教育二班English in Elementary Schools Limitations and Possib

English in Elementary Schools : Limitations and

Possibilities

(注：这篇论文信息量比较大，有些内容建议可以选择性讲解。不包括观众回答问题的时间大约35分钟)

Hello, everyone. Our topic today is the limitations and possibilities of English in elementary schools.

（导入建议6分钟—表格讲解2分钟+（原因分析+提问）4分钟） As we all know, many Asian countries, including China, have revised their policy for English language teaching to include the introduction of English in elementary schools. Let’s have a look at the table about some Asian countries’ English language teaching policies. (表格的讲解如下：)

In Korea, The National Education Curriculum (NEC) has

specified that students in elementary school should receive one hour of English instruction per week in Grades 3 and 4 and two hours in Grades 5 and 6.

In Japan, The new Course of Study implemented in 2002 allowed individual elementary schools to introduce English through ‘conversational activities’to promote ‘international understanding’(but not as an academic subject).

Later, in March 2006, a panel consisting of members of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology’s Central Council for Education (CCE) proposed that English should be compulsory for 5th and 6th grade level students (with students receiving one hour of instruction per week). However, English was still not to be considered an academic subject ( i. e. no grades or evaluations should be given in English classes). See Butler (2007).

In China, a policy statement entitled “The Ministry of

Education Guidelines for Vigorously Promoting the Teaching of English in Primary Schools”was issued on January18, 2001. The policy required students to start learning English in the third grade rather than the first year of junior secondary school. With

reference to policy implementation, a distinction was made between primary schools located in country and city areas with the former required to “gradually”implement the policy starting in fall 2001, whereas the latter was required to do so starting in fall 2002. See Hu (2008).

提问：Why the governments of these three countries have elected to mandate the introduction of English at elementary school level？ 回答：Undoubtedly one of the main reasons is the recognition that

English now functions as a language of global communication in business, international relations, and web based information systems. （下面的理由可选择说明或跳过）Another reason is the desire to encourage students to develop awareness and understanding of a culture different from their own ——what Japan has called ‘internationalization’. A third reason is that many parents recognize the importance of developing proficiency in English for their children’s future careers and believe that an early start will help to achieve this. A fourth reason is the conviction that foreign languages can be learned more easily by children than by adolescents or adults. In this respect, however, the decision to introduce English in the elementary school has taken little account of the results of research into elementary English programs in other countries.

（接着）Today, we need to consider the limitations facing elementary school English programs in countries like China while also pointing out the opportunities for methodological innovation in language teaching that such programs provide. I have a question for you.

What language teaching methodology is best suited to teaching young learners of English?

An early start: Is it worth it?

（建议9分钟-引入提论3分钟+解决方案2分钟+建议4分钟） What is the effect of introducing English in the elementary school on learning? To address this question we can consider the research that has compared young and older learners in terms of their rate of learning and their ultimate achievement. We can also examine studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of teaching a foreign language at the elementary school level.

Let’s study three often cited conclusions from Krashen, Long, and Scarcella’s research:

1. Adults proceed through the early stages of syntactic and morphological development faster than children (where time and exposure are held constant).

2. Older children acquire more quickly than younger children (again, in the early stages of syntactic

and morphological development where time and exposure are held constant).

3. Acquirers who begin natural exposure to a second language during childhood achieve higher Second language proficiency than those beginning as adults.

By and large these conclusions have held up over time. They contain a paradox, however. Adults (and older children) learn more rapidly

than (younger) children yet, in many settings, younger children ultimately acquire higher levels of proficiency in the second language (L2). To resolve this paradox it is necessary to distinguish research that has investigated the role of the age factor in naturalistic learners and in school based learners. Studies show that in naturalistic settings child learners achieve a more native like accent than those who start as adolescents or adults. However, it is also encouraging to note that at least some advanced late learners of L2 English can also achieve a native like pronunciation. A similar advantage for young learners is evident for grammar. Naturalistic learners who receive exposure to the L2 before the age of 15 go on to achieve higher levels of syntactical accuracy that those who only experience it later. Again, though, at least some learners who start as adults are capable of acquiring full grammatical competence. (选用材料)What does this research tell us about the effects of starting L2 teaching in the elementary school? First, we can explain the advantage that older learners have where learning grammar is concerned by their greater cognitive development. This enables them to treat language as an object and engage in linguistic analysis, both of which are likely to assist the exp licit learning of grammar. This is why late starting learners do better on traditional grammar tests as these are likely to tap exp licit knowledge. However, on those aspects of language that are more likely to require imp licit learning ——— e. g. pronunciation and oral communication skills ——— we find no clear advantage for the older learners. In fact, given sufficient time, learners who start as children are likely to outperform those who start as adults. Implicit learning is a slow and laborious process but, in the long run, it leads to higher levels of L2 proficiency than explicit learning. However, the advantage that younger learners may have for imp licit learning will not show up until after many hours of exposure to the L2 ——— that is, typically only in a naturalistic setting.

The research and the line of reasoning it supports do not constitute a strong case for introducing English into the elementary school system in China. Formal learning environments ——— such as those likely to be found in elementary school classrooms where English is taught ——— are unlikely to foster the kind of learningwhere younger children have an advantage and are also very unlikely to p rovide the amount of exposure to English for any age advantage to manifest itself. While children are more likely to reach higher levels of attainment in pronunciation and grammar than adults, this will only happen if there is sufficient exposure to the L2. Where there is only very limited exposure late starting learners may continue to outperform child learners, especially in grammar. In short, Chinese politicians and educators should be wary of assuming that teaching English in elementary schools will automatically result in

imp roved levels of L2 proficiency. Only in the case of English immersion programs, where English becomes the medium of instruction for a variety of school subjects, will the age advantage be apparent. Such programs satisfy the two key conditions for effective learning by young learners: (1) they cater to implicit language learning and (2) they provide ample exposure to the L2.

Of course, policymakers have reasons other than promoting communicative proficiency for introducing English in the elementary school:

1. To promote international understanding (Japan) 2. To deepen intercultural awareness

3. To enhance communication in societies that are becoming increasingly multilingual.

4. To enable schools to imp rove their recruitment of students. Thus, even if starting English in the elementary school proves disappointing in terms of what is probably its main goal ——— developing students' communicative competence in English ——— it may still be worthwhile from these other standpoints. Policy makers and educators, however, need to be clear and realistic about what can be achieved and what their aims for an early start program are.

Implementing an English in the elementary school program

（建议7分钟——对比分析3分钟+表格分析4分钟）

In this section I will address whether and to what extent the policy of introducing English in the elementary school be effectively implemented in countries.

Effective implementation requires:

1. Elementary school teachers who are proficient in English and who are trained in teaching young learners. 2. Access to suitable teaching materials

3. An appropriate methodology for young learners 4. Sufficient time allocated to English 5. Parental support for learning English

One reason why ‘early starts’have not been shown to be very effective may be that these requirements have not been met.

Hu (2008) investigated the impact of China’s policy of introducing English in the elementary school through case studies of four elementary schools in Wenzhou Prefecture ( two schools were classified as ‘privileged’and two as‘less privileged’).

Hu considered ‘implementation’in terms of: 1. Provision for English classes 2. Time allocated to English classes 3. Availability of trained English teachers

4. Environmental support for English within the school 5. Parental support for learning English

However, he did not consider ‘implementation’in terms of how English was actually being taught in these schools. Arguably, what really counts where ‘implementation ’is concerned, is what transpires between the teacher and the students inside the classroom.

(表格的讲解)Table 1 below summarizes Hu’s findings. There is a clear difference in the level of implementation evident in the

‘privileged’and the ‘less privileged’schools. In School A, for example, English was being taught in grades three through to six with 3 x 35 minute classes each week. The teachers were all trained and two of them had received training in primary education. There was considerable environmental support for English in the form of multimedia classrooms and English signage around the school. In general, the parents of children in this school supported the introduction of English classes and some tried to assist their children at home. School D, however, presents a completely different picture. English was not being taught at all. The other two schools fall in between School A and School D in terms of the level of implementation.

Hu concluded that the extent to which policy was being successfully implemented was very varied. He noted that there was a serious teacher shortage in some schools, that there was a considerable disparity among

schools in the implementation of policy and that this could reinforce and perpetuate social stratification. His final verdict was ‘it can be argued that the policy was implemented prematurely’(p. 533).

The decision to introduce English in the elementary school is taken centrally ——— by the Ministry of Education ——— but the task of implementing it is necessarily left to the local (often district) level. This can be seen as both a problem and an advantage. It is a problem where the local resources ( in terms of money or teacher availability) are limited. It is an advantage where specific districts/ schools are well equipped to teach English. Policy was formulated centrally but in a somewhat loose way that allowed for considerable interpretation at the local level. Implementation in many schools was very limited as the home room teachers who were made responsible for English often lacked confidence in their English abilities. Little training in English language instruction was available in many districts. The reliance on hiring native speakers as Assistant Teachers was short sighted as many of these lacked both qualifications and experience to teach English in primary schools. The picture that emerges from these studies of the implementation of central policy regarding the introduction of English in elementary schools is a rather bleak one. It suggests that implementation is extremely patchy. This raises a key question. To what extent is it appropriate to formulate such a policy given that the means for implementing it are obviously not

in p lace? There are, of course, two answers to this question. One is that the policy will motivate implementation over time. The other is that no policy should be formulated until the means for implementing it fairly for all children are in p lace.

Choosing an appropriate methodology

（建议10分钟-导入2分钟+示例一3分钟+示例二3分钟+结论2分钟） Let’s back to my question:

What language teaching methodology is best suited to teaching young learners of English?

Implementing a language policy is not just a question of resources; it is also, importantly, a question of how English should be taught to maximize learning opportunities for young learners. Policy decisions whether made at the national or more local levels will have little impact on elementary students’English unless consideration is also given to the teaching methodology to be used. Successful language learning is ultimately more a matter of methodology than of policy making. Thus, it is by addressing this question that I can make the switch from talking about ‘limitations’to considering ‘possibilities’. Traditional methodologies allow the learner little control. Here’s an example.

（第一个例子的解说）Consider this exchange between a teacher and a student. The teacher was trying to guide the student to produce plural

sentences such as ‘These are rulers’. She nominated the topic to be talked about (‘rulers’) and she controlled the way the discourse developed. There seems little room in such exchanges for the kind of imp licit language learning at which young children excel. It is, perhaps, not so surprising that this beginner learner does not succeed in producing the target sentence correctly.

Now consider another example. (第二个例子的解说)This comes from a more communicative classroom where the learners have been invited to talk about a movie they have recently seen. The learner here is thus allowed to nominate the topic (‘Kung Fu’) and takes the initiating role throughout the whole exchange, with the teacher supporting what he wants to say by expanding on his utterances through confirmation checks. Notice this has some effect on the learner’s use of English ——— he moves from the grammatically elided ‘I fight ... my hand’to the grammatically well formed ‘I fight with my hand’.

I would argue that the goal of language teaching in the elementary school should not be that of trying to guide learners into producing

grammatically correct sentences but rather that of creating contexts where the students feel free to talk about topics that are of interest to them with the teacher’s supporting hand. In other words, what is needed is exchanges like the second one. How might this be achieved? In Ellis (2003) I outlined the rationale for an app roach known as task based

language teaching (TBLT). This aims to create classroom contexts where learners learn a language‘naturally’through performing a series of meaning focused tasks. A task is‘a pedagogic activity which requires communicative language use in order to achieve a pragmatic outcome other than to practice or learn language’(Bygate and Samuda (2009). It is precisely this that is not evident in the first extract and is evident in the second. TBLT serves as a means of affording learners the discourse control that will foster the implicit language learning that young learners are especially suited to.

Conclusion （建议3分钟）

Introducing English in the elementary school can serve as an opportunity for a radical change in the way English is taught ——— a change from a focus on explicit learning through exercises that control how learners use the language to a focus on implicit learning through the performance of tasks that require a primary focus on meaning and that allow learners greater control of the discourse.

Today, we have tried to look critically at the English in the elementary school policy that has been adopted by China and other Asian countries by pointing out the limitations of such a policy. Research has shown that the folk myth that a language is learned easier and more rapidly when the learner starts young is simplistic. Elementary programs that offer only a

few 40 minute lessons per week are unlikely to result in successful learning of English. Also, major problems exist in implementing elementary school English programs in Asian countries (and probably elsewhere). These problems may in fact result in an educational system that unfairly advantages learners in those schools that have the resources to overcome them. Finally, politicians and educators should not take for granted that children who start learning in the elementary school will outperform those who start later. Nevertheless, the English in the elementary school policy affords some very real possibilities. An elementary school English program offers an opportunity to introduce an app roach to language teaching(TBLT) that is more likely to develop communicative skills. Such a program can also foster the intrinsic interest in learning English that is needed for long term success. That’s all for today, thank you!

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/99o6.html