See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283988711

Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young

Learners Revisited

Article · December 2011

DOI: 10.18649/jkees.2011.10.3.21

CITATIONS READS

0 528

4 authors, including:

Kyungsuk Chang David Hayes

Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation Brock University
37 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   412 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Attitudes to English and its impact on identity amongst school age learners in Asia View project

Shelagh Rixon's work on Teacher Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Hayes on 10 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 21

Journal of the Korea English Education Society, Vol. 10, No. 3, Winter 2011

Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching

English to Young Learners Revisited
2

Kyungsuk Chang
Korea Institute for Curriculum & Evaluation
David Hayes
Brock University, Canada
Mikyung Kim
Korea Institute for Curriculum & Evaluation
Byeongcheon Lee*
Korea Institute for Curriculum & Evaluation

Chang, Kyungsuk, Hayes, David, Kim, Mikyung & Lee, Byeongcheon. (2011).
Curriculum and materials development for teaching English to young learners
revisited. Journal of the Korea English Education Society, 10(3), 21-50.

It has been noted that throughout the world “English learners are increasing in
number and decreasing in age”. The teaching of English to children in primary
schools is a trend which did not begin until the 1990s but is now increasingly
the norm in state educational systems worldwide. Korea is, then, a participant
in a global trend. A major element in the rationale for introducing English as
a foreign language in primary school is the assumption that it is easier for children
to learn languages when they are younger rather than when they are older as the
biological endowment they are held to have for learning their first language is
still operative and so can be used for second language acquisition. However, as
this study shows such an assumption is at best questionable and there are many
other factors which need to be considered when teaching English in the primary
school. These range from factors connected with children themselves such as their
lack of emotional, physical and intellectual maturity at a young age, to factors
connected with teachers such as teachers’ own language abilities and levels of
training, and factors connected with the education system as a whole, such as
teacher supply, whether there is space in the curriculum for English at lower
levels and the knock-on effects of changes required at higher levels of the
education system. If teachers’ commitment is to be sustained and if all children
in primary schools are to benefit from the programme to teach English, then it
is also clear from the study that there are a number of challenges ahead. First

* Corresponding Author
22 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

of all, teachers feel the need for improved training and support, not just in
improving their own levels of English but also in age-specific methods for
language teaching. Secondly, textbooks should support the reform process and act
as agents of change. They must consequently be appraised carefully vis-à-vis their
conformity to new curriculum specifications. Thirdly, the effects on other areas
of the education system of any decision on teaching English in primary schools
must be fully evaluated and necessary action taken.

[teaching English to young learners(TEYL)/second language acquisition(SLA)/

curriculum change/pre- and in-service teacher training/
어린이 영어교육/외국어습득/교육과정 개정/교사 양성 및 연수]

Ⅰ. BACKGROUND

In the Korean context, where English is a foreign language, English used to be

taught from the first year of middle school but was first introduced as a compulsory
subject in the primary school in 1997. Since then, children have started learning
English from primary three. The Ministry of Education based primary language
teaching policy on research and economic rationales. The research rationale justifying
the policy is that, according to some studies on second/subsequent language
acquisition (SLA), children benefit from learning foreign languages while their innate
language acquisition device (LAD) is still active. The LAD is thought by some
researchers to be inaccessible for subsequent language acquisition beyond puberty.
The economic rationale for the policy relates to globalization. In 1995, the president
of Korea declared the beginning of ‘an era of globalization’ for Korea and education
was among the six priority areas that he listed (cited in Tsui, 2005, p. 43). In order
to actively respond to the changes globalization has entailed, that is to remain
competitive in the global economy, the Korean government felt it needed to
re-examine national educational policies. This inevitably involved decisions about
English language teaching and learning as English is the most widely used language
in the globalized economy. The government wanted to ensure that its people had
adequate linguistic resources to take an active part in the globalized world.
Tsui (2004, 2005) provides support for the economic rationale when she comments
that globalization has posed dire challenges to Asian countries because English is not
their native tongue. She also points out that the intensity and immediacy of interaction
of globalization and information exchange have rendered the reliance on translation
obsolete; a ‘lingua franca’ has become indispensable.
Since the introduction of English to primary school in 1997, English education has
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 23

been the focus of reform. The government’s pressure for the revision of language
policy has increased since then. According to Tsui’s (2004) review of the impact of
globalization on Asian countries’ language policy, a proposal was made in Korea in
1999 to make English the second language, but it was denounced by the media and
academics, and their reaction to it was described by Yim as Korea’s ‘second crisis
after Japanese colonism’ (Yim, 2003, p. 43, cited in Tsui, 2005). There remains,
however, strong pressure in the country to promote the importance of learning English
by making it a national mission. In Korea, national competitiveness is discursively
constructed as hinging on the nation’s English competence because the economic
structure of Korea is highly dependent on foreign trade. In order to motivate its
nationals to learn English, the Korean proverb, ‘In order to win, know your enemy
better’, has been cited in an English textbook as the rationale for mastering the
language (Yim, 2003 cited in Tsui, 2005, pp. 47-48). English is presented as an
international language which benefits Korea and Koreans. English is therefore
appropriated as a vehicle for placing Korea in the globalized world.
English has become one of the major concerns in education since the government’s
policy to introduce English in the primary school was first implemented. It has been
widely recognized that children in the urban areas who are able to attend private
academy institutes have started English learning even at the kindergarten. The parents
of these children want them to do better at school and have the perceived benefits
of early language education. The government has shown its concern that some
children from affluent families in urban areas have the privilege of benefiting from
early English language education while those children from less affluent families have
no such benefit. This has become a social issue as much as an educational one.
According to Kennedy’s (1987) analysis of change strategies in educational
innovation, power-coercive strategies are those in which changes are based on
sanctions of some sort which force people to change or act in a certain way. It is
most often observed that a manifestation of this strategy takes the form of laws. This
is what happened when the Korean Ministry of Education mandated the national
curricula for schools. As Kennedy (1987) notes, a question raised by such an approach
is the extent to which the strategies promote genuine change. It is possible that the
attempt to force teachers to adopt change would merely lead to resistance to the
proposal, or surface-level acceptance. Further, it is also arguable whether an imposed
policy will succeed unless public opinion actually supports it.
The Korean Ministry of Education has been criticized for its use of power-coercive
strategies in the implementation of change, relying heavily on the top-down approach
to implement its newly developed curricula on teachers in schools. Yet some effort
24 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

has been made at the government level to foster more effective change implementation
strategies. In response to the need for teacher development policy in the 7th National
Curriculum, the government provided a variety of teacher education programmes to
help teachers and core practitioners with regard to implementation of the national
curriculum at school and classroom levels (Lee & Oh, 2006). However, according
to Lee and Oh’s (2006) analysis, there was a critical question as to its real
contribution to supporting changes at schools, in which teachers implemented the new
national curriculum with new textbooks.
A great deal of concern has been expressed that the same outcome is likely to
be repeated as in the government’s process of implementing the 7th National
Curriculum. Little change took place at the level of classroom teaching and there has
been significant resistance to the imposed change (Lee & Oh, 2006). Those involved
in primary English teaching have expressed a similar concern and argue that priority
should be given to support at the micro-level, as teachers are agents of change, not
simply recipients of change imposed by the ministry.
Although government-level studies on the effects of English teaching tend to
support government language policy, they fail to provide information on the process
of implementation of the national curricula, with a focus on effects in terms of
students’ language learning(Kim, Jinseok, 2005; Lee, Munwoo, 2011). Little research
has been done on the processes of implementing the new curricula and the
effectiveness of implementation processes, with suggestions for effective ways of
bringing about change. As Kennedy (1987) notes, support from those involved in
change at all levels is essential for a policy’s survival, and the primary change agent
should do everything possible to enlist such support and create as many
demonstrations of it as possible. This will generally help towards creating a positive
attitude toward change and increased likelihood of participation in the innovation on
the part of teachers.
The literature review provides a theoretical background to primary English language
teaching in selected Asian countries where English is not the mother tongue. The
overview of the literature on child language acquisition examines factors that are
deemed to affect children’s learning of languages. The review also examines
experience in processes of implementing change in terms of curriculum, materials,
and teacher training. A number of conclusions are drawn from the discussion. To
limit its scope for practical purposes, the research focuses on curriculum and textbook
development in the Korean context, covering how their development can be
characterized in the given situation.
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 25

Ⅱ. KEY ISSUES IN TEYL

The global push to teach English at ever younger ages in formal instructional
settings is a fairly recent phenomenon. A survey by the British Council in 1999
“showed that the majority of countries in which English was taught in primary
schools had introduced the innovation in the 1990s. Often this was only on an
experimental basis or in one of the higher grades. Since then the practice has
become more widespread” (Graddol, 2006, p. 88). Throughout the world teaching
English at the primary level is facts becoming the norm. English is then, more
and more a component of basic education rather than a component of foreign
language teaching in the secondary school. Such a shift in policy has profound
implications for most educational systems. Graddol (2006, pp. 90-91) presents an
overview of models of learning English which summarizes key aspects of each
model―the traditional English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a
second language (ESL) and the newer English for Young Learners (EYL) from
target variety and skills through primary purposes to typical failure patterns. This
overview is reproduced below though Graddol’s ‘Global English’ model is
omitted as this deals with post-EYL learning(Graddol, 2006, pp. 90~91).

Table 1
Models of Learning English
EFL ESL (a) ESL (b) EYL
Target variety Native speaker, Native‐speaker – local variety (e.g. Typically claims to
usually American host country; may Indian English); use native speaker
or British be non‐standard might include a variety as target, but
local standard as problems of teacher
well as supply often make
non‐standard this unrealistic.
Skills Focus on All skills, Young learners may
speaking and including literacy not have L1 literacy
listening: skills, so emphasis is
communicative on speaking and
curriculum listening
Teacher skills Language Native speaker Bilingual teacher Language proficient
proficient, trained who understands in local including good
in methodology migrants problems community accent; also needs
training in child
development; may
need security
screening
Learner Mixed: often poor Integrational Usually part of Young learners rarely
motives motivation inherited identity have clear motive;
26 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

so little choice they may just like the

teacher
Starting age 10‐13 years old, Whatever age a From birth Kindergarten –
secondary school person immigrates Grade 3 primary
– from birth to (5‐9)
retired
Primary To communicate To function in host Communication To develop language
purposes with native country; with local élite; awareness and
speakers; to sometimes to national prepare for higher
satisfy entrance acquire new communication levels of proficiency
requirements for nationality across linguistic in later years
jobs, universities boundaries
Values Liberal: improves Values of host Local social All education at this
tolerance and society (e.g. values but may age has strong moral
understanding of British, US, have western and ideological
other cultures Australian) orientation components which
usually reflect local,
rather than
‘Anglo‐Saxon’
values
Citizenship In EU seen as a Often sued as Content may reflect
component of vehicle to teach need for national
developing about rights and integration and unity;
European duties in host provide information
citizenship country about basic health,
community values
and so on
Learning Classroom Host society English is often a Often informal in
environment focused; provides language of the kindergarten,
time‐tabled immersion home; community pre‐school or primary
subject; experience; some is saturated with classroom. Affective
occasional visits family members English material. factors are important
to native‐speaking may provide Role of school to
country model; perhaps develop
part‐time ESOL or competence in a
special support standard variety
classes
Content/ Local government Very variable; may Often local text Activity‐based, play,
materials textbook; include realia and books of a songs, games
international government forms traditional
publisher etc academic kind
Assessment Either: local Citizenship or visa Local traditional Usually local testing
exams or exams exams or assessment,
international though international
(IELTS, exams are available
Cambridge
ESOL, TOEFL,
TOEIC)
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 27

Failure pattern Low proportion of Often age/ Depends on social Often successful in
learners reach generation class/group developing basic oral
high proficiency dependent skills but if badly
done can deter
children from
language learning

From this table we can see the changes that are necessary if the previously
dominant EFL model is to be replaced by an EYL model. Changes are, however,
not just necessary in the new grade levels in which English is introduced – whether
this is in Grade 1 or later in the primary cycle – but throughout the entire system
as earlier introduction of a subject inevitably requires adjustment to the curriculum
and materials in all subsequent grades. The follow‐on implications of a decision to
teach English earlier in the school cycle are profound.
Once a decision has been made, then, to teach a language to a particular age group,
which has not received instruction in the language previously, if failure as identified
by Graddol is to be avoided, all manner of other factors come into play which are
common to systemic educational reform for any subject area in the curriculum. These
are, primarily:

• ensuring that there are adequate numbers of teachers to teach

the subject to the particular grades;
• ensuring that these teachers are well trained for the task;
• ensuring that instructional time is available in the curriculum for
the teaching of the subject;
• ensuring that curriculum materials and teaching‐learning approaches
are appropriate to the age group;
• ensuring that adequate time has been allowed for the preparation
of new curriculum materials;
• ensuring that appropriate and timely in‐service training is given
to teachers in the use of the materials and teaching‐learning
approaches;
• ensuring that adequate in‐school advisory support is available to
teachers as they implement the curriculum;
• ensuring that appropriate evaluation procedures are in place to
evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation;
• ensuring that adequate material and financial resources are
available to implement all of the above;
• and, of course, ensuring that necessary adjustments are made to
28 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

the curriculum and materials for all subsequent grades, and that
teachers are given training to introduce them to these changes
in the higher grades.

Given the scale and complexity of these changes, a decision to introduce English
into the curriculum early in the primary cycle needs to be based on sound theoretical
principles―the benefits of such a change for children’s learning in the early grades,
and for subsequent learning in higher grades, need to be demonstrably clear. We will
now review the research to determine the evidence available in support of introducing
English (or, indeed, any foreign language) to children early in the primary cycle.

Ⅲ. THE ROLE OF ENGLISH OF EDUCATION AND IN WIDER

SOCIETY: CASE STUDIES OF EFL AND ESL CONTEXTS

In order to understand the rationale for teaching English as a subsequent language

to young children in primary school, one must also understand the place that English
has in an educational system and in the wider society which is served by the education
system of particular countries. In many countries in the Asian region which have
never been subject to English‐speaking colonialism, whether British or American,
there is an often-stated belief that English is necessary for purposes of national
development and, as such, the language must be taught in schools. As Graddol (2006,
p. 89) puts it: “EYL [English for Young Learners] is often not just an educational
project, but also a political and economic one.” There is, however, surprisingly little
evidence linking proficiency in English with higher levels of economic development;
nor is it clear even that English is a necessity for the majority of secondary school
or even university students entering the labour force upon graduation. What does seem
to be common practice, however, is that a degree of proficiency in English is seen
as a desirable skill and that this is used to differentiate between candidates applying
for appointments. Whether practices of this kind further overall economic development
or simply maintain the vested interests of élites is another matter.
To a certain extent these arguments also apply to those countries which were once
British colonies. The position of English in Sri Lanka is examined here as a case
study of a former British colony; followed by an examination of the position of
English in Thailand, a country which has not been colonized by any English‐speaking
power.
The government of Sri Lanka has recently been making considerable efforts to
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 29

promote the use of English in the country and aims to offer, as a minimum, English
as a subject to children in all grades in all government schools throughout the island,
with the prospect of some schools being allowed to teach other subjects in English‐
medium (National Education Commission, 2002). This is partly a result of language
policies but perhaps more directly attributable to perceived economic imperatives.
With regard to language policies, these have been contentious for some considerable
time and have played a role in the long‐standing and well‐documented conflict
between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamil communities. Tension between
the two communities which had existed for much of the twentieth century was
exacerbated by the 1956 Act of Parliament which made Sinhala the sole official
language and thus devalued Tamil as well as English, the language of the former
colonial power. The status of both Tamil and English has changed since then, with
Tamil now given official status as a national language and English deemed the “link
language” between the communities. Whether official pronouncements can be yet said
to be reflected in everyday reality is another matter. It would be true to say that
English is most widely used amongst members of the socio‐economic elite, a group
for whom English has long functioned as a strong second language (and for some
a first language) irrespective of official language policies. For them, use of English
is a marker of high status within a highly stratified society, a “badge of distinction”
as the National Education Commission (2002) notes. The converse is also true, i.e.
that lack of fluency in English is correlated with low status. This has given rise to
a huge demand in Sri Lankan society for English and many parents at all levels of
society make efforts to send their children to private tuition classes in the language.
The demands for English are inevitably connected to the wider socio‐economic
world and, as previously intimated, Sri Lanka, like so many other countries, is subject
to economic imperatives and the forces of globalization. These impacts powerfully
on perceptions of English as the language of modern technology and economic
advancement (Block & Cameron, 2002). Recognizing the existence of, but leaving
aside, the question of whether for most Sri Lankan children currently in school
mastery of English will indeed lead to an economically prosperous future or whether
such a future will remain chimerical, it is a fact that demand for English is strong
and political backing immensely powerful. As Kandiah (2000, p. 14) notes:

Not a day passes without several affirmations of the importance of

English by various important figures [in Sri Lanka]. Pronouncements
about the language and the need to teach and learn it emanate from
the most significant official figures and institutions, and are then given
30 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

real substance in the forms of plans, strategies and so on, the

implementation of which is seriously pursued.

We can see, then, that in Sri Lanka the teaching and learning of English is far
from value‐neutral: it is not ‘just another subject’ in the school curriculum. Moreover,
as the formal teaching of English begins in Grade 3, it is also there that it begins
to play its part as the “link language” in contributing to the overall objectives of
lessening social differentiation and contributing to the achievement of social harmony
between communities. It might be argued that redressing patterns of social inequality
and contributing to social harmony between communities are rarefied goals for the
teaching of English at primary level. However, it has been noted that education as
a whole has its part to play in establishing the pre‐conditions for social harmony and
greater equity amongst future generations (Department for International Development
& World Bank, 2000).
In contrast to Sri Lanka with its history of English language use deriving from
British colonialism, Thailand has never been colonized by any English‐speaking
power. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that competence in English is
seen as a marker of high social status. But, although there is a history of members
of the Thai élite being proficient in English, lack of competence in the language is
not necessarily seen as a mark of low status (Aksornkool, 1985) in the way that it
is in Sri Lanka. Aksornkool has also noted that the practical relevance of English
to the lives of most Thais is extremely limited though “the symbolic function of
English still has a stronghold in the minds of many, if not most Thais” stemming
from “the traditional association of English with its ideal function, i.e. its connection
with education, wealth, and prestige” (Aksornkool, 1985, p. 131). Nevertheless, levels
of achievement in English have been a source of concern for many decades, prior
to Aksornkool’s (1985) study and continuing to the present day. Chayanuvat (2003,
pp. 1‐2) cites Sukamolson’s (1990) meta‐analysis of 350 studies in English teaching
and learning from 1972 to 1987 which concluded that “the achievements of students
at all levels – primary, secondary and tertiary – were disappointing.” She goes on
to cite a further study by Anantaset (2001) which reported that candidates for doctoral
degree programmes at Chulalongkorn, Thailand’s most prestigious university, were
measured as having very limited proficiency in English and that business leaders
reported that the university’s graduates “may have good knowledge about the English
language but they cannot use it effectively to do their jobs” (Chayanuvat, 2003, p. 2).
Although English is not a compulsory subject in the Thai curriculum, virtually all
schools teach the language. Classes are much larger than those to be found in the
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 31

west with class sizes of 40‐50 being common. Teachers in Thailand are traditionally
expected to impart knowledge to their students and most classes are teacher‐fronted
and controlled. The predominant teaching style is expository, with translation from
English to Thai the general norm. Even where textbooks are supposedly
communicative in orientation, a teacher will often read out such things as dialogues,
ask the students to repeat after her/him and then translate the dialogue into Thai. No
value judgement is made as to whether communicative methodology in whatever
manifestation is desirable but it should be pointed out that the communicative
approach (as it would be more accurate to call it) is deemed to be appropriate for
Thai students by the Central Supervisory Unit of the Department of General Education
(CSU/DGE) which oversees teaching and learning in all state schools nationwide.
Such learner‐centered methods are also legislated for in the most recent National
Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999) for all subjects (National Education Commission,
1999, p. 35). In harmony with official pronouncements, schools use textbooks which
purport to be ‘communicative’ and stress student involvement in learning. But, as
suggested, the books may be taught in other ways and teaching styles are
predominantly transmissive.
There is ample evidence to show that the Thai Ministry of Education regards
improvement in standards of achievement in education as a priority (Ministry of
Education, Thailand, 2004). English as a subject is a cause of particular concern with
respect to its perceived role in regional and global economic competitiveness, and
amongst initiatives to redress deficiencies the Ministry has established bilingual
programmes in a number of schools. At primary level these schools use English to
teach maths, sciences and physical education as well as the language itself; at
secondary level English is used for all subjects except social studies and the Thai
language. At present there are 187 ‘English Program’ schools in Thailand but only
76 of these are in state schools at all levels, of which just 17 are primary schools
(Ministry of Education, Thailand, 2005). The fact that the remaining 111 are in Thai
private schools is perhaps a reflection of that sector’s dependence on the more affluent
members of society, those in turn more likely to ascribe to the symbolic value of
English in Thailand (Aksornkool, 1985). To date there are no published research
studies investigating English language or other subject achievement in these bilingual
schools vis‐à‐vis Thai‐medium schools.
32 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

Ⅳ. THE AGE FACTOR IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Many of the arguments for the introduction of English in primary school are based
on a perception that, in language learning, ‘the earlier the better’ is a sound
educational principle. This principle, in turn, is derived from research into first
language acquisition and the simultaneous acquisition of two languages by bilingual
children. In these cases young children acquire language seemingly effortlessly,
irrespective of the particular language and irrespective of the quality of input they
receive. Further, it is a given that all children who are developmentally normal will
acquire fluency in their first language(s) and that there are fixed developmental paths
in their acquisition of a particular language through which all learners will pass,
though the rate of acquisition may vary (Mitchell & Myles, 2004).

1. The Critical Period Hypothesis: Research evidence from L1 and

L2 acquisition

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) was advanced by the biologist Lenneberg
(1967) with respect to the acquisition of a child’s first language. The CPH has since
been extended to second language acquisition (SLA) by theorists. The classic
argument, as Brown (2006, p. 54) notes, is that “a critical period for second language
acquisition occurs around puberty, beyond which people seem to be relatively
incapable of acquiring a second language”.
What children learn when they acquire their first language is well documented. For
example, there is an order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes in English. A
partial list follows (Lightbown & Spada, 1999, p. 5):

1. Present progressive ‐ing (Mummy running)

2. Plural –s (two books)
3. Irregular past forms (Baby went)
4. Possessive ’s (daddy’s hat)
5. Copula (Annie is a nice girl)
6. Articles ‘the’ and ‘a’
7. Regular past –ed (She walked)
8. Third person singular simple present –s (She runs)
9. Auxiliary ‘be’ (He is coming)

A child who has mastered the grammatical morphemes at the bottom of the list
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 33

will be sure to have mastered those at the top: the reverse is not true. However, there
could be differences in the rate of acquisition. There is also consistency in the way
children learn to form questions in English, e. g. there is a predictable order in which
the wh‐ words emerge. What is generally first, where and who emerge very soon.
Why emerges around the end of the second year (and remains a favourite in young
children). Finally, how and when emerge as the child begins to understand manner
and time.
There is some support for the CPH advanced by Lenneberg in first language
acquisition. If first language acquisition does not happen by the age of around
12, then language may never be learnt fully as shown by cases of children who
have not received any linguistic input before the age of 12 who have then been
unable to master a language to the same degree as younger children. Clearly this
is impossible to investigate in experimental settings and for evidence we must
rely on those rare instances of children found in later life who have been
deprived of language input from birth. Two oft‐cited instances follow (Singleton
& Ryan, 2004).

• In 1799 a boy was found in the woods of Aveyron, captured

and found to be completely wild, apparently having had no
contact with humans. Although he developed sociability, Victor
only ever learned two words ‘lait’, his favourite food; and ‘Ó
Dieu!’, his governess’s frequent exclamation.
• In 1970 an abused child of 13, Genie, was discovered in
California, having been locked up, denied speech from her
parents, and beaten every time she vocalized or made any noise.
Once she was found, after 5 years of exposure to language
(sufficient for a younger child to master a language) her
language showed features common to children in the early
stages of language acquisition.

Other evidence comes from research with deaf users of American Sign
Language (ASL) which has studied the acquisition of the language at different
stages. This is possible as only 5‐10% of profoundly deal children are born to
deaf parents and so likely to be exposed to ASL from birth. In tests there was
no difference in the subjects’ acquisition of word order but with grammatical
markers there were clear differences. The Native group (exposed to ASL from
birth) outperformed the Early learners (Exposed to ASL between the ages of 4
34 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

and 6), who in turn outperformed the Late learners (exposed to ASL after the
age of 12).

1) Biological Explanations for the CPH

It is generally accepted in neurological research that children’s brains exhibit much

greater plasticity than adult, mature brains. There is evidence that changes in the brain
seem to be occurring at about the same time that language acquisition outcomes differ
systematically. This has led some researchers to hypothesize a relationship between
the two. Lateralization of the brain is often cited as important in biological
explanations. As the brain matures, certain functions are assigned to the left
hemisphere and others to the right. The right hemisphere seems to control functions
related to emotional and social needs; the left seems to control intellectual, logical
and analytic functions, including language. (We should note, however, that both
hemispheres are involved in most of the neurological activity of the human brain.)
A crucial question for SLA is when lateralization occurs. Lenneberg (1967) cites
research to show that children who have undergone surgery on the left hemisphere
of the brain can transfer language functions to the right hemisphere whereas adults
cannot. He contends that lateralization begins around the age of two and is completed
during puberty. In contrast, Penfield and Roberts (1959, p. 236) concluded from
research on the transfer of language functions that “for the purposes of learning
languages, the human brain becomes progressively stiff and rigid after the age of
nine”. However, Krashen (1973) reviewed the data cited in Lenneberg (1967) and
noted that the actual damage to the children’s brains had occurred much earlier than
puberty, in all cases by the age of five. He therefore concluded that lateralization
must be completed by around that age. And, to confuse the picture still further Adams
(1997) reported a six‐year case study of a boy who was 8.2 years at the onset, and
had a left hemispherectomy at 8.6. He had no speech prior to surgery and had the
language and cognition of a 2‐4 year old; but post‐surgery and following the
withdrawal of anti‐convulsant medication at age 9.3, he suddenly began to acquire
speech and language. This was measured between the ages of 9 and 15; the most
recent scores indicating that his receptive and expressive language were at an 8‐10
year old level.
Given the variability in research evidence, the claims and counter‐claims about the
‘critical age’ in any CPH one can readily concur with Singleton and Ryan’s (2004,
p. 42) conclusion that: Clearly, the fact that different researchers have specified
different ages as marking the onset of a decline in cerebral plasticity specifically in
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 35

relation to language functions does not inspire confidence in their assertions.

Moreover, neurologists have tended to be increasingly sceptical about special factors
operating in the recovery of speech, preferring the more general hypothesis of ‘the
grater plasticity of the less mature organism as it compensates for function loss due
to damage’. Such a position is obviously very far from one that interprets the
neurological evidence as directly and unequivocally supporting the idea of a critical
age limit specifically for language acquisition.
We should also note that language development continues in some respects in adults
throughout their lives. Consider, for example, vocabulary size amongst different age
groups.

• 12 year olds have a recognition vocabulary of about 135,000

words
• Undergraduate students know about 200,000 words
• The typical 30 year old Ph.D. holder knows about 250,000
words

Vocabulary development continues in a natural fashion as long as one lives and

is interested in new things. Most adults can recall occasions when they have had to
acquire new vocabulary and new ways of using language, as the result of either
professional or social experiences.
There is, then, no consensus on a biological interpretation of differences in outcome
of child and adult second language learning. If biological explanations for a CPH
are not conclusive, we must now turn to social/psychological explanations advanced
for the CPH.

2) Social/Psychological Explanations for the CPH

Alternative explanations look to social/ psychological factors thought to co‐vary

with age, including motivation, affective or attitudinal, and input factors. So it is
claimed that children are inherently more motivated than adults to acquire native‐like
levels of the L2; that younger learners develop positive attitudes towards the L2, its
culture, and its speakers more easily than older learners do; and/or that children
receive more and simpler input than adults do. Unfortunately for the advocates of
these hypotheses there is no direct evidence that children are inherently more
motivated than adults to learn the L2; or that they receive more input than adults.
On the contrary, children may vary in their desire to acquire the L2 and in the input
36 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

they receive but invariantly end up with much higher attainment than adults. Several
studies have also shown that motivational factors cannot account for the decrease in
attainment with increasing age of onset of learning; i.e. adult learners can be very
motivated but still be unable to acquire the L2 as successfully as younger learners.
There is also a problem with input factors. Even though children generally receive
simpler L2 input than adults, research on caretaker talk in L1 indicates that course,
speed and success in L1 acquisition are relatively insensitive to both qualitative and
quantitative variation in input and interaction. This is true both within and across
cultures. Thus, there is no obvious reason to doubt that children can reach very high,
if not native‐like, L2 standards from quite poor and sparse input/interaction (Brown,
2006).
Where does this leave the older learner? It may be that non‐maturational factors
can sometimes combine into advantageous learning circumstances that may
compensate for increasing age of onset in L2 learning. In cases of late L2 learning
the advantageous learning circumstances go beyond motivational, affective or
attitudinal, and input factors to encompass amount and type of instruction, verbal
analytical ability, metalinguistic awareness, and a general talent for acquiring
languages. Certainly, the variability between exceptionally successful and other L2
learners of the same starting age may be seen as the result of (a combination of)
these factors. A study by Moyer (1999) showed that, in addition to degree of
motivation, the amount and type of instruction that post‐puberty L2 learners receive
strongly correlate with success, whereas varying starting ages after puberty do not
correlate with levels of proficiency, i.e. ultimate outcomes become statistically
unpredictable from ages of onset of learning after puberty. From other research there
is evidence that:

• All but one of the late L2 starters who achieved scores within
the range of child starters on a grammaticality judgement test
also scored high on a test of verbal analytical ability. This led
DeKeyser (2000) to conclude that only adults with these special
abilities can achieve near‐native L2 competence.
• For adult learners a focus on form (the grammar of the L2) can
be beneficial (Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, & Moselle 1994).
• An innate talent for learning languages can, obviously, be
important. This talent is hypothesized (and to some extent
observed) to correlate with characteristics such as left‐handedness
and is also manifest in the speed of L1 acquisition (Ioup et al.,
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 37

1994). But just how a ‘talented’ brain acquires language(s) in

comparison with a ‘normal’ brain is unclear.

We should end this section with a note of caution: Generalization from the basis
of these studies to a much wider L2 learning population is dangerous. Many more
replication studies would be needed before any generalizable conclusions could be
reached.

3) Cognitive Explanations for the CPH

According to the fundamental difference hypothesis adult learners differ from child
learners in that they no longer have access to the inborn Language Acquisition Device
(LAD) specified in Universal Grammar (UG); and instead have to rely on general
problem‐solving mechanisms to learn an L2. But a different perspective is provided
by research studies of “lifespan cognition”. These provide evidence that in learning
experiments older subjects are more sensitive to timing factors in the presentation
of materials and need longer recall time. There is also a general decline in the recall
of details and a tendency for older learners to remember only the gist. Moreover,
the cognitive decline is gradual and constant, just as the levels of language proficiency
become gradually poorer with increasing age of onset of learning and L2. Bialystok
and Hakuta (1999), in a study of 63,960 Spanish‐ and Chinese‐speaking immigrants
to the USA (with ages of onset of exposure to English from zero to 70+ and with
10 years or more of exposure) concluded that as all of these deteriorating cognitive
abilities are involved in the learning and use of a new language, “age‐related changes
in ultimate language proficiency are to be attributable to these cognitive changes and
not to a specific language module that is constrained by a maturational schedule”
(p. 172).
It is a given that children from immigrant families eventually speak the language
of their new community with native‐like fluency but that their parents rarely achieve
such high levels. It is possible, for example, to witness children from minority ethnic
groups interpreting for their parents when going about everyday tasks like making
purchases in shops. Where adult immigrants do communicate well in the L2 well
there are often differences in accent, grammatical features or word choice
differentiating them from native speakers. Many studies of the relationship between
age of acquisition and L2 development have focused on learners’ achievement (or
lack) of native‐like pronunciation but we must recognize that this is not the sole
criterion for success. Also to be taken into account are the conditions of learning
38 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

for children and adults. Lightbown and Spada (1999, pp. 60‐61) comment: “Younger
learners in informal language learning environments usually have more time to devote
to learning language. They often have more opportunities to hear and use the language
in environments where they do not experience strong pressure to speak fluently and
accurately from the very beginning. Furthermore, their early imperfect efforts are often
praised or, at least, accepted. On the other hand, older learners are often in situations
which demand much more complex language and the expression of much more
complicated ideas. Adults are often embarrassed by their lack of mastery of the
language and they may develop a sense of inadequacy after experiences of frustration
in trying to say exactly what they mean.”

2. The Critical Period Hypothesis: Research Evidence from Instructional

Settings

Findings of naturalistic studies indicate that those who begin learning a L2 in

childhood initially lag behind adult learners but eventually outstrip them. If we
extrapolate from this to formal instructional settings it would be plausible to
argue that early formal instruction would, over a considerable period of time, be
advantageous in learning. But this is not the whole story. As with any kind of
learning, we need to relate achievement to the goals of learning. So, we should
bear in mind that achieving a native‐like mastery of the L2 is not a goal for all
L2 learners in all contexts. Indeed, it is often unrealistic as a goal, particularly
in formal educational settings. Further, the context of learning is important. In
instructional settings, particularly in compulsory education, other important factors
come into play, such as: the materials used; the levels of training of teachers;
the commitment of the teachers; and even public attitudes towards the target
language. We shall return to some of these factors later.
In some settings there may also be negative effects associated with starting to learn
an L2 at a very young age. The phenomenon of subtractive bilingualism is well
documented. This occurs in situations where children use an L2 for formal instruction.
If the goals of learning do not actively promote retention of children’s L1 then there
is a danger that they may shift to the L2, which replaces their L1. Another possible
result if the L1 is not valued and promoted is that proficiency in the L1 may be
affected. The L2 may also be learnt imperfectly: a phenomenon known as
semilingualism. (This is to say nothing of the general educational disadvantages that
may accrue from instruction in a language in which a learner may not be proficient.)
It is important to remember that a key variable in the acquisition of proficiency
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 39

in any foreign language is the amount of exposure that learners receive. As Lightbown
(2000, pp. 448‐449) puts it: “One cannot achieve native‐like (or near native‐like)
command of a language in one hour a day. […] The most important reason for
incomplete acquisition in foreign language settings is probably the lack of time
available for contact with the language.” Starting earlier will not, then, necessarily
lead to improvements in levels of proficiency unless there is also a significant increase
in the amount of instructional time made available for the subject. Lightbown (2000,
p. 449) also found that “The intensity of the exposure and the opportunity to continue
using the language over a long period of time is as important as the starting age
in the effectiveness of classroom instruction.” Her research concluded that “students
who have intensive exposure to the second language near the end of elementary school
have an advantage over those whose instruction was thinly spread out over a longer
period of time” (Lightbown, 2000, p. 449). It would seem, then, that rather than
starting earlier in the elementary cycle it is more effective to begin instruction nearer
the end of the cycle, but to concentrate the input children receive.

Ⅴ. IMPLEMENTING CURRICULUM REFORM

Decisions about whether or when to commence instruction in a foreign language

may or may not be made on the grounds of reliable research evidence. However,
once a decision is made and whatever that decision may be a process of implementing
the curriculum reform must be begun. In this section we shall discuss some key
features in implementing curriculum reform with focus on teaching English to young
learners.

1. In-service Teacher Training and Development

A key component of implementing any curriculum reform programme is in‐

service teacher training/development. Much international experience shows that
investment in in‐service teacher development (a term often preferred to ‘training’ for
its more constructive, less directive implications) can have an impact in raising the
quality of schooling (Pennycuick, 1993). There is not, however, a simple one‐to‐one
correspondence between any in‐service training/development course and improved
practice in the classroom. There are sufficient examples of in‐service courses having
limited or no impact on the teachers involved, particularly in the long‐term (see e.g.
Ibrahim, 1991; Lamb, 1995; Moon & Boullón, 1997) to give us considerable pause
40 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

for thought. Ibrahim (1991), for example, studied the in-service training for the
introduction of a new primary school curriculum in Malaysia which consisted of a
‘cascade’ system ending in a diluted version of one‐off courses for teachers of the
training received by trainers. His conclusion was that “The evidence suggests that
the courses had a surface effect but not the impact that could bring deep assimilation
of all the KBSR [new primary school curriculum] features” (Ibrahim, 1991, p. 125).
As this experience indicates, there is always a danger with teacher training for
curriculum innovations of surface adoption, that teachers may adopt surface features
of a new curriculum, for example in terms of discourse ‐ the way they describe their
teaching objectives or the activities they claim to use in the classroom in lesson plans
or discussions with supervisors/principals ‐ while in practice they continue to use the
tried and trusted methods with which they have long been familiar. This disjunction
between rhetoric and practice has been found in a number of contexts. Alexander,
for example, in the course of his investigations into progressive primary education
in the United Kingdom commented that “the progressive rhetoric is apparently
espoused across most of the range of actual primary practice … despite a wide variety
of practices, some of which … are totally inconsistent with the rhetoric” (Alexander,
1984, p. 14).
In order to avoid replication of a situation in which changes in rhetoric are not
matched by changes in practice, in‐service training must be seen in terms of genuine
development for teachers rather than simply as a logistical exercise in which it can
be claimed that ‘x number of teachers have completed y hours of in‐service courses’
and can therefore be considered to have been adequately (re‐)trained to teach the
new curriculum. But how can in‐service courses be made genuinely developmental?
International practice in in-service teacher development tends to show that the most
productive courses are those that adopt a reflexive approach vis‐à‐vis the target
curriculum innovation (see e.g. Hayes, 1995, 1997, 2000). If this does not happen,
there is a clear possibility that teachers will see a divorce between their own training
and the innovative practice they are being asked to implement in the classroom,
leading them to question the innovative practice itself. Or, to consider it in similar
terms to Alexander’s, they will see practices on their training courses which will be
inconsistent with the rhetoric espoused by trainers regarding activity‐based, student‐
centered learning. Teachers can hardly be expected to change their classroom
behaviors if their trainers have not offered models of good practice.
As well as being reflexive, it is equally important that in‐service teacher training/
development should be cyclical in nature. As intimated above, experience shows that
one‐off courses have minimal impact (Ibrahim, 1991). Further evidence is given by
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 41

Lamb (1995, p. 75) who, after investigating the impact of a one‐off short in-service
teacher training (INSET) course one year after the event, discovered that “The brute
fact of the matter is that all the participants had forgotten most of the information
and ideas that they had previously been exposed to”. International experience favours
a cyclical programme of in‐service courses for maximum effectiveness in the
classroom. O’Sullivan’s (2001) study of courses for unqualified and underqualified
teachers in Namibia revealed that teachers benefited from linked programmes of
courses, with appraisal of teacher behaviour in the classroom during follow‐up visits
after one course feeding in to a subsequent course. The view that training needs to
be cyclical rather than one‐off is reinforced by qualitative research into in‐service
programmes from a life‐history perspective. For example, in Hayes’ (2004) study of
trainers in Thailand, the trainers themselves indicated that they felt teachers needed
a regular programme of courses if there was to be any significant improvement in
classroom practice. Such an approach, with the opportunity to respond to teachers’
needs at various points in a programme of courses, also ensures that the realities
teachers have to deal with on a day‐to‐day basis as they implement change are
effectively dealt with during in‐service training. We should note here that it can be
hazardous to underestimate the scale of the task that we require of teachers when
wholesale curriculum reform is mandated. O’Sullivan (2001, p. 111) reminds us that
“The process of implementing change can be very deep, striking at the core of learned
skills, philosophy, beliefs and conceptions of education, and creating doubts about
self purpose, sense of competence, and self‐concept.” It is little wonder that many
teachers, rather than welcoming change, see it as a threat. Any in‐service programme
that fails to deal with what O’Sullivan calls the ‘subjective realities’ affecting
implementation and instead attempts to enforce a ‘centrally determined blueprint’ will
be sowing the seeds of its own failure.
Most curriculum innovation worldwide begins with a pilot period in which a great
deal of time, energy and resources (both human and material) is devoted to
implementing a new curriculum in a limited number of schools. During the pilot
period there may be changes made to the innovation before it is implemented
nationwide in subsequent years. Frequently there is a significant difference in the
attention paid to pilot schools by those responsible for the innovation and the attention
paid to all schools in nationwide implementation. This is both predictable and not
surprising given the generally huge difference in numbers involved. Referring to the
new Malaysian curriculum a study by Adams & Chen (1981) foresaw the problems
reported a decade later by Ibrahim (1991) when they commented that: “… one of
the reasons for the present success of the ‘Improved Curriculum’ project is the degree,
42 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

intensity and kind of care and attention given the teachers by the Curriculum
Development Centre project staff. Clearly, it will be extremely difficult to sustain a
similar guidance system with the pilot school teachers and virtually impossible with
the larger teaching force beyond, should nationwide implementation follow” (Adams
& Chen, 1981, pp. 161‐162). Here we can see that there were concerns even about
the transfer from the development phase to the pilot phase. However, as Ibrahim has
shown, the warnings were clearly not adequately addressed. Differential treatment in
terms of attention and resources for different teachers in the various phases of
implementation will have inevitable consequences in terms of acceptance and take‐up
of the new curriculum by teachers in the respective groups. Moving from pilot to
large‐scale implementation without dilution of the innovation is a challenge that all
curriculum developers have to face. It is a challenge that can be met with adequate
planning and preparation though it will also be costly in terms of human and material
resources.
A final observation in this section concerns the need to assess the impact of all
in‐service training activities. As noted, this needs to be more than the simple collection
of statistics on numbers of teachers attending numbers of courses for numbers of
hours. Though this kind of data has its value it tells us nothing about what is
happening in the classroom as a result of the training. The assessment of impact must
begin with the collection of baseline data against which the impact of the training
interventions may be measured. There will then need to be periodic visits to teachers
in schools to observe teaching behaviour and patterns of teaching‐learning in the
classroom. For efficiency these visits could be combined with visits of a
developmental nature as part of recommended follow‐up to courses. An example of
the design of an impact assessment programme can be found in Coleman (2003).

2. Textbook Development

Curriculum innovation often generates the need for textbooks to be substantially

revised if not rewritten. There is some concern in the educational community about
whether or not use of textbooks leads to teaching which is somewhat programmatic,
lacking in variety and stimulus and not responsive to the needs of individual students.
Opponents of this view would argue that textbooks are essential tools for teachers,
relieving them of the time‐consuming task of materials preparation and ensuring
adequate coverage of a required syllabus, and being seen as a resource rather than
a constraint. These arguments are well rehearsed by Hutchinson and Hutchinson
(1996) who point out that textbooks can be used as ‘agents of change’. They come
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 43

down very firmly on the side of textbooks as an effective support for large-scale
curriculum implementation and in situations where resources are often limited to the
textbook alone it is very hard to disagree with them. An obvious implication is,
though, that the textbooks in use do need to be appropriate to the curriculum as well
as to the students.
It is laudable that Korea produces its own textbooks, with the opportunity to tailor
contextually appropriate teaching‐learning materials to the needs of Korean students
rather than, say, attempting to translate and tailor materials from other contexts to
fit a situation for which they were not designed. Most countries in the region produce
textbooks written by local authors designed to meet the demands of a local curriculum
and, as Hutchinson and Hutchinson (1996) have pointed out, textbooks may be seen
as agents of change rather than bulwarks of traditional practice. In Korea the
introduction of new textbooks associated with new curricula thus provides an excellent
opportunity for change to root itself firmly in classroom practice. However, as we
have said earlier, it is a sine qua non that the new textbooks properly reflect the
intentions of the curriculum designers for an activity‐based, student‐centered model
of teaching and learning.

3. Leadership in Schools

Curriculum change, like any other form of change, should be seen as a process,
and one which needs to be managed (O’Sullivan, 2001). Initially, relevant power from
any Ministry of Education and relevant authorities at provincial and district level will
secure acceptance of curriculum change and (as we have discovered) surface adoption
as a minimum. However, much more is needed if the curriculum innovation is to
persist and to alter classroom behaviors in ways that curriculum designers intended.
Support from administrators for change, crucially at local as well as national level,
and effective management of change at all levels of the educational system is vital.
In this connection O’Sullivan (2001, p. 113) found in her study that “The least
improved teachers worked in schools with ineffective principals who did not support
the programme as effectively as principals elsewhere”. The nature of leadership by
principals is widely acknowledged to be a key indicator of a school’s success
(Pennycuick, 1993) and so it would seem to be important, then, to target
administrators as well as teachers if curriculum innovation is to be successful.
We have noted the importance of educational leadership for school effectiveness
in international experience and this implies a need for in‐service training for school
administrators. However, school principals are often quicker to identify the training
44 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

needs of teachers in their schools rather than to reflect on their own training needs
(Hayes, 2004). This all too common lack of a reflective capacity is a drawback when
one considers the demands of a new curriculum in terms of teacher and student
behaviors. A starting point for any training for educational administrators must, then,
be to provide experiential activities focusing on the implications of a new curriculum
and textbooks for classroom practice.

4. Initial Teacher Training

This paper lacks space to discuss the complex area of initial teacher‐training,
but it must be noted that any change in one area of the curriculum requires not
just changes in other areas to compensate for these changes but also a complete
revision of any initial teacher preparation programme in order that teachers coming
into schools in future years are given relevant preparatory courses. In addition,
significant changes are required in the knowledge and skills base of those charged
with preparing teachers for schools, lecturers in colleges and university faculties of
education. The scale of both these tasks should not be underestimated.

Ⅵ. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Implications and conclusions are made from the available evidence from the
relevant literature review. In relation to child language acquisition, there is no strong
empirical support for early L2 instruction from research on the age factor in L2
acquisition. There is no hard evidence about the long term advantages of early L2
instruction, but much hypothesizing and speculation. As Singleton and Ryan (2004,
p. 227) comment: “it is difficult not to infer that talking about an age factor may
be misconceived, and that we should rather be thinking in terms of a range of age‐
related factors.” Further, age‐related factors are but one element of a general model
of second language learning. Available evidence suggests that it is more effective to
delay introduction of a foreign language until nearer the end of the elementary cycle
but, when instruction does commence, to provide children with intensive exposure
to the language, i.e. more instructional time than is the norm for a single subject
in the curriculum.
Any decision to teach English to very young learners in Korean schools should
be based on a keen appreciation of the challenges. Such a decision would bring as
well as on a research‐based view of advantages and disadvantages of teaching a
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 45

foreign language to children at this age. In a foreign language situation such as Korea,
where English plays very little part (if any at all) in the daily lives of most of its
citizens, there appear to be no strong arguments from the research into
second/subsequent language learning for introducing English at earlier ages. Indeed,
for most effective learning the available evidence would seem to indicate that it is
preferable to wait until the later stages of primary schooling before introducing a
foreign language and then to ensure that children have concentrated input rather than
the ‘hour a day’ which is common in formal educational systems. Certainly, one hour
a day of instruction in the primary cycle―still less one hour a week―is highly unlikely
to lead to proficiency in any language. However, if a decision is made to extend
the teaching of English in earlier ages, then the various factors which have been
discussed as key issues in curriculum implementation must be very carefully
considered: these range from in-service teacher training/development for teachers
already in-service to writing of appropriate textbooks to in‐service training for school
principals/directors and revisions to initial/pre‐service training curricula.
Some conclusions and implications can be made concerning approaches to in‐
service trainer and teacher development in Korea. To conclude, there are several
important lessons to be learnt from research and international practice for any in‐
service training programme to introduce a new English curriculum and textbooks in
Korea. From the foregoing discussion we can see that the necessity for in-service
training to be systematic and long-term rather than one-off events if change is to
persist at the classroom level rather than to be shallow and limited in effect, both
in terms of duration and degree of change.
The necessity for there to be an effective programme of in‐school follow‐up to
in-service courses, requires courses for subject specialists and school inspectors (and
also involving principals) with a focus on mentoring. The Ministry and local
educational administrators will also need to organize a programme of visits to the
classrooms of teachers involved in INSET and provide the resources to enable them
to be carried out. It is also suggested that there should be sufficient support from
administrators for teachers as they implement change in their classrooms, implying
the need for courses for these administrators as well as teachers. It is necessary that
textbooks should be seen as agents of change, supporting the reform process, and
consequently the need for all textbooks to be appraised carefully vis-à-vis their
conformity to new curriculum specifications. In-service training and development
course materials and methods need to model innovations in classroom practice in
order not just that the courses have face validity but that they might be more effective
promoters of deep‐seated and long‐lasting change in classroom practices. Following
46 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

from the above, it is evident that there is a necessity for trainers/INSET materials
writers to be the first recipients of in-service development courses in order that any
in-service programme begin on a sound footing. An impact assessment exercise should
be carefully thought through; beginning prior to the running of the first courses for
teachers with the collection of baseline data and with data on teachers’ classroom
behaviors being collected at regular intervals.
With respect to the role of native speaker teachers in foreign language teaching
contexts, the recruitment of native speakers to teach in government schools is a
regional trend in Asia this occurs in Brunei, Japan, Thailand and SAR Hong Kong
but the dangers for the NNS teaching force are rarely voiced. Experience elsewhere
shows that the presence of NS teachers means “that local NNS teachers of English
are increasingly looked upon as less competent, less knowledgeable as resources, and
their contribution less valuable as a result” (Lee, Munwoo, 2005, p. 10). Whether
the recent move to recruiting native speakers in Korea will lead to the same devaluing
of NNS teachers remains to be seen but it is worthy of note that teachers from
experimental schools interviewed for this research project all voiced concern over the
recruitment of native speakers who were not suitably qualified for English language
teaching at the primary level. This lends credence to the view that being a native‐
speaker of a language does not mean that one is thereby able to teach it well. Further,
even where well‐qualified native speakers are recruited (something increasingly
problematic the greater the number required) observation of teachers made for this
research project indicates that an appropriately trained Korean teacher with good
English language skills has significant advantages over a native speaking teacher as
s/he shares the children’s first language and culture and is thus better placed to help
them in the complex process of learning a foreign language.

REFERENCES

Adams, C. (1997). Onset of speech after a left hemispherectomy in a 9 year old boy.
Brain 120, 159-182.
Adams, R. S., & Chen, D. (1981). The process of educational innovation: An
international perspective. London: Kogan Page.
Aksornkool, N. (1985). A historical study of language planning. Singapore: Singapore
University Press.
Alexander, R, J. (1984). Primary teaching. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anantaset, B. (2001). The development of a teaching and learning process to promote
learner autonomy for university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 47

Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.

Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors
in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.) Second
language acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 161-181).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.) (2002). Globalization and language teaching.
London: Routledge.
Brown, D. H. (2006). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th Ed.). New
York: Pearson Longman.
Chayanuvat, A. (2003). English learning experiences of Thai students enrolled at a
university: A case study. In J. Hull, J. Harris & P. Darasawang (Eds.). Research
in ELT: Proceedings of the international conference 9-11 April 2003. Thonburi,
Thailand: School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology
Thonburi.
Coleman, H. (2003). Characterising the impact of trainer training. In D. Hayes (Ed.)
Trainer development: Principles and practice from language teacher training.
Melbourne: Language Australia Publications.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (4), 493-533.
Department for International Development & World Bank. (2000). Towards social
harmony in education. Unpublished report. London: Department for
International Development & Washington, World Bank.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council.
Hayes, D. (1995). In‐service teacher development: Some basic principles. In ELT
Journal, 49(3), 252-261.
Hayes, D. (1997). Articulating the context: INSET and teachers’ lives. In D. Hayes
(Ed.). In‐service teacher development: International perspectives. Hemel
Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Hayes, D. (2000). Cascade training and teachers’ professional development. In ELT
Journal, 54(2), 135-145.
Hayes, D. (2004). Inside INSET: Trainers’ perceptions. In D. Hayes (Ed.) Trainer
development: Principles and practice from language teacher training.
Melbourne: Language Australia Publications.
Hutchinson, T., & Hutchinson, E. G. (1996). The textbook as agent of change. In T.
Hedge & N, Whitney (Eds.) Power, pedagogy and practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ibrahim, N. A. (1991). In service training in Malaysia for the new primary curriculum
(KBSR). In K. M. Lewin with Stuart, J. S. (Eds.). Educational innovation in
48 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

developing countries: Case studies of changemakers. London: Macmillan.

Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical
period hypothesis: A case study in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 73-98.
Kandiah, T. (2000). Revisioning, revolution, revisionism: English and the ambiguities
of post colonial practice. Unpublished Paper.
Kennedy, C. (1987). Innovating for a change: Teacher development and innovation.
ELT Journal 41(3), 163-170.
Kim, Jinseok. (2005). On the methods of making the materials for linguistic forms
based on the proficiency level of learners: Chiefly on progressive forms.
Journal of the Korean English Education Society, 4(2), 51-73.
Krashen, S. D. (1973). Lateralization, language learning and the critical period: Some
new evidence. Language Learning, 23, 63-74.
Lamb, M. (1995). The consequences of INSET. English Language Teaching Journal,
49(1), 72-80.
Lee, Munwoo. (2011). The influence of the current national curriculum on pre-service
English teacher education in Korea. Journal of the Korea English Education
Society, 10(1), 1-23.
Lee, H., & Oh, S. (2006). The role of teacher development policy in implementing
a new national curriculum in Korean high schools. World Bank/GDN,
APEPRI/KEDI: Research Paper(2005-2006).
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article. Classroom SLA research and second
language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Education, Thailand. (2004). National report 2004. Submission to the forty
‐seventh session of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, 8-11
September 2004. Geneva: International Bureau of Education.
Ministry of Education, Thailand. (2005). English program. Thailand: MoE.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.
Moon, J., & Boullón, R.L. (1997). Reluctance to reflect: Issues in professional
development. In D. Hayes (Ed.). In service teacher development: International
perspectives. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age,
motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
81-108.
National Education Commission. (2002). National policy and action plan to promote
 Curriculum and Materials Development for Teaching English to Young Learners Revisited 49

English education. Colombo: National Education Commission.

O’Sullivan, G. (2001). The inset strategies model: An effective inset model for
unqualified and underqualified primary teachers in Namibia. International
Journal of Educational Development, 21, 93-117.
Penfield, W., & Roberts, H. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Pennycuick, D. (1993). School effectiveness in developing countries: A summary of
the research evidence. London: Overseas Development Administration.
Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Sukamolson, S. (1990). A meta‐analysis and research synthesis study of the teaching
and learning research works done during 1972-1987. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn
University Language Institute.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Language policies in Asian countries: Issues and tensions. The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 1(2), 1-26.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2005). Language policy, culture and identity in the era of globalization.
In B. Beaven (Ed.). IATEFL 2005: Cardiff conference selections (pp. 41-51).
Kent: IATEFL.
http://www.moe.go.th/icpmoe/Twolanguage_School/aboutEPsch.htm, retrieved on 8
December 2006.
http://std.kedi.re.kr/jcgi_bin/index.jsp, retrieved on 20 November 2006.

Examples in: English

Applicable Levels: College

Kyungsuk Chang
Korea Institute for Curriculum & Evaluation,
Jeongdong Building, Jeong-dong 15-5,
Jung-gu, Seoul, 100-784,
South Korea
Email: kschang@kice.re.kr

David Hayes
Department of Applied Linguistics,
Brock University,
St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3AI,
Canada
Email: dhayes@brocku.ca

Mikyung Kim
Korea Institute for Curriculum & Evaluation,
Jeongdong Building, Jeong-dong 15-5,
Jung-gu, Seoul, 100-784,
South Korea
Email: mikyung32@kice.re.kr
 50 영어교과교육 제10권 3호

Byengcheon Lee
Korea Institute for Curriculum & Evaluation,
Jeongdong Building, Jeong-dong 15-5,
Jung-gu, Seoul, 100-784,
South Korea
Email: bclee@kice.re.kr

Received October 15, 2011

Revised December 15, 2011
Accepted December 31, 2011

View publication stats