Content uploaded by Simone Pfenninger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simone Pfenninger on Nov 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
443
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching
Department of English Studi es, Fa culty of Ped agogy a nd Fi ne Art s, A dam Mi ckiewi cz Un iversit y, Kalis z
SSLLT 7 (3). 2017. 443-470
doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.5
http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl
Transitional woes: On the impact of L2 input continuity
from primary to secondary school
Simone E. Pfenninger
University of Salzburg, Austria
simone.pfenninger@sbg.ac.at
Johanna Lendl
University of Zurich, Switzerland
johanna.lendl@bluewin.ch
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the problem of articulation between levels in the edu-
cational system, as the transition from a rather more communicative, content-
based and holistic approach to English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching at
primary level to more formal and explicit ways of foreign language (FL) teaching
at secondary is often experienced as problematic by students and teachers alike
(see e.g., Muñoz, Tragant & Camuñas, 2015). The results of a mixed methods
analysis are presented, in which we analyzed, through a questionnaire and lan-
guage experience essays, perceived continuity between input received in pri-
mary school and secondary school, as well as learners’ beliefs, attitudes and
self-efficacy before and after they transitioned to secondary school. Twelve pri-
mary schools and six secondary schools in Switzerland participated in the study,
with a total of 280 early learners of EFL (biological age 12-13 years, age of onset
8 years). We will argue that one of the main reasons why early FL instruction
seems not to bear fruit later in secondary school is that, on the one hand, co-
herence in curriculum design and practice vary in a few – but crucial – aspects
within and between primary schools. On the other hand, the fact that second-
ary education becomes a meeting point for mixed ability classes also seems to
mitigate the potential advantages of an earlier start.
Keywords: EFL; primary school; age factor; young learners
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
444
1. Introduction
Continuity has been a recurring challenge since the very first early foreign lan-
guage (FL) programs at primary school level were launched (Johnstone, 2009).
Yet despite observations of what look like negative consequences of a subopti-
mal primary-secondary transition in different parts of the world, the issue of this
transition has not yet been given the attention it deserves as a possible major
factor in students’ levels of attainment (Muñoz, Tragant & Camuñas, 2015). The
fact that the transition from elementary school into secondary education has
often been described as a ubiquitous fragile moment in students’ early educa-
tional career (Blondin et al., 1998) has been largely ignored.
In Switzerland, as in many European countries, “implicit” approaches are
the norm in early foreign language (FL) instruction in the primary school class-
room; in other words, young children under the age of 10 or so are for the most
part typically taught in a playful way via songs, games, etc., with a focus on oral
use of the L2. Metalanguage builds rather slowly during the elementary school
years in regard to students’ L1 for literacy, and thus students cannot yet really
benefit from a transfer from this process to the L2 (Jaekel et al., in press). Sec-
ondary school, by contrast, is characterized by more explicit focus on form. This
transition from a rather more communicative and holistic approach to EFL at the
primary level to more formal and consciousness-engaging ways of FL learning at
the secondary level is often experienced as problematic by students and teach-
ers alike (see Muñoz, Tragant, & Camuñas, 2015). This seriously and urgently
calls for research into the transition from FL instruction in primary school to FL
instruction in secondary school. According to Housen and Pierrard (2005), the
efficaciousness of instruction affects not only the route of acquisition and rate
of language learning, but also ultimate levels of attainment. In the process of
early FL learning, the sustaining of high levels of motivation and continuous de-
velopment of language proficiency may crucially hinge upon a successful transi-
tion from elementary to secondary education (Jaekel et al., in press). Students
should have a voice in this discussion. The breaks or transitions in the school
system are not always easy for them to understand or manage (see Jones, 2016,
p. 79). It is thus particularly important to enquire about their perspectives on
the dis/continuity of their language journey and their experiences with class-
room management and FL input and teaching methodologies in primary vs. sec-
ondary school. In this study we aim to analyze the degree of continuity between
input received in primary school and secondary school, as well as learners’ be-
liefs, attitudes and self-efficacy before and after they transition to secondary
school. Twelve primary schools and six secondary schools in Switzerland partic-
ipated in the study, with a total of 280 early learners of EFL (age of onset, AO, 8
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
445
years) who were tested at the end of primary school and at the beginning of
secondary school, respectively. Three students were followed longitudinally.
The results show that one of the reasons why early FL instruction seems not to
bear fruit later in secondary school appears to be that coherence in curriculum
design and practice varies tremendously within and between primary schools.
2. On the explicit-implicit dichotomy
It has been argued that young learners rely primarily on implicit learning, while
learners who are more (or fully) cognitively mature can make better use of ex-
plicit knowledge and learning (García Mayo, 2003; Larson-Hall, 2008; Muñoz,
2009). The precise meaning of implicit and explicit in this context and the nature
of their differentiation cannot be said to be universally agreed upon (cf. Mitchell,
Myles & Marsden, 2013, pp. 136-137), but implicit learning is generally thought
of as an automatic, non-conscious and powerful mechanism that results in
knowledge which can be accessed quickly and without effort (Dörnyei, 2009;
Ellis, 1994). It is claimed to enable “learners to infer rules without awareness”
and “internalize the underlying rule/pattern without their attention being ex-
plicitly focused on it” (Ellis, 2009, p. 16). However, implicit learning is also seen
as a slow process that relies on intensive exposure to input over a prolonged
period of time (Tellier & Roehr-Brackin, in press). By contrast, explicit learning is
characterized as involving “conscious awareness on the part of the learner as
they attempt to understand material, seek to analyze input, or try to solve pro-
duction or comprehension problems, e.g. via deliberate hypothesis-testing”
(Tellier & Roehr-Brackin, in press; see also Dörnyei, 2009; Schmidt, 2001). How-
ever, explicit learning is portrayed as resource-intensive, requiring attention and
relying on the processing and maintenance of information in working memory
(Jaekel et al., in press). It is for this reason that (more) mature learners have
been considered to be better able to learn explicitly (Jaekel et al., in press). To
turn the argument around, younger children’s poorer performance in classroom
settings when compared with older children, adolescents and adults is normally
attributed to a combination of their relative lack of cognitive maturity, exposure
to minimal input, coupled with young children’s predominant reliance on implicit
learning, which, as indicated above, is purportedly a slow process that requires
considerable input to be maximally effective (Tellier & Roehr-Brackin, in press).
A limited-input situation that relies on so-called implicit FL learning is cur-
rently perceived as the norm at primary-school level in Switzerland and else-
where in Europe. However, the general assumption that the focus of early FL
programs is merely on “playful-like acquisition of the L2” is a bit of a myth; par-
ticularly at the upper primary level, the nature of some of the exercises in the
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
446
course books (e.g., word lists, rules, translations, error correction) is indicative
of more explicit attention to accuracy. Research with young FL learners suggests
that even though “implicit” learning appears to be the default, children aged
around 7 may already begin to draw on explicit knowledge and learning (Barton
& Bragg, 2010; Milton & Alexiou, 2006; Tellier & Roehr-Brackin, in press). Children
may well be able to learn explicitly, especially if they are exposed to explicit in-
struction (Lichtman, 2013). Tellier and Roehr-Brackin (in press) hypothesized that
if children’s explicit learning capacity could be enhanced, they might derive
greater benefit from even minimal L2 exposure. They investigated whether and
to what extent instruction in Esperanto as a ‘‘starter language’ could help foster
8- to 9-year old primary-school children’s development of metalinguistic aware-
ness and, by extension, their ability to engage in successful L2 learning in a mini-
mal-input setting. Their results suggest that explicit instruction in a constructed,
transparent L2 that comprises deductive, form-focused activities may be effective
in a minimal-input environment, not just for cognitively mature learners but also
for young learners. Nevertheless, it has been informally reported by learners,
teachers and parents that teaching methodology in primary school is significantly
different from FL methodology employed in secondary education (see Muñoz,
Tragant, & Camuñas, 2015; Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017). Successful introduction
of an L2 in elementary school needs to take into account students’ level of cogni-
tive development as well as other learner factors such as L1 proficiency level and
degree of motivation (Jaekel et al., in press). The goals of early FL instruction in
primary school range from developing favorable attitudes towards languages and
language learning, through raising awareness of other cultures and identities, to
the enlargement of the linguistic repertoire and cultural horizons of many differ-
ent communities, among many others (Nikolov & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 2011;
Prabhu, 2009). In other words, the main goal is not necessarily an increase in FL
proficiency. Early FL education is thus best characterized by an absence of metalan-
guage and a focus on oracy (for a discussion of L2 oracy, see Tarone, Bigelow, & Han-
sen, 2009), contextualized L2, and communicative language learning, which aims to
provide ample exposure and opportunities to use the L2 (Housen & Pierrard, 2005).
In secondary school, by contrast, grammar is awarded more prominence through
teachers’ explanations, exercises in course books, teaching materials, charts on the
blackboard, the study of word lists and rules, language-focused compositions, and
the use of notebooks, among others (Tel l i e r & R oe h r -Brackin, in press).
Transitioning to secondary school methodology thus shifts from a
stronger emphasis on what is seen as implicit to one focused on what is seen as
explicit learning and teaching, that is, the overt teaching and learning of the L2
such as grammar or vocabulary and the use of metalinguistic skills (Housen &
Pierrard, 2005). We are going to have a closer look at this in the next section.
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
447
3. Problems of Articulation Between Levels in the Educational System
Several critical issues in relation to the transition from FL instruction in primary to sec-
ondary school have been identified in the recent literature (Chambers, 2014; Court-
ney et al., 2015; Graham et al., 2016; Jaekel et al., in press; Muñoz, Tragant, & Camu-
ñas, 2015; Nikolov & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 2011; Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017):
A. An abrupt shift from student-centered, “implicit” methodology to more
teacher-directed and faster-paced lessons may impact young learners.
B. There is a potential mismatch of student-teacher expectations regarding
FL teaching methods used in class, which may cause a decrease in moti-
vation, particularly if students do not receive input that is adjusted to
their L2 proficiency level.
C. A lack of coordination and communication between primary school
teachers and secondary school teachers, such that often teachers of dif-
ferent levels never meet, observe each other, exchange materials, or at-
tend further training together.
D. Teaching outcomes from elementary schools varying to a great extent, de-
pending on when the language learning programs start, how much time
they allocate to early language learning, what type of curriculum they ap-
ply, who the teachers are, and how the programs are implemented; thus,
as secondary schools welcome students from several elementary schools,
teachers are required to be particularly thorough in assessing initial lan-
guage skills that students in their class have already attained.
E. FL teachers at the elementary school level are sometimes not being
trained extensively (yet), as these programs are still relatively new to
primary education in some countries in Europe.
A number of transition studies have been conducted in Europe (e.g., Courtney,
2014; Graham et al., 2016), discussing one or several of the points mentioned
under (A)–(E), thereby predominantly relying on questionnaire data and/or in-
terviews. The picture that emerges demonstrates that the issue of transition is
by no means limited to the teaching of EFL and it affects the teaching of various
target languages.
In the Hungarian context, Nikolov (in press) points out that what children
actually learn in their L2 in the first years will be forgotten unless it is revised
and built on in a regular fashion in later years. She emphasizes that raising chil-
dren’s interest is easy, yet maintaining their motivation over years often poses
a challenge, as their initial enthusiasm tends to decline in the long run (see also
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
448
Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017). Nikolov (in press) speculates that this loss of moti-
vation is often caused by test results: “Tasks have to be tuned to their interests
and abilities, and teachers have to be able to diagnose where children are in
their progress.” The problem with the disconnection between primary schools
and secondary schools (point C above) has often been observed. Muñoz, Tragant
and Camuñas (2015) gathered evidence with respect to the transition process
from primary to secondary school in five primary schools and eight secondary
schools in the Barcelona area. Most of what secondary school teachers knew
about English in primary school came from what they saw or were told from
their first-year students and from their own children. They were used to admin-
istering a diagnostic test at the beginning of secondary school that targeted ex-
plicit knowledge of English grammar, which students found challenging and de-
motivating, coming from primary classroom with limited explicit focus on form.
According to Jaekel et al. (in press) the transition in Germany is character-
ized by an abrupt shift from an oracy-focused curriculum, including assess-
ments, to one that builds on literacy and steep grammatical progression. Not
only does methodology shift from relying mostly on implicit learning to explicit
teaching and learning that requires metalinguistic knowledge, but a lack of com-
munication between elementary and secondary schools has been identified as
a crucial problem. Referring to a variety of previous studies (e.g., Börner, Engel,
& Groot-Wilken, 2013; Graham et al., 2016), Jaekel et al. (in press) emphasize
that this is particularly important in harmonizing methodology and content in
secondary education and providing language teachers with an idea of what lev-
els of L2 proficiency they can expect at the end of elementary school:
Planning and adjusting the L2 classroom to account for different levels of language
proficiency without alienating those learners that come with considerably higher lev-
els of L2 proficiency is important. Not recognizing the skills students have already
developed may seriously endanger the generally high level of motivation and interest
in the L2 that has been reported for elementary school students.
Thus, classroom experiences may also have an effect on motivation if they
influence learners’ perceptions of progress and competence especially around the
time of primary–secondary transition, at a point when such a sense of competence
becomes especially important for learners (Graham et al., 2016). It is Chaudron’s
(2001) view that classroom processes are heavily influenced by the structure of
classroom organization, in which different patterns of teacher-student interaction,
group work, degrees of learners’ control over their learning, and variations in tasks
and their sequencing play a significant role in the quantity and quality of learners’
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
449
production and interaction with the target language. As a consequence of class-
room effects, individuals are hypothesized to accommodate to the normative envi-
ronment within their class setting, which leads to cohort effects.
With the objective of contributing to this line of research, the present
study explores the following questions:
1. How do learners of EFL perceive the frequency and usefulness of differ-
ent classroom activities at the end of primary schooling and at the start
of secondary school? Does their perception change across transition?
2. To what extent are learners’ beliefs and opinions related to classroom
environmental conditions and the activities they experience?
4. Methodology
4.1. Learner participants
280 participants had been selected for this paper, who were part of three stud-
ies. The main reason for these three studies is that we feel that understanding
the complex nature of the transition under investigation requires a complemen-
tary approach that combines quantitative and qualitative analyses as well as dif-
ferent student populations.
All of the participants had started being instructed in English in early child-
hood (grade level 2, AO 8 years), where they had received two hours of English
instruction a week, followed by three hours per week in secondary school. The
participants were controlled for L1 (Swiss German), additional FLs learned (six
years of Standard German and two years of French in primary school), socio-eco-
nomic status, teaching method and weekly hours of EFL instruction received.In
Switzerland, the total compulsory school period amounts to eleven years. Primary
level – including two years of kindergarten or a first learning cycle – comprises
eight years. Secondary level in academically-oriented high schools takes six years.
4.1.1. Study 1
The sample that formed the basis for our quantitative analysis consisted of 91
primary school students (43 M, 48 F) and 89 secondary school students (46 M,
43 F) from the canton of Zurich in Switzerland. The primary school group was
tested during their last semester in primary school (grade level 6), when they
were between 12 and 13 years old (mean age 12;1). They attended 18 different
classes in 12 primary schools. All the primary school participants were planning
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
450
to proceed to an academically oriented secondary school in the following aca-
demic year, as in Switzerland students are streamed into different branches of
secondary school after grade 6.
We employed a cross-sectional design to create a pseudo-longitudinal
study (see Gass & Selinker, 2008) by comparing the primary school group data
with the data collected from the 89 secondary school students 5-6 months into
secondary school. Learners in this group were slightly older (mean age 13;1, range
12-13) than the participants in the primary school group. The 89 participants were
nested within 10 classes that were nested within five secondary schools.
4.1.2. Study 2
For the qualitative analyses we selected 100 secondary school students (41 M,
59 F) also from the Zurich area of Switzerland, who were part of an 8-year lon-
gitudinal project called Beyond age effects (see Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017),
in which we analyzed the effects of age of onset vis-à-vis the learning of English
that manifest themselves in the course of secondary schooling in the context of
a multilingual educational model. The participants in this group were tested six
months after they began academically oriented high school when they were 13
years old (mean age 13;8, range 13-14). The 100 learners were nested within six
classes that were nested within five schools. One out of the five schools was in
a suburban area, while the others were in urban school districts.
4.1.3. Study 3
Due to organizational reasons, it was impossible to follow all the students in their
transition to secondary school. Therefore, we created a focal group that com-
prised three learners – two boys and a girl, who we shall refer to in the following
as Noah, Tobias and Laura – who were included in both data collections and
whose results were analyzed quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The three par-
ticipants were in the same classes as the primary school children in Study 1 and
shared the same characteristics. This group enabled us to obtain a true longitudi-
nal perspective of the transition from primary to secondary school.
4.2. Tasks and procedure
In the context of the quantitative approach, we focused on the students’ per-
spectives on the different teaching methodologies, the distinct tasks in the class-
room as well as on the input they received in primary or secondary school re-
spectively. To this end, a questionnaire consisting of 34 closed-ended items was
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
451
administered to the primary and secondary school groups in the pseudo-longi-
tudinal design (Study 1). Multi-item scales were created for eight dimensions of
classroom activities (cf. Dörnyei, 2010, p. 23). The eight dimensions were aimed
at exploring the teaching approaches practiced on primary vs. secondary school
level (see Table 1) and their orientation towards implicit or explicit learning. The
items in the first two dimensions refer to the communicative and meaning-ori-
ented approach that is typically associated with primary school teaching and
designed to promote implicit learning (cf. EDK-Ost, 2009, pp. 6-7; Muñoz, Tra-
gant & Camuñaz, 2015),
Ta bl e 1 Information about the multi-item scales
Dimension
Vari ables
No. of items
Sample item
1
Implicit: producti on
4
We s ing songs in English.
2
Implicit: input
4
We w atch mov ies in E ngli sh.
3
Explicit: vocabulary
6
We l earn how to s pell wo rds.
4
Explicit: grammar rules
4
We c onjug ate verb s or lear n te nses .
5
Explicit: strategies
5
I look up words in a (n) (online) dictionary.
6
Use of German
4
Our teacher uses German in English class.
7
Classroom material
4
We w ork wit h a c ours e boo k.
8
Socio-cultural awareness.
3
We l earn fac ts a bout peop le i n En gli sh-speaking countries.
The items in the first dimension focused on exercises calling for language
production, such as for example role-playing, whereas the second dimension
was aimed at different types of input in the classroom, such as listening to audio
texts or watching video clips in English. Three dimensions (3-5) referred to items
enquiring about tasks that direct learners’ attention to L2 form, either deduc-
tively (e.g., through the presentation of grammar rules) or inductively (e.g., by
asking learners to look for or work out patterns). These approaches are typically
associated with FL instruction in secondary schools. However, as mentioned
above, it is not particularly unusual either towards the end of primary school in
Switzerland. Moreover, the use of German in the EFL classroom constituted a
separate dimension that tapped into teacher or student use of the local lan-
guage(s) (Swiss German or Standard German), as it has been suggested (e.g., in
Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017) that there is frequent use of the L1 in the EFL
classrooms in Swiss primary schools. In the seventh dimension, we decided to
investigate the employment of different teaching materials such as course
books, worksheets, or authentic materials as different materials might contrib-
ute to perceived difficulties when transitioning from primary to secondary
school. Finally, our last category focused on aspects of learning that enhance
the examination of cultural or social circumstances in the English-speaking
world and strengthen the link between language and culture. It was deemed
important to incorporate such items, as awareness-raising of different cultures
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
452
and societies constitutes one of the principal aims of early FL instruction (Euro-
pean Commission, 2004, p. 16; EDK-Ost, 2009, p. 11).
The individual categories were allotted between three and six items that
each targeted a specific classroom activity. For every item, frequency of use and
perceived usefulness were elicited: for the former, a five-point Likert-type scale
was used, which provided absolute frequency indications (every lesson – once a
week – once a month – less often – never) to minimize subjective interpretation
of the scale and to present enough possibilities for a precise answer (cf. Dörnyei,
2010, p. 29). To ascertain the perceived usefulness, the participants had to rate
the activity on a three-point scale, ranging from very useful to not useful. Finally,
the list of items was randomized and translated into German. The participants
were given 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was
piloted with a group of primary and secondary school students (N = 7, mean age
12;5) and subsequently revised in order to increase validity and reliability. Im-
portantly, what is meaningful is not necessarily the observed or perceived
change from primary to secondary school, but rather how individuals relate to
it. As Jones (2016, p. 80) rightly points out, it is important to ask for and listen
to the views of students in all that affects them directly. Children are well able
to give revealing and honest views about their learning, and students of all ages
can show a remarkable capacity to discuss their learning in a considered and
insightful way. Accordingly, in order to give a better account of the nature of the
transition as perceived by learners and (often hidden) variables such as motiva-
tion, attitudes and beliefs, we used language experience essays in our qualita-
tive group and in the focal group, which we hoped would elicit: (a) the partici-
pants’ personal reflections on their experience of FL learning in primary vs. sec-
ondary school in general, and the transition in particular; (b) the participants’
affect in respect of FLs, and English in particular; and (c) the participants’ beliefs
about the age factor and early FL programs. The use of these essays was based
on the idea that, on the one hand, learners’ beliefs are – consciously or uncon-
sciously – gleaned from past experience, and that, on the other, learners’ beliefs
have an influential role in respect of learning outcomes (see e.g., Gregersen &
MacIntyre, 2014). We provided loose guidelines for the writing. These stated:
“You should write about your feelings, thoughts, opinion, motivation as well as
any experiences with regard to the early or late introduction of multiple foreign
languages.” No specific length was set, but the participants were asked to write
these essays in their L1 (German); students wrote between 203 and 475 words
in 45 minutes. These essays provided the basis for our qualitative analysis.
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
453
4.3. Method and statistical analyses
4.3.1. Study 1
Since the sampled students were nested in a hierarchical fashion within classes
within schools, we used R (R Development Core Team 2016) and lme4 (Bates,
Maechler, & Bolker, 2008) to perform a linear mixed-effects regression analysis
(multi-level analysis) of the self-reported (attitudes to) classroom activities and
input in primary vs. secondary school (see Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017 for a
discussion of the benefits of such models for age-related research). As fixed ef-
fects, we entered school level (primary, secondary) into the model and recoded
them to use contrast coding (-.5 = primary, .5 = secondary). Contrast coding is
recommended in the case of two-level factors, as it can prevent some conver-
gence issues by reducing multicollinearity among the predictors (see e.g., Linck
& Cunnings, 2015). Frequency of use of activity (on a five-point scale), and per-
ceived usefulness of activity (on a three-point scale) were dependent variables.
The final models had random effects (intercepts) to provide an account of class-
to-class and school-to-school differences that induce correlation among scores
for students within a school and within a class. In other words, the hierarchical
structure of the data on all skills tested consisted of three levels: student (level
1), class (level 2), and school (level 3). The scores on the tests were added to the
model at the student level. Since the same items in the questionnaire were pre-
sented to both groups of participants (i.e., primary and secondary students), we
included a random slope in the model, which allows the school level effect to
vary by item (by-item random slopes).
Visual inspection of residual plots did not reveal any obvious deviations
from homoscedasticity or normality. Models were fit using a maximum likelihood
technique. P-values were obtained by likelihood ratio tests of the full model with
the effect in question against the model without the effect in question. All models
reported were fitted using Laplace estimation with the R software. Also, all mod-
els were first evaluated with likelihood ratio tests (test model vs. null model with
only the control variables). If the full model vs. null model comparison reached
significance, we present p-values based on likelihood ratio tests. Given the lack of
degrees of freedom with mixed models, we refrain from reporting df.
4.3.2. Study 2
In the qualitative analysis we pursued a predominantly deductive approach (see El-
lis & Barkhuizen, 2005), concentrating specifically on issues related to the transition
from EFL in primary to EFL in secondary school. As mentioned in the literature
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
454
review above, various factors seem to contribute to student disengagement and
may be responsible for the observed lack of enthusiasm to engage with English
in school. Accordingly the following codes were developed:
o Change from primary to secondary [CHA]
▪ Welcoming the change [WEL]
▪ Criticizing the change [CRIT]
▪ No change [NOCHA]
▪ Repetition [REP]
▪ Differences in learning style [LSTYLE]
▪ Differences in teaching style [TSTYLE]
▪ Explicit vs. implicit [EXPL] [IMPL]
o Learning effect [EFF]
▪ Perceived efficiency of language learning in primary [EFFPRIM]
▪ Perceived efficiency of language learning in secondary [EFFSEC]
o Input [INP]
▪ Teacher [TEACH]
▪ Materials [MAT]
It has to be mentioned, however, that while some of these codes were created
before engagement with the data began, some changed once the analysis got un-
derway, and codes got deleted and others were added (inductive coding, see Ellis
& Barkhuizen, 2005, for a discussion of this). In the inductive, bottom-up approach
we proceeded trough the traditional steps from open coding (finding all possible
themes that emerge) via axial coding (finding relationships between themes) to
selective coding (finding the overarching theme) (see Corbin & Strauss, 2007).
5. Results
5.1. Quantitative analyses (Study 1)
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of our quantitative analysis (question-
naire data) while the results of the final best-fitting models for each dependent
variable are reported in Table 3. As Tables 2 and 3 show, results indicate that
there is a significant main effect for ‘level’ (primary vs. secondary school) for half
of the dimensions in terms of frequency of use (implicit input, explicit strategies,
use of German and socio-cultural awareness), but for only one dimension in
terms of perceived usefulness (socio-cultural awareness). Primary school stu-
dents reported significantly more often that they engaged in receptive – but not
productive – activities that are typically deemed “implicit” (e.g., watching movies,
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
455
listening to music, etc.) and that they and their teacher used German in the Eng-
lish classroom in various situations. On the other hand, secondary school stu-
dents mentioned a more frequent use of FL learning strategies such as cross-
linguistic comparison, dictionary use, and repetition, and they more frequently
reported being engaged in activities that raised their socio-cultural awareness.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of questionnaire data (means and SD)
Primary (N = 91)
Secondary (N = 89)
Implicit: production
Frequency
2.56 (0.50)
2.52 (0.61)
Usefulness
1.95 (0.50)
1.94 (0.39)
Implicit: input
Frequency
3.15 (0.54)
2.77 (0.53)
Usefulness
2.24 (0.25)
2.13 (0.33)
Explicit: vocabulary
Frequency
3.58 (0.69)
3.66 (0.71)
Usefulness
2.48 (0.37)
2.45 (0.32)
Explicit: grammar rules
Frequency
3.29 (0.55)
3.37 (0.44)
Usefulness
2.49 (0.29)
2.45 (0.32)
Explicit: strategies
Frequency
2.91 (0.69)
3.17 (0.58)
Usefulness
2.22 (0.27)
2.27 (0.35)
Use of German
Frequency
3.76 (0.62)
3.29 (0.58)
Usefulness
1.83 (0.39)
1.81 (0.28)
Classroom material
Frequency
3.14 (0.58)
3.16 (0.44)
Usefulness
2.10 (0.34)
2.11 (0.30)
Socio-cultural awareness
Frequency
2.59 (0.72)
2.91 (0.86)
Usefulness
2.10 (0.50)
1.86 (0.49)
Note: values in bold indicate significantly higher values.
Table 3 Fixed effect estimates for school level (primary vs. secondary)
Fixed effect: School level
Estimate
±SE
t
Main effect p
Implicit: production
Frequency
-0.05±0.16
-0.32
.748
Usefulness
-0.01±0.15
-0.08
.924
Implicit: input
Frequency
-0.38±0.10
-3.63
.001*
Usefulness
-0.09±0.06
-1.67
.099
Explicit: vocabulary
Frequency
0.09±0.15
0.61
.519
Usefulness
-0.03±0.06
-0.60
.525
Explicit: grammar rules
Frequency
0.08±0.07
1.04
.297
Usefulness
-0.04±0.05
-0.91
.363
Explicit: strategies
Frequency
0.26±0.15
2.01
.049*
Usefulness
0.07±0.06
1.06
.275
Use of German
Frequency
-0.48±0.19
-2.54
.022*
Usefulness
-0.02±0.06
-0.30
.704
Classroom material
Frequency
-0.00±0.16
-0.02
.992
Usefulness
0.01±0.05
0.17
.867
Socio-cultural awareness
Frequency
0.34±017
2.05
.048*
Usefulness
-0.23±0.11
-2.18
.033*
*Statistically significant at α < .05.
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
456
Figure 1 illustrates these differences for implicit input. There seems to be
no difference between end of primary and beginning of secondary level in terms
of typical “explicit”, language-focused activities such as the learning and testing
of explicit grammar and spelling rules, the use of exercises such as cloze-tests,
focus on forms (e.g., inflections) and the conscious study of vocabulary. What is
more, most (i.e., 31) of the 34 questions relating to teaching methodologies,
classroom tasks and types of input were considered equally useful/beneficial by
primary and secondary school students.
Figure 1 Implicit input by level
However, it needs to be mentioned that there was substantial macro- and
micro-contextual variation in the data, particularly at primary school level. As
can be seen in Figures 5 and 6, there are significant cohort effects at level-2
(class) and level-3 (school), that is, significant random class effects with esti-
mated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between 0.15 and 0.41. Class ef-
fects, therefore, explained 15%-41% of the variability in the responses of the
participants, while school effects explained 5%-11%. Figures 2 and 3 show the
differences between the 18 primary school classes in terms of frequency of ac-
tivities targeting implicit production and their perceived usefulness:
primary secondary
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Level
Implicit input (frequency of use)
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
457
Figure 2 Variation across primary school classes for frequency of implicit pro-
duction tasks
Figure 3 Variation across primary school classes for perceived usefulness of im-
plicit production tasks
By contrast, the cohort effects were not as pronounced in the secondary
school data, which admittedly might be due to the smaller sample size at the group
level (fewer schools and classes with more students per class, see Figures 4 and 5).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Primary school classes (n=18)
Implicit production (frequency of use)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Primary school classes (n=18)
Implicit production (perceived usefulness)
Primary school classes (N = 18)
Primary school classes (N = 18)
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
458
Figure 4 Variation across secondary school classes for frequency of implicit pro-
duction tasks
Figure 5 Variation across secondary school classes for perceived usefulness of
implicit production tasks
The same holds true at school level, where we find more between-school
variability at primary school level than at secondary school level (see Figures 6–
7 for implicit production).
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Secondary school classes (n=10)
Implicit production (frequency of use)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Secondary school classes (n=10)
Implicit production (perceived usefulness)
Secondary school classes (N = 10)
Secondary school classes (N = 10)
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
459
Figure 6 Va ri at io n acro ss p ri ma ry s ch oo ls f or f re qu en cy o f im pl ic it p ro du ct io n tasks
Figure 7 Var ia tion a cro ss se co nd ary s ch ool s for f req ue ncy o f i mp li ci t p ro duc ti on ta sk s
Apart from group-level differences, it is important to also look into indi-
vidual variation within classes, this time from a qualitative perspective, using
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Primary schools (n=12)
Implicit production (frequency of use)
13 14 15 16 17 18
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Secondary schools (n=5)
Implicit production (frequency of use)
Secondary school classes (N = 5)
Primary school classes (N = 12)
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
460
data from Study 2. This is insofar important as it gives students a voice in this
discussion, as mentioned in our introduction above.
5.2. Qualitative results of the language learning experience essays (Study 2)
In this section we explore the qualitative data from the language learning expe-
rience essays to obtain information about how early learners view the matter of
transition from EFL in primary to EFL in secondary school, what the learners
themselves would recommend, and the way they perceive the discrepancy be-
tween the two levels. Table 4 lists the categories of responses.
Ta bl e 4 Results of the qualitative coding (quantified)
Categories
% of responses (out
of 100)
Change from primary
to secondary [CHA]
Welc omin g th e ch ange [ WEL]
Criticizing the change [CRIT]
18%
45%
No change [NOCHA]
5%
Repetition [REP]
41%
Differences in learning style [LSTYLE]
23%
Differences in teaching style [TSTYLE]
60%
Explicit vs. implicit [EXPL] [IMPL]
78%
Learning effect [EFF]
Perceived efficiency of EFL learning in primary [EFFPRIM]
72%
Perceived efficiency of EFL learning in secondary [EFFSEC]
45%
Input [INP]
Te ac h e r [ T EA CH ]
69%
Materials [MAT]
14%
Most participants noticed a change from EFL in primary to EFL in secondary
school – either welcoming the change (18%) or criticizing it (45%). As observed
elsewhere (see e.g., Graham et al., 2016), there was widespread comment on ap-
parent repetition by secondary teachers of work already covered in primary
schools. As Table 4 shows, 41% of the 100 students in the qualitative sample men-
tioned that the type of knowledge they had acquired in primary school was not
fully acknowledged by teachers in secondary school (see examples 1 and 2):
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
461
(1) But I remember, how the learning in the early years was unfocused and
slow. At the higher level it then progressed really fast. On top of this it must
be added, that early acquired knowledge has anyway got to be reviewed
again in subsequent schooling. After five years of learning English and two
years of learning French, I had to start again. (12_ELH9_M_GER)
(2) I’m so glad that we are going over a couple of things again in both sub-
jects [English and French]; e.g. I’m overjoyed that we are especially re-
vising conjugation. (07_ELL9_F_GER)
23% noticed a difference in learning style and strategy use, as illustrated by the
comment in (3):
(3) At primary school I didn’t learn the technique of learning in English. But now
at secondary school I have to learn most of it, because I have to catch up
with everything, above all I must learn to learn! (07_ELb55_F_GER)
Similarly, in the “Strategies” dimension of the questionnaire, the item enquiring
about repetition yielded one of the biggest differences between primary and
secondary level.
While 72% commented on the in/efficiency of EFL learning in primary (see
examples 4–5 below), the most noticeable change in teaching style was the use
of classroom language: 56% mentioned a change in the choice of language of
instruction from that used at primary school (see 6–7), which confirms the pic-
ture that emerged from the quantitative analysis:
(4) Yes, I had difficulties. But I think this was because of my former teacher,
she taught us the same stuff again and again and we somehow stayed
where we were. For that reason I was very much at a loss when I got to
secondary. (07_ELb13_F_GER)
(5) I think it’s good that I had English as early as 2nd class because actually I
didn’t feel it as a burden. It was very easy too that we only learned things
like “Hello, how are you” and general standard things. We learned colors,
numbers and animals until finally we were able to make sentences. There
were basic rules of a kind that I didn’t find tremendously easy but with time
you find it easier. I had a good teacher for this too. (07_ELH9_M_GER)
(6) At primary school our teacher even continued to speak German, but here at
XXX the teacher only speaks English. This is confusing. (07_EL91_F_GER)
(7) I find it cool that our [English] teacher speaks English to us. We are ready
for this now, but in primary school it was good that we could still use
German [in English class] (07_EL55_M_GER)
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
462
What is also noteworthy about examples (1)-(7) is the discrepancy in per-
ceptions within – rather than between – levels. For instance, as examples (2), (5)
and (7) above illustrate, a slow pace and frequent incorporation of the L1 (Ger-
man) in primary, and repeated content in secondary can be perceived as helpful
(particularly by low-achievement students), while other learners – especially
high-achievement learners – find it unnecessary and boring (see also Pfenninger
& Singleton, 2017). The same holds true for the perceived change from “im-
plicit” to “explicit” learning, which was mentioned by 78% of the participants:
(8) At primary school we had “play-English” (never anything but singing,
playing, watching films). Today I still sing the songs from that time in
“double Dutch”. The real learning of language in this system too begins
only at secondary level when you learn sentence construction and basic
grammar. (07_ELH1_M_GER)
However, opinions supportive of this type of approach in primary were also in
evidence:
(9) When children at an early age are already confronted with foreign lan-
guages, they learn to get involved with other languages earlier. With the
help of simple games and songs in a foreign language a small vocabulary
can be built up. (07_ELH9_M_GER)
As a matter of fact, 58% of the participants were conscious of the gap be-
tween high achievers and low achievers, as well as the conflicting views within
one classroom (as reflected in Figures 2-7 above). The comments in examples
(10)-(13) illustrate their awareness of both macro-variation (differences be-
tween classes) and micro-variation (individual variation within classes):
(10) According to my experiences, it’s heavily dependent too on the person
whether they benefit from the early learning of foreign languages. You
have to be aware that at primary school the IQ range is very wide. So for
one child French or English instruction may be a trifling thing, for another
a hugely excessive demand. (12_ELH7_F_GER)
(11) There are huge differences between children in my class. Some cannot
speak a word of English, but it’s not their fault; they did not learn it well
in primary school. (07_EL19_F_GER)
(12) So actually the teaching should be suited to each child because children
learn foreign languages so differently. (12_ELH3_F_GER)
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
463
(13) I had no difficulty with the transition. But I was also in a very good class
with very good peers in primary school! (07_EL27_M_GER)
Finally, when it came to the importance of the teacher, the 69% of stu-
dents who referred to the role of the teacher came out fairly uniformly with
sentiments like the following:
(14) I think it’s a great opportunity to build upon, because wherever you are
you can make very good use of languages. But unfortunately the school
material is not communicated equally well by all teachers. Some teachers
almost make you look like a fool when you don’t know something or when
you quite simply don’t understand the stuff. It’s partly a matter for the
teacher whether he is friendly or rather unfriendly; because my old French
teacher was not open and sincere, I then felt I didn’t so much like going to
class. With our English teacher at that time I was always pleased to come
to class, and English I find more fun; our teacher is open, friendly and very
sincere. She communicates a good feeling so that even before a test I don’t
get as anxious as is usually the case with me. (07_LLL3_F_GER)
5.3. Qualitative analysis of the longitudinal case study (Study 3)
Finally, let us zoom in on the language learning experience essays written by each
of the three members of the focal group (Laura, Tobias and Noah). Similar to the
majority of the participants in the qualitative group, all three participants in the
case study perceived the shift of focus from “implicit” to “explicit” learning as well
as a difference in the language of communication as important changes that the
transition entailed. According to them, while they had watched films, played
games and read texts in primary school, in secondary school the main emphasis
was placed on problem-solving exercises in the lessons – or in Laura’s words “we
do more grammar stuff now, like question formation etc.” (SS2_LLEE_2). Moreo-
ver, all three learners perceived the different use of the target language as one of
the most striking differences between primary and secondary school. Although
Tobias had indicated before the transition that the primary school teacher spoke
English “70% of the lesson” (PS6_LLEE_1), as opposed to the “99% English” that
his secondary school teacher uses, in retrospect he perceived the change as rather
dramatic: he mentions a shift from the primary teacher “speaking virtually only
German” to the “current teacher speaking solely English” (SS1_LLEE_2). He wel-
comed this change, mentioning target language use as a positive quality of his
new English teacher. Noah argued along the same lines:
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
464
(15) The teacher speaks almost exclusively English now, I think this is very help-
ful. ,,, The students should speak English more often in primary school and
the teachers should speak English more often as well. (SS3_LLEE_2)
In addition to the lack of target language use, Noah also criticized the fact
that his English instruction in primary school did not follow a communicative,
oral-based approach, as the students did not have to speak much in comparison
to his current English lessons. By contrast in Laura’s primary school class the use
of different languages for communication seemed to have been a central com-
ponent of the learning experience, as the following excerpt from her essay at
the first data collection time shows:
(16) I like the lessons, because we talk in English very often. … Sometimes [the
teacher] tells us that now it’s English only and we have to give all our
answers in English. [Apart from that] we often reply in German. … In my
opinion, the students should speak English more consistently when talk-
ing to the teacher. I think we should also do more role-plays, so we im-
prove our spoken English. (PS14_LLEE_1)
In line with the results from the quantitative analysis, this illustrates: (1) the variety
in the implementation of primary school curricula and (2) the difficulty of establish-
ing an increased use of the target language in primary school, perhaps also due to
the mixed ability levels of the learners. Consequently, for Laura, one of the main
changes that the transition involved was that more emphasis came to be placed on
pronunciation. In her opinion, the teachers and consequently also the students
speak more “authentic English” in secondary school. She had already indicated be-
fore the transition that she wished for her teacher to improve her own pronuncia-
tion and she reiterated at Time 2 that it was important to her to pay more attention
to how words are pronounced from the beginning. Considering that young learners’
alleged relative ease in acquiring the sounds of a FL is often cited as an argument
for early FL programs (see Johnstone, 2009), these observations are highly relevant.
Overall, the two boys commented favorably on the topics that were explored
in the English primary school classroom – particularly content and language inte-
grated lessons – which seemed to influence their perception of EFL instruction to a
great extent (examples 17–18). These remarks highlight the importance of intrinsi-
cally motivating content for a favorable learning experience for young learners.
(17) What I like about the English lessons is that we learn English and simul-
taneously also learn about a specific topic. (PS6_LLEE_1)
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
465
(18) The topics are usually fascinating and I learn new things. I don’t like it
that much if I don’t find the topic interesting. Then [English] is sometimes
a bit boring. (PS1_LLEE_1)
In learners’ hindsight, aspects of primary instruction that were perceived as
most helpful for a smooth transition by the three learners were acquiring a basic
grammatical knowledge (Tobias and Laura), accumulating useful vocabulary
(Laura and Noah), developing pronunciation skills (Tobias) and certain activities
that provided extensive input, such as watching films (Noah). With respect to
the transition, Tobias also commented on macro-variation on primary school
level and micro-variation on secondary school level:
(19) What I learned about pronunciation is also useful now, when I compare
myself to some of my peers from other primary schools who don’t even
know how to pronounce “but”. Our primary school teacher was good in
this regard. […] I didn’t have any difficulties in the transition, as we are
now repeating the contents from grades 5 and 6. For some students this
is new, but for me it’s repetition and consolidation. (SS1_LLEE_2)
6. Discussion and conclusion
Several observations in the quantitative and qualitative parts of this study have
highlighted problems of articulation between levels in the educational system
that might be problematic for the progression of English instruction in secondary
school. Most importantly, the quantitative analysis has revealed that there does
not seem to be a general problem with the transition from a rather more commu-
nicative and holistic approach at primary level to more formal ways of FL learning
at the secondary one, as has been suggested before in the literature (see review
above). Rather, there are specific problem areas, notably the use of implicit input
activities (e.g., singing songs and playing), which creates the impression among
learners that a new start in a secondary school involves the risk of leaving behind
what students learned in primary school. Muñoz, Tragant and Camuñas (2015)
caution that if students are not made aware of their implicit knowledge in primary
school, then they perceive that what they have learned until transition has not
prepared them for the “new” classroom activities. This results in some learners
(but not all of them!) undervaluing what L2 knowledge they brought with them.
Muñoz and colleagues reason that the lack of recognition on the students’ part of
what they have learned in primary school may lead them to perceive EFL in sec-
ondary school as a new start, just as their teachers do.
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
466
Another noteworthy result in both the quantitative and the qualitative anal-
yses was the repetitive nature of EFL in secondary school. At first glance, the stu-
dents’ responses raise the question as to whether the skills that are acquired at
primary school are adequately accredited at secondary school. As mentioned
above, many authors (e.g., Muñoz, Tragant, & Camuñas, 2015) have previously
suggested that repeating content and activities may have implications for learn-
ers’ sense of progress. Ushioda (2014, p. 135) points out that social-environmen-
tal conditions that undermine learners’ sense of competence will generate forms
of motivation that are less internalized, less integrated into the self or aligned with
its values, and more externally regulated by environmental influences, pressures
and controls. In the words of Jones (2016, p. 83), “[i]t is a huge disappointment
for learners to be told that their previous learning counts for nothing, a bit like
losing a suitcase or other valued item on a journey that becomes lost forever.”
Compared to these previous observations, our study painted a more complex
picture, suggesting that there are also a good number of learners who report simi-
larly high levels of enjoyment for English at the start of secondary school than at the
end of primary, particularly owing to repeated content in secondary and a clear dis-
juncture from primary. This is in line with previous work in England by Courtney et
al. (2015), who found that their learners of French did not object to covering familiar
content when they reached the first year of secondary school, as it enhanced their
sense of making progress by consolidating their knowledge and skills.
Graham et al. (2016), in a similar context, found that total motivation scores
increased at significant levels across the immediate point of transition, and by the
end of year 7 (first year of secondary), levels were still significantly higher than in
year 6 (last year of primary). In the qualitative analysis of the 100 learner essays in
our study there was also a strong sense of the relevance of this discrepancy to the
entire class – a finding which is reminiscent of Lamb’s (2007) study, in which learn-
ers of EFL grew increasingly more focused on, and critical of, the classroom experi-
ence over the first 20 months of English learning at junior high school in Indonesia.
Besides individual variation, school and class diversity also played a signif-
icant role, particularly in our primary school data. While differences in sampling
at the group level may be responsible for this phenomenon, as mentioned
above, it is a well-known problem that the level of primary school groups can be
very heterogeneous. When the primary school students enter secondary school,
they frequently do not share the same level of competence, which leads to so-
called “mixed ability classes”. This can lead to frustration and boredom on the part
of the higher-proficiency learners and to feelings of being overwhelmed and over-
taxed in lower-proficiency students. Pfenninger and Singleton (2017) discussed in
detail how the fact that secondary education becomes a meeting point for mixed
ability classes also seems to strongly mitigate the potential advantages of an
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
467
earlier start in terms of progress made in the target language. Thus, the phe-
nomenon of experiencing difficulty with the move into secondary school may
arguably arise from the variability in the amount and quality of FL teaching
learners experience at primary school which then leads some secondary schools
feeling obliged to start language instruction from scratch with all learners, re-
gardless of what they have learnt previously.
The following lessons can be learned from our findings and observations:
1. The problems surrounding the early teaching and learning of FLs are not
only concerned with questions of maturation (e.g., are young children
cognitively able to learn a FL in a formal, instructional setting?) or intensity
of instruction (e.g., are 1-2 hours of FL instruction per week enough?) but
with broader macro-institutional factors that hamper or render impossi-
ble the goal of offering several years of continued FL instruction.
2. The transition from FL learning in primary to FL learning in secondary has to
be given more attention as a major factor in students’ levels of attainment.
3. We need to establish effective and appropriate liaison between schools
including transfer of information.
4. Students must feel that the work they are doing in primary school is ap-
propriate to their needs.
The use of self-reported language learning beliefs as the unique measure
of language ability can be viewed as a methodological limitation of the study, as
there might be discrepancies in students’ self-reports and teachers’ actual prac-
tices. Another delimitation of the study is to focus only on an analysis of learn-
ers’ perceptions, and only at two times (at the end of primary and the beginning
of secondary school). The transition process is complex and dynamic, changes
occur across many interconnected dimensions of learners’ situations, and expe-
riences are certainly marked by other objective or subjective changes. In a next
step it would be vital to explore primary and secondary school teachers’ atti-
tudes towards early FL instruction. In addition to individual and contextual fac-
tors, another important force in educational innovations such as early FL pro-
grams is the teachers themselves. As we have discussed in this paper, a potential
mismatch of student-teacher expectations regarding FL teaching methods used
in class may cause a decrease in motivation, for example, when students do not
receive input that addresses their L2 proficiency level (Graham et al., 2016). It
seems to be particularly important that secondary school teachers are thorough
in assessing initial language skills that students in their class have already at-
tained. This calls for research on teachers’ beliefs about, and attitudes to, the
early instruction of FLs.
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
468
References
Barton, A., & Bragg, J. (2010). Springboard to languages project: Phase 3 report:
University of Manchester.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2016). lme4: Linear mixed-ef-
fects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-6. Retrieved from
http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=lme4
Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A., &
Taeschner, T. (1998). Foreign languages in primary and pre-school educa-
tion: A review of recent research within the European Union. London: CILT.
Börner, O., Engel, G, & Groot-Wilken, B. (Eds.). (2013). Hörverstehen – Lesever-
stehen – Sprechen. Diagnose und Förderung von sprachlichen Kompeten-
zen im Englischunterricht der Primarstufe. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Chambers, G. N. (2014). Transition in modern languages from primary to secondary
school: the challenge of change. Language Learning Journal, 42(3), 242-260.
Chaudron, C. (2001). Progress in language classroom research: Evidence from Mod-
ern Language Journal, 1916-2000. Modern Language Journal, 85, 57-76.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Courtney, L. (2014). Moving from primary to secondary education: An investiga-
tion into the effect of primary to secondary transition on motivation for
language learning and foreign language proficiency. (Unpublished PhD
thesis). University of Southampton.
Courtney, L., Graham, S., Tonkyn, A., & Marinis, T. (2015). Individual differences
in early language learning: A study of English learners of French. Applied
Linguistics. Retrieved from doi:10.1093/applin/amv071
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research. Construction,
administration, and processing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
EDK-Ost (Erziehungsdirektoren-Konferenz Ostschweiz). (2009). Lehrplan Englisch.
Primarstufe und Sekundarstufe I. Retrieved from http://www.vsa.zh.ch/
content/dam/bildungsdirektion/vsa/schulbetrieb/lehrplaene_lehrmittel/
lehrplan_englisch.pdf
Ellis, N. C. (Ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Ac-
ademic Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based
and form-focussed learning. In M. H. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook
of language teaching (pp. 139-158). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tra ns it io nal woes: On the impact o f L2 input continuit y from prim ary to seco ndary scho ol
469
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
European Commission. (2004). Promoting language learning and linguistic diver-
sity: An action plan 2004-2006. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities.
García Mayo, M. P. (2003). Age, length of exposure and grammaticality judge-
ments in the acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. In M. P. García
Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English
as a foreign language (pp. 94-114). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: an introductory
course (3rd ed.). New York, Routledge.
Graham, S., Courtney, L., Tonkyn, A., & Marinis, T. (2016). Motivational trajecto-
ries for early language learning across the primary-secondary school tran-
sition. British Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 682-702
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. (2014). Emotions that facilitate language learning:
The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 193-213.
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigating instructed second language ac-
quisition. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Studies on Language Acquisi-
tion: Vol. 25. Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp.
1-27). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jaekel, N., Schurig, M., Merle, F., & Ritter, M. (in press). From early starters to
late finishers? A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in
school. Language Learning.
Johnstone, R. (2009). An early start: What are the key conditions for generalized
success? In J. Enever, J. Moon, & U. Raman (Eds.), Young learner English
language policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 31-
42). Reading: Garnet Education Publishing Ltd.
Jones, J. (2016). Transition from primary to secondary language learning: Using
an assessment for learning approach to unpack pupils’ ‘suitcases of skills
and abilities’, Babylonia, 2, 79-83.
Lamb, M. (2007). The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indone-
sian case study, TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 757-780.
Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a
younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Re-
search, 24, 35-63.
Lichtman, K. (2013). Developmental comparisons of implicit and explicit lan-
guage learning. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 93-108.
Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models
in second language research. Language Learning, 65 (Supplement 1), 185-207.
Simone E. Pfenninger, Johanna Lendl
470
Milton, J., & Alexiou, T. (2006). Language aptitude development in young learn-
ers. In C. Abello-Contesse, R. Chacón-Beltrán, M. D. López-Chiménez, &
M. M. Torreblanca-López (Eds.), Age in L2 acquisition and teaching (pp.
177-192). Oxford: Peter Lang.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories
(3rd ed.). New York/London: Routledge.
Muñoz, C. (2009). Input and long-term effects of early learning in a formal set-
ting. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), Contextualizing the age factor: Issues in early for-
eign language learning (pp. 141-160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Muñoz, C., Tragant E., & Camuñas M. (2015). Transition: Continuity or a fresh
start? APAC Quarterly, 89, 11-16.
Nikolov, M. (in press). Students’ and teachers’ feedback on diagnostic tests for
young EFL learners: Implications for classrooms. In M. P. García-Mayo
(Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (2011). All shades of every color: An over-
view of early teaching and learning of foreign languages. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 31, 95-119.
R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second lan-
guage instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tellier, A., & Roehr-Brackin, K. (in press). Raising children’s metalinguistic aware-
ness to enhance classroom second language learning. In M. P. García-
Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research in-
sights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D. (2017). Beyond age effects in instructional L2
learning: Revisiting the age factor. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D. (in press). Second language acquisition and age ef-
fects: The research conundrum. In K. Cergol Kovačević & S. L. Udier (Eds.), Ap-
plied linguistic research and methodology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Prabhu, N. S. (2009). Teaching English to young learners: The promise and the
threat. In J. Enever, J. Moon, & U. Raman (Eds.), Young learner English lan-
guage policy and implementation: international perspectives (pp. 43-44).
Reading, UK: Garnet Education Publishing.
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language or-
acy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
