Atzerriko Hizkuntza Eta Bere Didaktika: Ingelesa 20 22-2023

ATZERRIKO HIZKUNTZA
ETA BERE DIDAKTIKA:

INGELESA
2022-2023
LEHEN HEZKUNTZA - 3. MAILA

2022-2023
Irakasleak: Elizabet Arocena
Itziar Elorza
Ruben Urizar
Harkaitz Zubiri
ATZERRIKO HIZKUNTZA ETA BERE DIDAKTIKA: INGELESA
(6 credits)
2022‐2023
CONTENT
To pass this course, the minimum English level required in all the language skills will be B1
(CEFR).
Language skills will be mostly worked on through content related to Foreign Language
Teaching (Didaktika) such as Task‐based Language Teaching, scaffolding, young learners,
Foreign Language Teaching in the Basque primary schools, teaching resources and
techniques… just to mention a few.
The content will be developed in a way as participatory as possible with activities aimed to
promote discussion and critical reflection on the topics worked on.
Among other resources, academic readings will be used to stimulate this critical reflection.
Students will have to read the following papers throughout the course:
1. Task-based Language Teaching

 Task‐based language teaching: key precepts. Brief extract from Ellis, R (2009) Task‐based
language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 19(23), 221‐246.
 Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task‐Based Instruction. Extract
from Brandl, K (2008) in Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles
to Work.
2. Scaffolding
 Types of language support. Lindsey, D. (2011)
 What is scaffolding. Hammond, J. and & Gibbons, P. (2005) in Teachers’ voice 8: Explicitly
supporting reading and writing in the classroom.
3. Young Learners
 El texto narrativo dialogado. Una manera de construir el aprendizaje de la lengua
extranjera en educación infantil. Artigal, J.M. (2005)
 Working with young language learners. Halliwell, S. (1992) in Teaching English in the
Primary Classroom. Chapter 1.
 Ten helpful Ideas for Teaching English to Young Learners. Kang Shin, J. (2006) in English
Teaching Forum, 2006, Number 2.
4. FLT in Primary Basque schools

 English in Bilingual Programmes in the Basque Country. Cenoz, J. (2005) in International
journal of the sociology of language, 2005(171), 41‐56.
 Eleaniztasuna garatzeko orientabideak, euskara ardatz hartuta in Heziberri2020.
Hezkuntza‐eredu pedagogikoaren markoa.
EVALUATION
The evaluation of the course will take into account both parts of the course (a) student’s
language level and (b) knowledge about foreign language teaching (didactics).
For the evaluation of students attending regularly to class, we will take into account the
following:
 Tasks in class and as homework ........................................................... 25%
 Performing of a class session in groups ................................................ 20%
 Written exam on foreign language teaching (didactics) ....................... 30%
 Language level: final oral exam + level shown in class activities .......... 25%
Attending students must pass all these items to get a pass in the course.
For non‐attendants’ evaluation, on the other hand, we will consider the following:
 Read academic papers and then write a critical reflection on the
videos based on the readings ............................................................... 35%
 Prepare a class session (in writing) + explain it orally .......................... 20%
 Written exam on foreign language teaching (didactics) ...................... 20%
 Language level: final oral exam + level shown in written essays ......... 25%
Non‐attending students must pass all these items to get a pass in the course.
READINGS
1. Task-based Language Teaching

 Task‐based language teaching: key precepts. Brief extract from Ellis, R
(2009) Task‐based language teaching: sorting out the
misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(23),
221‐246. ................................................................................................. 1
 Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task‐Based
Instruction. Extract from Brandl, K (2008) in Communicative Language
Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. ..................................... 2
2. Scaffolding
 Types of language support. Lindsey, D. (2011)....................................... 14
 What is scaffolding. Hammond, J. and & Gibbons, P. (2005) in Teachers’
voice 8: Explicitly supporting reading and writing in the classroom. ...... 15
3. Young Learners
 El texto narrativo dialogado. Una manera de construir el aprendizaje
de la lengua extranjera en educación infantil. Artigal, J.M. (2005) ........ 26
 Working with young language learners. Halliwell, S. (1992) in Teaching
English in the Primary Classroom. Chapter 1. ........................................ 39
 Ten helpful Ideas for Teaching English to Young Learners. Kang Shin, J.
(2006) in English Teaching Forum, 2006, Number 2. ............................. 46
4. FLT in Primary Basque schools

 English in Bilingual Programmes in the Basque Country. Cenoz, J.
(2005) in International journal of the sociology of language, 2005(171),
41‐56. ..................................................................................................... 53
 Eleaniztasuna garatzeko orientabideak, euskara ardatz hartuta in
Heziberri2020. Hezkuntza‐eredu pedagogikoaren markoa. ................... 69
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: sorting out
the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3), 221-
246.
(…)
Task-based language teaching: key precepts
TBLT proposes that the primary unit for both designing a language programme
and for planning individual lessons should be a ‘task’. Various definitions of a
‘task’ have been provided (see Ellis 2003: 4–5), but most of these indicate that
for a language-teaching activity to be a ‘task’ it must
satisfy the following criteria:
1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners
should be mainly concerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic
meaning of utterances).
2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to
express an opinion or to infer meaning).
3. Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and
non-linguistic) in order to complete the activity.
4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the
language serves as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its
own right).
(…)
-1-
Extracted and abridge from Brandl, K (2008). Principles of Communicative Language Teaching
and Task‐Based Instruction. In Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting
Principles to Work.
Principles of Communicative Language
Teaching and Task‐Based Instruction
Effective teaching is not about a method. It is about understanding and
implementing principles of learning.
What Is Communicative Language Teaching?
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is generally regarded as an approach to language
teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001). As such, CLT reflects a certain model or research
paradigm, or a theory (Celce‐ Murcia 2001). It is based on the theory that the primary function
of language use is communication. Its primary objective is for learners to develop
communicative competence (Hymes 1971), or simply put, communicative ability. In other
words, its objective is to make use of real‐life situations that necessitate communication.
Defining communicative competence
Communicative competence is defined as the ability to interpret and perform appropriate
social behaviors, and it requires the active participation of the learner in the production of the
target language (Canale and Swain 1980; Celce‐Murcia et al. 1995; Hymes 1972). Such a notion
covers a wide range of abilities:
 Linguistic competence: the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary;
 Sociolinguistic competence: the ability to say the appropriate thing in a certain social
situation
 Discourse competence: the ability to start, enter, contribute to, and end a conversation,
and the ability to do this in a consistent and coherent manner;
 Strategic competence: the ability to communicate effectively and repair problems
caused by communication breakdowns.
As frequently misunderstood, CLT is not a method per se. That is to say, it is not a method in
the sense by which content, a syllabus, and teaching routines are clearly identified (see
Richards and Rodgers 2001). CLT has left its doors wide open for a great variety of methods
and techniques. There is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is universally
-2-
accepted as authoritative (Richards and Rodgers 2001). In general, it uses materials and utilizes
methods that are appropriate to a given context of learning.
Although there are no universally accepted models, from the beginning, there has been some
degree of consensus regarding the qualities required to justify the label “CLT,” which Wesche
and Skehan (2002) describe as:
• Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with other interlocutors
to exchange information and solve problems.
• Use of authentic (non‐pedagogic) texts and communication activities linked to “real‐
world” contexts, often emphasizing links across written and spoken modes and
channels.
• Approaches that are learner centered in that they take into account learners’
backgrounds, language needs, and objectives and generally allow learners some
creativity and role when deciding what to learn and how (p. 208).
With no one particular method or theory that underlies their practical and theoretical
foundation, CLT methodologies are best described as a set of macro‐strategies (Kumaradivelu
1994) or methodological principles (Doughty and Long 2003). The following section describes
such principles in more detail.
Methodological Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task‐Based
Instruction
Doughty and Long (2003) define methodological principles as a list of design features that can
help in acquiring a second language. The following list, adapted from Doughty and Long (2003),
serves as a guideline for implementing communicative language teaching (CLT) practices.
Principle 1: Use Tasks as an Organizational Principle
For decades, traditional methods of language teaching have used grammar topics or texts (e.g.,
dialogues, short stories) as a basis for organizing a syllabus. With CLT methodologies this
approach has changed; the development of communicative skills is placed in the first position,
while grammar is now introduced only as much as needed to support the development of these
skills. This raises questions on how to organize a syllabus. Some proponents (see Breen 1987;
Long 1985; Nunan 1989; Prabhu 1987) suggest using tasks as central units that form the basis
of daily and long‐term lesson plans. Such an approach to syllabus design has become known as
task‐based instruction (TBI). The motivation for the employment of communicative tasks is
based on contemporary theories of language learning and acquisition, which claim that
language use is the motor for language development (Long 1989; Prabhu 1987). For example,
supporters of such theories (see Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun 1993) suggest that, as Norris et al.
(1998) put it, “the best way to learn and teach a language is through social interactions. [...they]
allow students to work toward a clear objective, share information and opinions, negotiate
meaning, get the interlocutor’s help in comprehending input, and receive feedback on their
language production. In the process, learners not only use their interlanguage, but also modify
it, which in turn promotes acquisition” (p. 31). In other words, it is not the text one reads or
the grammar one studies but the tasks that are presented that provide learners a purpose to
-3-
use the grammar in a meaningful context. This gives task design and its use an essential role in
shaping the language learning process.
What are tasks? Numerous definitions of tasks exist. Many of these definitions focus on
different aspects of what constitutes a task. Below you will find three different interpretations
of the word task, each of which highlights different aspects of the term.
One of the most widely quoted definitions for task is offered by Long (1985). He refers to a task
as
a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus, examples of
tasks include [...] filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making an airline reservation, borrowing
a library book, taking a driving test, typing a letter, [...], making a hotel reservation, writing a check,
finding a street destination and helping someone across the road. In other words, by “task” is
meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between (p.
89).
Another well‐known definition is provided by Nunan (1989). He considers a task as
any classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing, or
interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather
than form (p. 10).
More recently, Skehan (1998) summarizes the parameters for a task activity in the following
way:
“(a) meaning is primary, (b) learners are not given other people’s meanings to regurgitate
[=repeat], (c) there is some sort of relationship to comparable real‐world activities, (d) task
completion has a priority, and (e), the assessment of tasks is done in terms of outcome” (p. 147).
From these definitions, despite the various interpretations, several common design features
can be identified. These features include: All three definitions emphasize the importance of
focus on meaning. This criterion supports the notion that conveying an intended meaning is
the essence of language use (see Principle 4 for further discussion). Long (1985) and Skehan’s
(1998) definitions emphasize the use of real‐world tasks or activities that are comparable to
authentic task behavior. Performing real‐world tasks also necessitates the use of real language
to accomplish these tasks. Skehan (1998) further suggests that task performance often involves
achieving a goal or an objective, or arriving at an outcome or a final product. Meanwhile,
Nunan’s (1989) definition makes specific reference to the classroom environment and points
out that task performance may entail employing a single skill or a combination of several skills.
His description recognizes the pedagogical needs for focusing on skills in isolation in language
learning.
One of the challenges of task‐based learning and instruction is that engaging students in a
variety of tasks is necessary to promote acquisition. Students have many pedagogical needs
which often necessitate a different approach to teaching. For example, learners need to
engage in psycholinguistic and metalinguistic processes such as repeating, noticing forms,
hypothesizing and conceptualizing rules, which have been found by research as being
conducive to the language acquisition process. For this reason, Nunan (1993) distinguishes
between two kinds of tasks: Real‐world tasks and pedagogical tasks. Real‐world tasks are
-4-
designed to emphasize those skills that learners need to have so they can function in the real
world. Such tasks normally simulate authentic task behavior, and their primary focus is often
to achieve a final product. For such reasons, these kinds of tasks normally constitute the final
goal of a lesson or a unit.
In contrast to real‐life tasks, pedagogical tasks are intended to act as a bridge between the
classroom and the real world because they serve to prepare students for real‐life language
usage (see Long, 1998). Such tasks are often referred to as “preparation” or “assimilation”
tasks. They are designed to promote the language acquisition process by taking into account a
teacher’s pedagogical goal, the learner’s developmental stage and skill level, and the social
contexts of the second‐language learning environment. They often help the learners in their
understanding of how language works and also in the development of learning skills and
strategies in general. In addition, they focus on skills in isolation and within a limited context.
Pedagogical tasks do not necessarily reflect real‐world tasks. For instance, an
assimilation/preparation task would be one in which students complete descriptions with
words that are missing. The reason for this design is that students first need to learn some
basic facts. Furthermore, their attention is directed to particular vocabulary and verb forms in
isolation, which they need to apply in the following task.
Principle 2: Promote Learning by Doing
A task‐based approach to learning implies the notion of learning by doing. This concept is not
new to communicative language teaching methodologies, but it has been recognized and
promoted as a fundamental principle in learning throughout history by many educators (e.g.,
see Long and Doughty 2003 for a brief overview). It is based on the theory that if students take
part actively they get more involved in their learning process. In addition, as Doughty and Long
(2003) remind us, “new knowledge is better integrated into long‐term memory, and easier
recovered, if tied to real‐world events and activities” (p. 58).
In research on Second Language Acquisition (SLA), the “learning by doing” principle is strongly
supported by an active approach to using language from the beginning. For example, Swain
(1985, 1995) suggests that learners need to actively produce language. Only in this way can
they try out new rules and modify them accordingly. According to Omaggio‐Hadley (2001),
learners should be encouraged to express their own meaning as early as possible after
productive skills have been introduced. Such opportunities should also cover a wide range of
contexts in which they can carry out numerous different speech acts. This, additionally, needs
to happen under real conditions of communication so the learner’s linguistic knowledge
becomes automatic (Ellis 1997).
Principle 3: Input Needs to Be Rich
Considering the rich input we each experience and are exposed to while developing our native
tongue, growing up speaking in our native languages means that we are exposed to a lot of
language patterns, chunks, and phrases in numerous contexts and situations over many years.
Such a rich exposure to language ultimately allows us to store language in our brains that we
can reuse as whole chunks.
-5-
Needless to say, there is no way we can replicate this rich input only in the classroom in order
to develop native‐like language skills. However, the input provided needs to be as rich as
possible. As Doughty and Long (2003) put it, rich input requires “realistic samples of discourse
use surrounding native speaker and non‐native speaker accomplishments of tasks” (p. 61). This
makes one of the most obvious necessities in teaching a foreign language that the student get
to hear the language, whether from the teacher, from multimedia resources (TV, DVDs, video
and audio tapes, radio, online), from other students, or any other source, and furthermore be
exposed to a diet of authentic language discourse as rich as possible. In the classroom
environment, this can be achieved through the use of a large variety of materials, authentic
and simplified, as well as the teacher’s maximum use of the target language (TL).
Corollary 1: Materials need to be authentic to reflect real‐life situations and demands. One of
the instructional practices promoted by communicative language teaching (CLT) is the
extensive integration of authentic materials in the curriculum. Authentic materials refers to the
use of texts, photographs, video selections, and other teaching resources that were not
specially prepared for pedagogical purposes (Richards 2001). Examples of authentic
audiovisual materials are announcements, conversations and discussions from radio and
television public broadcasting (parts or complete), real‐life telephone conversations, messages
left on answering machines, or voice mail. There are numerous justifications for the use of
authentic materials. They contain authentic language and reflect real‐world language use
(Richards 2001). In other words, they expose students to real language in the kinds of contexts
where it naturally occurs. Furthermore, they relate more closely to learners’ needs and so
provide a link between the classroom and students’ needs in the real world. The use of
authentic materials also supports a more creative way of teaching; that is, its use allows
teachers to develop their full potential, designing activities and tasks that better match their
teaching styles and the learning styles of their students. Last, the use of authentic materials
requires the teachers to train their students in using learning strategies from the beginning.
These are essential skills that support the learning process at all levels of instruction.
Access to authentic data, such as text or audiovisual‐based resources, is no longer a problem
for most teachers. But in lower‐level classrooms, the use of such materials faces numerous
challenges. Authentic materials often contain difficult language. Usually, there is no particular
text per se that completely fits the learners’ level. For example, one paragraph from a magazine
article may be appropriate for beginning students, but the next may be far too advanced and
require special adaptation in task design to make it usable. In other words, to develop learning
resources around authentic materials, teachers must be prepared to spend a considerable
amount of time locating suitable sources for materials and developing learning tasks that
accompany the materials and “scaffold” the learning process.
[Unit 2 in this course will address “scaffolding” in more detail.]
As pointed out above, with the introduction of CLT, language teachers have been turning to
authentic materials for use in the classroom progressively at lower levels. At the same time,
many published materials incorporate authentic texts and other real‐world sources.
Considering the advantages as well as limitations of using authentic materials, a mixture of
both textbook‐based and authentic materials, in particular at beginning levels, justifies
practices that are pedagogically necessary and manageable.
-6-
Corollary 2: The teacher needs to maximize the use of the target language. Another way to
create rich input in the language classroom is by using the target language (TL) as a means of
instruction. The exclusive or nearly exclusive use of the TL has been justified under what has
come to be called a “maximum exposure” hypothesis—that is, learners need as much exposure
as possible to the TL because the bigger the amount of input, the bigger the gains in the new
language (Cummins and Swain 1986). The exclusive use of the TL by teachers in the foreign
language has also become a strong principle supported by teaching methodologies, especially
in communicative approaches to language teaching (Rolin‐Ianziti and Brownlie 2002).
Using the TL as the primary way of communication, however, has not been a question without
controversies. Many teachers behave differently regarding when and how much first language
(L1) should be used in the classroom. For example, Polio and Duff (1994) report that many
teachers prefer to use L1 mainly to explain grammar, to manage the class, to indicate an
attitude of empathy or solidarity toward students, to translate unknown vocabulary items, and
to help students when they have problems understanding.
Likewise, students’ reactions to the teacher’s use of the target language and L1 show a mixture
of preferences. Frequently, many students prefer the instructor to make extensive use of the
TL. As Brandl and Bauer (2002) have shown, in particular, in those beginning language
classrooms where teachers tend to use L1 more than the TL, students ask for an increase in
the teacher’s use of the TL. On the contrary, in those classes where teachers exclusively used
the TL, many students expressed preference for some occasional use of L1, in particular when
providing directions or confirming the students’ understanding.
There are numerous benefits to the extensive use of the TL. However, the input that is
provided—such as information or concepts teachers present in the TL—must be
comprehensible to the students, otherwise no learning can occur (see Principle 4 on
comprehensible input). A teacher’s goal needs to be to find the right balance between the use
of the TL and L1, which makes sure students understand and at the same time maximizes the
use of the TL.
To deal with resistance and some potential frustrations by students to this extensive use of the
TL, the following guidelines provide some strategies.
1. Do not constantly switch back and forth between the TL and the students’ L1. Use the TL in
longer chunks as much as possible. Although some purists suggest that the use of the TL
and students’ native language must be kept distinctively separated, switching between
different languages is a common language phenomenon that occurs in any normal social
interaction between speakers who share knowledge of the same languages. This language
behavior is known as code switching. As such, code switching must be seen as a vital
communication strategy. Students should not be discouraged from using code switching if
they do not know how to say something in the TL and if it keeps the communication going.
Nevertheless, code switching is different from language behavior where a teacher begins
a sentence in one language and ends it in another—or changes constantly between
languages because of poor language skills or laziness.
2. Set a good example for the students. Do not expect students to use the TL if you cannot use
it consistently yourself.
-7-
3. Provide clear guidelines. You need to let your students know when it is appropriate to use
L1 in the classroom and for what purposes. Set aside specific times during each class for
the use of L1. For example, students most frequently request L1 for task instructions, brief
explanations of grammar, or confirmation checks. Adhere to these guidelines as much as
possible.
4. Discuss the justification for using the TL in the classroom early in the term. Let students
know why it is important to use the TL extensively in the classroom. For communicative
purposes, it is critical for students to realize they do not need to understand every single
word at all times.
Principle 4: Input Needs to Be Meaningful, Comprehensible, and Elaborated
A fundamental prerequisite for learning is that the information we process must be
meaningful. This means the information presented must be clearly connected to existing
knowledge that the learner already possesses. This existing knowledge must be organized in
such a way that the new information is easily assimilated, or “attached,” to the learner’s
cognitive structure (Ausubel 1968). Meaningfulness, however, is a primary principle of CLT—
and as a counter‐reaction to audiolingual teaching, which was criticized for repetitive drills that
did not require the processing of language so the content made sense or was meaningful to
the learner.
In addition to being meaningful, input should have some general characteristics that make it
potentially useful to the learner. As Lee and VanPatten (1995a) suggest, “the language that the
learner is listening to (or reading, if we are talking about written language) must contain some
message to which the learner is supposed to attend [=pay attention to]” (p. 38).
In language learning, input cannot be meaningful unless it is comprehensible. This means, as
Lee and VanPatten (1995a) put it, “The learner must be able to understand most of what the
speaker (or writer) is saying if acquisition is to happen. [...], the learner must be able to figure
out what the speaker is saying” (p. 38) to give a meaning to what he is listening. The authors
further describe the importance of this hypothesis in the following way:
Acquisition consists in large part of the building up of form‐meaning connections in the learner’s
head. For example, the learner of French hears the word chien in various contexts and eventually
attaches it to a particular meaning: a four‐legged canine. As another example, a learner of Italian
might hear –ato in various contexts and eventually attach it to a particular meaning: a past‐time
reference. Features of language, be they grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, or something else,
can only make their way into the learner’s mental representation of the language system if they
have been linked to some kind of real‐world meaning. If the input is incomprehensible […], then
these form‐meaning connections just don’t happen. (p. 38)
As pointed out previously, ways of creating rich input in the classroom environment are either
through extensive use of the TL or through a wide range of authentic or linguistically rich
resources. On the downside, creating this environment involves numerous pedagogical
challenges, particularly in regard to making such input accessible—that is, meaningful and
comprehensible to the learners. These challenges can be met by means of numerous input
strategies, or by what Doughty and Long (2003) refer to as elaborating input. Elaboration in this
context has several meanings. On the one hand, it is the many ways native speakers modify
-8-
discourse, that is, the way they use language to make it comprehensible to the non‐native
speaker (Doughty and Long 2003). Such strategies include:
• confirmation checks (e.g., “You mean...; What you are saying is...”)
• comprehension checks, (e.g., “Is this correct? What you are saying is...”)
• the teacher’s accessibility to students’ questions
• providing nonlinguistic input through body language (e.g., modeling, gestures, visuals)
• modified language use through
a. repetition
b. speaking more slowly
c. clear pronunciation
d. simplifying language (e.g., high‐frequency vocabulary, less slang, fewer idioms,
shorter sentences)
e. use of cognates
f. limited use of L1
[Scaffolding will be discussed in more detail in Unit 2.]
Principle 5: Promote Cooperative and Collaborative Learning
In general education, cooperative or collaborative learning has long been recognized as a strong
facilitator of learning (e.g., see Kagan 1989). In such an approach, classrooms are organized so
that students work together in small cooperative teams, such as groups or pairs, to complete
activities. In second language learning environments, students work cooperatively on a
language‐learning task or collaboratively by achieving the goal through communicative use of
the target language. Particularly in collaborative work, if the learning tasks are designed to
require active and true communicative interaction among students in the target language, they
have numerous benefits on attainment. To learn in these situations, it is important what
happens during the interaction between the learners and the teacher, and among the learners.
Interaction normally includes both input and learner production, but learners cannot simply
listen to input. They must be active conversational participants who interact and negotiate the
type of input they receive. Speakers also make changes in their language as they interact or
“negotiate meaning” with each other. They do so to avoid conversational trouble or when
trouble occurs. In this way, the interaction functions like a catalyst that promotes language
acquisition. This claim has become widely known as Long’s “Interaction Hypothesis” (1983).
The ability to develop a new language is promoted between and among learners. But it is
equally important and should not be ignored the social interaction between the teacher (the
expert) and the student, which has been the focus of traditional instruction. The importance
of this kind of social interaction is well described by the works of social psychologist Vygotsky
(1978). Through the assistance of the teacher and the social interaction, the learner can reach
a potential that exceeds his current level of development. In communicative language
classrooms, however, as soon as students are able to perform speech acts or language tasks
on their own—that is, without a teacher’s assistance—the focus changes from teacher‐led to
student‐centered language application.
-9-
Principle 6: Focus on Form
One of the debates about grammar teaching centered on the question of whether to explain
grammar explicitly or whether to have the learners discover the rules themselves. In this
context, explicit means that the rules are explained to the learner at one point during the
course of instruction. Although not everybody agrees (see Krashen 1981), research provides
ample evidence for the benefits of making grammar rules explicit to adult language learners
(for a review of studies, see Norris and Ortega 2000). Within explicit ways of teaching grammar,
Long (1991) conceived a further distinction between what he calls “focus on form” and “focus
on formS.”
A focus on formS approach represents a fairly traditional approach to teaching grammar where
“students spend much of their time in isolated linguistic structures in a sequence
predetermined externally and imposed on them by a syllabus designer or textbook writer...,”
while meaning is often ignored (Doughty and Long 2003, p. 64).
In contrast, a focus on form approach to explicit grammar teaching emphasizes a form‐meaning
connection and teaches grammar within contexts and through communicative tasks (see
communicative language teaching principles above). Doughty and Long (2003) point out that a
lot of empirical evidence exists in favor of a focus‐on‐form approach, hence they proclaim it a
fundamental methodological principle in support of CLT and task‐based language instruction.
Principle 7: Provide Error Corrective Feedback
In a general sense, feedback can be categorized in two different ways: positive feedback that
confirms the correctness of a student’s response. Teachers demonstrate this behavior by
agreeing, praising, or showing understanding. Or, negative feedback, generally known as error
correction (see Chaudron 1988), which has a corrective function on a student’s incorrect use
of language. As learners produce language, such evaluative feedback can be useful in
facilitating the progression of their skills toward more precise and coherent language use. Both
types are vital during a learner’s interlanguage development since they allow the learner to
either accept, reject, or modify a hypothesis about correct language use.
The study of feedback in learning situations has a long history. In language learning, many
research studies have documented that teachers believe in the effectiveness of feedback and
that students ask for it, believe in the benefits of receiving it, and learn from it. However, it is
not always clear how much the information provided through feedback helps a learner’s
progress. This affirmation can be illustrated by what teachers frequently experience; that is,
their students, after receiving feedback, often continue making the same mistakes—or even
when they get it right initially, many still fall back into their previous and incorrect language
use. “Acquisition is a process that is not usually instantaneous” (Doughty and Williams 1998,
p. 208). Achieving positive effects with error corrective feedback involves a long‐term process
that depends on corrective strategies and most of all on individual learner factors.
For example, in a classroom study of the effectiveness of various feedback techniques, Lyster
and Ranta (1997) found that recasts —that is, when a teacher repeats a student’s incorrect
language production, but in a correct way— were the most widespread response to learner
error. Yet recasts were in fact the least effective in causing learners to immediately correct
- 10 -
their mistakes. Instead, direct error corrective strategies that involved the teacher’s help —
such as providing metalinguistic explanations or asking students for clarification— were the
most effective in stimulating learner’s correction.
As suggested by Lyster and Ranta’s study, the value of negative feedback lies in attracting
learner attention to some problematic aspect of their interlanguage. In other words, many
learners may require help in “noticing” (Schmidt 1990, 2001) their mistakes.
While the type of error corrective strategy may make a difference, learner readiness may be
the most decisive factor in predicting success in the acquisition process. Simply put, if a learner
makes a mistake and has no clue that he made a mistake, nor does he know what he did wrong,
in other words there was no hypothesis that he was testing either, then any kind of error
corrective feedback may simply be ineffective as the learner is not ready yet (see Brandl 1995).
In general, there is little doubt about the role of feedback as a facilitator to learning, despite
many difficulties in giving it effectively. Providing “error corrective” and “positive” feedback is
fundamental in all areas of instruction and constitutes a necessity in support of the learning
process.
Principle 8: Recognize and Respect Affective Factors of Learning
Over the years, consistent relationships have been demonstrated between language attitudes,
motivation, performance anxiety, and second language learning (Gardner 1985; Gardner and
McIntyre 1993; Horwitz and Young 1991). All teachers eventually experience how learners feel
about the target language or how their attitudes toward it impact their motivation and
subsequently their success. As Gardner and McIntyre (1993) put it, a learner who is motivated
“wants to achieve a particular goal, devotes considerable effort to achieve this goal, and
experiences in the activities associated with achieving this goal” (p. 2).
One characteristic of language learning that has received a great deal of attention over the
past years is the role of anxiety during the learning process. In CLT, where the major objective
is to use the language actively, anxiety has become a problem for many learners. Anxiety
manifests itself in many ways such as underestimation, feelings of apprehension, stress,
nervousness, and even bodily responses such as faster heartbeat. Numerous studies have
corroborated what Krashen contended in his Affective Filter hypothesis, which states:
“Language learning must take place in an environment where learners are ‘off the defensive’
and the affective filter (anxiety) is low in order for the input to be noticed and gain access to
the learners’ thinking” (Krashen 1982, p. 127).
There is a clear negative relationship between anxiety and learning success. Anxiety as a
personal trait must be recognized and kept at a minimal level for learning to be maximized.
Anxiety and its impact on learner performance are discussed in more detail in later chapters.
Challenges in Communicative Language Teaching
CLT or a task‐based approach is not a panacea to language teaching. There are numerous
challenges to making communicative language teaching happen. These questions have to do
with the choice of content, context, specific skill areas (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, etc.), and
particular learning tasks that determine a curriculum.
- 11 -
These choices are strongly linked to questions about what it means to “know” a language, to
be proficient in a language, and what communicative abilities require. While the literature on
language teaching has attempted to provide answers to such questions, there are no
universally accepted standards. The proficiency and standards movements have attempted to
provide some guidelines, but they often remain general in learner performance descriptions.
This ultimately makes it challenging to evaluate individual learners’ communicative ability, and
it essentially leaves judgment of learner progress up to the teachers.
Communicative abilities cannot be simply categorized as speaking, listening, reading, or writing
skills, as it was done in a traditional four skills approach. For example, when two people talk to
each other, the process normally involves speaking and listening skills as well as active
communicative strategies such as asking for clarification and adjusting language to make each
other understood. The attempt to teach languages in a way that includes all skills, based on an
interactive view of language behavior, has presented many challenges on how to integrate the
four skills effectively in a daily and long‐term curriculum.
The teaching of proficiency and communicative‐based skills raises the question not only about
content but also about the choice of learning tasks or best teaching practices. CLT does not
promote one standardized method or curriculum but is eclectic in its approach. Being eclectic
means it promotes the best or most effective techniques or methodologies. At the same time,
the choice of techniques and learning tasks is not an arbitrary decision but is firmly based on
principles of learning which are motivated by research in second language acquisition (SLA)
and educational psychology. Learning what constitutes effective ways of learning and teaching
initially requires intensive training and in the long run staying in touch with current SLA
research findings.
As a last point, the quality of CLT also often depends on the quality of teaching materials.
Unfortunately, only in the most commonly taught languages —such as English, Spanish,
French, and German— an abundance of materials exists to support the development of
communicative language abilities in a wide range of skills.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an introduction to communicative language
teaching (CLT) and to describe methodological principles that facilitate the language learning
process. CLT furthermore takes a pragmatic or performance‐based approach to learning. Its
goal is to promote the development of real‐life language skills by involving the learner in
contextualized, meaningful, and communicative‐oriented learning tasks. CLT methodologies
embrace an eclectic approach to teaching, which means they borrow teaching practices from
a great variety of methods that have been found effective and that are in accordance with
principles of learning as suggested by research findings in SLA and cognitive psychology. This
allows for a lot of flexibility, which makes it adaptable to many individual programmatic and
learner needs and goals. Such an approach further supports the notion that no second
language teaching method can be the single best one. It recognizes the wide range of factors
—such as learner ability and motivation, teacher effectiveness and methodology— that
contribute to success in foreign language learning. Last, it leaves the door open to redefine and
adapt new teaching practices, as research findings evolve in the future.
- 12 -

- 13 -
TYPES OF LANGUAGE SUPPORT
Diana Lindsay 2011
The teacher helps understanding by…


1. Repeating
2. Paraphrasing (saying the same thing in different ways)
3. Giving examples
4. Demonstrating
5. Translating
6. Checking comprehension
The teacher uses visual support by…

1. Using the blackboard
2. Using gestures, miming, face expressions…
3. Showing key words on the board
4. Manipulating objects (realia)
5. Using, video, photos, ppt…
6. Using diagrams, tables, graphs…
The teacher elicits information from students by…

1. Asking different types of questions: open, closed, with alternatives…
2. Eliciting answers in L1
3. Eliciting from a strong learner
4. Completing or expanding students’ answers
5. Modelling the answers, so that students imitate
6. Prompting the answers (giving cues): words, sentence starters, whole
sentences without key words,…
The teacher supports production by giving…

1. Sentence starters
2. Lists of words, expressions
3. Model structures to speak or write: Speaking/writing frames.
4. Visuals as prompters for writing or speaking
5. Concept maps
The teacher helps understanding by giving…

6. Diagrams to label
7. Tables, charts, grids to fill in
8. Words, sentences, visuals to match
9. Words, parts of sentences, sentences in a text to order or sequence
The teacher promotes different types of interaction:

1. Whole group to give general input and feedback
2. Pair or small group work in L1 when there is a new concept to understand
3. Pair or small group work, for students to help each other
4. Pair or small group work, to prepare oral or written texts to present in L3
5. Individual work, to ensure that all students follow a thinking process
6. Individual work, so that the teacher can provide individual attention
- 14 -
Teachers’ voices 8:
Explicitly supporting
reading and writing
in the classroom
Editors:
Anne Burns and Helen de Silva Joyce
National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research

Macquarie University
- 15 -
Teachers’ voices 8:
Explicitly supporting reading and writing in the classroom
Published by the
National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
Macquarie University
Sydney NSW 2109
for the AMEP Research Centre on behalf of the
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.
Teachers’ voices 8: explicitly supporting reading and writing in the classroom.
Bibliography.
For teachers of adult learners of English.
ISBN 1 74138 103 7.
1. English language – Study and teaching - Foreign speakers. 2. Reading (Adult education). 3. English language –
Writing. I. Burns, Anne. II. De Silva Joyce, Helen. III. National Centre for English Language Teaching and
Research (Australia).
428.00715
© Macquarie University 2005

The AMEP Research Centre is a consortium of the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
(NCELTR) at Macquarie University in Sydney, and the School of Educational Studies at La Trobe University in
Melbourne. The Research Centre was established in January 2000 and is funded by the Commonwealth
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.
Copyright
This book is sold subject to the conditions that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out,
or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in
which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent
purchaser.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means,
without the publisher’s permission.
The publishers have used their best efforts to contact all copyright holders for permission to reproduce artwork and
text extracts and wish to acknowledge the following for providing copyright permission:
Chapter 2 (pp 8–16) is reproduced from Hammond, J (ed) (2001) Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and
literacy education. Primary English Teaching Association, Sydney. Reproduced with permission from Primary
English Teaching Association.
Project Manager: Louise Melov
Production Supervisor: Kris Clarke
Cover and design: Vanessa Byrne
DTP: Lingo Productions
Printed by: Southwood Press Pty Ltd
- 16 -
2 What is scaffolding?
Jennifer Hammond and Pauline Gibbons
... our understanding of the nature of scaffolding includes both the micro-level
scaffolding which occurs in the ongoing interactions between teacher and students
and a more macro-level scaffolding which is related to larger issues such as program
goals and the selection and sequencing of tasks.
In this chapter, we begin to explore questions about the nature of scaffolding. What is
scaffolding? What does it have to offer in terms of extending our understanding of teaching and
learning? How do we know it when we see it? How is it different from (or similar to) good
teaching? Where does the metaphor come from, and how far can it be pushed in order to
explore a socially and linguistically oriented theory of teaching and learning?
We start by focusing on the metaphor itself.
Scaffolding, as most people know, is placed around the outside of new buildings to
allow builders access to the emerging structure as it rises from the ground. Once the
building is able to support itself, the builder removes the scaffolding. The metaphor of
scaffolding has been widely used in recent years to argue that, just as builders provide
essential but temporary support, teachers need to provide temporary supporting
structures to assist learners to develop new understandings, new concepts, and new
abilities. As the learner acquires these skills, so teachers need to withdraw that support,
only to provide further support for extended or new tasks, understandings and concepts.
While the metaphor has some obvious limitations, scaffolding is a term that
resonates with teachers. Over the past 20 years or so it has been taken up with
enthusiasm and, although sometimes used loosely to refer to different things, its
popularity indicates that it captures something that teachers perceive to be central to
their core business — something that is at the heart of effective teaching. Mercer
(1994) suggests that teachers find the concept of scaffolding appealing because it
resonates with their intuitive conceptions of what it means to intervene successfully in
students’ learning. He argues that the term offers what is lacking in much of the
literature on education — that is, an effective conceptual metaphor for the quality of
teacher intervention in learning.
As well as exploring the ways in which the term scaffolding has been used in
educational contexts, and its theoretical underpinnings, we will also address questions
on the nature and quality of teacher intervention in learning.
The nature of scaffolding in educational contexts

Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) were the first to use the term scaffolding as a metaphor in
the learning context. They used the term to describe the nature of parental tutoring in the
language development of young children. They showed that parents who were ‘successful
scaffolders’ focused their children’s attention on the task at hand and kept them
motivated and working on the task. Such parents divided the task into manageable
components and directed their children’s attention to the essential and relevant features.
In addition, these parents demonstrated and modelled successful performance, while
keeping the task at an appropriate level of difficulty. In this way the parents provided
support through intervention that was tailored to the demands of the task, and
determined by the child’s ability to complete it. Bruner (1978: 19) describes scaffolding as:
- 17 -
What is scaffolding?
... the steps taken to reduce the degrees of freedom taken in carrying out
some task so that the child can concentrate on the difficult skill she is in
the process of acquiring.
In the context of classroom interaction, the term scaffolding has been taken up to
describe the temporary assistance that teachers provide for their students to assist them
to complete a task or develop new understandings, so that they will later be able to
complete similar tasks alone. Maybin, Mercer and Steirer (1992: 186) describe this
as the ‘temporary but essential nature of the mentor’s assistance’ in supporting learners
to carry out tasks successfully. There are a number of significant features in this use of
the term.
Key features
Extending understanding
Scaffolding refers to support that is designed to provide the assistance necessary to
enable learners to accomplish tasks and develop understandings that they would not be
able to manage on their own. As Mercer explains (1994: 96): ‘Scaffolding represents
the kind and quality of cognitive support which an adult can provide for a child’s
learning, which anticipates the child’s own internalisation of mental functions’.
Teachers, through sequencing activities and through the quality support and guidance,
are able to challenge and extend what students are able to do. It is by participating in
such activities that students are pushed beyond their current abilities and levels of
understanding, and this is when learning occurs and students are able to ‘internalise’
new understandings.
In a discussion of the implications of teaching, Mariani (1997) explores the
classroom consequences of various combinations of high and low teacher support and
challenge. He describes the frustrations, insecurity and anxiety experienced by
students in learning contexts where there is high challenge but inadequate or low
support. Such contexts present students with demands beyond their capabilities that
are likely to result in failure (see Figure 1). In contexts with low challenge and low
support students are unlikely to be motivated to do much at all. This results in little
learning taking place with students more likely to be bored, and perhaps expressing
this boredom through misbehaviour.
Challenge
Demands too high; Extension of learning

failure likely and capability
Low motivation; Comfortable/Easy;

boredom and little learning likely
behaviourproblems
likely
Support
Source: Adapted from Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting
learner autonomy. Perspectives 23(2), Italy.
Figure 1: Framework of learning contexts
- 18 -
Teachers’ voices 8
With low challenge and high support, students will operate within their comfort
zone and may enjoy their classroom experiences, but they are unlikely to learn a great
deal. It is when the learning context provides both high challenge and high support
that most learning takes place. At such times, students are pushed beyond their current
capabilities. As Vygotsky (1978) wrote, good learning is that which is ahead of actual
development. A major feature of scaffolding is its ability to capture the role of the
‘expert’, or more knowledgeable other (typically the teacher), in assisting students’
learning, and the role of that knowledgeable other in extending students’ current
levels of understanding or current capabilities.
Scaffolding therefore is not only teacher support but assistance that is designed to
help learners to work with increasing independence — to know not only what to think
and do, but how to think and do, so that new skills and understandings can be applied
in new contexts.
Temporary support
An important feature of scaffolding is its temporary nature. Because it is aimed at
enabling students to learn independently, teacher support is gradually withdrawn as
the learners become increasingly able to complete a task alone. Timely support is
critical to effective scaffolding. This requires teachers to have a good understanding of
where their learners are ‘at’ — that is, of what their learners know (or do not know) at
the beginning of an activity. To be effective, such support needs to be progressively
adjusted to address the needs of different students within the one classroom.
This ability to customise support for specific learners is what van Lier (1996), Wells
(1986) and others refer to as contingency. The notion of contingency emphasises the
importance of teaching strategies being based on, and responsive to, students’ current
understandings. It is characterised by how well the teacher is able to judge the need
and quality of assistance required by the learner, and related to the way help is paced
on the basis of students’ developing understandings. Ideally, the teacher
accommodates learner initiatives as a new concept or process is grasped, but also
provides further support if learners begin to falter. The sensitivity and skill involved in
responding contingently to students is sometimes seen as the defining quality of
teaching. Van Lier (1996: 199) suggests that ‘even though it does not show up in lesson
plans or syllabuses, this local or interactional scaffolding may well be the driving force
behind good pedagogy, the hallmark of a good teacher’.
Macro and micro focuses

In addition to a focus on learners and their current levels of understanding, scaffolding
also requires a clear focus on tasks. In our view, it therefore requires that teachers have
a good understanding of:
• the curriculum area or field of inquiry of their learners and
• the demands of specific tasks that will enable learners to achieve relevant goals.
So scaffolding needs to be thought of in relation to the development of overall
programs and curriculums, as well as to the selection and sequencing of tasks and to
the specific classroom interactions that are part of those tasks. It extends beyond the
moment-by-moment interactions between teacher and student to include also the nature
and design of the classroom program.
Effective scaffolding requires clearly articulated goals and learning activities that
are structured to enable learners to extend their existing levels of understanding. The
10
- 19 -
goals for any one specific task need to be located within the broader framework of a
planned program (with its own clearly articulated goals). This means that the learning
that occurs as a result of support provided at a micro level of interaction (at a task
level) needs to be located within the macro framework of a planned program, so that
there is a clear relationship between sequential tasks and also that these tasks relate to
articulated program and curriculum goals. Mercer (1994: 101), who takes a similar
view, argues:
It is probably in making a direct conceptual link between two very

different aspects of teachers’ involvement with pupils’ learning that the
concept of ‘scaffolding’ has most to offer to educational research —
the pursuit of curriculum-related goals for learning and the use of specific
discourse strategies when intervening in children’s learning.
The relationship between scaffolding and good teaching

A look at the key features of scaffolding gives rise to questions about the relationship
between scaffolding and teaching more generally. Do these features apply specifically to
scaffolding? Do they distinguish scaffolding from other kinds of teaching? In what ways is
scaffolding different to what could simply be described as good teaching?
Questions of ‘what counts’ as scaffolding in the classroom, and of the relationship
between scaffolding and what might be thought of as ‘good teaching’, have been
tackled by a number of researchers (eg Maybin et al 1992; Mercer 1994; Webster,
Beveridge and Reed 1996). Maybin et al (1992) write:
[Scaffolding] is not just any assistance which helps a learner accomplish a

task. It is help which will enable a learner to accomplish a task which they
would not have been quite able to manage on their own, and it is help
which is intended to bring the learner closer to a state of competence
which will enable them eventually to complete such a task on their own.
Mercer (1994), drawing on his earlier work with colleagues, proposes the following
criteria for distinguishing scaffolding from other kinds of teaching and learning:
• Students could not succeed without the teacher’s intervention.
• The teacher aims for some new level of independent competence on the students’
part.
• The teacher has the learning of some specific skill or concept in mind.
• There must be evidence of students successfully completing the particular task at
hand.
• There must also be evidence that learners are now able to go on to deal
independently with subsequent related tasks or problems.
Mercer argues that such criteria allow educational researchers to ‘discuss and explain
differences in the quality of intellectual support which teachers provide for learners,
while sufficiently stringent to exclude some kinds of “help” which teachers provide’.
As a simple example of the difference between ‘scaffolding’ and ‘help’, consider a
situation in which a student is unable to spell a particular word. In this situation, the
teacher could ‘help’ by providing the correct spelling. Alternatively, the teacher could
‘scaffold’ how to think about the spelling by, for example, encouraging the student to
think about the sounds of the word, and how they could be represented. Of course,
11
- 20 -
there are times when on-the-spot ‘help’ is a valuable kind of assistance. The point we
are making here is that scaffolding, in our definition, is qualitatively different from
‘help’ in that it is aimed at supporting students to tackle future tasks in new contexts —
or, as we argued earlier, to know how to think, not simply what to think.
Key theoretical concepts in understanding scaffolding

We have so far discussed the nature of scaffolding — what is meant by the term and
how to recognise it when we see it in a classroom context. Here we discuss the
theoretical underpinning of scaffolding, looking in particular at how it fits with more
general theories of teaching and learning.
An important element in any discussion of the theoretical basis of scaffolding is its
relationship with Vygotsky’s theories of learning. Although Vygotsky himself never
used the term scaffolding, its theoretical basis lies within a Vygotskian framework and
his work is frequently cited by those who have taken up the notion of scaffolding in the
context of educational research.
Broadly, Vygotsky (eg 1978) argued that learning and cognitive development are
culturally and socially based. In other words, learning is a social process rather than an
individual one, and occurs during interactions between individuals. He argued that
learning involves a communicative process whereby knowledge is shared and
understandings are constructed in culturally formed settings. In emphasising the social
and cultural basis of learning, his work differs significantly from views that have
dominated Western thinking about education. In particular, his views differ from
Piagetian theories that have portrayed learning as an essentially individual enterprise.
In Bruner’s original work on scaffolding in child language development (1985), he
drew on the Vygotskian notion that social transaction and interaction, rather than
solo performance, constitute the fundamental vehicle of education. It was, he said, the
transactional nature of learning that enabled a person’s entry into a culture via
induction by more skilled members. He argued (p 25):
Too often human learning has been depicted as a paradigm of a lone

organism pitted against nature — whether in the model of the
behaviourists’ organisms shaping up responses to fit the geometrics and
probabilities of the world of stimuli, or in the Piagetian model where a
lone child struggles single handedly to strike some equilibrium between
assimilating the world to himself or himself to the world.
The argument that learning is essentially a social and cultural process is central to
the theoretical basis of scaffolding. To explore the implications of this argument, we
need to consider another key concept — the zone of proximal development.
The zone of proximal development (ZPD)

Perhaps the best known and most relevant aspect of Vygotsky’s work to the theoretical
basis of scaffolding is his notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky
(1978: 86) argued that the ZPD is a key element in the learning process, and he defined
this as:
... the distance between the actual development level (of the learner) as
determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.
12
- 21 -
In relation to education, the major significance of the ZPD is that it suggests the
upper and lower limits, or the ‘zone’, within which new learning will occur. If the
instruction is too difficult, or pitched too high, the learner is likely either to be
frustrated or to tune out. If it is too low, the learner is presented with no challenge and
simply does not learn anything. The notion of the ZPD underpins Mariani’s discussion
of the merits of high support and high challenge for an effective teaching–learning
relationship. The point here is that learning will occur when students are working
within their ZPD and when teachers, through their mediating support role, are able to
assist students to extend their current understandings and knowledge.
It is important to note that the concept of ZPD has been widely taken up in
educational contexts, and often differently interpreted. Vygotsky died at a young age
and, as Wells (1999) points out, the place of the ZPD in his overall theories was not
fully articulated. Some have interpreted ZPD as a kind of individual attribute —
something that each learner possesses, that they take with them from one situation to
another, and something that can be individually assessed. Others — and we include
ourselves here — take a different view.
Wells (1999: 330) argues that ‘rather than being a “fixed” attribute of the learner, the
ZPD constitutes a potential for learning that is created in the interaction between
participants as they engage in a particular activity together’. That is, the ZPD is
constructed in and through the activity in which learners and teachers jointly participate.
Wells goes on to argue that as problems are resolved and solutions are constructed, so the
potential for further learning is expanded, and new possibilities are opened up that were
initially unforeseen. Thus, the ZPD is co-constructed through the talk that occurs
between teacher and students as they participate in a particular task. It is an attribute of
those tasks or events, rather than an attribute of the learner. This also means that the
upper limits of the ZPD may change as the task unfolds. In other words, effective
scaffolding is able to extend the upper limit of the ZPD, perhaps making it possible for
learners to reach beyond what they are thought to be capable of.
While educational experiences should not be completely beyond the capability of
the learner, Vygotsky’s notion challenges the traditional concept of learner ‘readiness’
by suggesting that it is the teacher who is largely responsible for initiating each new
step of learning, based on their understandings of what students are able to do. This
does not mean that students’ own interests and goals are ignored; indeed, they are an
important consideration at the macro level of program planning and identification of
goals. However, it does mean that when introducing new concepts, the teacher is
responsible for the sequencing and pacing of learning, and for challenging students to
extend their current levels of understanding.
The notion of the ZPD also challenges teachers to maintain high expectations of
all students, while providing ‘contingent’ scaffolding in order to assist learners to
complete tasks successfully. Gibbons (2002) argues that, as far as possible, all learners,
including second-language learners, need to be engaged with authentic and
cognitively challenging tasks. It is the nature of the support — customised support that
is responsive to the needs of particular students — that is critical for success.
The following example is given to illustrate the principles we have been discussing.
It is a short extract in which a father and mother talk with their 14-month-old son,
Nigel. Before the conversation occurred, Nigel had been to the zoo. While he had been
looking at a goat, it had tried to eat a plastic lid that he had been holding. The keeper
had explained that he shouldn’t let the goat eat the lid because it wasn’t good for it. As
you read this dialogue, look particularly at what the parents are doing, and the effect
this has on Nigel’s language.
13
- 22 -
Nigel Try eat lid.

Father What tried to eat the lid?
Nigel Try eat lid.
Father What tried to eat the lid?
Nigel Goal … man said no … goat tried eat lid … man said no.
Later
Nigel Goat tey eat lid … man said no.
Mother Why did the man say no?
Nigel Goat shouldn’t eat lid ... [shaking head] good for it.
Mother The goat shouldn’t eat the lid; it’s not good for it.
Nigel Goat try eat lid … man said no … goat shouldn’t eat lid ... [shaking head] good for it.
Halliday (1975)
Notice the kind of scaffolding that the parents provide. Nigel’s initial utterance is
far from explicit — anyone who had not shared the experience with him would not be
able to understand the significance of what he is saying. First, it is not clear what or
whom Nigel is referring to, and the father’s question what? shows Nigel what
information he needs to provide. Having extended the initial three-word utterance to
something significantly more complete, Nigel relates this more extended version to his
mother, who pushes the dialogue forward with the question why? While Nigel does not
take up his mother’s use of shouldn’t (using, instead, the strategy of indicating a
negative by shaking his head), he does provide the reason his mother is seeking (it’s not
good for it). By the end of these two small conversations, he has elaborated on and
made more explicit his original short utterance. Most important, it is clear that what
Nigel achieves — the final story he tells — has not simply come from him and his own
linguistic resources; this story is a collaborative endeavour and has been jointly
constructed.
This co-construction is important in that, by assisting Nigel to recount his
experience at the zoo, his parents are at the same time extending his understanding
of the significance of these events. Through countless such interactions, Nigel is
enculturated into ways of representing and valuing his world.
Educational implications of a social view of learning

An implication of the view of learning that we have been outlining here, and of the
place of scaffolding within it, is that knowledge is collaboratively constructed rather
than simply passed on, or handed from teacher to learner. That is, knowledge is
constructed in and through joint participation in activities where all participants are
actively involved in negotiating meaning. Clearly, learners construct new and
extended understandings through their collaborative participation in scaffolded
activities. But in doing so, they are doing more than simply absorbing information or
digesting chunks of knowledge. Their active participation, with support from the
teacher, enables them to construct and, potentially, transform understandings.
Through talk, in particular, information and ideas can be shared, points of view
explored, and explanations presented. In the process, new ways of thinking and
understanding may be constructed. These new ways may represent only minor shifts,
but they are significant in the ongoing construction of knowledge and the
14
- 23 -
development of alternative perspectives. Not only do teachers impact on students’

learning; students in turn impact on teachers’ understandings. More broadly, this
process of negotiating understandings contributes to ongoing development of social
and cultural understandings and ways of thinking about the world. In this sense we can
therefore argue that teaching and learning are reciprocal processes (Mercer 1994).
Such a view of learning also recognises that both teacher and students are active
participants in a collaborative learning process and thus moves away from the well-
worn debate around teacher-directed versus student-centred learning. As Webster,
Beveridge and Reed suggest (1996: 42), teaching and learning are constructed ‘as a
social enterprise which draws on the immediate resources of the participants’ — that
is, both teacher and students.
A further implication for this view of learning is that, as we saw in the example
above, language is integral to the learning process. Vygotsky has argued that the
external dialogues in which learners take part are gradually internalised to construct
the resources for thinking — outer speech eventually becomes inner thinking. As
learners talk through a problem, or as they ‘talk their way to understanding’, they are
developing the ‘thinking’ tools for later problem-solving — tools which will eventually
become internalised and construct the resources for independent thinking.
It follows, then, that the kinds of talk that occur in the classroom are critical in the
development of how students ‘learn to learn’ through language, and ultimately how
they learn to think. Clearly, any discussion of the nature of scaffolding must consider
the role of language in teaching and learning.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair,
R. Jarvella & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The child’s conception of language. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Working with ESL
children in the mainstream elementary classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of
language. London: Edward Arnold.
Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting learner
autonomy. Perspectives, 23(2), Italy.
Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Steirer, B. (1992). ‘Scaffolding’ learning in the
classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National
Curriculum Project. London: Hodder and Stoughton for the National Curriculum
Council, London.
Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Steirer &
J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning in educational practice. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and
authenticity. London: Longman.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. M. Cole et al. (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webster, A., Beveridge, M., & Reed, M. (1996). Managing the literacy curriculum.
London: Routledge.
15
- 24 -
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers. Children learning language and using language to
learn. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry; towards a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
16
- 25 -
El texto narrativo dialogado.
Una manera de construir
el aprendizaje de la lengua extranjera
en educación infantil 1
Josep Maria Artigal

artigal.ed@cambrabcn.es
1
Traducido del catalán: El text narratiu dialogat. Una manera de construir l'aprenentatge de la llengua
estrangera a l'educació infantil. Centre de Recursos de Llengües Estrangeres. Departament
d’Educació. Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona, 2005. http://www.xtec.es/crle/02/infantil/index.htm.
- 26 -
Josep Maria Artigal El texto narrativo dialogado 1
«Nombrar no es aún en absoluto una jugada en el juego del lenguaje. ...

Al nombrar una cosa todavía no se ha hecho nada»
Wittgenstein. Investigaciones Filosóficas, parágrafo 49.
«Todo signo parece por sí solo muerto. ¿Qué es lo que

le da vida? – Vive en el uso»
Wittgenstein. Investigaciones Filosóficas, parágrafo 432.
Como maestro y formador, desde el año 1978 he entrado continuadamente en aulas de

educación infantil y primer ciclo de primaria de diferentes lugares, lenguas y culturas.
Cronológicamente, Cataluña, Valencia, Finlandia, Italia, Euskadi, Occitania, Navarra, Bretaña,
Galicia, Santander, Andalucía, Mallorca, Austria, Aragón, Alemania y Estonia. Junto a muchos
maestros de estos lugares he pensado, probado, observado, reflexionado y reelaborado
diferentes propuestas prácticas para el aprendizaje de lenguas segundas o terceras. Muchas
veces he dado yo las clases, y muchas otras he observado a otros maestros darlas. Unas
veces las propuestas han funcionado bastante bien, otras no tanto.
Este artículo nace de un largo contacto con los hechos que intenta
explicar.
Con muchos de los maestros citados hemos intentado entender los éxitos, aprender de los
fracasos, y esclarecer el por qué de los funcionamientos desiguales. De todo ello ha salido una
manera de trabajar la narración en lengua extranjera en la educación infantil. Se trata de un
conjunto de cuentos dialogados donde desde el primer momento los alumnos escenifican todos
los papeles argumentales que aparecen.
Se propone una manera de narrar en lengua extranjera en la

educación infantil.
El articulo se organiza en torno a tres ejemplos concretos, tres cuentos. “Smily and Grumpy”,
“Peggy and Granny” y “Jenny”. De cada uno de estos cuentos se destacan algunas
cuestiones metodológicas. El texto concluye con un breve marco teórico y un apunte final.
- 27 -
Smily and Grumpy
Resumen del cuento: Una mano con voz fina y otra con voz grave se encuentran y dialogan.
Algo no funciona, pero finalmente lo resuelven y se despiden.
La maestra, usando solamente sus dos manos como si

fuesen dos títeres, explica una historia. Siempre que
actúa la mano derecha la voz que habla es fina, dulce,
agradable. Cuando lo hace la izquierda la voz es grave,
enfadada, gruñona. Todo lo que la profesora hace y
dice, lo hacen y dicen también los alumnos.
Narración:
Mano derecha de la maestra Mano izquierda de la maestra
La historia se inicia con las dos manos detrás de la espalda

Tip-tap, tip-tap, ... TIP-TAP, TIP-TAP, ...
(la mano aparece y ocupa una posición visible) (la mano aparece y ocupa una posición visible)
Hello? HELLO!
Hello, hello, hello? HELLO, HELLO, HELLO!
My name is Smily. MY NAME IS GRUMPY.
SMILY, COME HERE!!!
Tip-tap, tip-tap ... (acercándose a la otra mano)
no, no, no! (regresando rápidamente) SMILY, COME HERE!!!
Tip-tap, tip-tap ... (acercándose a la otra mano)
no, no, no! (regresando rápidamente) SMILY, COME HERE!!!
Tip-tap, tip-tap ... (acercándose a la otra mano) MOOA-MOOA-MOOA!
mooa-mooa-mooa!
Tip-tap, tip-tap ... (regresando a la posición inicial)
Good-bye, Grumpy. GOOD-BYE, SMILY.
Tip-tap, tip-tap ... TIP-TAP, TIP-TAP ...
(la mano desaparece detrás de la espalda) (la mano desaparece detrás de la espalda)
La historia finaliza con las dos manos detrás de la espalda
De este primer cuento queremos remarcar tres cuestiones. Que los alumnos toman posición
de protagonistas, que los primeros significados son pragmáticos, y que los contenidos no son
una prioridad inicial.
Los alumnos toman posición de protagonista
Este tipo de narraciones breves realizadas con las manos como único soporte provocan una
casi automática participación de los alumnos. Es incluso sorprendente como los alumnos de
infantil se identifican con los personajes, abandonan el rol de espectador externo al cuento, y
toman posición de protagonista.
Rápidamente los alumnos abandonan la posición de espectador y se

convierten en protagonistas.
- 28 -
Son especialmente necesarias dos cosas.
∗ Hablar de manera rítmica, con un tempo casi musical.

∗ Repetir cada segmento de diálogo, cada turno de palabra, dos, tres, o más veces, a fin
que todos o casi todos los alumnos se acaben involucrando.
Los primeros significados son pragmáticos
La atención y la participación que esta breve historia provoca pueden ser debidas a que
resulta motivante, al hecho que los niños participan activamente, e incluso a su novedad. Sin
embargo, desde nuestro punto de vista el elemento central es que tiene estructura de cuento
(dos personajes, un conflicto y una solución final) y, sobretodo, que los alumnos son capaces
de reconocer precisamente esto (quién habla, con quién, y por qué).
Para explicar la importancia de estos reconocimientos pragmáticos (quién parla, con quién, y
por qué), citaré el director de cine ruso Mikhalkov que el diciembre de 2004 cuando recibió el
premio al mejor director europeo del año dijo, en ruso, “haré mi intervención en ruso y no en
inglés, porqué antes de que lo qué os quiero decir sea reconocible, necesito ser yo reconocido”.
Y posteriormente fue traducido al inglés por otra persona. Cuando construimos un texto es
necesario llenarlo de significado, en caso contrario seria simplemente ruido. Pero este proceso
de significación del texto no puede ser solamente construido con el contenido explícito
transmitido, con aquello de referencial que queremos decir (por ejemplo, “COME HERE”), sino
también por el reconocimiento de quién lo dice, a quién lo dice, y por qué (en este caso, una
voz fina, otra grave, y una tensión, es decir, un cierto miedo, una duda narrativa vehiculada en
el “COME HERE!!!” expresado por una mano e interpretado por la otra). Como sugiere
Mikhalkov, “quién habla”, “con quién”, y “por qué” son tan importantes que si no fuesen
reconocidos tampoco resultaría reconocible el mensaje estrictamente referencial que
queríamos transmitir. Especialmente cuando tenemos entre 3 y 6 años e iniciamos el
aprendizaje de una nueva lengua.
En la manera de narrar que proponemos, la significación de aquello que los alumnos escuchan
y dicen proviene más del significado pragmático, emocional, que del explícito significado
referencial. Aprender una lengua comporta evidentemente acceder a las referencias de aquello
que es dicho, pero quizás esta parte del significado llegará un poco más tarde. “Quién habla,
con quién, y por qué” construyen un primer significado que funciona como punto de partida
indispensable. Con cuentos como el de este primer ejemplo los alumnos de infantil son desde
el primer momento capaces de reconocer el referido significado emocional, pragmático. Esta es
desde el primer momento una competencia suya, algo que los convierte ya en usuarios
eficaces de la nueva lengua. Por ejemplo, es muy posible que los alumnos no hayan entendido
aún todas las referencias dichas en la nueva lengua, pero han comprendido rápidamente que
hay dos personajes, que entre ellos hay algún tipo de tensión o problema, y que finalmente lo
resuelven. Ciertamente los posibles personajes imaginados son múltiples (pequeño/grande,
contento/enfadado, gato/perro), pero siempre son dos y tienen entidad de personaje. A la vez,
la naturaleza del problema puede no ser clara, pero los niños saben cuando narrativamente hay
tensión (dos voces muy diferentes, y unas posteriores “orden y negación”), y cuando esta
tensión se ha resuelto (el beso final).
La significación de aquello que los alumnos oyen y dicen proviene del

significado pragmático del cuento. De quién ha hablado, con quién, y
por qué.
- 29 -
Los contenidos no son una prioridad inicial
Entre otras consideraciones, la anterior opción metodológica tiene una consecuencia práctica.
Si bien todo cuento es un posible lugar donde trabajar unos determinados contenidos (en este
caso por ejemplo, saludar, presentarse, emitir una orden, negar), para nosotros el aspecto
prioritario es el grueso de significación pragmática, emocional, que cada narración nos permite
construir. En primer lugar porqué cuando se intentan trabajar estos mismos contenidos pero no
se construyen unos quién, con quién, y por qué reconocibles, rápidamente desaparece la
atención y la participación de los alumnos. Pero en segundo lugar, sobretodo, porqué
pensamos que para trabajar los citados contenidos es necesaria en alguna medida llenarlos de
emoción, y de no ser así tampoco el pretendido aprendizaje acaba de funcionar. Desde nuestro
punto de vista, a la hora de construir una propuesta de lengua extranjera en educación infantil
no se trata tanto de determinar qué contenidos o segmentos de la lengua se podrán trabajar,
sino, al menos como punto de partida, qué gruesos de significación emocional podremos
conseguir. En este sentido, la narración es un tipo de texto que funciona muy bien. Los
referidos “saludar, presentarse, emitir una orden, o negar” de este ejemplo funcionan porqué
están emplazados en un espacio narrativo.
No nos preocupa tanto qué contenidos es posible trabajar en cada

cuento, como el grueso de significación pragmática, emocional, que
cada narración nos permite construir.
Peggy and Granny
Resumen del cuento: Peggy es una niña pequeña a

quién no le gusta la sopa. Su abuela, sin embargo, sabe
encontrar una buena solución.
Los alumnos se sientan en el suelo en semicírculo.

Enfrente se colocan dos sillas con un espacio vacío
entre ellas.
Durante la narración, la maestra ocupa la posición “N”

cuando hace de narrador, la “silla 1” cuando hace de
Peggy, y la “silla 2” cuando hace de abuela. Tal como se 1 N 2
indica posteriormente, las voces de “narrador” y
“personaje” son verbalizadas de manera diversa.
Narración:
NARRADOR
Peggy Granny
Are you ready for a story? Once upon a time, Peggy and her Granny were at home.
Granny, I’m hungry! Are you hungry? OK. Soup!

Mmmmh! no soup! Soup!
Mmmmh! no soup! Open your mouth and eat the soup!
Soup, soup, soup ..., brmmmm! Open your mouth and eat the soup!
- 30 -
Soup, soup, soup ..., brmmmm! An idea, soup and chocolate.

Soup, oh yuck! chocolate, yummy, yummy! Good girl.
And that's all.
De este cuento queremos destacar cuatro cuestiones. Que la maestra construye

diversamente las voces de narrador y personaje, que el grueso de la narración está
construida a través de la voz de personaje, que durante las primeras narraciones no hay
ningún tipo de soporte visual, y que toda la actividad está organizada en inglés.
La diferencia entre las voces de narrador y personaje
Como en el cuento de las dos manos, también aquí los alumnos abandonan el rol de
espectador y se implican en la narración. Rápidamente repiten los diálogos exclusivamente
en inglés de Peggy y la abuela, y hacen los correspondientes gestos. Sin embargo, esta vez
los niños no hacen todas las cosas que la maestra hace y dice. El narrador no es nunca
repetido. No hay ninguna necesidad de explicitarlo ni en inglés, ni evidentemente en la
lengua materna pues proponemos no usarla.
Los alumnos no repiten la voz de narrador. En cambio, se involucran

rápidamente en la voz de personaje.
Esto es así porqué los alumnos de infantil son ya capaces de distinguir estas dos voces, pero
también por la destreza de la maestra en diferenciarlas. En este sentido es necesario
remarcar cinco puntos.
∗ Las voces de narrador y de personaje están construidas desde lugares diferentes. El

narrador habla siempre de pié, y los personajes lo hace desde una silla.
∗ Las citadas voces son introducidas desde una estructura narrativa reconocible a nivel
de espacio. Es decir, el cuento se inicia y se concluye desde la posición de narrador. El
personaje presentado en primer lugar y a la izquierda de los alumnos es el protagonista,
mientras que el introducido en segundo lugar y a la derecha de los alumnos es el
antagonista.
∗ El narrador habla rápido, bajo, monótonamente. Los personajes lo hacen lentamente, con
voz fuerte, emocionalmente marcada, y sobretodo con tempo musical, es decir con una
cantinela similar a la que usamos cuando la Caperucita dice «A – bue – lita / por – qué –
tie – nes / los – o – jos / tan – gran – des?», y el lobo le responde «son / pa – ra – ver
/ te – me – jor».
∗ El narrador dice las cosas una sola vez. Los personajes, como en el ejemplo de Smily
and Grumpy, repiten cada diálogo, dos, tres, o más veces a fin que todos los alumnos
se acaben involucrando.
∗ Cuando el narrador habla no se acompaña de gestos ostensibles. La voz de personaje,
en cambio, está siempre sostenida por un gesto evidente y muy rítmico. Es decir, el
citado tempo cadencial de la voz de personaje es en todo momento sostenido por un
gesto que refuerza el ritmo.
La voz de narrador es rápida, baja, monótona, emocionalmente

neutra, sin ritmo, sin repeticiones, y sin gestos ostensibles. Los
personajes hablan lentamente, en voz alta, con un marcado tempo
musical, repiten las cosas diversas veces, lo que dicen está cargado
de emociones, y sobretodo está sostenido por gestos rítmicos.
- 31 -
Es tanta la importancia de estos puntos que su ausencia provoca normalmente que se pierda
el hilo narrativo del cuento y los niños rápidamente callen.
El grueso de la narración está construida a través de la voz de personaje
La narración está principalmente construida a través de la voz de personaje. La voz de

narrador es minimizada, casi no utilizada. Sirve exclusivamente de organizador. Inicia y
concluye el texto, construye sus límites, pero prácticamente no lo relata. Esta prioridad
atorgada a la voz de personaje es coherente con la capacidad de los niños de estas edades
para procesar mucho mejor el estilo directo, o voz de personaje, que el estilo indirecto, o voz
de narrador. En la lengua de casa, y más aún en la lengua segunda o tercera, los alumnos
procesan antes y mejor los diálogos que el narrador. Este último está construido con frases
largas, en tiempo pasado, es sintácticamente complejo, e incluye muchos conectores. Los
diálogos entre los personajes, en cambio, contienen frases cortas, simples, y generalmente
en tiempo presente. El narrador es frío y está situado fuera del conflicto narrado, los diálogos
en cambio son cálidos y explicitan de manera muy reconocible las emociones.
El grueso de la narración se construye a través de la voz de

personaje. La voz de narrador es minimizada.
Durante las primeras narraciones no hay ningún tipo de soporte visual
Las dos o tres primeras narraciones de cada cuento se inician siempre sin dibujos u objetos
reales. De hecho, no había ningún tipo de imagen en el anterior cuento de Smily and Grumpy,
pero en ese caso podía parecer menos necesario. En el cuento de Peggy and Granny, así
como en el posterior ejemplo de Jenny, puede perecer que la ausencia de soporte visual tiene
que comportar problemas de comprensión y en consecuencia de participación. Por ejemplo,
es muy posible que los alumnos de 3 o 4 años que participan por primera en la narración de
un cuento solamente en inglés y sin ninguna imagen no tengan una idea muy clara de quién
es Peggy (si es niño o niña, qué edad tiene), de qué quiere decir “Granny”, o de qué significa
«open your mouth and eat the soup!». Sin embargo, la experiencia nos muestra que desde el
primer momento son capaces de reconocer “quién habla”, “con quién” y por qué”. Es decir,
que Peggy no es el narrador sino un personaje que ocupa la posición de protagonista (está a
la izquierda y es introducido en primer lugar), que Granny es también un personaje pero en
este caso antagonista (está a la derecha y es presentado posteriormente), y que «open your
mouth and eat the soup!» explicita algún tipo de conflicto grave que dichos personajes tienen
en un momento dado de la narración.
Después de años de experiencia estamos fuertemente convencidos del interés de esta opción
didáctica en educación infantil y primer ciclo de primaria. En parte porque hemos observado
que la utilización inicial de soporte visual provoca mucha traducción por parte de los alumnos.
Pero también, y más importante aún, porqué dicha presencia de soporte visual coloca a los
niños en posición de espectador, los distancia de la narración, mientras que su ausencia los
convierte en protagonistas, los sitúa dentro del cuento. Y esta posición activa, involucrada en
la narración, nos parece didácticamente muy interesante. Permite reconocer y poner en
marcha muchos de los procedimientos necesarios para llenar de significado la nueva lengua.
Los alumnos entienden y hablan la lengua de los personajes no porqué dispongan de todos
los referentes visuales de aquello que se dice, sino por lo que hacen mientras lo dicen. La
falta inicial de soporte visual puede complicar ciertamente la comprensión referencial, pero
facilita enormemente la producción. Desde el primer momento los alumnos usan la nueva
lengua. Como se explica en un posterior capítulo, las imágenes son introducidas siempre
posteriormente.
- 32 -
Durante las primeras narraciones no hay ningún tipo de soporte

visual. Esta ausencia inicial complica ciertamente la comprensión
referencial, pero facilita enormemente la producción. Desde el primer
momento los alumnos usan la nueva lengua.
Toda la actividad está organizada en inglés
Toda la actividad está organizada solamente en inglés. Si bien la maestra conoce la lengua
habitual de la escuela y muestra que la entiende cuando los alumnos la utilizan, durante la
clase de inglés habla solamente esta lengua. Si las consideraciones metodológicas
anteriormente explicitadas se tienen en cuenta, el uso exclusivo de la nueva lengua no resulta
problemático. Bien al contrario, garantiza una suficiente comprensión y refuerza la
producción.
Si bien la maestra conoce la lengua de la escuela y la entiende cuando

los alumnos la utilizan, durante la clase de inglés habla solamente esta
lengua.
Jenny
Resumen del cuento: Jenny y Suzy son dos hermanas.

Jenny tiene 5 años y Suzy 10. Un día la grande está
tocando el piano y la pequeña le pide si también ella lo
puede hacer. Suzy le responde que no, que es
demasiado pequeña, y Jenny llora. Más tarde las dos
van a dormir y Jenny, la pequeña, es capaz de resolver
el problema.
Los alumnos se colocan en semicírculo. Enfrente se

colocan dos sillas con un espacio vacío entre ellas.
Durante la narración, la maestra ocupa las posiciones
“N” cuando hace de narrador, la “silla 1” cuando hace
de Jenny, y la “silla 2” cuando hace de Suzy.
1 N 2
La maestra hace la voz de personaje a la manera del
cuento Peggy and Granny. Sin embargo introduce una
matización en la voz de narrador. Las partes no
sombreadas (ver esquema narrativo) las hace rápidas,
con voz baja, sin cadencia, y no repetidas por los
alumnos como en el ejemplo anterior. Las sombreadas,
en cambio, las hace con una voz similar a la de
personaje. Lenta, alta, con tempo, con un gesto ritmado, y repetida por todos. De esta manera
hace que los alumnos inicien la construcción de la voz de narrador, si bien aún limitada a la
función de organizador.
Narración:
NARRADOR
Jenny Suzy
Are you ready for a story?
Once upon a time,
- 33 -
there were two sisters called Jenny and Susy.

Jenny said and Suzy said
My name is Jenny. I’m five years old. My name is Suzy. I’m ten years old.
Then Jenny said and Suzy said
Suzy, what are you doing? I’m playing the piano.
and Jenny said and Suzy said
Suzy, please, let me play the piano?! No, no, no! You are too young!
I am five! I'm not too young! Listen Jenny. I am ten and you are only five.
That's nothing. You are too young!
Waaah! waaah! waaah! You are crying! You are too young!
Later, Suzy and Jenny went to bed to go to sleep. And, guess what happened.
Suzy said
I’m going to sleep.
and Jenny said
I’m not going sleep. I've got an idea!

Tip-tap, tip-tap, tip-tap, ...
(la maestra y todos los niños se acercan a la silla 2)
One, two, three ... ahhhhhhhhhh!
and Suzy said

(los niños vuelven al semicírculo, la maestra a la silla 2)
Waaah! waaah! waaah!
and Jenny said
You are crying, you are too young!
And that's all.
De este cuento queremos remarcar una sola cuestión. Que priorizamos el diálogo entre los
personajes por ser el que mejor permite construir las voces textuales “tú” y “yo”.
Todo texto incluye dos o más voces que mantienen entre si diversos diálogos. Nosotros
proponemos construir las voces de personaje y las voces “tú” y “yo” al mismo nivel textual,
es decir posicionarlas como voces de un mismo diálogo. Para llevar adelante esta
argumentación es necesario hacer un pequeño paréntesis, una breve reflexión semiótica.
Un signo, y por extensión un texto, es "alguna cosa que representa alguna otra cosa para
alguien", pero que en este proceso de representar introduce algún tipo de modificación. Los
signos, los textos, no son nunca representaciones exactas, absolutamente fieles, pues serian
copias y no signos. Esta distancia semiótica introducida por el signo, por el texto, tiene lugar
respecto a aquello que es representado (a “alguna otra cosa”), pero también en relación a los
usuarios del signo o texto (al ”alguien”). Un signo, un texto, no es simplemente un producto
que alguien y alguien otro en un momento dado construyen. Es más complejo. La
- 34 -
construcción de un signo, de un texto, modifica también los referidos interlocutores, los

convierte en sujetos semióticos, en voces textuales, de la misma manera que un juego
convierte a sus participantes en jugadores mientras juegan. Un ejemplo de esto es la
construcción de los pronombres personales "tú", "yo", "él/ella". Imaginemos tres personas que
llamaremos "A", "B" y "C". En un momento dado, "A" se dirige a "B" y dice, «¿has visto (tú
"B") lo qué (ella) "C" ha hecho?». Acto seguido el mismo "A" se gira hacia "C" y comenta
«¿has (tú "C") oído lo que acabo de decir (yo "A") a (ella) "B"». Finalmente, "B" se acerca a
"C" y le dice «quisiera (yo "B") saber qué te ha dicho (a ti "C") ella ("A")?». Como es fácil
observar, los nombres "A", "B" y "C" se aplican siempre a los mismos interlocutores,
mantienen las mismas referencias. Los pronombres "yo", "tú" y "él/ella", en cambio, son voces
introducidas en el proceso de construir los mencionados textos, voces que sólo existen
durante la existencia de cada uno de estos textos. Antes y después de cada texto, "yo", "tú" y
"él/la" no existen, como tampoco existen jugadores antes y después de ser jugado un juego.
En este sentido, los sujetos de un texto, quién habla y con quién lo hace, son al menos en
alguna medida parte del signo, parte de aquello que es construido en el proceso de
significación. Todo texto es un acto por medio del cual los participantes son en alguna medida
modificados, como mínimo en el sentido que se convierten en voces del tipo de texto
escogido. Una narración, una descripción o una argumentación, por ejemplo, no construyen ni
las mismas voces, ni los mismos diálogos.
La narración incluye como mínimo dos de estos diálogos y cuatro de las referidas voces. El
diálogo entre las voces narrador y auditor, y el diálogo entre las voces protagonista y
antagonista. Tradicionalmente en el acto de narrar, y muy especialmente de narrar en la
escuela, hemos priorizado el diálogo narrador/auditor y lo hemos sostenido por medio de
soporte visual. Casi como consecuencia, este diálogo entre el narrador y el auditor ha sido el
lugar principal donde la maestra y los alumnos se han colocado como "tú" y "yo" narrativos.
Pondré un ejemplo. Imaginemos una maestra que con un libro de Caperucita Roja en las
manos señala una imagen y dice, «entonces Caperucita se acercó a la cama de la abuelita y
le dijo... (aunque nosotros sabemos que es el lobo y no la abuelita, pero Caperucita no lo
sabe) ...». Como es fácil comprobar, esta es una manera de narrar en la que la abuela,
Caperucita y el lobo (los personajes de los dibujos) son "ella y él", mientras los alumnos y la
maestra (auditores y narrador) son "tú" y "yo".
Finalmente, parece posible sostener que las referidas voces textuales "tú" y "yo" tienen un
lugar importante en la construcción de lo que hemos llamado significado emocional. Por
ejemplo. Si alguien le dice a otro alguien «ella le ha dicho que le quiere» –en donde "ella" y
"él" son personajes externos–, los "yo" y "tú" de este texto es muy posible que se emocionen
poco. Sin embargo, si los mismos emisor y receptor se dicen "yo te quiero" es previsible que
este texto si les provoque una fuerte emoción. Otro ejemplo. Dos personas ven por la tele un
partido del Barça y el Madrid. A una no le interesa el fútbol, mientras a la otra le gusta mucho
y además es de uno de los equipos. Si el Barça metiese un gol al Madrid la primera se
posicionaría respecto este texto (visual) como si "él (Barça) le ha metido un gol a él (Madrid)",
mientras que para la segunda sería casi como si “yo/tú (Barça) me/te he metido un gol a mi/ti
(Madrid)”. El texto visual (televisivo) puede parecer el mismo, pero las voces que uno y otro
han asumido construyen dos significados emocionales bien diversos.
Volvamos ahora otra vez a la narración en lengua extranjera. Si pensamos que la construcción
de significado emocional es un primer paso importante, entonces nos interesa proponer un
diálogo "tú – yo" reconocible. Pero las voces narrador y auditor son aún difíciles de reconocer
para los niños entre los tres y los seis años, sobretodo en lengua extranjera. Si llenamos el
cuento de voz de narrador y además utilizamos sólo inglés, los mencionados espacios textuales
"tú – yo" resultarán muy difíciles de reconocer y por lo tanto de construir. La experiencia nos ha
mostrado que es mucho mejor establecerlos a nivel de diálogo entre personajes. Por ejemplo,
poco a poco hemos ido descubriendo que funcionan mucho mejor los textos «my name is
Jenny, I'm five years old», «my name is Suzy, I'm ten years old», que la correspondiente frase
en voz de narrador «there were two sisters, one named Jenny and the other named Suzy;
- 35 -
Jenny was five and Suzy was ten». Este segundo relato construye una voz tipo "él (Barça) le ha
hecho un gol a él (Madrid)", mientras la primera opción posiciona los alumnos y la maestra a la
manera de “yo (Barça) te he hecho un gol a ti (Madrid)”. O hemos visto también que cuando
desde la voz de personaje los alumnos dicen «you are crying, you are too young!», lo expresan
con la emoción de un «yo (Jenny) te lo digo a tú (Suzy)», talmente como un "yo te quiero”. De
hecho muy a menudo se lo dicen entre ellos, como si la presencia de un otro cercano y muy
reconocible llenase de significado el texto.
El texto narrativo incluye como mínimo dos diálogos: narrador versus

auditor y protagonista versus antagonista. En las narraciones que
proponemos se prioriza el diálogo entre personajes por ser el que
mejor permite construir las voces textuales “tú” y “yo”.
El posterior uso de soporte visual
Toda las consideraciones hasta aquí expuestas proponen una primera manera de narrar sin
soporte visual. Sin embargo, después de dos, tres, o cuatro escenificaciones sin dibujos los
cuentos son complementados con un conjunto de trabajos adicionales que añaden imágenes:
murales, títeres de dedo, flashcards, juegos, fichas de dibujar, trabajos de recortar y pegar,
libros, o pequeños teatros con personajes autoadherentes. Cada una de estas actividades
añade información referencial, resuelve dudas o interpretaciones erróneas, y se convierte en
una oportunidad para retornar al mismo relato sin que los alumnos se cansen. Todos estos
trabajos, sin embargo, son construidos a partir de los procedimientos narrativos previamente
establecidos. El conocimiento del cuento vivido activamente, su organización en el tiempo y el
espacio, las diferentes voces, o los gestos rítmicos que las sostienen, funcionan como
reguladores de las nuevas actividades. Los flashcards, títeres de dedo, fichas de dibujar,
libros, o teatros con personajes autoadherentes representan una novedad, pero los espacios
narrativos donde estos dibujos son colocados han sido previamente consolidados.
Introducidos de esta manera, los dibujos no son ahora traducidos.
Después de dos o tres escenificaciones colectivas sin soporte

visual, los cuentos son complementados con un conjunto de
trabajos que añaden imágenes.
El uso del inglés en casa
Finalmente, los trabajos van a casa. Allá los niños pueden leer a los padres los books que
ellos mismos han construido, volver a cantar las canciones aprendidas, jugar a los juegos que
antes han realizado con los compañeros, explicar breves historias con títeres de dedo, o por
medio de los pequeños teatros con personajes autoadherentes narrar otra vez los cuentos
antes vivenciados en clase. Todo esto en inglés.
Finalmente, los trabajos van a casa. Allá los niños pueden narrar en
inglés a los padres los cuentos antes vivenciados en clase.
Breve marco teórico
Explicitadas o no, toda propuesta metodológica está fundamentada en un conjunto de

presuposiciones sobre qué es una lengua y como se aprende. De manera muy breve, estas
son nuestras principales conjeturas.
- 36 -
A finales de los años 50s, Chomsky se pregunta como pueden los niños aprender una cosa
tan rica y compleja como la lengua y sin embargo hacerlo a partir de un input tan pobre y
limitado. La respuesta de este autor es que los niños aprenden la lengua, 1/ porqué procesan
el input ofrecido, es decir, porqué en alguna medida lo modifican, le añaden alguna cosa; y 2/
porque disponen de algún tipo de bagaje desde el que realizar esta operación. Un pequeño
ejemplo puede servir para explicarlo un poco más. Imaginemos que alguien cuida a un niño y
una vaca y les habla a ambos de manera similar. El resultado es que la vaca no aprende la
lengua y el niño sí. ¿Por qué es así, se pregunta Chomsky, si el input ofrecido ha sido el
mismo? Porque aquello que ha llegado a ambos es un simple señal, casi ruido, que la vaca
ha recibido como tal y el niño ha sido capaz de procesar, de convertir en signo lingüístico, de
significar. La lengua, concluye Chomsky, sólo puede ser adquirida si se dispone de un bagaje
desde el que procesar como signo lingüístico el estímulo insuficiente que nos es ofrecido. A
este bagaje Chomsky lo llama LAD (Language Acquisition Device) y lo entiende personal,
innato, universal, y básicamente morfosintáctico. Mucha de las propuestas sobre aprendizaje
de segundas lenguas de los años 80s, por ejemplo Krashen, parten de esta doble hipótesis.
Los alumnos han de convertir el input recibido en input significativo, y para hacerlo disponen
del referido LAD.
Sin embargo, durante los 80s y 90s un amplio sector de la psicolingüística, por ejemplo Bruner,
acepta en gran medida la primera de las hipótesis de Chomsky pero interpreta la segunda de
manera muy diferente. De acuerdo con Bruner, los niños necesitan ciertamente procesar el input
que les llega, pero esto es algo que no hacen solos sino con la ayuda de otro, y las claves
iniciales para hacerlo no son morfosintácticas sino pragmáticas, es decir tienen mucho que ver
con la mencionada relación con otro. Muy resumidamente, lo primero que los niños procesan de
los intercambios lingüísticos en los que participan es quién habla, con quién, y por qué.
Hipotetizamos que los niños procesan el input no solos sino con la

ayuda de otro, y que las claves para hacer este procesamiento no
son inicialmente morfosintácticas sino pragmáticas, es decir, tienen
mucho que ver con la mencionada relación con otro.
A esta segunda interpretación le corresponde una determinada manera de entender qué es la

lengua, el objeto a adquirir. Según este punto de vista el lenguaje es una actividad social, una
actuación en la que dos o más interlocutores intentan resolver un problema con más o menos
éxito, y en la que, a fin de alcanzar sus objetivos, los referidos interlocutores construyen
textos. Son textos, por ejemplo, las secuencias que decimos/oímos o escribimos/leemos
cuando jugamos a cartas para ganar o simplemente estar con otros, miramos una página de
internet para encontrar determinada información, consultamos las instrucciones de un vídeo
que no sabemos como funciona, explicamos a un taxista donde queremos ir, o realizamos un
examen que queremos aprobar. En todo texto hay dos o más interlocutores, un problema o
objetivo a resolver, y una conciencia de haberlo alcanzado o no.
Entendemos el lenguaje como una actividad social, una actuación en la

que dos o más interlocutores intentan resolver con más o menos éxito
un problema.
Finalmente, en base a las anteriores consideraciones hipotetizamos que la lengua se aprende

cuando se usa,
∗ Si los textos propuestos son utilizados para hacer cosas con otros, es decir, se
convierten en un medio de realización y control suficientemente eficaces de
interacciones sociales que no son solamente, ni a menudo primordialmente,
lingüísticas.
- 37 -
∗ Si el aprendiz puede procesar estos textos a fin de convertirlos en signos, llenarlos de

significación.
∗ Si en los mencionados textos es posible reconocer dos (o más) voces textuales, ya que
algunos de los procedimientos que aprendiz y cuidador ponen en marcha para construir
significación necesitan estas voces y su reconocimiento.
Pensamos que los alumnos de infantil aprenden la lengua cuando la

utilizan para hacer cosas con otros, es decir, cuando la usan como
instrumento de realización y control suficientemente eficaces de
interacciones sociales que no son solamente, ni a menudo
primordialmente, lingüísticas.
Apunte final
Aprender una lengua, y por lo tanto también una lengua extranjera, comporta procesar
muchas cosas diferentes y a niveles muy distintos. Todo uso de la lengua, todo texto, es algo
complejo, un multiprocedimiento. A la vez, en la escuela y con 30 minutos tres o cuatro veces
por semana no podemos trabajarlo todo. Ni todo aquello que el alumno tendrá que saber en
el futuro, ni todo lo que ahora sería necesario para construir esta futura competencia. Hemos
de escoger, tomar partido, optar. Pero hagamos la opción que hagamos, ésta será siempre
parcial y no excluirá otras.
Nosotros hemos escogido como principal objetivo que los alumnos hablen, que utilicen la
nueva lengua, que pierdan el miedo a abrir la boca, que se sientan ya desde el primer
momento competentes para utilizar la lengua que no conocen aún, que sea precisamente a
partir de este uso como la aprendan. En primer lugar, porque hemos considerado como
finalidad que el alumno llegue un día a ser un usuario eficaz de la lengua. En segundo lugar,
porque hemos presupuesto que una de las maneras de alcanzar esto es plantear ya el propio
aprendizaje como un conjunto de usos eficaces. En cualquier caso, esta manera de trabajar
la lengua extranjera no siempre llena todas las horas lectivas de los profesores que la utilizan,
ni excluye otras opciones.
Lo que sugerimos no llena siempre todas las horas lectivas, ni

excluye otras opciones.
- 38 -
1992
- 39 -
- 40 -
- 41 -
- 42 -
- 43 -
- 44 -
- 45 -
06-0002 ETF_02_07 3/7/06 9:34 AM Page 2
Joan Kang Shin

U N I T E D S T A T E S
Ten Helpful Ideas for Teaching

English to Young Learners
T
struggle to keep up with this trend
eaching English to Young and seek effective ways of teaching.
Learners (TEYL) has be- This article contains some helpful
come its own field of study ideas to incorporate into the TEYL
as the age of compulsory English edu- classroom. These ideas come from the
cation has become lower and lower in discussions and assignments done in an
countries around the world. It is wide- online EFL teacher education course
ly believed that starting the study of designed for teachers, teacher super-
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) visors, and other TEYL professionals.
before the critical period––12 or 13 The participants in the online course
years old––will build more proficient came from a number of different
speakers of English. However, there is classroom situations and countries in
no empirical evidence supporting the the Middle East, North Africa, Cen-
idea that an early start in English lan- tral Asia, and Southeast Asia. Some of
guage learning in foreign language con- the teachers worked in immersion
texts produces better English speakers classrooms; others saw their students
(Nunan 1999). Levels of proficiency in class two to three hours per week.
seem to be dependent on other fac- Regardless of the country and the
tors––type of program and curricu- types of classrooms these teachers of
lum, number of hours spent in Eng- young learners came from, the list of
lish class, and techniques and activities helpful ideas below seemed to be
used (Rixon 2000). If an early start applicable to most situations.
alone is not the solution, then what To clarify for whom these ideas are
can EFL teachers of young learners do targeted, it is important to define
to take advantage of the flexibility of young learner. The online course used
young minds and the malleability of the definitions provided by Slatterly
young tongues to grow better speakers and Willis (2001, 4): “Young Learn-
of English? As the age for English edu- ers” (YL) were 7–12 years old; “Very
cation lowers in classrooms across the Young Learners” (VYL) were defined
globe, EFL teachers of young learners as under 7 years of age. Although the
- 46 -
2 2006 N U M B E R 2 | E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M
06-0002 ETF_02_07 3/7/06 9:34 AM Page 3
online course was designed to train teachers of This popular method can be used as a tech-
young learners, participants discussed ideas nique with storytelling and with songs that
related to their teaching situations, which teach language related to any kind of move-
focused on both YLs and VYLs. Therefore, the ment or physical action. Children have fun
ideas given below can be applied to learners with movement, and the more fun for stu-
ranging from approximately 5 to 12 years old dents, the better they will remember the lan-
and can be used for various proficiency levels. guage learned.
1. Supplement activities with visuals, 2. Involve students in making visuals

realia, and movement. and realia.
Young learners tend to have short attention One way to make the learning more fun is
spans and a lot of physical energy. In addition, to involve students in the creation of the visu-
children are very much linked to their sur- als or realia. Having children involved in cre-
roundings and are more interested in the phys- ating the visuals that are related to the lesson
ical and the tangible. As Scott and Ytreberg helps engage students in the learning process
(1990, 2) describe, “Their own understanding by introducing them to the context as well as
comes through hands and eyes and ears. The to relevant vocabulary items. In addition, lan-
physical world is dominant at all times.” guage related to the arts and crafts activities
One way to capture their attention and can be taught while making or drawing the
keep them engaged in activities is to supple- visuals. Certainly students are more likely to
ment the activities with lots of brightly colored feel interested and invested in the lesson and
visuals, toys, puppets, or objects to match the will probably take better care of the materials
ones used in the stories that you tell or songs (Moon 2000).
that you sing. These can also help make the You can have students draw the different
language input comprehensible and can be animal characters for a story or even create
used for follow-up activities, such as re-telling puppets. For example, if the story is Goldilocks
stories or guessing games. Although it may and the Three Bears, you may want to use pup-
take a lot of preparation time to make colorful pets to help show the action of the story. To
pictures and puppets or to collect toys and get students more excited about the story, have
objects, it is worth the effort if you can reuse them make little pencil puppets of the three
them in future classes. Try to make the visuals bears and Goldilocks before the storytelling.
on thick paper or laminate them whenever It’s a nice little art project that doesn’t have to
possible for future use. Sometimes you can take up too much time. If your students are
acquire donations for toys and objects from too young to draw well, make copies of the
the people in your community, such as parents characters on paper and have students color
or other teachers. A great way to build your the characters and cut them out. The cut-out
resources is to create a “Visuals and Realia paper pictures can be taped to their pencils.
Bank” with other teachers at your school by After the storytelling, you can use the puppets
collecting toys, puppets, pictures, maps, calen- to check comprehension of the story plot and
dars, and other paraphernalia and saving them have students practice the language by
for use in each other’s classes. retelling the story using their puppets.
Included with the concept of visuals are If you cannot spare the time in class to
gestures, which are very effective for students make the visuals you want to use, another idea
to gain understanding of language. In addi- is to consult the art teacher at your school (if
tion, tapping into children’s physical energy is you have one) and combine your efforts. If the
always recommendable, so any time move- art teacher is making some objects, pictures, or
ment around the classroom or even outside puppets, you could ask the teacher to make
can be used with a song, story, game, or activ- them for use in a particular storytelling or
ity, do it! James Asher’s (1977) method, Total game in your class. Then, when students come
Physical Response (TPR), where children lis- to English class, they will bring their art
ten and physically respond to a series of projects to use. In addition, before the lesson,
instructions from the teacher, is a very popular you can warm up by having students explain
method among teachers of young learners. in English what they made in art class.
- 47 -
E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M | N UMBER 2 2006 3
06-0002 ETF_02_07 3/7/06 9:34 AM Page 4
Some activities could use objects, toys, process. Moving from one activity to others
stuffed animals, or dolls. A “show and tell” that are related in content and language helps to
activity is a perfect way to get students inter- recycle the language and reinforce students’
ested in the lesson with their own toys. The understanding and use of it. However, moving
introduction to the lesson could be a short from activity to activity when the activities are
“show and tell” presentation that gives students not related to each other can make it easy to
a chance to introduce their objects in English. lose the focus of the class. If students are pre-
After this activity, get right into the lesson sented with a larger context in which to use
using the objects the students brought in. English to learn and communicate, then attain-
ment of language objectives should come more
3. Move from activity to activity.
naturally. Thematic units, which are a series
As stated before, young learners have short of lessons revolving around the same topic or
attention spans. For young students, from ages subject, can create a broader context and allow
5 to10 especially, it is a good idea to move students to focus more on content and com-
quickly from activity to activity. Do not spend munication than on language structure.
more than 10 or 15 minutes on any one activi- It is a good idea to use thematic unit plan-
ty because children tend to become bored easi- ning because it builds a larger context within
ly. As children get older, their ability to concen- which students can learn language. When
trate for longer periods of time increases. So for
teaching English to young learners this way,
students ages 5–7, you should try to keep activ-
you can incorporate many activities, songs,
ities between 5 and 10 minutes long. Students
and stories that build on students’ knowledge
ages 8–10 can handle activities that are 10 to 15
and recycle language throughout the unit.
minutes long. It is always possible to revisit an
This gives students plenty of practice using the
activity later in class or in the next class.
language learned and helps them scaffold their
For example, if you are teaching a song or
learning of new language. Common themes
telling a story, don’t stay on that song or story
for very young learners are animals, friends,
the whole class time. Follow up the song or
story with a related TPR activity to keep the and family, or units revolving around a story-
momentum of the class going. Then have stu- book, such as The Very Hungry Caterpillar by
dents play a quick game in pairs. As shown in Eric Carle, which includes food and the days
this brief example, varying the types of activi- of the week. As children get older, units could
ties also helps to keep young learners interest- be based on topics such as the environment,
ed. Scott and Ytreberg (1990, 102) suggest citizenship, and shopping, or based on a web-
creating a balance between the following kinds site or book relevant to them.
of activities: Haas (2000) supports the use of thematic
unit planning for young foreign language
• quiet/noisy exercises
learners by pointing out that “Foreign lan-
• different skills: listening/talking/read-
guage instruction for children can be enriched
ing/writing
when teachers use thematic units that focus on
• individual/pairwork/groupwork/whole content-area information, engage students in
class activities activities in which they must think critically,
• teacher-pupil/pupil-pupil activities and provide opportunities for students to use
When teachers mix up the pace of the class the target language in meaningful contexts
and the types of activities used, students will be and in new and complex ways.” A good way to
more likely to stay focused on the lesson, there- plan a unit is to explore what content your stu-
by increasing the amount of language learning dents are learning in their other classes and
in class. develop English lessons using similar content.
Look at the curriculum for the other subjects
4. Teach in themes. your students take in their native language
When you plan a variety of activities, it is (L1) or talk to your students’ other teachers
important to have them connect to each other and see if you can create a thematic unit in
in order to support the language learning English class related to what you find.
- 48 -
4 2006 NUMBER 2 | E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M
06-0002 ETF_02_07 3/7/06 9:34 AM Page 5
5. Use stories and contexts familiar can clap short rhythms for students to repeat.
to students. Once the students are settled down, the
When choosing materials or themes to use, teacher can start the lesson by singing a short
it is important that you find ones that are song that students are familiar with, such as
appropriate for your students based on their the alphabet song or a chant they particularly
language proficiency and what is of interest to enjoy. Here is a chant with TPR that can get
them. Because young learners, especially students ready to begin the class.
VYLs, are just beginning to learn content and Reach up high! (Children reach their arms
stories in their native language in school and up in the air)
are still developing cognitively, they may have Reach down low! (Children bend over and
limited knowledge and experience in the touch their toes.)
world. This means that the contexts that you Let’s sit down and start the show! (Children
use when teaching English, which may be a sit down.)
completely new and foreign language, should
Look to the left! (Turn heads to the left.)
be contexts that are familiar to them. Use of
stories and contexts that they have experience Look to the right! (Turn heads to the
with in their L1 could help these young learn- right.)
ers connect a completely new language with Let’s work hard and reach new heights!
the background knowledge they already have. The movements can be substituted to teach
Teachers could take a favorite story in the L1 new words. For example, instead of “Look to
and translate it into English for students or the left! Look to the right!” the teacher can use
even teach the language based on situations “Point to the left! Point to the right!” Provid-
that are found in the native country, especial- ing some variation can keep this chant engag-
ly if the materials the teachers have depict ing. Just remember to keep the ending since it
English-speaking environments that are unfa- starts the class on a positive note.
miliar to students. Add classroom language to the routines as
This is not to suggest that stories and con- well. When it’s time to read a story, the teachers
texts from the target culture should not be can engage students in the following dialogue:
used. Certainly one goal of foreign language
Teacher: It’s story time! What time is it,
instruction is to expose students to new lan-
everyone?
guages and new cultures in order to prepare
them to become global citizens in the future. Students: It’s story time!
However, teachers should not be afraid to use Teacher: And… what do we do for story
familiar contexts in students’ L1 in the L2 time?
classroom. In fact, even when presenting Student: We tell stories!
material from the target, English-speaking cul-
Build on this language by adding more after
tures, it is always a good idea to relate the lan-
students have mastered the above interaction.
guage and content to students’ home culture
The teacher can follow up the previous inter-
to personalize the lesson and allow students an
action with: “That’s right! The story is called
opportunity to link the new content and lan-
The Very Hungry Caterpillar. What’s the story
guage to their own lives and experience. Young called?” (Students answer.) Whatever the rou-
learners are still making important links to tine is, the teacher should build interactions in
their home cultures, so it is important to rein- English around that routine. As Cameron
force that even in L2 instruction. (2001, 10) points out, “…we can see how
6. Establish classroom routines classroom routines, which happen every day
in English. may provide opportunities for language devel-
opment.” The example below illustrates how
Young learners function well within a the teacher and students can have real com-
structured environment and enjoy repetition municative interactions in English using some
of certain routines and activities. Having basic classroom language.
routines in the classroom can help to manage
young learners. For example, to get students’ Teacher: Good morning, class!
attention before reading a story or to get them Students: Good morning, Ms. Shin.
to quiet down before an activity, the teacher Teacher: Faida, what day is it today?
- 49 -
06-0002 ETF_02_07 3/7/06 9:34 AM Page 6
Faida: I don’t know. in English. In addition, directions for many

Teacher: Okay, then ask Asli. activities can be quite complicated when
Faida: Asli, what day is it today? explained in the L2, so consider using L1
when it is more important to spend time
Asli: Today is Tuesday.
doing the activity rather than explaining it. In
Teacher: Good! And what is Tuesday? short, use L1 in the classroom as a resource for
Students: Tuesday is Storytelling Day! forwarding the learning process without
Notice that the communication is real and becoming too reliant on it.
that a routine has been established––that
8. Bring in helpers from the community.
Tuesday is Storytelling Day. Once students
become fluid with certain interactions, as in If possible bring in helpers––parents, stu-
the example above, you can begin introducing dent teachers from the local university, or
more language into the daily routines. older students studying English––to tell a
story or help with some fun activities. Collab-
7. Use L1 as a resource when necessary. orate with others who are studying English,
Because many interpretations of various studying to be English teachers, or who speak
communicative approaches try to enforce the English well in order to expand the English
“English only” rule, teachers sometimes feel learning community. Having someone new
bad when they use L1. Teachers these days are and interesting do a storytelling can get stu-
mostly encouraged to teach English through dents more excited and create a break in the
English, especially at the younger ages. One regular routine. The best scenario would be to
reason is to give students the maximum expo- carefully coordinate the guest with your lan-
sure to the English language. Why not use L1? guage objectives. Using helpers means taking
It is one quick, easy way to make a difficult extra time to communicate your expectations
expression such as “Once upon a time” com- with the guest and working this special event
prehensible. After you quickly explain a diffi- into your lesson plan.
cult expression like that in L1, students will Besides storytelling, helpers could assist in
recognize the expression in English every time the class when you want to do group work or
it comes up in a story. Since EFL teachers usu- cooperative activities. With young learners,
ally have a limited amount of time with stu- group activities can be hard to coordinate, so
dents in many classroom situations, that time utilize volunteers in the community to help
is too precious to waste. If it is more efficient manage the class for special activities. For
to use L1 for a difficult expression or word, example, you may have stations set up around
just use it. Concentrate on building commu- the classroom, each station representing infor-
nicative skills. Save your time for the target mation about the seven continents. Students
language that is actually within students’ need to collect information about the geogra-
reach. For words that students can figure out, phy, wildlife, and countries from each conti-
the teacher can rely on visuals, realia, and ges- nent. If you have English-speaking volunteers
tures. Important in the decision to use L1 to at each station, then students will be more
translate new language is carefully defining the likely to stay on task.
language objectives for the activities. The
teacher should spend class time focusing on 9. Collaborate with other teachers
those target language objectives rather than in your school.
spending time trying to make a difficult word As mentioned in #4 (Teach in themes), it is
or expression comprehensible in English. useful to find out what students are learning
In addition, some students who have very in their other classes, in their native language.
low proficiency can easily become discouraged Collaborate with other teachers in your school
when all communication in the classroom to make the learning experience richer for
must be in English. Sometimes these students your students. Connect your lessons to the
can express comprehension of English in their topics, activities, and stories your students are
native language, and this can be acceptable for learning in their native language by planning
lower level students. However, whenever pos- related thematic units that parallel the learn-
sible, take the answers in L1 and recast them ing in other subjects. Since students learn lan-
- 50 -
6 2006 NUMBER 2 | E N G L I S H T E A C H I N G F O R U M
06-0002 ETF_02_07 3/7/06 9:34 AM Page 7
guage better when it is connected to their real TEYL professionals, both in your local area
life, it is a good idea to consider what else they and internationally. Doing so through local
are learning in a school day. Most children’s and international professional organizations,
lives revolve around home and school, so try in-service programs, or special teacher educa-
to coordinate with other teachers to find out tion courses, such as an online TEYL course,
what is relevant to students; then add English helps to keep you current with trends in the
instruction on top of that. field. Most importantly, keeping in contact
If other teachers at your school are willing, with other TEYL professionals helps keep
visiting each others’ classrooms can be a won- your classroom fresh with new ideas, and col-
derful way to get to know what is being laboration can help to construct new ideas
learned in each others’ classes and how. It can and solutions to the common problems that
aid in the creation of more effective lessons for teachers face.
students and can increase their ability to make
connections between language and content. If The importance of community
teachers have some anxiety about being and collaboration
observed, Crandall (1998, 4) suggests that, “A Finally, one of the most important ideas to
focus on shared students and their attempts to take from this article is the importance of
negotiate meaning and construct understand- community for learning. Learning a language
ings in both classes can help keep the atten- is never an individual endeavor, and neither is
tion focused on student learning, rather than teaching. Although teachers can feel quite iso-
on teacher effectiveness.” Then the EFL and lated in their classrooms, it is important to
content teacher can view the observation as a remember that openness, collaboration, and
great opportunity to build bridges between sharing are the keys to enrich your teaching
the language and content for their students. and your students’ learning. The last three
ideas presented in this article encourage
10. Communicate with other expanding this community of learning. It is
TEYL professionals. what I call the TEFL Community Triangle,
As helpful as it may be to collaborate with which refers to a community of English-
the other teachers at school to see what con- speaking and English-teaching members of
tent is most relevant to students, it is also both local and international communities
important to keep in contact with other that EFL teachers belong to that can help
English Speaking Community

(parents who speak English well, student
EFL teachers from the university, high
school students, etc.)
Fellow School Teachers Fellow TEYL Professionals

(subject/content or grade level teachers (professional organizations, in-service
and other EFL teachers at your school) programs, or special teacher education
courses, etc.)
TEFL C OMMUNITY T RIANGLE
- 51 -
06-0002 ETF_09_13 3/7/06 9:16 AM Page 13
enrich their English-teaching practices––in Haas, M. 2000. Thematic, communicative lan-

this case, to enhance the teaching of EFL to guage teaching in the K–8 classroom. ERIC
young learners. Digest EDO-FL-00-04. http://www.cal.org/
resources/digest/0004thematic.html
Since TEYL is a relatively new field world- Moon, J. 2000. Children learning English. Oxford:
wide, it is important to utilize these various MacMillan Heinemann.
communities as much as possible as resources Nunan, D. 1999. Does younger = better? TESOL
for improving the YL classroom. No matter Matters 9 (3): 3.
where you are, what type of class or curricu- Rixon, S. 2000. Optimum age or optimum condi-
lum you have, who your students are, or how tions? Issues related to the teaching of languages
to primary age children. http://www.british
limited your budget may be, the availability of council.org/english/eyl/article01/html
people and ideas most certainly abound. It is Scott, W., and L. H. Ytreberg. 1990. Teaching Eng-
important for those in the TEYL profession to lish to children. London: Longman.
stay connected with each other and with the Slatterly, M., and J. Willis. 2003. English for pri-
local community in this most important mary teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
endeavor of educating our children.
Conclusion
JOAN KANG SHIN is the developer and
instructor for Teaching English to Young
As this article demonstrates, the ideas that Learners, an online course in the U.S.
come out of a collaborative learning situation Department of State’s E-Teacher Program.
like an online TEYL course whose participants She is a doctoral candidate in the
come from many different countries around Language, Literacy and Culture PhD
the world can be very helpful towards improv- Program at University of Maryland,
ing classroom practice. All of the ideas given Baltimore County.
above stood out––after reflection by and dis-
cussion among many professionals in the
field––as some of the more helpful ideas for
teaching EFL to young learners. These activi-
ties should prove helpful to all teachers of
English to young learners.
TEYL is a dynamic field that is sure to
change in the years to come as Ministries of
Education around the world keep lowering the
age of compulsory English education, as estab-
lished TEYL programs become better devel-
oped, and as teachers of English to young
learners become better trained. Therefore, we
must continue this dialogue through our pro-
fessional communities to find more helpful
ideas for Teaching English to Young Learners.
References
Asher, J. 1977. Learning another language through
actions: The complete teacher’s guidebook. Los
Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Cameron, L. 2001. Teaching languages to young
learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crandall, J. 1998. Collaborate and cooperate:
Teacher education for integrating language and
content instruction. English Teaching Forum 36
(1): 2–9.
- 52 -
English in bilingual programs in the
Basque Country
JASONE CENOZ
Abstract
This paper focuses on bilingual and trilingual education in the Basque Au-
tonomous Community in Spain, where Basque and Spanish are o‰cial
languages. The use of Basque as the language of instruction is widespread
and there is a trend to introduce English as a third language from a very
early age. The paper also discusses the use of English as an additional lan-
guage of instruction within the bilingual system and the teaching conditions.
It also summarizes the results of research on multilingual schooling in the
Basque Country, which has focused on di¤erent areas such as the develop-
ment of proficiency in Basque and Spanish, the e¤ect of bilingualism on
third-language acquisition, the e¤ect of early instruction on the develop-
ment of proficiency in English or other languages and on the cognitive
development. Finally, some of the challenges that the Basque educational
multilingual system will have to face in the course of the next years are
considered.
1. Introduction
Basque is the only non–Indo-European language in western Europe. It is

spoken in the Basque Country, an area of approximately 20,742 square
kilometers, which comprises seven provinces, three belonging to the
French ‘‘Pyrenees Atlantiques’’ community (Lapurdi, Nafarroa Beherea,
and Zuberoa), and four to two autonomous regions in Spain (the Basque
Autonomous Community and Navarre). This article will only refer to the
Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) but a description of the use of
Basque in the whole of the Basque Country can be found in other sources
(see, e.g., Azurmendi et al. 2001; Cenoz 2001a).
The Basque language has been in contact with Latin and Romance lan-
guages for centuries, but it is typologically unrelated to them. Nowadays,
0165–2516/05/0171–0041 Int’l. J. Soc. Lang. 171 (2005), pp. 41–56

6 Walter de Gruyter
- 53 -
42 J. Cenoz
Basque is a minority language within its own territory. The disappearance

of Basque from important areas of the Basque Country is a relatively
recent phenomenon resulting from the intense contact with Romance lan-
guages and immigration. The contact with Romance languages not only
explains the linguistic influence of Spanish and French on Basque but
also the important retreat su¤ered by Basque in the last three centuries
(Zuazo 1995).
This contact increased in the twentieth century as the result of industri-
alization and the development of communications and the mass media.
The industralization of the BAC attracted an important number of Span-
ish speaking immigrants in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Furthermore, the
‘‘Spanish only’’ policy during Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975) had im-
portant consequences not only at the institutional and educational levels
but also in the private domain.
The weak position of Basque at the institutional level and the limited
number of written texts can explain the existence of di¤erent dialects. In
the last decades, the Academy of the Basque Language (Euskaltzaindia)
has played a crucial role in the standarization of the Basque language at
the oral and written levels. Nowadays, ‘‘unified Basque’’ (euskara batua)
is widely accepted in the Basque Country, and most books published in
Basque are published in ‘‘Batua.’’
The political and social changes that have taken place in the last de-
cades of the twentieth century in Spain have favoured attempts to
maintain and revive the Basque language, and nowadays Basque has a
co-o‰cial status in the BAC.
Apart from Basque and the Romance languages, English is becom-
ing increasingly important for Basque citizens as a medium of intra-
European and international communication. As in many other areas in
Europe (see Cenoz and Jessner 2000), English is considered a third lan-
guage but in the case of the Basque Country, it is also a foreign language
not used in everyday communication.
2. The use of Basque in the Basque Autonomous Community
The total Basque population is approximately three million with 92% be-
ing Spanish citizens. The BAC is the most highly populated area with
73% of the total population, 18% live in Navarre and 9% in the Northern
Basque Country. This article focuses on multilingual education in the
BAC, an area with 2,104,041 inhabitants, 24.7% of which are bilingual
and 16.3% of which are passive bilingual.
- 54 -
English in the Basque Country 43
Spanish is the dominant language in the BAC and virtually all Basque-
speakers also speak Spanish and, therefore, are bilingual. Proficiency in
Basque is not needed in many regions of the BAC, and the use of Basque
in everyday life is limited to areas dominated by Basque speakers. Since
the Status of Autonomy for the Basque Country was promulgated (1979)
one of the priorities of the Basque Government has been the revitalization
of the Basque language. This revitalization has been very successful in the
educational system, and education has contributed significantly to the
increase in the number of Bascophones in the last years. Basque is in a
process of ‘‘reversing language shift’’ (Fishman 1991) and apart from ed-
ucation, there has been significant progress in di¤erent areas such as the
media, publications or advertising. Nevertheless, the use of Basque also
presents important limitations. It is common for schoolchildren instructed
through the medium of Basque to use Spanish with their classmates or for
adults to drop their Basque courses before becoming proficient in the lan-
guage. Even though there is a Basque-medium television channel, Basque
radios and a Basque newspaper, the presence of Basque cannot compete
with that of Spanish in the media or in advertising. The number of publi-
cations in Basque has increased in the last decades, but many of these
publications are textbooks. Within the family, Bascophone parents usu-
ally speak Basque to their children but the presence of Basque in sport
and leisure activities is weaker than in education.
Bascophones tend to use Basque in the private domain, but they fre-
quently use Spanish in more formal settings (Euskararen Jarraipena I
1995). Bascophones use Basque more often with children than with other
members of the family and they tend to use Basque less often when shop-
ping or working. Most bilinguals (77%) listen to the radio in Basque, and
82% of them watch television in Basque. The most influential factors that
determine the use of Basque are: (i) the number of Bascophones in the
subject’s social networks; (ii) the relative ease with which the subject
has to use Basque and Spanish; and (iii) the number of Bascophones in
the sociolinguistic area where the subject lives (Euskararen Jarraipena II
1997).
3. Bilingual and multilingual education in the Basque Autonomous

Community
3.1. Bilingual programs in the Basque Autonomous Community
Compulsory education is the Basque Autonomous Community includes

six years of primary school (6–12-year-old children) and four years of
- 55 -
44 J. Cenoz
secondary school (12–16-year-old children). Most children go to school

from the age of three, and many attend day-care centers from a much ear-
lier age. Noncompulsory secondary education goes from sixteen to eigh-
teen. There are state and private schools, and each type accounts for ap-
proximately 50% of the total number of students. Private schools are in
many cases Catholic schools but some nonreligious schools, including
some ikastolak and other types of schools, are also private. ‘‘Ikastolak’’
are Basque-medium schools created in the 1960s to promote the use of
Basque in education. In 1993, the ‘‘ikastolak’’ were forced to opt for the
state or private systems. Even though nowadays there are state and pri-
vate ikastolak, most ikastolak belong to the ‘‘Ikastolen Elkartea,’’ a co-
ordinating body that promotes di¤erent projects to improve the quality
of education including the teaching of languages in kindergarten, primary
and secondary education.
The use of Basque in education was banned during the Franco regime
(1939–1975), but groups of enthusiastic parents and teachers in the BAC
opened a number of private Basque-medium schools in the 1960s. Basque
has also been used as a language of instruction in some schools before the
Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). The political changes that have taken
place in Spain in the last decades have allowed for a relatively high level
of autonomy in the BAC, and the Basque Government linguistic policy
favors the use of Basque as the language of instruction. Since the law on
the normalization of the Basque Language (1982) was passed, Basque,
along with Spanish, was recognized as an o‰cial language in the BAC.
Basque and Spanish became compulsory subjects in all schools, and three
models of language schooling were established: models A, B, and D
(there is no letter ‘‘C’’ in Basque). These models di¤er with respect to the
language or languages of instruction used, their linguistic aims, and their
intended student population.
1. Model-A schools are intended for native speakers of Spanish

who choose to be instructed in Spanish. Basque is taught as a second
language for four to five hours a week. These schools provide mini-
mal instruction and, thus, minimal proficiency in Basque as a second
language.
2. Model-B schools are intended for native speakers of Spanish who
want to be bilingual in Basque and Spanish. With this aim in mind,
both Basque and Spanish are used as languages of instruction for ap-
proximately 50% of school time, although there is considerable varia-
tion from school to school (Arzamendi and Genesee 1997).
3. In model-D schools, Basque is the language of instruction and Span-
ish is taught as a subject for four to five hours a week. This model
- 56 -
Table 1. Number of students in models A, B, and D in the BAC (2001–2002)
Model A Model B Model D Other
Kindergarten and primary school 24,831 45,807 85,676 1,255

(3–12-year-old children) 15.8% 29.1% 54.3% 0.8%
Compulsory secondary school 26,370 19,131 31,651 597
(12–16-year-old children) 34% 24.6% 40.7% 0.7%
was originally created as a language-maintenance program for native

speakers of Basque, but currently also includes a large number of stu-
dents with Spanish as their first language. Consequently, Model-D
schools can be regarded as both total immersion programs for native
Spanish-speaking students and first-language maintenance programs
for native Basque-speakers.
When the bilingual models were established, approximately 25% of
the students in the Basque Autonomous Community attended Basque-
medium schools; at present, 83.4% of kindergarten/primary school-
children and 65.3% of secondary schoolchildren have Basque as a lan-
guage of instruction of some or all the school subjects. The distribution
of kindergarten, primary-school, and secondary-school pupils in the three
models during the school year 2001–2002 is shown in Table 1.
Basque educational models are based on the assumption that bilingual
education has important advantages. Apart from being able to communi-
cate in the two o‰cial languages of the community it is assumed that bi-
lingual education can have a positive e¤ect on cognitive development and
communication ability (see Baker 2001 for a review of research in this
area). It is also considered that there is interdependence between the lan-
guages known by a bilingual person so that linguistic abilities acquired in
one language can be transferred to another one (Cummins 1976, 1981,
1988):
. . . children in model D and B programs who have considerably less time through
the medium of Spanish will not be delayed in the development of Spanish aca-
demic skills. . . . Language planners should intensify as much as possible, within
the limitations imposed by human and financial resources, e¤orts to increase the
proportion of model B and D schools. (Cummins 1988: 208)
The use of Basque as one of the languages of instruction at the University

has also increased in the last years, and about one third of the students
have Basque as the language of instruction for some of the courses.
- 57 -
46 J. Cenoz
3.2. Toward multilingual education
The development of bilingual education has implied an enormous e¤ort

on part of teachers, teacher trainers, and institutions in the last 25 years.
At the same time, the position of English as a foreign language not used
in everyday life and the need to learn English for communication with
speakers of other languages imply an additional challenge to the Basque
educational system. Parents demand more English instruction and better-
quality English instruction in school, because traditionally students in
the BAC have achieved relatively low levels of proficiency in English at
school. These poor English-language results can be attributed to a num-
ber of factors, including large class sizes, the use of outdated or tradi-
tional instructional approaches, and the lack of well-trained teachers
with adequate proficiency in English.
The new Spanish educational system (that has been adapted to the
Basque educational system) has also reinforced the teaching of English
as a foreign language in the curriculum. Foreign-language teaching
(English in most cases) is compulsory from the third year of primary
school (eight-year-olds), but early instruction in English from the age of
four or six is very common.
Specific projects to develop trilingual education in Basque schools have
been developed in the 1990s and they can be regarded as an extension of
the bilingual educational system. These projects aim at achieving commu-
nicative competence in the three languages (Basque, Spanish and English)
and also consider the importance of developing positive attitudes toward
the languages. The Basque Government Department of Education sup-
ports the development of trilingual education and subsidizes di¤erent ac-
tivities such as courses, seminars, and projects.
The most popular project is the early teaching of English from the
second year of kindergarten (age four to five). The original project, called
‘‘Early Multilingualism,’’ started in 1991 in several ‘‘ikastolak’’ and is co-
ordinated by the ‘‘Ikastolen Elkartea.’’ English is taught for two hours
a week in four 30-minute sessions. This project became so popular that
nowadays 62 ikastolak (approximately 18,000 pupils) participate in the
‘‘Early Multilingualism’’ project run by the Ikastolen Elkartea, but the
teaching of English in kindergarten has also extended to most schools in
the BAC (Aliaga 2002).
Other projects involve the use of both Basque and English or of Bas-
que, Spanish, and English as media of instruction. For example, Lauro
Ikastola is a Basque-medium school and Spanish is introduced as a sub-
ject in the first year of primary school. English is introduced as a subject
in the second year of primary school but becomes the language of
- 58 -
instruction of three subjects in secondary school: science, history of reli-

gion, and computer science (see Cenoz 1998). Another example is the
model-A Gaztelueta School. This is a private school, which has been
using English as a medium of instruction for several school subjects (his-
tory, science, and handicrafts) for a number of years and which added
Basque as a medium for teaching other subjects (history, handicrafts, nat-
ural science, computer science) a few years ago. Several public schools
have also initiated similar projects, but these projects are still experimen-
tal and have a limited scope.
The use of English as an additional language of instruction provides
the opportunity to increase the limited time devoted to English in other
projects. It is also being used as a follow-up of the early introduction of
English to provide more hours of instruction to secondary school students
who started learning English in kindergarten and have been learning En-
glish for many years but only for two or three hours a week. These proj-
ects face more problems at the organizational level. Teachers need to
have a high level of proficiency in English and in the subject matter.
Sometimes this creates problems, and it is not always clear whether it is
better for the subject teacher or the language teacher to teach a subject
in English or whether content teachers have to be trained in English
or teachers of English in specific subjects. Moreover, students have to
achieve the same level of knowledge in subjects taught in English and
the school has to make important decisions regarding the specific sub-
jects to be taught in English. Finally, the use of English as the language
of instruction implies the development of specific materials in accordance
with the curriculum. These di‰culties explain that experiments of this
type are not as common as the early introduction of English in kinder-
garten and the most important projects have taken place in private
schools.
The Basque Government strongly supports the development of multi-
lingual education along with the improvement of the quality of education
and considers multilingualism as one of the main aims of the educational
system. Parents are also strong supporters of multilingual education. The
increasing use of Basque as the language of instruction shows the interest
of parents in bilingual education. They are also very interested in improv-
ing their children’s level of proficiency in English and support the early
introduction of English (Cenoz 1997).
The development of multilingual programs in the BAC is related to the
need to acquire English as a language of international communication
and the idea that the positive experience of bilingual education can be ex-
tended to trilingual education. The positive e¤ect of early instruction in
English in foreign-language situations is not based on empirical research
- 59 -
48 J. Cenoz
but rather on the popular idea that young children learn languages very
easily.
3.3. Teaching conditions
Primary-school teachers in the Basque Country have a certificate of edu-

cation from a teachers’ college and secondary-school teachers have a
university degree and take preservice courses on education. Nowadays,
teacher colleges o¤er di¤erent studies so that teachers can obtain a spe-
cific degree in teaching foreign languages or in teaching Basque or Span-
ish. Teachers who did not have a specialized degree because they finished
their studies a long time ago have taken in-service courses so as to obtain
special certificates.
Teachers who teach Basque or through the medium of Basque need a
certificate of Basque. As a result of the increase in the number of students
in model B and D, most primary- and secondary-school teachers in the
BAC need to be proficient in Basque.
The Basque Government o¤ers extension courses and leaves of absence
for teachers who want to study Basque in order to extend their profi-
ciency. Teachers who complete these courses are required to take exami-
nations to certify that they have attained su‰cient proficiency to teach in
Basque (see also Gardner 2000).
Proficiency in English among primary and secondary teachers in the
Basque Country is not high because English is not used in everyday life,
and for many years French was the first foreign language. Most primary-
school teachers are bilingual in Basque and Spanish but it is often the
case that only teachers of English speak English. The early introduction
of English in kindergarten has increased the demand for teachers of En-
glish but at the same time an important decrease in the birth rate in the
BAC has limited the creation of new jobs. As a result, many teachers
who were already proficient in Basque and Spanish have taken in-service
courses to become specialists in English. Unfortunately, the level of profi-
ciency in English of some primary teachers is not very high. Secondary-
school teachers of English usually have a university degree in English
Studies and present a higher level of proficiency in English.
All school teachers can get advice from specialists in the centers for
educational advice. These centers are supported by the Basque Govern-
ment Department of Education and are distributed all over the Basque
Autonomous Community. In addition, the ‘‘ikastolak’’ have their own
consultants at the ‘‘Ikastolen Elkartea’’ and some private schools also
have specific networks for counseling. The specific projects to develop
- 60 -
multilingual education usually involve a close contact between teachers

and consultants and the meetings are used to discuss specific problems re-
lated to the materials and the teaching techniques. It is also common for
the consultants to visit the schools and in addition, there are language
courses and courses on instructional methods subsidized by the Basque
Government.
Instructional methods in the di¤erent models vary from school to
school depending on whether Basque is used as a medium of instruction
or is taught as a school subject. In models B and D, where Basque is used
as the language of instruction, the methodological approach is ‘‘content-
based.’’ Basque is also taught as a subject in models B and D and, in
these classes, instruction focuses on Basque grammar and literature. Bas-
que is a school subject in model A and is taught as a second language.
Most materials to teach Basque and Spanish are published and available
and include books, workbooks, audiovisual material, and multimedia.
The materials used to teach Basque or through the medium of Basque
have been especially developed in the Basque Country and are not trans-
lated from other languages. The materials used to teach through the me-
dium of Spanish are in many cases the same as those used in Spanish
schools outside the Basque Autonomous Community but there are spe-
cific materials for the teaching of Spanish as a second language.
English is the language of communication in the English classes and in
the first years all the activities are oral. The method used in kindergarten
is based on storytelling and requires the children’s active participation by
means of collective dramatization and playing. In general, the methodol-
ogy used to teach English emphasizes the acquisition of oral skills, the use
of learner-centered syllabuses, and in some cases the integration of curric-
ula for the three languages. The materials for the teaching of English tend
to be especially developed and some of them have been published. These
materials have been created by teacher trainers and teachers and have
been experimented within the schools. Nowadays, new technologies are
also used for the teaching of the di¤erent languages.
4. Research on multilingual schooling
Research on multilingual schooling in the Basque Country has focused on

di¤erent areas: (i) the development of proficiency in Basque and Spanish;
(ii) the e¤ect of bilingualism on third-language acquisition; (iii) the e¤ect
of early instruction of English on the development of proficiency in En-
glish; (iv) the e¤ect of early instruction of English on other languages
- 61 -
50 J. Cenoz
and cognitive development; (v) cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition

of English; and (vi) attitudes and motivation.
4.1. The development of proficiency in Basque and Spanish
Several evaluations of the Basque bilingual programs have been carried

out in the last years, and the results indicate that instruction through Bas-
que (the minority language) is closely related to higher levels of achieve-
ment in this language. Proficiency in Spanish tends to be unrelated to the
language of instruction. It seems likely that since Spanish is the majority
language, opportunities for extensive exposure to it outside school com-
pensate for reduced exposure to it in school. Most studies have also found
that there are no di¤erences between the models in academic development
(see also Cenoz 1998, Etxeberria 1999). In general then, results from eval-
uations of bilingual schools in the BAC corroborate results obtained in
Canadian immersion programs (Genesee 1987; Swain and Lapkin 1982)
and at the same time extend these results to the case of native speakers
of a minority language.
4.2. The e¤ect of bilingualism on third-language acquisition
Research findings on the acquisition of English as a third language in the

BAC indicate that higher levels of bilingualism are positively related with
higher levels of proficiency in English (Cenoz and Valencia 1994; Lasa-
gabaster 1997; Sagasta 2001). The first of these studies (Cenoz and Valen-
cia 1994) analyzed the level of proficiency in English of 321 students in
the last year of secondary school. The results indicated that bilingual
students (model D) outperformed monolingual students (model A) once
the e¤ect of other variables (intelligence, motivation, or exposure to En-
glish) had been controlled. Lasagabaster (1997) compared proficiency in
English in models A, B, and D in primary school and confirmed that pro-
ficiency in English was influenced by the degree of bilingualism in Basque
and Spanish. Students who had achieved a higher level of bilingualism (D
model) presented the highest proficiency in English, followed by students
with an intermediate level of bilingualism (B model), and the lowest
achievement in English corresponded to students who presented the
lowest level of bilingualism (A model). Sagasta (2001) examined writing
skills in English in the D model and their relationship to the degree of
bilingualism in Basque and Spanish. She found that a higher level of
- 62 -
bilingualism is associated with higher scores in general writing proficiency

and specific areas such as syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, flu-
ency, or error production.
These results are compatible with the folk-wisdom belief that the more
languages you know the easier it is to learn an additional language. They
are also compatible with the threshold and interdependence hypotheses
proposed by Cummins (1976, 1981), the higher levels of metalinguistic
awareness associated with bilingualism, and the use of more learning
strategies associated with L3 acquisition (Cenoz and Genesee 1998; Jess-
ner 1999; Missler 1999).
4.3. The e¤ect of early instruction in English on the development of

proficiency in English
The results of research studies comparing di¤erent areas of English-

language achievement by di¤erent age groups who have received the
same number of hours of instruction indicate that older learners obtain
significantly higher results than younger learners (Cenoz 2003a; Garcı́a
Lecumberri and Gallardo 2003; Garcı́a Mayo 2003; Lasagabaster and
Doiz 2003). These findings confirm the poor results obtained by young
students in educational settings in studies conducted in other contexts
(Burstall 1975; Cenoz 2002a; Ekstrand 1976; Muñoz 2000, 2003; Celaya
et al. 2001). Cenoz (2003b) also found that when the levels of proficiency
of learners who were in the same course but started learning English at
di¤erent ages are compared, the number of hours of instruction does not
necessarily imply a higher level of proficiency in English.
These findings go against the popular belief ‘‘the younger the better,’’
which has been confirmed in cases in which the second language is used
in everyday life but not in situations of foreign-language acquisition (Sin-
gleton 1989, 2001). Cognitive maturity can explain the higher linguistic
development of older students when di¤erent age groups are compared,
but it is not possibly a factor when the proficiency of learners who are
the same age is compared. These results indicate that the number of hours
of instruction is not a su‰cient predictor of second-/foreign-language
proficiency (Genesee 1987; Harley 1986). An alternative interpretation is
that younger learners do not present advantages because they are still
in the first stages of third-language acquisition and, as it is the case in
second-language acquisition in natural settings, the advantages of older
students could disappear in the long run (Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle
1978).
- 63 -
52 J. Cenoz
4.4. The e¤ect of early instruction of English on other languages and on

the cognitive development
There is still limited research on the e¤ect that the early introduction of
English has on Basque and Spanish. According to the evaluations of the
project carried out by the Ikastolak, instruction in English from kinder-
garten does not adversely a¤ect the students’ acquisition of Basque or
Spanish or their overall cognitive development (Cenoz 1997; Garagorri
2002).
4.5. Cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition of English
This area of research tries to find information related to language mixing

in third-language acquisition by focusing on transfer at the lexical level in
oral production. The results of this research can give us interesting infor-
mation about the organization of the multilingual lexicon and also on the
special di‰culties that younger learners could face in separating the dif-
ferent systems. When the number of words borrowed from Basque and
Spanish in oral production in English is examined, it can be observed
that the mean number of terms transferred from Basque and Spanish is
very low particularly in the case of the youngest group and that Spanish
is the most important source language at all ages (Cenoz 2001b). It seems
that linguistic distance plays an important role in cross-linguistic trans-
fer and that students have a stronger influence from Spanish, an Indo-
European language, than from Basque a non–Indo-European language,
although it is possible that the role of Spanish as the main language of
communication is also influential when choosing Spanish as the source
language of transfer.
4.6. Attitudes and motivation
In general, younger learners present significantly better attitudes toward

learning English than older learners and attitudes toward the learning of
the three languages decline at the end of primary school (Cenoz 2002b,
Cenoz 2003c). These di¤erences could be linked to psychological and ed-
ucational factors. Psychological factors associated with age could explain
a rejection of the school system on part of older learners, and educational
factors include the use of more traditional and less active methods with
older learners.
- 64 -
5. Future challenges
The educational system in the BAC has consolidated bilingual education

and has taken important steps toward the development of multilingual
education during the last years, but there are still important challenges
and problems to be solved.
The increasing number of students who have Basque as the language of
instruction or one of the languages of instruction has had an important
impact on the number of bilingual speakers, but there is still an important
gap between the knowledge of Basque and the use of Basque in everyday
life. There are also some worries regarding the quality of the Basque lan-
guage used by non-native speakers of Basque and the important influence
of Spanish on Basque mainly at the lexical and grammatical levels. These
problems are related to its status as a minority language and its limited
use outside the classroom in some areas of the BAC.
Research studies on early instruction of English in kindergarten indi-
cate that the early teaching of English is not enough to improve profi-
ciency in the language. It seems that, at least in sociolinguistic contexts
in which English is not used in everyday life, it is necessary to follow up
these programs with more intensive instruction in English and the use of
English as an additional language of instruction. Teaching through the
medium of English is not an easy task but it provides additional exposure
to the foreign language and the opportunity to learn it by focusing on
content and on di¤erent linguistic aspects and skills than in language
classes.
An additional challenge for the Basque educational system is to adapt
the educational system so as to integrate the increasing number of immi-
grant children who live in the BAC. These children often receive instruc-
tion through the medium of Spanish (A model) rather than in models B
and D, as most Basque children do, and therefore, they can face more dif-
ficulties to integrate in their new cultural environment.
6. Conclusions
The Basque educational system has some specific characteristics related

to the sociolinguistic, political, historical, and economic context in which
it is located. Yet, it can be a useful example of bilingual and multilingual
education for other regions because of several reasons. It shows the way
language policy is positively a¤ecting the development of multilingual
education and, at the same time, the way education has an e¤ect on the
increasing number of speakers of the minority languages. It also shows
- 65 -
54 J. Cenoz
the complexity of developing multilingual education regarding factors

such as teacher training or material development. The development of
bilingual and multilingual education has also had an impact on the re-
search community and nowadays research on trilingual education in the
Basque Country is contributing to analyzing the e¤ect of bilingualism on
third-language acquisition or the e¤ect of age in second-/third-language
acquisition.
University of the Basque Country
References
Aliaga, R. (2002). Introducción temprana de la lengua inglesa en las escuelas públicas del
Paı́s Vasco. In Trilingües a los 4 años?, F. Etxeberria and U. Ruiz Bikandi (eds.), 85–
?
104. San Sebastian: Ibaeta-Pedagogia.
Arzamendi, J.; and Genesee, F. (1997). Reflections on immersion education in the Basque
Country. In Immersion Education: International Perspectives, K. Johnson and M. Swain
(eds.), 151–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Azurmendi, M. J.; Bachoc, E.; and Zabaleta, F. (2001). Reversing language shift: the case of
Basque. In Can Threatened Languages Be Saved?, J. A. Fishman (ed.), 234–260. Cleve-
don: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Burstall, C. (1975). French in the primary school: the British experiment. The Canadian
Modern Language Review 31, 388–402.
Celaya, M. L.; Torras, M. R.; and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2001). Short and mid-term e¤ects of an
earlier start: an analysis of EFL written production. Eurosla Yearbook 1, 195–209.
Cenoz, J. (1997). L’acquisition de la troisième langue: bilinguisme et plurilinguisme au Pays
Basque. AILE 10, 159–180.
— (1998). Multilingual education in the Basque Country. In Beyond Bilingualism: Multilin-
gualism and Multilingual Education, J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds.), 175–191. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
— (2001a). Basque in Spain and France. In The Other Languages of Europe, G. Extra and
D. Gorter (eds.), 45–57. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
— (2001b). The e¤ect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on crosslinguistic influence in
the third language. In Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition Psycholin-
guistic Perspectives, J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, and U. Jessner (eds.), 8–20. Clevedon: Multi-
lingual Matters.
— (2002a). Age di¤erences in foreign language learning. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics
135/136, 125–142.
— (2002b). Three languages in contact: language attitudes in the Basque Country. In Lan-
guage Awareness in the Foreign Language Classroom, D. Lasagabaster and J. Sierra
(eds.), 37–60. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country.
— (2003a). The influence of age on the acquisition of English: general proficiency, attitudes
and code mixing. In Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical
Issues and Field Work, M. P. Garcı́a Mayo and M. L. Garcı́a Lecumberri (eds.), 77–93.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
- 66 -
— (2003b). Facteurs déterminant l’acquisition d’une L3: âge, développement cognitif et

milieu. AILE.
— (2003c). Teaching English as a third language: the e¤ect of attitudes and motivation. In
Trilingualism in Family, School and Community, J. Ytsma and C. Ho¤mann (eds.), 203–
219. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
— ; and Genesee, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multi-
lingual education. In Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education, J.
Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds.), 16–32. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
— ; and Jessner, U. (2000). English in Europe: the Acquisition of a Third Language. Cleve-
don: Multilingual Matters.
— ; and Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: evidence from the Basque Country. Ap-
plied Psycholinguistics 15, 197–209.
Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: a synthesis of
research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 1–
43.
— (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for
language minority children. In Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical
Framework, California State Department of Education (ed.), 3–49. Los Angeles: Evalua-
tion, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
— (1988). Research and theory in bilingual education: the Basque situation in international
perspective. In II Euskal Mundu-Biltzarra, 197–210. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza.
Ekstrand, L. H. (1976). Age and length of residence as variables related to the adjustment of
migrant children, with special reference to second language learning. In Proceedings of the
Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, vol. 3, G. Nickel (ed.), 179–198.
Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag.
Etxeberria, F. (1999). Bilingüismo y Educación en el Paı́s del Euskara. Donostia: Erein.
Euskararen Jarraipena I. La Continuidad del Euskera I. La Continuité de la Langue Basque I.
(1995). Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza.
Euskararen Jarraipena II. La Continuidad del Euskera II. La Continuité de la Langue Basque
II. (1997). Vitoria-Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza.
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Garagorri, X. (2002). Hirueletasun goiztiarra ikastoletan ‘‘Eleanitz-Ingelesa’’ proiektuaren
?
ebaluazioa. In Trilingües a los 4 años?, F. Etxeberria and U. Ruiz Bikandi (eds.), 105–
143. San Sebastian: Ibaeta-Pedagogia.
Garcı́a Lecumberri, M. L.; and Gallardo, F. (2003). English FL pronunciation in school
students of di¤erent ages. In Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language:
Theoretical Issues and Field Work, P. Garcia Mayo and M. L. Garcı́a Lecumberri (eds.),
95–135. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Garcı́a Mayo, M. P. (2003). Age, length of exposure and grammaticality judgments in the
acquisition of English as a foreign language. In Age and the Acquisition of English as a
Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Fieldwork, M. P. Garcı́a Mayo and M. L. Gar-
cı́a Lecumberri (eds.), 94–114. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gardner, N. (2000). Basque in Education in the Basque Autonomous Community. Vitoria-
Gasteiz: Eusko Jaurlaritza.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through Two Languages. Cambridge: Newbury.
Harley, B. (1986). Age in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: cognitive aspects of third
language learning. Language Awareness 8, 201–209.
Lasagabaster, D. (1997). Creatividad y conciencia metalingüı́stica: incidencia en el aprendi-
zaje del inglés como L2 o L3. Leioa: Universidad del Paı́s Vasco.
- 67 -
56 J. Cenoz
— ; and Doiz, A. (2003). Maturational constraints on foreign language written production.

In Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Field-
work, M. P. Garcı́a Mayo and M. L. Garcı́a Lecumberri (eds.), 136–160. Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Missler, B. (1999). Previous experience of foreign language learning and its contribution
to the development of learning strategies. In Tertiär- und Drittsprachen, S. Dentler, B.
Hufeisen, and B. Lindsemann (eds.), 7–21. Tübingen: Stau¤enburg.
Muñoz, C. (2000). Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In English
in Europe: the Acquisition of a Third Language, J. Cenoz and U. Jessner (eds.), 157–178.
— (2003). Variation in oral skills development and age of onset. In Age and the Acquisition
of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Fieldwork, M. P. Garcı́a Mayo
and M. L. Garcı́a Lecumberri (eds.), 161–181. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sagasta, P. (2001). La produccion escrita en euskara, castellano e inglés en el modelo D y en el
modelo de inmersión. Leioa: Universidad del Paı́s Vasco.
Singleton, D. (1989). Language Acquisition: the Age Factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
— (2001). Age and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21,
77–89.
Snow, C.; and Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:
evidence from second language. Child Development 49, 1114–1128.
Swain, M.; and Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study.
Zuazo, K. (1995). The Basque Country and the Basque language. In On the History of the
Basque Language: Readings in Basque Historical Linguistics, J. I. Hualde, J. A. Lakarra,
and R. L. Trask (eds.), 5–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- 68 -
HEZIBERRI 2020
HEZKUNTZA‐EREDU PEDAGOGIKOAREN
MARKOA
3.3. Eleaniztasuna garatzeko orientabideak, euskara ardatz hartuta
Eleaniztasuna, euskara ardatz hartuta
Kontuan izan behar da XXI. mendeko euskal gizartea eleaniztuna dela eta, beraz,
eskolak nahitaez lortu behar ditu herritar eleaniztunak. Horregatik, mundu gero eta
elkarlotuago honetan –non hainbesteko garrantzia duten jakintzaren gizarteak,
informazio‐ eta komunikazio‐teknologiek eta pertsonen mugikortasunak–, hizkuntza
ofizialez gain jakin behar dira, ezinbestean, hizkuntza global esaten zaienetako bat edo
batzuk, eta era horretan bultzatu pertsonek elkar ezagutzea, ideiak trukatzea eta
kulturek elkar ulertzea.
Erregio edo Gutxiengoen Hizkuntzen Europako Kartaren (1992) arabera, kontuan
hartuz ingurunearen baldintzek eta gizarte‐harremanek gaztelania erabiltzera
bultzatzen dutela, eta –ebaluazioek erakutsi dutenez– irakatsi eta ikasteko prozesuan
euskara erabiltzea funtsezkoa dela ahoz eta idatziz behar bezala komunikatzeko gai
izateko, sistema eleaniztun honek euskara izango du ardatz, era horretan gainditu ahal
izateko bi hizkuntza ofizialen arteko desoreka –gaur egun euskararen aurkakoa–, eta bi
hizkuntzen berdintasun soziala eta ikasleen aukera‐berdintasuna sustatzeko.
Horregatik, euskara ohituraz eta modu normalizatuan erabiltzen dela bermatuko da,
barruko nahiz kanpoko jardueretan eta, oro har, eskolako ekintzetan.
Irteera‐profilean, ikasleak bizitzako eremu guztietan, euskaraz eta gaztelaniaz ahoz
nahiz idatziz, modu egoki eta eraginkorrean komunikatzea nahi da. Halaber, gutxienez
atzerriko lehen hizkuntza batean egoki komunikatzea, egoera eta eremu pertsonal,
sozial eta akademikoetan. Era berean, ikasleak bere burua eta bere inguruko mundua
hobeto ezagutzen lagunduko dion literatura heziketa izatea nahi da.
Euskal eskolak elebitasuna bermatzeko duen erronkaz gain, badu beste helburu bat
ere: pertsona eleaniztunak lortzea, gutxienez atzerriko hizkuntza bat behar adina
dakitenak. Ikuspuntu eleaniztunean, pertsona baten esperientzia hedatu ahala
hizkuntza baten kultur inguruneetara –familiaren hizkuntza, gizarte osoarena, beste
herri batzuetako hizkuntzak...–, pertsonak ez ditu hizkuntza eta kultura horiek
gordetzen buruko konpartimentu bereizitan; aldiz, bere komunikaziorako konpetentzia
osatzen dute hizkuntza‐jakintza eta ‐esperientzia guztiek, eta hizkuntzak elkarrekin
harremanetan daude. Ikuspuntu horrek erabat aldatzen du hizkuntza baten
irakaskuntza. Kontua ez da bi edo hiru hizkuntza eskuratzea, zein bere aldetik. Aldiz,
1
- 69 -

hizkuntza‐gaitasun guztiak biltzen dituen hizkuntza‐bilduma bat garatu nahi da.
Ikastetxe bakoitzak, hizkuntzen irakaskuntzarekin eta erabilerarekin lotutako alderdi
guztiak ondo planifikatzeko, Ikastetxeko Hizkuntza Proiektua egin behar du.
Ikaskuntza‐prozesu osoan hizkuntzak irakastearekin eta erabiltzearekin lotutako
irizpideak garatu behar ditu Proiektu horrek, bai eta Hezkuntza Proiektuan jaso ere, eta
bestalde, Curriculum Proiektuan hizkuntzen trataera ere zehaztu behar du. Halaber,
ikastetxeko dokumentu guztiek hartu beharko dituzte oinarri Proiektuan jasotako
erabakiak.

Hizkuntzen trataera integratua eta integrala
Ikasleek irteera‐profileko eleaniztasun‐maila lortzeko helburuak hizkuntza‐irakasleak
behartzen ditu hizkuntzak modu integratuak tratatzera, irakatsi eta ikastearen
helburuaz gogoeta egitera eta, ondorioz, edukiak nahiz metodologia egokitzera.
Hizkuntzak modu integratuan irakastea hainbat ebidentziaren emaitza da:
 Ikasle elebidunak edo eleaniztunak etengabe eskura ditu hainbat hizkuntza eta
haietan ikasitakoa, hornidura kognitibo eta emozional moduan.
 Hizkuntza‐ikasketak hizkuntza batzuetatik besteetara transferitzen dira.
 Hiztunek parte hartzen duten inguruneetan hainbat hizkuntza egotea aldi
berean.
Ebidentzia horien ondorioz, hizkuntzen curriculum integratua egin behar da eta,
horretarako, hizkuntza bakoitzarentzat hautatu behar dira egoera‐familia
esanguratsuak, bizitzaren eremu guztiekin lotuak, kontuan hartuz hizkuntza
bakoitzaren estatusa, testuinguruaren errealitate soziolinguistikoa eta hizkuntza
bakoitzarentzat irteera‐profil orokorrean definitutako lorpen‐maila. Hizkuntza
bakoitzak berezkoa duena landu behar da, eta denen artean partekatua dutena,
ikasleak egoki eta eraginkor erabili ahal izan dezan egoera bakoitzak eskatzen duen
hizkuntza.
Baina hizkuntza‐irakasleak ez dira euskara ardatz hartuta eleaniztasuna garatzen
konprometitutako bakarrak, eta eskola osoa dago inplikatua hizkuntzen trataera
integralean. Hizkuntza‐gaiak ematen ez dituzten irakasleen ardura ere bada hizkuntza‐
konpetentzia garatzen laguntzea, ikasleak arlo bakoitzeko egoerak egoki eta eraginkor
ebatzi ahal izan ditzan. Arlo horietako oinarrizko konpetentziak lortzeko, ikasleak
edukiekin batera ikasi behar ditu arloak berezko dituen esamoldeak, eta modu
integratuan erabili behar ditu bakoitzeko egoerak/problemak ebazteko. Edukia eta
hizkuntza integratzeko planteamenduak hizkuntza‐konpetentzia garatzea dakar.
Bi hizkuntza ofizialetan eta gutxienez atzerriko hizkuntza batean konpetentzia lortzeko
bidean, hizkuntzen curriculum integratu baten bidez eta curriculum‐arlo guztietan,
printzipio hauek onartu behar dira:
 Hizkuntzen irakaskuntza inklusioan oinarritu behar da, hau da, ikasleen jatorrizko
hizkuntza edozein izanik ere, denek beren konpetentzia eleaniztuna osoki
garatzeko bidea eman behar du.
2

- 70 -

 Hizkuntzen irakaskuntza erabileran oinarritu behar da, hau da, hizkuntzak
erabilera sozialean eta akademikoan ikasten dira, eta komunikazioaren behar
pragmatikoak dira kodea menderatzeko bidea jartzen dutenak.
 Hizkuntzen irakaskuntza ikuspuntu komunikatiboan oinarritu behar da, hau da,
ikasgelak komunikazio‐gune pribilegiatu bihurtu behar dira, ikasleek modu
eraginkorrean parte hartu ahal izan dezaten denetariko komunikazio‐
jardueratan.
 Hizkuntzen irakaskuntza hizkuntzekiko eta hiztunekiko jarrera positiboak
garatzean oinarritu behar da, kontuan hartuz hizkuntzek zenbateko garrantzia
duten harreman sozialetan eta gizabanakoen garapen emozionalean.
 Eskolan, curriculum‐arloak irakatsi eta ikasteko prozesuak dira hizkuntza
erabiltzeko eremurik eta egoerarik ohikoenak eta naturalenak; beraz, hizkuntza
eta edukia integratzea komeni da.
Printzipio horiek beharrezkoa egiten dute komunikazio‐proiektu esanguratsuen bidez
irakastea, testua delarik oinarrizko komunikazio‐unitatea; ikaskuntza sekuentzia
didaktikotan egituratzea, komunikazio‐lan zehatz bat lortzera bideraturik, eta
prozedurazko edukiak lehenestea, "egiten jakitea", eta ez adierazpenezko jakintza
hutsa.

3

- 71 -

Atzerriko Hizkuntza Eta Bere Didaktika: Ingelesa 20 22-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Atzerriko Hizkuntza Eta Bere Didaktika: Ingelesa 20 22-2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atzerriko Hizkuntza Eta Bere Didaktika: Ingelesa 20 22-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATZERRIKO HIZKUNTZA

ETA BERE DIDAKTIKA:

LEHEN HEZKUNTZA - 3. MAILA

1. Task-based Language Teaching

4. FLT in Primary Basque schools

1. Task-based Language Teaching

4. FLT in Primary Basque schools

Task-based language teaching: key precepts

The teacher helps understanding by…

The teacher uses visual support by…

The teacher elicits information from students by…

The teacher supports production by giving…

The teacher helps understanding by giving…

The teacher promotes different types of interaction:

National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research

© Macquarie University 2005

The nature of scaffolding in educational contexts

Demands too high; Extension of learning

Low motivation; Comfortable/Easy;

Figure 1: Framework of learning contexts

Macro and micro focuses

It is probably in making a direct conceptual link between two very

The relationship between scaffolding and good teaching

[Scaffolding] is not just any assistance which helps a learner accomplish a

Key theoretical concepts in understanding scaffolding

Too often human learning has been depicted as a paradigm of a lone

The zone of proximal development (ZPD)

Nigel Try eat lid.

Educational implications of a social view of learning

development of alternative perspectives. Not only do teachers impact on students’

Josep Maria Artigal

«Nombrar no es aún en absoluto una jugada en el juego del lenguaje. ...

«Todo signo parece por sí solo muerto. ¿Qué es lo que

Como maestro y formador, desde el año 1978 he entrado continuadamente en aulas de

Se propone una manera de narrar en lengua extranjera en la

Smily and Grumpy

La maestra, usando solamente sus dos manos como si

Mano derecha de la maestra Mano izquierda de la maestra

La historia se inicia con las dos manos detrás de la espalda

Los alumnos toman posición de protagonista

Rápidamente los alumnos abandonan la posición de espectador y se

Son especialmente necesarias dos cosas.

∗ Hablar de manera rítmica, con un tempo casi musical.

Los primeros significados son pragmáticos

La significación de aquello que los alumnos oyen y dicen proviene del

Los contenidos no son una prioridad inicial

No nos preocupa tanto qué contenidos es posible trabajar en cada

Peggy and Granny

Resumen del cuento: Peggy es una niña pequeña a

Los alumnos se sientan en el suelo en semicírculo.

Durante la narración, la maestra ocupa la posición “N”

Granny, I’m hungry! Are you hungry? OK. Soup!

Soup, soup, soup ..., brmmmm! An idea, soup and chocolate.

And that's all.

De este cuento queremos destacar cuatro cuestiones. Que la maestra construye

La diferencia entre las voces de narrador y personaje

Los alumnos no repiten la voz de narrador. En cambio, se involucran

∗ Las voces de narrador y de personaje están construidas desde lugares diferentes. El