![3D"Imagen](3D"8.BuckinghamLitzler2_archivos/image003.jpg")
![3D"Cuadro](3D"8.BuckinghamLitzler2_archivos/image001.gif")
Literacy
development in EFL textbooks in Madrid’s primary schools
El desarrollo de la alfabetización en los libros de texto de
inglés en los colegios de primaria de Madrid
Lyndsay R. Buckingham
Universidad Pontific=
ia
de Comillas
l=
rbuckingham@comillas.edu
<= o:p>
Mary Frances Litzler
Universidad de Alcalá
m=
f.litz@uah.es
ABSTRACT
Research indicates
that Spanish schools tend to focus on literacy in a narrow sense, as in the
mechanics of reading and writing with a focus on text at the word and sente=
nce
level. However, the idea of literacy on an international scale includes the
ability to use reading and writing skills for a variety of activities with
texts. This study seeks to examine whether four fourth grade textbooks for
English as a Foreign Language used in Madrid take the more traditional appr=
oach
to literacy or a broader one that involves the consideration of genre
characteristics and work at the text level. A questionnaire was formulated =
to
examine the reading and writing activities of the textbooks. The results
suggest that the books present a more narrow vie=
w of
the concept of literacy.
Key words: literacy, textbooks, English as a forei=
gn
language, primary education, bilingual education
R=
ESUMEN
La literatura indica que en los colegios en Espa&ntild=
e;a
se entiende la palabra literacy
como un concepto limitado a la mecánica de la lectoescritura, con un
enfoque a nivel de palabras y frases (alfabetización), mientras a ni=
vel
internacional ese término incluye la habilidad de utilizar las destr=
ezas
de lectura y escritura para realizar una variedad de actividades con textos
(literacidad). Esta investigación tiene como objetivo examinar si cu=
atro
libros de texto de inglés para el cuarto curso de primaria en Madrid
mantienen la visión tradicional de alfabetización, o si la
amplían para considerar las características del género=
de
texto y el trabajo a nivel de texto en línea con la literacidad. Para
llevarla a cabo, se confeccionó un cuestionario para examinar las
actividades de lectura y escritura de los libros. Los resultados sugieren q=
ue los
libros toman una visión más reducida del concepto de literacidad=
.
Palabras clave: alfabetización, li=
bros
de texto, lengua inglesa, enseñanza primaria, enseñanza
bilingüe
1. INTRODUCTION
T=
he
term “literacy” has received numerous definitions in a variety =
of
fields from psychology to linguistics to economics. It has been considered a
set of skills, a situated practice, a learning process, and the consumption=
of
text (EFA Global Monitoring Report Team 2006). The view taken in this artic=
le
is in line with the last of these notions in that different groups in socie=
ty
produce and use different genres and types of texts, which are situated wit=
hin
a broader social and political context (EFA Global Monitoring Report Team
2006). Literacy in this sense involves going beyond the mechanics of reading
and writing to “the ability to use reading and writing skills in orde=
r to
produce, understand, interpret and critically evaluate multimodal textsR=
21;
(European Commission 2012: 13). This multimodality involves meaning
communicated through different formats such as images, page layout, music and body language, among others (Cazden,
Cope, Fairclough & Gee 1996). A
plurality of text formats, languages and cultures are involved (New London
Group 2000, as cited in Meyer, Coyle, Halbach, Schuck & Ting 2015), and
indeed, new technologies offer a platform for different modalities and genr=
es
to emerge.
However, this evolution of the idea of literacy is=
not
common to all cultures, and the development of literacy is not uniform arou=
nd
the world. Spain, the context of this study, has traditionally scored lower
than average on tests such as PISA, which compare reading ability among
different countries (Benítez Sastre et a=
l.
2016). This indicator of students’ receptive skills is cause for conc=
ern
and implies a need for improvement. Unfortunately, there are no data availa=
ble
regarding the level of students’ writing skills or their manipulation=
of
multimodal texts. Nevertheless, as literacy is vital for social, economic and personal reasons (European Commission 201=
2),
measures must be taken to improve citizens’ reading and writing abili=
ties
to their fullest and to consolidate pupils’ increased performance in
these areas.
When addressing this concern for improving
students’ literacy skills, many questions
arise as to the reasons behind the relatively low international ranking of
Spain, especially when considering the introduction of a foreign language,
English, and the teaching of content in English.
2. THE CONCEPT OF LITERACY IN SPAIN
T=
he
term “literacy” has been traditionally translated to alfabetizació=
n
or lectoescrit=
ura
in Spanish (and to similar terms in Portuguese, French and German), though
these terms describe a much narrower concept, i.e. learning the alphabet and
learning to read and write letters and words (Cassany<=
/span>
& Castellà 2010: 355). As can be ded=
uced
from the meaning of the terms traditionally employed in Spain, the developm=
ent
of alfabetizac=
ión
has tended to focus on the mechanics of reading and writing, and has been
concentrated in the first and second years of primary school (Fernán=
dez
& Halbach 2009). More recently there has been a push to adopt the term =
literacidad among
Spanish speaking experts in order to avoid the limitations of the more
traditional terms (Cassany & Castellà
2010; Gamboa, Muñoz & Vargas 2016; <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Iñesta Mena 2017), though this practice has no=
t been
taken up by teachers in schools.
If we take a narrow view and consider literacy to =
be
simply the consumption of text, we can directly relate<=
/span>
it to reading comprehension in either L1 or L2. As seen in PIRLS and PISA
results, Spain’s young people have repeatedly scored near or under the
average for the European Union in terms of reading comprehension ability,
showing a slight decline (Benítez Sastre=
, et
al. 2016: 6), though this is changing thanks to above average results on PI=
RLS
2016 (Mullis, O`Martin, Foy & Cooper 2017).
Students are able to “read simple texts, retrieve explicit informatio=
n,
or make straightforward inferences, but they are not able to deal with long=
er
or more complex texts and are unable to interpret what is explicitly stated=
in
the text” (Benítez Sastre, et al. =
2016:
6). Choi and Jerrim (2016) argue that this read=
ing
comprehension deficit already exists at the primary levels, even though it
becomes more glaring at the secondary levels.
The 2016 PIRLS report (Mullis et al. 2017: 256) informs that schools in Spain spend an average 25% of school hours on langu= age instruction, including reading, writing, speaking, literature and other language skills, which is only slightly lower than the international average (27%). Similarly, reading instruction, including reading across the curricu= lum is reported to account for an average of 16% of school hours, only slightly below the international average of 18%. Of course, it is not always the amo= unt of time, but the approach taken, that is the key. It has been demonstrated = that teaching styles in Spain are still based on the transmission of curricular content (language theory) rather than on constructivist approaches leading = to communication of ideas (OECD 2014). Lorenzo (2016) argues that countries th= at focus learning through constructivist approaches demonstrate better reading competences, in part because they place less importance on metalinguistic knowledge. Indeed, Spanish EFL and CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) textbooks focus on language accuracy rather than fluency or “more creative aspects such as reading for pleasure or creating personal texts” (Fernández & Halbach 2009: 53). <= o:p>
In the Spanish educational system, the processing =
of
texts has traditionally relied on a bottom-up focus relating to word
recognition, grammar and structure. The ELINET r=
eport
claims that despite recent increases in project-based methodologies, there =
is a
tendency to decontextualize language use at the pre-primary levels
(Benítez Sastre et al. 2016). This has a=
lso
been found to be the case in L2 in a recent analysis of textbooks used in t=
he
first two years of primary school in CLIL and ELT classrooms in Spain. The
study found that the textbooks mainly focused on grammar and vocabulary as =
they
were observed to work at word and sentence levels. Lessons were focused on
gaining accuracy in reading and writing and the micros=
kills
involved, such as the mechanics of reading and writing, knowing the letters=
and
being able to produce them or blend them to read words (Fernández &a=
mp;
Halbach 2009).
Performance gaps have also been found between Span=
ish
children who are aware of summarizing and efficient reading strategies, tho=
ugh
this gap is slightly smaller than the European average (Benítez Sastre et al. 2016). This suggests that only some pup=
ils
are using metacognitive strategies, and that they may not be using them as
efficiently as in other countries. More recent results from PIRLS 2016 reve=
al
that schools in Spain are working on skills and strategies such as comparing
what pupils have read to experiences they have had and making predictions a=
bout
what will happen next in a text (Mullis et al. 2017: 260).
Furthermore, the development of literacy arguably
gains importance when considering students’ learning through CLIL
subjects, as is prominent in Spain. Indeed, discourse patterns change across
cultures and these variations can be appreciated in both spoken and written
genres (Gilmore 2015; Mickan 2017). Therefore, =
the
intercultural element that is essential to CLIL presents both a difficulty =
and
an opportunity, depending on one’s perspective. In fact, teachers have
identified the difficulty of teaching English from a Spanish literacy
perspective, due in part to the fundamental differences between the two lan=
guages,
such as the sound-grapheme correspondence in Spanish that is more unpredict=
able
in English (Fernández & Halbach 2009). In this sense, they have
reported a need for further training in the teaching and practice of litera=
cy
and oracy (Durán-Martínez & <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Beltrán-Llavador 2016: 83). At the same time,
teachers have a clear opportunity to enrich their approaches to literacy
through the application of foreign perspectives and techniques
(Fernández & Halbach 2009). For these reasons and others, Meyer =
et
al. (2015) suggests a pluriliteracies approach =
that
involves more than one language, mode of communication and semiotic system,
which is specifically useful in a CLIL environment.
The nature of literacy is fundamentally cognitive
since it is based on the mental processes that allow a command of the langu=
age
system, first in basic ways like phonology and later through more complex
structures, including longer texts. Similarly, Cummins’ (2000) idea of
the initial acquisition of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) =
and
the later development of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) is
essential to the CLIL approach. Lorenzo (2016) suggests that the Spanish sy=
stem
fails when developing students’ CALP, pointing to successful results =
in
the PIRLS exam, which is mainly focused on narrative language, as compared =
to
poor results on the PISA exam, which focuses on more expository, academic
language. This is supported by the lack of focus on higher-order thinking
skills such as interpreting or inferring meaning in primary level EFL and C=
LIL
textbooks (Fernández & Halbach 2009). In fact, the results of PI=
RLS
2016 revealed that teachers ask their fourth grade pupils to determine an
author’s perspective less often than other skills and strategies for =
reading,
such as identifying the main idea of what they have read or locating
information in the text (Mullis et al. 2017: 259-260).
If pupils in Spain are to
consolidate their improvement on tests such as PIRLS, they will need to imp=
rove
their literacy skills in the broader sense of the word. The ELINET report
(Benítez Sastre et al. 2016) claims that=
the
PIRLS 2011 exam points to a number of skills tha=
t have
been left unattended in primary levels, and that the PISA results point to a
need for instruction in reading strategies. The authors of the ELINET report
recommend spending more time on teaching reading in primary schools,
and making more efficient use of the programs that are already in pl=
ace
to improve literacy skills among students (Benítez Sastre
et al. 2016). Ruiz de Zarobe and Zenotz
(2015) argue for metacognitive strategy training to help students improve t=
heir
reading comprehension skills. This is just one way to allow space for stude=
nt
reflection, dialogue and improvement throughout =
the
learning process.
Familiarity with different text
types, including their organization, typical wording and other conventions
makes verbal participation possible in community social practices (Mickan 2017). In fact, there is argument in favor of
detailed analysis of text patterns to reveal these structures and lexical u=
se
for students (Gilmore 2015; Meyer et al. 2015; Mickan<=
/span>
2017). In Spain, the average percentages of Spanish learners who are expose=
d to
different types of both literary and informational texts once a week or more
are at or above the international averages (Mullis et al. 2017: 270). Howev=
er,
averages for other genres have not been found, and exposure to a wide varie=
ty,
including digital texts, would be ideal (Gamboa,
Muñoz, & Vargas 2016). A text genre map that identifies the text
types necessary for non-linguistic disciplines would aid in the planning for
overall literacy development.
In other countries, such as Australia and Canada, a
text-based focus for language education requires students to analyze and
reconstruct texts from different disciplines as well as work with other
techniques. The idea is moving from learning to read toward reading to learn
(Lorenzo 2016). In the same line, Meyer et al. (2015) argues that placing
language at the center of all learning is necessary to deeper learning,
considering that progress in learning requires an increasing capacity of
articulating understanding.
The integration of best practices, such as the
communicative methodology, in both linguistic (native and foreign languages)
and non-linguistic disciplines, would be beneficial, perhaps with the adopt=
ion
of a document that defines a common approach toward language awareness acro=
ss
school subjects. The Common European Framework provides EFL teachers with a
reliable set of descriptors to aid in evaluation, and this can and should a=
lso
be used when evaluating students’ native language in order to gain cl=
arity
of the level of linguistic competence achieved (Lorenzo 2016). There should
also be a focus on formative and authentic assessment t=
hrough
the use of portfolios, frequent observation, group corrections,
self-assessment and the measure of individual progress (Lorenzo 2016).
<= o:p>
3. OBJECTIVES
Given that textbooks are a key component in most
language programs (Richards 2002), this study examines literacy development=
as
observed through four EFL textbooks used in the fourth grade of the primary
level of education in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. It has been inspi=
red
by Fernández & Halbach (2009) in that the objective is to explore
whether the narrow sense of the concept of literacy is still taken in textb=
ooks
written or adapted for the Spanish market ten years after that study was
written. More specifically, the present paper examines the following questi=
ons:
· W=
hat
interpretation of the concept of literacy is behind each textbook?
· H=
ow
is literacy developed in the EFL textbooks?
· C=
an
any differences in the approach to literacy be observed in the textbooks us=
ed
in bilingual schools as compared to those in non-bilingual schools?
4.
INSTRUMENT
As mentioned above, this study is part of a larger
project to examine the development of literacy skills in the third and four=
th
grades of primary school in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. The larger
project involves a combination of survey research (Fernández Fernández 2018; Halbach & Candel
Bormann 2019), and textbook analysis. For the present study, two members of=
the
research team (the authors of this paper) first developed a series of quest=
ions
for examining textbooks based on the selection of features that are indicat=
ive
of lectoescrit=
ura
and literacy by Fernández and Halbach (2009) (see Table I).
|
|
Literacy in a narrow sense |
Literacy in a broad sense |
|
Preliminary aspects |
Work focuses on letters |
Work focuses on sounds |
|
The mechanical part is important - neat handwriting |
The mechanical phase is just a “preliminary” |
|
|
Reading |
Work is on pedagogical texts |
Pedagogical texts are complemented with text from various genres:
poetry, tales, etc. |
|
Work on the text is aimed at extracting information, normally thro=
ugh
closed questions |
The text is worked on in relation with the topic of the unit; it is
used as a starting point for other activities (e.g. writing a poem) |
|
|
The text is not worked on at the level of textual comprehension,
solely on language issues |
An efferent and aesthetic response is looked for |
|
|
Writing |
Focus is on the text |
Focus is on the student / reader |
|
Accuracy is valued |
The content of the writing is valued |
|
|
Students write to answer questions |
Students write to communicate |
|
|
Focus is on vocabulary (at the word level) |
The text is related to students’ own experience |
|
|
Focus is on the product |
Focus is on the process |
|
|
Correct models are imitated |
Creativity is fostered |
|
|
Beyond reading and writing |
|
Interdisciplinary character: developed through other subjects too<= o:p> |
|
Literacy is worked on in the first years of schooling |
Literacy is a skill developed throughout life |
|
|
Concept of “multiliteracies” is not generally known |
Concept of “multiliteracies” is known and practiced |
TABLE
I. Comparison of literacy features adapted from Fernández & Halb=
ach,
2009
They each then examined two randomly selected
textbooks and later compared answers to clarify the different questionnaire
items and ensure consistency in their analysis. After this process, which
included consultation with other members of the research team, four textboo=
ks
used by school teachers in the region were analy=
zed
using the final instrument (Table II). The entire process took approximately
four months.
In Spain and in the Madrid
region, a large variety of books is available, many from international
publishers and others from local companies. The particu=
lar
EFL textbooks were selected because they represent four major
international publishing companies and were mentioned by a number of the
respondents to the questionnaire in Fernández F=
ernández
(2018). At the same time, two of the textbooks are used by bilingual schools
and the other two are used by non-bilingual schools according to the survey
results, thus enabling a chance to determine potential differences between =
the
two types of schools in the area. It should be noted that neither the autho=
rs
of this study nor the research group received any incentive or benefit from=
the
companies for selecting their books over others. The books examined here are
the following:
<=
span
style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>1)&n=
bsp;
=
High Five 4, Macmillan Publishers (bilingual schools)
2)&n=
bsp;
Ace! 4,
Oxford University Press (bilingual schools)
3)&n=
bsp;
Hopscotch 4, Cengage Learning (non-bilingual schools)
4)&n=
bsp;
Kid’s Box 4, Cambridge University Press (non-bilingual scho=
ols)
|
|
Question item |
|
Reading |
What genres are present in the textbook as a whole? Narrative, factual description, reci=
pes,
biography, adverts, interviews, etc. |
|
What is the purpose of the reading activity? Introduction/reinforcement of grammar or vocabulary; subject cont=
ent;
reading as an activity to relate to one’s life; encouragement of
reading as a pleasurable activity. |
|
|
Writing |
At what level are students producing and analyzing language? Word level, sentence level or beyond
sentence level. |
|
What type(s) of linguistic scaffolding is provided? Examples, selecting from options,
matching, etc. |
|
|
How meaningful is the language production? Encourages creativity and originality, relates to student experie=
nce,
relates to textbook situation |
|
|
What type(s) of procedural scaffolding is provided? Provision of models, explicit analys=
is of
models, planning, reviewing |
|
|
Does the activity involve the planning of language production and/=
or
editing to make improvements? |
|
|
Beyond reading and writing |
Do the exercises relate to the students’ other classes, and
hence, their world beyond the English language? |
|
Do the textbook exercises and/or teacher’s book promote the =
idea
that literacy is a skill that is learned throughout life? |
|
|
Do the textbooks encourage the pupils to practice with other forma=
ts
of expression such as Internet, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.? |
|
|
Are students encouraged to express themselves in different formats
such as posters, collages, etc.? |
|
|
Are students encouraged to work with their language skills beyond =
the
textbook, such as through Internet? |
Table II. Questionnaire by authors used in the analysis of the textb=
ooks
5. METHOD
T=
he
questionnaire was composed of several items meant to regard the units’
overall content and the focus on literacy skills. First, the aspects relate=
d to
reading were examined. The genres present in each textbook and their purpose
were noted. The different exercises related to reading were then considered=
in
order to determine whether the texts were designed to assist pupils in lear=
ning
about grammar and vocabulary or whether reading was encouraged as an activi=
ty
that involved students’ experience in the world. Second, the activiti=
es
related to writing were examined and categorized as being at the word, sentence or paragraph level. They were also read to
determine whether they involved rote language practice or if they allowed f=
or
pupils to express themselves and their own life experience in a meaningful =
way.
In addition, the existence of scaffolding, or assistance in building up to a
larger task be it linguistic or procedural, was examined. For example,
extensive writing exercises were examined to see if the textbooks promote t=
he
notion that writing is a process that involves planning, editing
and reviewing. The last part of the questionnaire involved examining the bo=
oks
to determine if the exercises foster the notions that literacy goes beyond
language work into other areas of study and that it is developed throughout
life. As such, the textbooks were examined to see if they encourage work wi=
th
other written formats such as dictionaries and digital sources.
The two researchers examined the pupil’s boo=
k,
activity book and teacher’s book for each of the four titles using the
questionnaire. Particular attention was paid to the reading and writing
exercises in unit 5 of each pupil’s book because this unit was consid=
ered
representative of the others; it followed the same overall structure and was
not an introductory, project or review unit. The extra components from the
publishers for the textbooks were not examined given the large volume of
material already available.
6. RESULTS
T=
his
presentation of the results first discusses the approach to literacy as
described in the teacher’s books, and then continues with the textboo=
ks
themselves.
6.1 Interpretations of literacy in
teacher’s books
T=
he
introductory section to each of the teacher’s books was read to deter=
mine
whether the word literacy appea=
red
and how the concept was described when it was mentioned. In the absence of =
the
word in question, the explanations for the reading and writing exercises in
this same section were examined to determine the interpretation of literacy
held by the authors. It was found that two of the teacher’s books men=
tion
the actual term, while three of them provide descriptions related to differ=
ent
aspects of the concept. The teacher’s book closest in line with the
broader definition of literacy discussed above is High Five. The textbook is
reported to have a literacy spread in each unit “designed to help pup=
ils
to understand, respond to texts and to reflect on them” (Ramsden 2014:
20). It involves the “analysis of characteristics such as author purp=
ose,
the reader and the informative content of a text” (Ramsden 2014: 20),
which helps children to prepare for writing. The teacher’s book for A=
ce!
4 also mentions the term and describes aspects suggestive of a broader
interpretation of this concept, such as students’ familiarity with
stories including their “narrative conventions”; a focus on sto=
ries
in the textbook “furthers familiarity and understanding of the functi=
ons
of text” (Bilsborough & Bilsborough
2012: 6). In terms of writing, the teacher’s book highlights the use =
of
“clear models” (Bilsborough & <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Bilsborough 2012: 7) to enable children to produce th=
eir
own writing samples.
The teacher’s book for Hopscotch 4 does not
mention the term “literacy” but does refer to “teaching
pupils the conventions of writing” (Cook & Hill 2017: 4) as one of
the objectives in the textbook, which is focused on developing pupils’
language skills so that they can have “both accurate and fluent
communication” (Cook & Hill 2017: 4). A “Writing Time”
section on spread C of each unit provides a model for writing with an activ=
ity
that “prepares the pupils for producing their own piece of writing=
221;
that is “always guided and supported” (Cook & Hill 2017: 9).
Like this textbook, Kids’ Box 4 makes no reference to the word
“literacy” but language is said to be
“introduced in context” with the chance for learners to
“personalize” it (Frino & Willi=
ams
2017: 6). There is also a “strong focus on pronunciation” (Frino & Williams 2017: 11). B=
oth of
these descriptions appear to be somewhat in line with the broader
conceptualization of literacy described above. However, further examination=
of
the pupil’s books discussed below, reveals that this is not always the
case.
6.2 Literacy as
observed in the textbooks
At
this point in their education, pupils are familiar with the letters and
handwriting and are now working towards improvement of their reading and
writing skills in the English language. For this reason, the textbooks cont=
ain
no work on the mechanical side of these activities. Ins=
tead, they have exercises to incr=
ease
ability in associating sounds and spelling along with the pronunciation of
English, given the fact that pupils are learning a foreign language. They a=
lso
have an abundance of audio recordings from the start of each unit; pupils
consistently read the corresponding text as they listen to the recording so
that they can associate the spoken word with the written form. At the same
time, new vocabulary items tend to be presented in a context that involves =
text
and pictures to facilitate comprehension.
6.2.1 Texts and reading
T=
he
texts found in all four textbooks appear to have been written specifically =
for
the textbooks, and have not been reproduced from=
other
sources. Nevertheless, the teacher’s book to High Five mentions
“fun and motivating texts from the real world” (Ramsden & S=
haw
2014: 18) and the teacher’s book to Hopscotch indicates that reading
passages are “inspired by National Geographic” (Cook & Hill
2017: 8). Narratives involving children are included in all the books and, =
in
fact, the storylines in High Five and Kid’s Box continue throughout t=
he
different units. The characters introduced in an initial story in Ace! and
Hopscotch appear throughout the other units even if they do not take part in
the actual stories. Songs are also present in all four textbooks. Authentic
works of literature are not found in the books except for a short extract f=
rom
The Owl and the Pussycat, found in Kid’s Box.
After literary texts, the genre found most often in
these textbooks is factual description, similar to
those found in a content subject textbook, an encyclopedia or the Internet.=
In
fact, all four textbooks include lessons in each unit related to other subj=
ect
areas and to culture. Recipes, another type of factual text, are also found=
in
all four books. Finally, the High Five literacy spread mentioned above
introduces pupils to a few characteristics of a wider range of texts, inclu=
ding
biographies and autobiographies, myths, adverts, acrostic poems, newspaper
articles and interviews, and travel brochures, in addition to the genres
already indicated.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the texts are
used for different purposes in the books. The stories and songs that pupils
read are clearly used as support for language work. They include examples of
grammatical structures and vocabulary that are introduced before or afterwa=
rds
and that pupils practice in a more focused way. =
In
some cases, the structure is actually highlighted in bold in the story (as =
in
Hopscotch), or it is listed at the bottom of the page for the teacher and p=
upils
to see easily (Ace! and High Five), both strategies that reinforce the
linguistic focus of these texts. Pupils can also be asked to find words and
grammatical structures in the text or to select the correct word of two for=
a
sentence. After reading the stories, all four textbooks instruct the childr=
en
to act them out, a strategy to reinforce language learning but also one rel=
ated
to comprehension. The activity books have exercises that involve matching
sentence halves and/or fill-in-the blank sentences and dialogues with or
without a selection of words in a word bank, mainly aimed at practicing
language.
The texts used for cultural and cross-curricular
topics, typically located in the second half of the units in all four
textbooks, show a shift towards vocabulary and meaning. When comprehension
questions are part of the reading exercise, they involve looking for a short
answer in the text, selecting true sentences from a list or fitting the cor=
rect
word from a word bank into a summary paragraph. Nevertheless, the questions=
are
often very similar to the actual wording of the
original text, so there is little challenge in terms of text comprehension.=
In
other words, the exercises remain for the most part within the lower order
thinking skill of understanding. It should be noted, however, that these
readings are often used as the basis for more extensive writing, as explain=
ed
below. The activity book exercises corresponding to these sections tend to
reinforce the learning of vocabulary, with exercises involving matching and=
the
reordering of sentences.
Despite these different uses of texts in the
textbooks, it is worthy to note that the purpose of reading tends to be more
instrumental than pleasurable or meaningful, particularly in the case of
stories. Pupils are not given a meaningful purpose for reading, as evidence=
d in
the instructions listed prior to the readings throughout the four books.
Examples are “Listen and read” (Ace) and “Listen to the
recording and read the story” (Hopscotch).
Pupils are, however, sometimes encouraged to
brainstorm ideas and then read texts to confirm their answers, which create=
s a
context for reading. This is most evident and meaningful in High Five, which
incorporates prediction questions into each literacy section of the pupil&#=
8217;s
book. For example, pupils are asked “What do you think Sirens are? Re=
ad
and listen to find out. What do the Sirens do?” (Ramsden & Shaw 2=
014:
58). The other three pupil’s books&n=
bsp;
show no evidence of this extent of prediction of content; instead,
teachers are given suggestions in the teacher’s books to have the cla=
ss
brainstorm ideas related to a topic and/or have the pupils identify items in
pictures which are related to the reading to follow. Nevertheless, the
prediction work in Hopscotch and Kid’s Box is mainly vocabulary
preparation to assist pupils in understanding the text, thus, reinforcing t=
he
instrumental nature of the reading and encouraging a focus on word-level
processing skills, a bottom-up approach to handling text.
It is significant to note that High Five and Ace! =
have
pupils respond to content in the story for each unit in a short exercise at=
the
end of the corresponding lesson. This involves filling in some blanks in
sentences related to their opinion about the story and their favorite chara=
cter
and vignette. High Five also has them write a reason for their preferences =
and
discuss their own experience with regards to the situation in the story. In
addition, the culture section of High Five has pupils discuss questions that
relate the ideas from the text to their own experience once they have finis=
hed
reading. After that, they are encouraged to do a webqu=
est
on the topic. These exercises related to personalizing their experience with
texts encourage pupils to use the higher-order thinking skills of drawing
connections between ideas and taking a stand on a position.
6.2.2 Writing
In
terms of the writing skills developed in the four textbooks, practice is of=
ten
at the word or sentence level and it is frequently used to reinforce the
language work. Students fill in letters to complete partially written words=
, do
puzzles such as word searches, and finish sentences or write complete ones,
first using sentence frames and model sentences and then doing so on their =
own.
They also reorder words and write questions that go with answers that are
provided. In this sense, the focus in all four books is on developing accur=
ate
use of the target language, as opposed to valuing the content of the ideas
written.
While communication of meaning related to the
pupils’ lives is not often involved, all the books make at least some
attempt to enable pupils to personalize their practice of the language
structures. For example, in Hopscotch they answer questions in one sentence
about their favorite types of food and drink in a unit review (Clark 2017: =
57).
In this way the focus is slightly shifted from linguistic accuracy to the
communication of ideas, bringing the perspective of literacy to a slightly
broader one.
Writing beyond the sentence level is also practice=
d in
all four books at least once in each unit. In the longer writing exercises,
which entail up to about 60 words, pupils are often expected to write about=
a
topic that is pre-selected. The genres practiced are typically factual, as =
when
pupils write a news article (Ace!), information for a holiday brochure (High
Five) or a recipe (Hopscotch), but they can also include opinions as in wri=
ting
about their favorite sports and sports star in unit 7 of Hopscotch.
All four books provide practice that enables pupil=
s to
progress from writing at the word level to the sentence level and then to m=
ore
extensive writing of up to about 60 words. Nevertheless, in High Five and A=
ce!
the flow from one level to the others is clearer than in Hopscotch and
Kid’s Box. For example, in learning about recipes in Ace!, pupils
identify cooking verbs in pictures, write one-sentence instructions with the
verbs, practice the structure of “there is/there are,” write
sentences to describe pictures, read descriptions of ingredients in dishes,=
and
other activities. At the end of the unit the learners work with model recip=
es
before writing one of their own. In contrast, the progression toward writin=
g a
text in unit 5 of Hopscotch is less guided. Specifically, it jumps from
practice at the word level to longer text writing (up to 60 words) with lim=
ited
work at the sentence level between the two.
As mentioned above, the reading texts in the diffe=
rent
units are sometimes used as the basis for more extensive writing. In three =
of
the textbooks, a text is used as a model and there is planning for writing =
of
some type (High Five, Ace! and Hopscotch) with varying degrees of evidence =
of a
process approach to writing. The clearest examples are found in High Five. =
For
instance, in preparing to write information about a travel destination, pup=
ils
first read about Italy and Mexico and do comprehension activities. They then
examine the features of the genre, such as the presence of a map, photos and information on cities, and are prompted to =
write
brief guided notes about a destination of their choice before writing their=
own
text.
Some similar comprehension and planning activities=
can
be found in Ace! though without explicitly examining the aspects of the gen=
re
in question. In Hopscotch, models are provided a=
nd
students do some very basic planning of the content by answering a series of
guided questions before writing their own paragraph, but there is no
explanation of the genre or the structure of the text. The textbook KidR=
17;s
Box does not appear to work with models for writing. In addition to encoura=
ging
pupils to plan for writing, High Five also has them review their work to
determine if they have included certain features of the genre examined in t=
he
prior lesson. It is the only textbook of the four that does so.
Due to the restrictions of following a model text,
there is generally little room for creativity in these writing exercises.
Pupils are able to personalize their work by add=
ing
their own ideas and opinions in the different types of exercises that invol=
ve
writing beyond the sentence level, but creative writing per se is hardly
practiced. When creative production is fostered, it often involves another =
type
of expression such as drawing and inventing. This is the case of the invent=
ion
of robots or super animals (Kid’s Box), minibeasts (High Five), a tow=
n or
city (Ace! extra worksheets), and a drawing of a student’s favorite t=
hing
(Hopscotch).
6.2.3 Beyond reading and writing
T=
he
readings and writing exercises that go beyond the sentence level reveal
attempts on the part of the publishers to relate the content to other subje=
cts
in school. High Five and Ace! promote contact with language from other subj=
ect
areas including science, technology, history, maths,
and arts and crafts in a cross-cultural lesson in each unit. Kid’s Box
does the same in a special CLIL section at the end of each unit focused on
“connecting the world outside the classroom” (Frino
& Williams 2017: 8). Finally, Hopscotch, which is based on National
Geographic content, focuses on people and different places in each unit, an=
d on
a particular cross-curricular subject through the
section of each unit called the Explorers’ Club. All of this is posit=
ive
since “progression in discipline or subject understanding will be lim=
ited
unless it is accompanied by progression in learners’ subject-specific
literacies” (Meyer et al. 2015: 52). Nevertheless, the cross-curricul=
ar
or CLIL sections tend to simplify content and focus on lower-order thinking
skills, a finding that also held true in a study of international textbooks
marketed in Argentina (Banegas 2014). A comparison of textbooks used in oth=
er
subjects in Spain is needed to determine the extent to which the contents o=
f the
CLIL sections in English language textbooks are indeed simplified.
None of the textbooks or teacher’s books mak=
es
explicit reference to literacy’s being a skill developed throughout l=
ife.
The latter do, however, mention learner autonomy and/or fostering an intere=
st
in learning in their introductory sections. In fact, High Five mentions the
explicit idea of “preparing children for learning throughout their
lives” (Ramsden & Shaw 2014: 21).
In terms of the development of multiliteracies, Hi=
gh
Five has pupils do webquests for additional
information after each culture lesson and Ace! encourages them to use a
dictionary for new words, thus encouraging them to work with different sour=
ces
of information. Kid’s Box and Hopscotch, however, make no indication =
to pupils
to look elsewhere for information. Nevertheless, the four different textboo=
ks
do have pupils create work in other formats than the traditional written te=
xt.
Posters, comics, collages and labelled drawings =
are
included in project work to promote these different formats of writing and
creative expression, which is a positive step toward fostering and raising
awareness of multiliteracies.
In addition, three of the four textbooks include
access to an online website with additional activities for pupils to contin=
ue
practicing outside their classes, thus facilitating digital literacy. A new
edition of the six-level High Five series will also include a pupil’s=
app
for use on a mobile phone and this updated textbook, as well as Kid’s
Box, can be used in paper or digital format in class. DVDs with videos are =
also
available to reinforce classes for all four textbooks.
7. DISCUSSION
T=
he
four textbooks analyzed continue to have a focus on language as they involve
extensive practice at the word and sentence levels, but they do incorporate
longer readings and, to some extent, writing at the paragraph level. While
linguistic scaffolding is provided in abundance, especially for sentence le=
vel
work, varying levels of scaffolding are provided in terms of assisting stud=
ents
to explicitly understand the structuring of paragraphs or the process of
writing, despite promises in the teacher’s books to foster guided
assistance to reading and writing. Models are provided but there are varying
degrees of explicit explanation regarding structure.
A more constructivist approach toward building a
message in a collaborative and creative way would be more conducive to guid=
ing
students to developing literacy, as well as learning how to continue develo=
ping
these skills throughout their lives (Fernández & Halbach 2009;
Lorenzo 2016). Continuing to add work at the text level through contact wit=
h additional
texts and genres and with the features of these genres will be crucial to
developing students’ multiple literacies (Mickan=
2017). This is especially important when considering that the CLIL approach
involves different contexts and that discourse patterns vary across cultures
(Gilmore, 2015; Mickan 2017). It is interesting=
to
note that the two textbooks used in bilingual schools (High Five and Ace!) =
make
the process of writing more explicit than the other two. This finding sugge=
sts
that more work on writing as a process might be taking place in bilingual
schools if their choice of textbook can indicate this intention.
At the same time, pupils’ previous experienc=
e is
not always considered despite its importance in facilitating comprehension
using a top-down approach to reading. Some attempts at making language prac=
tice
relevant to pupils, however, can be seen. There ought to be a more meaningf=
ul,
communicative approach to using writing for real-world purposes in order to arm pupils with the tools to produce coher=
ent
texts that perform communicative tasks (Gilmore 2015; Meyer et al. 2015;
Despite claims in the teacher’s books, there
also continues to be a tendency to require mostly lower order thinking skil=
ls
of pupils, though this too seems to be changing to some degree. While some
textbooks concentrate on simple comprehension questions about texts, others=
make an effort to have students apply what they have l=
earned
in some way. Higher order thinking skills and critical thinking can mainly =
be
appreciated in the projects and cross curricular topics that are offered by=
the
textbooks. Pushing students to use these skills is important in any educati=
onal
setting, but especially so in a CLIL setting, where cognition and CALP are
essential to sustainable learning (Coyle 2007; Cummins 2000), and in a coun=
try
such as Spain which has been found to fail at students’ mastery of CA=
LP
(Lorenzo 2016).
On the whole, varying degrees of all
of these aspects of literacy have been found for the different
textbooks. High Five stands out as being the closest in line with the broad
interpretation of literacy discussed at the start to this article. The other
textbooks approach this broader understanding to a lesser extent. Ace!, however, does promote scaffolding to understand =
the
organization of texts and it encourages pupils to reflect on their opinions=
of
texts, both steps in this same direction. It is interesting to note that the
two books used by bilingual schools have come the furthest in working towar=
ds a
more global view of literacy. This may be related to the pupils’ need=
to
communicate in English in different contexts and their receiving more hours=
of
instruction in English. The combination of exposure to different contexts a=
nd a
potentially higher level of language leads pupils to be able to work more
in-depth with texts, and textbook publishers appear to be responding to this
situation. Nevertheless, research involving more textbooks is needed to con=
firm
this distinction.
8. CONCLUSION
L=
iteracy
development is necessary for students, and it is essential that they see it=
as
a multidisciplinary and lifelong goal. To this end, further work must be do=
ne
to consider a common literacy approach across disciplines and regard litera=
cy
as a longitudinal concept. Through the study of text genres and their relation with school subjects, the curriculum can be
constructed so that students work with a variety of genres throughout their
school years, as in countries such as Australia and Canada. Support for
subject-specific literacy development can be given from the Spanish and Eng=
lish
language classes if there is coordination at all levels among stakeholders.=
In
fact, the potential for transfer of what is learned in the first and second
languages, as detailed in Cummins’ Underlying Proficiency model (Cumm=
ins,
1980), means that the development of literacy in either language will benef=
it
the learner, regardless of the language of input or output. Further, CLIL
classes provide an opportunity for students to gain flexibility in terms of=
varying
discourse patterns found in different cultures, and this should be maximize=
d.
Further similar research is required in order to determine whether the findings of the pres=
ent
study can be confirmed in textbooks for other subjects, including Spanish l=
anguage
and CLIL classes. It would also be interesting to continue analyzing textbo=
oks
used in later levels of primary education as well as in secondary education=
to
determine whether there is continuity and further development of literacy
regarding more advanced genres. The hope is that these and other similar
studies will influence publishers to make further efforts to offer materials
that foster literacy in the broader sense of the word, and that teachers wi=
ll
become better informed in order to make decisions about the materials with
which they choose to work. It is of paramount importance to continue traini=
ng
teachers in a more encompassing definition of literacy, the necessity to
support students in developing multiliteracies, and the appropriate related
tools and methodologies.
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
NOTE
1=
This paper has been possible thanks
to funding from Universidad de Alcalá for
the project
“Desarrollo de destrezas de alfabetización en el segundo ciclo=
de
educación primaria en centros de la Comunidad Autónoma de Mad=
rid:
Estudio de la situación actual” [CCGP2017-HUM/024].
REFERENCES
Banegas, D. L. (2014). An investigation into
CLIL-related sections of EFL coursebooks: Issues of CLIL inclusion in the
publishing market. International Jo=
urnal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(3), 345-359.
Benítez Sastre,=
L.,
D’Angelo Menéndez, E., Garbe, C., =
Gil
Traver, F., Lafontaine, D., de Juan Sánchez de Rojas, M. P., Villabona Garcíaet=
, M.
(2016). Literacy in Spain: Country report, children<=
/span>
and adolescents. European Literacy Policy Network (ELINET). Retrieved f=
rom http://www.eli-net.eu/fileadmi/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/
Spain_Long_Report.pdf
Bilsborough, K. & Bilsborough, S. (2012). Ace! 4 (class book, activity book, teacher’s book). Oxford University Press. <= o:p>
C=
assany,
D. & Castellà, J. M. (2010).
Aproximación a la literacidad crítica. Perspectiva Florianópolis, 28(2), 353-374. DOI:
10.5007/2175-795X.2010v28n2p353
Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., et al. (1996). A pedagogy of
multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), =
60-92.
Retrieved from http://ne=
warcproject.pbworks.com/f/Pedagogy+of+Multiliteracies_New+London+Group.pdf
Choi, A., Jerrim, J. (=
2016).
The use (and misuse) of PISA in guiding policy reform: The case of Spain. <=
i>Comparative
Education, 52(2), 230-245. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2016.1142739
Clarke, S. (2017). Hopscotch
4: Activity book. Cengage Learning/National Geographic Learning.
Cook, J., Hill, D. A. (2017). Hopscotch 4:
Teacher’s book. Cengage Learning/National Geographic Learning.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated
Learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Edu=
cation
and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562. DOI: 10.2167/beb459.0
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of
language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal =
age
issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2),
175-187.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual
children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK and
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Durán-Martínez, R., Beltrán-Llavador,
F. (2016). A regional assessment of bilingual programm=
es
in primary and secondary schools: The teachers’ views. Porta Linguarum, 25, 79-92.
EFA Global Monitoring Report Team (2006). EFA global monitoring report 2006: Lit=
eracy
for life. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2006/literacy-life
European Commission (2012). EU high level group of experts on literacy: Final report.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/
repository/education/policy/school/doc/literacy-report_en.pdf
Fernández, R., Halbach, A. (2009). Uncoveri=
ng
the approach to literacy of Spanish textbooks used in a CLIL context. In S-=
A. Ditze & A. Halbach (Eds.), <=
i>Bilingualer
sachfachunterricht (CLIL) =
im
kontext von sprache=
, kultur
und multiliteralität (pp. 42-55). Fran=
kfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
Fernández Ferná=
ndez,
R. (2018). “Exploring Literacy in Bilingual Contexts. CAM Primary
Teachers’ Conceptualization.” Paper Presented at the 42nd AEDEAN
Conference, Córdoba. November 7–9.
Frino, L., Williams, M. (2017). Kid’s Box 4 (teacher’s
book). Cambridge University Press/Cambridge English Language Assessment.
G=
amboa,
A. A., Muñoz, P. A., Vargas, L. (2016). Literacidad: Nuevas
posibilidades socioculturales y pedagógicas para la escuela. Revi=
sta
Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos (Colombia), 12(1), 53-70.=
Retrieved from http://latinoamericana.ucaldas.edu.co/downloads/
Latinoamericana12(1)_4.pdf
Gilmore, A. (2015). Research into practice: The
influence of discourse studies on language descriptions and task design in
published ELT materials. Language Teaching, 48(4), 506-530. DOI:
10.1017/S0261444815000269
Halbach, A., Candel Bo=
rmann,
D. (2019). Inching towards literacy in Madrid’s primary schools: A su=
rvey
of school-wide projects, Language and Education, 33(5), 416-430. DOI:
10.1080/09500782.2019.1622712
Heath, J., Crawford, M. (2017). Hopscotch 4:
Pupil’s book. Cengage Learning/National Geographic Learning.
Iñesta Mena, E. M. (2=
017).
Revisión sobre literacidad como noción multidimensional para =
una
didáctica de las lenguas inclusiva.
Porta Linguarum, 27, 79-92. Retrieved f=
rom http://ww=
w.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero27/6_Eva%20M%20Inesta.pdf<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-US'>
L=
orenzo,
F. (2016). Competencia en comunicación lingüística: Clav=
es
para el avance de la comprensión lectora en las pruebas PISA. Rev=
ista
de Educación, 374, 142-160. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2016-374-3=
29
M=
eyer,
O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck,
K., Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and
language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowle=
dge
construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, <=
i>28(1),
41-57. DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Mickan, P. (2017). Text-based research and teaching from a social semiotic
perspective: Transformative research and pedagogy. In P. Mickan
& E. Lopez (Eds.), Text-based research and teaching: A social semiot=
ic
perspective on language in use (pp. 15-35). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI:
10.1057/978-1-137-59849-2_2
Mullis, I., O’Martin,
M., Foy, P., Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016: International results in rea=
ding.
Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch Scho=
ol
of Education, Boston College and International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retrieved =
from
http://pirls2016.org/download-center/
Nixon, C., Tomlinson, M. (2017). Kid’s Bo=
x 4
(pupil’s book, activity book). Cambridge University Press/Cambridge
English Language Assessment.
OECD (2014). New insights from TALIS 2013: Teac=
hing
and learning in primary and upper secondary education, OECD Publishing.=
DOI:
10.1787/9789264226319-en
Ramsden, J., Shaw, D. (2014). High Five 4
(pupil’s book, activity book, teacher’s book). Macmillan
Publishers.
Richards, J. C. (2002). The role of textbooks in a
language program. Retrieved from
https://www.professorjackrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/role-of-textbooks.=
pdf
R=
uiz de
Zarobe, Y., Zenotz,=
V.
(2015). Reading strategies and CLIL: The effect of trainin=
g in
formal instruction. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 319-333. D=
OI:
10.1080/09571736.2015.1053284