Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-9v52d Total loading time: 0.429 Render date: 2021-10-26T13:17:13.970Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Kathleen Graves
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA gravesk@umich.edu
Sue Garton
Affiliation:
Aston University, Birmingham, UK s.garton@aston.ac.uk

Abstract

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

  • the view of language and language acquisition underlying the approach

  • how learners’ needs are construed

  • the nature of the content and materials

  • the teacher's role

  • the context

  • how language is assessed

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

Type
State-of-the-Art Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamson, B. & Tong Siu Yin, A. (2008). Leadership and collaboration in implementing curriculum change in Hong Kong Secondary Schools. Asia Pacific Education Review 9.2, 180189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, K. (2011). Learning to teach under curriculum reform: The practicum experience in South Korea. In Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. (eds.), Research on second language teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge, 239253.Google Scholar
Aiello, J., Di Martino, E. & Di Sabato, B. (2017). Preparing teachers in Italy for CLIL: Reflections on assessment, language proficiency and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20.1, 6983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 659663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, N. L., Hamid, M. O. & Moni, K. (2011). English in primary education in Malaysia: Policies, outcomes and stakeholders' lived experiences. Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 147166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. (2008). A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: The role of cultural awareness. RELC Journal 39.1, 131146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldauf, R. B., Kaplan, R. B., Kamwangamalu, N. & Bryant, P. (2011). Success or failure of primary second/foreign language programmes in Asia: What do the data tell us? Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 309323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, D., Gray, J. & Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breidbach, S. & Viebrock, B. (2012). CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal 1.4, 516.Google Scholar
Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-12 classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles (3rd edn.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google ScholarPubMed
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39.4, 523532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why. . . and why not. System 41.3, 587597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 3657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M. (1983) From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (eds.), (2013) Language and communication. London: Routledge, 228.Google Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1.1, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics 35.3, 243262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, A. (2011). Parents' perspectives on the effects of the primary EFL education policy in Taiwan. Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 205224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, F. (2013). Genres and genre theory: A response to Michael Rosen. Changing English 20.1, 1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, U. (2013). A sense of place: Variation, linguistic hegemony and the teaching of literacy in English. English Teaching 12.2, 5875.Google Scholar
Copland, F., Garton, S. & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly 48.4, 738762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2010) Forward. In Y. R. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), vii–viii.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Holmes, B. & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum–CLIL national statement and guidelines. London: The Languages Company.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In Street, B. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, (2nd edn.), Volume 2: Literacy. New York: Springer, 7183.Google Scholar
Custance, B. (2006). Whole-school genre maps: A case study in South Australia. In Whittaker, R., O'Donnell, M. & McCabe, A. (eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches. London: Continuum, 144158.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 182204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F. & Nikula, T. (2014). ‘You can stand under my umbrella’: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A Response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics 35.2, 213218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching 46.4, 545559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dare, B. & Polias, J. (2004). Language & literacy: Classroom applications of functional grammar. South Australia: Department of Education and Children's Services.Google Scholar
Davison, C. & Leung, C. (2009). Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment. TESOL Quarterly 43.3, 393415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and issues in genre-based approaches. RELC Journal 34.2, 133154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derewianka, B. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian Curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35.1, 127146.Google Scholar
Dix, S., Cawkwell, G. & Locke, T. (2011). New Zealand's literacy strategy: A lengthening tail and wagging dogs. In Goodwyn, A. & Fuller, C. (eds.), The great literacy debate. London: Routledge, 87105.Google Scholar
Edge, J. & Garton, S. (2009). From experience to knowledge in ELT. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enever, J. & Moon, J. (2009). New global contexts for teaching Primary ELT: Change and challenge. In Enever, J., Moon, J. & Raman, U. (eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education, 521.Google Scholar
Fan, C. (2014). The effectiveness of genre-based pedagogy in developing students’ academic literacy in Hong Kong EMI secondary schools. MA Thesis, University of Hong Kong. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/209663.Google Scholar
Fenwick, L. (2010). Initiating and sustaining learning about literacy and language across the curriculum within secondary schools. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 33.3, 268283.Google Scholar
Fernandez, R. & Halbach, A. (2011). Analysing the situation of teachers in the Madrid bilingual project after four years of implementation. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts. Bern: Peter Lang, 241270.Google Scholar
Fernández Fontecha, A. (2009). Spanish CLIL: Research and official actions. In de Zarobe, Y. R. & Catalán, R. M. Jiménez (eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 321.Google Scholar
Furlong, A. (2005). The central role of language learning/teaching methodologies in CLIL. The CLIL quality matrix, Central workshop report 6/2005. Graz, Austria, 3–5 November 2005. http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf Google Scholar
Garton, S. (2014). Unresolved issues and new challenges in teaching English to young learners: The case of South Korea. Current issues in language planning 15.2, 201219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garton, S., Copland, F. & Burns, A. (2011). Investigating global practices in teaching English to young learners. British Council ELT Research Papers 11–01. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Gaynor, B. (2014). From language policy to pedagogic practice: Elementary school English in Japan. In Rich, S., (ed.), International perspectives on teaching English to young learners. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 6684.Google Scholar
Gebhard, M., Chen, I. A. & Britton, L. (2014). Miss, nominalization is a nominalization: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education 26, 106125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning (2nd edn.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching 40.2, 97118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Graves, K. (2016). Language curriculum design: Possibilities and realities. In Hall, G. (ed.), Routledge handbook of English language teaching. London: Routledge, 7994.Google Scholar
Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching 41.2, 147181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillamón-Suesta, F. & Renau, M. L. R. (2015). A critical vision of the CLIL approach in secondary education: A study in the Valencian Community in Spain. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 8.1, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edn.. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hamid, O. M. & Honan, E. (2012). Communicative English in the primary classroom: Implications for English-in-education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Language, Culture and Curriculum 25.2, 139156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (2012). Hope and challenge in the Australian Curriculum: Implications for EAL students and their teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35.1, 223240.Google Scholar
Hardman, J. & A-Rahman, N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia. Language, Culture and Curriculum 27.3, 260277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M., & McLaughlin, M. (2016). Language choice and symbolic domination. In Wortham, S., Deoksoon, K. & May, S. (eds.), Discourse and Education. Springer Living Reference Work, 19.Google Scholar
Hong Kong Education Bureau. (n.d.) Improving language and learning in public-sector schools (ILLIPSK) (Archive). www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch-admin/sch-quality-assurance/professional-support-online-resources/lang-support-emi-edu/illips Google Scholar
Hönig, I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. VDM Publishing.Google Scholar
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16.3, 267284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J. & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why and why not. System 44, 160167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269293.Google Scholar
İnal, D. (2009). The early bird catches the worm: The Turkish case. In Enever, J., Moon, J. & Raman, U. (eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Reading: Garnet Education, 7178.Google Scholar
Infante, D., Benvenuto, G. & Lastrucci, E. (2008). Integrating content and language at primary school in Italy: Ongoing experimental research. International CLIL Research Journal 1.1, 7482.Google Scholar
Ioannou Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal 66.4, 495504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, D-M. (2008). The classroom language use of a Korean elementary school EFL teacher: Another look at TETE. System 36, 214226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantarcioglŭ, E. & Papageorgiou, S. (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference. In Coombe, C., Davidson, P., O'Sullivan, B. & Stoynoff, S. (eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8288.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Freeman, D. (2008). Language moves: The place of languages – foreign and otherwise – in classroom teaching and learning. In J. Greene, G. Kelly & A. Luke. (eds.), Review of Research on Education 32.1, 147186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Ways forward in CLIL: Provision issues and future planning. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), 278–295.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal 64.4, 367375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, I. (2012). Genre-based teaching and assessment in secondary English classrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 11.4, 120136.Google Scholar
Lin, A. (2012). Multilingual and multimodal resources in genre-based pedagogical approaches to L2 English content classrooms. In Leung, C. & Street, B. V. (eds.), English: A changing medium for education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 79103.Google Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2010). Curriculum: Foreign language learning. In Peterson, P., Baker, E. & McGaw, B. (eds.), International encyclopedia of education volume 1 (3rd edn.). Oxford: Elsevier, 428434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T. & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 645655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F. (2010). CLIL in Andalusia. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Lasagabaster, D. (eds.), 2–11.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16.3, 375388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics 31.3, 418442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo, F. & Moore, P. (2010). On the natural emergence of language structures in CLIL: Towards a theory of European educational bilingualism. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luardini, M. A. & Asi, N. (2014). An analysis of linguistic competence in writing texts by teachers in Palangka Raya. International Journal of English and Education 3.2, 8094.Google Scholar
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D. & Frigols Martin, M. J. (2010). European framework for CLIL teacher education: A framework for the professional development of CLIL teachers. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education 20, 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massler, U., Stotz, D. & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. The Language Learning Journal 42.2, 137150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell-Reid, C. (2014). Genre in the teaching of English in Hong Kong: A perspective from systemic functional linguistics. In Coniam, D. (ed.), English language education and assessment: Recent developments in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. Singapore: Springer, 87102.Google Scholar
Méndez García, M. D. C. (2013). The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of CLIL programmes in Spanish monolingual areas: A case study of Andalusian primary and secondary schools. The Language Learning Journal 41.3, 268283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modiano, M. (2009). EIL, native-speakerism and the failure of European ELT. In Sharifian, F. (ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 5877.Google Scholar
Moore, J. & Schleppegrell, M. (2014). Using a functional linguistic metalanguage to support academic language development in the English Language Arts. Linguistics and Education 26, 92105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, P. & Lorenzo, F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. Vienna English Working Papers 16.3, 2835.Google Scholar
Morrow, K. (2012). Communicative language testing. In Coombe, C., Davidson, P., O'Sullivan, B. & Stoynoff, S. (eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140146.Google Scholar
Morton, T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials in CLIL. In Gray, J. (ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 111136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, C. & Navés, T. (2009). CLIL in Spain. Retrieved 24/02/2016 from http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/9142/1/MunozNaves2007.pdf Google Scholar
Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Catalán, R. Jiménez (eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2240.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. T. M. (2011). Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning 12.2, 225249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly 37.4, 589613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omoetan, G. Y. (2008). The implementation of genre-based approach in the teaching of English at SMA Negeri 1 Surakarta. Ph.D. dissertation, Sebelas Meret University. https://core.ac.uk/download/files/478/16507883.pdf Google Scholar
Pastor, A. M. R. (2015). The commodification of English in ‘Madrid, comunidad bilingüe’: Insights from the CLIL classroom. Language Policy 14.2, 131152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavón Vázquez, V. & Rubio, F. (2010). Teachers' concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum 14, 4558.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9.1, 931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15.3, 315341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piller, I. (2012). Multilingualism and social exclusion. In Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. Abingdon: Routledge, 281296.Google Scholar
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: Students', teachers' and parents' opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18.1, 4559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polias, J. (ed.) (2005). Improving language and learning in public-sector schools. Hong Kong: Quality Assurance Division, Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau.Google Scholar
Polias, J. (2007) Lesson observation report for ILLIPS 2007. http://lexised.com/resources/ Google Scholar
Polias, J. (2011). English language teachers and subject teachers collaborating: Recent changes in pedagogical practices in Hong Kong. Tidsskriftet Viden Om Laesning 10, 2231.Google Scholar
Polias, J. & Dare, B. (2006). Towards a pedagogical grammar. In Whittaker, R., O'Donnell, M. & McCabe, A. (eds.), Language and literacy: Functional approaches. London: Continuum, 123143.Google Scholar
Prapaisit de Segovia, L. & Hardison, D. M. (2008). Implementing education reform: EFL teachers' perspectives. ELT Journal 63.2, 154162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pribady, I. Y. (2012). The implementation of a genre based approach to teaching narrative writing. In Knox, J. S. (ed.), Papers from the 39th International Systemic Functional Congress. Sydney, 5762.Google Scholar
Reierstam, H. (2015). Assessing language or content? A comparative study of the assessment practices in three Swedish upper secondary CLIL schools. Licenciate Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/40701 Google Scholar
Richards, J. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central and backward design. RELC Journal 44.1, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, D. (2015). New developments in genre-based literacy pedagogy. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd edn.). New York: Guilford, 227242.Google Scholar
Rose, D. & Martin, J. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Rothery, J. (1989). Learning about language. In Hasan, R. & Martin, J. R. (eds.), Language development: Learning language, learning culture (vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 199256.Google Scholar
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In Hasan, R. & Williams, G. (eds.), Literacy in society. London: Longman, 86128.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Lasagabaster, D. (eds.) (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Lasagabaster, D. (2010a). Introduction. The Emergence of CLIL in Spain: An educational challenge. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), ix–xvii.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Lasagabaster, D. (2010b). CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque autonomous community. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (eds.), 12–25.Google Scholar
SACSA (South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accessibility) (n. d.) ESL Scope and Scales. http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au/index_fsrc.asp?t=ECCP&ID=E8A Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (2008). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In Savignon, S. J. (ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven, Yale University Press, 128.Google Scholar
Schwab, J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review 81.4, 501522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P. (2008). Ideologies of English in Japan: The perspective of policy and pedagogy. Language Policy 7.2, 121142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelma, J. (2009). What is communicative language teaching? In Hunston, S. & Oakey, D. (eds.), Introducing applied linguistics: Concepts and skills. London: Routledge, 5359.Google Scholar
Sukyadi, D. (2014). The teaching of English in secondary schools in Indonesia. In Spolsky, B. & Sung, K. (eds.), Secondary school education in Asia. London: Routledge, 123147.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16.3, 301320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (2011). Introduction. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd edn.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133.Google ScholarPubMed
Vander Ark, T. (2016). Next-Gen Personalized Learning for ELL Students. Education Week. Accessed 27/04/17 from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_innovation/2016/02/next-gen_personalized_learning_for_ell_students.html Google Scholar
Walker, E. (2010). A systemic functional contribution to planning academic genre teaching in a bilingual education context. Language Awareness 19.2, 7387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, P. R. R., Mammone, G. & Caldwell, D. (2015). Linguistically based inequality, multilingual education and a genre-based literacy development pedagogy: Insights from the Australian experience. Language and Education 29.3, 256271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widodo, H. P. (2016). Language policy in practice: Reframing the English language curriculum in the Indonesian secondary education sector. In Kirkpatrick, R. (ed.), English language education policy in Asia. New York: Springer International Publishing, 127151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, C. & He, C. (2012). Bridging the implementation gap: An ethnographic study of English teachers' implementation of the curriculum reform in China. Ethnography and Education 7.1, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, F. & Liu, Y. (2014). A study of secondary school English teachers’ beliefs in the context of curriculum reform in China. Language Teaching Research 18.2, 187204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *