nglish anguage verseas erspectives and nquiries Vol. 16, No. 2 (2019) Journeys in Language Education Guest Editor: MATEJA DAGARIN FOJKAR Journal Editors: SMILJANA KOMAR and MOJCA KREVEL Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani Ljubljana, 2019 ISSN 1581-8918 ^L nglish anguage ^Jverseas Pe— nquiries Vol. 16, No. 2 (2019) Journeys in Language Education Guest Editor: MATEJA DAGARIN FOJKAR Journal Editors: SMILJANA KOMAR and MOJCA KREVEL Qf University of Ljubljana FAaJLTYbFARTS Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani Ljubljana, 2019 CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 811.111'243(082) 37.091.3:81'243(082) JOURNEYS in language education / guest editor Mateja Dagarin Fojkar. - Ljubljana : University Press, Faculty of Arts = Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2019. - (ELOPE : English language overseas perspectives and enquiries, ISSN 1581-8918 ; vol. 16, no. 2) ISBN 978-961-06-0284-2 1. Dagarin Fojkar, Mateja COBISS.SI-ID 303237632 Contents PART I: INTRODUCTION Mateja Dagarin Fojkar 9 Journeys in Language Education PART II: ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric 15 The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers Raba govornih komunikacijskih strategij študentov angleščine kot tujega jezika Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu 33 ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices Učitelji angleščine kot drugega jezika in diagnostično ocenjevanje: Stališča in izkušnje Polona Lilic, Silva Bratož 49 The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence Učinkovitost rabe iger za razvijanje slovnične zmožnosti mlajših učencev Piotr Romanowski 63 A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System Primerjalna študija oblik CLIL-a v poljskem izobraževalnem sistemu Lisjeta Thaqi Jashari, Mateja Dagarin Fojkar 77 Teachers' Perceptions of Developing Writing Skills in the EFL Classroom Stališča učiteljev do razvijanja pisne zmožnosti pri pouku angleščine kot tujega jezika E L □ P E 3 E L □ P E PART III: LANGUAGE Sanja Škific, Anita Pavic Pintaric 93 Tracing the Space Between Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: The Case of Obesity in English and German Razmejitev prostora med evfemizmi in disfemizmi: Primer prekomerne teže v angleščini in nemščini PART IV: LITERATURE Nejc Rožman Ivančič 117 The Image of a Woman of Colour and Native American Woman in Two Kerouac Novels: A Double Otherness Podoba temnopolte in indijanske ženske v dveh romanih Jacka Kerouaca: Dvojna drugost 5 V*.Vi« Introduction ■¡■■I Journeys in Language Education This issue of ELOPE is dedicated to language education, which is gaining significance in today's world as many countries are reshaping their language policies by either introducing languages earlier in the curriculum or implementing additional languages into primary and secondary education. In this context many issues need to be reconsidered, among which teaching and teacher education are the most crucial ones. The title of this volume is related to journeys. Language education involves many different types of them. The first journey is that of the discipline of language education itself. It has come a long way from its first beginnings, always evolving and always trying to find the magic formula for the most effective way of teaching. As a result, many teaching approaches and methods have been developed and tried out (some with more success, others with less) and a variety of contextual factors that best support language learning have been discussed along the way. The second journey signifies the personal development of each teacher, starting from a novice teacher still trying to figure out how to find their way in the classroom (and staffroom) to a more confident and autonomous teacher, trusting themselves and their choices in teaching. Teachers spend many hours on this journey, exploring what works best for their learners, learning from mistakes and celebrating small victories. Many of them come to the conclusion that Durant's saying "we teach more by what we are than by what we teach" holds true in many teaching contexts. The third journey is the journey of a language learner. They are the ones who are the most influenced by the changes in educational policies, the development of new methods and the choices that teachers make in their classrooms. If they are lucky, they live in a society that encourages language education and appreciates its teachers, investing in learning and teacher education. Last but not least, journeys can be related to the teaching and teacher development that happen in countries that are part of this ELOPE issue. Among them one can find Croatia, Nigeria, Poland, Slovenia and Kosovo. Despite different contexts, the authors are all united in the wish to contribute to the quality of teaching in their respective countries. The article "The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers" written by Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec and Ivana Cindric begins the journey in the language teaching section. The authors claim that speaking is a skill that prevails within communicative competence, and that language teachers should have a high degree of speaking fluency and accuracy and be familiar with a variety of speaking strategies. They examine pre-service EFL teachers' perceived use of speaking strategies and their relation to their EFL and speaking proficiency. The second article, "ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices" by Folasade Esther Jimola and Graceful Onovughe Ofodu, discusses teachers' perceptions towards and the use of diagnostic assessment in language classrooms, noting that EFL teachers E L □ P E LITERATURE 9 that took part in the study had inaccurate perceptions of the purpose of diagnostic assessment and negative attitudes towards it. The authors suggest that the most important factors that influence assessment practices are schooling, professional coursework and teaching context, thus summarizing the decisive elements in language education. Polona Lilic and Silva Bratoz's paper "The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence" brings to light the teaching of grammar through the use of games. Games can be employed in teaching all language skills and features, particularly when it comes to teaching young learners. The results of an experimental study presented in the article prove that using games in teaching grammar is more efficient than adopting traditional ELT activities. The authors sum up the article by writing that games take into account learners' needs and preferences and are a natural way of learning for young learners. In "A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System" Piotr Romanowski presents different CLIL models used by Polish teachers. The article discusses CLIL provision or, as it is labelled in Poland, bilingual education. The research shows its use is most common in bigger cities and, not surprisingly, English is the most popular language used as a medium of instruction. The content subjects which are taught in a foreign language are Maths, Physics and Geography in lower secondary schools, and besides Maths and Physics, Chemistry is the third most common content subject used for CLIL instruction in upper-secondary schools. The author concludes that CLIL provision in Poland still needs thorough improvements, among them unification of the curricula and the amount of exposure to a foreign language. The final article in the ELT section, "Teachers' Perceptions of Developing Writing Skills in the EFL Classroom" by Lisjeta Thaqi Jashari and Mateja Dagarin Fojkar, addresses the issue of developing learners' writing skills, which is still perceived as the most difficult task for many learners. The surveyed teachers stated that writing is an essential language skill, although they did not practise it as much as the other skills. The authors suggest different actions to remedy the situation, among which differentiated instruction and the introduction of a variety of teaching strategies to teachers might improve not only learners' writing skills but also their language competence in general. In the language section, Sanja Skific and Anita Pavic Pintaric in their contribution titled "Tracing the Space Between Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: The Case of Obesity in English and German", focus on how obesity is represented in English and German. By using a corpus of expressions from different lexicographic sources, the authors analysed their descriptions in dictionaries. Furthermore, they conducted a survey among native speakers of German and English examining to what extent lexicographic descriptions match the native speakers' perceptions of euphemisms. The literature section concludes this volume with Nejc Rozman Ivancic's paper on "The Image of a Woman of Colour and Native American Woman in Two Kerouac's Novels: A Double Otherness". The author examines the portrayal of a Native American woman and a woman of colour in two of Kerouac's novels, and discusses Kerouac's attitude towards women 10 and non-white ethnicities. He sums up his analysis by stating that the male protagonist in the novels uses female characters only as objects for his own self-discovery, revealing his racial prejudice. The focus of this volume of ELOPE has been on language learning and teaching. Hopefully, this issue will open the door to more journeys within language education. Further research in this area should lead to better teaching practices and well-educated teachers who will contribute to the quality of education and progress of pupils and, as they grow up, confident users of languages. Let me finish with the words of an inspiring American writer: I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist and that there are as few as there are any other great artists. Teaching might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit. (John Steinbeck) Mateja Dagarin Fojkar, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Guest Editor of ELOPE Vol. 16, No. 2 (2019) E L □ P E LITERATURE 11 •..v Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, 2019' VoL 16 (2), 15-31(140) revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope Ivana Cindric https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.16.2.15-31 University of Zagreb, Croatia UDC: 811.111'243'342:37.091.3 E L □ P E The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers ABSTRACT Speaking is a language skill that dominates the notion ofcommunicative language competence. Language teachers, especially early starters' pre-service teachers, should undergo very intensive programmes of pronunciation practice as they will in many cases present the only models for their learners to imitate (Vilke 1993). To develop such fluency in speaking and propositional accuracy, students and prospective teachers should not only use but also be aware of a range of speaking strategies. This study examines pre-service EFL teachers' perceived use of speaking strategies, as defined in the Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (Nakatani 2006). Since previous studies have identified various factors associated with learners' strategy use, we focused on determining whether the participants' perceived strategy use is related to their EFL and speaking proficiency and their preference for engaging in speaking activities in their EFL classes. The results confirmed rather high strategy use, but the relation between the tested variables was only partially confirmed. Keywords: OCSI; pre-service EFL teachers; speaking; speaking strategies Raba govornih komunikacijskih strategij študentov angleščine kot tujega jezika POVZETEK Govor je jezikovna zmožnost, ki prevladuje v opredelitvi komunikacijske govorne kompetence. Učitelji jezikov, še posebej v zgodnji dobi učenja, bi morali tekom študija intenzivno razvijati izgovorjavo, saj bodo pogosto edini jezikovni model, ki ga bodo njihovi učenci posnemali (Vilke 1993). Za uspešen razvoj govorne tekočnosti in pravilnosti, morajo študenti in bodoči učitelji tako poznati kot pravilno uporabljati govorne komunikacijske strategije. Raziskava preučuje katere govorne komunikacijske strategije uporabljajo študenti angleščine glede na Seznam govornih komunikacijskih strategij (Nakatani 2006). V preteklosti so nekatere študije že raziskovale različne dejavnike, povezane z rabo strategij, zato smo v naši raziskavi preučevali ali je raba zaznanih strategij povezana z nivojem govornega znanja in z željo po vključitvi v govorne dejavnosti pri pouku angleščine kot tujega jezika. Rezultati so potrdili pogosto rabo strategij, toda povezave med spremenljivkami so bile le delno potrjene. Ključne besede: seznam govornih komunikacijskih strategij; študenti angleščine; govor; govorne strategije MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 15 1 Introduction Subject knowledge, which includes the knowledge of second language acquisition, pedagogical knowledge, curricular knowledge, cultural knowledge, language awareness and language proficiency (Richards et al. 2012), is the foundation of a teacher's professional experience. With respect to language proficiency, it goes without saying that EFL teachers need to possess knowledge about the grammar and vocabulary of the English language, as well as the reading, writing, listening and speaking skills necessary to use the language. "Having an excellent command of the target language is indeed one of the most important characteristics of outstanding foreign language teachers" (Shin 2008, 59), and for the non-native teacher "language proficiency will always represent the bedrock of their professional confidence" (Murdoch 1994, 254). According to Richards (2011), there is a threshold proficiency level the teacher needs to have reached in the target language in order to be able to teach effectively in this language. In this paper we will focus on speaking, which as a language skill contributes to the overall development of communicative language competence, and is also represented as the basis of that competence (Martínez-Flor, Usó-Juan, and Alcón Soler 2006). Speaking enables people to send their intended message to others using speech sounds which they produce themselves, activating their speech organs. However, speaking is more than just the production of sounds which are put together into meaningful units, since "learning speaking, whether in a first or other language, involves developing subtle and detailed knowledge about why, how and when to communicate, and complex skills for producing and managing interaction, such as asking a question or obtaining a turn" (Burns and Seidlhofer 2010, 197). The development of speaking skills can be more effective if language learners employ speaking strategies. According to Martínez-Flor, Usó-Juan and Alcón Soler (2006, 151), "speakers need to become competent in using strategies in order to overcome limitations due to a lack of competence in any of the other components" (e.g. discourse, linguistic, pragmatic, intercultural and strategic competence) "integrating the proposed communicative competence framework". Many factors, such as the type of speaking assignment, students' cultural background or their level of proficiency can influence the choice of speaking strategies used (Chamot 2005). The teacher's role is to make students aware of the strategies they are already using and those they could use, so they are less restrained while deciding upon an appropriate and effective strategy for their speaking task. In that way, the teacher directs students towards new possibilities and eventually makes them use new strategies which they have not previously used or even taken into account. In that respect, Chamot (2005, 123) proposes explicit strategy instruction which "includes the development of students' awareness of their strategies, teacher modeling of strategic thinking, identifying the strategies by name, providing opportunities for practice and self-evaluation". Teachers should make students aware of the many existing strategies and explain each strategy in terms of its role and function, i.e. instruct students on "how, when, and why to use the strategy" (Anderson 2005, 758). In this way, students will be able to discover for themselves which strategies they find most beneficial (Anderson 2005). On the other hand, research conducted by Eslinger (2000 as cited in Anderson 2005, 763) draws 16 Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers attention to implicit strategy instruction, which could also be beneficial to students since "there may be a natural tendency to grow in strategy use without explicit instruction". Another issue concerning the instruction of speaking strategies is whether using L1 in an EFL classroom to teach speaking strategies should be a common practice or whether it should be avoided. Chamot (2005) proposes the use of L1 if learners are not proficient enough to understand the teacher's explanation of a specific strategy in English. Usually, younger and/ or beginner learners are the ones who do not understand English well enough and may thus benefit from the teacher's decision to explain these strategies in L1. Nevertheless, using L2 to explain speaking strategies should be introduced gradually in the process of language teaching. It is important for pre-service EFL teachers to be familiar with a range of speaking strategies so that they can teach them in EFL classrooms. In this paper, we will take Nakatani's (2006) eight categories of strategies learners use for coping with speaking problems as the theoretical foundation. These eight categories are the following: 1) social affective strategies, where learners try to control their own anxiety and enjoy the process of oral communication, they are willing to encourage themselves to use English, to risk making mistakes, and attempt to give a good impression and avoid silence during interactions; 2) fluency-oriented strategies, used to speak as clearly as possible so that their interlocutors can understand them, paying attention to the cultural context in which their conversation takes place to avoid misunderstandings; 3) negotiation for meaning while speaking strategies, used when checking whether their interlocutors have understood them or not, repetition and providing examples in order to enhance the listeners understanding of their intended message; 4) accuracy-oriented strategies, employed to self-assess the grammatical structures used to determine whether these structures are correct or not, and the attempt to sound like a native speaker; 5) message reduction and alteration strategies, where learners try "to avoid a communication breakdown by reducing an original message, simplifying their utterances, or using similar expressions that they can use confidently" (Nakatani 2006, 155); 6) nonverbal strategies while speaking, used when the message is not communicated through speech only, but through gestures, eye-contact, and so on; 7) message abandonment strategies, used to bring the interaction to an end by giving up on communicating the intended message to the interlocutor (e.g. by asking someone for help, although in this case learners do not give up on conveying their message completely); 8) attempt to think in English strategies, when learners try to think in English while speaking in English. E L □ P E 2 Literature Review Speaking is a complex skill that consists of many sub-skills including phonology and pronunciation. In order to be able to speak English well, speaking strategies for phonology and pronunciation should be employed. Moyer (2014 as cited in Oxford 2017) conducted research which confirmed that learners who were exceptionally good at phonology reported using learning strategies such as self-monitoring, imitation of native speakers, attention to difficult phonological terms and explicit concern for pronunciation accuracy. Dadour and Robbins (1996) showed that students who were taught speaking strategies used these strategies more often, and therefore their speaking skills were better than those of students without strategy instruction. Students also reported that they wanted to continue MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 17 with strategy instruction, as this would help them develop a satisfying level of oral proficiency. Other researchers have also concluded that by employing various learning strategies, learners' language performance improves (Anderson 2005). In line with those findings, Kawai (2008) showed how the use of speaking strategies by two very good Japanese EFL speakers contributed to their speaking proficiency. In order to build their confidence, they practiced orally in advance of any English language encounters; gathered information on potential discussion topics through books, the Internet, and interviews; sought help from native speakers if available; anticipated the comments of others; planned and prepared flexible conversational expressions to employ; reviewed discussion procedures; anticipated communication breakdown and the strategies to use if it happened; and made and followed plans to speak English every day. Moreover, the research showed that learning strategies of a non-compensatory sort (e.g. metacognitive strategies such as planning and monitoring, cognitive strategies which enhance grammar and vocabulary, affective strategies and social strategies) are helpful for improving speaking. Kawai (2008) concluded that those learners who develop good oral skills appear to be frequent strategy users, regardless of culture and learning context. Zhang and Goh's (2006) research with 278 Singaporean secondary school learners of English confirmed that the number and level of strategies used are related to learners' proficiency in the foreign language. Méndez López (2011) also compared the use of speaking strategies by university students of English with their proficiency levels (beginners, intermediates and advanced). The results showed that the use of speaking strategies was not the same at the three proficiency levels. More specifically, all students reported using similar speaking strategies, but the frequency of strategy use was related to the students' proficiency level (Méndez López 2011). The three strategies that were employed the most were: asking for repetition, the use of paraphrasing or a synonym for unknown words and asking for clarification of a message (Méndez López 2011). The author concluded with the suggestion that strategy training should be implemented in language courses, interspersed with communicative activities (Méndez López 2011). A more recent study by Pawlak (2018) investigated what speaking strategies higher-proficiency English language learners use prior to, during and after a speaking task. The research showed that "the employment of SSs is bound to be conditioned by the type of activity, the demands it places on interlocutors, and the communicative goals it sets" (Pawlak 2018, 286). The results with regard to the specific speaking strategies the participants employed before, during and after performing two different speaking tasks showed that the participants mostly relied on metacognitive and social strategies (Pawlak 2018). Some of the metacognitive strategies they used were preparing for their speech by choosing suitable vocabulary and deciding upon the arguments which would support their opinions. They also reflected upon their grammatical accuracy during the communication tasks. An example of a social strategy that was employed was students cooperating in order to complete the two speaking tasks by asking each other different questions (Pawlak 2018). 18 Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers E L □ P E In view of these studies, the present research1 focused on identifying speaking strategy use by pre-service EFL teachers and its possible correlations with several factors which have been identified as important in previous studies. 3 The Study The present study investigates pre-service EFL teachers' perceptions of their use of speaking strategies with respect to their self-assessed language and speaking proficiency, as well as preference for speaking in EFL classes. The aim of the study is to establish whether pre-service EFL teachers use the speaking strategies which are available for them as language learners and future EFL teachers. This is especially important because their knowledge and use of speaking strategies will have a significant and immediate impact on their learners. The research hypotheses are as follows: 1. The results will show significant use of speaking strategies by pre-service EFL teachers. 2. Pre-service EFL teachers who assess their proficiency in English with a higher grade will report using speaking strategies more often. 3. Pre-service EFL teachers who assess their speaking skills in English with a higher grade, and who claim that speaking is their favourite activity in the English classes, will report using speaking strategies more often. 3.1 Participants The research comprised 50 participants, students at the Faculty of Teacher Education University of Zagreb studying within the Integrated graduate and undergraduate study of primary teacher education with English language. 3.2 Research Instrument An online questionnaire, designed for the purpose of this study, was available for participants to complete throughout March, April and May 2018. Prior to responding to the two-part online questionnaire, the participants completed a consent form. The initial part of the questionnaire contained questions regarding the participants' age, gender, current year of study and questions related to their English language learning history and self-assessment of their proficiency in English and speaking. The second part of the questionnaire was an adapted version of the Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) developed by Nakatani (2006). The original inventory contains two sets of items, the first one addressing strategies for coping with speaking problems and the second containing strategies for coping with listening problems. For the purpose of the present research, the set of items on strategies for coping with listening problems 1 The research described in this paper is part of a study conducted in the process of writing the first author's graduation thesis. MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 19 was excluded from the questionnaire. The OCSI, "a reliable and valid strategy inventory for communication tasks" (Nakatani 2006, 152) consists of 32 items indicating strategies for coping with speaking problems. Each item is evaluated on a five-point Likert-type scale whereby 1 indicates Never or almost never true of me; 2. Generally not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; 4. Generally true of me; 5. Always or almost always true of me. The strategies were divided into eight categories, based on the factor analysis results. Hence, Factor 1 are social affective strategies (items 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, Factor 2 (items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) are fluency-oriented strategies, Factor 3 (items 19, 20, 21 and 22) are negotiation for meaning while speaking strategies, Factor 4 (items 7, 8, 17, 18 and 30) are accuracy-oriented strategies, Factor 5 (items 3, 4 and 5) are message reduction and alteration strategies, Factor 6 are nonverbal strategies (items 15 and 16), Factor 7 (items 6, 24, 31 and 32) are message abandonment strategies, and Factor 8 (items 1 and 2) are attempt to think in English strategies. All of the items from the set of strategies for coping with speaking problems were included in the questionnaire, with some of them being slightly adapted to aid comprehension by the students. In addition, although the instructions for the original OCSI state that it is to be completed after a specific speaking activity, for the purpose of the present research the questions were posed and analysed so as to refer to the general speaking behaviour of the participants. The results obtained from the OCSI were analysed using descriptive statistics, i.e. mean and SD values indicated for the overall strategy use as well as for individual strategy use. 4 Results and Discussion 4.1 General Information on the Participants The sample of participants comprised 50 students, of whom 48 were female and two were male. The distribution of students according to the year of study was as follows: 19 students in the second year, five students in the third year, four students in the fourth year and 22 students in the final, fifth year of study. The age span of the participants ranged from 19 to 27, with most of the participants being 23 (N = 15) and 20 (N = 13) years old. All of the participants reported having learned English prior to their enrolment at the Faculty of Teacher Education. The majority (N = 44) reported that their final grade in English in primary school was 5 (i.e. excellent), while only six were graded with a 4 (i.e. very good). Their final grades slightly deteriorated in secondary school with N = 35 of them being graded with 5, N = 14 with 4, and N = 1 with 3 (i.e. good). Students' exposure to the English language in their free time (e.g. listening to music, watching films, reading, surfing the Internet, communicating in English, etc.) was estimated as follows. More than half of them (N = 27) reported being exposed to English more than 10 hours per week, 11 participants being exposed to English up to 10 hours per week, while 12 participants stated that their exposure does not exceed 5 hours per week. Finally, the majority of the participants (N = 42) reported communicating with a native speaker of English at least 20 Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers E at some point in their lives, while the rest (N = 8) said they have never been in contact with a native speaker. 4.2 Self-Assessed Language and Speaking Proficiency and Awareness of Strategies Speaking (N = 33; 66%) and listening (N = 23; 46%) were selected by the majority of participants as their favourite activities in English class. Reading silently (N = 19; 38%), writing (N = 17; 34%) and reading out loud (N = 11; 22%) were chosen by fewer participants. When asked to choose one or more skills in English at which they consider themselves to be very good, the most frequently chosen answers were listening (N = 30; 60%) and speaking (N = 28; 56%). Reading silently and writing were chosen the same number of times (N = 26; 52%), while reading out loud was chosen 23 times (46%). Further along, the participants self-assessed their EFL proficiency on a scale from 5 to 1 (5=excellent; 4=very good; 3= good; 2= satisfactory; 1=fail) Most of them assessed their EFL proficiency with 4 (N = 33; 66%), followed by 5 (N = 13; 26%) and 3 (N = 4; 8%). The mean grade for participants' self-assessed general knowledge of English was M = 4.18 (SD = 0.56). The self-assessment of their speaking skills showed that the most common grade was 4 (N = 27; 54%), although there were also some 3s (N = 8; 16%) and 5s (N = 15; 30%). The mean grade for the participants' self-assessed speaking skills in English was M = 4.14 (SD = 0.67). We also compared the self-assessment of the participants' speaking skills in the foreign language (English) with the self-assessment of the speaking skills in their mother tongue (Croatian). The results were as follows: an equal number of students (N = 24; 48%) graded their speaking skills in the mother tongue with 5 and 4. Only 4% (N = 2) graded it with 3. The mean grade for the self-assessed speaking skills in Croatian was M = 4.44 (SD = 0.58). Even though the participants assessed their speaking skills in Croatian with slightly higher grades than their speaking skills in English, the difference is not relevant. Some of the possible reasons might be that they feel confident while speaking in both their mother tongue and English, or that their standards for assessing these two skills were not the same (maybe they had higher standards for Croatian than English). Also, since the participants are pre-service EFL teachers and their proficiency is targeted at the C1 level of the CEFR (2001) (see Cindric, Cergol, and Davies 2010), it is not surprising that their self-assessed English language proficiency is high. The participants also had to explain what they thought speaking and learning strategies were. With regard to the former, the answers showed that some of the participants did not know what speaking strategies are, or had difficulties explaining them. These are some of their answers: "The way we say things" and "Mechanism to help you speak more easily and fluently". Secondly, they were asked to explain/say the meaning of learning strategies, and some of their answers were: "To find the best way to learn something.", "Watching movies, communicating, repeating the words you've studied, writing them down, connecting them with Croatian words...", and "visual, auditory, kinesthetic and multimodal strategies". The obtained answers show that some participants confused learning strategies with learning MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 21 styles, some did not differentiate between strategic and non-strategic learning, some identified learning strategies in general with social strategies as one type of learning strategies, while some provided good examples of learning strategies. 4.3 Self-Reported Use of Speaking Strategies (OCSI) The results obtained from the OCSI indicate that the average use of strategies by the participants was M = 3.77 (SD = .34). Strategies defined by inventory items 1, 24 and 32 were excluded from the total calculation, as they relate to speaking behaviours which generally do not have a positive impact on one's speaking skills. Those speaking behaviours are, for example, first thinking of what to say in one's native language and then constructing the English sentence, leaving a message unfinished because of some language difficulty, and giving up when one cannot make oneself understood. In the text below, the results of the OCSI will be presented according to the eight factors, i.e. types of strategies. Variables in Factor 1 address social affective strategies, and they inclnde six strategy items for which the; following; mean results were obtained: 1 I try Co ute filters when I cgnnct ihink cfwhgt Co sgy (M = 3.76, SD = .92), 22 I rry to leave a good imprsssion on the listener (M = 4.44, SD = .61), 3 Idon't mind taking risks even though I might malte mislkltss (M = 3.80, SD = 1.09), 4 I try Co enjoy the ccnvetseiicn (M = 4.59, SD = .74), 5 I try Co telex whrn I ful enxicus (M = 4.24, SD = .821), and 6 Iavtively encourage myself co exptess whet I went ic sey (M = 4.98, SD = .83). Figure 1 shows how the participants asssssed their sociat effective steategy use. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 18 16 0 25 00 22 3 1616 31 16 0 21 22 21 1 0 I try to use fillers I try to leave a I don't mind I try to enjoy the I try to relax when I cannot good impression taking risks even conversation. when I feel think of what to on the listener. though I might anxious. say. make mistakes. ■ 1 H9 H3 H4 H5 24 18 0 2 I actively encourage myself to express what I want to say. 6 1 Figure 1. OCSI results indicating participants' sooialaffective strategy use. Note: 1. Nevcr or csmost never true of me; 2. GeneraHy not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; 4c. (Generally true of me; 5. Ayways or aim ost always true of me. It may be observed that the highest mean for the perceived use of speaking strategies is for the strategy I try to enjoy the conversation, while the lowest mean was recorded for the strategy 22 Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers I try to use fillers when I cannot think of what to say. Since these students are instructed in and frequently made aware of the importance of their fluency in communication and the importance of using fillers in achieving this goal, such low results are rather surprising. On the other hand, it may be that due to their perceived high EFL/speaking competence they did not consider fillers to be a useful strategy, or they may simply not be aware of their use. Factor 2 items (Figure 2) refer to fluency-oriented strategies, and the mean values for this category were: 1 / change my way of saying things accoodinn to the context (M = 4.16, SID = .77), 2 I take my time to express what I want to say (M = 3.64, SID = .92), 3 I- pay attention to my pronunciation (M = 4.52, SD = .68), 4 Itry to spakk cSyarlyandtoudly to make myselfheard (M = 4.34, SD = .75), 5 Ipaa attention to my hthm and intananon (M = 4.06,SD = .94), and 6a I pay attention too thn converoationoflow (M = 4.22, SID = .9)6). E L □ P E 35 - 30 - 25 -23 20 18 10 -8 0 1 0 23 30 17 0 712 8 0 1 2 24 20 0 I 20 1a 0 25 15 0 a I change my way I take my time to I pay attention to I try to speak I pay attention to I pay attention to of saying things express what I my clearly and my rhythm and the according to the want to say. pronunciation. loudly to make intonation. conversational context. myself heard. flow. 1 B2 B3 14 B5 5 Figure 2. OCSI results indicating participants' fluency-oriented strategy use. Note: 1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. Generally not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; 4. Generally true ofme; 5. Always oe almost always true of me. The results show that the highest mean value for the perceived strategy use was recorded for the strategy I try to speak clearly and loudly to make myself heard. The lowest mean was recorded for the strategy I take my time to express what I want to say, and it may be a reflection of the participants' awareness of their high language proficiency in EFL which enables them to communicate confidently and without hesitation. According to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001), the functional success of the learner/user is described through fluency and propositional accuracy. Fluency is the ability to articulate, to keep going, and to cope when at a dead end, whereas propositional precision is the ability to formulate thoughts and propositions so as to make one's meaning clear (Cindric, Cergol and Davies 2010). Considering the participants' training as future teachers of English, it is expected thai their fluency is at the C1 level of CEFR, which indicates the following 'can do' statement: Can expresr himlhersilffluentlyaed sponsaneousla, almosteffortaessly. Oniya MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 23 conceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language (CEFR 2001). The results of this research are in line with the set level. Factor 3 is negotiation for meaning while speaking strategies, and the following values were obtained for these four strategy items: 1 While speaking, I pay attention to the listener's reaction to my speech (M = 4.24, SD = .85), 2 I give examples if the listener doesn't understand what I'm saying (M = 4.64, SD = .53), 3 I repeat what I want to say until the listener understands (M = 4.10, SD = .91), and 4 I make comprehension checks to ensure the listener understands what I want ts say (M = 3.(58, SID = 1.10). Figure 3 shows the participants' assessment of their negottattonfos meaning while speakine stsategy use. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 33 23 0 While speaking, I pay attention to the listener's reaction to my speech. 00 16 I 22 I give examples if the listener doesn't understand what I'm saying. 0 I repeat what I want to I make comprehension say until the listener checks to ensure the understands. listener understands what I want to say. 1 B2 B3 B4 B5 2 1 1 Figure 3. OCSI results indicating participants' negotiation for m eaning while speakingstrasegy use. Note: 1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. Generally not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; -4. Generally true of men 5. Always cr aim ort arwayn true ofme. It may be observed that the highest perceived mean was obtained for the strategy I give examples if the listener doesn't understand what I'm saying, while the lowest mean wis recorded for I make comprehension checks to ensure the listener understands what I want to say. The low results for malting comprrhecsion checks may stem from the participants' greater reliance on the collocutors' non-verbal signals indicating miscommunication. On the other hand, when warned about lack of understanding of their utterances, they willingly provide examples to facilitate understanding. Moreover, exemplification is considered a useful instructional technique in EFL teaching and learning (Byrd et al. 1993), and since the participants are pre-service EFL teachers, such significant use of this speaking strategy is understandable. For the five strategy items grouped under Factor 4, i.e., accuracy-oriented strategies, the following mean values were calculated: 1 I pay attention to grammar and word order during conversations (M = 4.30, SD = .86), 2 I try to emphasize the subject and verb of the sentence (M = 3.04, SD = .95), 3 I correct myself when I notice that I have made a mistake (M = 4.62, 24 Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers SD = .57), 4 I notice myself using an expression which fits a rule that I have learned (M = 4.08, SD = .80), and 5 I try to talk like a native speaker (M = 4.12, SD = .98). Participants' self-assessed accuracy-oriented strategy use is presented in Figure 4. E L □ P E 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 33 25 18 0 21 15 00 2 23 21 0 14 I try to talk like a native speaker. I pay attention to I try to emphasize I correct myself I notice myself grammar and word the subject and verb when I notice that I using an expression order during of the sentence. have made a which fits a rule that conversations. mistake. I have learned. ■ 1 a2 B3 B4 B5 Figure 4. OCSI results indicating participants' accuracy-orimted etrategy use. Note: 1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. Generally not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; 4. Gene-rally true ofme; 5. Always or afmost always true of me. The strategy I correct myself when I noeice that I have made a misiake is reported to be used the most, while I tiy eo emphasize the subject and verb off the sentence is used the least. It is not surprising that self-correction was the strategy used most in this category, as well as the second most used strategy in the entire inventory, since self-correction has been identified as an essential form of error correction and a procedure that may contribute to learner autonomy in contemporary learner-centred cducntional settings (Edwards 2000. Sul tana 22009). The perceived use (Figure 5) of message reduction and alteration strategies, grouped under Factor 5, was as follows: 1 I use words which are familiar to me (M = 4.56, SD = .50), 2 I reduce the message (what I want to say) and use simple expressions (M = 3.04, SD = 1.01), and 3 I replace the original message with another one when I feel I cannot execute my original intent (M = 3.70, SD = 1.0 0). 4 3 1 0 0 The highest and lowest perceived mean uses of message reduction and alternation strategy were recorded for the strategies I use words which are familiar to me, and I reduce the message (what I want to say) and use simple expressions, respectively. However, this category had an overall lower mean result in comparison to most other categories, which may be related to the participants' high EFL proficiency, since Metcalfe and Noom-Ura (2013) found that the mean result for this strategy category was lower for the group of high proficiency learners in their research. Strategies concerned with the aspect of communication which does not include speech are grouped under Factor 6, and are called nonverbal strategies while speaking. These were assessed MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 25 30 28 17 15 10 000 10 9 ¿¿il I use words which are familiar to I reduce the message (what I want I replace the original message me. to say) and use simple with another one when I feel I expressions. cannot execute my original intent. 1 B2 B3 B4 5 Figure 5. OCSI results indicating participants' message reduction andalteration strategy use. Note: 1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. Generally not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; 4. (Generally true ofme; 5. Always oe aimost always true of me. by the participants in the following way: 1 Itry to make eyetcentact when II am ttking (M = 4.46, SD = .86), and 2 I use gestures and faciei txpyessione if I di not keow how to sly stmethmg (M = 4.28, SD = .835). Figure 6 shows how the participants assessed their use of nonvesbol staatggiea wfale speoking. 30 25 20 33 I try to moks sys-noatont when I em talking. I use gestures and facial expressions if I do not know how to say something. 1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Figure 6. OCSI results indicating participants' use of nonverbal speaking strategies. Note: 1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. Generally not t3ue of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; 4. Generally true ofme; f. Always or aim. ost always true ofme. Hae results were, as expected, rather high for both of the assessed strategies, although the participants perceive ahat they use the stragegy Iuse gesduris etd facialexpressions if I do not 25 25 20 5 3 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 26 JelenaFilipovic, Alenlea MiJolec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers know how to say something somewhat more than I try to make eye-contact when I'm talking. The importance of nonverbal strategies was recognized by Canale and Swain (1980, 30), who claimed that strategic competence relies on "verbal and nonverbal communication strategies to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or due to insufficient competence". Message abandonment strategies, categorized under Factor 7, are employed when speakers give up on delivering their original message because they do not feel capable of doing so. This group of strategies (Figure 7) was assessed by the participants as follows: 1 I abandon the execution of the original message and just say some words when I don't know what to say (M = 2.32, SD = 1.12), 2 I leave a message unfinished because of some language difficulty (M = 1.98, SD = .74), 3 I ask other people to help when I can't communicate well (M = 3.74, SD = 1.14), and 4 I give up when I can't make myself understood (M = 2.04, SD = .99). E L □ P E 30 25 20 26 19 15 -13 10 13 -■I 22 19 10 0 I abandon the execution I leave a message I ask other people to help I give up when I can't of the original message unfinished because of when I can't make myself understood. and just say some words some language difficulty. communicate well. when I don't know what to say. ■ 1 B2 B3 14 B5 Figure 7. OCSI results indicating participants' message abandodment strategy use. Note: 1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. Gen.era.lly not t3ue ofme; 3. Somewhat true of me; 4. Generally true ofme; 5. Always or aim. ost always true ofme. The overall analysis shows that the results for message abandonment strategy use were lower than those obtained for the pregiously presented strategy groups. The highest perceived mean use was recorded for the s trategy d fok other people to ¡help when I can'e communitate weU, while thee lowest menn was recorded for the stsategy I eeave u message unfinished because of some language difficulty, whihh is also the lowest recorded value in the entire inventory. This particular strategy cadegory has been found to be significantly more used by low proficience learners (Metcalfe and Noom-Ura 2013). ThercCoee, this result actually speaks in favour of the petticipanls and eeflects positive practices in teaching, as this particular group of students sre continuaUy encouraged ohroughout their studies to employ various speaking strategies to avoid breakdowns in communication. 5 0 MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 27 Factor 8 includes attempt to think in English strategies, and the following results were obtained for these two strategies: 1 I first think of what I want to say in my native language and then construct the English sentence (M = 2.34, SD = 1.00), and 2 I first think of a sentence I already know in English and then try to change it to fit the situation (M = 2.62, SD = 1.18) (Figure 8). 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 18 14 14 I first think of what I want to say in my native I first think of a sentence I already know in English language and then construct the English sentence. and then try to change it to fit the situation. ■ 1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Figure 8. OCSI results indicating participants' attempt to think in English strategy use. Note: 1. Never or almost never true of me; 2. (Generally not true of me; 3. Somewhat true of me; -4. (Generally true ofme; 5. Always oe afmost always true of me. The results for these two strategies were also lower in comparison to the other strategies, with the lower mean results recorded for I first think of what I want to say in my native language and then construct the English sentence. This indicates that most students do not use this strategy, which is positive since thinking in the language of communication as much as possible is considered important, and has been proven to be more useful than thinking in one's mother tongue (Nakatani 200(5, 155-56). BaseO on the presented results, it may be conctuded that, apart from the message abandonment and attempt to think in- Englssh strategies, most of the obtained mean values werv gsnerally rather high as well as the overall result. Therefore, the first hypothesis, H1. The reaults will show significant use of speaking strategies by pre-service EFL teachers, was confirmed. 4.4 The Relationship Between the Participants' Use of Speaking Strategies and Their Sef-Assessed EFL Knowledge and Speaking Skills A series of Spearman rank-order correlation analyses were conducted to test the second hypothesis: H2. Pre-service EFL ttachers who assess their knowledge of Engtish with a higher gaadt (41 very goodand 5 - hxcelSent) wlllreport usina speaking steateates m oee iften. Hie results confirmed a statistisally significant weak positive correlations between the participants' 3 28 Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers self-assessed knowledge of English and their perceived use of the following four speaking strategy categories: social affective (rs (50)=.34, p< .05), fluency-oriented (rs (50)=.32, p< .05), negotiation for meaning while speaking (rs (50)=.39, p< .01), and accuracy-oriented category (rs (50)=.38, p< .01). In other words, the participants who assessed their EFL proficiency to be (relatively) high reported using the above-mentioned speaking strategies more often. Therefore, it may be proposed that the second hypothesis was confirmed partially, as the correlations were weak, and they were confirmed for only four out of eight speaking strategy categories. In order to test the third hypothesis (H3. Pre-service EFL teachers who assess their speaking skills in English with a higher grade, and who claim that speaking is their favourite activity in the English classes will report using speaking strategies more often), a correlation analysis and two one-way ANOVA tests were applied. A series of Spearman rank-order correlations confirmed a statistically significant weak positive correlation between the participants' self-assessed speaking skills in English and their perceived use of only one speaking strategy category: social affective (rs (50)=.38, p< .01). A statistically significant weak correlation was confirmed for one more strategy category, message reduction and alteration (rs (50)= - .29, p< .05), but this one was negative, i.e. the participants who assessed their speaking skills with a higher grade reported using this speaking strategy category less often. The first one-way ANOVA test confirmed a statistically significant difference in favour of the participants who mentioned speaking as their favourite activity in EFL classes for the social affective: F(1,49)=22.958, p=.000, and accuracy-oriented strategy categories: F(1,49)=6.817, p=.012. In other words, their use of these speaking strategies was perceived to be greater than that of the participants who did not refer to speaking as their favourite activity. A statistically significant difference was also found for message reduction and alteration strategies: F(1,49)=5.757, p=.020), but it was in favour of the participants who did not identify speaking as their favourite activity in EFL classes. The results show that having speaking as a favourite activity was determined as a relevant factor only for two out of eight strategy categories. The second one-way ANOVA test confirmed a statistically significant difference in favour of the participants who see themselves as being good at speaking for the social affective: F(1,49)=20.308, p=.000; fluency-oriented: F(1,49)=4.032, p=.050; and accuracy-oriented strategy categories: F(1,49)=4.712, p=.035. For two categories the difference was statistically significant, but it was in favour of those who did not perceive themselves as being good at speaking (message reduction and alteration: F(1,49)=5.645, p=.022, and attempt to think in English: F(1,49)=4.131, p=.048). The fact that participants who do not perceive themselves as being good at speaking reported using message reduction strategy category more often is in accordance with previous findings indicating that this strategy category was used more often by low proficiency learners (Metcalfe and Noom-Ura 2013). The results of the second ANOVA test show that being good at speaking was proven a relevant factor only for three out of the eight strategy categories. Therefore, it may be proposed that the third hypothesis was only partially confirmed, as the relationship between the perceived use of speaking strategies and the three tested variables was confirmed only for some of the strategy categories. E L □ P E MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 29 5 Conclusion The study presented students' (pre-service primary school English teachers) perceptions of their use of speaking strategies with respect to their self-assessed language and speaking proficiency, as well as preference for speaking in EFL classes. The results showed significant use of speaking strategies by pre-service EFL teachers (H1) although, when asked to define both learning and speaking strategies, some participants were not able to provide satisfactory explanations. Hence, it may be proposed that the majority of the target group of learners predominantly showed satisfactory use of strategies acquired in the course of their studies. The somewhat weaker knowledge or understanding of strategies recorded in this sample may be related to the fact that some of the participants were only in their second year of study, and they have not yet had any EFL teaching methodology classes. Considering that the students in this sample will in the future teach the English language to young learners, their expected level of accuracy and fluency in the four skills is a high one. This in particular refers to grammar and pronunciation (Cindric, Cergol, and Davies 2010), as it is important that their speech is comprehensible and grammatically correct. This may be the reason for high mean results obtained for the majority of fluency- and accuracy-oriented strategies, and for the fact that in addition to the social affective and negotiation for meaning while speaking strategies, the fluency- and accuracy-oriented strategies were positively correlated with the participants' self-assessed EFL proficiency. It is also worth mentioning that some of the strategies for which the lowest mean results were obtained are actually considered less efficient, and students are warned not to use them, e.g. the message abandonment strategy category and the strategy I first think of what I want to say in my native language and then construct the English sentence. Since the second hypothesis (Pre-service EFL teachers who assess their knowledge of English with a higher grade will report using speaking strategies more often.) and third hypothesis (Pre-service EFL teachers who assess their speaking skills in English with a higher grade, and who claim that speaking is their favourite activity in the English classes will report using speaking strategies more often.), were only partially confirmed, we propose considering additional factors that may be related to EFL learners' speaking strategy use, or even expanding the inventory with additional open-ended questions related to speaking strategies. References Anderson, Neil J. 2005. "L2 Strategy Research." In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by Eli Hinkel, 757—72. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burns, Anne C., and Barbara Seidlhofer. 2010. "Speaking and Pronunciation." In An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (2nd ed.), edited by Norbert Schmitt, 197—214. London: Hodder Education. Byrd, Patricia, Cecila Liu, Alan Mobley, Angelo Pitillo, Susan Rolfe Silva, and Sun Shu-Wen. 1993. Exemplification and the Example: A Communicative Process and Product with ESL Teaching Applications. ERIC Document #ED 347 826 FL 020 454. Canale, Michael, and Merrill Swain. 1980. "Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing." Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1. Chamot, Anna U. 2005. "Language Learning Strategy Instruction: Current Issues and Research." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25: 112-30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061. 30 Jelena Filipovic, Alenka Mikulec, Ivana Cindric The Use of Speaking Strategies by Pre-Service EFL Teachers E , . E Cindric, Ivana, Kristina Cergol, and Mark Davies. 2010. "Designing a Test of Language Competence for Future Primary English Language Teachers." In Društvo i jezik — višejezičnost i višekulturalnost, edited by Dunja Pavlicevic-Franic and Ante Bežen, 42-57. Zagreb: ECNSI, Učiteljski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dadour, El Sayed, and Jill Robbins. 1996. University-Level Studies Using Speaking Instruction to Improve Speaking Ability in Egypt and Japan. In Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Technical Report # 13), edited by Rebecca L. Oxford, 157-66. Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai'i. Eslinger, Catherine, E. 2000. "A More Responsive Mind: A Study of Learning Strategy Adaptation Among Culturally Diverse ESL Students." MA thesis, Brigham Young University. Edwards, Nathan. 2000. "Language for Business: Effective Needs Assessment, Syllabus Design and Materials Preparation in a Practical ESP Case Study." English for Specific Purposes 19: 291-96. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00029-5. Kawai, Yasushi. 2008. "Speaking and Good Language Learners." In Lessons from Good Language Learners, edited by Carol Griffiths, 218-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martínez-Flor, Alicia, Esther Usó-Juan, and Eva Alcón Soler. 2006. "Towards Acquiring Communicative Competence Through Speaking." In Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills, edited by Esther Usó-Juan and Alicia Martínez-Flor, 139-57. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Méndez López, Mariza. 2011. "Speaking Strategies Used by BA ELT Students in Public Universities in Mexico." MEXTESOL Journal 35 (1): 1-22. Metcalfe, Jill, and Sripathum Noom-Ura. 2013. "Communication Strategy Use of High and Low Proficiency Learners of English at a Thai University." LEARN Journal 6 (1): 66-87. Moyer, Alene. 2014. "Exceptional Outcomes in L2 Phonology: The Critical Factors of Learner Engagement and Self-regulation." Applied Linguistics 35 (4): 418-40. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu012. Murdoch, George. 1994. "Language Development Provision in Teacher Training Curricula." ELT Journal 48 (3): 253-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.3.253. Nakatani, Yasuo. 2006. "Developing an Oral Communication Strategy Inventory." Modern Language Journal 90 (2): 151-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00390.x. Oxford, Rebecca L. 2017. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self-Regulation in Context (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Pawlak, Miroslaw. 2018. "Investigating the Use of Speaking Strategies in the Performance of Two Communicative Tasks: The Importance of Communicative Goal." Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8: 269-91. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.5. Richards Heather, Clare Conway, Annelies Roskvist, and Sharon Harvey. 2012. "Foreign Language Teachers' Language Proficiency and Their Language Teaching Practice." Language Learning Journal 41 (2): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.707676. Richards, Jack C. 2011. "Competence and Performance in Language Teaching." RELC Journal 41 (2): 101-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210372953. Shin, Sarah. 2008. "Preparing Non-Native English Speaking ESL Teachers." Teacher Development 12 (1): 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701827749. Sultana, Asifa. 2009. "Peer Correction in ESL Classroom." BRAC University Journal 6 (1): 11-19. Vilke, Mirjana. 1993. "Early Foreign Language Teaching in Croatian Primary Schools." In Children and Foreign Languages, edited by MirjanaVilke and Yvonne Vrhovac, 10-27. Zagreb: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb. Zhang, Donglang, and Christine Goh. 2006. "Strategy Knowledge and Perceived Strategy Use: Singaporean Students' Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies." Language Awareness — LANG AWARE 15: 199-219. https://doi.org/10.2167/la342.0. MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 31 Folasade Esther Jimola, 2019' Vo1- 16 (2), 33-48(140) „ p | /~v | i revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope Graceful On«vughe Ofodu https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.16.2.33-48 Ekiti State University, Nigeria UDC: 811.111'243:37.091.3 ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices ABSTRACT Diagnostic assessment is an indispensable aspect of pedagogy. Past research has shown that teachers' perceptions and attitudes to diagnostic assessment could influence their classroom practices. This article discusses teachers' perceptions of diagnostic assessment, reiterates the essence of diagnostic assessment in English language classrooms, explores teachers' attitudes and utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques, and also investigates the factors influencing teachers' knowledge of assessment practices. To achieve these objectives, an empirical study on English language teachers' perceptions of diagnostic assessment, teachers' attitudes and utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques and factors influencing teachers' knowledge of assessment practices was conducted. The results show that the majority of English language teachers in the sample have inaccurate perceptions of the purpose of diagnostic assessment and also have negative attitudes to diagnostic assessment in classrooms. The results of the survey indicate that schooling, professional coursework and context are factors that influence ESL teachers' classroom assessment practices. Keywords: English as a Second Language (ESL); diagnostic assessment; perception; attitude; utilization Učitelji angleščine kot drugega jezika in diagnostično • • CV 1 • v v • • 1 v • ocenjevanje: Stališča in izkušnje POVZETEK Diagnostično ocenjevanje je nepogrešljiv del poučevanja. Raziskave so pokazale, da učiteljeva stališča do diagnostičnega ocenjevanja vplivajo na njihovo prakso ocenjevanja v razredu. V prispevku so predstavljena stališča učiteljev do diagnostičnega ocenjevanja, diagnostično ocenjevanje pri pouku angleščine, učiteljeva uporaba tehnik diagnostičnega ocenjevanja in dejavniki, ki vplivajo na znanje učiteljev o ocenjevanju. Za dosego teh ciljev je bila izvedena empirična raziskava, ki je preučevala stališča učiteljev angleščine do diagnostičnega ocenjevanja, učiteljevo rabo tehnik diagnostičnega ocenjevanja in dejavnike, ki vplivajo na znanje učiteljev o ocenjevanju. Rezultati kažejo, da ima večina anketiranih učiteljev nepravilne zaznave o namenu diagnostičnega ocenjevanja ter negativna stališča do diagnostičnega ocenjevanja pri pouku. Rezultati nakazujejo, da so šolanje, profesionalno delo in kontekst poučevanja dejavniki, ki vplivajo na prakso ocenjevanja v razredu. Ključne besede: angleščina kot drugi jezik; diagnostično ocenjevanje; stališča; praksa ocenjevanja E L □ P E MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 33 1 Introduction English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers need to have working knowledge of how to devise credible assessments which will "deepen student engagement in content" (Price, Pierson, and Light 2011, 2) and yield valid information about learners' real performance without distorting pedagogical practices and learning objectives. Assessment should be considered alongside behavioural objectives and teaching methods during the preparation phase of instruction. Assessment should assist ESL teachers in establishing the baseline knowledge of students about the topic to be taught, and also help them gain insight into what learners already know. Assessment planned together with behavioural objectives gives clues to students' misconceptions and probable difficulties that they might encounter in the course of learning. The reverse applies in some Nigerian Public Senior Secondary Schools, where assessment is only administered at the end of the course for local and national examinations, which neither fosters students' knowledge of the content nor promotes teachers' assessment knowledge and skills. In the Ado-Ekiti Local Government Area of Ekiti State, Nigeria, the English language is generally taught once a day, that is five times in a week, and each English language lesson lasts for 40 minutes. As such, each week Senior Secondary School students are taught English for 200 minutes, that is, 3 hours 20 minutes. At the start of the term many Nigerian teachers begin with the first topic in the scheme of work, leaving out diagnostic assessment. Reed (2006) discovered that many teachers avoid diagnostics completely and simply begin their teaching with Chapter 1 of the recommended textbook, assuming that they will get to know the students better in time. In ESL classrooms, however, many things could lead students astray. Students may have formed various inaccurate, incomplete or false opinions, conjectures, and beliefs about the concept to be learnt before stepping into their classrooms based on their observations, backgrounds, exposure and experiences. Students do not discard these misconceptions, but merely adjust the pre-existing false information to accommodate the new concept rather than wholly incorporating the correct information, which could be worse than complete ignorance. Teachers thus need to address these misconceptions as early as possible. Moreover, in Nigeria English language teachers' assessment practices do not seem to have positively influenced students' learning nor met students' needs regarding assessment, due to various factors. One of these is that diagnostic assessment has not been sufficiently researched, as it has garnered little attention in second language assessment and education, while greater focus is placed on proficiency, achievement, formative and summative assessment (Reed 2006; Jang and Wagner 2013; Olagunju 2015; Fakeye 2016; Al-Shehri 2008;). Some of the studies conducted on diagnostic assessment centred on using diagnostic classroom assessment (Ciofalo and Wylie 2006), the relationship between students' diagnostic assessment and achievement in a pre-university instruction (Shim, Shakawi, and Azizan 2017), diagnostic teaching for primary level students (International Reading Association 2005), diagnostic assessment guide (Stevens 2009), diagnostic assessment in language teaching and learning (Reed 2006), diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improve teaching, learning and retention (Treagust 2006), diagnostic assessment to improve teaching practice (Sun and Suzuki 2013), and diagnostic assessment strategies for teachers (Chin 2001). From the 34 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices foregoing it could be deduced that little has been done on teachers' perceptions of diagnostic assessment, attitudes to diagnostic assessment, utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques and the factors influencing teachers' knowledge of assessment practices. Other notable factors that have contributed to English language teachers' poor assessment practices are the inadequate training of teachers, insufficient exposure of teachers to varieties of assessment techniques, the dearth of proper knowledge of assessment skills (Plake and Impara 1997; DeLuca and Klinger 2010), teachers' complacency with regard to traditional methods of assessment, and teachers' reluctance to adopt learner-centred assessment strategies. The present study stems from a need to reveal Nigerian ESL teachers' perceptions of the purpose of diagnostic assessment in classrooms, their dispositions to the use of diagnostic assessment and whether they conduct such assessment in their classrooms. The article is structured as follows. Section 1 introduces the background to the study, while Section 2 presents the theoretical framework. Section 3 reveals the relevance of the theoretical framework to the study, and Section 4 explains diagnostic assessment. Section 5 focuses on the teachers' perceptions of the purpose of diagnostic assessment, attitudes to diagnostic assessment, utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques and factors influencing their knowledge of assessment practices. The last sections (6 and 7) discuss the results and their implications for ESL classrooms. 2 Theoretical Framework The theory of teacher cognition underlies this study. Teacher cognition, which is also known as teacher knowledge, refers to the unnoticeable cognitive dimension of teaching which entails "what teachers know, believe and think" (Borg 2003). It came about in the mid-1970s in the US (Borg 2009), and its perception "includes a variety of notions like teachers' knowledge, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes towards their actual performances and practices in a specific context" (Yunus, Salehi, and Amini 2016, 20). Teacher cognition emanates from four sources (i) schooling — early protracted personal experiences during initial learning as a language learner, (ii) professional coursework — attending professional activities, in-service training about curricula, subject matter, instructional activities, (iii) contextual factors, teachers' classroom experiences and practices — through exposure to classroom situations, and (iv) personality — the constructs that merged to form the thinking dimension such as attitudes, perspectives, conceptions and beliefs which exert influence on their present pedagogical practices (Borg 2003; Hill 2014; Siamak 2014; Mathiesen Gilje 2014; Chan 2015; Jamalzadeh and Shahsavar 2015). 3 Relevance of the Theoretical Framework to the Study This theory is relevant to this work because teachers' classroom practices, including their perceptions, decisions, judgments and justifications with regard to assessment, are projections of their beliefs, knowledge and thoughts which are as a result of the four sources of teacher cognition (Fan 1999). Teachers are not machines, their actions and attitudes towards students' and pedagogical activities are substantially controlled by their belief systems. This thus affects their pedagogical practices, including their perceptions of E L □ P E MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 35 and disposition towards various classroom assessments. In order to advance the frontiers of classroom assessment practices, the dimension of cognition therefore stresses the significance of ESL teachers "deconstructing their own prior knowledge and attitudes, comprehending how these understandings evolved; exploring the effects they have on actions and behaviour, and considering alternate conceptions and premises that may be more serviceable in teaching" (Adeosun, Oni, and Oladipo 2013, 43). 4 Diagnostic Assessment Stevens (2009) asserts that the diagnostic assessment process1 is a decision-making strategy for determining when and how to deliver instructional remediation to learners through additional instruction, and also to help teachers determine whether the students can move on to the next skill or concept to be taught, as outlined as expectations in the curriculum. Some assessment techniques that ESL teachers can employ to probe students' thinking faculty at the beginning of instruction are interviews, questionnaires, inventories, checklists, portfolios, misconception/preconception checks, background knowledge probes, discussions, presentations, KWL2 charts, observations, performance-based assessments, pre-tests, interview-based assessments, play-based assessments, concept mapping, predict-observe-explain, thought experiments, card-sorting, students' drawings, the post-box technique, surveys, student questions, brainstorming, viewfinders, and teacher questioning (Mussawy 2009; Chin 2001). Diagnostic assessment can help teachers pinpoint students' present understanding of a subject, their competences, abilities, learning preferences and styles before teaching starts. Knowing students' strengths and weak points can help ESL teachers plan what to teach, have a focus and "plan intervention strategies in their teaching to deal with the issue" effectively (Abang and Farah 2017, 370). Diagnostic assessment helps ESL teachers monitor students' understanding of the subject matter and performance before, during and after teaching the lesson, establish any differences and examine teaching and learning effectiveness on a continuous basis. Alderson (2005) explains that diagnostic assessment is known for the following (also cf. Shim, Shakawi, and Azizan 2017): 1. a greater focus on weaknesses than on strengths; 2. leading to remediation in further instruction; 3. providing detailed feedback which can be acted upon; 4. being based on content covered in instruction; 5. being discrete-point rather than integrative, or more focused on specific elements than on global abilities. Alderson, Brunfaut and Harding (2014, 318) explain that "diagnostic assessment should ideally be embedded within a system that allows for all four diagnostic stages: (1) listening/ observation, (2) initial assessment, (3) use of tools, tests, expert help, and (4) decision- 1 Diagnostic assessment is also known as pre-assessment (Mussawy 2009). 2 KWL Charts is an acronym of a graphical organizer designed to help students in the course of a lesson. The acronym stands for "what I already know", "what I want to know'' and "what I learnf. 36 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices making." Diagnostic assessment determines a student's current level when he or she enters a new school or "at specified times during the school term to help shape teaching strategies" (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005, 3). Teachers may employ diagnostic assessment to detect students' abilities and comprehension of language skills; listening, speaking, reading, writing, linguistics and grammar structures. In Nigeria, there are deficiencies in speaking the target language3 due to the structural differences between Nigerian and English. Consequently, most Nigerian learners of English have problems with the pronunciation of English words. Some notable pronunciation problems are found in the use of consonants, substitution, consonant cluster(s), initial and final consonants, vowels, vowel shortening and lengthening, spelling-pronunciation, and prosody (Bamisaye 2006). Explanations of linguistic concepts should be complemented with guiding questions that could improve students' thinking skills. This task is quite different from a situation where a teacher asks content questions to which the answers are easily located in a textbook or known (Intel Corporation 2014). The use of diagnostic assessment could help English language teachers discover grey areas and remediate where necessary and foster and strengthen further instruction, leading to better decisions about where and when to focus instructional time and exert effort in the classroom. 5 The Study 5.1 Aims of the Study The study aimed at examining English language teachers' perceptions of diagnostic assessment, their attitudes to and utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques, and factors influencing their knowledge of assessment practices. 5.2 Research Questions The following research questions were formulated to guide the study: 1. How do English language teachers perceive the purpose of diagnostic assessment? 2. What is the attitude of English language teachers towards the use of diagnostic assessment? 3. To what extent do English language teachers utilize diagnostic assessment techniques in the classroom? 4. What factor(s) mainly influence English language teachers' assessment practices? 5.3 Method This study adopted a descriptive research design using a survey. This was considered suitable because the purpose was to collect information on the existing situation and describe the phenomenon according to the reports of the respondents. E L □ P E English language, which is the target language, is the official language and second language of most Nigerians. MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 37 5.4 Participants Fifty respondents who were English language teachers in public senior secondary schools in the Ado-Ekiti Local Government Area of Ekiti State, Nigeria, participated in the study, which took place in 2018. The ages of the teachers who participated ranged from 25 to 50, while the ages of the senior secondary schools students they taught ranged from 14—16. Fifty-six percent of the participants were female, while forty-four percent were male. The respondents' years of work experience were in the range of 1—35 years. 5.5 Instrument and Procedure One research instrument was used for data collection. Sixty questionnaires were distributed in hard copies in senior secondary schools in Ado-Ekiti Metropolis, Nigeria, and 50 were completed and returned. Respondents were given adequate time to fill out the questionnaires. The questionnaire was titled "Questionnaire on Teachers' Perceptions and Utilization of Diagnostic Assessment in English Language Classrooms". This questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section A dealt with the demographic information of the respondents, that is, gender, age and years of work experience, while the items on section B were subdivided into groups A, B and C. Group A addressed teachers' perceptions of and attitude to diagnostic assessment in English language classrooms with 22 items. This part was measured using a four-point-Likert-type scale (Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Strongly Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). Group B focused on utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques in English language classrooms, with 10 classroom assessment activities. In this part, the respondents were asked to respond by ticking the types of activities they used for conducting diagnostic assessment in classrooms choosing 'never', 'rarely', 'sometimes' and 'always' as applicable. Group C focused on factor(s) that influenced English language teachers' knowledge of classroom assessment practices. This part was measured using a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Strongly Disagree (D) to Strongly Disagree (SD). 5.6 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument The face and content validity of the instrument was ascertained by experts in language, testing, measurement and evaluation. Thorough scrutiny of the instrument was carried out and the necessary corrections, suggestions and comments were made before the final draft was judged valid for the study. The reliability of the questionnaire on teachers' perceptions and utilization of diagnostic assessment in English language was ensured by administering this instrument to 20 English language teachers selected outside the sample of the study. The reliability of the instrument was estimated through a test-retest method using Pearson's Product Moment Correlation and a reliability coefficient of 0.81 was obtained. 6 Results The results are discussed in four sections according to the target research areas, as presented below. 38 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices E L □ P E 6.1 Teachers' Perceived Purpose of Diagnostic Assessment As shown in Table 1, 32 teachers (64%) perceived that the purpose of diagnostic assessment is to assign marks to students, while 37 (74%) stated that diagnostic assessment is about ranking of students at the end of each term. Thirty-six teachers (72%) supported the statement that the purpose of diagnostic assessment is to detect students' comprehension of the lesson at the end of the task, while 32 (64%) agreed that the purpose of diagnostic assessment is not to spot students' strengths. Thirty-eight (74%) claimed that diagnostic assessment establishes the exact nature of the specific learning difficulties at the end of the task, and 33 (66%) agreed that the purpose of diagnostic assessment is to marshal further instruction for remediation. Moreover, 34 (68%) and 39 teachers (78%), respectively, agreed that diagnostic assessment fosters students' engagement in learning and contributes immensely to the improvement of the learning and teaching practices. Table 1. Teachers' perceived purpose of diagnostic assessment N=50. S/N Items Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) Mean 1 Assign marks to students. 14 (28%) 18 (36%) 10 (20%) 8 (16%) 2.76 2 Rank students at the end of each term. 20 (40%) 17 (34%) 7 (14%) 6 (12%) 3.02 3 Detect students' comprehension of the lesson at the end of the task. 19 (38%) 17 (34%) 8 (16%) 6 (12%) 2.98 4 It is not to spot students' strengths. 15 (30%) 17 (34%) 10 (20%) 8 (16%) 2.78 5 Establish the exact nature of the specific learning difficulties at the end of the task. 21 (42%) 16 (32%) 8 (16%) 5 (10%) 3.06 6 Marshal further instruction for remediation. 15 (30%) 18 (36%) 9 (18%) 8 (16%) 2.80 7 Foster students' engagement in learning. 14 (28%) 20 (40%) 9 (18%) 7 (14%) 2.82 8 Contribute immensely to the improvement of the learning and teaching practices. 21 (42%) 18 (36%) 7 (14%) 4 (8%) 3.12 MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 39 6.2 Attitude of English Language Teachers towards Diagnostic Assessment In Table 2, the results show that 33 teachers (66%) considered diagnostic assessment as time consuming, 40 (80%) indicated that they do not plan in advance for assessment techniques to be used during the preparation phase of instruction, but they think of assessment after the end of the course, i.e. as a form of summative assessment. The results indicate that 40 teachers (80%) rarely used diagnostic assessment to evaluate students' prior knowledge. They also reveal that 28 (56%) and 33 teachers (66%), respectively, do not like asking questions before starting the lesson and claimed that diagnostic assessment makes their class boring. Similarly, 35 (70%) and 33 teachers (66%), respectively, claimed that diagnostic assessment would disrupt their lesson if utilized and considered it very tedious to administer promptly and regularly. The results further show that 41 teachers (82%) do not give diagnostic assessments because of the large class size, while 25 (50%) disagreed that diagnostic assessment demoralizes students. The results also indicate that 45 teachers (90%) affirmed that diagnostic assessment helps them in knowing their students' readiness, whereas 35 (70%) do not consider diagnostic assessment as important as formative and summative assessments. Moreover, 41 (82%) agreed that diagnostic assessment increases the workload of teachers. Thirty-three (66%) of the participants claimed that they do not conduct assessment before they begin a topic, while 33 (66%) affirmed that they do not conduct assessment at the beginning of each term. Table 2. Attitude of English language teachers towards diagnostic assessment N=50. S/N Items Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) Mean 1 Diagnostic assessment is time consuming. 18 (36%) 15 (30%) 10 (20%) 7 (14%) 2.88 2 I plan for assessment technique to be used after the end of the course. 22 (44%) 18 (36%) 5 (10%) 5 (10%) 3.14 3 I rarely use diagnostic assessment to evaluate students' prior knowledge. 21 (42%) 19 (38%) 6 (12%) 4 (8%) 3.14 4 I do not like asking questions before commencing the lesson. 13 (26%) 15 (30%) 10 (20%) 12 (24%) 2.58 5 Diagnostic assessment makes my class boring. 17 (34%) 16 (32%) 11 (22%) 6 (12%) 2.88 40 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices E L □ P E S/N Items Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) Mean 6 Diagnostic assessment would disrupt my lesson. 20 (40%) 15 (30%) 6 (12%) 9 (18%) 2.92 7 Diagnostic assessment is very tedious to administer promptly and regularly. 19 (38%) 14 (28%) 7 (14%) 10 (20%) 2.84 8 I do not give diagnostic assessment because of the large class size. 20 (40%) 21 (42%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 3.12 9 Diagnostic assessment might demoralize students. 12 (24%) 13 (26%) 12 (24%) 13 (26%) 2.48 10 Diagnostic assessment helps me in knowing my students' readiness. 22 (44%) 23 (46%) 2 (4%) 3 (6%) 3.28 11 Diagnostic assessment is not as important as formative and summative assessments. 20 (40%) 15 (30%) 6 (12%) 9 (18%) 2.92 12 Diagnostic assessment increases teachers' workload. 20 (40%) 21 (42%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 3.12 13 I do not conduct assessment before I begin a topic 17 (34%) 16 (32%) 11 (22%) 6 (12%) 2.88 14 I do not conduct assessment at the beginning of each term 18 (36%) 15 (30%) 10 (20%) 7 (14%) 2.88 6.3 English Teachers' Utilization of Diagnostic Assessment Techniques in the Classroom Table 3 shows that all 50 (100%) of the teachers do not use questionnaires for diagnostic assessment, while 40 (80%) use oral interviews for this purpose. The results also reveal that all 50 (100%) do not use misconception checks for diagnostic assessment in the classroom, but 37 (74%) use discussions. The results further reveal that all 50 (100%) and 48 (96%), respectively, never use checklists, portfolios or inventories as diagnostic assessment techniques. In contrast, 33 (66%) and 45 (90%) agreed that they use observation and questioning techniques, respectively, while 40 (80%) stated that they do not use written pre-tests for diagnostic assessment. Thus, the majority of the English language teachers who participated in the survey use oral interviews, discussions, observation and questioning for such assessments. MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 41 Table 3. English teachers' utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques in the classroom N=50. S/N Diagnostic assessment techniques Never Rarely Sometimes Always Mean 1 Questionnaires 50 (100%) - - - 1.0 2 Oral interviews 3 (6%) 7 (14%) 15 (30%) 25 (50%) 3.24 3 Misconception checks 50 (100%) - - - 1.0 4 Discussions 7 (14%) 6 (12%) 17 (34%) 20 (40%) 3.0 5 Checklists 50 (100%) - - - 1.0 6 Portfolios 46 (92%) 2 (4%) 1(2%) 1 (2%) 1.14 7 Inventories 45 (90%) 3 (6%) 2 (4%) - 1.14 8 Observation 2 (4%) 10 (20%) 20 (40%) 18 (36%) 3.08 9 Questioning - 5 (10%) 18 (36%) 27 (54%) 3.44 10 Written Pre-tests 30 (60%) 10 (20%) 5 (10%) 5 (10%) 1.70 6.4 Factors Influencing English Language Teachers' Classroom Assessment Practices Using the cut-off mean of 2.50, Table 4 reveals that schooling (M=3.14), professional coursework (M=3.12) and contextual factors (M=2.88) are the main factors influencing teachers' knowledge of classroom assessment practices, while personality (M=2.48) has the lowest mean. Table 4. Factors influencing English language teachers' classroom assessment practices N=50. S/N Factors influencing teachers' assessment practices Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) Mean 1 Schooling 22 (44%) 18 (36%) 5 (10%) 5 (10%) 3.14 2 Professional coursework 21 (42%) 18 (36%) 7 (14%) 4 (8%) 3.12 3 Contextual factors 17 (34%) 16 (32%) 11 (22%) 6 (12%) 2.88 4 Personality 12 (24%) 13 (26%) 12 (24%) 13 (26%) 2.48 42 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices E L □ P E 7 Discussion The present study reveals that some English language teachers in senior secondary school in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria, do not have sufficient knowledge of what diagnostic assessment entails nor the reasons for conducting it. Most of the respondents stated erroneously that diagnostic assessment is only meant to assign marks to students or rank them at the end of each term, and it is not meant to spot students' strengths. Although they are aware that diagnostic assessment establishes the exact nature of a student's specific learning difficulties, they felt that it should only take place at the end of the teaching task. However, diagnosing students' learning outcomes should not only be assessed at the end of the teaching task. The respondents affirmed that diagnostic assessment marshals further instructions for remediation, fosters students' engagement in learning and contributes immensely to the improvement of both learning and teaching practices. This is supported by Susuwele-Banda (2005), which found that classroom assessment is perceived by teachers as tests given at the end of a topic or at the end of a term, and teachers prefer to check up on students' mastery of the focal subject matter at the end of the term, and not necessarily to help students learn. It is vital to check if students have achieved the stated learning objectives at the end of the lesson, assessing them at end of the term might be too late to address students' learning problems. Nikolov (2016) in states that after carrying out tasks in the classroom learners could be questioned about the extent to which they like or dislike the tasks, how familiar they are with the tasks, and whether they find them easy or difficult. She notes that when teachers provide a forum for learners to participate in discussions after accomplishing tasks, this could help teachers "gain valuable insights into their learners' experiences, they may be able to tailor their teaching to the needs of the learners, and they may also develop their young language learners' self-assessment and autonomy' problems" (Nikolov 2016, 23). Pradhan (2014) explains that diagnostic assessment is the art of recognizing difficulties based on their symptoms, which if undiagnosed might limit students' engagement in new learning (Targema and Obadare-Akpata 2018). In Ounis (2017) it was shown that secondary school teachers who participated in the study were mostly interested in the accountability purpose of assessment, since it is mandatory that they assign, generate and record marks and grades to each pupil they teach. Ounis (2017) claimed that teachers' perceptions of assessment will build a basis and rationale for the type of assessment practice they employ while in the classroom. Regarding teachers' attitude towards the use of diagnostic assessment, it could be inferred that the English language teachers who participated in this study exhibited negative attitudes towards the use of diagnostic assessment. The majority of the respondents claimed that they rarely use diagnostic assessment to evaluate students' prior knowledge, because it is time consuming, makes their class boring and is very tedious to administer. A larger percentage of the respondents in the study affirmed that diagnostic assessment gave them clues with regard to students' readiness to learn, yet they also felt that it is time consuming, demoralizing, boring and increases their workload. Rarely did they use diagnostic assessment to assess students' prior knowledge, and they preferred summative assessment to other kinds. Most of the respondents revealed that they do not conduct assessment before they begin a topic or MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 43 at the beginning of each term. In the research carried out by Sethusha (2012), Ofodu and Owolewa (2018), Pereira and Flores (2016), it was found that teachers complained of some of the challenges affecting their classroom assessment practices. One of these is insufficient time, and the use of learner-centred assessment techniques would put more pressure on this. The results of this research are also in line with Treagust (2006, 1), who explains that the difficulty encountered with most effective assessment methods is that "they are very time consuming and rarely practical for busy classroom teachers to create". Another reason given by the participants in this study as responsible for their attitude towards diagnostic assessment is the large class size. The respondents revealed that diagnostic assessment could disrupt their lesson if utilized, and they considered it very tedious to administer due to the problem of large class size. In senior secondary schools in Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria, there are three classes, namely SSS1, SSS2, and SSS3, and each class consists of three arms.4 In some schools where they are understaffed, an English language teacher could teach several arms in a day. This situation is worrisome and might not give English language teachers the opportunity to accord appropriate attention to individual learners. Consequently, English language teachers might push aside diagnostic assessment. This is supported by Pereira and Flores (2016), who affirm that teachers resist the use of certain forms of assessment and participatory methods due to the number of students per class, lack of resources, and already heavy workload. Moreover, Targema and Obadare-Akpata (2018, 22) note some challenges facing "the use of diagnostic assessment for quality control in education", such as the problem of large class size, lack of a motivation mechanism for teachers and the dearth of enthusiastic and dedicated teachers. Walsh and Wyatt (2014) reported how the assessment technique utilized by one of the participants influenced her to such an extent that there was an observed lack of fit between practices and stated principles, and how contextual factors, such as an obsession with tests, could lead a teacher away from classroom practices. In the present study, most of the respondents stated that diagnostic assessment is not as important as formative and summative assessments. It is obvious that teachers' attitude towards the use of diagnostic assessment is rather negative. Due to their many obligations, teachers are more interested in teaching the contents of the syllabus and using summative assessment to find out if students have learnt these and to evaluate the students' performance. Some English language teachers prefer summative assessment because it is compulsory, seen as proof of students' performance, and also used for promoting a student to another class at a higher level. It is observed in other studies that most ESL teachers are accustomed to certain assessment methods, such as paper and pencil tests, avoiding other techniques (Chin 2001; Dandis 2013; Asale 2017). Although these classroom assessment strategies, such as questionnaires, checklists, portfolios, misconception/preconception checks, pre-tests and predict-observe-explain may be time-consuming, researchers have found that they are useful in identifying students' learning problems, depending on the teachers' ability to schedule their time for assessment appropriately. 4 'SSS' means senior secondary school, it is the level of education after primary education and before the tertiary stage (Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004); 'arms' means the subdivision of classes in senior secondary schools into different fields of studies (Science, Commercial and Humanities). 44 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices This study found that the majority of English language teachers in the survey track students' strengths and weaknesses via oral interviews, discussions, observation and questioning, while questionnaires, misconception checks, checklists, portfolios, inventory and written pre-test were not used. Similar results were observed in different subject areas, for example Asale (2017) confirms that teachers do not use the variety of assessment techniques available in teaching mathematics. Pereira and Flores (2016, 23) elaborate the conceptions and practices of assessment in higher education, stating that "written tests continue to be the most used method identified by the participants." This is also in agreement with the results of Ofodu and Owolewa (2018), who evaluated the linguistic and pedagogical skills of English language teachers in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. They find that most English language teachers made use of written examinations to measure learning capacity, while checklists are rarely used as an evaluation tool in English lessons. A large percentage of the respondents in the present study responded that schooling (personal experience during initial learning as a language learner), professional coursework (attending professional activities, in-service training about curricula, subject matter, instructional activities), contextual factors (teachers' classroom experiences and practices) influence their classroom assessment practices. In contrast, personality (attitudes, perspectives, conceptions and beliefs) was not reported to have influenced their classroom assessment practices. This falls in line with Fan (1999), who claims that teachers' own teaching experience and reflection, professional activities, in-service training, and experience as school students are the most important sources of teachers' cognition. This research was constrained by some factors such as time constraints, teachers' reluctance to participate and the lack of relevant research materials. The limited time available restricted the researcher from extending the area covered by the study to other parts of Ekiti State and even other regions of Nigeria. Moreover, some of the English language teachers who could have taken part in this study were reluctant to participate, and it took the researcher a lot of time to convince them that it was solely for research purpose and the questionnaires were confidential, not a way to find evidence of poor practices. Some of these teachers then agreed to participate, but a larger number remained disinterested as they considered the project as threat to their careers. This made the sample smaller and less representative, hence it is not possible to provide generalizations, but only hints at the broader picture. Furthermore, the research design was descriptive and non-experimental. To the best of the author's knowledge, while there are many researchers worldwide working on diagnostic assessment there are limited numbers of home-grown studies on this topic in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Those that are available defined diagnostic assessment and its importance to pedagogy without recourse to its use and application to teaching English as a Second Language. 8 Conclusion Classroom assessment in ESL is essential, as it determines when and how to deliver instructional remediation to learners through additional instruction. Besides, Erin (2009) asserts that diagnostic assessment could help teachers identify students for additional school services, including tests of cognitive functioning, behaviour, social competence, language E L □ P E MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 45 ability, and academic achievement. However, despite this, some Nigerian ESL teachers do not realize the importance of diagnostic assessment in ESL classrooms, because they believe that it is not as important as formative and summative assessment. Consequently, most of the Nigerian English language teachers who participated in this study do not administer diagnostic assessment in their classrooms, some have incorrect perceptions of the purpose of diagnostic assessment in English language classrooms, while some have a negative attitude to the use of such assessment. Training in diagnostic assessment is vital, as it enables teachers to diagnose the problems of the students and thus better understand the teaching and learning process. Trained teachers could diagnose students at the inception of a course of study, whenever students' entry behaviour is to be determined in order to assess their prior knowledge, language skills, preconceptions, and misconceptions, and to pinpoint learners' persistent learning difficulties in any aspect of the English language. This could afford the teacher the opportunity to discover in good time the various potentials and recurring problems that students are faced with, and as well adjust their teaching instructions to meet the learners' needs individually or collectively and offer better remedial instruction, as needed. Otherwise, if teachers avoid diagnostic assessment or postpone it to a later time it may have harmful effects on learners. In the long run, by the time teachers get acquainted with the students and discover their strengths and weaknesses it may already be too late too help them. The results of this study could be useful for English language teachers, students and curriculum designers. For teachers, this study may remind them of the importance and essence of diagnostic assessment in the English classroom. For students, it may help them overcome a fear of assessment. Finally, curriculum designers would be aware of English language teachers' perceptions of the purpose of diagnostic assessment and utilization of diagnostic assessment techniques. They can thus focus on teachers' perceptions of and attitude to the use of diagnostic assessment, and reiterate the essence of this important technique in pedagogy. References Adeosun, Oyenike, Soji Oni, and Bayo Oladipo. 2013. "Affective and Cognitive Characteristics of Nigerian Student-Teachers: Towards Developing an Effective Teacher Education Framework." Journal of International Cooperation in Education 15 (3): 39-58. http://doi.org/10.15027/34864. Alderson, J. Charles. 2005. Diagnosing Foreign Language Proficiency: The Interface Between Learning and Assessment. London: Continuum. Alderson, J. Charles, Tineke Brunfaut, and Luke Harding. 2014. "Towards a Theory of Diagnosis in Second and Foreign Language Assessment: Insights from Professional Practice across Diverse Fields." Applied Linguistics: 36 (2): 236-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt046. Al-Shehri, Khaloufa Dhafer. 2008. "Teachers' and Students' Attitudes Toward Formative Assessment and Feedback in Teaching English for Specific Purposes ESP." MA thesis, University of Glasgow. Asale, Temesgen Samuel. 2017. "Teachers' Perception and Practices towards Continuous Assessment of Mathematics Classes: The Case of Secondary School in Wolaita Zone, Southern Nations Nationalities Peoples Region."Journal of Education and Practice 8 (22): 84-109. https://www.iiste.org/Journals /index.php/JEP/article/view/38312/39386. Bamisaye, Toyin O. 2006. Oral English for ESL learners. First Edition. Lagos: Jones Publications. 46 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices Borg, Simon. 2003. "Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: A Review of Research on What Language Teachers Think, Know, Believe, and Do." Language Teaching 36 (2): 81-109. https://doi.org/10.1017 /S0261444803001903. —. 2009. "Introducing Language Teacher Cognition." Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds. http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/research/files/145.pdf. Chan, Kelly Shufen. 2015. "Teacher Cognition of Experienced Taiwanese University Teachers of English." PhD diss., University of Technology, Sydney. https//opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/34475/1 /01front.pdf. Chin, Christine. 2001. "Eliciting Students' Ideas and Understanding in Science: Diagnostic Assessment Strategies for Teachers." Teaching and Learning 21 (2): 72-85. Ciofalo, Joseph, and Caroline E. Wylie. 2006. "Using Diagnostic Classroom Assessment: One Question at a Time." Teachers College Record, January 10, 2006. Dandis, Maha Azmi. 2013. "The Assessment Methods that are Used in a Secondary Mathematics Class." Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers 4 (2): 133-43. DeLuca, Christopher, and Don A. Klinger. 2010. "Assessment Literacy Development: Identifying Gaps in Teacher Candidates' Learning." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 17 (4): 419-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643. Earl, Lorna M. 2003. Assessment As Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Erin, Caffrey D. 2009. Assessment in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Fakeye, David O. 2016. "Secondary School Teachers' and Students' Attitudes Towards Formative Assessment and Corrective Feedback in English Language in Ibadan Metropolis.'' Journal of Educational and Social Research 6 (2): 141-48. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n2p141. Fan, Lianghuo. 1999. "The Sources of Teachers' Knowledge of Instructional Materials.'' The Mathematics Educator 4 (2): 42-69. http://math.nie.edu.sg/ame/matheduc/tme/tmeV4_2/book4n2pg3.pdf. Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2004. National Policy on Education. Abuja: Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council Press. —. 2014. National Policy on Education. Abuja: Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council Press. Hill, Stacy Lee. 2014. "Teacher Cognition: Four Case Studies of Teachers in Low-SES Schools." PhD diss., Washington State University. https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/5197 /Hill_wsu_0251E_11186.pdf. Intel Corporation. 2014. "Assessment and Next Generation Science Standards." https://www.mtel .com/content/dam/www/program/education/us/en/documents/assessing-projects/common-core /Assessment-Science.pdf. International Reading Association. 2005. "Diagnostic Teaching for Primary Level Schooling. Program Overview: What is Diagnostic Teaching?" Jamalzadeh, Masoumeh, and Zahra Shahsavar. 2015. "The Effects of Contextual Factors on Teacher's Beliefs and Practices." Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences 192: 166-71. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.sbs pro.2015.06.024. Jang, Eunice Eunhee, and Maryam Wagner. 2013. "Diagnostic Feedback in the Classroom." In The Companion to Language Assessment, Volume II. Approaches and Development, edited by Antony John Kunnan, 693-711. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla081. Mathiesen Gilje, Trine. 2014. "Teacher Cognition and the Teaching of EFL Reading in Norwegian Upper Primary Classrooms." Acta Didactica Norge 8 (2): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.1141. Mussawy, Sayed Ahmad Javid. 2009. "Assessment Practices: Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Classroom Assessment." MA thesis, University of Massachusetts. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi /viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=cie_capstones. Nikolov, Marianne. 2016. "A Framework for Young EFL Learners' Diagnostic Assessment: 'Can Do Statements' and Task Types." In Assessing Young Learners of English: Global and Local Perspectives, edited by Marianne Nikolov, 65-92. New York: Springer. E L □ P E MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 47 Ofodu, Graceful Onovughe, and Olusegun O. Owolewa. 2017. "Evaluating the Linguistic and Pedagogical Skills of English Language Teachers in Multilingual Milieu." Research Journal of Education 4 (6): 87—91. Olagunju, Asimiyu Moyosore. 2015. "The Effect of Formative Assessment on Students' Achievement in Secondary School Mathematics." International Journal of Education and Research 3 (10): 481—90. http://www.ijern.com/journal/2015/October-2015/37.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005. "Formative Assessment: Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms." https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/35661078.pdf. Ounis, Tesnim. 2017. "Exploring Secondary Teachers' Perceptions of Classroom Assessment in a Tunisian Context." International Journal of Language and Linguistics 4 (2): 116—24. http://ijllnet.com/journals /Vol_4_ No_2_June_2017/15.pdf. Pereira, Diana R., and Maria Assunfáo Flores. 2016. "Conceptions and Practices of Assessment in Higher Education: A Study of Portuguese University Teachers." Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa 9 (1): 9-29. https://doi.org/10.15366/riee2016.9.1.001. Plake, Barbara S., and James C. Impara. 1997. "Teacher Assessment Literacy: What Do Teachers Know about Assessment?" In Handbook of Classroom Assessment: Learning, Achievement, and Adjustment, edited by Gary D. Phye, 53-58. San Diego: Academic Press. Pradhan, Bhabagrahi. 2014. "Diagnostic Evaluation and Remedial Instructions for BEd Students in English Language Teaching in Sekhawati Area of Rajasthan." http://hdl.handle.net/10603/183268. Price, Jon K., Elizabeth Pierson, and Daniel Light. 2011. "Using Classroom Assessment to Promote 21st Century Learning in Emerging Market Countries." Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011, March 28—April 1, 2011, Melbourne, Australia. Reed, Daniel. 2006. "Diagnostic Assessment in Language Teaching and Learning." Clear News 10 (2): 1-5. Sethusha, Mantsose Jane. 2012. "An Investigation of the Challenges Affecting Teachers' Classroom Assessment Practices." PhD diss., University of South Africa. Shim, George Tan Geok, Abang Mohammad Hudzaifah Abang Shakawi, and Farah Liyana Azizan. 2017. "Relationship between Students' Diagnostic Assessment and Achievement in a Pre-University Mathematics Course." Journal of Education and Learning 6 (4): 364-71. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel .v6n4p364. Siamak, Rahimi. 2014. "Teacher Cognition Vis-a -Vis Vocabulary Teaching." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4 (3): 652-60. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.652-660. Stevens, Joe. 2009. Washington State Diagnostic Assessment Guide. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Sun, Yuan, and Masayuki Suzuki. 2013. "Diagnostic Assessment for Improving Teaching Practice." International Journal of Information and Education Technology 3 (6): 607-10. https://doi.org/10.7763 /IJIET.2013.V3.345. Susuwele-Banda, William John. 2005. "Classroom Assessment in Malawi: Teachers' Perceptions and Practices in Mathematics." PhD diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Targema, Numbe Terwase, and Oluwatoyin C. Obadare-Akpata. 2018. "Diagnostic Assessment: A Tool for Quality Control in Education." Journal of Educational Research and Review 1 (1): 17-24. Treagust, David F. 2006. "Diagnostic Assessment in Science as a Means to Improving Teaching, Learning and Retention." In Proceedings of the Assessment in Science Teaching and Learning Symposium (2006), 1-9. Walsh, Rupert, and Mark Wyatt. 2014. "Contextual Factors, Methodological Principles and Teacher Cognition." Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 4 (3): 693-718. https://doi.org/10 .14746/ssllt.2014.4.4.6. Yunus, Melor, Hadi Salehi, and Mahdi Amini. 2016. "EFL Teachers' Cognition of Teaching English Pronunciation Techniques: A Mixed-Method Approach." English Language Teaching 9 (2): 21-42. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n2p20. Zhao, Zhongbao. 2013. "An Overview of Studies on Diagnostic Testing and its Implications for the Development of Diagnostic Speaking Test." International Journal of English Linguistics 3 (1): 41-45. 48 Folasade Esther Jimola, Graceful Onovughe Ofodu ESL Teachers and Diagnostic Assessment: Perceptions and Practices Polona Lilic 2019, w. 16 (2) 49-61(140) Lucija Primary School, Slovenia revije.ff.uni lj.si/elope https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.16.2.49-61 Silva Bratoz UDC: [811.111'243:37.091.3]:373.3 University of Primorska, Slovenia E L □ P E The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence ABSTRACT The main aim of this paper is to explore the effectiveness of using games in teaching English grammar to young learners. Today there is an overall agreement among researchers in foreign language teaching and language acquisition that grammar should be taught at all levels of instruction, including to young learners, bearing in mind that it should be considered in the context of meaningful communication. The paper first presents a review of the literature in the area of grammar teaching and using games for language teaching purposes. The second part presents the results of an experimental study aimed at testing the hypothesis that activities based on grammar games are a more efficient strategy for teaching grammar than more traditional ELT activities. The results of the experiment prove the efficacy of using grammar games in teaching grammar to young learners. Keywords: grammar teaching; young language learners; language learning games; communicative language teaching; form-focused instruction Učinkovitost rabe iger za razvijanje slovnične zmožnosti 1 *v*| v mlajših učencev POVZETEK Prispevek preučuje učinkovitost rabe iger pri poučevanju angleščine na razredni stopnji osnovne šole. Dandanes se avtorji na področju poučevanja in usvajanja tujih jezikov v glavnem strinjajo, da je slovnico smiselno poučevati na vseh ravneh, vključno z zgodnjim učenjem tujega jezika, vendar ob tem opozarjajo, da mora biti slovnica vedno obravnavana v kontekstu smiselne komunikacije. V prispevku najprej predstavljamo pregled literature poučevanja slovnice na področju tujega jezika in rabe iger za namene poučevanja jezika. Nadalje predstavljamo rezultate eksperimentalne raziskave, katere namen je bil preveriti hipotezo, da so dejavnosti, ki temeljijo na slovničnih igrah, učinkovitejše za poučevanje slovnice kot bolj tradicionalne dejavnosti na področju poučevanja angleščine kot tujega jezika. Rezultati eksperimenta dokazujejo učinkovitost rabe slovničnih iger pri učenju slovnice na zgodnji stopnji. Ključne besede: poučevanje slovnice; zgodnje učenje jezika; igre za učenje jezika; komunikacijsko poučevanje jezika; na obliko osredotočeno poučevanje MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 49 1 Introduction Teaching grammar has undoubtedly been one of the most controversial issues in the history of English language teaching, strongly influenced by different approaches which have dominated the area of foreign language teaching (FLT) in different periods. With the emergence of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the 1970s, grammar was first marginalised as the focus shifted from accuracy to fluency. Krashen's (1987) language acquisition theory rejected the explicit teaching of grammar on the grounds that language and grammar can be acquired subconsciously. However, the effectiveness of this theory was later questioned as reports of low writing proficiency and poor grammar came through. Two different ways of understanding the role of grammar developed in the process, the weak and the strong views (Nunan 2015). According to the strong view, learners will 'pick up' grammar subconsciously through communicative tasks, so there is no need to teach it explicitly. On the other hand, the weak view sees explicit grammar teaching as beneficial for language development. There is a general consensus among researchers today (Nunan 2015; Ellis 2006; Larsen-Freeman 2000; Cameron 2001) that there is a place for grammar in the foreign language curriculum, but that it should be considered in the context of meaningful communication and that learners need to be helped to link grammar items and structures with the communicative functions they perform in different contexts. Most authors in the area of teaching English to young learners (YL) (Cameron 2001; Pinter 2006; Brewster, Ellis, and Girard 2002) agree that grammar is an essential component of language learning and should be taught at all levels, including YL. However, since young learners are able to comprehend meaningful messages, but are unable to analyse the language as a system, it is clear that grammar learning should be mostly implicit rather than explicit. In addition, given the learners' cognitive level, grammar should be presented and used within a meaningful context, reflecting authentic uses of language. As Cameron (2001,122) notes, "a grammar-sensitive teacher will see the language patterns that occur in tasks, stories, songs, rhymes and classroom talk, and will have a range of techniques to bring these patterns to the children's notice, and to organise meaningful practice". In the past, games were often seen as entertaining, relaxing activities by teachers, rather than as effective tools for achieving specific aims in the foreign language classroom. With the advent of communicative language teaching, however, it became clear that games provide much more than merely enjoyment and fun for language learners. In the communicative classroom, games give learners the opportunity to use and develop language in a creative and communicative manner by providing them with meaningful context. Besides being motivating and fun, games provide students with plenty of opportunities for practising pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and the four language skills in an integrated way (Brewster, Ellis, and Girard 2002). The main aim of the present paper is thus to investigate the application of games in developing young learners' grammatical competence. 2 Approaches to Teaching Grammar The poor grammatical competence of language learners, which was noted in the early development of CLT as well as later evaluations of different immersion programmes, 50 Polona Lilic, Silva Bratoz The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence resulted in several attempts to reintegrate grammar into foreign language teaching (Cameron 2001; Ellis 2006). A variety of grammar teaching models have emerged aimed at making learners aware of form/function mappings or connections between grammatical forms and the meanings which they typically signal (Batstone and Ellis 2009). The central question addressed by these attempts is to what extent it is sensible to direct the learners' attention to form whilst retaining the focus on the need to communicate (Sheen 2002). This is clearly illustrated in the debate revolving around the distinction made between 'focus on form' and 'focus on formS' proposed by Long (1998). The first type, 'focus on form', is related to situations in which the learners' attention is directed to particular language elements which emerge incidentally in a task in which there is an overt focus on meaning or communication (Sheen 2002; Doughty and Varela 1998). Grammar is taught in a series of separate lessons, usually involving a single grammatical structure (Ellis 2006). The theoretical framework for this option is related to the identity hypothesis according to which there are a number of parallels between first and second language acquisition, which both depend on comprehensible input deriving from natural communication. However, since there are important differences in the exposure to L2 and L1, it is necessary to direct the learners' attention to grammatical forms to compensate for these. On the other hand, the 'focus on formS' option reflects the discrete-point approach to teaching grammar according to which a language is best learnt by accumulating separate language features, such as verb endings or noun suffixes, but also functions, such as greetings or apologies (Doughty and Varela 1998). This view is based on the belief that the process of learning a foreign language is essentially the same as learning any other skill, as it derives from a person's general cognitive processes (Sheen 2002). As Ellis (2006) points out, there has been considerable debate over which of the two options is most effective in developing implicit knowledge. Another problem is that the two terms are not used consistently in the ELT literature. While the differences between the two approaches might seem to be clear-cut at first sight, this is not the case (Sheen 2002, 304). One reason for confusion derives from the fact that the use of the terms 'form-focused instruction' or 'formal instruction' has led some authors to see the two terms as polar opposites, much like the difference between 'focus on form' and 'focus on communication' (Doughty and Varela 1998). As these two authors point out (1998, 4), "focus on form entails a focus on formal elements of language, whereas focus on formS is limited to such focus, and focus on meaning excludes it." On the other hand, several authors see focus on formS as useful and legitimate "provided that students are given chances to use the discrete forms they have studied in communication tasks" (Baleghizadeh and Mozaheb 2011, 365). The controversy over which type of instruction is more effective is not so simple to resolve. In laying out a list of ten key assumptions about grammar teaching, Ellis (2006, 102) first argues that "an incidental focus-on-form approach is of special value because it affords an opportunity for extensive treatment of grammatical problems (in contrast to the intensive treatment afforded by a focus-on-formS approach)", but later also contends that "grammar instruction should take the form of separate grammar lessons (a focus-on-formS approach) and should also be integrated into communicative activities (a focus-on-form approach)". In a YL context, the focus on formS option used for communicative purposes may be especially useful, due to the learners' limited language competence. E L □ P E MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 51 One type of instruction which entails focusing on form has been referred to as 'noticing', a concept introduced by Schmidt (1990). It refers to the process by which learners pick up the language they hear form different sources, known as 'input'. Input turns into 'intake' when learners pay conscious attention to specific features of the target language which are fed into the learning process. Noticing can be done in different ways, providing sufficient exposure and using a variety of noticing techniques to enhance the process of converting input into intake (Cross 2002; Richards and Burns 2012; Batstone 1996). In the YL classroom, noticing will necessarily take into account the cognitive level of learners, especially as regards the use of grammatical metalanguage. It is important here to make two distinctions: first between explicit and implicit knowledge and then between explicit knowledge as analysed knowledge and as metalinguistic explanation (Ellis 2006). The former differentiates between knowledge which is learnt by paying conscious attention to form and that which is acquired subconsciously and accessed easily in the process of communication. The latter refers to the distinction between a conscious awareness of how a grammatical feature works, and a metalinguistic explanation which entails knowledge of grammatical metalanguage and the ability to understand explanations of rules. While it is clear that explicit metalinguistic explanation is not a productive grammar teaching strategy in the YL classroom, explicit focus on grammar in terms of analysed knowledge may be a valuable teaching technique. This is further discussed in the following chapter which focuses on different aspects of teaching grammar to young learners. 3 Grammar and Young Learners There is a general agreement among authors in the field of teaching English to young learners (Cameron 2001; Brewster, Ellis, and Girard 2002; Pinter 2006) that it is possible to facilitate the natural acquisition of grammar through instruction. Pinter (2006) argues that it is natural for children to make grammatical mistakes in the early stages of language acquisition, not only in learning a foreign language, but also in acquiring the first language. In fact, some mistakes are universal and not the result of negative transfer from L1. The teacher therefore needs to attend to language form in different ways to help learners to internalise and automatize grammatical patterns so they can be retrieved efficiently in communication. Cameron (2001, 105—6) illustrates the difference between explicit and implicit grammar teaching from the YL perspective through two opposing metaphors: the "building block" and the "organic" metaphor. The building block metaphor implies the introduction ofgrammar rules one-by-one as discrete blocks of knowledge, often using metalinguistic labels to describe the rule and following the sequence from 'easy' to 'difficult'. The building block sequence is clearly not appropriate for younger children whose ability to think about language in abstract, formal ways is still limited. The author proposes using a more organic metaphor with YLs for the growth of internal grammar, one that does not see grammar learning as "the piling up of discrete blocks of knowledge, but that captures the idea of non-linear and interconnected growth: grammar grows like a plant, perhaps, watered by meaningful language use, and pushing out new shoots while older stems are strengthened" (2001, 106). However, this does not mean that it is not useful or sensible to teach young language learners grammatical patterns explicitly as analysed language 52 Polona Lilic, Silva Bratoz The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence (cf. Ellis 2006 above). On the contrary, Cameron (2001) suggests occasionally applying explicit grammar instruction with children — as a "fertiliser at certain key points in the growing season". We would like to argue that this is a valuable metaphor in trying to calibrate and balance the introduction of different aspects of language in FL teaching. Brewster, Ellis, and Girard (2002) further point out that by failing to attend to language form and, more generally, accuracy, learners will have difficulties participating in activities which focus on purposeful communication. As noted above, one way of supporting learners in this is to make them notice the grammatical patterns of the foreign language and help them make these patterns part of their internal grammar. Batstone (1994) suggests a useful sequencing of grammar learning activities which consists of three stages. The first one is "noticing" or "(re)noticing" and involves the learners becoming aware of the grammar patterns and connecting form and meaning. At the second stage, which is referred to as "(re)structuring", learners manipulate the forms and meaning through a series of controlled activities. In the last stage, or "proceduralising", learners use the language patterns by formulating their own meanings for communicative purposes. The three stages are especially valuable as they allow for a combination of both accuracy and fluency. A number of guided noticing activities may be used with young language learners, and some activities may be designed in such a way as to make the noticing more likely to occur, such as tasks which can only be completed by focusing on a particular grammar feature (Cameron 2001). Kersten and Rohde (2013) caution that different grammar teaching strategies should not override the principle of meaningful communication and the role of a stimulating learning environment. A grammar lesson can be contextualised and made meaningful in various ways which the children can identify with. For example, stories and storytelling can be used as efficient meaningful context for teaching the use of articles (Puhner and Dagarin Fojkar 2018; Dagarin Fojkar, Skela, and Kovac 2013). The teacher can use audio or visual materials, realia and props, storytelling, problem solving, giving examples, showing grammar usage, playing games, etc. It is also important to consider that young learners are good observers. In order to make sense of what they hear or see, they make use of contextual clues, such as movement, intonation, gestures, actions and messages (Arikan 2009). E L □ P E 4 Games as Language Teaching Tools Hadfield (1998, 4) defined a game as "an activity with rules, a goal, and an element of fun", and also made a distinction between linguistic and communicative games. The former are focused on linguistic accuracy and usually result in the production of a correct grammatical feature, while the latter are fluency-focused as they have a non-linguistic aim which may or may not involve language production. To exploit the full potential of games for language development, teachers need to be aware of what language learning or other educational gains they provide (Brewster, Ellis, and Girard 2002). There are several reasons why games are considered an effective teaching tool in language teaching. One of the most salient advantages of using games is the fact that they provide a meaningful context in which the language is embedded. The most important characteristic of this context is that, at least as long as the game lasts, for its participants the game becomes MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 53 an alternative and thus 'authentic' reality (Lewis and Bedson 1999). As such, it provides a platform for learner-learner interaction, the language used in the game is "a tool for the children to reach a goal which is not directly language related" (Lewis and Bedson 1999, 5). In addition, games are also effective language scaffolds as they commonly contain some kind of repetition, and since they are governed by rules they provide a frame which is to a certain extent predictable. The language of games is full of typical communicative patterns or chunks, such as 'my turn', 'give it to me' or 'I win' which are quickly learnt and enable the participant "easy access to social interaction on the playground" (Girard and Sionis 2004, 49). Another advantage of using games in the classroom is that learners become active participants in the learning process. They are encouraged to play an active role and are thus given a chance to direct their own learning (Crookall and Oxford 1990 in Yolageldili and Arikan 2011), in a similar way as an active role in choosing their reading materials encourages learners to read more (Pirih 2015). This also affects the learners' motivation to learn a language. Students become naturally absorbed in trying to win the game and as a result they become more motivated and willing to learn (Deesri 2002; Yolageldili and Arikan 2011). In addition, the competitive or co-operative context encourages learners to pay attention and think intensively during the learning process, which enhances unconscious language acquisition (Chen 2005). There are also several benefits which are more closely related to learning language patterns. First of all, games promote the memorisation of chunks of language, including useful pronunciation practice. In games, language patterns and chunks are usually "memorised through constant repetition in the form of 'hidden' or 'disguised' drills" (Brewster, Ellis, and Girard 2002, 175). Besides repetition, games also encourage more creative uses of language as learners negotiate, collaborate or compete in the informal context of the game (Brewster, Ellis, and Girard 2002). Finally, learners are not exposed to the pressure of foreign language performance when playing a game. They thus become anxious to take an active part in the game and win rather than use the language correctly. Since learners are not afraid to be corrected or criticised for incorrect language use, they are more willing to use the language freely. Therefore, games play an important role in reducing foreign language anxiety and enhancing positive feelings towards foreign language learning (Chen 2005; Ibrahim 2017). In an action research aimed at exploring the effectiveness of learning vocabulary through games in the classroom, Huyen and Nga (2003) reported more efficient language learning and better retention of the learning material in a stress-free and comfortable environment. 5 Study 5.1 Statement of Problem Copland, Garton and Burns (2014) identified grammar as one of the most important challenges in teaching English to young learners today, in addition to teaching speaking, motivation, differentiating learning, teaching large classes, discipline, and teaching writing. The overall objective of the present paper is, therefore, to explore different ways of enhancing the effectiveness of grammar teaching in the young learners' classroom by analysing the application of games in developing young learners' grammatical competence. 54 Polona Lilic, Silva Bratoz The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence Despite the overall consensus among researchers and teaching practitioners that games are useful teaching tools in learning English grammar in EFL classes, there are few studies which reveal the actual effects of games on developing grammatical competence. In addition, in a small-scale study aimed at identifying teachers' attitudes towards using games in teaching an FL, Yolageldili and Arikan (2011) concluded that while teachers see the pedagogical value of using games in their YL classrooms, they do not use them as frequently as we might expect. The main aim of the present study is to promote the use of games for developing grammatical competence in the YL classroom by investigating the effectiveness of using grammar games with young learners aged 10/11. To this end, an experiment was carried out in two primary schools in Slovenia. 5.2 Participants As can be seen from Table 1, the sample (n=85) consisted of four groups of fifth graders (two experimental and two control groups) from two primary schools in Slovenia, an experimental and a control group at each school. All the students had the same amount of exposure to English language courses at school; it was their second year of formal English language learning. Table 1. Sample of participants. E L □ P E Experimental group Control group School 1 21 19 School 2 23 22 Total 44 41 5.3 Procedure At the beginning of the experiment, the participants were pre-tested using an adapted version of The English Unlimited Placement Test (Cambridge University Press 2010) to determine the differences in English language proficiency between the experimental and control groups. A week after the placement test was administered, a lesson was carried out in the four groups aimed at developing grammatical competence with a focus on the use of present continuous for actions in progress at the moment of speaking. The learners in the control group received instruction which was mostly teacher-centred, the teacher modelled the language using gestures and body language, examples of language use were presented on the whiteboard with pictures and PP slides, with learners copying the sentences into their notebooks. Controlled practice was based on teacher-class interaction and question-answer drills, followed by an activity in which the learners described a picture using the present continuous. At the end of the lesson, the participants completed a worksheet with the language point being practiced. The experimental group received instruction which was mostly learner-centred and contained activities based on grammar games, which was the main aspect tested in the experiment. The lesson started with a miming activity in which learners had to guess what their school friends were doing. The second activity was based on a strategy board game similar to the board game snakes and ladders. In this game, learners in groups of four rolled the die and moved across the board. When they landed on a square with an animal, they had to answer the question MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 55 put forward by the player next in line about what the animal was doing. The third activity was a card game for pairs in which learners had to match the animals with respective actions, and the last activity was a memory game which required learners to match pictures with the descriptions of the actions shown in them. Following the lessons, the learners were administered a post-test which consisted of 15 items at the starter and elementary levels. Eight of the items referred to the correct use of the present continuous. 5.4 Results The quantitative data were analysed using the SPSS software package and values were recorded as means (M) and standard deviations (SD). An independent-samples t-test was carried out to compare the test scores for the experimental and control groups. Homogeneity of variance was assumed using the non-parametric Levene's test. The standard of sig.<0.05 was used in order to depict the statistical significance throughout the study. Learners were first administered a pre-test which contained 15 items on two levels — starter and elementary. The results of the t-test showed that the differences in the average amount of points gained by the experimental and control groups for individual items in the test were not statistically significant (sig.>0.05). In fact, the two groups gained exactly the same amount of points in several items. In addition, we calculated the coefficient of difficulty for each item in the test so that the pre-test and post-test results could be compared. After the intervention in the form of lessons, a post-test was administered. The number of items and scoring procedure of the post-test were the same as the pre-test. As can be seen from Table 2, the items were divided into two levels of difficulty, which differed in the number of points given. Table 2. Items according to the level of difficulty. Level Items No. of points Starter level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14 1 1 Elementary level 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 2 2 Table 3 provides descriptive statistics for the experimental group 1 (ExG1) and control group 1 (CoG1) for items in the placement test which test the correct use of the present continuous (Items 5, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15). The values presented are the number of learners in the group (N), the coefficient of difficulty for each item (Item Diff.), the mean value of the number of points gained (M), standard deviation (SD), and finally the Levene's test and t-test results. Table 3. Post-test results of the present continuous items (ExG1 and CoG1). Item Groups N Item M SD Levene's test T-test Diff. F P t df sig. 5 CoG1 19 0.526 0.53 0.513 79.561 0.000 -3.356 23.802 0.003 ExG1 21 0.952 0.95 0.218 56 Polona Lilic, Silva Bratoz The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence E L □ P E Item Groups N Item Diff. M SD Levene's test T-test F P t df sig. 6 CoG1 19 0.579 0.58 0.507 8.969 0.005 -1.582 34.318 0.123 ExG1 21 0.809 0.81 0.402 8 CoG1 19 0.789 0.79 0.419 4.328 0.044 -0.991 32.373 0.329 ExG1 21 0.905 0.90 0.301 10 CoG1 19 0.421 0.84 1.015 8.969 0.005 -2.665 34.318 0.012 ExG1 21 0.809 1.62 0.805 12 CoG1 19 0.684 1.37 0.955 14.678 0.000 -1.727 29.787 0.095 ExG1 21 0.905 1.81 0.602 13 CoG1 19 0.368 0.74 0.991 6.038 0.019 -3.071 34.749 0.004 ExG1 21 0.809 1.62 0.805 14 CoG1 19 0.316 0.32 0.478 7.109 0.011 -4.021 33.258 0.000 ExG1 21 0.857 0.86 0.359 15 CoG1 19 0.368 0.74 0.991 2.950 0.094 -2.670 38 0.011 ExG1 21 0.762 1.52 0.873 As we can see from Table 3, the first experimental group scored significantly higher than the first control group in all items which required the participants to choose the correct use of the present continuous. The greatest differences between the two groups can be noted in items 5, 10, 13, 14 and 15, where the differences are also statistically significant (sig.<0.05). These results are also reflected in the item difficulty (Item Diff.), which shows the proportion of students (p value) who answered an item correctly. In this case, larger p values indicate that the students found the items easier, while smaller p values mean the items were more difficult for them. As can be seen from Table 3, the participants in the experimental group found the items in the test less difficult than the learners in the control group as the coefficient of difficulty is higher in each item of the experimental group, with the greatest differences in items 5, 10, 14 and 15. Table 4. Post-test results of other items (ExG1 and CoG1). Item Group N Item Diff. M SD Levene's test t-test F P t df sig. 1 COG1 19 0.421 0.42 0.507 8.969 0.005 -2.665 34.318 0.012 EXG1 21 0.809 0.81 0.402 2 COG1 19 0.947 0.95 0.229 4.970 0.032 -1.000 18.000 0.331 EXG1 21 1.000 1.00 0.000 3 COG1 19 0.947 0.95 0.229 4.970 0.032 -1.000 18.000 0.331 EXG1 21 1.000 1.00 0.000 MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 57 Item Group N Item Diff. M SD Levene's test t-test F P t df sig. 4 COG1 19 0.947 0.95 0.229 1.028 0.317 0.500 38 0.620 EXG1 21 0.905 0.90 0.301 7 COG1 19 0.526 0.37 0.496 0.025 0.874 -1.594 38 0.119 EXG1 21 0.667 0.62 0.498 9 COG1 19 0.579 1.16 1.015 5.080 0.030 -1.217 35.752 0.232 EXG1 21 0.762 1.52 0.873 11 COG1 19 0.684 0.68 0.478 0.162 0.690 -0.202 38 0.841 EXG1 21 0.714 0.71 0.463 Table 4 presents the results of the post-test for items other than the ones testing the present continuous form. As we can see, the differences between the experimental and control groups are considerably smaller compared to those in Table 3. While the experimental group performed better than the control group in the majority of items (the exception is item 4, where the control group scored 0.95 points and the experimental 0.90 points on average), in general there is a very small difference between the two groups, and a statistical difference between the two groups was identified only for item 1. This is also reflected in the smaller differences between the two groups in the level of difficulty of the items, which are less pronounced than the differences related to the items in Table 3. Table 5. Post-test results of the present continuous items (ExG2 and CoG2). Item Group N Item Diff. M SD Levene's test t-test F P t df sig. 5 COG2 22 0.636 0.64 0.492 14.925 0.000 -1.834 37.427 0.075 EXG2 23 0.869 0.87 0.344 6 COG2 22 0.409 0.41 0.503 19.890 0.000 -3.567 36.948 0.001 EXG2 23 0.869 0.87 0.344 8 COG2 22 0.818 0.82 0.395 10.465 0.002 -1.460 31.558 0.154 EXG2 23 0.956 0.96 0.209 10 COG2 22 0.318 0.64 0.953 5.099 0.029 -3.911 40.495 0.000 EXG2 23 0.826 1.65 0. — 5 12 COG2 22 0.727 1.45 0.912 12.742 0.001 -1.626 35.207 0.113 EXG2 23 0.913 1.83 0.576 13 COG2 22 0.500 1.00 1.024 25.314 0.001 -2.829 36.579 0.008 EXG2 23 0.869 1.74 0.689 14 COG2 22 0.591 0.59 0.503 35.845 0.000 -2.620 33.124 0.013 EXG2 23 0.913 0.91 0.288 15 COG2 22 0.409 0.82 1.006 19.890 0.000 -3.567 36.948 0.001 EXG2 23 0.869 1.65 0.689 As can be seen from Table 5, similar to the results of the first experimental and control groups, the second experimental group also scored considerably higher than the second control group in all items which tested the correct use of the present continuous. The greatest differences 58 Polona Lilic, Silva Bratoz The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence between the two groups can be noted in items 6, 10, 13, 14 and 15, where the differences are also statistically significant (sig.<0.05). Table 5 shows that participants in the experimental group found the items in the test less difficult than the learners in the control group, as the coefficient of difficulty (Item Diff.) is higher in each item of the experimental group, with the greatest differences in items 13 and 15. Table 6. Post-test results of other items (ExG2 and CoG2). E L □ P E Item Group N Item Diff. M SD Levene's test t-test F P t df sig. 1 COG2 22 0.818 0.82 0.395 1.604 0.212 0.626 43 0.535 EXG2 23 0.739 0.74 0.449 2 COG2 22 0.864 0.86 0.351 0.013 0.910 -0.057 43 0.955 EXG2 23 0.869 0.87 0.344 3 COG2 22 0.591 0.59 0.503 11.763 0.001 -1.751 39.462 0.088 EXG2 23 0.826 0.83 0.388 4 COG2 22 0.818 0.82 0.395 3.619 0.064 -0.924 43 0.361 EXG2 23 0.913 0.91 0.288 7 COG2 22 0.545 0.55 0.510 0.066 0.799 -0.130 43 0.897 EXG2 23 0.565 0.57 0.507 9 COG2 22 0.818 1.64 0.790 0.343 0.561 0.292 43 0.772 EXG2 23 0.783 1.57 0.843 11 COG2 22 0.682 0.73 0.456 5.552 0.023 1.727 42.802 0.091 EXG2 23 0.478 0.48 0.511 Table 6 presents the results of the post-test in items other than the ones testing the present continuous form. As we can see, the differences between the experimental and control groups are considerably smaller compared to those in Table 5. The experimental group performed better than the control group on items 1 (mean score 0.82 compared to 0.74), 9 (1.64 compared to 1.57) and 11 (0.73 compared to 0.48), which is also reflected in the item level of difficulty. The coefficient of difficulty of these items is higher for the control group, which means that the participants found these items in the test easier. The score differences between the two groups are marginal for items 2, 4 and 7, and none of them is statistically significant (sig. > 0.05). 6 Discussion and Conclusion This empirical study was aimed at exploring the effectiveness of using grammar games for developing grammar competence in a young learners' classroom. The results of the experiment presented above indicate that the use of grammar games is indeed an efficient teaching strategy for language development. Both experimental groups performed better than the control groups in all the items which contained the grammatical feature tested, and the differences were statistically significant for the majority of items. These results indicate that there are clear benefits in using games for language teaching purposes. This is in line with the conclusions drawn from the literature review which emphasise that games are not MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 59 only time-fillers, motivating and fun, but can also be used for effective language practice, as argued by Brewster, Ellis, and Girard (2002). Games are learner-centred, create a meaningful context for language use, promote communicative competence and the learning of language skills in an integrated way. Furthermore, they enhance the learners' participatory attitudes and reduce language learning anxiety, thus motivating even shy learners to take part and use the language. Finally, games cater to young learners' needs and help teachers contextualize language instruction. What are the implications of the results of this study for teaching grammar to young learners? As noted above, few issues have provoked more passionate and heated debates in foreign language teaching than grammar. There is a general consensus among researchers today that while grammar should be taught as a component of communicative competence, there are also clear benefits in using a more direct focus on language forms. This can be done in a variety of ways, considering the learners' needs and preferences. Today, the question is no longer whether grammar should or should not be taught, but rather how to teach it considering the learners' age, level and needs. As argued by Lewis and Bedson (1999), the use of games gives young learners plenty of opportunities for internalising grammatical patterns and vocabulary in a way which is natural and meaningful for them. References Arikan, Arda. 2009. "Environmental Peace Education in Foreign Language Learners' English Grammar Lessons." Journal of Peace Education 6 (1): 87- 99. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400200802655064. Baleghizadeh, Sasan, and Mohammad Amin Mozaheb. 2011. "A Profile of an Effective EFL Grammar Teacher." Journal of Language Teaching & Research 2 (2): 364-69. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.2.364 -369. Batstone, Rob. 1994. Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 1996. "Key Concepts in ELT: Noticing." ELT Journal 50 (3): 273. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50 .3.273. Batstone, Rob, and Rod Ellis. 2009. "Principled Grammar Teaching." System 37 (2): 194-204. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.system.2008.09.006. Brewster, Jean, Gail Ellis, and Denis Girard. 2002. The Primary English Teachers' Guide. Harlow: Penguin. Cameron, Lynne. 2001. Teaching Languages to Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Chen, Jung I. 2005. "Using Games to Promote Communicative Skills in Language Learning." The Internet TESL Journal 11 (2): 1-4. Copland, Fiona, Sue Garton, and Anne Burns. 2014. "Challenges in Teaching English to Young Learners: Global Perspectives and Local Realities." TESOL Quarterly 48 (4): 738-62. https://doi.org/10.1002 /tesq.148. Crookall, David, and Rebecca Oxford, eds. 1990. Simulation, Gaming, and Language Learning. New York: Newbury House. Cross, Jeremy. 2002. "Noticing in SLA: Is it a Valid Concept?" TESL-EJ 6 (3). http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej23 /a2.html Dagarin Fojkar, Mateja, Janez Skela, and Polonca Kovac. 2013. "A Study of the Use of Narratives in Teaching English as a Foreign Language to Young Learners." English Language Teaching 6 (6): 21-28. https://doi.org/21-28. 10.5539/elt.v6n6p21. Deesri, Angkana. 2002. "Games in the ESL and EFL Class." The Internet TESL Journal 8 (9): 1-5. Doughty, Catherine, and Elisabeth Varela. 1998. "Communicative Focus on Form." In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams, 114-38. New York: Cambridge University Press. 60 Polona Lilic, Silva Bratoz The Effectiveness of Using Games for Developing Young Learners' Grammar Competence E . » E Ellis, Rod. 2006. "Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective." TESOL Quarterly 40 (1): 83-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512. Girard, Marie, and Sionis Claude. 2004. "The Functions of Formulaic Speech in the L2 Class." Pragmatics 14 (1): 31-53. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.14.L01gir. Hadfield, Jill. 1998. Elementary Vocabulary Games. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Huyen, Nguyen Thi Thanh, and Khuat Thi Thu Nga. 2003. "Learning Vocabulary Through Games." Asian EFL Journal 5 (4): 90-105. Ibrahim, Abdelrazig. 2017. "Advantages of Using Language Games in Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Sudan Basic Schools." American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences 37 (1): 140-50. Kersten, Kristin, and Andreas Rohde. 2013. "Teaching English to Young Learners. Language Acquisition and Use in Multilingual Contexts." In Language Acquisition and Use in Multilingual Contexts, edited by Anna Flyman Mattsson and Catrin Norrby, 107-22. Lund: Lund University. Krashen, Stephen. 1987. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall. Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2000. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lewis, Gordon, and Gunther Bedson.1999. Games for Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, Michael H. 1998. "Focus on Form Theory, Research, and Practice." In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by Michael H. Long and Peter Robinson, 15-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, David. 2015. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Pinter, Annamaria. 2006. Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pirih, Anja. 2015. "Who Says They Don't Read? Slovene Elementary School Students' Reading Motivation in EFL." Journal of Elementary Education 8 (1-2): 113-32. Puhner, Natasa, and Mateja Dagarin Fojkar. 2018. "Developing EFL Writing with Year 5 Pupils by Writing Summaries." ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries 15 (2): 97-113. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.15.2.97-113. Richards, Jack. C., and Anne Burns, eds. 2012. The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and Practice in Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, Richard W. 1990. "The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning." Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 129-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1L2.129. Sheen, Ron. 2002. "'Focus on Form' and 'Focus on Forms.'" ELT Journal 56 (3): 303-5. https://doi.org/10 .1093/elt/56.3.303. Yolageldili, Gulin, and Arda Arikan. 2011. "Effectiveness of Using Games in Teaching Grammar to Young Learners." Elementary Education Online 10 (1): 219-29. MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 61 Piotr Romanowski 2019' Vo1- 16 (2), 63-76(140) tt • cm d i j revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope University or Warsaw, Poland ' ' r https://doi.Org/10.4312/e1ope.l6.2.63-76 UDC: 81'246.2:373.5(438) E L □ P E A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System ABSTRACT This paper aims to present a comparative study of the existing curricular Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) models as used by teachers in Polish lower- and upper-secondary schools in the system of education which ended in 2017 when the New Education Reform was implemented. The article reveals the details pertaining to general language education in Poland and bilingual classrooms focusing on CLIL. The main goal is to analyse which languages are most frequently employed in bilingual education as the medium of instruction, the school subjects whose content is imparted through the medium of a foreign language as well as the four major curricular models developed and implemented for the needs of bilingual provision in Poland. Keywords: bilingualism; bilingual education; CLIL; language teaching; secondary schools Primerjalna študija oblik CLIL-a v poljskem izobraževalnem sistemu POVZETEK Prispevek predstavlja primerjalno študijo obstoječih učnih modelov pristopa CLIL, ki so jih uporabljali poljski učitelji v nižjih in višjih srednješolskih sistemih pred Novo izobraževalno reformo leta 2017. Avtor se v članku osredotoči na splošno tujejezikovno izobraževanje na Poljskem in na dvojezične šole, ki uporabljajo pristop CLIL. Glavni cilj prispevka je ugotoviti, kateri jeziki se najpogosteje uporabljajo v dvojezičnih programih kot učni jeziki in kateri predmeti se poučujejo v tujem jeziku, ter opisati štiri vodilne kurikularne modele, ki so se razvili za potrebe dvojezičnega pouka na Poljskem. Ključne besede: dvojezičnost; dvojezično izobraževanje; CLIL; učenje jezikov; srednje šole MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 63 1 Language Education in Poland Poland's transition to democracy led to the end of the Communist system in 1989. The transformations that occurred after 1989 triggered not only socio-economic changes, but also laid the foundations for changes in education in Poland. The present study is based on the system of education which was initiated with the Education Reform of 1999. Its main assumptions resulted from, among others, the Act of 8 January 1999. The aim of this parliamentary act was to implement changes to improve the overall level of Polish education. A comprehensive primary school cycle of six years was introduced, to be followed by a lower-secondary school of three years and three- or four-year secondary schools (general upper-secondary or technical schools). The New Reform enacted by the Government in 2017 redrew the existing school system adjusted to other EU member states by implementing radical changes and re-establishing the two-tier education system that had existed prior to 1999. This reform was implemented at the beginning of the 2017/2018 school year, and it aimed to reinvigorate vocational schooling. The key element of the "old-new" two-level system was eliminating three-year lower-secondary schools and extending the primary school cycle by two years to eight in total, and the secondary school cycle by one year to four and five years. Within both the new structure (after 2017) and old one (1999—2017) English has always been one of the most popular foreign languages taught in Poland. This might be surprising, as due to historical influences the languages that were traditionally popular in Poland were Russian and German. However, after 1989, when Poland became a democratic country, and especially after 2004, when it joined the European Union, the Polish education system started to favour English as the main foreign language (Gorowska-Fells 2012). 2 Bilingual Education in Poland While bilingual education in Poland is not a new phenomenon, it should be noted that no uniform methodology has been implemented successfully yet. The reasons are twofold. First of all, as observed by Baetens-Beardsmore (1993), educational traditions in a particular country determine whether certain subjects are to be taught by the medium of a foreign language. Secondly, these are the prevailing linguistic needs that dictate the most desirable provision. As rightly posited by Wolff and Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2010) and Romanowski (2018b), approaches to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) vary in specific EU states as a result of administrative decisions taken by governments. Depending on the educational context while implementing CLIL, such factors as the choice of content subjects, the proportion of CLIL and non-CLIL classes, the recruitment process, or the type of school in which CLIL is introduced, are considered (Czura and Papaja 2013). The first CLIL-related pedagogies were introduced in Poland as far back as the 1970s, when selected content subjects were taught through the medium of a foreign language for the whole duration of a lesson in a secondary school in Gdynia (Zielonka 2007; Papaja 2014). The language initially used was English. At the time this form of instruction was regarded as elitist, and in some environments it still is. Nowadays, a vast number of schools offer CLIL instruction using English, German, French, Spanish and Italian as the languages of 64 Piotr Romanowski A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System instruction. Recently, there has also been an attempt to introduce Russian-medium class sections, although these proved very unpopular, and thus the project was dropped. It must be underlined that CLIL provision in Polish schooling is labelled as bilingual education (Dzi^gielewska 2008). Special sections are established in primary and secondary schools where learners undergo instruction in a selected foreign language as well as in their mother tongue. The instruction is usually limited to two, three or four subjects, most commonly maths, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, and history of art. 3 Theoretical Underpinnings of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a commonly applied term describing the approaches when the teaching of content subjects is realized through the medium of a foreign language (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010). Wolff (2003, 11) assumes that foreign languages are best learnt by focusing not so much on the language itself but on the transmitted content taken from school subjects, e.g. mathematics, geography, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. As such, from the very beginning CLIL referred to the promotion of innovative methods and, in particular, to the teaching of classes in a foreign language for disciplines other than languages, providing bilingual teaching. As indicated by Perez Cañado (2016), high hopes have been pinned on the potential of CLIL as a lever for change and success in the linguistic arena. The CLIL methodological approach seeking to foster the integrated learning of languages and other areas of curricular content has been a fast-developing phenomenon in Europe. At the European level, interest is growing in the approach which, according to Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2014), brings many benefits to students. Complementing the national profiles reported in the Eurydice survey, numerous teacher-based publications provide insights into how CLIL is being realized in more than 20 European countries (Maljers, Marsh, and Wolff 2007; Marsh and Wolff 2007; Dalton-Puffer 2011; Pérez Cañado 2014; Merino and Lasagabaster 2015). One important fact, common to all these studies, is the predominance of the English language. Over the past two decades an increasing body of research has demonstrated that CLIL can enhance multilingualism and provide opportunities for deepening learners' knowledge and skills. CLIL has been found to be additive (one language supporting the other) and not subtractive (one language working against the other). It involves a process which is generally curriculum-driven with the language curriculum arising from the content curriculum (Gierlinger 2017). Following the same line of reasoning, it should be noted that CLIL has been very explicit about delineating that Learning involves the Integration of both Content and Language, i.e. learning of any content must involve the learning of the language associated with it (Romanowski 2018a). At the level of schooling, successful education in either a first or additional language requires from the learners to be equipped with the language for thinking about the content. When learning through CLIL, where an additional language is used, language-supportive resources, methods and activities are actively and coherently used to enable learners to make use of language purposefully. This support acts as a form of scaffolding helping learners to effectively E L □ P E MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 65 process information, negotiate understanding, and co-construct knowledge (Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols 2014; Anderson 2009; Dalton-Puffer 2017; Ruiz de Zarobe 2017). Considering the fact that English has become, on the one hand, the language of science and academic research and, on the other, an obligatory subject in all schools, the most logical decision would be to combine the two conditions so that a learner could take advantage of them simultaneously (Romanowski 2016a). This is the core of CLIL, also labelled as a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content and language, with the objective of promoting both content and language mastery to pre-defined levels (Marsh et al. 2010). It is essential to highlight that the additional language is not supposed to be the only medium of instruction, and thus it should be used interchangeably with the mother tongue. Its frequency of use will largely depend on the level of proficiency among teachers and students, as well as the complexity of the issues being discussed. That is why integrating language and non-language content has been referred to as the hallmark of all forms of bilingual education (Genesee 1987; Cenoz and Genesee 1998: 35-67; Lo and Macaro 2015). All the approaches implemented in bilingual education in Polish schools originated from CLIL methodology. Four main types of instruction or curricular models are to be distinguished in schools (Marsh, Zaj^c, and Gozdawa-Gol^biowska 2008; Romanowski 2016a). The distinctive feature lies in the amount of target language used versus the application of the mother tongue. In Extensive Language Medium Instruction (A), lessons are mainly conducted in a foreign language. The mother tongue is restricted to situations where translation of terminology is required, or short recapitulation of the main points is needed. This model is used to achieve the syllabus aims as well as to develop learners' language competence to a very high level. In Partial Language Medium Instruction (B), lessons are conducted in both Polish and a foreign language and the two languages are used interchangeably. About 50% of lesson time is devoted to each language. The predominant aim is to achieve course objectives, and less attention is paid to linguistic competence. The logic behind this model is that this will achieve the expected content learning outcomes while developing and using a very high degree of competence in the target language. Limited Language Medium Instruction (C) offers lessons with limited use of a foreign language, with between 10% and 50% of lesson time being devoted to it. Teaching the course content is the primary objective, while linguistic knowledge is expanded chiefly through the study of new lexis, in order to achieve the expected content learning outcomes alongside the limited use of the target language. Last but not least, when a foreign language is used only on particular occasions we opt for Specific Language Medium Instruction (D). With this, very little time is devoted to the foreign language, which is used to achieve particular aims (e.g. a lesson is conducted in Polish, but it is based on texts in the target language or project work where the results are presented in the target language, however most of the content studied earlier is available in Polish). This model is complementary as it focuses on the course objectives and the secondary aim involves the use and development of foreign language competence. The major objective is to complement courses taught in Polish and fulfil the expected content learning outcomes by providing opportunities for specific forms of the foreign language usage and development (Romanowski 2018b). 66 Piotr Romanowski A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System E L □ P E 4 The Scale of Bilingual Education in Polish Lower- and Upper-Secondary Schools In a report published by the Centre for Education Development in Warsaw, Pawlak (2015) indicates that there are 180 lower-secondary schools in Poland with bilingual instruction educating almost 19,500 students. In comparison, it is noteworthy that the number of upper-secondary schools with bilingual instruction in Poland is around half as many — only 94 institutions with over 9,400 students. Table 1. Schools with bilingual education. Provinces Number of schools Number of students Lower-secondary Upper-secondary Lower-secondary Upper-secondary Mazovian 45 25 4,851 2,660 Silesian 29 13 2,942 1,621 Lower Silesian 21 6 2,066 503 Greater Poland 16 8 2,026 894 Lodzkie 13 6 1,085 478 Opole 10 7 827 235 Lublin 8 2 754 252 Kuyavian-Pomeranian 8 4 691 435 Pomeranian 7 10 752 1,077 Subcarpathian 6 1 518 13 Western Pomeranian 5 5 1,208 448 Lesser Poland 4 3 434 499 Lubusz 3 1 475 43 Podlasie 3 2 313 119 Warmian-Masurian 2 1 441 126 Swi^tokrzyskie 0 0 0 0 Total 180 94 19,383 9,403 Bilingual instruction at lower- and upper-secondary levels takes place in all the Polish provinces except for one, namely Swiçtokrzyskie. The highest number of schools and students has been found in bigger cities, such as: Warsaw, Krakow, Katowice, Gdansk, Poznan, Lodz and Wroclaw. The most popular language used as a medium of instruction is English, present in 65% of the reported schools. German, performing the same role in 52 schools, seems to be the second most popular language if we consider the number of institutions; however, if MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 67 our criterion changes to the number of students, it appears that French, with almost 4,000 students is the second leading foreign language offered in both types of schools. Spanish is less popular, and utilized in around 10% of the schools with bilingual instruction. Italian and Russian are rare, as they are present in only five and four schools respectively, with the former being slightly more popular. The geographical distribution of bilingual sections according to languages is also interesting. English is present in all the provinces whereas German is particularly popular in the western part of Poland (Western Pomerania, Lubusz, Lower Silesian, Silesian and Opole Provinces). In contrast, the instruction in Spanish and French is offered only in the biggest cities (Warsaw, Krakow, Poznan, Wroclaw, Lodz). With the least popular languages, the following conclusion can be drawn: the less popular a language is, the more likely it is that it will be taught only in the provinces with the highest populations (Warsaw, Poznan, Krakow). Table 2. Languages as the medium of instruction. Languages of instruction Number of schools Number of students Lower-secondary schools Upper-secondary schools Lower-secondary schools Upper-secondary schools English 134 56 12,789 5,144 German 30 22 2,289 1,307 French 23 12 2,655 1,278 Spanish 18 15 1,431 1,511 Italian 3 2 191 115 Russian 2 2 28 48 Total 210 (180) 109 19,383 9,403 Analysing the data presented in both tables, we can see that in Mazovian Province there are 70 schools educating over 6,500 students, whereas in Greater Poland there are only 24 schools educating almost 3,000, and hence the number of schools is not necessarily in proportion to the number of students. On top of that, it needs to be emphasized that the density of schools in a particular province does not determine the total number of students involved in bilingual provision. As indicated earlier, there are schools which offer bilingual education in all the sections, however there are those institutions that decide specifically how many sections to launch each year where this type of provision will be available. In addition, there are schools where bilingual instruction is possible in one language only, in contrast to those institutions where two or three languages are used in parallel. There thus exists a discrepancy in the total number of lower-secondary schools (see Table 2). 5 The Study The present study was conducted between September 2016 and March 2017. It is part of an ongoing research project devoted to bilingual programmes at the (lower- and upper-) 68 Piotr Romanowski A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System E secondary level of education in Poland. The intention was to focus on the teachers of content (non-linguistic) subjects involved in the teaching in bilingual classrooms and seek answers to the following questions: 1. How many subjects are taught in parallel? Do the numbers differ depending on the type of school (lower- or upper-secondary)? 2. Which subjects are taught through the medium of a foreign language? Do they vary depending on the type of school (lower- or upper-secondary)? 3. Which languages are used in lower- and upper-secondary schools as the medium of instruction? 4. Which curricular models are used by teachers of lower- and upper-secondary schools? Altogether 203 teachers from 101 schools agreed to provide their responses to the outlined problems. There were 145 teachers from 62 lower-secondary schools and 58 teachers from 39 upper-secondary schools who participated in the survey. Table 3. Participating teachers by each type of school. Number of participating teachers N = 203 Number of teachers / lower-secondary schools % Number of teachers / upper-secondary schools % 145 58 English 76 52.5 27 46.5 German 46 31.8 14 24.1 French 13 8.9 9 15.5 Spanish 10 6.8 7 12.2 Italian 0 0 1 1.7 Russian 0 0 0 0 5.1 The Frequency of Occurrence of Particular School Subjects in CLIL Provision The choice and number of taught subjects varies from country to country, and in most EU states it does not exceed two or three subjects (Iluk 2000; Dzi^gielewska 2002; Romanowski 2016b). In Poland, however, up to four subjects are offered concurrently. In addition, exact sciences, such as mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology, are the most frequent choices in lower-secondary schools, whereas it is physics, chemistry and biology in the case of upper-secondary education. They are regarded as difficult courses in comparison to the humanities, such as geography, philosophy, or history, where instruction is also provided in a foreign language. Depending on the availability of qualified teachers, the intensity and language MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 69 exposure may vary. In exceptional situations one subject in lower-secondary schools and two subjects in upper-secondary schools are taught every year, and hence the available subjects change from one year to another. Figure 1. Intensity of CLIL provision. On the basis of the conducted study, the following findings were collected. Out of 62 surveyed lower-secondary schools, there were 22 where one subject was taught every year, 17 schools where the instruction in a foreign language was offered in two subjects, 15 schools with three subjects and eight schools with four or more subjects provided concurrently. With regard to the 39 upper-secondary schools, the following data was collected: 18 schools with one subject, 14 schools with two subjects, five schools with three subjects and three schools with four subjects. Seven content subjects are investigated in the present study. The results are presented as two circles: the inner circle represents the results for lower-secondary schools, whereas the outer circle shows those for upper-secondary schools. In addition, it seems that the most widely instructed content in lower secondary schools comes from maths, physics, geography, chemistry, history of art and philosophy. Biology is not represented in this type of schooling. On the other hand, the structure slightly differs for upper-secondary schools. While maths and physics still prevail, chemistry is the third most popular subject, in contrast to the findings for lower-secondary schools, Biology is also taught through the medium of a foreign language in upper-secondary schools. Geography and philosophy are the least represented, while history of art is not taught at all. i Maths ■ Physics ■ Geography ■ Chemistry ■ Biology ■ History of Art ■ Philosophy 70 Figure 2. Popularity of subjects taught by each type of school. Piotr Romanowski A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System 5.2 The Languages as Medium of Instruction As indicated earlier, the most popular language of instruction is English, and the results of the study seem to confirm this trend. The dominance and ubiquity of English as the language of instruction in bilingual teaching has been widely observed in Poland. There is no denying the importance of English as a common means of communication across the world, or its strength as the first foreign language of choice for most non-Anglophone countries in Europe and outside. Hence, most of the students involved in bilingual programmes in Polish lower-and upper-secondary schools are exposed to English, because they undoubtedly perceive its superiority over other foreign languages (Romanowski 2016b). English is the language used in bilingual provision in 54 out of 62 lower-secondary schools and 31 out of 39 upper-secondary schools. German is obviously the second most popular language, at 26 of the lower-secondary and 10 of the upper-secondary schools surveyed. French is present in 13 lower-secondary schools, and Spanish in only 10 of them. The balance is different in the case of upper-secondary schools, where Spanish is present in nine schools whereas French in only seven of them. Italian is used in only one upper-secondary school, whereas instruction is not offered in this language at the level of lower-secondary education. Russian is not used at any of the school examined in this study. The results demonstrate that in the 101 schools where the study was conducted two or three languages were offered as the medium of instruction at the same time. E L □ P E Figure 3: Languages as medium of instruction by each type of school. 5.3 Curricular Models as Applied by the Surveyed Teachers To understand the complex phenomenon of CLIL provision in Polish secondary schools, it seems essential to analyse the ubiquity of the four curricular models as applied by the teachers involved in the present study. This will also shed some light on the teachers' linguistic competence and their familiarity with the methodology used. As seen in the results outlined below, there is a certain discrepancy between the teachers' overall competence and familiarity with the methodology when comparing the findings in both types of schools, lower- and upper-secondary. First of all, in Model A, referred to as Extensive Language Medium Instruction, on average 90% of the lesson time is devoted to studying in a foreign language. The mother tongue is limited to MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 71 those moments where translation of terminology is necessary or short recapitulation of the main points is needed. Hence, according to the collected data, Model A is the most frequently used one. Altogether 87 teachers of lower-secondary schools and 44 teachers of upper-secondary schools admitted using it. The majority of teachers using Model A instruct in English — 50 in lower-secondary schools and 21 in upper-secondary schools — which represents 34.9% of all the surveyed teachers and 54.2% of all the English teachers participating in the study. For German there are 28 teachers of lower-secondary schools and 10 teachers of upper-secondary schools using Model A, which constitutes 18.8% of all the questioned teachers and 63.3% of all the teachers of German. With French the tendency is similar, as five teachers of lower-secondary schools and seven teachers of upper-secondary schools stated that they used this model. This accounts for 5.9% of all the teachers and 54.5% of all the surveyed teachers of French. Out of 10 lower-secondary school teachers of Spanish and seven upper-secondary school teachers, four and five respectively answered that they devoted 90% of their lesson time to Spanish, accounting for 4% of all the surveyed teachers and 52.9% of all the teachers of Spanish. In this study Italian was present in only one school, where the surveyed teacher claimed to be applying Model A (less than 0.5% of all the teachers and 100% of all the teachers of Italian). Model B, Partial Language Medium Instruction, allows for about 50% of lesson time to be devoted to a foreign language, and thus two languages mingle whenever necessary. In the study 28 teachers of lower-secondary schools and 10 teachers of upper-secondary schools claimed to have used the model successfully. As far as English as the medium of instruction is concerned, 14 teachers of lower-secondary schools and three teachers of upper-secondary stated that they used it, which accounts for 8.3% of all the surveyed teachers and 16.5% of all the teachers of English. There are altogether 13 teachers of German (10 teachers in lower-secondary and three teachers in upper-secondary schools) using Model B. This comes to 6.4% of all the surveyed teachers and 21.7% of all the teachers of German. For French, only two teachers in lower-secondary and another two in upper-secondary schools said they used Model B in their lessons (1.9% of all the surveyed teachers and 18.2% of all the teachers of French). Much the same situation is observed in the case of Spanish, with two teachers in lower-secondary and two teachers in upper-secondary schools, accounting for 1.9% of all the surveyed teachers and 23.5% of all the teachers of Spanish. 60 50 40 30 ■ English 20 10 ■ German ■ French ■ Spanish ■ Italian ■ Russian 0 A B C D Figure 4: Curricular models as distributed by language in lower-secondary schools. 72 Piotr Romanowski A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System Limited Language Medium Instruction (Model C) offers lessons with restricted use of a foreign language, for only between 10% and 50% of the lesson time. Eighteen teachers out of those surveyed in lower-secondary schools and only four in upper-secondary schools stated that they used this particular model in their everyday teaching. With regard to Model C, English is represented by nine teachers in lower-secondary schools and three teachers in upper-secondary schools. This accounts for 5.9% of all the surveyed teachers and 11.6% of all the teachers of English. Only five teachers of German apply Model C (four in lower-secondary and one in upper-secondary schools) — this signifies 2.4% of all the participating teachers and 8.3% of all the teachers of German. As for French, it must be noted that Model C is present only in lower-secondary schools, where four teachers stated that it was used in everyday teaching (this accounts for 1.9% of all the surveyed teachers and 18.2% of all the teachers of French). With regard to Spanish a similar trend can be observed, as Model C is not used in upper-secondary schools at all and only one teacher in lower-secondary schools claimed to be using it (0.5% of all the questioned teachers and 5.9% of all the teachers of Spanish). Last but not least, it is Model D — Specific Language Medium Instruction — where little time is offered to students in the selected foreign language. Its use is limited to project work, while most of the content is studied in Polish. This model does not seem to be popular. According to the answers made by the teachers from upper-secondary schools, it is not used at all there. Hence, the presented numbers will only refer to the findings from lower-secondary schools. Only three teachers of English said that they used it (1.5% of all the teachers and 3% of all the teachers of English), along with four teachers of German (almost 2% of all the teachers and 6.7% of all the teachers of German). In the case of French, only two teachers used Model D (less than 1% of all the teachers and 9.1% of all the teachers of French), while only three teachers of Spanish applied it (1.5% of all the teachers and 17.7% of all the teachers of Spanish). 25 20 15 10 English German French Spanish Italian Russian Figure 5: Curricular models as distributed by language in upper-secondary schools. The noted earlier, CLIL curricular models affect the development of students' linguistic competence in the target language. Models A and B, where exposure to L2 is high, increase the students' competence. In other cases, where the focus of the lesson is on the content and the language serves as a tool for instruction (Models C and D), the development of language E L □ P E 5 0 A B C D MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 73 skills will be much slower (Romanowski 2018b). The results to be achieved, depending on the assumed objectives as well as a teacher's qualifications for teaching in bilingual classrooms, vary accordingly. In Poland, in order to be eligible for teaching in CLIL classes, teachers are required to have obtained double qualifications: in both a content subject and a certificate of proficiency in a foreign language (Regulation of the Ministry of National Education 2017). Following this line of reasoning it might be assumed that the choice of curricular model is contingent upon the level of competence a teacher has. Those teachers who are less proficient in a foreign language — the one employed as the language of instruction — are more likely to focus on the content itself as they might have majored from a programme reflecting the taught subjects, i.e. biology, geography, maths, etc. In contrast, teachers who have obtained full qualifications in a foreign language will move the balance towards developing learners' language competence to a very high level (Romanowski 2018b). It should also be noted that based on the results of the survey, more than a half of the teachers (131 teachers out of 203) said they used Model A, which would signify their high competence in a foreign language. In addition, the teachers in upper-secondary schools seem to have developed greater linguistic preparation for conducting lessons in a foreign language, as they mainly stick to Models A and B. The study also reveals one more interesting finding, which is that the teachers of English most often use Model A. This is because there are more possibilities in terms of the preparation, courses and seminars that are available for teachers of this particular language, along with the wider availability of course books, guidebooks and supplementary materials. 6 Conclusion Bilingual teaching in secondary schools became a necessity in Poland a long time ago, and the majority of schools have realized this type of provision through CLIL, which is also the most common type of methodology that had been adopted successfully in most EU countries. The subjects offered in bilingual provision do not differ much from those in other countries, i.e. Germany and Spain, which can be regarded as pioneers of CLIL (Papaja 2014; Romanowski 2018b). The results of the study clearly indicate that there is still much to be worked on and improved. The need to unify the curricula and the amount of exposure in a foreign language employed as a medium of instruction would seem the most urgent issues to be resolved. As English is the most commonly used language of instruction prevailing in all secondary education and reaching far beyond it, it would be reasonable and natural to promote German and French in this context, as they are regarded as the procedural languages of the European Commission. The learning of Spanish and Italian, which, as revealed by the study, there is a growing demand for, will hopefully raise the interest of Europeans in mastering lesser known languages and introduce them to system of education in the future. In addition, European citizens need competences in more than one foreign language, so bilingual education may be the only solution for the multilingual EU of the future. As such, we need to pursue the further development of plurilingual competence in bilingual programmes, as envisaged in the Council of Europe documents (Romanowski 2016a). 74 Piotr Romanowski A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System Finally, yet importantly, the classroom procedures and strategies employed by the majority of in-service teachers require further elaboration and investigation. The qualifications of those working in bilingual classrooms need to be verified against the existing regulations. Polish teachers involved in bilingual teaching require subsequent training, without which effective teaching will not be possible. Obviously, we can benefit enormously from the experiences of other countries. In the first step, the aim(s) of bilingual education through CLIL should be rigorously defined. It is of the utmost importance to be clear about the expected outcomes of CLIL provision for the Polish students. As a second step it could be possible to point out which non-linguistic disciplines seem to be particularly appropriate for this type of instruction. Every content subject (geography, biology, chemistry, etc.) may give their own contribution to the bilingual aim, even if not every topic is adequate for it. E L □ P E References Anderson, Jim. 2009. "Relevance of CLIL in Developing Pedagogies for Minority Language Teaching." In CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field, edited by David Marsh, 124—32. CCN University of Jyvaskyla. Baetens-Beardsmore, Hugo. 1993. European Models of Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, Jasone, and Fred Genesee. 1998. Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Coyle, Do, Phillip Hood, and David Marsh. 2010. CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Czura, Anna, and Katarzyna Papaja. 2013. "Curricular Models of CLIL Education in Poland." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16 (3): 321—33. https://doi.org/10.1080 /13670050.2013.777388. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2011. "Content and Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principle?" Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31 (1): 182-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092. —. 2017. "Postscriptum: Research Pathways in CLIL/Immersion Instructional Practices and Teacher Development." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21 (3): 384-87. Dzi^gielewska, Zuzanna. 2002. "Problematyka nauczania j^zyka i przedmiotow niej^zykowych w klasach dwuj^zycznych — licea z j^zykiem francuskim." [Problematizing Teaching Language and Non-Language Subjects in Bilingual Classrooms — Secondary Schools with French.] Jfzyki Obce w Szkole 6: 79—82. —, ed. 2008. Nauczanie dwujgzyczne w Polsce i Europie. [Bilingual Education in Poland and Europe.] CODN: Warszawa. Genesee, Fred. 1987. Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gierlinger, Erwin Maria. 2017. "Teaching CLIL? Yes, but with a Pinch of SALT." Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 5 (2): 187—213. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.2.02gie. Gorowska-Fells, Magdalena. 2012. "Kluczowe dane o nauczaniu j^zykow obcych w Europie." [Key Data on Teaching Foreign Languages in Europe.] Jfzyki Obce w Szkole 4: 51—56. Iluk, Jan. 2000. Nauczanie bilingwalne: modele, koncepcje, zalozenia metodyczne. [Bilingual Education: Models, Concepts and Methodological Assumptions.] Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Sl^skiego. Lo, Yuen Yi, and Ernesto Macaro. 2015. "Getting Used to Content and Language Integrated Learning: What Can Classroom Interaction Reveal?" The Language Learning Journal43 (3): 239—55. https://doi .org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281. Merino, Jon Ander, and David Lasagabaster. 2015. "CLIL as a Way to Multilingualism." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21 (1): 79—92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050 .2015.1128386. Maljers, Anne, David Marsh, and Dieter Wolff, eds. 2007. Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight. European Platform for Dutch Education. MM1 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TEACHING 75 Marsh, David, and Dieter Wolff, eds. 2007. Diverse Contexts — Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Marsh, David, Marek Zaj^c, and Hanna Gozdawa-Gol^biowska. 2008. Profile Report Bilingual Education (English) in Poland. Overview of Practice in Selected Schools. CODN: British Council Poland and University of Jyväskylä. Marsh, David, Peter Mehisto, Dieter Wolff, and Maria Jesus Frigols-Martin. 2010. The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML). Mehisto, Peter, David Marsh, and Maria Jesus Frigols. 2014. Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan Education. Papaja, Katarzyna. 2014. Focus on CLIL. A Qualitative Evaluation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Secondary Education. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Pawlak, Miroslaw. 2015. Edukacja dwujgzyczna wpolskich szkotach. Raport ewaluacyjny." [Bilingual Education in Polish Schools. An Evaluation Report.] Warszawa: Osrodek Rozwoju Edukacji. Pérez Cañado, Maria Luisa. 2014. "Teacher Training Needs for Bilingual Education: In-service Teacher Perceptions." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 30 (3): 266—95. https://doi .org/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778. —. 2016. "Are Teachers Ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European Study." European Journal of Teacher Education 39 (2): 202-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104. Regulation of the Ministry of National Education. 2017. Journal of Laws 2017.1575, August 24, 2017. Romanowski, Piotr. 2016a. "Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy Of Bilingual Education in Secondary Schools in Poland." Bilingual Landscape of the Contemporary World, edited by Sambor Grucza, Magdalena Olpinska-Szkielko and Piotr Romanowski, 173-88. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. —. 2016b. "A Statistical Analysis of the State of Foreign Language Learning in the EU." Lingwistyka Stosowana/ AppliedLinguistics/Angewandte Linguistik 17 (2): 67-79. https://doi.org/10.32612/uw .20804814.2016.2.pp.67-79. —. 2018a. "CLIL's Role in Facilitating Intercultural Learning." Applied Linguistics Papers 25 (2): 71-87. https://doi.org/10.32612/uw.25449354.2018.2.pp.71-87. —. 2018b. "CLIL Models in Polish Lower-secondary Schools. "Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 4: 592-605. Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda, ed. 2017. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Language Policy and Pedagogical Practice. London: Routledge. Wolff, Dieter. 2003. "Content and Language Integrated Learning: A Framework for the Development of Learner Autonomy." In Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom: Teacher, Learner, Curriculum and Assessment, edited by David Little, Jennifer Ridley and Emma Ushioda, 211-22. Dublin: Authentik. Wolff, Dieter, and Agnieszka Otwinowska-Kasztelanic. 2010. "CLIL - przelomowe podejscie w edukacji europejskiej." [CLIL - A Breakthrough Approach in European Education.] Jfzyki Obce w Szkole 6: 7-13. Zielonka, Bronislawa 2007. "CLIL in Poland." In Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight, edited by Anne Maljers, David Marsh and Dieter Wolff, 147-53. European Platform for Dutch Education. 76 Piotr Romanowski A Comparative Study of CLIL Trajectories in the Polish Education System Lisjeta Thaqi Jashari, Mateja Dagarin Fojkar University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 2019, Vol. 16 (2), 77-90(140) revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope https://doi.Org/10.4312/elope.l6.2.77-90 UDC: [811.111'243:37.091.3]:808.1 Teachers' Perceptions of Developing Writing Skills in the EFL Classroom ABSTRACT Despite the fact that English is taught as a foreign language in schools from an early age, students often face difficulties when it comes to the development of their writing skills. This paper aims at exploring teachers' perceptions regarding the development of the writing skills of elementary and secondary school EFL learners. Altogether, 85 Kosovar teachers were included in the survey. Even though the teachers believe that writing is important, they do not give the same emphasis to developing it as to other skills. According to their responses, some common difficulties learners experience while writing are a lack of vocabulary, writing anxiety, lack of ideas, mother tongue interference, grammar difficulties, weak structure organization and poor spelling. The teachers suggest that these difficulties might stem from a lack of reading and writing practice, ineffective teaching methods and low motivation for writing. We recommend various actions, such as teacher development courses to help them acquire more effective strategies of teaching writing, increased writing practice in the classroom, and the use of different learning strategies to meet all students' needs. Keywords: teachers' perceptions; writing skills; EFL students; learning strategies C. 1