Teaching EFL at Spanish Preschools: A comparative analysis from two different teachers’ perspectives

Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning Vol. 11, No. 1, February 2021, 30-52 ISSN: 1792-1244 Available online at http://rpltl.eap.gr This article is issued under the Creative Commons License Deed. Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) Teaching EFL at Spanish Preschools: A comparative analysis from two different teachers’ perspectives Beatriz CORTINA-PÉREZ & Ana ANDÚGAR Beginning to learn a foreign language at a very early age (i.e., preschool) is a bourgeoning reality across Europe, following the EU recommendations. However, as different European reports state, there is a lack of concrete guidelines on how to address this age group. So, given the necessity to define adequate practices to make this learning successful, we conducted a Delphi project to reach consensus among different types of experts (n=99) on these practices (Andúgar, 2017; Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018; Andúgar, Cortina-Pérez & Tornel, 2019, 2020). The present paper emerges from the data obtained in this project and comparatively analyses the two most relevant participants’ profiles: the EFL specialist teacher (n=29) and the Pre-primary practitioner (n=27) within the Spanish context. We compared their results about the category teaching methodology through the nonparametric inferential Mann-Whitney U test. Results suggest there are no substantial differences among them although there are subtle variations that must be taken into consideration. Key words: Very Young Language Learners (VYLL), Early Foreign Language Learning (EFLL), teachers’ profiles, Pre-primary Education, teaching guidelines, Delphi research 1. Introduction Since the Barcelona Council in 2002, the European Commission has encouraged the introduction of additional languages (AL) at a very early age with the intention of framing a multilingual Europe, supported by research on early bilingualism and very young language learners (VYLLs) (Dolean, 2015; Fleta, 2014; Mourao & Lourenço, 2015). Different EU projects and researchers have centred on the necessity of establishing adequate teaching and learning conditions so that the learning of the foreign language (FL) 1 is advantageous. 1 A difference is drawn between the term additional languages and foreign ones; while the former is more inclusive, foreign languages refer to a context in which languages are not naturally developed and used outside the school context. This is the case in which this study is contextualised. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 31 The Commission report "Language learning at pre-primary school level: making it efficient and sustainable" (European Commission, 2011) is a good example of this, providing member countries with a series of recommendations, and reporting on good practices within the framework of Education and Training Programme (ET2020 Framework). However, the participating experts agreed that, although the teaching of FLs at an early age is an extended practice in most European countries, it is not a practice that is properly structured and planned. More specifically, they noted that: With some exceptions, language activities at the pre-primary level are not formally structured. There are marked differences in staff competences. Moreover, resources and opportunities are unevenly distributed, both geographically and within different sociodemographic groups (European Commission, 2011, p.9). There seems to be some agreement on the fact that one of the main problems faced by teachers 2 in the introduction of FLs at preschools is the lack of specific guidelines, both on a legislative and a methodological level (Andúgar, Cortina-Pérez & Tornel, 2019; Morris & Segura, 2003). 1.1. The case of Spain In the Spanish scenario, the learning of FLs at early years at preschools, particularly English, has been promoted since the early 90s with the appearance of the first pilot programmes in different Spanish regions. It was not until the Organic Law 2/2006 on Education (LOE 3 ) that it was widely introduced to the entire country, although the responsibility of defining and structuring this first approach was led to the different autonomous regions. A few months later, through the Royal Decree 1630/2006 4 , the FL was included as part of the ‘Languages: communication and representation’ area in the preprimary curriculum, although lacking specified minimum contents, such as the lexical structures or language functions that student should develop during this stage. In 2007 some general methodological guidelines supporting a communicative and natural approach were detailed in the Order ECI/3960/2007 5 . Some years later the current Educational Law, the Organic Law 8/2013 for the Improvement of Educational Quality (LOMCE), 6 did not introduce significant changes at the pre-primary stage, so it was the Department of Education in each autonomous region the responsible institution for organising this early multilingualism. Although the 17 Spanish regions have started this early learning, not all of them are implementing it at the same level as Andúgar, Cortina-Pérez, and Tornel (2019) concluded. The study further explains that there is great heterogeneity regarding the early introduction of FLs in the Spanish education system, detecting significant differences among territories. However, some general practices can be described in most schools across Spain: • English is the most popular FL option at the pre-primary stage. • Most schools begin learning a FL from the age of 5, and it is a frequent practice to start even earlier, at the age of 3. • The amount of time devoted to the FL is usually 90 minutes per week, although there are important differences among regions in this respect. 2 The term ‘teacher’ is used in this paper to refer to any practitioner involved in the early introduction of the foreign language, mainly at the pre-primary stage, but not necessary implying explicit teaching of the language. 3 https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2006-7899 4 https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2007/BOE-A-2007-185-consolidado.pdf 5 https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2008/BOE-A-2008-222-consolidado.pdf 6 https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2013/BOE-A-2013-12886-consolidado.pdf Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 32 • The programme implemented is usually based on the communicative approach, through the use of routines, songs, rhymes, games, aiming at increasing children's motivation towards English. • It is the EFL teacher the one who is most frequently responsible for this teaching, although pre-primary practitioners can also be authorised, provided that they accredit a level of the FL (at least a B2). Given this context, we conducted a research project aiming at looking for consensus among experts within the Spanish context on the different aspects involved in Early Foreign Language Learning (EFLL), such as the situation, the methodology, and teacher training. The present paper offers a comparative analysis of methodological issues on EFLL 7 from two different participants’ profiles, (i.e., the EFL specialist teacher and the Pre-primary practitioner). 2. Research Methodology In the light of the need for an agreement on the most effective practices that would lead to successful learning of FLs with VYLLs (3-6 years old preschoolers), we conducted a Delphi research project (Andúgar, 2017; Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018; Andúgar, Cortina-Pérez & Tornel, 2019, 2020) from which this paper has emerged. The Delphi method is defined as "a systematic and iterative process aimed at obtaining the opinions and, if possible, the consensus, of a group of experts" (Landeta, 2002, p.32). It is usually labelled as a prospective mixed-type method that approaches research from the interpretative paradigm of a group of experts while allowing the analysis of the group's statistical response (Landeta, 2002; Pozo, Suárez & García-Cano, 2012). In this project, 99 experts from different profiles (e.g., EFL teachers, preschool teachers, school advisors, material designers, parents and students) were consulted twice: the first round of qualitative nature and the second one, quantitative. The present paper comprises the comparative analysis of the results obtained from the two most significant groups of participants (n=56) - the EFL specialist teacher, and the preschool practitioner-, using their responses to the category ‘teaching methodology’. The main research question underpinning this paper is ‘Does the EFL specialist teachers’ view about EFL methodology for Preprimary Education differ from that of the preschool practitioners? Since our main goal was to identify similarities and differences among their opinions, we conducted an inferential analysis for independent groups. 2.1. Participants The number of participants in this study is a total of 56 Spanish teachers distributed in two profiles: ● the EFL teacher (n=29), who has been trained at the University mainly to be an English teacher at the Primary Education level, so his/her teaching skills for the pre-primary stage is due to their experience and/or voluntary in-service training; and ● the pre-primary teacher (n=27), who has at least a bachelor’s degree in Early Education and teaches at the non-obligatory stage from 3 to 6 years old. Besides, they can teach English at Preschools, provided that they certify a minimum of a B2 level in the FL. 7 As previously explained, in this research the term EFLL refers to children under 6 years old. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 33 2.2. Instruments For each Delphi round a different questionnaire was designed. The first was made up of open-ended questions to gather all the necessary information about the different research variables. This first round was validated by experts (Cabero & García, 2011). Results from this questionnaire became the basis for the design of the second questionnaire with closed Likert-type questions, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). These questions derived from the first questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was calculated, obtaining a result of .933. For the present paper, section 2 of the questionnaire (i.e., ‘teaching methodology’) is the focus of attention, which is divided into 7 subcategories (i.e., teaching guidelines, ELT methods, onset age, family’s implication, the language of instruction, classroom resources and transition to Primary Education) and contains a total of 49 items, which are listed in Appendix I. 2.3. Data analysis Results analysed in this paper stem from the second questionnaire and are quantitative. Consequently, they have been statistically analysed using the SPSS software. The mean for both groups was first calculated. Normality distribution was checked through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, obtaining a significance result of .007. Hence, non-parametric tests for inferential analysis were used, such as the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples. While most relevant results will be commented in the following section, a table with all results can be found in Appendix II. Additionally, qualitative data from the participants’ responses in questionnaire 1 have been used to support and explain the quantitative analysis. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Teaching guidelines Under this category, participants were asked about the most appropriate teaching guidelines for teaching FLs at preschool. The mean for each variable was calculated and grouped according to the two studied profiles (see Figure 1). EFL teachers’ most appreciated teaching guidelines are Q2.21 ‘reducing class ratio’, Q2.2 ‘introducing FL games’, Q2.4 ‘using songs’, Q2.9 ‘giving positive feedback’ and Q2.12 ‘using visual materials’, which they all share a 4.9 mean. On the opposite side, Pre-primary teachers valued more positively the following guidelines: Q2.4 ‘using songs’, Q2.18 ‘not overusing worksheets’, Q2.12 ‘using visual materials’, Q2.7 ‘using storytelling’. We have not found large differences between results obtained from both groups except for two items: Q2.9 (positive feedback) and Q2.21 (class ratio). Statistical significance is then corroborated by the Mann-Whitney U test, which obtained a p-value of .013 and .000 for these two variables, respectively. The rest of the results from this category were non-significant (see Appendix I). Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 34 Figure 1. Mean comparison of the category Teaching guidelines 4,38 4,55 4,38 4,45 4,69 4,48 4,45 4,52 4,21 4,52 4,59 4,66 4,07 4,25 4,52 4,25 4,63 4,41 4,3 4,79 4,69 4,39 4,1 4,45 4,67 4,97 4,6 4,47 4,43 4,6 4,55 4,4 4,73 4,7 4,9 3,93 4,37 4,9 4,03 4,7 4,52 4,52 4,9 4,9 4,47 3,87 1 2 3 4 5 Q2.23 Being coordinated with the Preprimary practitioner Q2.22 Organising contents gradually from simple to complex Q2.21 Reducing class ratio Q2.20 Creating a motivating environment Q2.19 Not overusing colouring or literacy worksheets Q2.18 Delaying the introduction of literacy to later stages Q2.17 Focusing on oral skills Q2.16 Integrating the FL with the other curricular areas Q2.15 Diversifying groups Q2.14 Respecting students' silence period and individual learning pace Q2.13 Using the interactive whiteboard Q2.12 Using visual materials Q2.11 Promoting interactions with students Q2.10 Including the English corner in class Q2.9 Giving positive feedback Q2.8 Using puppets to encourage FL communication Q2.7 Using storytelling Q2.6 Using dramatization in the FL Q2.5 Using rhymes as a communicative and cultural-bound resource Q2.4 Using songs Q2.3 Introducing FL games with a communicative purpose Q2.2 Including preschool routines in the FL classroom Q2.1 imitating L1 language acquisition guidelines EFL specialist teacher Pre-primary practitioner Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 35 However, as a tendency, the EFL specialist teacher group values the different teaching strategies questioned in this category higher. The highest mean can be found in Q2.21 ‘Reducing group ratios’ to increase the interaction teacher-students, providing children with more learning opportunities, as supported by González-Davies (2007, cited in Celaya 2012), who also suggested having two teachers in a class. Surprisingly, this is one of the items that has a greater mean difference between both studied groups. Although preschool practitioners consider it important with a mean of 4.38, EFL teachers situated it as the most remarkable teaching strategy to provide successful EFL learning opportunities during the early years. Some FL teachers participating in this study pointed out the importance of small groups in order to foster interaction among children: I believe that, above all, in preschool education, the teaching of a language should always be in small groups of a maximum of 7/8 students, which means, in many cases, having some teachers, which a public school does not usually have. [expert 56, EFLt] 8 The lowest mean found in this category is Q2.1 ‘Following L1 acquisition guidelines’, yielding an average of 3.87 by the group of EFL teachers, and 4.1 by their counterpart. The FL teacher seems to claim for the necessary specialization of their teaching field, as explained by this participant: With time and experience, linguists have realized that this understandable input is not enough since it is also necessary to make the students produce in English, so traditional classes where the teacher is merely a transmitter of knowledge and the student is only a receiver are not useful.[expert 32, EFLt ] Apart from question 2.1, there are three more items in this category in which, EFL teachers scored lower than preschool practitioners: Q2.8 ‘using a puppet’, Q2.11 ‘doing circle time activities in the FL’, and Q2.19 ‘Do not overuse worksheets (literacy activities, painting or drawing)’. All these four items can be considered pure preschool teaching strategies. Consequently, the EFL group does not tend to include those strategies within their teaching repertoire, as they prefer linguistic or communicative-based ones. However, key methodological strategies that are used at preschool, such as meaningful or holistic learning, learning by discovery, play-based learning and creativity should become the main founding pillars of any FL approach to these early years (Björk-Willén & Cromdal, 2009; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2018; Linse, Van Vlack & Bladas, 2014; Mourão, 2014; Thió de Pol et al., 2011; Wood, 2010). Linked to this idea of a natural approach following L1 methodologies, Moya and Jiménez (2004) and Fleta (2012) found similarities between the process of acquisition of the L1 by native English children and by Spanish EFL learners. Moreover, studies such as those by Fleta (2004, 2006, 2014), Flores and Corcoll (2008), Pino and Rodríguez (2006, 2010) and Rodríguez (2004) state that there is a close relationship between the learning of the L1 and the FL. So they assume that if it is possible to recreate the learning environment of the L1, children will learn the L2 in the same way. 3.2. ELT methods There are a number of well-known ELT methods that have become the common practice in any EFL classroom. However, they were mainly created for adults or, at least for not such young learners (Andúgar, 2017; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2014). In the last decade, with the spread of VEFLL (Very Early Foreign Language Learning) in formal contexts, some of these methods have flourished at preschool settings, such as TPR (Total Physical Response), Phonics or CLIL (Content and Language 8 Participants' quotes have been translated from Spanish. EFLt refers to English Foreign Language teacher and PSt to Preschool teacher. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 36 Integrated Learning. Concerning these methods, we find differences in favour of those EFL teachers who generally tend to value methodologies higher than preschool practitioners (Figure 2). Results suggest that the most valued method for both groups is TPR (see also Alexiou in this volume). This method is widely used in preschools, as Pino and Rodriguez (2006) maintain, mainly because it allows the student not to feel the pressure of answering to the teacher orally, but through physical actions, which reduces this anxiety. Furthermore, it facilitates meaningful and global opportunities for learning, providing the learning process with a playful and creative character. Participant 25 suggests: I believe that the methodology to be used in children's education must be based on oral work, teacher-student or student-student interaction, the association of words with gestures and images (Total Physical Response - TPR) and the explanation of stories and the viewing of cartoon videos (previously worked vocabulary) [expert 25, PSt] Figure 2. Mean comparison of the category ELT methods On the contrary, Phonics was the method that scored lower, with an EFL specialist teachers’ mean of 3.33 out of 5 and a preschool practitioners’ mean of 2.77. The issue of introducing FL literacy at early years is highly controversial, as confirmed by the high standard deviation of 1.167 and 1.307 for each group. This approach originally intended for native speakers and that seems to be the reason for this heterogeneous response, as participant 23 expresses: The Phonics method is aimed at native English speakers. I do not consider it useful for teaching foreign languages [expert 23, EFLt] Mourão and Ellis (2020) advocate for a combination of approaches to teach early literacy in EFL contexts as a way of introducing pre-schoolers into literacy skills instead of teaching reading and writing. As they explain: Without enough opportunity to hear and use English, the children will not be able to read or write it successfully. This is a fact in the L1, and in settings where the children have had little exposure to another language (Mourao & Ellis, 2020, p.129). To implement a successful early literacy programme in a FL teaching context, phonics methodology needs to be incorporated “as part of a rich, meaning-focused pedagogy towards reading and writing development where comprehension and communication of meaning is the ultimate aim” (Papp, 2020, p.2). Some participants similarly suggested that: 3,36 2,77 3,96 4 3,33 4,2 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 Q2.26 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Q2.25 Phonics Q2.24 Total Physical Response (TPR) EFL specialist teacher Pre-primary practitioner Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 37 The approach to reading and writing through phonics, from my experience, is very positive and favours not only reading and writing in English but also in Spanish. I am considering an approach (introduction), with the main objective of developing children's phonological awareness and initiating knowledge of the reading-writing code. [expert 7, EFLt] Additionally, studies such as that of Navarro, Coyle and Roca de Larios (2016), where they investigate the effectiveness of Phonics in teaching sibilant phonemes to four and five-year-olds within the Spanish educational system, support the benefits of phonics with an integrated approach in EFL contexts. Finally, the CLIL -Content and Language Integrated Learningitem (Q2.26) presents the highest difference in this category between the groups studied. The Mann-Whitney U test corroborated that the difference between groups is significant (p value= .034), thus we claim that EFL specialists consider CLIL methodology more appropriate than preschool teachers. CLIL is a dual-focus bilingual approach which fosters the development of the language and the non-linguistic contents integratedly. We suppose that preschool teachers not being well-acquainted with ELT methods may be a possible justification for these results. As an ELT method it has been proved to be highly effective (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010; Madrid & Pérez-Cañado, 2012; Marsh & Frigols-Martín, 2013) and we find numerous examples of experiences that confirm these benefits (European Commission, 2011; García, 2013; Ioannou-Georgiou, 2011, 2015). Spain is a pioneer in the application of the CLIL methodology (Eurydice, 2006) and some of the autonomous communities are introducing CLIL as part of their bilingual programmes from preschool Education. The main advantage that this method presents for the teaching of FL at preschool level is that it is a methodology that integrates both the content and the FL, which helps to carry out the globalised approach distinctive of this educational stage. Furthermore, as Mallol (2012) states, since the native child is able to communicate complex ideas with simple structures and a few words, the FL learners will be able to communicate in the target language with their initiated FL repertoire through the CLIL approach. 3.3. Onset age The “when to start” question is a recurring issue in EFL research. In this paper the focus is placed on whether there was a significant difference in the teachers’ opinion about this issue concerning the factor we are studying, i.e., teacher profile. Results detected no remarkable differences between the EFL specialist and the preschool practitioner (Figure 3). Additionally, no statistically significant results were found in the Mann-Whitney U test. The fact that Q2.29 has lower mean results in both groups indicates it is not so relevant for teachers, either specialist or preschool ones, to identify a specific school year to start the learning of a FL. On the contrary, they seem to support that adequate conditions for successful language learning need to be assured (see also Alexiou, 2020). If the learning conditions are right, a child can be exposed to another language at school as soon as possible. But the conditions are not usually right. [Expert 97, EFLt] Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 38 Figure 3. Mean comparison of the category Onset age Some studies support the benefits of an early start (Bialystok, Craik & Luk, 2012; Dolean, 2015; Kuhl, Stevenson, Corrigan, Van den Bosch, Deniz & Richards, 2016; García-Sierra, Ramírez-Esparza & Kuhl, 2016; Ramírez-Esparza, García-Sierra & Kuhl, 2016) if appropriate conditions are provided. Concretely, the research by Ramírez and Kuhl (2017) in the region of Madrid (Spain) suggested that children between 8 and 36 months of age improved their communicative competence, particularly, their lexical repertoire, while in a daily intensive immersion programme with native English teachers. Among the effective teaching techniques that they propose are (1) extensive input (their brains are adjusted according to the vocabulary they hear); (2) parentese speech (higher, slower tempo, overemphasize intonation); (3) high social context with activities that foster interaction (play-based activities); (4) possibility for children to hear different native speakers; and (5) children’s stimulation to participate. 3.4. Family’s implication This category is concerned with the involvement of families in the VEFLL process (Figure 4). We observe that there are minimal differences among both groups’ means. However, all groups value very positively all these variables aiming at increasing the implication of families. Consequently, no statistically significant results were found in the Mann-Whitney U test. Therefore, both teachers’ profiles considered important the role of the family in the child’s language learning (Cerná, 2015; Choi, Sheo & Kang, 2020; Pirchio, Taschner, Colibaba, Gheorghiu & Jursová, 2015; Sokol & Lasevich, 2015). Families have had a great influence on the expansion of FL programmes at early ages as they have pushed institutions to meet social demands (Enever, 2015; Kersten, Steinlen, Tiefenthal, Wippermann & Flyman, 2010). 4,3 3,97 4,62 4,66 4,07 3,87 4,67 4,6 11,5 22,5 33,5 44,5 5 Q2.30 It could be adapted to 0-3 nurseries. Q2.29. From 3 years old ( year 1 in Spanish preschools) Q2.28 An early start is desirable, provided that adequate teaching conditions are guaranteed. Q2.27. As soon as possible EFL specialist teacher Pre-primary practitioner Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 45 Enever, J. (2015). ‘The advantages and disadvantages of English as a foreign language with young learners’. In J. Bland (Ed.), Teaching English to young learners. Critical issues in language teaching with 3-12 year olds. London: Bloomsbury, 13-30. European Commission (2011). ‘Language learning at pre-primary school level: making it efficient and sustainable”. European Strategic Framework for Education and Training (ET 2020). Eurydice (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: Comisión Europea. Retrieved from http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/content-and-languageintegrated-learning-clic-at-school-in-europe-pbNCX106001/ Fernández de Haro, E. & Gallego, J.L. (2003). ‘La globalización en la enseñanza’. In J.L. Gallego & E. Fernández de Haro (Eds.), Enciclopedia de Educación Infantil. Málaga: Aljibe, 842-859. Fleta, T. (2004). ‘Child L2 learning of English in a bilingual setting’. Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada, 5: 55-73. Fleta, T. (2006). ‘Aprendizaje y técnicas de enseñanza del inglés en la escuela’. Encuentro, 16: 51-62. Fleta, T. (2012). ‘Factors concerning early FL learning at school’. Young Learners and Teenagers SIG C&TS: IATEFL Association. Very Young Learners, 18-31 Fleta, T. (2014). ‘Enhancing oracy in the pre-primary English classroom’. Encuentro, 23: 38-46. Flores, C. & Corcoll, C. (2008). ‘Learning a foreign language in Infant Education: a challenge for the school’. CIREL (Centre de Support a la Innovació i Recerca Educativa en Llengües, Departament d'Educació, Generalitat de Catalunya). Retrieved from http://srvcnpbs.xtec.cat/cirel/cirel/docs/pdf/challenge.pdf Franco, C. & Justo, E. (2009). ‘Efectos de un programa de intervención basado en la imaginación, la relajación y el cuento infantil, sobre los niveles de creatividad verbal, gráfica y motora en un grupo de niños de último curso de educación infantil’. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 4/3, 1-11. García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Basil/Blackwell. García, S. (2013). ‘Three frameworks for developing CLIL materials in infant and primary education’. Encuentro, 22: 49-53. García, O. & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. García-Sierra, A., Ramírez-Esparza, N. & Kuhl, P.K. (2016). ‘Relationships between quantity of language input and brain responses in bilingual and monolingual infants’. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 110 1–17. Inbar-Lourie, O. (2010). ‘English only? The linguistic choices of teachers of young EFL learners’. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14/3: 351-367. DOI:10.1177/1367006910367849 Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2011). ‘Transition into CLIL: guidelines for the beginning stages of CLIL’. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in Primary and Preprimary Education. Bruselas: Comisión Europea, 34-54. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2015). ‘Early language learning in Cyprus: voices from the classroom’. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education. Oxon: Routledge, 95-108. Kersten, K. (2015). ‘Bilingual pre-primary schools: language acquisition, intercultural encounters and environmental learning’. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education. Oxon: Routledge, 29-45. Kersten, K., Steinlen, A.K., Tiefenthal, C., Wippermann, I. & Flyman. (2010). Guidelines for Language Use Guidelines for Language Use in Bilingual Preschools in Bilingual Preschools. Early Language and Intercultural Acquisition Studies. In K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter & A.K. Steinlen (Eds.), Bilingual Preschools. Best Practices. Trier: WV, 103-116. Kuhl, P.K., Stevenson, J., Corrigan, N., Van den Bosch, J., Deniz, D. & Richards. T. (2016). ‘Neuroimaging of the bilingual brain: Structural brain correlates of listening and speaking in a second language’. Brain and Language, 162: 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.07.004 Landeta, J. (2002). El método Delphi. Una técnica de previsión de futuro. Barcelona: AM Grafic. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 46 Leonardi, V. (2012). ‘I know you are Italian, but please think in English!: the role of L1 in the EFL classes’. In M. González Davies & A. Taronna (Eds.), New trends in early foreign language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 110-119. Linse, C., Van Vlack. S. & Bladas, O. (2014). Parents and young learners in English language teaching: global practices and issues in school-home contacts. London: British Council Madrid, D. (2001). ‘A conceptual framework for the teaching of foreign languages in infant education’. In Madrid, D., Herrera, F., Mesa M. C. & F. Cruz, M. (Eds.), European Models of Children Integration. Granada: Grupo Editorial Universitario, 145-152. Madrid, D. & Pérez-Cañado, M.L. (2012). ‘CLIL teacher training’. In. M. Agudo (Ed.), Teaching and learning English through bilingual education. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 181-212. Mallol, C. (2012). ‘Project-based work in the digital era’. In M. González Davies & A. Taronna (Eds.), New trends in early foreign language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 62-85. Marsh, D. & Frigols-Martín, M.J. (2013). ‘Content language integrated learning’. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1-10. Martín, E. & Solé, I. (2007). ‘El aprendizaje significativo y la teoría de la asimilación’. In C. Coll, J. Palacios & A. Marchesi (Eds.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación. 2. Psicología de la educación escolar. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 89-113. Mezzi, T. (2012). ‘Being young, being adult: the age factor issue for vocabulary in foreign language education’. In M. González Davies & A. Taronna (Eds.), New trends in early foreign language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 12-23. Morris, J. & Segura, R. (2003). ‘Materiales y recursos para la enseñanza de una lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil’. In C. Huete & V. Morales (Eds.), Enseñanza-aprendizaje de las lenguas extranjeras en edades tempranas. Murcia: Consejería de Educación y Cultura de la Región de Murcia, 195-216. Mourão, S. (2014). ‘Taking play seriously in the pre-primary English classroom’. ELT Journal, 68/3: 254-264. DOI:10.1093/elt/ccu018 Mourão, S. & Ellis, G. (2020). Teaching English to Pre-Primary Children. Stuttgart: Delta Publishing Mourão, S. & Lourenço, M. (2015). Early Years Second Language Acquisition. Oxon: Routledge. Moya, A. & Jiménez, M. J. (2004). ‘El proceso de interlengua en el aprendizaje del inglés como lengua extranjera en edades tempranas’. Glosas Didácticas, 19: 128-142. Muñoz, C. (2008). ‘Age-related differences in foreign language learning. Revisiting the empirical evidence’. International review of applied linguistic in language teaching, 46/3:197-220. Navarro, A., Coyle, Y. & Roca de Larios, J. (2016). ‘Pre-school children’s production of sibilant phonemes in English: developing phonemic awareness through multi-sensory teaching’. In V. Murphy & M. Evangelou (eds.), Early Childhood Education in English for Speakers of Other Languages. London: British Council, 241-252. Ortega. R. (2003). ‘El juego: la experiencia de aprender jugando’. In J.L Gallego & E. Fernández de Haro, Enciclopedia de Educación Infantil. Málaga: Ediciones Aljibe, 765-788. Papp, S. (2020). Phonics and Literacy instruction for young learners in EFL. Part of the Cambridge papers in ELT series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pérez-Esteve, P. & Roig, V. (2003). ‘Factores para la eficacia en la enseñanza y aprendizaje de una lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil y en el primer ciclo de Educación Primaria’. In C. Huete & V. Morales (Eds.), Enseñanza-Aprendizaje de las lenguas extranjeras en edades tempranas. Murcia: Consejería de Educación y Cultura de la Región de Murcia, 49-72. Pino, M. & Rodríguez, B. (2006). ‘Análisis de los principios metodológicos que fundamentan la enseñanza del inglés como segunda lengua en educación infantil’. Enseñanza, 24: 131-155. Pino, M. & Rodríguez, B. (2010). ‘A study on English learning dynamics in pre-primary schools’. Porta Linguarum, 14: 29-43. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 47 Pirchio, S., Taeschner, T., Colibaba, A.C., Gheorghiu & Zacharová, Z.J. (2015). Family involvement in second language learning: the Bilfam project. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education. Oxon: Routledge, 204-217. Pozo, M.T., Suárez, M. & García-Cano, M. (2012). ‘Logros educativos y diversidad en la escuela: hacia una definición desde el consenso’. Revista de Educación, 358: 59-84. DOI: 10-4438/1988-592XRE-2012-358-183 Ramírez, N. & Kuhl. P. (2017). Bilingual Baby: Foreign Language Intervention in Madrid’s Infant Education Centers. Mind, Brain and Education, 11/3: 133-143. Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A. & Kuhl, P.K. (2016). ‘The Impact of Early Social Interactions on Later Language Development in Spanish–English Bilingual Infants’. Child Development. 88/4: 1216-1234. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12648 Rodríguez, B. (2004). ‘Técnicas metodológicas empleadas en lea enseñanza del inglés en la educación infantil. Estudio de caso’. Didáctica (Lengua y Literatura), 16: 145-161. Seker, P.T., Girgin, G. & Akamca, G.O. (2012). ‘A study on the contributions of second language education to language development in pre-school period’. Procedia, Social and behavioral sciences, 47: 230-234. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.643 Sokol, A. & Lasevich, E. (2015). ‘Supporting parents in building learning activities in another language’. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education. Oxon: Routledge, 218-235. Thió de Pol, C., Fusté, S., Martín, L., Palou, S. & Masnou, F. (2011). ‘Jugando para vivir, viviendo para jugar: el juego como motor de aprendizaje’. In M. Antón (Eds.), Planificar la etapa de 0-6. Compromiso de sus agentes y práctica cotidiana. Barcelona: Graó, 127-161. Torrance. P. (1976). ‘La enseñanza creativa produce efectos específicos’. In J. Curtis, G. Demos & E. Torrance, Implicaciones educativas de la creatividad. Salamanca: Ediciones Anaya, 184-199. Yeganeh, M.T. (2013). ‘Age constrain on foreign language learning in monolinguals versus bilingual learners’. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70:1974-1799. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.255 Wood, E. (2010). ‘Developing integrated pedagogical approaches to play and learning’. In P. Broadhead, J. Howard & E. Wood (Eds.), Play and learning in the early years. Sage publications, 926. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 48 Appendix I. Items from the questionnaire PART 2 PART 2. TEACHING TECHNIQUES METHODOLOGY The methodology for the teaching a foreign language at preschool should: 1. Follow the same guidelines as the learning of the mother tongue 2. Include the usual preprimary class routines but in the foreign language 3. Introduce foreign language games that have a communicative purpose 4. Use songs as a teaching resource for the foreign language class. 5. Employ rhymes that help to improve the communicative competence as well as the cultural knowledge about the target country 6. Perform dramatizations in the foreign language. 7. Use storytelling in the foreign language. 8. Use the pet in the foreign language class as a means of communication with students. 9. Use reinforcements (excellent, well done) that support and motivate the student. 10. Design and “English corner” that allow to perform different kind of activities. 11. Promote interaction among all students in the foreign language 12. Make use of visual materials (flashcards, posters, realia) that serve as teaching support. 13. Use the digital blackboard as a resource for the teaching of a foreign language through online materials. 14. Respect the students’ silence period and individual learning pace. 15. Diversify the different students’ grouping according to the goal of the activity. 16. Introduce the foreign language in a natural way, integrated with the rest of learning areas by creating contexts that be of interest for children in a trusting and playful environment. 17. Focus the attention on oral skills, by mainly working on listening and speaking skills 18. Introduce literacy in the foreign language at a later stage as children at these ages are not prepared for that task at a cognitive level. 19. Do not over use working sheets (literacy activities, painting, drawing) as they do not work relevant skills for the learning of a foreign language at this ages. 20. Create a motivating environment in the classroom and the school that reflect the foreign culture. 21. Reduce the ratio of students per group to provide a good quality student-teacher interaction with greater opportunities for student learning. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 49 22. Organize contents in a gradual way, increasing complexity gradually and reviewing then continuously to progress progressively. 23. Coordinate contents and objectives taught by the primary specialist foreign language teacher and the preprimary teacher to work in parallel. The most adequate methodology for teaching foreign language at preprimary to develop an adequate communicative competence in students is: 24. TPR (Total Physical Response): teaching method in which the student shows understanding the instructions given by the teacher through physical response. 25. Phonics: literacy method for English native speakers that begins by learning the English phonemes and their corresponding script. 26. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): method that used the foreign language to STARTING TIME 27. The teaching of the foreign language should start as soon as possible because children have an enormous potential as this age (imitation, curiosity, motivation, brain plasticity and they are not afraid making mistakes). 28. It is convenient an early start if the adequate conditions can be guaranteed (quality input, appropriate methodology, significant learning). 29. The start of the foreign language is recommended at the age of 3 years old, respecting the period of adaptation to school and self-pace learning of students. 30. The start of the learning of the foreign language could be even introduced earlier (0-3), although these ages do not form part of a compulsory educational stage. INVOLVEMENT OF FAMILIES IN THE TEACHING OF THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE 31. Family should be involved in the teaching of foreign language at the pre-primary level in the same way they are involved in the rest of areas of their children’s school life. 32. Families should be informed of the objectives, contents and methodology that is used in school in order to reinforce them at home. 33. Families, although they do not have the linguistic knowledge, they can cooperate with their children at home with the resources that teachers provide them (songs, videos, and tales). 34. English workshops for parents or parents/children organized from school are a good tool in order that parents be encouraged to engage in their children learning of English. Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 50 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION 35. The foreign language class should be taught entirely in the target language from the first year in order that children accept as something natural. 36. The mother tongue should be used only in concrete situations, such as when a problem or conflict arises in the classroom. 37. The EFL teacher will use visual materials that promote a better understanding of the message in the target language by the student. 38. Oral communication should be at the center of the teaching-learning process, showing it to students as a real communication tool. CLASSROOM RESOURCES 39. Textbooks are not a suitable resource for the teaching of a foreign language at preschool, as they are not adapted to the needs and interests of all students, do not fit the law requirements, and do not suit the numbers of sessions aimed to this teaching. 40. The textbook must be used as a supplementary material, never by itself. 41. The most suitable materials for the teaching of a foreign language at preschool level are real materials, tales, songs, flashcards, poetry, etc. existing a wide variety of these materials on the internet. 42. Teachers should design their own didactic resources according to their class context. 43. Teachers are not well-acquainted with the possibilities of the teaching materials, their selection and use (both textbooks and online materials). 44. It is not so important the didactic resource but the use we make of it. TRANSITION BETWEEN PRESSCHOOL TO PRIMARY EDUCATION 45. The transition between preprimary and primary class in relation to the foreign language should be flexible and gradual, holding a methodological continuity to ease students the transition from one stage to another. 46. An adequate coordination between teachers (preschool and primary) is essential for this transition to occur properly. 47. The first year of primary education should start by reviewing the contents learnt in preprimary with a similar methodology as well as maintaining the global and integral character of the previous stage. 48. Although at primary level the teaching is centered on the textbook, it is necessary that exists certain continuity in terms of activities such as games, songs, tales, routines, etc. 49. A good continuity regarding the teaching of the foreign language would be the beginning with Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 51 Phonics in the final preprimary year and its continuity in Primary. Appendix II. Mann Whitney U test (SPSS output) Q2.1 Q2.2 Q2.3 Q2.4 Q2.5 Q2.6 U de Mann-Whitney 385,500 412,500 370,500 402,000 322,500 374,500 W de Wilcoxon 850,500 818,500 805,500 837,000 700,500 752,500 Z -,790 -,132 -1,501 -,843 -1,283 -,328 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,430 ,895 ,133 ,399 ,199 ,743 Q2.7 Q2.8 Q2.9 Q2.10 Q2.11 Q2.12 U de Mann-Whitney 399,500 362,500 291,000 372,500 417,000 369,000 W de Wilcoxon 777,500 827,500 669,000 778,500 882,000 804,000 Z -,114 -,958 -2,492 -,826 -,295 -1,534 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,909 ,338 ,013 ,409 ,768 ,125 Q2.13 Q2.14 Q2.15 Q2.16 Q2.17 Q2.18 U de Mann-Whitney 400,000 377,500 393,000 412,000 390,000 401,500 W de Wilcoxon 835,000 812,500 828,000 847,000 825,000 866,500 Z -,682 -1,098 -,708 -,165 -,827 -,637 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,495 ,272 ,479 ,869 ,408 ,524 Q2.19 Q2.20 Q2.21 Q2.22 Q2.23 Q2.24 U de Mann-Whitney 386,500 379,000 253,000 399,000 341,500 290,500 W de Wilcoxon 851,500 814,000 688,000 834,000 776,500 566,500 Z -,924 -1,014 -3,721 -,675 -1,686 -1,043 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,356 ,310 ,000 ,499 ,092 ,297 Q2.25 Q2.26 Q2.27 Q2.28 Q2.29 Q2.30 U de Mann-Whitney 198,500 204,500 412,500 399,000 419,000 380,500 W de Wilcoxon 451,500 457,500 877,500 834,000 884,000 845,500 Z -1,477 -2,125 -,438 -,716 -,254 -,424 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,140 ,034 ,662 ,474 ,799 ,672 Q2.31 Q2.32 Q2.33 Q2.34 Q2.35 Q2.36 U de Mann-Whitney 356,500 429,000 399,000 385,000 371,000 361,000 W de Wilcoxon 791,500 894,000 864,000 820,000 777,000 767,000 Z -1,368 -,102 -,653 -,117 -,850 -,973 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,171 ,919 ,514 ,907 ,395 ,330 Q2.37 Q2.38 Q2.39 Q2.40 Q2.41 Q2.42 U de Mann-Whitney 421,000 391,500 336,000 385,000 407,000 379,500 W de Wilcoxon 856,000 856,500 801,000 850,000 872,000 814,500 Z -,294 -,917 -1,624 -,680 -,573 -,694 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,769 ,359 ,104 ,497 ,567 ,487 Cortina-Pérez & Andùgar / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 11/1 (2021) 30-52 52 Q2.43 Q2.44 Q2.45 Q2.46 Q2.47 Q2.48 Q2.49 U de Mann-Whitney 327,00 0 400,500 396,500 335,000 367,500 412,000 233,500 W de Wilcoxon 678,00 0 835,500 861,500 800,000 832,500 877,000 464,500 Z -,876 -,328 -,469 -2,014 -1,065 -,182 -,437 Sig. asintótica(bilateral) ,381 ,743 ,639 ,044 ,287 ,855 ,662 Beatriz Cortina-Pérez ([email protected]) is PhD in English Philology and associate professor at the Languages and Literature Education Department at the University of Granada (Spain). Her teaching is focused on foreign language teaching, both at graduate and postgraduate level. Among her main research areas are very young language learners (VYLL), EFL teaching and innovation, teacher training and intercultural education. She has published in different national and international journals, as well as participated in research projects. She is active member of the REYLL network from AILA SIGroups and Multilingual Childhoods networks. Besides she is founding member and governor of the Spanish Association for Early Foreign Language Learning (Red ALExI). She is editor of the international journal Porta Linguarum. Ana Andúgar ([email protected])is PhD in Education and senior lecturer at Education Department of the Catholic University of Murcia (Spain). Her main research area is very young language learners (VYLL). She is active member of the REYLL network from AILA SIGroups and Multilingual Childhoods networks. Besides she is founding member and governor of the Spanish Association for Early Foreign Language Learning (Red ALExI). She has different publications, and has participated in different congresses and innovation projects. View publication stats