Skip to main content
×
×
Home

An analysis of three curriculum approaches to teaching English in public-sector schools

  • Kathleen Graves (a1) and Sue Garton (a2)
Abstract

This article explores three current, influential English language teaching (ELT) curriculum approaches to the teaching of English in public-sector schools at the primary and secondary level and how the theory of each approach translates into curriculum practice. These approaches are communicative language teaching (CLT), genre-based pedagogy, and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). For consistency across approaches, the theoretical underpinnings of each will be briefly described according to a matrix of curriculum factors including:

the view of language and language acquisition underlying the approach

how learners’ needs are construed

the nature of the content and materials

the teacher's role

the context

how language is assessed

This is followed by a discussion of research on how each approach is implemented in primary and secondary contexts, the extent to which the theory is put into practice and factors that influence its success in the classroom. Implications for the future of curriculum development in ELT will be discussed. These implications address the viability of CLT in primary and secondary schools, the role of knowledge about language in curriculum implementation, and teacher roles and identity.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Adamson B. & Tong Siu Yin A. (2008). Leadership and collaboration in implementing curriculum change in Hong Kong Secondary Schools. Asia Pacific Education Review 9.2, 180189.
Ahn K. (2011). Learning to teach under curriculum reform: The practicum experience in South Korea. In Johnson K. E. & Golombek P. (eds.), Research on second language teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge, 239253.
Aiello J., Di Martino E. & Di Sabato B. (2017). Preparing teachers in Italy for CLIL: Reflections on assessment, language proficiency and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20.1, 6983.
Alderson J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 659663.
Ali N. L., Hamid M. O. & Moni K. (2011). English in primary education in Malaysia: Policies, outcomes and stakeholders' lived experiences. Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 147166.
Baker W. (2008). A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: The role of cultural awareness. RELC Journal 39.1, 131146.
Baldauf R. B., Kaplan R. B., Kamwangamalu N. & Bryant P. (2011). Success or failure of primary second/foreign language programmes in Asia: What do the data tell us? Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 309323.
Block D., Gray J. & Holborow M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London: Routledge.
Breidbach S. & Viebrock B. (2012). CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal 1.4, 516.
Brisk M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-12 classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Brown H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles (3rd edn.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Bruton A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39.4, 523532.
Bruton A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why. . . and why not. System 41.3, 587597.
Butler Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 3657.
Canale M. (1983) From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards J. C. & Schmidt R. W. (eds.), (2013) Language and communication. London: Routledge, 228.
Canale M. & Swain M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1.1, 147.
Cenoz J., Genesee F. & Gorter D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics 35.3, 243262.
Chen A. (2011). Parents' perspectives on the effects of the primary EFL education policy in Taiwan. Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 205224.
Christie F. (2013). Genres and genre theory: A response to Michael Rosen. Changing English 20.1, 1122.
Clark U. (2013). A sense of place: Variation, linguistic hegemony and the teaching of literacy in English. English Teaching 12.2, 5875.
Copland F., Garton S. & Burns A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly 48.4, 738762.
Coyle D. (2010) Forward. In Y. R. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), vii–viii.
Coyle D., Holmes B. & King L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum–CLIL national statement and guidelines. London: The Languages Company.
Coyle D., Hood P. & Marsh D. (2010). CLIL Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In Street B. & Hornberger N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, (2nd edn.), Volume 2: Literacy. New York: Springer, 7183.
Custance B. (2006). Whole-school genre maps: A case study in South Australia. In Whittaker R., O'Donnell M. & McCabe A. (eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches. London: Continuum, 144158.
Dalton-Puffer C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 182204.
Dalton-Puffer C., Llinares A., Lorenzo F. & Nikula T. (2014). ‘You can stand under my umbrella’: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A Response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics 35.2, 213218.
Dalton-Puffer C. & Smit U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching 46.4, 545559.
Dare B. & Polias J. (2004). Language & literacy: Classroom applications of functional grammar. South Australia: Department of Education and Children's Services.
Davison C. & Leung C. (2009). Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment. TESOL Quarterly 43.3, 393415.
Derewianka B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal 34.2, 133154.
Derewianka B. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian Curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35.1, 127146.
Dix S., Cawkwell G. & Locke T. (2011). New Zealand's literacy strategy: A lengthening tail and wagging dogs. In Goodwyn A. & Fuller C. (eds.), The great literacy debate. London: Routledge, 87105.
Edge J. & Garton S. (2009). From experience to knowledge in ELT. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enever J. & Moon J. (2009). New global contexts for teaching Primary ELT: Change and challenge. In Enever J., Moon J. & Raman U. (eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education, 521.
Fan C. (2014). The effectiveness of genre-based pedagogy in developing students’ academic literacy in Hong Kong EMI secondary schools. MA Thesis, University of Hong Kong. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/209663.
Fenwick L. (2010). Initiating and sustaining learning about literacy and language across the curriculum within secondary schools. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 33.3, 268283.
Fernandez R. & Halbach A. (2011). Analysing the situation of teachers in the Madrid bilingual project after four years of implementation. In Ruiz de Zarobe Y., Sierra J. & Gallardo del Puerto F. (eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts. Bern: Peter Lang, 241270.
Fernández Fontecha A. (2009). Spanish CLIL: Research and official actions. In de Zarobe Y. R. & Catalán R. M. Jiménez (eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 321.
Furlong A. (2005). The central role of language learning/teaching methodologies in CLIL. The CLIL quality matrix, Central workshop report 6/2005. Graz, Austria, 3–5 November 2005. http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf
Garton S. (2014). Unresolved issues and new challenges in teaching English to young learners: The case of South Korea. Current issues in language planning 15.2, 201219.
Garton S., Copland F. & Burns A. (2011). Investigating global practices in teaching English to young learners. British Council ELT Research Papers 11–01. London: British Council.
Gaynor B. (2014). From language policy to pedagogic practice: Elementary school English in Japan. In Rich S., (ed.), International perspectives on teaching English to young learners. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 6684.
Gebhard M., Chen I. A. & Britton L. (2014). Miss, nominalization is a nominalization: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education 26, 106125.
Gibbons P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning (2nd edn.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gilmore A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching 40.2, 97118.
Graddol D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
Graves K. (2016). Language curriculum design: Possibilities and realities. In Hall G. (ed.), Routledge handbook of English language teaching. London: Routledge, 7994.
Graves K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching 41.2, 147181.
Guillamón-Suesta F. & Renau M. L. R. (2015). A critical vision of the CLIL approach in secondary education: A study in the Valencian Community in Spain. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 8.1, 112.
Halliday M. A. K. & Matthiessen C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edn.. London: Arnold.
Hamid O. M. & Honan E. (2012). Communicative English in the primary classroom: Implications for English-in-education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Language, Culture and Curriculum 25.2, 139156.
Hammond J. (2012). Hope and challenge in the Australian Curriculum: Implications for EAL students and their teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35.1, 223240.
Hardman J. & A-Rahman N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia. Language, Culture and Curriculum 27.3, 260277.
Heller M., & McLaughlin M. (2016). Language choice and symbolic domination. In Wortham S., Deoksoon K. & May S. (eds.), Discourse and Education. Springer Living Reference Work, 19.
Hong Kong Education Bureau. (n.d.) Improving language and learning in public-sector schools (ILLIPSK) (Archive). www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-quality-assurance/professional-support-online-resources/lang-support-emi-edu/illips
Hönig I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. VDM Publishing.
Hüttner J., Dalton-Puffer C. & Smit U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16.3, 267284.
Hüttner J. & Smit U. (2014). CLIL (Content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why and why not. System 44, 160167.
Hymes D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride J. B. & Holmes J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269293.
İnal D. (2009). The early bird catches the worm: The Turkish case. In Enever J., Moon J. & Raman U. (eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education, 7178.
Infante D., Benvenuto G. & Lastrucci E. (2008). Integrating content and language at primary school in Italy: Ongoing experimental research. International CLIL Research Journal 1.1, 7482.
Ioannou Georgiou S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal 66.4, 495504.
Kang D-M. (2008). The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: Another look at TETE. System 36, 214226.
Kantarcioglŭ E. & Papageorgiou S. (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference. In Coombe C., Davidson P., O'Sullivan B. & Stoynoff S. (eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8288.
Larsen-Freeman D. & Freeman D. (2008). Language moves: The place of languages – foreign and otherwise – in classroom teaching and learning. In J. Greene, G. Kelly & A. Luke. (eds.), Review of Research on Education 32.1, 147186.
Lasagabaster D. & Ruiz de Zarobe Y. (2010). Ways forward in CLIL: Provision issues and future planning. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), 278–295.
Lasagabaster D. & Sierra J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal 64.4, 367375.
Lee I. (2012). Genre-based teaching and assessment in secondary English classrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 11.4, 120136.
Lin A. (2012). Multilingual and multimodal resources in genre-based pedagogical approaches to L2 English content classrooms. In Leung C. & Street B. V. (eds.), English: A changing medium for education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 79103.
Lin A. M. Y. (2010). Curriculum: Foreign language learning. In Peterson P., Baker E. & McGaw B. (eds.), International encyclopedia of education volume 1 (3rd edn.). Oxford: Elsevier, 428434.
Llinares A., Morton T. & Whittaker R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Little D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 645655.
Lorenzo F. (2010). CLIL in Andalusia. In Ruiz de Zarobe Y. & Lasagabaster D. (eds.), 2–11.
Lorenzo F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16.3, 375388.
Lorenzo F., Casal S. & Moore P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics 31.3, 418442.
Lorenzo F. & Moore P. (2010). On the natural emergence of language structures in CLIL: Towards a theory of European educational bilingualism. In Dalton-Puffer C., Nikula T. & Smit U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2338.
Luardini M. A. & Asi N. (2014). An analysis of linguistic competence in writing texts by teachers in Palangka Raya. International Journal of English and Education 3.2, 8094.
Marsh D., Mehisto P., Wolff D. & Frigols Martin M. J. (2010). European framework for CLIL teacher education: A framework for the professional development of CLIL teachers. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Martin J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education 20, 1021.
Massler U., Stotz D. & Queisser C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. The Language Learning Journal 42.2, 137150.
Maxwell-Reid C. (2014). Genre in the teaching of English in Hong Kong: A perspective from systemic functional linguistics. In Coniam D. (ed.), English language education and assessment: Recent developments in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. Singapore: Springer, 87102.
Méndez García M. D. C. (2013). The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of CLIL programmes in Spanish monolingual areas: A case study of Andalusian primary and secondary schools. The Language Learning Journal 41.3, 268283.
Ministry of Education Singapore (2010). English Language Syllabus 2010. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/english-language-and-literature/files
Modiano M. (2009). EIL, native-speakerism and the failure of European ELT. In Sharifian F. (ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 5877.
Moore J. & Schleppegrell M. (2014). Using a functional linguistic metalanguage to support academic language development in the English Language Arts. Linguistics and Education 26, 92105.
Moore P. & Lorenzo F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. Vienna English Working Papers 16.3, 2835.
Morrow K. (2012). Communicative language testing. In Coombe C., Davidson P., O'Sullivan B. & Stoynoff S. (eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140146.
Morton T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials in CLIL. In Gray J. (ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 111136.
Muñoz C. & Navés T. (2009). CLIL in Spain. Retrieved 24/02/2016 from http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/9142/1/MunozNaves2007.pdf
Navés T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning. In Ruiz de Zarobe Y. & Catalán R. Jiménez (eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2240.
Nguyen H. T. M. (2011). Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 225249.
Nunan D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly 37.4, 589613.
Omoetan G. Y. (2008). The implementation of genre-based approach in the teaching of English at SMA Negeri 1 Surakarta. Ph.D. dissertation, Sebelas Meret University. https://core.ac.uk/download/files/478/16507883.pdf
Pastor A. M. R. (2015). The commodification of English in ‘Madrid, comunidad bilingüe’: Insights from the CLIL classroom. Language Policy 14.2, 131152.
Pavón Vázquez V. & Rubio F. (2010). Teachers' concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum 14, 4558.
Pérez-Cañado M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9.1, 931.
Pérez-Cañado M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15.3, 315341.
Piller I. (2012). Multilingualism and social exclusion. In Martin-Jones M., Blackledge A. & Creese A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. Abingdon: Routledge, 281296.
Pladevall-Ballester E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: Students', teachers' and parents' opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18.1, 4559.
Polias J. (ed.) (2005). Improving language and learning in public-sector schools. Hong Kong: Quality Assurance Division, Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau.
Polias J. (2007) Lesson observation report for ILLIPS 2007. http://lexised.com/resources/
Polias J. (2011). English language teachers and subject teachers collaborating: Recent changes in pedagogical practices in Hong Kong. Tidsskriftet Viden Om Laesning 10, 2231.
Polias J. & Dare B. (2006). Towards a pedagogical grammar. In Whittaker R., O'Donnell M. & McCabe A. (eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches. London: Continuum, 123143.
Prapaisit de Segovia L. & Hardison D. M. (2008). Implementing education reform: EFL teachers' perspectives. ELT Journal 63.2, 154162.
Pribady I. Y. (2012). The implementation of a genre based approach to teaching narrative writing. In Knox J. S. (ed.), Papers from the 39th International Systemic Functional Congress. Sydney, 5762.
Reierstam H. (2015). Assessing language or content? A comparative study of the assessment practices in three Swedish upper secondary CLIL schools. Licenciate Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/40701
Richards J. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central and backward design. RELC Journal 44.1, 533.
Rose D. (2015). New developments in genre-based literacy pedagogy. In MacArthur C. A., Graham S. & Fitzgerald J. (eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd edn.). New York: Guilford, 227242.
Rose D. & Martin J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.
Rothery J. (1989). Learning about language. In Hasan R. & Martin J. R. (eds.), Language development: Learning language, learning culture (vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 199256.
Rothery J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In Hasan R. & Williams G. (eds.), Literacy in society. London: Longman, 86128.
Ruiz de Zarobe Y. & Lasagabaster D. (eds.) (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ruiz de Zarobe Y. & Lasagabaster D. (2010a). Introduction. The Emergence of CLIL in Spain: An educational challenge. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), ix–xvii.
Ruiz de Zarobe Y. & Lasagabaster D. (2010b). CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque autonomous community. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), 12–25.
SACSA (South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accessibility) (n. d.) ESL Scope and Scales. http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au/index_fsrc.asp?t=ECCP&ID=E8A
Savignon S. J. (2008). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In Savignon S. J. (ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven, Yale University Press, 128.
Schwab J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review 81.4, 501522.
Schleppegrell M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seargeant P. (2008). Ideologies of English in Japan: The perspective of policy and pedagogy. Language Policy 7.2, 121142.
Stelma J. (2009). What is communicative language teaching? In Hunston S. & Oakey D. (eds.), Introducing applied linguistics: Concepts and skills. London: Routledge, 5359.
Sukyadi D. (2014). The teaching of English in secondary schools in Indonesia. In Spolsky B. & Sung K. (eds.), Secondary school education in Asia. London: Routledge, 123147.
Sylvén L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16.3, 301320.
Tomlinson B. (2011). Introduction. In Tomlinson B. (ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd edn.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133.
Vander Ark T. (2016). Next-Gen Personalized Learning for ELL Students. Education Week. Accessed 27/04/17 from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_innovation/2016/02/next-gen_personalized_learning_for_ell_students.html
Walker E. (2010). A systemic functional contribution to planning academic genre teaching in a bilingual education context. Language Awareness 19.2, 7387.
White P. R. R., Mammone G. & Caldwell D. (2015). Linguistically based inequality, multilingual education and a genre-based literacy development pedagogy: Insights from the Australian experience. Language and Education 29.3, 256271.
Widodo H. P. (2016). Language policy in practice: Reframing the English language curriculum in the Indonesian secondary education sector. In Kirkpatrick R. (ed.), English language education policy in Asia. New York: Springer International Publishing, 127151.
Yan C. & He C. (2012). Bridging the implementation gap: An ethnographic study of English teachers' implementation of the curriculum reform in China. Ethnography and Education 7.1, 119.
Zhang F. & Liu Y. (2014). A study of secondary school English teachers’ beliefs in the context of curriculum reform in China. Language Teaching Research 18.2, 187204.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language Teaching
  • ISSN: 0261-4448
  • EISSN: 1475-3049
  • URL: /core/journals/language-teaching
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 68
Total number of PDF views: 412 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1200 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 14th September 2017 - 19th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.