30.674, Review: English; Applied Linguistics: Enever (2018)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-30-674. Tue Feb 12 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 30.674, Review: English; Applied Linguistics: Enever (2018)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:57:35
From: Dung Tran [dmt282 at nau.edu]
Subject: Policy and Politics in Global Primary English

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36449318


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/29/29-3288.html

AUTHOR: Janet  Enever
TITLE: Policy and Politics in Global Primary English
SERIES TITLE: Oxford Applied Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2018

REVIEWER: Dung My Tran, Northern Arizona University

SUMMARY

The book “Policy and Politics in Global Primary English” written by Janet
Enever talks about policies regarding teaching English in primary schools in
various countries in the world, as well as the political aspects that
influence those policies. The book is divided into two parts. Part I, composed
of Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4, mentions the background of how English education in
primary schools has flourished and the common belief that knowing English will
help children later earn good jobs in the global economy. Part II, including
Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8, focuses on the broad social and political contexts
that influence the teaching policies.

Chapter 1 addresses the global trend of studying and teaching English, and the
reasons why children should start learning English early. Since the 1900s,
global trading has become widespread. Countries want to communicate for
business; therefore, the demand for learning English has increased. Moreover,
in order to find jobs in the time of global trading, knowing English is
crucial. Thus, parents want their children to start learning English early so
they can get jobs when they grow up. Many countries, under the pressure of
global trading and parents, have issued various policies of teaching English
at primary schools. In the chapter, these policies are examined based on the
framework of Robertson and Dale (2000), which asserts that there are
connections among the state, the economy and the civil society. These three
aspects have to agree over rules and regulations so that the state can exist.
Additionally, many countries issue policies so children can start learning
English early because of several reasons. First, children have the linguistic
advantage. For example, they can notice words (Yelland, Pollard and Mercuri,
1993; Bialystock, 1987) and other aspects of linguistics such as grammar or
spelling (Swain and Lapkin, 1991). Second, children have a cognitive
advantage. Children’s brains are elastic and flexible, that’s why they can
learn another language better than adults.

Chapter 2 mentions the policies of teaching English in primary schools in
different contexts. The first context is India. It has thousands of languages
and Hindi is the first official language while English is the second one. Two
specific regions in India, Tamil Nadu and Delhi are investigated in this
chapter, and it is shown that the quality of teachers and facilities aren’t
high in both regions. Also, in these regions, efforts have been exerted to
limit the number of private schools so state schools can thrive. The second
context is Europe. In Spain, there have been many bilingual schools since the
mid-1900s. In Madrid, bilingual primary schools have also increased to 353,
which is 46% of all primary schools within the states. However, many issues
have arisen in Madrid, such as the inequality of educational opportunities
among children in different parts of the region and the inappropriate
assessment of the Common European Framework of Reference. Regarding both India
and Madrid, policy makers and educators are still very optimistic about the
English education at primary schools, yet, there is a lack of research on the
effectiveness of these programs.

Chapter 3 focuses on the policies of teaching English before primary schools.
In European countries such as Italy, Portugal and Poland, most parents and
teachers want children to study English in kindergarten. They think the
culture of English-speaking countries is worth studying and English will bring
the children an economic advantage despite the fact that children can learn
very little at this age. In Shanghai, China, some kindergartens only teach
Putonghua, the official language, because of the national policy “one nation,
one language.” However, other schools want children to speak more than one
language, so they take advantage of the state policy which declares that 20
percent of teaching time can be allocated to satisfy local preferences. In
this case, a disagreement exists between the state and the civil society.

Chapter 4 details the evidence of the benefits of teaching English at primary
schools, specifically in Italy, Sweden and Poland. These countries vastly
differ in geography, history and politics; yet, they all adopt the policy of
teaching English since primary school. This leads to many gains, such as
children will develop positive attitudes and great motivation in learning
English, be able to create different identities, gain more knowledge about
languages and develop the awareness of various cultures. In this case,
considering the framework of Robertson and Dale (2000), the civil society and
the state share some similar ideas. Parents, thinking that English will
benefit their children in the future, want the best education policy for them.
At the same time, policy makers hope to get support for the next election and
provide the next generations with language skills so they can thrive in the
global market. As a result, policies regarding teaching English at primary
schools are implemented. 

Chapter 5 reveals the six soft policies in Europe that lead to the policy of
teaching English at primary schools. The first policy is the establishment of
the European Center for Modern Languages in which 32 countries join. This
center holds workshops and programs to help teachers boost their English
teaching skills and guide English language learners in Europe. The second
policy is the creation of the Common European Framework of Reference. This
framework is used to assess the learner’s competencies in European languages.
The third policy is the start of the European Language Portfolio, which is
designed to help learners record the process of learning another language. The
forth policy is the Action Plan 2004-06. Specifically, the European Commission
wants the ministries of education to start teaching at least two foreign
languages in kindergartens and primary schools by 2006. The fifth policy is
Eurydice, another program that develops education in foreign languages in
Europe. The final policy is the Lifelong Learning Program 2007-2013. This
program allows teachers and students to study abroad in European countries to
improve their proficiency in foreign languages and network with each other.
Some of these policies are investigated in Germany and Slovenia, and their
implementations are found to be different. Since Germany is a big country and
has many German speakers, some states resist teaching a foreign language at
primary schools. Meanwhile, Slovenia is a smaller country where authority
belongs to the central government, so it’s easy to reach an agreement over the
policy of teaching foreign languages at primary schools. 

Chapter 6 mentions the assessment of foreign languages, specifically how
Vietnam and Uruguay use the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) to
evaluate English learners’ proficiency. The CEFR emphasizes oral communication
and reflects a communicative approach in teaching foreign languages. It
divides learners into three categories, basic users at level A1 and A2,
independent users at level B1 and B2 and proficient users at level C1 and C2.
The CEFR can be applied in any context; however, it is thought to fit the
Western countries better. When the CEFR was implemented in Vietnam, Dudzik and
Nguyen (2015) and Hung (2015) shared the idea that the framework isn’t
culturally appropriate and there should be a separate CEFR for Asian
countries. In Uruguay, the CEFR is adapted to the country’s context. For
example, the assessment criteria are designed to reflect those in the CEFR,
but two different tests are created, the English Adaptive Assessment and the
Cambridge English Young Learners Tests – Starters, Movers and Flyers to fit
different kinds of students. In general, the fact that both countries adopt
the CEFR shows their attempts to catch up with the global trend.

Chapter 7 shows the politics of English education, specifically how the
policies of teaching English in primary schools are affected by the funding
from international organizations such as the World Bank (WB), the World Trade
Organization (WTO) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Take Chile as an
example, their policy regarding teaching English at primary schools has been
significantly influenced by the financial support of WB and private companies.
In 2010, Chile joined the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD); since then, the idea that English can develop their
economy has been strengthened. Another example is Colombia. It receives funds
from OECD, who then evaluates the country via the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA). To come up with the reports for evaluation,
Colombian teachers have to measure and record almost everything. Generally, in
both countries, teachers have to satisfy the policies and try to find ways to
make them benefit the students despite the fact that some policies can be
inappropriate.

Chapter 8 addresses some conditions to create an equitable and high quality
education in English in primary schools. First, generalist teachers in charge
of the whole curriculum are the most suitable for teaching English. They
should know about the development of children’s languages, use effective
methods to teach children at primary schools and have high English
proficiency, especially in oral skills. They should also be trained for three
to five years about how to teach English before actually teaching and should
participate in professional development. Next, if a new policy is to be
implemented, it needs to be planned and evaluated by school principals and
teachers at primary schools. There should be a plan to manage financial
resources for the policy as well. For the curriculum to be successful, school
principals, staff and parents have to support and take part in it. The
curriculum should cover specific areas, allow students to make progress over
the years, and be based on themes. Furthermore, there is a need for diverse
materials for teaching and a team to develop materials. Also, the class size
should be limited so individual attention can be given to students. Children
at primary schools shouldn’t be assessed by high-stake tests such as those
based on the CEFR. Moreover, some communication between primary and secondary
schools needs to be established so children can continue their English study
without having to learn from the beginning when they start a new level of
education. Finally, to make sure children receive equal educational
opportunities, there should be free primary education and some control over
primary private schools.

EVALUATION

This book provides abundant background information on the policies of teaching
English language at primary schools. Many parts of the world are examined,such
as Europe including Italy, Spain and Poland, Asia including India, Vietnam and
China, and South America including Colombia and Uruguay. This can help readers
form a big picture of how policies regarding primary English education are
applied globally. Moreover, the writer provides a framework that enable
readers to understand more about the politics of teaching English at primary
schools. The framework emphasizes the relationship among the state, the
economy and the civil society, from which it can be concluded that the
policies regarding teaching English at primary schools are sometimes
political. For example, if a government receives financial support from
organizations such as WB or IMF, they need to issue policies concerning
teaching English at primary schools that can satisfy the requirements of these
organizations. The policies may not be conducive to the effectiveness of
teaching and learning, but they still have to be carried out or else the funds
might be cut. In addition, parents have a great power over the implementation
of the English policy. Since many of them think that knowing English will help
their children to find jobs in the global market, they create demand for the
teaching of English, which forces policy makers to conduct policies to provide
that education.

Although the organization of the book isn’t always logical, the simple
language makes the book an easy-read. Besides, this book doesn’t require
readers to have much background information before reading it. It is suitable
for anyone interested in the current situation of English education in primary
schools all over the world.

REFERENCES

Bialystock, E. (1987). Development of word concept by bilingual children.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 133-140. 

Dudzik, D. L., & Nguyen, Q. T. N. (2015). Vietnam: Building English competency
in preparation for ASEAN 2015. In R. Stroupe & K. Kimura (Eds.), ASEAN
integration and the role of English language teaching (pp. 41-71). Phnom Penh:
IDF Education. Retrievied 18 October 2017 from
http://www.camtesol.org/Download/Book/ASEAN_Integration_and_the_Role_of_ELT.pd
f 

Hung, N. N. (2015). Vietnam’s National Foreign Language 2020 Project:
Challenges, opportunities, and solutions. In T. W. Bigalke & S. Sharbawi
(Eds.), English for ASEAN integration: Policies and practices in the region
(pp. 62-64). Brunei Darussalam: Universiti Brunei Darussalam. 

Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2000). Globalizing education policy. New York,
NY: Routledge. 

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1991). Additive bilingualism and French immersion
education: The roles of language proficiency and literacy. In A. Reynolds
(Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning. The
McGill Conference in Honor of Wallace E. Lambert (pp. 203-216). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yelland, G., Pollard, J., & Mercuri, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of
limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14,
423-444.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Dung (Davy) Tran is currently a PhD student in Applied Linguistics, Northern
Arizona University. She's also teaching ESL in the Program in Intensive
English as a graduate teaching assistant. Her research interests are corpus
linguistics and ESL curriculum design.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-674	
----------------------------------------------------------