikely that courses and therefore curriculum teachers’ attitudes to language
attitudes towards L2 students’ bilingualism (within the EAL context in England) will change.

7.4 Limitations of the Study

Experiencing limitations is a part of any research study and needs to be taken into
consideration by the reader. I shall outline three main types of limitations that this study
presents.
The first pertains to small scale nature of the research project. While this study may shed
light on some important issues in relation to the understandings of mainstream/EAL
secondary school teachers’ practices, this study was small-scale and interview-based with the
intent of having new teachers reflect on their practice and experience. I deliberately did not
set out to observe or evaluate their teaching performance. While this could be another useful
area of study, the focus of this study was on how teachers articulate their experiences
and the importance of this for teacher education and teacher commitment. The research of
others and the analysis of policy were used extensively to enrich the analysis in this thesis.

126
As a result of this reasoning, this study required a qualitative approach to understand the
phenomenon holistically. As mentioned in chapter three, Pajares (1992) claims that “beliefs
cannot be directly observed or measured but must be inferred from what people say, intend,
and do fundamental prerequisites that educational researchers have seldom followed”
(Pajares, 1992 : 314). Despite the shortcomings of the interview method, which include
being time-consuming (in post-interview transcription, coding etc.), a lack of strict
comparability between studies, I decided that it would be the most suitable methods of data
collection for this study. It enabled me to collect a large amount of qualitative data and
provided me with more in depth information pertaining to my research questions.

Lastly there are limitations inherent to undertaking research that focuses on multicultural
population in my position as a product of European scholarship (Garcia: 2009). The challenge
of empathising with teachers coming from a similar background as myself ― products of
predominantly ‘white colleges of teacher education’ (Nieto: 1996) with ‘white ideals and
values’ (Nieto: 1996), yet at the same time probing their thoughts and critiquing traditional
long-standing beliefs of teachers who were not linguistically, culturally and
socioeconomically aligned with the diverse EAL population was not an easy undertaking. In
order to do this, my actions have been approached on every occasion as a ‘fresh
phenomenon’, trying to set aside my own judgements about the expected reality and holding
up everything for scrutiny as advised by Holliday (2007).
Despite all these limitations, I believe the study has some significant contributions to add to
an understanding of teachers’ beliefs in terms of research methodology and theoretical
understanding with reference to teacher pre service/in service and professional development.

7.5 Suggestions for further research

There are a number of areas in which further research in the area of language in education
would be of benefit, particularly through approaching the issues from other perspectives.
Given the media interest in the cognitive benefits of bilingualism (Guardian, February 2011),
future research could focus on EAL students' beliefs and reported L1 practices in school
contexts or at home. An obvious area for further research within the language ecology
framework is the investigation of school based action research projects to identify and to
develop specific strategies for meeting the educational needs of EAL learners.

127
A second area of potential research is in classroom-based practice which incorporates a
bilingual approach, to complement studies such as Vine's (2000; 2003a, 2003b) micro-level
analysis focusing on the development of English in bilingual learners. It would also be of
interest to investigate these issues from the teachers' or the children's perspectives. In
addition, the relationship between the fields of linguistics and education needs further
research, in order to clarify the points of tension raised in this study and to suggest ways to
strengthen areas of common interest.

7.6 Final thoughts

Now that I have reached the end of the doctoral experience, a clearer picture of the whole
thesis process emerges, what I went through at every step of the way, and what were the
forces that gave this thesis its present shape. First I need to address the paradoxical situation
that I found myself in this study. To critique practices of EAL is to risk aligning oneself with
conservative forces and to be understood as resisting immigration, multilingualism. Who
could be against teaching immigrants students English?

EAL as a field is generally recognised as inherently progressive and any criticism is

represented as inevitably from the anti-immigrant right. It is especially difficult to change the
institutional culture that creates educational spaces, via discursive practices and curricular
arrangements, where students’ other language (or languages) are kept apart (Creese: 2008).
Education researchers claim that any language education approach that does not acknowledge
and build upon the hybrid language practices and the translanguaging in bilingual
communities is more concerned with controlling language behaviour than in educating
(Cummins 2007; Garcia :2009, Makoni & Pennycook: 2007). I concur with Garcia (2009)
who asserts that responding to the greater bilingual complexity of the twenty-first century
requires the construct of bilingualism to be re-examined. Bilingualism is not a linear
construct, it is dynamic. A dynamic (Garcia: 2009) or a flexible (Creese Blackledge: 2010)
view of bilingualism is in tune with an ecological approach to language teaching that may
guide teachers and policy-makers to conceptualize approaches to foster multiliteracies in
mainstream classrooms.

Throughout this study I have questioned the nature of the cultural models which influences
the practice of mainstream teachers. To challenge “naturalised stable positions involves first
and foremost a break with common sense that is the representation shared by all” (Bourdieu

128
cited by Kell, 1995: 3). ‘Yes, I only have one language, yet it is not mine’—a refrain that
repeatedly echoes throughout Derrida’s’ Monolingualism of the Other ‘(1998), and one that
drew me into this work, and which made me realize and that the existing practice for
monolinguals being adopted as the status quo in education, owed a large part of its success to
the use and dissemination of a common sense discourse about what constitutes the “common
good.” And this is the crux of what I sought to explore in this thesis. In order to confront the
embedded ideologies in EAL frameworks, we need to reflect on Derrida’s (1994) argument in
the essay Monolingualism of the Other, that we are all “thrown in absolute translation,
without an origin language, without a source language”(Derrida, 1998: 61) but yet he
concludes :‘You see, never will this language be mine’. And truth to tell, it never was’
(Derrida, 1998: 2).

Appendix 1 : Participants’ profiles

.

Participant 1
Lindsay earned a master’s degree in English and a PhD in ESOL at the University of
Nottingham, specializing in Teaching English to Chinese students. Additionally, Lindsay has
taught English to mainstream students in Newcastle as well as in London. Lindsay is fully
fluent in two languages which are Scandinavian (Swedish) and English, English being the
major language which she uses in her daily social life. Because of her educational
background and the personal experience, Lindsay believed people have abilities to be fluent
in many languages. Lindsay scholarly interests focused on multicultural and bilingual
education. She thought children will benefit more from the advantages of bilingualism than
adults. Therefore, Lindsay devoted herself to the research of the monolingual and bilingual
development of young children. She encouraged parents to maintain children’s native
language proficiency and allow them to explore to other languages as well.
Participant 2
Lore earned her B.A. in English and her master’s degree in education from Cambridge
University. She was a doctoral student at the London institute of Education, pursing a
doctoral degree in English Education (EDD) at the time of this writing. Prior to that, she

129
taught in various mainstream secondary schools in inner city London for 25 years, as well a
supply teacher in several secondary schools over a period of 3 years. Lore, who was fully
fluent in English and French and had achieved intermediate level proficiency in Italian. Lore
stated that German, her native language, being born and raised in Munich, Germany;
however, upon arriving in England in the 1970’s English became her primary language. At
the time of this writing Lore exclusively spoke English in her daily social and higher
education life; she only used German on rare occasions. Lore indicated being in England for
over 30 years made her almost ‘lose’ her native language. Lore stated that she believed
children can learn more than one language at the same time and without confusion; therefore,
teachers should offer opportunities for children to discover multiple languages.
Participant 3
At the time of this writing Marcia had worked as a Language teacher in West London for
over 10 years. Before coming to teaching, she was a language tutor for adults (in German,
French and Italian) working for the Italian embassy in London for more than 5 years. Marcia
was born and reared in Italy, making Italian her first language; while studying in Rome, in
Italy, Marcia went abroad to Germany for her B.A. in languages, making her fluent in
German as well. In addition to those two languages, Marcia has some working knowledge of
Spanish. Being bilingual herself, Marcia valued multilingualism and multiculturalism but also
believed that acquiring English and operating monolingual and immigrant learners was
crucial for their integration.
Participant 4
After graduation with a Bachelor of Arts in Engineering, Luke worked as a supply teacher in
London, teaching mainly Science. Following 3 years of work, he enrolled in the London
Institute of education and earned his QTS and pursed his master’s degree in education on a
part time basis, concentrating in mathematics education. Luke is a Londoner, originally from
Ireland, who was bred up in a monolingual environment. While Luke was in secondary
school, he learned Spanish and French the primary reason for learning Languages was to pass
his language exams for his A levels ; therefore, he claimed he paid attention only to the
textbooks instead of speaking the languages. Based on her erroneous notion, Luke failed to
acquire proficiency in those languages and believed that being able to speak foreign
languages was essential for his students.
Participant 5
At the time of this writing, Nadia was a mainstream teacher in West London. She earned a
B.A. in language studies (English and Italian) and later earned both of her master degree in

130
languages and a doctorate in education in France. Nadia was an English teacher before she
moved to London for in the late 1990’s. Nadia scholarly work in the decade prior to this
research concentrated on English literature .Although her Doctoral thesis was on the topic of
English literature rather than English teaching methodology, Nadia had never considered
career other than teaching. At the time of the study she was the head of the foreign languages
of the school, having taught mainly French for over a decade in the same school in West
London. In addition to her school teaching, she provided several hours of private tuition for
her EAL learners, giving them English support. Nadia was reared in a Tunisian family,
making her fluent in Arabic and French. She believed that learning languages was essential
for her students but was unsure whether her EAL students should be encouraged to speak
their languages at school.
Participant 6,
Sheila was 42 years old at the outset of the study and this was the beginning of her twentieth
and last year in the current job. After twenty years of working as a mathematics Teacher and
Head of Department, Sheila stated she had recently been made redundant at her school,
despite a very strong teaching and educational background. After she obtained her MA
degree in mathematics from Brunel University in the late eighties, Sheila left England and
worked in India as a Mathematics teacher. Upon her return in 1990, she started her
professional career as a secondary mathematics teacher. Sheila spoke fluent Hindi and
Guajarati and has some working
knowledge of Punjabi. She believed EAL children should be encouraged to speak their
native languages at home.
Participant 7
Steeve was colleague, coming from a family with a strong teaching background in Wales. He
was 52 at the start of the project, with over 25 years of teaching experience all gained at the
same comprehensive school in West London. Steeve was the only secondary school teacher
in the research sample who had taught EAL students in withdrawal classes and therefore
specialized in teaching EAL. However, at the time of the study he was teaching dyslexic
students in withdrawal classes although he never formally trained in teaching SEN, holding a
degree in English literature from Wales. In addition to his school teaching, he provided
several hours of private tuition in his personal time, teaching English as a Second language to
mostly Somali, Hindi and Punjabi speaking students. Steeve stated that learning English had
a place in the lives of EAL students beyond the classrooms.
Participant 8

131
Clara, with four years of teaching experience at the outset of the project, was the only
mainstream teacher school teacher in the research sample and who had decided to resign from
her work as a secondary school Art teacher. At her school, she held responsibilities of a class
teacher and was a regular enthusiastic participant in various educational projects around art,
especially photography and painting workshops. At the time of the project, however, Clara
was considering attending University to better her education with a master’s in Art and hoped
to work in an Art gallery in London. Clara was a keen language learner, who had attended
French classes after her work, mostly evening classes and stated that, as a monolingual
English speaker, she felt it was essential for her to learn languages given the rich linguistic
diversity of London.

Appendix 2 Informed consent form

Dear (name of participant),

I’m writing to invite you to participate in a research project as part of my doctoral programme. The
purpose of this study is to explore the ways in which previous life experiences and early teaching
experiences impact on the formation of language teachers’ identity. Your participation in the study
will involve an interview. It may also involve further interviews to analyse in more depth certain
issues identified in your responses to the first interview.

Please be aware that your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from the study
at any time without penalty. I would like to assure you that your responses will be treated in strictest
confidence and no identifying information will be passed to third parties.

Thank you in advance for your support,

________________________

Rachid Belaredj

I _________________________________ agree to participate in the study undertaken by Mr.

Belaredj Rachid and I understand that the purpose of the research is to explore ways in which
previous life experiences and early teaching experiences impact on the formation of language
tea hers ide tities. I a k o ledge that please ti k here appropriate :

1. [ ] the aims and methods of the study have been explained to me.

2. [ ] I voluntarily and freely give my consent to my participation in such study.

132
3. [ ] I understand that the results will be used for research purposes and may be reported in
scientific and academic journals.

4. [ ] Individual results will not be released to any person except at my request and on my
authorization.

5. [ ] I am free to withdraw from the study at any stage and that this will not affect my status now
or in the future.

Signature: _______________________ Date: _______________________

Appendix 3 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Beliefs about the role of first language and translation
1. What do you think is the role of the first language for an EAL learner in learning
English?
2. In what ways, if any, could translation (the use of L1) be beneficial to EAL learners?
3. What do you see as the relationship between an EAL student’s first language and
English?
4. What are your views on the English only approach in the EAL classroom?

Pedagogical practices
5. Do you allow your EAL students to use their native languages in your classroom?
Probe challenges in incorporating use of EAL students’ native languages into classroom
practices.
6. Are there factors which prevent the implementation of translation strategies in EAL
instructions?
7. Do you use native language resources such books, articles, etc. for EAL students
relating to topics of instruction?
8. Do you allow the use of translation strategies (i.e. bilingual dictionaries, computer
aids) in your lessons?
9. Are your students encouraged to use those strategies for their written assignments or
homework?
10. Do you ever notice EAL learners using translation in your lessons?

133
 11. Do you use the services of parents, Teachers’ assistants, or volunteers fluent in the
native languages of your EAL students to assist in explaining content-area material?
12. Please describe any other ways that you incorporate use of your EAL students’ native
languages into classroom practices.

Contextual information
13. Is there a documented school policy on the use of English in the classroom with EAL
learners?
14. What training have you had in teaching students with EAL?
15. What guidance did it provide about the role of the first language? Of translation?

Appendix 4 Teacher individual grid

TEACHER: Lore

Code Coded text Number

Learning from • I trai ed a k i the s a d there as o trai i g

experience for EAL back then.
• When I started training, I was encouraged to use
monolingual strategies.
• I have changed my approach over the years and I try to 3
be ore i lusi e i ter s of stude ts la guages a d ultures.

Lack of support

• There is no EAL specialist expert in my school as far as I

know

• Some of the EAL children are my school are withdrawn so 4

they do not always come to my classes.

• We do not have enough Teaching assistants in my school.

• EAL students are not always sent to my language classes.

134
Lack of school policy

• I am not aware of any documented school policy concerning

EAL
• EAL policy is a policy of total immersion in the target
language
• In my MFL classes I have been instructed to use as much
German and French for my EAL students
5
• I understand EAL policy as a spread of the English only
approach
• EAL poli is pre ised o Krashe s o u i ati e theor .

Respect for • I encourage translation in my lessons : I see it as an

community languages anti-colonial strategy
• As a language teacher, I am especially sensitive to
issues relating to the cultures and languages of my students
• Allowing children to use their language in class is a way
of overcoming linguistic imperialism.
5
• The use of L is fu da e tal for stude ts og iti e
development
• Valui g stude ts L is alui g their ide tities

English only approach

• E ludi g stude ts first la guage is a ideologi al ul de

sa .
• Students will use their L1 no matter what the school policy 4
is.
• Monolingual strategies can be frustrating for EAL students.
• As a former EAL student myself I remember feeling very
frustrated not being able to use my native language

• Encouraging students to use their L1 or to translate is

an act of resistance.
Ways to overcome • Peer input is fundamental for EAL students so I pair them
the up 4
• I use as much bilingual resources such as books, online
English only approach translators, dictionaries that I can.
• Signposts, word cues and welcoming students in several
languages is a way to make them feel valued.

135
Appendix 6 Matergrid

Lore Marcia Sheila

Code Coded text Coded text Coded text Number

Learning from I trained back in the 1980’s I have had no relevant I have had no training in
experience and there was no training training relating to EAL specifically in EAL, my
for EAL back then. training was in Teaching the
Training would have training is such that as a
When I started training, I helped me a lot, teacher you have to be aware
was encouraged to use of your students in terms of
monolingual strategies. especially since my statements (EAL and SEN)
students do not see the and register
I have changed my point of learning a foreign
approach over the years and language In my subject (math) I look at
I try to be more inclusive in accessible ways for them to L:3
terms of students’ languages I wish I had a theoretical access the math even if there is M :4
and cultures. hardly any language involved S:3
course that would have
helped me to approach
I had to change the way I
EAL children taught vocabulary because I
had to make to make it more
I just do my best on the accessible
day to day basis with
EAL students

Lack of There is no EAL specialist .

support expert in my school as far as We are not fortunate We don t have EAL specialist
I know enough of having EAL in my schools.
specialist in my school,
Some of the EAL children not even language However we do have
are my school are assistants in my school withdrawal lessons in my
withdrawn so they do not school.
always come to my classes. Most EAL students are L:4
withdrawn in my Schools There are no resources M :3
We do not have enough from their Modern available for us to use in S:3
Teaching assistants in my Foreign mainstream classes.
school. Language classes

EAL students are not Those I teach just have to

always sent to my language cope in class.
classes.

Lack of school I am not aware of any There is no school policy but L:5

136
policy documented school policy There is no documented there is information about who M :2
concerning EAL school policy in my are EAL in terms of listing and S:2
school. targets.
EAL policy is a policy of
total immersion in the target As far as I know, EAL We record information on the
language students are accompanied computer system about EAL
In my MFL classes I have by Language Tutors that and SEN children in terms of
been instructed to use as help them cope with targets. That also helps to
much German and French English. That is the identify who is EAL and who
for my EAL students language policy of the is SEN. It helps us (teachers)
school as far as I to be aware of them.
I understand EAL policy as understand it.
a spread of the English only
approach

EAL policy is premised on

Krashen’s communicative
theory.

Respect for I encourage translation in I don’t encourage L1 is useful in terms of

community my lessons : I see it as an translation, or the use of transition, especially if
languages anti-colonial strategy L1. I do not feel they are withdrawn from
As a language teacher, I am competent to help certain their classes so they can
especially sensitive to issues students like the Polish use their L1
relating to the cultures and children I teach as I do
languages of my students. not speak their language I encourage them to use their
Allowing children to use L1 in classes. I have no
their language in class is a There is an emphasis in problem with that. L:3
way of overcoming my school for learning M :2
linguistic imperialism. English so languages are If their need to use their L1 in S:3
not valued as they should my math lessons, they are
The use of L1 is be more welcome to do so
fundamental for students’
cognitive development. We do lack resources in my
new school unlike in my
Valuing students’ L1 is precious schools where there
valuing their identities were bilingual dictionaries in
classes.
English only Excluding students’ first English because natural The more we familiarize
approach language is an ideological due to the lack of students with English, the
‘cul de sac’. resources in schools more they pick up

Students will use their L1 Children learn naturally if The more they access English,
no matter what the teacher there are immersed (3 the more they confidence grow
says. months)
In withdrawal lessons, there
English is an international have material in L1 but we
language so it is cannot use them in mainstream L:1
important for them to classes M :4
learn it S:3

Children are immersed in

English, whether we like
it or not it is happening.
That is the situation in
England.

Overcoming Encouraging students to use Raising language We don t have access to

the English their L1 or to translate is an awareness is important computers in my classroom.
only approach act of resistance. especially for older The only way is to pair them L:4
students using material in
up M :5
Peer input is fundamental different languages will
S:3
for EAL students so I pair help them
them up I use informants in L1 in math
I pair them up if I can. with Polish students for

137
 I use as much bilingual Paring up is beneficial for instance
resources such as books, weak students.
online translators, I encourage them to use their
dictionaries that I can. We lack resources in the L1
mainstream classrooms
Signposts, word cues and but I encourage them to
welcoming students in bring material from the
several languages is a way EAL units.
to make them feel valued.
I encourage the use of
dictionaries and
computers for their home
assignment but I make
sure they know how to
use them as it can.
Signposts in several
languages, pictures,
greetings in several
languages to raise
language awareness even
for English kids

TEACHER: Lindsay Steve Nadia

Code Coded text Coded text Coded text Number
Learning from No particular training I never had any specific I have not had any
experience concerning EAL. I just training even though I particular training with
adapted the ESL module I worked as an EAL regard to EAL. I just
took at University to EAL. remember a couple of things
specialist for years.
relating to teaching training
Very general training. I (strategies)
took a course in ESL at I am not a language expert
university and just and I had to learn on the I don t remember being L :3
transferred it to EAL. job. given any guidance relating S :3
to EAL, in fact never. N :3
My practice has however We could go on courses
changed the way I before but I did not take the I really had to learn on the
approached EAL. I do not opportunity. job.
teach the way I have

Lack of support There has been a gradual We encourage the use of

We do not have EAL dispending of EAL services English so there is no
specialist in my school. in the borough where I special EAL provision in
work. my school for EAL learners L :2
There are no resources There is not enough S :3
available for us to use in financial support for EAL There is no EAL specialist N :2
mainstream classes. EAL support has shifted to in my school. I don’t
SEN support in my borough remember we ever had one.

Lack of school There is no documented There is no EAL policy in

policy language policy I am not actually aware of my school. My school
concerning EAL. It is done EAL policy. There has been emphasizes learning English
informally a gradual dispending of but there is no documented
EAL services in the policy. L :2
EAL policy is very ad hoc borough where I work. S :2
as far as I see it. N :2
There is no more full time
EAL service in my school
purely as a money saving
scheme.
Respect for L1 is so fundamental to The native language of Learners have to use their L :2
community EAL students EAL students should not be first language, I see it as a S :2
languages considered as second class. right N :3

138
 I try to show that I am They are free to go back and
interested in their language Respecting community forth from their L1 to
because English is so language raise EAL English, as long as they don
powerful student’s confidence. t do it systematically, for
every single word
EAL students are I encourage L1, especially
outperforming white to overcome language
students in my school. problems

English only I am not a language expert Students who are EAL learn
approach I do not bombard them but the more English the English very fast if they are
with ‘my English’ better (give instructions) immersed (3 months)
Students will use their L1 It has advantages after a
no matter what we say or English is just natural in the period of adaptation, it is
do. even recommended L :2
EAL context. During social
S :2
time, it is not a problem.
N :2
But in classes it is best for
them to focus on English

Overcoming Encouraging students to Sign posts in different I sometimes use learning

the English use their L1 or to translate languages, use visuals such assistant services and
only approach is an act of resistance. as words in the classroom parents when they are
Peer input is fundamental available but it is not often
that are there all the time to
for EAL students so I pair the case.
them up. make it more language
friendly I don’t encourage students
I use as much bilingual to use their grammatical or L :4
resources such as books, Greeting them in their their vocabulary in their S :3
online translators, language, use repetition of native language N :3
dictionaries that I can. certain words to make them
feel welcome I use dictionaries and L1
Signposts, word cues and resources such as books but
welcoming students in it has to be targeted
several languages is a way
to make them feel valued.

TEACHER: Mike Clara

Code Coded text Coded text Number
Learning from I trained only recently but I did not get a
experience lot of input about EAL during my training I am confused what do you mean by
EAL. Do you mean ESL students

I failed my latest observation because I did I trained over 10 years ago it is

not break up the language in my science difficult to remember now what I
classes for my EAL students. M :2
have been told relating to ESL
C :2
(EAL).

Lack of support
There is no EAL specialist in my school. We don t have any special M: 3
provision in my school for ESL C: 2
We have to plan our lessons bearing in children.
mind the needs of EAL and SEN children.

139
 If I do not plan better my lessons (taking
in account the need of my EAL students), I have been told to use English
I may lose my job. It is a target set by my in my lesson.
principal who observed me.

I failed an observation because it did not

break down the language for my EAL
learners in my science class.

Lack of school policy I do not know of any school policy

concerning EAL I do not know of any school
policy concerning ESL (EAL).
The managing team insists on making M: 2
English accessible to students in all C :1
classes.

Respect for I value children language and culture as I value children language and
community languages being an immigrant myself (Irish). culture

We have a lot of immigrant children in my

school and we try to make them feel I feel insecure trying to speak M: 2
welcome. their languages. I am afraid of C:2
not pronouncing words
correctly.

English only approach Students have to learn technical

vocabulary in order to cope with the There is not a lot of language
Science curriculum involved in my art classes.
Language is not a real issue in
my art lessons. It is more of an M: 2
Rephrasing things, simplifying the issue in other classes C :1
language, breaking up the language in
Science classes is what I have been
instructed with my EAL students

Overcoming the Using students’ L1 runs counter to what I In art, since we deal with art
English only approach have been told to do at my school. from the all over the world, the
use of L1 is relevant.
Allowing students to pair up, allowing
them to bring their own materials in I encourage the use of bilingual
classes. resources, such as dictionaries
but they are not really needed
in my lessons. M: 2
C:3
Students can do research using
their L1 it is not a problem
I use tags with key concepts in
students L1. I ask them to do it
We painted signposts and
visuals in several languages

140
Appendix 6 Excerpt from interview
Is there a documented school policy on the use of English in the classroom with EAL learners?

Yes I know the children are accompanied by their tutors who will them cope with the main subjects in
classroom when they are not able to understand English.

Do you school have a documented policy concerning EAL? Did you read any policy?

No I did not

Are you aware of any school policy on the use of for English learners?

No I am not.

What training have you had in teaching students with EAL?

Hum.....No, no training. Not as such. Because I am teaching a language, you know a foreign language
as a subject. These children are not sent to us because they already have problems to cope with
English. So they don't make them study another language, you know. Or....anyway. You know, there
was no pure indication of policy for these children; you just have to cope in class.

Did you have any guidance on the use of the use of l1 in the classroom?

To speak English?

No in their first language?

For the first language is always helpful you know like. In many cases the students develop their
fluency; they get a better understanding of second or third language when they speak a foreign
language in the first place.........

A training course would have helped a lot. When sometimes when your students are stuck with
English, it is very difficult to teach them another language as well. Mostly because children did not
see the point in learning another language when they struggle with English in the first place.

What kind of training would have been useful?

I think you should know better to approach these children, you know, to better understand, to be able
to understand what they are capable to do, in a third language as well, you know. And also a

141
theoretical course, you know? and probably, I would say the most important thing is to liaise more
with their tutors who are teaching them English, you know? We don t have that liaison all the time.
Sometimes children are sent to the class and we don’t know exactly their standard, their level , you
know we don t have enough liaison with their tutors.

What do you think is the role of the first language for an EAL learner in learning English?

Hum, hum no. The way English is taught here has got no connection with the first language
whatsoever, and there is no connection with first language Inaudible. The person teaching English
most of the time does not know the original language of the child. No connection, no connection can
be made. English is learnt by itself, you know. And there is no grammar connection or anything with
the previous language that the child knows. i don’t think the first language helps in anyway when the
child comes here to Great Britain.

I know that in Great Britain, when children with languages, for example with Polish or any other
language learn English, they do it a second context because they are not coached by someone who
knows teachers who knows Polish or other languages. They are coached by English Tutors, so it is
starting in the beginning with no connection , no connection with the previous language. Do you
understand?

There is no recourses to allocate, probably. Like tutor of the same language to the child. It is
impossible probably to allocate a Polish tutor who speaks equally well Polish and English, it is a very
tricky situation

In what ways, if any, could translation (the use of L1) be beneficial to EAL learners?

No, not really. Hum....Children when they are young enough, they learn naturally, you know. I think
many children learn English naturally. I have seen many children learning English, learning naturally,
not making comparison with their previous language. Children learn naturally. For example I have a
German child; she came to school when she was about 12. She learnt English in a matter of 3 of 4
months, without o being able to speak it before. She never made consciously the connection to
German, she learnt English by itself. Because children have got this ability, and this ability gets lost
when we become adults. Children have that special ability to learn language fast.

The way it is taught in England does not include the first language. When a child is young enough
does not make so comparisons when they study a language or when they learn English. Do you
understand? Pause. The use of the first language depends on their age. It all resolves their age. When a
child is young sometimes they cannot understand the process of translation, they require grammar
explanation, and sometimes they don’t understand their first language. I don’t do that.

142
What do you see as the relationship between an EAL student’s first language and English?

Between the first language and English? They make associations in their own minds. They know by
differences, associations but I don' think the differences between languages are consciously being
taught to them. Not at the stage when they are very young. It is different when they are older and then
your first language is actually helpful to learn a second language because you can make comparisons
etc...But at the stage where a child is young I don t think, you know, difference between languages are
not consciously taught

What are your views on the English only approach in the EAL classroom?

Hum...well, the way English is taught is purely English. The teacher is an English and they make no
connection with their first language. It is different when we teach Italian or German or French, we
tend to speak the target language, but sometimes we make comparisons, we use comparisons, we use
translation. But it is not the case when English is taught.. Because in most cases English is taught in a
vacuum. Because teachers teaching English don t know the child’s first language, or don t know any
language and this is way English teaching spreads all over the world.

The only approach possible is the English only approach possible because you can't expect that
English Teachers to know all the languages the children speak. Unfortunately or fortunately, I don t
know English is an international language and can be taught by itself without making references to
other languages. And in many cases it quite successful. This is the way I have taught as well. It has
been difficult in a way, more difficult in the beginning definitely, yes. It is probably a good way to
learn.

Do you allow the use of EAL learners’ first language in your classroom?
If they have someone to talk to, why not? But many times students came by themselves....You know,
without other students who speak the same language.

Probe challenges in incorporating use of EAL students’ native languages into classroom
practices.
The biggest challenge is that there is nobody else to communicate with. I teach mostly Polish
students. I don t speak Polish and that make it difficult to speak their language with them. So it is
impossible, impossible to use translation with them. If there is someone in the classroom they can
communicate with, why not? It can help maybe that they explain to each other what is going on in the
classroom, if somebody is having difficulty one can possibly use say Polish in the classroom. If one is
stronger and one if weaker, you know like in English, one could help the other. I don t think there
should be any problem using their first language. For the weak one, he could become strong.

143
Are your students encouraged to use those strategies for their written assignments or
homework?

Well, not in the mainstream classrooms. These resources are being used in the small classroom that
they have when they come and cannot cope with the mainstream classes. But in mainstream classes,
no there is no access to dictionaries or other language resources. You will find this in EAL resources.

Well, computers are now part of teaching and learning. Sometimes, if students want to look up a word
ets...they can do that. But they must be aware computers are not always is answer because languages
do not work like this. Just like in a dictionary Words must be put in a context.

Do you encourage the use of L1 in the classroom?

Yes but as I said you need to be able to use a dictionary and you have to be able to use computer
because the same word can be translated in many different ways according to the context. Oh yes. I
think especially the internet; I think they can start becoming more independent. Why not?

Do you ever notice the use of L1 in the classroom?

Not really because, no. I have not noticed this.

I have children are taught in context. You know. I have noticed that with adults tough.

Do you use the services of TAs’, parents, bilingual assistants in the classroom?

No. I never had the privilege. No, I don t have anything, nothing. The teachers' assistant they send are
when the students are really weak with the language, you know English. And for a few lessons,
somebody help but not in language lessons. But otherwise. No. The teacher assistant or the language
assistant mostly does not have the skills to help the child in his native language you know. He sits by
him or by her and help, you know, and by that he is useful. But at the end, the only person who can
solve the problem is the specialist, over time you know.

Well, I think it is a difficult question but it would be confusing children as well. You could put signs
up in your classroom in several languages, using pictures. This is what we have in schools as well. We
have signs, you know, for good morning, or you know, for many things in several languages, you
know like in several languages. It gives them an idea of multiculturalism , which I think is very good.
Whether it helps a lot, it is only a few words. You can’t do it for the entire dictionary, you know.

144
References

Ager, D. (1996). Language policy in Britain and France: The processes of policy.
Open Linguistics Series, Robin F. Fawcett (ed.). London: Cassell.
Alanis, I. (2000). ‘A Texas Two-way Bilingual Program: Its Effects on Linguistic and
Academic Achievement’. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 225–248.
Allard, A. C., & Santoro, N. (2006). Troubling identities: Teacher education students'
constructions of class and ethnicity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 115-
129.
Al-Azami, S., Kenner, C., Ruby, M., Gregory, E. (2010). Transliteration as a bridge to
learning for bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 13(6), 83-700.
Allen, P.M. (1998) ‘Towards a Black construct of accessibility’, in Modood, T. and Acland, T.
(eds) (1998) Race and Higher Education: experiences, challenges and policy
implications, London: Policy Studies Institute
Allwright, D. (2006). Six promising directions in applied linguistics. In S. Gieve &. Miller
(Eds.), Undersanding the language classroom (pp.11-17).Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Alton-Lee A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students: Best evidence synthesis.
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Anderson, J., Gregory, E. & Kenner, C. (2008). The National Languages Strategy in the UK:
are minority languages still on the margins? In C. Helot & A-M.de Mejia (Eds)
Integrated perspectives towards bilingual education: bridging the gap between
prestigious bilingualism and the bilingualism of minorities (pp.183-202).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Andrews, J., Yee, W.C., Children's funds of knowledge and their real life activities: Two
minority ethnic children learning in out-of-school contexts in the UK (2006)
Educational Review, 58 (4), pp. 435-449Arkoudis, S. (2003) Teaching English as a
second language in science classes: Incommensurate epistemologies. Language and
Education 17 (3), 161_173.

Arkoudis, S. (2005). Fusing pedagogic horizons: Language and content teaching in the
mainstream. Linguistics and Education, 16, 173-187.
Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers.
[Article]. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 9(4), 415-
433.
Arksey, H. and Knight, P. (1999) Interviewing for Social Scientists. London: Sage. Bampton,
R. and Cowton, C.J. (2002) ‘The E-Interview’, Forum: Qualitative Social
Research 3(2), URL (consulted 10 November 2004): http//www.qualitativeresearch.
net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
Asher, C. (1993). Using the target language as the medium of instruction in the
communicative classroom: The influence of practice on principle. Studies in
Modern Languages Education, 1, 225-238

145
Atkinson D (1987) ‘The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?’ ELT
Journal Vol 41/4 [October 1987] pp.241-247 Oxford University Press

Atkinson, D. (2002) ‘Towards a sociocognitive approach to second language

acquisition’, The Modern Language Journal, 86, 525-45.
Atkinson, P. and Silverman, D. (1997) “Kundera’s ‘Immortality’: The Interview Society
and the Invention of Self”, Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3): 304-325.
Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. R. Hollins, J.
E. King, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a
knowledge base (pp. 5-23). Albany, NY: Sate University of New York Press.
Auer, P., and L. Wei (eds.) (2007) Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual
Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quartely, 27 (1), 9-32.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2003). Who’s afraid of bilingualism? In J. Dewaele, A.
Housen & Li Wei (Eds.), Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles (pp. 10-27).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bailey, K.M., Bergthold, B., Braunstein, B., Fleischman, N.J., Holbrook, M.P., Tuman,
J., Waissbluth, X., & Zambo, L.J. 1996. The language teacher's autobiography:
Examining the apprenticeship of observation. In Bailey, K. M. (1997). Reflective
Teaching: Situating Our Stories. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. 7, 1-
19
Baker, C. (1994) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2000) A parents‟ and teachers‟ guide to bilingualism (2nd ed.). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Baker, C., 2001, Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Baker, C. (2002) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Third Edition.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Very thorough and helpful introduction to
bilingual education and bilingualism
Baker, C. (2003). Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the
Welsh national curriculum. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An
ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual
settings (pp. 71–90). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker P & Eversley J (2000). Multilingual capital: The languages of London’s
schoolchildren and their relevance to economic, social and educational policies.
London: Battlebridge.

146
Baker, C., & Hornberger, N. (Eds.). (2001). An introductory reader to the writings of
Jim Cummins. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Barratt-Pugh, C., & Rohl, M. (1994). A question of either or: Must fluency in English be
achieved at the expense of home languages? The Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy, 17(4), 313-326.
Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An Introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community.
London: Routledge.
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. (2003). Voices of modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Baynham, M. (1983). ESL and the mother tongue: teaching towards
bilingualism. In E.S.L. Publishing Group (ed.) Mother tongue and ESL – ESL
Issues no. 1. . London, Inner London Education Authority.
Beattie, M. (1995).New prospects for teacher education: Narrative ways of knowing
teaching and teacher learning. Educational Research, 37(1), 53-70.
Bernat, E. & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current
knowledge,pedagogical implications, and new research directions.TESL-EJ
9/1 1 – 21.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Bhatt, A., Barton, D., Martin-Jones, M. and Saxena, M. (1995). Multilingual Literacy
Practices: Home, Community, School (Working Paper #80). Lancaster
University, Centre for Language in Social Life.
Bhattarcharya, G., Ison, L and Blair, M. (2003) Minority Ethnic Attainment and
Participation in Education and Training: the Evidence. Research Topic Paper
RTP01-03. London: DfES.
Bhattacharya, G., Ison, L., Blair, M., (2003) Minority Ethnic Attainment and
Participation in Education and Training: The Evidence, DfES, London
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in Middle
and high school literacy—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New
York.Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/ReadingNext.pdf.
Biglan, A. (1973) Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the
structure and output of university departments, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57,
204–213
Blackledge, A. (2009). “Inventing English as convenient fiction: Language testing regimes in
the United Kingdom,” in Language testing, migration and citizenship: cross-national
perspectives.Edited by G. Extra, M. Spotti, and P. V. Van Avermaet, pp. 65-85.
London: Continuum.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press

147
Bloch, C. & Alexander, N. 2003. Aluta Continua: The Relevance of the Continua of
Biliteracy to South African Multilingual Schools. pp 91-121. In Hornberger, N. (Ed) #
Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research,
and Practice in Multilingual Settings. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Blommaert, J & Rampton, B (2011) Language and superdiversity: A position paper.
Working Papers in Urban Language and Linguistics paper 70.
Block, J. & Hazelip, K. (1995). Teachers' beliefs and belief systems. In L. Anderson (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd Ed) (pp.25-28)
Oxford: Elsevier.
Blyth, C. (1995). Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use: The Foreign Language
Classroom as a Multilingual Speech Community. In C. Kramsch (Ed.) Redefining
the Boundaries of Language Study (pp. 145-183). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers
Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An
Introduction to theory and methods. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borg, S. (1998a). Teachers‟ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative
study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-37.
Borg, S. (1998b). Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom. Language
Awareness, 7(4), 159-175.
Borg, S. (1999a). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System,
27(1), 19-31. Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers‟ theories in grammar teaching.ELT Journal,
53(3), 157-167.
Borg, S. (1999c). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language
classroom: A qualitative study of teachers‟ practices and cognitions. Applied
Linguistics, 20 (1), 95-126.
Borg. S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal,
55(1), 21-29.
Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching,
36(2), 81-109.
Borg, S. (2003b). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language
Awareness, 12(2), 96-108.
Borg, S. (2003c). Second language grammar teaching: Practices and rationales. Ilha do
Desterro, 41(2), 155-183.
Borg, S. (2005). Experience, knowledge about language, and classroom experience in
teaching grammar. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language
teacher education (pp. 325-340). New York, NY: Springer.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. Research and practice.
London, UK: Continuum.

148
Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 163-171). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar
in adult TESOL classrooms.Applied Linguistics, 29 (3), 456-482.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-248). Wesport,CT:
Greenwood Press.
Bourne, J. (1989) Moving into the Mainstream: LEA Provision for Bilingual Pupils.
Windsor : NFER-Nelson
Bourne, J. (1997) 'The Continuing Revolution: teaching as learning in the
Mainstream Multilingual Classroom' in Leung, C. and Cable, C (Eds.) English as
an Additional Language: Changing Perspectives. Watford : NALDIC
Bourne, J. and McPake J. (1991) Partnership Teaching: Co-operative Teaching
Strategies for Language Support in Multilingual Classrooms. London : HMSO
Bourne, J. (2001) 'Doing "what comes naturally": how the discourses and routines of
teachers' practice constrain opportunities for bilingual support in UK
primary schools' in Language and Education Vol 15: 4, 20
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In J.
Bransford & L.Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a
changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Thwaite, A., & Oliver, R. (2001). Making sense of
language teaching: teachers' principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics,
22(4), 470-501.
Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction.
New York: Newbury House.
Brooker, L. (2002) Starting School: Young Children Learning Cultures. Buckingham:
Open University Press
Brumfit, C. (2006). A European perspective on language as liminality. In C. Mar- Molinero
& P. Stevenson (eds), Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices: Language and
Future of Europe. (pp. 28-43). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Buell, M. (2003). Code switching and second language writing: How multiple codes are
combined in a text. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it
does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 97-122). New
Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological
beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1-2), 28-42.
Bullough, R. V. Jr., & Stokes, D. K. (1994). Analyzing personal teaching metaphors
inpreservice teacher education as a means for encouraging professional
development.American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 197-224.

149
Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practices.
Prospect, 7(3), 56-66.
Burns, A. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners. In D.
Freeman, & J. C. Richards (Eds), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp.154-
177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Byrne M (2001) Linking philosophy, methodology, and methods in qualitative research.
AORN Journal 73(1): 207–10
Cable, C., Leung, C., & Vazquez, M. (2004). EAL: Induction and withdrawal in
secondary schools. NALDIC Quarterly, 1(3), 6–11.
Caelli, K. (2001). Engaging with phenomenology: Is it more of a challenge than it
needs to be? Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 273-281.
Cahnmann, M. (2003). To correct or not to correct bilingual students’ errors is a
question of continua-ing reimagination. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of
biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in
multicultural settings (pp. 187-206). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R.
Calfee(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York:
Macmillan.Carrington, S. (1999a). Accommodating the needs of diverse learners:
The impact of teachers' beliefs on classroom practice. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Carby, H. V. 1982 ‘White Women Listen! Black Feminism and the Boundaries of
Sisterhood’, in Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (ed) The Empire
Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain, Birmingham: University of
Birmingham
Carrington, S. (1999b). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 3, 257 - 268.
Canale, M. & M. Swain (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to
second language testing and teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Castles, S., Cope, B., Kalantzis, M. & Morrissey, M. 1992, Mistaken identity:
multiculturalism and the demise of nationalism in Australia, 3rd edn, Pluto
Press, Sydney
Central Advisory Council for Education. 1967. Children and Their Primary
Schools (The Plowden Report). Vol 1. London: HMSO.

Chan, K. (2000). Teacher education students' epistemological beliefs: A cultural perspective

on learning and teaching. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research
in Education (AARE) Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1987). The Cognitive Academic Language
LearningApproach: A Bridge to the Mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249.
Chamot, A., & O'Malley, M. (1994). The CALLA handbook. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.

150
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and
research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-133.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
Press.Circular 0015/2009, Department of Education and Science ‘Meeting the needs
of pupils learning English as an Additional Language (EAL)’ Accessed
03.12.10http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/cl0015_2009.doc
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teacher‘s thought processes. In M. C.
Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296).
New York: Macmillan.
Clegg, J. (1996). Introduction. In J. Clegg (Ed.), Mainstreaming ESL: Case studies in
integrating ESL students into the mainstream curriculum (pp. 1-35).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters..
Cline, T., Abreu, G. de, Fihosy, C., Gray, H., Lambert, H. and Neale, J. (2002). Minority
Ethnic Pupils in Mainly White Schools. London: Department for Education and
Skills. <http//:www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR365.doc>.Clyne, M.
(2001). Can the shift from immigrant languages be reversed in Australia? In J. A.
Fishman (Ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift,
revisited: A 21st century perspective (pp. 364-390). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Clyne, M. (1991). Bilingual education for all: An Australian pilot study and its policy
implications. In O. Garcia (ed.), Bilingual Education: Focuschift in honour of
Joshua A. Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday, Vol.1, Amsterdam:
Benjamins, pp. 253-270.
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clyne, M., & Kipp, S. (1999). Pluricentric languages in an immigrant context: Spanish,
Arabic and Chinese. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.
Clyne, M., Jenkins, C., Chen, I., Tsokalidou, R. & Wallner, T. (1995). Developing Second
Language from Primary School: Models and Outcomes. Canberra: The National
Languages Institute of Australia.
Clyne, M., and Kipp, S. (2006). Australia’s community languages. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 180, 7-21.

Coady, J. (1997b). ‘L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading.’ In J. Coady, and T.
Huckin, (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition 225-37. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

Coffin, C. (2006a). Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in
mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 413-429.
Cohen, L. Manion, L. & Morrison K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Cole, A. (1989). Researcher and teacher: Partnership in theory-building. Journal of
Education for Teaching,15, 225-237.

151
Collier, V.P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students. New Jersey: NewJersey
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual Educators.
Cook, V. 1995. Multi-competence and learning of many languages. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 8, pp. 93–98.
Cook, V.1999. ‘Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching’. TESOL
Quarterly33: 185–209.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the First Language in the Classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3).
Cook, V (2002). Background of the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 use.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. 2007. The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting
multicompetence among second language users? In J. Cummins and C.
Davison (eds.), International handbook of English language education, Vol. 1.
Norwell, MA: Springer, pp. 237–248.
Cook-Gumperz, J. 1986. Introduction: the social construction of literacy. In J. Cook-Gumperz
(Ed.) The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-
Coolican, H. (2004) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. 4th ed. London: Hodder
Arnold.15.
Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and
administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Craft, M. (1996) Cultural diversity and teacher education. In M. Craft (ed.), Teacher
Education in Plural Societies (London: Falmer).
Crandall, J., & Tucker, G.R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign
languages. In A. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild & C. Valdez (Eds.), Foreign language
education: Issues and strategies (pp. 7–13). Newbury Park: C.A. Sage Crawford, P.
(1995). Early literacy: Emerging perspectives. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 10, 71-86.
Creese A. 2003. Language, ethnicity and the mediation of allegations of racism:
Negotiating diversity and sameness in multilingual school discourses,
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6, 3-4, 221-
236. ISSN: 1367-0050.
Creese, A. (2004) Bilingual teachers in mainstream secondary classrooms: using Turkish for
curriculum learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7
(2), 189-203.
Creese A. 2005. Is this content-based language teaching? Linguistics and Education, 16, 2,
188-204. ISSN: 0898-5898. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.01.007
Creese A. (2006). Supporting Talk? Partnership Teachers in Classroom Interaction,
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 4, 434- 453. ISSN:
1367-0050.DOI: 10.2167/beb340.0

152
Creese, A., & Martin, P.W. (Eds.). (2003). Multilingual classroom ecologies:Inter-
relationships, interactions and ideologies. Clevedon: Multlingual Matters.
Creese, A. & A. Blackledge. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy
for learning and teaching. Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. London: SAGE Publications Ltd
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Crystal, D. (1997b). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research
and practice. London: Longman.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. CA: California Association for
Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiencies in
bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual
children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society.
Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2001) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard
Educational Review, 71(4), 649-675.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to
reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-
945.
Danchev, Andrei. 1992. “The evidence for analytic and synthetic developments in
English.” In: M.Rissanen, O.Ihalainen, T. Nevalainen and I. Taavitsainen (eds).
History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical
Linguistics. Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter: 25-41.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling
Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dedezade, F. (2011) Personal communication, 2nd September.
Department of Education and Science (DES) (1965) The Education of
Immigrants, (Circular 7/65) HMSO, London.
Department of Education and Science (DES), (1975) A Language for life.[The Bullock
Report]. London: HMSO.
DES (1985) Education for All: the report of the committee of inquiry into the
education of children from ethnic minority groups (The Swann Report), HMSO,
London.
DES (1971) The Education of Immigrants, HMSO, London.

153
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1999). Learning to Succeed, London: H
M SO .
DfEE (1997). Excellence for All Children: Meeting special educational needs.
London: The Stationery Office.
DfEE (1998). Meeting Special Educational Needs: A programme of action. London:
DfES (2001a). Inclusive Schooling: Children with special educational needs. (Ref.
DfES/0774/2001). London: DfES.
DfES (2004a) Every Child Matters: Change for Children, London: DfES Publications

DfES (2004b) Every Child Matters: Change for Children in Schools: London: DfES
Publications.

DfES (2006) Guidance on Collection and Recording of Data on Pupils’ Languages. London:

DFES (2009) About Study Support (out of hours learning), Department for Children,
Schools and Families, UK, sourced at Standards Site,
<http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/studysupport>, 7November 2009.
De Jong, E., and Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English- language
learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2),
101-119.
Delamont, S. (2002) Fieldwork in educational settings; methods, pitfalls and perspectives.
2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Demie, F. (2005) Achievement of black Caribbean pupils: good practice in Lambeth
schools, British Educational Research Journal, 31(4), August, 481–508
Demie, F., & Strand, S. (2006).English language acquisition and educational attainment at the
end of secondary school.Educational Studies, 32, (2), 215- 231. Edwards, J. (1992).
Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss: Towards a typology of
minority language situations. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert and S. Kroon (Eds.),
Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp.37-54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Denzin, N. K. (1988). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of
qualitativeresearch (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Derrida Jacques. Monolingualism of the Other. Mensah P. (trans.). Stanford,
1998.
Dillon, J. and M. Maguire (2001). Becoming a Teacher. Buckingham, The Open
University.

Duff, A. (1989). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes:
A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressEisenstein-

154
Duverger, J. 2005. L’enseigenement en classe bilingue. [Teaching in bilingual classrooms].
Paris: Hachette.

Ebsworth, M. and Schweers, C.W. (1997).What researchers say and practitioners do:
Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom.
AppliedLanguage Learning 8, 237–260.
Education Act. 1944. London: HMSO.
Edwards, J. (2004) Language Minorities. In Davies, A. and Elder, A. (Eds.) The
Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Eisentein-Ebsworth and Schweers (1997). What researchers say and practitioners do:
Perspective on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom. Applied
Language Learning, 8, 237-260.
Ekeblad, E. & Bond, C. (1994) The nature of a conception: questions of context, in: R.
Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.) Phenomenography: philosophy and practice (Brisbane,
Queensland University of Technology).
Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50/4:
303-311.
Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit
knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2),
223-236.
Ellis, R. (2006) ‘Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective’,
TESOL Quarterly, 40: 85-107.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
Research, 38(1), 47-65.
Fang, Z., and Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas:
Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587-597. doi:10.1598
Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research (pp.361-376). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to
negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (2nded.) (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Franson, C. (1999). Mainstreaming learners of English as an additional language: The class
teacher’s perspective. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12(1), 59-71.
Franson, C., Brown A., Cameron, L. and South, H. (2002) The EAL Teacher:
Descriptors of Good Practice. Watford : NALDIC
Freeman, D. (1991). “To make the tacit explicit:” Teacher education, emerging discourse,
and conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(5/6), 439-454.

155
Freeman, D. (1996). The “unstudied problem:” Research on teacher learning in language
teaching. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (Eds), Teacher learning in language
teaching (pp.351-378). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to
teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1–13.
Freeman, D. E & Freeman, Y. S. (1993). Strategies for promoting the primary languages of
all students. The Reading Teacher, 46(7), 552·558.
Freeman, D. & Richards, J. C (1993). Teacher learning in language teaching Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fris A. (1982). Studies in Comparative and International Education, No 7: Policies for
Minority Education. A Comparative Study of Britain and Sweden, Stockholm:
Institute of International Education, University of Stockholm
García, O. (2005). Positioning heritage languages in the United States. The Modern Language
Journal, 89, 601-605.
García, O. (2007) Foreword. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and
reconstituting languages (pp. xi–xv). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García O. (2009a). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In
(Eds.) T. Skutnabb-Kangas, Minati Panda & Robert Phillipson. Multicultural
Education for social justice: globalizing the local. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
140-158.
García, O. (2010). Latino language practices and literacy education in the U.S. In M. Farr, L.
Seloni and J. Song (Eds.). Ethnolinguistic Diversity and Education. Language,
Literacy, and Culture. (pp. 193-211) New York: Routledge.
.Gay, L.R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application
(5th ed.). New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall.
Gay, L.R. (2000). Educational Research; Competencies for Analysis and Application
(6th ed.). USA: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Gee, J.P. (1989). What is Literacy? Brookline, MA: The Literacy Institute,
Educational Development Corporation.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.”In
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures . pp.3-30.
Gibbons, P. (1991) Learning to Learn in a Second Language Newtown, Australia PETA
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the
challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Genesee, F. (Ed.). (1994). Educating second language children: The whole child, the Whole
curriculum, the whole community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, C. 2002, ‘Effective teaching: exercising self-efficacy and thought control of action’,
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research
Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September.
Gillborn, D. and Gipps, C. (1996) Recent Research on the Achievements of Ethnic
Minority Pupils. London, HMSO.

156
Gillham, B. (2000), Developing a questionnaire, Continuum, London.
Giroux, H. (2000). Stealing Innocence: Youth, Corporate Power, and the Politics of Culture.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Gogolin I. (2005). No penalty but a ...? "About monolingual teachers" dialogues in
multilingual classrooms. In: Dialogues in and around Multicultural Schools, W.
Herrlitz, R. Maier (ed.), 133–138. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Golombek, P. R. (1988). A study of teacher' personal-practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 447-465.
Gray, D.E. (2004) Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Gregory, E. (1993). „What counts as learning in the early years‟ classroom?‟ British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 63: 213-29.
Gregory, E. (1996) Making Sense of a New World: Learning to Read in a Second Language.
London: Paul Chapman.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one
person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.
Grosjean, F.(1995): “A psycholinguistic approach to code-switching: the recognition of guest
words bybilinguals”. In: Milroy/Muysken (eds.), 259-275.
Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in
secondary school teaching. Educational researcher, 24(8), 5-11, 23.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, S. Y. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry (California: Sage).
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In N.K
Denzin and Y.S.Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks,
Ca: Sage.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 195–220).
London: Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000).Epistemological and methodological bases of
naturalistic inquiry.In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.),
Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services
evaluation (2nd ed., pp.363-382). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Guba, E.G and Lincoln, Y., 2005. Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and
Emerging Confluences, in: Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Third Edition. London: Sage, pp.191-215.
Gubriem, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context
and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hymes, D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’, in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds),
Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.
Gal, S. (1988). "The Political Economy of Code Choice," Heller,M., ed. (1988), pp. 245-
264.

157
Golombek, P. R. (1988). A study of teacher' personal-practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 447-465
Graddol, David (2009) English Next India, London: British Council.
Gravelle, M. (1996) Supporting Bilingual Learners in Schools, Stoke on Trent: Trentham.
Gravelle, M. (2003) ‘Weighing the turkey does not make it fat’: a reappraisal of
assessment ofbilingual learners, Race Equality Teaching, 21(2), Spring, 37–41.
Gregory, E. 1996. Making sense of a new world: Learning to read in a second language.
London: Paul Chapman.

Gregory, E. and Kenner, C. (2003) ‘The out of school schooling of literacy’ in N. Hall, J.
Larson and J. Marsh (Eds.) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy. London: Sage.
Gumperz, J J (1982): Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Moliner, M. (1966): Diccionario de uso del español. Madrid: Gredos
Gregory, E. (1996) Making Sense of a New World: Learning to Read in a Second
Language. London: Paul Chapman.
Gundara J. S. (2001). Interculturalism, Education and Inclusion, London: Sage
Publications.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of
language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh and P. Strevens (1964). The linguistic sciences and language
teaching. London, Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985a). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985b). Spoken and written language. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social
semiotic perspective Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Hamilton, M., Barton, D. and Ivanic, R. (1994). Worlds of literacy. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual matters.
Hamers, J. F. and Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamlyn, D.W. 1995. "History of Epistemology." Pp. 242-45 in The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Haugen, E. (2001). The ecology of language. In A. Fill & P. Muhlhausler (Eds.), The
ecolinguistics reader (pp.57-66). London: Continuum. (First published in The
ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen (Ed. Anwar S. Dil) Stanford:
Standford University Press, 1972, pp.325-329).

158
Harootunian, B., & Yarger, G. P. (1981). Teachers’ conceptions of their own success: Current
issues. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC No. ED
200 518)
Heller, M. (ed). 1988. Code-Switching: anthropological and sociolinguistic
perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heller, M. (1988a) Introduction. IN: M. HELLER, ed. Codeswitching: anthropological
and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-24
Heller, M., and Martin-Jones, M. (Eds.). (2001). Voices of authority: Educational and
linguistic difference. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Holliday, A. (2002a). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
Hopkins, S. M. (1988). "Use of mother tongue in the teaching of English as a second
language to adults." Language Issues 2 (2): 18 - 24.
Hornberger, N. H. (1989a) Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research,
59(3), 271-296.
Hornberger, N.H. (1989b). Pupil participation and teacher techniques: Criteria for
success in a Peruvian bilingual education program for Quechua children. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 77, 35-53.
Hornberger, N.H. (1990). Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy.
Teachers College Record, 92(2), 212-229.
Hornberger, N.H. (Ed.). (1996).Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning
from the bottom up. Berlin: Mouton.
Hornberger, N.H. (2000). Afterword: Multilingual literacies, literacy practices, and the
continua of biliteracy. In M. Martin-Jones and K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingual literacies:
Reading and writing different worlds (pp. 353-367). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hornberger, N.H. (2002) Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An
ecological approach. Language Policy, 1, 27-51.
Hornberger, N.H. (Ed.). (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for
educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. NY:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Hornberger, N.H. (2004). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator:
Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 7(2&3), 155-171.
Honrberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2004). Continua of biliteracy: an ecological framework for
educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings, Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H and King, K. (1996) Bringing the language forward: School
based initiatives for Quechua language revitalization in Ecuador and
Bolivia. In N. Hornberger (ed.) Indigenous Literacies in the Americas:

159
 Language Planning from the Bottom Up (pp. 299–320). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Hornberger, N. H. & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy:
International and critical perspectives. Language and Education: An International
Journal, 14(2), 96-122.
Hymes, D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’ – in Pride, J. and Holmes, J
. (Eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin
James, C. (1992). Awareness, consciousness and language contrast. In New departures in
contrastive linguistics, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 2, (pp.183 - 98).
Mair, C. & Markus, M. (eds.). Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck.
James, c., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1991). Language awareness in the classroom. New York:
Longman. Krashen, S. (1992). Formal grammar instruction: Another educator comments.
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children
and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5(3), 161-116.
Julios, C (2008). Contemporary British Identity: English Language, Migrants, and
Public Discourse, Ashgate.
Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60,(3) 419-469.
Kagan, D. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 19(5&60), 358-368.
Kell, C. (1995). Literacies of everyday life, development and schooling: A study of the
literacy practices in an informal settlement in South Africa. Critical Forum, 4(1), 2 -
42.
Kennedy, M. 1990. Policy Issues in Teacher Education. East Lansing, Michigan:
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
Kenner, C. (2000). Home pages: Literacy links for bilingual children. Stoke-on-Trent,
England: Trentham.
Kenner, C. (2003). An interactive pedagogy for bilingual children. In E.
Bearne, H. Dombey, and T. Grainger (eds.), Classroom Interactions
in Literacy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Kenner, C. (2005) 'Bilingual families as literacy eco-systems'. Early Years 25 (3):
283-298.
Kenner, C. (2010). ‘Multilingual learning: stories from schools and communities in
Britain’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 125–
128.
Kenner, C., Kress, G., Hayat, A.-K., Kam, R., & Tsai, K.-C. (2004). Finding the keys to
biliteracy: How young children interpret different
Kenner, C. and Hickey, T. (eds.) (2008) Multilingual Europe: Diversity and Learning,
Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

160
Khubchandani, L. M. (1997). Revisualizing boundaries: A plurilingual ethos.
New Delhi, India: Sage.

Kramsch, C., & Steffensen, S. (2007). Ecological perspectives on second language

acquisition and socialization. In N. Hornberger & P. Duff (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
language and education, Vol. 8: Language and socialization (2nd ed., pp. 17-28).
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag. Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996).
Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50(3), 199-212.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY:
Longman Group Ltd. Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of grammar teaching:
Stillperipheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 717-725.
Krashen, S. D. (1988). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom
London: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies.
Foreign Language Annals, 32(2), 245-257. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983).
The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon/ Alemany.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Kenner, C. (2000). Biliteracy in a monolingual school system? English and Gujarati in South
London. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13(1), 13-30.
Kipp, S., and Clyne, M., (2003). Trends in the shift from community languages: Insights
from the 2001 census. People and Place, 11(1), 33–41.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Krashen, S. (2002). Developing academic language: Early L1 reading and later L2
reading.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 155/156, 143- 151.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research. Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Laufer, L., Meara, P., & Nation, P. (2005). Ten best ideas for teaching vocabulary. The
language Teacher, 29, 7, 3-10
Leung, C. (2005). English as an additional language policy: Issues of inclusive access and
language learning in the mainstream. Prospect, 20(1), 95-
Lin, A., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalization: Language-in- education
policy and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in
the United States. New York: Routledge.

161
Lo Bianco, J. (2002). ESL in a time of literacy: A challenge for policy and for teaching.
TESOL in Context, 12(1), 3-9.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. A Sociological Study (Second ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of an East Asian identity in mathematics education.
Educational Studies in Mathematics,47, 35–51.

Leung, C. (2005) ‘Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative

competence’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15 (2): 119–44.
Leung, C. (2007) ‘Integrating school-aged ESL learners into the mainstream
curriculum’, in J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds), The International Handbook
of English Language Teaching. New York: Springer (pp. 249–69).

Leung, C. (2011). Changing diversities, changing teacher professional

repertoires.Keynote address at English Language Support Teachers
Association (ELSTA) Annual Conference, 15th October, Marino College of
Education, Dublin
Leung, C. and Creese, A. (2008) ‘Professional issues in working with ethnolinguistic
difference: inclusive policy in practice’, in D. E. Murray (ed.),
Planning Change, Changing Plans. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
(pp. 155–73)..
Leung, C. & Creese, A. (2010). English as an additional language: Approaches to teaching
English minority students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leung, C. & Franson, C. (2001). England: ESL in the early days. In B. Mohan, C.
Leung, C & Davison, C (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream (pp.
153–164). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Leung, C., Mohan, B. & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2001). English as a second language in the
mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow, Essex: Longman-Pearson.
Levine, J. (ed.) (1990) Bilingual Learners and the Mainstream Curriculum Basingstoke, The
Falmer Press
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and Instructor Beliefs and Attitudes about Target
Language Use, First Language Use, and Anxiety: Report of a Questionnaire
Study. The Modern Language Journal, 87/3: 343-364.
Lin, A. M. (1996). "Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination,
resistance and code switching in Honk Kong schools." Linguistics and Education
8(1): 49 -84.
Littlewood, W. 1981 Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Lo Bianco, J. (2001) A National Language and Literacy Policy for Scotland. Stirling:
Scottish CILT.
Lotherington, H. (2002). What’s Bilingual Education All About? Canberra: The National
Languages Institute of Australia. Lucas, T. & Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate:
The roles of native languages in
English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (5),

162
 537-556.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language
classrooms: theories and decision making, The Modern Language Journal, 85(4),
531-548.
Makoni, S., and A. Pennycook. 2007. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Martin, P. (2003). Bilingual encounters in the classroom. In G. M. Dewaele, A. Housen, L.
Wei (Eds.), Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles (pp. 67-87). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters
Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Bilingual classroom interaction: A review of recent research.
Language Teaching, 33(1), 1-9.
Martin-Jones, M., and Bhatt, A. (1998). Literacies in the lives of young Gujarati speakers in
Leicester. In A.Y. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a
multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives. (pp. 37-50). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Martin-Jones, M., and Jones, K. (Eds.). (2000). Multilingual literacies: Comparative
perspectives on research and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maxwell, J. A (1992), Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In A. M.
Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion, (pp. 37-
64). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (Reprinted from Harvard Educational
Review. 1992, 62, 3; 279-300).
May, S. (2002a.) Where to from here? Charting a way forward for language
and education policy in Aotearoa/New Zealand. TESOLANZ Journal 10:
22-35.
Meier, D. 2004. The young child’s memory for words: Developing first and second language
literacy. New York: Teachers College Press. Available from NAEYC.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mills, R.W and Mills, J. (1993) Bilingualism in the Primary School London, Routledge
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530-555.
Minns, H. (1990) Read it to Me Now! Learning at Home and at School
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and Content: Addison, Wesley.
Mohan, B. (2001). The second language as a medium of learning. In B. Mohan,C.
Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream:
Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 107–126). Harlow, England; New York:
Pearson Education
Moll, L.C., Vélez-Ibáñez, C., Greenberg, J., & Rivera, C. (1990). Community
knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction.
Arlington, VA: Development Associates.

163
Montes-Alcalá, Cecilia. 2001. “Written Codeswitching: Powerful Bilingual Images.”In R.
Jacobson (ed.) Code-switching Worldwide II. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 193-219.
Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. London: Routledge.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptual change in preservice teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 15-26.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mühlhäusler, P.: 1996, Linguistic ecology. Language change and linguistic
imperialism in the Pacific region, London, Routledge.
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers‟ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and
decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11(3),
201-225. Neuman, W., L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1988). Codeswitching as indexical of social negotiation. Code-switching:
Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspective, ed. by Monica Heller, 151-186.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. The Asian EFL
Journal, 5(2). Retrieved on December 10, 2007 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.
com/june_2003_PN.html National Curriculum Council. (1991). Circular number 11:
Linguistic diversity and the national curriculum. York: NCC. Office for Standards in
Education. (2001). Inspecting English as an additional language: 11–16 with
guidance on self-evaluation. London: OFSTED.
National Curriculum Council (1991) Circular Number 11: Linguistic Diversity and the
National Curriculum. York: NCC.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching.Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328.
Neuman, W., L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (5thed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Nieto, S. (2004).Affirming diversity: The socio-political context of multicultural education.
Boston: Pearson.
Nisbett, R.,& Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social
judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository
text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564-570.
Padget, D. K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Painter, C. (1991). Learning the Mother Tongue. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

164
Parkhe, A. (1993). ‘Strategic alliance structuring, a game theoretic and transaction cos
examination of interfirm cooperation’. Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp.
794– 829.
Phelan, R., Lee, L., Howe, D., & Walter, G. (2006). Parenting and mental illness: A
pilot group programme for parents. Australasian Psychiatry, 14, 399–402.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers' grammar teaching beliefs
and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390.
Piasecka, K. (1988). The bilingual teacher in the ESL classroom In S. Nicholls & E.
Hoadley-Maidment (Eds.), Current issues in teaching English as a second
language to adults (pp. 97-103). London: Edward Arnold.
Pintrich, P. (1990). Implication of psychological research on student learning and college
teaching for teacher education.In W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education. New York: Macmillan.
th
Polit, DF & Beck, CT. 2004. Nursing research: principles and methods. 7 edition.
Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Popkewitz T, Tabachnik R, Zeichner K (1979) Dulling the senses: research in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education 30: 58-72. Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (QCA). 2000. Language in common. London: QCA.
Radnor, H. (2001) Researching your professional practice (Buckingham, Open University
Press).
Rampton, B. (1995) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London.
Longham.
Rampton, Ben (2006) Language in Late Modernity. Interaction in an Urban School.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers' maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281-
296.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp.102-119). New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science
Students and Researchers. London: Sage.
Ricento, T. (2000).Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196-213.
Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N.H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and
policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401-428.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

165
Rollnick M & Rutherford M 1996. The use of mother tongue and English in the learning
and expression of science concepts: A classroom based study. International Journal
of Science Education, 18:91-103.
Ruiz, R.(1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-
34.
Ruiz, R. (1995). Language planning considerations in indigenous
communities. TheBilingual Research Journal, 19(1), 71-81.

Sachs, J. (2001) 'Teacher professional identity: competing discourses, competing outcomes',

Journal of Education Policy, 16: 2, 149—161
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic
teachers.Higher Education, 24(1), 93-111.
Saraga, E. (ed.) (1998) Embodying the Social: Constructions of Difference. London:
Routledge
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
Saxena, M. 1994. Literacies among Punjabis in Southhall. In Worlds of literacy, eds.M.
Hamilton,D. Barton, and R. Ivanic. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Saxena, M. 2000. Taking account of history and culture in community-based research on
multilingual literacy. In Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing
different worlds, eds., M. Martin-Jones and K. Jones. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning
the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The
Modern Language Journal,85(2), 244-258.
Schwarzer, D., Haywood, A., & Lorenzen, C. (2003). Fostering multiliteracy in a
linguistically diverse classroom. Language Arts, 80, 6, 453-460
Schleppegrell, M., & Colombi, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). Developing advanced literacy in
first and second languages. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seale, C. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research: Introducing Qualitative
Methods, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to
acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language
learners.New York, NY: Alliance for Excellent Education for the Carnegie
Corporation of New York.
Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference. The
Internet TESL Journal. [Online] Available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba
CodeSwitching.html (September 26, 2005).
Skilton-Sylvester. E. (2003). Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and
themultilingual classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in
the United States. In Creese, Angela (Ed.), Multilingual classroom ecologies: Inter-
relationships, interactions and ideologies (pp. 168-184). ClevedonMultilingual
matters.

166
Smith, JA & Eatough, V 2006, ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis’, in GM
Breakwell, S Hammond, C Fife–Schaw & JA Smith (eds.), Research methods in
psychology, 3rd edn, pp. 322–41, Sage, London.
Smith, JA & Osborn, M 2003, ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis’, in JA Smith
(ed.),Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods, pp. 51–80, Sage,
London.Taylor, S 1989, Positive illusions: creative self- deception and the healthy
mind, Basic
Sokolowski, R. (2000) Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sook Lee, J.S. and Oxelson, E. (2006) “It’s not my job”: K-12 Teacher Attitudes Toward
Students’ Heritage Language Maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal 30 (2):
453-477.
Stott, N. (2001). Helping ESL students become better readers: Schema theory
applications and limitations. The Internet TESOL Journal, VII(11). Retrieved
from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Stott-Schema.html
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., 1998, Basics of qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Street, B. (Ed.). (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Street, B. (1994). Cross-cultural perspectives on literacy. In L. Vernhoeven (Ed.),
Functional literacy: Theoretical issues and educational implications (pp. 95-
111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Street, B. (2000). Literacy events and literacy practices: Theory and practice in the
New Literacy Studies. In M. Martin-Jones, & K. Jones. (Eds.), Multilingual
literacies: Reading and writing different worlds (pp. 17-29). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Street, B. (Ed.). (2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Stoller, F. L. (2008) ‘Content-based instruction’, in N. Van Deusen-Scholl and N. H.
Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edn, Vol.
4:Second and Foreign Language Education. New York: Springer Science/ Business
Media LLC pp. 59–70. Swan, M. (1985). "A critical look at the
communicative approach (2)." ELT Journal 39 (2): 76 - 87.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialog. In J. Lantolf P. (Ed.), Sociocultural thoery and second language
learning (pp. 98-114) Oxford Press University.
Swan, M. (1985) ‘ A critical look at the Communicative Approach’ ELT Journal 39/2

167
Tarnopolsky, O. (2000). Writing English as a foreign language: A report from
Ukraine. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (3): 209-226.
Teacher Training Agency (2000) Raising the Attainment of Minority Ethnic Pupils:
Guidance and Resource Materials for Providers of Initial Teacher Training.
London: TTA.
Tikunoff, W. J. (1991). Working with diverse student populations (Working Paper). Larkspur,
CA: The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Turnbull, M., Lapkin, S., & Hart, D. (2001). Grade 3 immersion students’ performance in
literacy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1998-99). The
Canadian
Modern Language Review, 8(1), 9-26.
Valde, G. (1997). Promoting Student Participation and Learning Through the Use of
Weekly Writing Assignments . Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8(3), 67-
76. http://celt.muohio.edu/ject/Thompson, A.G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and
conceptions: a synthesis of the research. In D.A. Grows (ed.), Handbook of
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 127-146). New York:
Macmillan.
Tollefson, J.W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. London: Longman.
Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.). (1995). Power and inequality in language education Cambridge:
University Press.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers‟ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 127-146). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Tosi, A., & Leung, C. (1999). Rethinking language education: From a monolingual to a
multilingual perspective. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching
Troyna, B., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (1993). Providing support or denying access? The
experiences of students designated as “ESL” or “SN” in a multi-ethnic
secondaryschool. Educational Review, 45, 3–11.
Trumbull, D.J. (1990). Evolving conceptions of teaching: Reflections of one teacher.
Curriculum Inquiry, 20(2), 161-182.
Tsui, A. (2005, March). Young foreign language learners and collaborative group
work: a socio-cultural perspective. Paper presented at the Colloquium on
Sociocultural perspectives of Learning and Second Language Acquisition of the37th
TESOL Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Turnbull, M., Arnett, K., 2002.Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and
foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 204–218.
Usher R. (1996) ‘Telling a story about research and research as storytelling: post-modern
approaches to social research’. In: D.Avison et al. Understanding Social Research:
Perspectives on Methodology and Practice. Southampton: University of
Southampton.

168
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological
perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning
(pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. 1988. The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the language curriculum. London: Longman Group
Limited.
van Lier, L. 2008. Agency in the classroom. In Sociocultural theory and the teaching
of second languages, ed. J. Lantolf and M. Poehner, 163–86. London: Equinox
van Lier, L.., & Walqui, A (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English
language learners. San Francisco: WestEd.
Wedin, A. (2010). A restructured curriculum for second language learners: A self-fulfilling
teacher strategy? Language and Education, 24(3), 171-183.
Verma, G.K. (ed). 1989. Education for all: a landmark in pluralism. London: Falmer
Press.
Verma G. K. (ed.). 1993. Cultural Diversity and the Curriculum. vol 2. London: Falmer
Press.
Verma, M.K., S. Firth and K.P. Corrigan. 1995. 'Death by Education: the plight of
community languages in Britain'. Language Issues. 7. 1. 5-12.
Wassink, A. B., & Curzan, A. (2004). Addressing ideologies around African American
English. Journal of English Linguistics, 32, 171-185.

Wiles, S (1985) 'Language and Learning in Multiethnic classrooms: strategies for supporting
bilingual students' in WELLS, G and NICHOLLS, J (eds) Language and Learning an
Interactional Perspective, Bristol, The Falmer Press.
Wilson Mott, V. (1992) The Challenge of Phenomenological Research: From
Philosophical Ideals to Practice. http://www.coe.uga.edu/quig/mott.html [accessed
17/7/06]
Williams, C. (2002). Ennill iaith: Astudiaethau o sefyllfa drochi yn 11-16 oed = A language
gained: A study of language immersion at 11-16 years of age Bangor, ME: Ysgol
Addysg Prifysgol Cymru
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: beliefs, decision-making, and
classroom practice. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, T.: 2002, ‘Doing language awareness: Issues for language study in language
teacher education’, in H. Trappes-Lomax and G. Ferguson (eds.), Language in
Language Teacher Education, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Yanow, D. (1996) How does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Yero JL (2002).Teaching in Mind: How Teacher Thinking Shapes Education. Hamilton,
MT:Mind Flight Publishing.

169
Zabalbeascoa, P. (1997) “Language Awareness and Translation” in van Lier, L.& D. Corson
(eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Knowledge about Language,
Volume 6. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Zwiers, J. (2006). Integrating academic language, thinking, and content: Learning scaffolds
for non-native speakers in the middle grades. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 5(4), 317-332.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

170