Content uploaded by Mirna Erk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mirna Erk on Jun 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
[To be published in Papadopoulos & Savić (Eds.) (2020), Teaching Young
Foreign Language Learners in SE Europe, DISIGMA Publications.]
Policy and Practice of Teaching English to Young
Learners in Croatia: Teacher Perspective
Mirna Erk
University of Osijek
Faculty of Education
Croatia
mradisic@foozos.hr
Jasenka Čengić
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Croatia
jcengic@ffzg.hr
Abstract
Lack of adequately trained teachers to young learners has been an issue despite SLA experts’
repeated warnings about their critical significance for early English language learning outcomes
(e.g. Emery, 2012; Enever, 2014; Rokita-Jaśkow & Ellis, 2019). In this chapter the issue of
teacher beliefs and practices in EELL is addressed within the context of Croatia, a country with a
long-standing tradition of research into the age factor and advantages of early start. A great
majority of Croatian children aged 6-7 start their formal study of EFL in state-funded primary
schools, and the provision of adequately trained professionals who are skilful at implementing
foreign language policy and capable of ensuring achievement of curriculum goals is of particular
interest to all stakeholders. However, some have drawn attention to the inadequacy of university
programmes for teachers of FL to YLs in Croatia (e.g. Mihaljević Djigunović, 2004; Mihaljević
Djigunović & Mardešić, 2009; Vičević Ivanović et al., 2019). The aim of the study presented in
this chapter was to explore the relationship between policy and practice of TEYL in Croatia. A
questionnaire was used as a data collection instrument (Papandopoulos & Savić, 2020). It was
completed by 155 teachers in the period between late June and early September 2019. A
section from the questionnaire entitled Perspectives relating to Teaching Behaviour within YLs’
classroom was qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Years of teaching experience and
intensity of seminar attendance in the past three years were included as two separate
background variables. The respondents’ reported beliefs, approaches and practices were found
to be well-aligned with standards and policies appropriate for teaching English to young learners.
A clear understanding of appropriate FL pedagogy with young learners was found. However, in-
service training attended in the past three years failed to have favourable impact on teacher
knowledge and practice. The findings are discussed with reference to the contemporary
understandings of the benefits of an early start and teaching approaches and practices believed
to contribute to successful early English programmes. Further inquiry is needed into the ways of
making CPD more effective and meaningful to Croatian teachers of English to young learners.
Key-words: EFL teachers, young learners, EELL, policy and practice, in-service training.
1 Introduction
The importance of early language learning has been stipulated by the European Commission's
Action Plan 2004-2006 which recommends learning one foreign language (FL) from an early age
and the introduction of a second FL by the end of primary school. The goals of the EC are
directed at creating a multilingual Europe, with citizens who are able to understand each other
and form educational and work-related connections across borders. However, exposing children
to FLs and maintaining and fostering the input they receive is not an easy task. The complexity
and dynamics of the mechanisms surrounding language development play a very important role
in understanding the effectiveness of early language learning programmes. It seems that later
starters outperform early starters due to more learning strategies as well as more access to
meaningful language input (Munoz, 2006; Myles, 2017). The confronting opinions of policy
makers and researchers are interesting to observe form the point of view of teachers whose
practices stand in the frontline of what goes on the classroom.
In this chapter we address the issue of teacher beliefs and practices in early English language
learning (EELL) within the context of Croatia, a country with a long-standing tradition of research
into the age factor and advantages of an early start. As a great majority of Croatian children begin
their formal study of EFL in state-funded primary schools, the provision of adequately trained
professionals who are skilful at implementing FL policy and capable of ensuring achievement of
curriculum goals is of particular interest for all stakeholders (national officials, universities in
charge of pre-service teacher training, agencies responsible for in-service teacher training, pupils,
parents, and teachers themselves). However, some have drawn attention to the inadequacy of
university programmes for teachers of FL to young learners (YLs) in Croatia (e.g., Mihaljević
Djigunović, 2004; Mihaljević Djigunović & Mardešić, 2009; Vičević Ivanović et al., 2019), an issue
reported in other sources as well (e.g., Zein 2017, 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to determine if
in-service teachers’ beliefs and practices related to TEYLs are in agreement with current national
FL policy and guidelines, which is the aim of this chapter.
2 Context of the study: EELL in Croatia
The Croatian context of EFL has always recognized the complexity of the answer to the question
of why start early (e.g., Petrović, 1997, 2002; Vilke, 1982, 1993b, 1995a). Vilke believed that
the reasons for starting early should be sought not only in the results of empirical research but
also in the pedagogical considerations which aim at “broadening the cultural outlook and world-
wide cooperation” (1982, p. 13). Early research on (dis)advantages of an early start and age
effects in the process of FL acquisition was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s with the aim of
determining a starting age which would lead to competent bilingual speakers throughout the
country at the end of 12 years of compulsory education. Although at first adults did better than
children, due to their cognitive maturity and experience with the first and, sometimes, other FLs,
children scored better at pronunciation measures and were highly enthusiastic about EFL
learning (Vilke, 1976a, 1986b, 1979). At the time of this early research in Croatia it was already
well understood that the goal of teaching YLs was, first and foremost, the development of a
positive attitude towards and understanding of other languages and cultures for long-term
cooperation at a global level (also, Freudenstein, 1979). Consequently, a new longitudinal
experimental programme of early language learning was launched in 1991 as part of a research
project that ended in 2001. English, French, German or Italian were taught to Grade 1 pupils
(ages 6-7) in 12 schools in Zagreb which were subsequently joined by additional 22 schools in
the capital and four other Croatian cities, and included just over 1000 learners. The project
resulted in four books (Vilke & Vrhovac, 1993; Vilke & Vrhovac, 1995; Vrhovac et al., 1999;
Vrhovac, 2001) as well as several textbooks and other materials for teaching FLs to YLs. The
outcomes spoke in favour of an earlier start (i.e., Grade 1 instead of Grade 4), and the results
also pointed at conditions of learning as decisive factors for the success of an early start with the
FL teacher as one of the most important early influences on YLs’ (linguistic and affective)
outcomes (Mihaljević Djigunović & Vilke, 2000). The younger learners’ advantage was also
confirmed in a study by Bagarić (2002) where early learners of German as a FL (ages 6-7)
outperformed later starters (10-11) at the end of primary school (i.e., Grade 8) in Croatia. In
summary, research on the age effects led to the introduction of one FL as a core subject in the
Croatian primary curriculum in the 2003-2004 school year when the first generation of Croatian
pupils (ages 6-7) began receiving FL instruction from their first year of compulsory schooling, that
is, Grade 1. The total number of hours allocated to early FL teaching is modest (Johnstone,
2019). In Grades 1–4 it is two lessons per week, that is, 70 hours per school year (a total of 280
lessons usually 45 minutes in length).
2.1 Teachers of English to Young Learners in Croatia
FL teachers are required to have a four-year university degree (before the introduction of the
Bologna Process) or five-year degree (after Croatia joined the European higher education area in
2001) at teacher training colleges or faculties of humanities and social sciences in order to teach
English at a primary level. In line with Croatian legal regulation, the former four-year university
degree is equivalent to the five-year university course of study. Graduates from faculties of
humanities and social sciences are claimed to have their receptive and productive English
language skills at level C (according to CEFR), while the skills of teacher training college students
are at level B2 (productive) and C1 (receptive). The Croatian primary school system consists of
eight years of schooling divided into lower primary grades (1-4; ages: 6/7-10/11) and upper
primary grades (5-8; ages 11/12—15/16). Class teachers (homeroom/generalist) teachers work
in the first four grades, but FLs are taught by a teacher who comes to the classroom especially
for this purpose, either a specialist teacher or another generalist teacher with a subsidiary in
English (who is employed, in that case, as a FL teacher). At the moment, there are two possible
teaching routes that lead to qualification enabling TEYLs in Croatia, either by obtaining an English
Language and Literature degree or a generalist teacher with subsidiary in English degree. Ever
since the implementation of the Bologna Process in Croatia in 2005, the initial teacher training at
the faculties of humanities and social sciences in Croatia is organized as a five-year study
programme that incorporates a two-year MA course in teaching English as a FL (the teaching
stream). On the other hand, generalist teacher education lasts for five years during which
students can choose to study English as a subsidiary and acquire competences to teach English
to YLs at a primary level (Radišić, Pavičić Takač & Bagarić, 2007).
According to Mihaljević Djigunović & Mardešić (2009), pre-service training of teachers at faculties
of humanities and social sciences offers a more theoretical insight into teaching English as a FL,
whereas faculties of teacher education offer courses of a more practical nature. Furthermore, a
study conducted by Vičević Ivanović et al. (2019) warns about study programmes in Croatia not
offering adequate preparation for future YL teachers. The researchers explored study
programmes of different modern FLs in the curricula of several faculties of humanities and social
sciences at universities across Croatia. They also obtained information about proportions of
courses dealing with theory and practice of ELT from university instructors and, specifically, about
course content dedicated to topics related to early language learning and teaching. Their
conclusion was that students, future FL teachers, were not adequately prepared to teach YLs
after graduating from university. Hence, the authors seek a revision of initial FL teacher
education in Croatia. However, one weakness of their study is the exclusion of all relevant
stakeholders in the education of teachers of FL to YLs in Croatia, as they failed to include the
curricula of faculties of teacher education (where generalist teachers obtain their education and
training) and instructors into their study design. In conclusion, English language majors from the
faculties of humanities and social sciences teach all learner age-groups and they are favoured
over generalist teachers with an English subsidiary when applying for teaching positions in
primary education. Apparently, 89.3% of foreign language teaching in Croatia was performed by
foreign language specialists a decade ago (Brumen, Cagran & Rixon, 2009). Therefore, the
relationship between policy and practice of TEYLs is an issue of great importance in the Croatian
context of ELT as it might indicate a discrepancy between teacher expertise and policy
requirements. However, substantial support is provided through different documents that
regulate early instruction of FLs in the country.
2.2 National documents that regulate early FL instruction in Croatia
The Croatian educational system can be considered a centralized educational system, operated
by top-down commands. Furthermore, this centralized control is usually extended to include the
method of teaching and choice of text books. The context of early language learning in Croatia
has been shaped by several national curricular documents. Hrvatski nacionalni obrazovni
standard/The Croatian National Education Standard (CNES) was introduced in 2005 and based
on contemporary theory of instructed second/foreign language acquisition. In addition, the
Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001) served to define language
attainment at the end of early English language study, which is level A1 in the Croatian context.
Two YL projects conducted between 1991 and 2010 (Vilke & Vrhovac, 1993; Vilke & Vrhovac,
1995; Vrhovac et al., 1999; Vrhovac, 2001) pointed at age-appropriate FL teaching methodology
with YLs. With competence-based, student-centred teaching, this document introduced the most
significant changes into Croatian primary education. In CNES FLs are perceived as a core
competence due to the need for education, work and mobility. The overall aim is communicative
competence with elements of literary, sociocultural and intercultural competence. Well-equipped
classrooms along with well-trained teachers and supportive in-service training are key to meeting
the standards set by the CNES. The document is fairly detailed (Rixon, 2013) in the manner it
explains and describes the nature of classroom processes and their interaction with
developmental features of YLs, role of L1, approaches to SEN pupils, progress in skills
development and assessment standards with YLs. Furthermore, contact with parents as
stakeholders is clearly emphasized.
Nacionalni okvirni kurikulum/The National Framework Curriculum (NFC) for Pre-School, Primary
and Secondary Education was introduced in 2010. In this document the acquisition of
competences is based on the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of
18 December 2006 for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC). NFC is organized in four cycles. Each
cycle stipulates the framework for language learning outcomes in each of the four skills and a
separate area entitled intercultural agency. The first three cycles are dedicated to the outcomes
of primary education, with the first cycle encompassing the first four grades, and directly relevant
for early FL instruction, as languages (first, second, additional or foreign) are found essential for
the overall development of an individual and their private and professional success.
However, both of the above-listed documents are becoming less important as the New Curricular
Reform, popularly called School for Life, is being introduced (Official Gazette of the Republic of
Croatia, 2019). It is meant to lead to development of competencies for the 21st century, a holistic
approach to learner development and equity in education with a teaching methodology that
concentrates on problem-solving and critical thinking, creativity and innovation. In addition, the
new curricular reform signals a change to reflexive modernity which includes the liberalization of
education, accountability and responsibility of individuals and their community (Williams et al.,
2013). The main focus of EFL is placed on learner outcomes organized around three domains:
linguistic competence, learner autonomy and intercultural communicative competence. The
English language curriculum was designed by a group of selected teachers withdrawn from their
schools and classrooms for a period of six months, which shows that professional experience and
skills had been acknowledged and practising teachers introduced as decision-makers. The group
have also been carrying out disseminating work through workshops and seminars in the hope
that the reform would be appropriated by in-service teachers in Croatia. The reform has been in
the process of gradual implementation since September 2018 when it was introduced into
grades 1 and 5 and continued in grades 2 and 6 in September 2019. Thus, early FL learning
instruction is delivered in line with the new curricular reform in the first two grades of primary
school in the 2019-2020 school year, that is, at the time of writing this chapter.
3 The study
To applied linguists and language educationalists teachers of EFL are important sources of data
as they have direct contact with learners and the power to influence their language learning
trajectories. National authorities need feedback information on implementation of national
policies and regulations, as well as evidence of their relevance for and support of formal
instruction of FLs. EFL teachers can provide valuable information and contribute to the
understanding of TEYLs processes and outcomes from their professional and unique classroom-
based perspective. Their beliefs about TEYLs are important as they can significantly influence
approaches, techniques and activities used (e.g., Barcelos, 2003; Borg, 2003). This is even more
pertinent at a time when changes are taking place through reforms at a national level, which is
currently the case in Croatia (as reported in 2.2). Bearing in mind that some have warned on the
inadequacy of pre-service teacher training for primary ELT, the study that follows looks into the
relationship between teacher beliefs and practices and the national policy and documents that
regulate TEYLs in mainstream education in Croatia.
3.1 Aims and research questions
The aim of the present study was to explore teachers’ beliefs and practices related to EELL in
Croatia. The following research questions were addressed and discussed with reference to the
national TEFL policy and current understanding of early FL acquisition in applied linguistics and
language education:
1. What do teachers of English to YLs in Croatia perceive as the most important advantages
of early English language study?
2. Which areas of language development do Croatian teachers of English to YLs believe to
be more or less important in early EFL development?
3. What teaching approaches and activities are favoured by EFL teachers of YLs in Croatia?
In addition, the aim was to discover if background variables (years of teaching experience and in-
service teacher training operationalized as the number of seminars on TEYLs attended in the
past three years) significantly influence results obtained. Further, we endeavoured to determine
if seminars were perceived as supportive of our participants’ professional in-service
development. More specifically, we aimed to obtain information about areas of teacher
knowledge and skills that are perceived as most and least useful seminar topics for current early
English language instruction in the country.
3.2 Participants
The sample in the study is a convenient sample made up of 155 Croatian teachers of English to
YLs (defined by the instrument used as the age range between three and 12 years of age).
Almost all participants come from state schools as private primary schools are rare in Croatia;
there was only one response from a private school. Teachers teaching in state schools are
obliged to follow a nationally prescribed syllabus for EFL, whereas those delivering courses
offered beyond the state-funded sector are usually allowed more freedom in their choice of
teaching approaches, materials and activities applied. In order to ensure reliable interpretation of
results obtained, it was decided to focus on the teachers working in state-funded schools and
providing instruction in accordance with aims determined by official documents of the Croatian
Ministry of Science and Education. Responses of those teaching the youngest group (3-5-year-
olds) teach outside of the formal state-funded education framework in Croatia (i.e., in private
language schools or nurseries and kindergartens administered locally). Altogether the number of
respondents working part-time or full-time in this sector was 19. As they were excluded from the
study presented in this chapter, the final number of respondents was 136.
Background variables about the sample were collected for gender, age, teaching experience with
YLs, age groups of learners currently being taught, and number of seminars about TEYLs
attended in the past three years (Table 1).
PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILE (N=136)
N
%
GENDER
Female
126
92.6
Male
5
3.6
Missing
5
3.6
AGE
21-30
13
9.5
31-40
53
38.9
41-50
39
28.6
50+
28
20.5
Missing
3
2.2
QUALIFICATION
university degree (4-5 years of study)
131
96.3
PhD
2
1.4
teacher academy
2
1.4
Missing
1
0.7
TEACHING
EXPERIENCE
1-10
37
27.1
11-20
71
52.2
20+
28
20.5
AGE GROUPS OF YLs
TAUGHT
6-8 yrs
11
8.0
9-12 yrs
31
22.7
6-12 yrs1
94
69.1
SEMINARS IN THE
PAST 3 YEARS
(range 0-30)
0-3
43
32.8
4-8
41
31.2
8+
47
35.8
Table 1. – Demographic information about study participants (N=136)
Typical of teaching profession, female teachers (92.6%) greatly outnumbered male teachers
(3.6%). A majority of respondents were 31-40 years old (38.9%), less represented were 41-50
years old (28.6%), next were the respondents older than 50 (20.5%) and, finally, the youngest
respondents (age range 21-30) were the least represented group in the sample (9.5%).
Earlier it was explained that Croatian teachers need a university degree obtained after four or five
years of study at teacher training colleges or faculties of humanities and social sciences in order
to teach English at primary level. In line with the Croatian legal regulation, the former four-year
university degree is equivalent to the five-year degree. In this sense, the sample is quite
homogenous with 97.7% of participants reporting this level of qualification (including the two
respondents with a doctoral degree). There were only two teachers with a qualification to teach
English from a two-year teacher academy course which was replaced by a 4-year university
degree in 1980s.
The majority of respondents (N=71) had 11-20 years of experience in TEYLs (52.2%), or more
(additional 20.5%, N=28). A smaller percentage (15.4%) had been working with YLs for 5-10
years (N=16), and even smaller is the number of those with 1-5 years or teaching experience
(11.7%, N=21). Due to unequal numbers of participants in these groups, the latter two groups
were brought together to represent the least experienced teacher group (N=37).
1
This age group was not originally included in the teacher questionnaire but as respondents were allowed to choose
more than one answer it emerged as the most common category of learners taught by respondents in the Croatian
sample.
A great majority of participants reported teaching 6-12 years old (69.1%), less than a quarter
(22.7%) taught 9-12 years old, and only a small number (8%) taught 6-8 year olds. The large
differences in the proportion made comparisons between groups of participants teaching
different YL groups impossible.
The preliminary analysis showed high correlation between teacher age and years of teaching
experience (r=.762, p=.000, N=133). In order to avoid collinearity, only years of teaching
experience was retained as a background variable.
The range for the number of seminars on TEYLs the participants reported to have attended in the
past three years was quite wide, from zero to 30. This high number can be explained by the
participants' interpretation of the term seminar. According to information obtained informally
from several teachers, they had felt the term was encompassing seminars, webinars, workshops,
short courses and lectures organized by different people or institutions. For example, one teacher
explained that she could easily participate in as many as 10 or more different webinars per year
on a topic relevant to TEYLs. As the mean value for seminar attendance was not that high
(M=6.58, SD=5.265, N=131), this seems to greatly depend on individual teacher choice.
Consequently, the reported values for seminar participation resulted in the splitting of the sample
into three roughly equal groups. Thus, 32.8% of participants attended up to three seminars (N=
43), 31.2% attended four to seven different seminars (N=41) and 35.8% participated in eight
seminars or more (N=47) in the past three years.
Grouping of respondents allowed comparing for statistical differences that could emerge thanks
to professional background variables. However, a valid assumption could be made about more
experienced teachers needing less in-service training and, by the same token, more training
needed by those less experienced in TEYLs. Remember, however, that our respondents reported
about seminars attended in the past three years only. Preliminary analysis showed absence of
correlation (r=.111, p=.209, N=131) between years of teaching experience and the amount of
seminars attended. Hence, treating years of teaching experience and intensity of seminar
attendance as two separate background variables was found justified.
3.3 Instrument and procedure
An online questionnaire was administered as a data collection instrument (for more on the
instrument design, piloting process, validity and reliability see Papadopoulos & Savić, this
volume). It consists of five clearly divided sections dealing with different aspects of TEYLs. In
order to answer the research questions posed earlier, three subsections from the Perspectives
relating to Teaching Behaviour within YLs’ classroom are presented next.
In Perspectives relating to Teaching Behaviour within YLs’ classroom, first the participants
selected three out of nine statements they perceived as most important advantages of starting
learning a second/foreign language early at school. Next, the participants had to decide about
importance of seven areas of more/less priority when teaching FL to YLs by choosing on a three-
point scale (not so important, quite important, very important coded as 1, 2 and 3 respectively).
Finally, for frequency of use of 14 different approaches/activities another three-point scale was
offered (rarely/never, often and always/almost always, coded as 1, 2 and 3 respectively).
Background information about the respondents was collected in the first part of the
questionnaire which also incorporated participants’ estimates on the support that seminars
provide for their teaching. A three-point scale included the choice between minor, neutral or
major contribution, coded as 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
The questionnaire was available for completion in the period from late June to mid-September
2019. The invitation to participate in the study was extended by the authors at teacher meetings
organized by Education and Teacher Training Agency, by posting the call for research
participation through the teacher network of the Croatian Association of Teachers of English and
on several websites used by teachers of English in Croatia (e.g., the Facebook pages for primary
English language teachers). The responses were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively with
SPSS Statistics 20.
3.4 Results and discussion
First, the research questions are addressed separately under different subheadings. Later,
interactions of findings are discussed under a separate subheading.
3.4.1 Teacher perceptions of most important advantages of early English language
learning
Most to least frequently selected advantages of beginning EFL study early are presented below
(Table 2).
2
Rank
Advantages of early English language learning
(N=114)
Frequency
counts
Percentage
1-2
Students will raise their intercultural awareness and
sensitivity.
Students will develop lifelong ability to communicate with
more people.
71
21%
70
21%
3
Students will have greater opportunities for language
proficiency.
57
17%
4
Students will acquire native-like pronunciation.
52
16%
5
Students will have a competitive advantage in the work force
in the future.
38
11%
6
Students will have more opportunities for studying abroad.
19
6%
7
Students will raise their awareness and enhance their
knowledge of their native language.
12
4%
8
Students will develop problem-solving skills.
9
3%
9
Students will achieve increased school performance.
6
2%
total
334
Table 2. – Frequencies for participants’ perceived importance of advantages of TEYLs.
The first four statements in Table 2 were selected most often and make up 73% of the total
number of selected items on the TEYLs advantage scale, which points at respondents’ high
agreement. The raise of intercultural awareness and sensitivity and the development of lifelong
ability to communicate with more people were equally perceived as most important advantages
of an early start (21% each). Development of positive attitudes to new languages and cultures
and promotion of interculturalism has been repeatedly emphasised in the national policy
documents and by national experts on FL pedagogy (e.g., Andraka, 2019; Mihaljević Djigunović,
2013; Vilke, 1993b; Vrhovac 2012, etc.). However, the overall impression is that before the New
Curricular Reform (see 2.2 above), it had been marginally addressed, underrepresented or
absent from textbooks for TEYLs. Moreover, it seems to also have been largely absent from pre-
service teacher education in Croatia (e.g., Bašić, 2014; Pavičić Takač & Bagarić Medve, 2013;
Petravić, 2016). With the New Curricular Reform one out of three FL domains focuses on
development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) which includes intercultural
awareness and sensitivity as its important aspects. This new focus on the importance of ICC
might have additionally contributed to the high frequency of our respondents’ choice of this item.
2
The answers obtained from participants who marked more than three most important advantages (as required), were
excluded from data analysis, which resulted in a smaller number of respondents (N=114) on the scale.
Insights into teacher practice and inquiries about teacher support for promotion of intercultural
awareness with YLs, especially their practices related to development of YLs’ intercultural skills
of reflection and comparison (Sowa 2014) would be most welcome in the Croatian context of EFL
instruction at primary level.
The high ranking of Students will develop lifelong ability to communicate with more people
together with Students will have greater opportunities for language proficiency seem to
corroborate the widely held view about positive effects of more language contact (exposure and
input) and better FL proficiency in the long run (e.g., Jia & Aronson, 2003; Moyer, 2009; Muñoz &
Singleton, 2011; Muñoz, Cadierno & Casas, 2018; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2018). These choices
are found important as they indirectly provide evidence of teachers' favourable attitudes towards
an early start in the Croatian context characterized by substantial out-of-school exposure to
English. The assumed benefits of an early FL start have been questioned because of modest
outcomes (Nikolov, 2009) and better success of older starters (Muñoz, 2006; Pfenninger &
Singleton, 2016). However, these outcomes might be very much context-bound (Muñoz, Cadierno
& Casas, 2018; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2018). Hence, our respondents’ indirect support of an
early EFL start for long-term benefits probably emerged as a result of favourable contextual
circumstances that can effectively support learners’ FL development, encouraging findings of
almost half a century of research on teaching FL to YLs in Croatia, their personal experience as
English language learners, their professional experience as English language instructors, and
global trends.
Our respondents often find an early start beneficial for the acquisition of native-like
pronunciation, which is an expected result. As already explained, ELT in Croatia takes place in the
context which ensures extensive media exposure before starting school and a type of teacher
training that emphasises development of accuracy in pronunciation (Mihaljević Djigunović &
Vilke, 2000).
Despite being perceived less important and represented by much smaller frequency counts,
choice of other statements about advantages of an early start are also worth a comment. For
example, less frequent choices might reflect in part the current reality of increased emigration of
young Croatian people and families, but also the fact that in this day and age education, work
and travel have become much more accessible with English acting as the language of
communication. Hence, some participants believed that TEYLs contributes importantly to
Students will have a competitive advantage in the work force in the future and to Students will
have more opportunities for studying abroad. Infrequent choice of Students will raise their
awareness and enhance their knowledge of their native language is expected as language
awareness of this kind is usually not treated as key to early EFL instruction due to cognitive
characteristics of YL population. We assume the same to be true for a quite low number of
counts for Students will develop problem-solving skills and Students will achieve increased
school performance.
Overall, our respondents’ perceptions of important advantages of TEYLs are in line with current
theory and research on early FL start. The two main reasons for the spread of EELL are the fact
that English has become the language of international communication and the belief that starting
the process of acquisition early has the potential to lead to better outcomes in the long run (e.g.,
Edelenbos & Kubanek, 2009; Garton & Copland, 2019; Johnstone, 2019; Mihaljević Djigunović &
Medved Krajnović, 2015; Nikolov, 2009; Rokita-Jaśkow & Ellis, 2019; Rich, 2014). We believe
that our respondents’ most frequent choices on the advantages scale echo these ideas clearly.
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of years of
teaching on teacher choices of most important advantages of TEYLs. A statistically significant
difference was found for scores on two statements, the first [F(2, 114)=3.74, p=.05] and the
second [F(2, 114)=3.55, p=.05] in Table 2, both with a medium effect size (η2=.06). Post-hoc
comparisons using Games-Howell test indicated that Students will develop lifelong ability to
communicate with more people was a more important advantage for participants with 11-20
years of teaching experience (M=0.73, SD=.448) than for those with 10 or less years of teaching
experience (M=0.45, SD=.506). Also, Students will raise their intercultural awareness and
sensitivity was perceived to be a more important advantage for participants with over 20 years or
teaching experience (M=0.83, SD=.381) than for participants with less than 10 years of
experience (M=0.48, SD=.508). In our sample, teachers with less teaching experience were
younger teachers. Hence, these findings might indicate that the young digital natives perceive
interculturalism and opportunities for communication with more people as readily available. They
might have no personal experience of lack of such opportunities, hence their attribution of less
importance when compared to older/more experienced teachers who are more likely to be digital
immigrants and, more importantly, who might have been raised, educated and trained at the
time when the world was less globalised. On the other hand, more experienced and older
teachers might have come to understand better the significance of the need for intercultural
understanding and the interaction of language and culture due to their work and travel
experiences. This requires further examination. Nevertheless, the sample of teachers in our study
was quite homogenous in their choice of advantages of TEYLs in Croatia. Even the differences
found between more/less experienced teacher groups were at a significance level that might
disappear with larger samples. Additionally, one-way ANOVA showed no statically significant
differences between three groups of participants attending different amounts of seminars in the
past three years with regard to advantages they attribute to EELL. This lack of seminar impact on
teachers’ reported perceptions is discussed later in the chapter.
3.4.2 Teacher perceptions of priority areas of YLs’ language development
Policy documents and literature on TEYLs in Croatia promote receptive learning that aims at
development of listening and speaking with special attention to good pronunciation (also,
Josipović Smojver, 2019; Lütze-Miculinić, 2019; Vilke 1993a, 1995a). Listening comprehension
is emphasised as the core skill (e.g., Mihaljević Djigunović, 2019) and vocabulary learning as
central to the development of communicative competence (e.g., Vilke, 1999). Furthermore,
training of teachers of YLs in Croatia emphasises the need to mirror the order of skills
development in first language acquisition. As already explained, communicative approach is to be
implemented in the classroom. This is probably a reason why our respondents chose
conversation and interaction (M=2.86, SD= .369) as the most important language area of
priority, with listening (M=2.74, SD= .439) and vocabulary (M=2.66, SD= .491) coming second
and third in importance and followed by pronunciation skills (M=1.92, SD=.609). Next comes
reading which was perceived as a quite important area of English language development
(M=1.92, SD= .609). In Croatia, systematic and gradual practice of reading and writing are
postponed until children become literate in their own language (until Grade 3, ages 9-10),
although they are not entirely discouraged in earlier grades. Grammar and written language
received the lowest (identical) mean value (M=1.36, SD=.512 and SD=.527 respectively)
meaning that they were perceived as not so important.
Rank
Language area of priority
(N=135)
M
SD
Min
Max
1
Conversation and interaction is important when
teaching YLs.
2.86
.369
1
3
2
Listening tasks are important when teaching YLs.
2.74
.439
1
3
3
Vocabulary is important when teaching YLs.
2.66
.491
1
3
4
Pronunciation skills are important when teaching YLs.
2.54
.543
1
3
5
Reading skills are important when teaching YLs.
1.92
.609
1
3
6
7
Grammar is important when teaching YLs.
1.36
.512
1
3
Written language is important when teaching YLs.
.527
1
3
total (N=133)
15.46
1.861
11
21
Table 3. – Descriptive statistics for participants’ perceived importance for different language
areas of YLs development.
The results are identical to the findings by Garton, Copland & Burns (2011) despite the fact that
the wording of the question, items and value scales are somewhat different. For example,
Speaking was offered as an important learning skill in Garton et al. (ibid.) and we assume it to be
equivalent to conversation and interaction in our study. In both studies it is ranked as the most
important skill/area of priority, and in both it is followed by listening, vocabulary, pronunciation
and reading (in that order). Amazingly, in both studies not only that grammar and written
language come last but also share the same mean value and have the same ranking (ranks 6-7).
ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact of years of teaching and number of seminars on
TEYLs attended in the past three years on the importance participants assigned to different
areas of YLs’ language development. No statistically significant difference was found between
different teacher groups. Lack of importance of seminar attendance on the respondents’
decisions about language areas of priority with YL is discussed later in the chapter.
3.4.3 Teacher perceptions of teaching approaches/activities frequently employed with
YLs
As reported earlier in the chapter, principles of language methodology and good practices with
YLs are extensively dealt with in the Croatian National Education Standard (Ministry of Science,
Education and Sports, 2005), but also in handbooks for teachers of English to YLs (Vrhovac
1999, 2019) and publications by national ELT experts (Vilke & Vrhovac, 1993; Vilke, 1995b;
Vrhovac, 2001, 2019). To our satisfaction, the results confirmed learner-centeredness of the
classroom study of English with YLs in our context.
Most popular approaches/activities reported by the respondents were many and various. 13
different approaches/activities have a mean value that signals high frequency of use in the
classroom, that is, often and always/almost always. The only exception is the mean value for the
bilingual approach (M=1.48, SD=.676) which is, to our best knowledge, not applied at primary
level in Croatia.
The highest frequency was reported for the use of songs/chants/rhymes (M=2.81, SD=.414),
role-play (M=21.68, SD=.515) and physical games (M=2.57, SD=.568). This finding correlates
highly with the results of a study conducted with Croatian YLs (aged 6/7-10/11) who reported
singing as their favourite English lesson activity in Grades 1-3, followed by somewhat less
popular but still highly valued playing games in Grades 3 and 4 and acting/role-play in Grade 2
(Mihaljević Djigunović, 2015). As noted by the author of that study, all of them usually include
movement/physical activity.
Rank
Teaching approaches/activities with YLs
(N=136)
M
SD
Min
Max
1
I use songs/chants/rhymes.
2.81
.414
1
3
2
I use role-play
2.68
.515
1
3
3
I use physical games
2.57
.568
1
3
4
Integrating cross-curricular topics within the English
lesson.
2.28
.528
1
3
5
I use picture story books.
2.15
.619
1
3
6
I use ICT/new technologies
2.14
.678
1
3
7
I use board games.
2.08
.691
1
3
8
I use fairy tales/folk-stories.
2.05
.566
1
3
9
I use intercultural games/activities.
1.99
.637
1
3
10
I use craft based activities.
1.91
.638
1
3
11
I use digital games.
1.89
.594
1
3
12
Teaching some subject areas through the medium of
English (up to 25% of the school curriculum).
1.81
.650
1
3
13
I use readers.
1.57
.582
1
3
14
Teaching approximately 50% of the curriculum through
the medium of English (bilingual programme).
1.48
.676
1
3
total (N=117)
29.29
3.978
17
40
Table 4. – Descriptive statistics for participants’ perceived frequency of use of different
approaches/activities with YLs.
Ten approaches/activities were reported as used often by our respondents. Croatian teachers of
English at primary level are encouraged to take cross-curricular approach to ELT (i.e., make links
with topics from other subjects of the curriculum). Also, topics that are addressed in other
subjects are incorporated into official syllabus and nationally produced textbooks (e.g., telling the
time, arithmetic, rules of orthography, healthy diet, etc.). Hence, Integrating cross-curricular
topics within the English lesson (M=2.28, SD=.528) received the highest mean value among
approaches/activities used often. Very close values were received for the use of picture story
books (M=2.15, SD=.619) and ICT/new technologies (M=2.14, SD=.678). The use of board
games (M=2.08, SD=.691) and fairy tales/folk-stories (M=2.05, SD=.566) hardly lagged behind.
Close by were also the use of intercultural games/activities (M=1.99, SD=.637), craft-based
activities (M=1.91, SD=.638) and digital games (M=1.89, SD=.594). Some overlap between
Teaching some subject areas through the medium of English (M=1.81, SD=.650) and already
explained Integrating cross-curricular topics within the English lesson was expected in the
sample due to cross-curricular planning and integration. Correlational analysis pointed at a
positive medium correlation between the two approaches (r=.360, p=.000, N=129). The
participants who reported applying one approach were likely to report applying the other. The use
of readers (M=1.57, SD=.582) seems not to be very much popular, which is unsurprising.
Literacy skills of YLs are less prioritized, especially in the first cycle, that is, Grades 1-2 (ages 6/7-
8/9). In official documents on TEYLs, development of good levels of literacy is important for first
language instruction whereas FL instruction focuses on the development of good oral skills of
YLs.
Our findings partially overlap with the results of Garton et al. (2011) study. For example, similar
to our findings, playing games, songs and role-play were reported as pedagogies used every
lesson or often with YLs by the majority of their respondents from 144 countries. On the other
hand, our respondents reported using picture story books and fairy-tales/folk-stories often.
Actually, in Garton et al. (ibid.) storytelling was absent from the list of frequently used activities.
However, these comparisons of global and local findings should be here interpreted as sketchy
due to differences in instrument design and content.
The comparison between groups of participants divided by the years of teaching and quantity of
seminars attended in the past three years revealed no statistical significance with reference to
the use of different approaches/activities.
Generally speaking, our teachers’ responses about most important advantages of an early start,
importance of different areas of YLs’ development and frequency of approaches/activities used
were unrelated to years of teaching experience or frequency of seminar attendance. In a study on
primary English teachers’ qualifications, training and career development (Emery, 2012), 79% of
the teachers (in the sample that consisted of 2,478 teachers including 240 Croatian practising
teachers) felt they would like to attend further training courses or workshops on TEYLs.
Interestingly, Croatian teachers were reported to have enough opportunities for in-service training
related to TEYLs (Enever, 2012, 2014). As the instrument applied in this study contained a
question about seminar contribution to different aspects of teacher expertise related to TEYLs, it
was speculated that the responses obtained could shed light on the already established lack of
relationships between in-service training and the results presented so far. Hence, the aim of
subsequent analysis was to discover if seminars provide support for teachers of English to YLs in
Croatia and if some areas of teacher knowledge and skills are perceived more or less supported
through organized CPD. To our best knowledge, no such information has ever been systematically
collected from Croatian teachers. Seminar topics are, as a rule, discussed between lecturers
available (and their implied research and/or practical interests) and meeting organizers (schools,
local teacher association, publishers, senior advisors or other personnel from the ministry or
other government organisations, etc.). Table 5 below shows the descriptive statistics for the
reported seminar support for teachers’ teaching. The total mean value indicates that the
participating teachers perceive the seminars attended just about useful (M=12.96, SD=2.623,
N= 129; score range 6-18). One-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test showed no statically
significant differences between groups of participants attending different amounts of seminars in
the past three years with regard to seminar support of different knowledge and skills. Again, all
respondents unanimously reported them to be of insignificant (in)adequacy.
Rank
Seminar support for
teacher knowledge and skills in TEYLs
N
M
SD
Min
Max
1
Seminars support teaching practice.
132
2.42
.722
1
3
2
3
Seminars support assessment of YLs.
Seminars support materials design.
132
129
2.20
.722
.696
1
3
4
Seminars support theoretical knowledge.
132
2.14
.722
1
3
5
6
Seminars support lesson planning.
Seminars support classroom management.
132
2.02
.665
.725
1
3
total
129
12.96
2.623
6
18
Table 5. – Descriptive statistics for contribution of seminars to primary teachers’ teaching of EFL.
Hardly any division of opinion was found: for each item on this scale the neutral choice (i.e.,
neutral contribution) was most frequent in the distribution of responses. Only in the distribution
for Seminars support teaching practice the most frequent choice was a positive one (N=74 opted
for major contribution, N=40 for neutral and N=18 for minor contribution), but the mean value
remained neutral. The least neutral was our respondents answer about seminar support for
teaching practice. The values that follow were nearly identical for assessment of YLs, materials
design, and theoretical knowledge. Finally, the respondents’ seminar attendance was found least
supportive for lesson planning and classroom management. The last two areas of teacher
knowledge and skills are usually taught at universities in general terms, without reference to a
specific subject, by experts in pedagogy and language didactics at the graduate level. In-service
seminars that cover these areas of EFL teacher expertise are rarely offered. In this sense the low
scores are not surprising. In the Croatian education system primary FL teachers are quite
autonomous in the choice of their CPD. As a rule, teachers who are interested in advancement
opportunities and professional growth (e.g., becoming a teacher mentor) are more active and
extensively engaged in in-service training. Others can choose to attend seminars, or avoid them,
having the freedom to choose seminars of their own liking, probably motivated by personal
evaluations of their professional needs and/or on the basis of availability. The results indicate
that in-service provision is largely perceived as neither adequate nor inadequate in addressing
teacher needs. It is impossible to say if the respondents were neutral about the range of seminar
topics offered or content presented, but practicalities of TEYLs seem to be most relevant to them.
This finding warrants further examination of practising teachers’ needs in the Croatian context of
TEYLs. Needless to say, Croatian framework of advancement opportunities in the teaching career
required serious reconsideration.
Data collected from the respondents lends weight to the claim that providers of in-service
training in Croatia fail to ensure full recognition and/or support of the needs of primary English
teachers. Nevertheless, in the relatively young field of TEYLS, where theoretical discussions and
research findings constantly make contributions to new understandings, teachers need regular
updating of their expertise. Our findings indirectly show that in-service provision for primary-
focused teacherly skills in the Croatian context of TEYLs needs to be improved. This is crucial as
teachers’ access to professional development opportunities is found pivotal to the success of
educational innovation (Rich, 2019). Those interested and willing to sustain and/or improve
quality of their work, have to be provided with opportunities to do so. Nevertheless, in-service
provision can only be highly beneficial if it is relevant to teachers’ specific local contexts, and to
specific challenges teachers are confronted with in those contexts. Following the findings of the
present study, Croatian teachers’ professional growth requires better facilitation (e.g., through a
needs-based model of CPD; Zein, 2017). Teacher voice needs to be given more attention in that
respect.
3.4.4 Interaction of findings
Croatian teachers’ views and reported practices seem to be quite unanimous and harmonized
with the current national FL policy. With hardly any divisions of opinions between respondents in
the study (cf. Wang, 2009), the findings can be commented on in terms of how well they support
each other. In an effort to further qualify our findings we concentrate next on the ranking and
frequency of choices of the respondents.
The participants’ choice of conversation and interaction as the most important area of YLs
development supports their choice of advantages of TEYLs that include lifelong ability to
communicate and greater opportunities for language proficiency. This also resonates well with
their choice of well-developed intercultural awareness and sensitivity as it is definitively an
aspect that ensures mutual understanding in any form of communication. The next highly ranked
areas of priority include listening and vocabulary that are considered the stepping stones of
emerging proficiency. Hence, we can say that the main findings on the advantages of TEYLs scale
and important areas of priority in YLs’ development scale support each other well.
Further evidence of our teachers’ awareness of the know-how on TEYLs is found in the section
about the frequency of use of different approaches/activities with YLs. Overall, the highest
frequency of use of songs/chants/rhymes, role-play and physical games and the frequent use of
10 different approaches/activities that follow them give evidence of our teachers’ application of
holistic and multisensory approach emphasised in the national policy and regulations related to
an early start. Some examples for the above interpretation are explained next.
When broken down separately, a skilful use of songs/chants/rhymes can be argued to contribute
to the development of intercultural awareness and sensitivity, the most frequently selected
advantage of TEYLs. In addition, this is supported by frequent use of cross-curricular topics,
picture story books, fairy tales and folk stories, and explicitly reported frequent use of
intercultural games/activities. Next, the use of songs/chants/rhymes adds to YLs’ development
of listening skills. Moreover, their use is recommended in official policy documents with the aim
of development of suprasegmental features of English which is an important component of
comprehensibility and the medium-ranked pronunciation-related advantage of TEYLs. Role-play,
also one of the most frequently reported uses in teaching, contributes to the ability to
communicate and to the development of language proficiency, two highly ranked TEYLs
advantages by the participants. Furthermore, use of role-play is in resonance with the
respondents’ choice of conversation and interaction as the most important area of priority.
Nevertheless, uses of role-play can contribute to multiple skills, including listening, vocabulary
and/or pronunciation development, as skills are rarely developed in isolation. Contrary to role-
play, use of readers is ranked low on the list, supporting the reported teacher view on lesser
significance of reading. Finally, physical games can have an outstanding role in the development
of listening comprehension and vocabulary (e.g., Radišić & Pavičić Takač, 2008; Erk, 2019) that
are emphasised as starting points for literacy skills development at the level of national policy
and in the work by language education authorities in Croatia (reported earlier in the chapter).
In summary, popular beliefs about usefulness of English language for a small nation, long
tradition of research on TEYLs, effort put into dissemination of local and global research findings
and teacher involvement into curricular reform must have contributed to the established
compatibility between policy and practice. This is an extremely encouraging finding in the light of
previously described research that pointed at inadequacies of pre-service training of EFL
specialist teachers in Croatia. However, as earlier explained, the study by Vičević Ivanović et al.
(2019) concentrated on pre-service education of specialist teachers with no reference to pre-
service training of generalist primary teachers whose involvement in TEYLs cannot be ignored,
despite the fact that they are less commonly employed. Still, caution is needed as the study
presented deals with perception rather than actual behaviour of teachers and is based on a
convenient teacher sample. Limitations to this study are several. One is the type and size of the
sample. Another is the use of only one instrument, which needs to be complemented by other
means of data collection. Interviews and classroom observations could contribute to the
interpretation of the results beyond the level of perception, enable triangulation and lead to
better understanding of the construct under study. Also, some of the findings provide indirect
evidence of teacher beliefs about FL learning and more directly collected data on issues related
to the age factor could lead to better qualification of teacher perspective (e.g., via interviews).
Despite these shortcomings, we believe that the study managed to give Croatian teachers of YLs
the voice and lead to insights into how they interpret some aspects of TEYLs in their teaching
context.
4 Conclusions
The aim of the study presented in this chapter was to explore if there were discrepancies
between policy and practice of TEYL in Croatia. To that purpose a convenient sample of Croatian
primary EFL teachers and a questionnaire were employed. A mutually supportive relationship
between the two was found as the respondents’ reported beliefs and practices seem to be fully
aligned with the national policy, regulations and guidelines on TEYLs. Croatian primary teachers’
reported beliefs about advantages of TEYLs, understandings of areas of priority in YLs’ foreign
language development and approaches/activities applied at classroom-level emerged as learner-
centred, aiming at learners’ holistic and multisensory development, and communicatively-
oriented. We believe the results provide evidence of policy enhancement (Johnstone, 2019). As
stated earlier in this chapter, by giving teachers the voice, relevant and valuable feedback to all
stakeholders in the growing field of early FL acquisition can be obtained. Hence, the study has
also revealed interesting avenues for further inquiry. The emergence of intercultural awareness
and sensitivity at the top of the advantages list requires further examination in the Croatian
primary EFL context: deeper understanding of teachers’ interpretation of the terms is warranted
(Wilden & Porsch, 2017). Specifically, teachers’ ICC and development of the same competence
within the boundaries of formal YL classroom present a challenge that needs to be addressed in
light of the view that ICC usually requires higher levels of language proficiency, secondary and/or
intermediate level (e.g., Lázár, 2003), and more (worldly) experience that comes with older age.
Also, the seminars our respondents chose to attend in the past three years failed to be of
significant contribution for their teaching, which opens up a range of (research) possibilities
related to the organization, demand and content of in-service training on TEYLs. Consequently,
further inquiry into the ways of making in-service training more effective and meaningful is
needed. Nevertheless, teachers of YLs in Croatia showed clear understanding of different
aspects of language pedagogy with YLs addressed in this study. In the current Croatian EFL
context, with the new curricular reform underway, this is an encouraging finding.
References
Andraka, M. (2019). O razvoju međukulturne kompetencije u nastavi stranoga jezika. [Developing
intercultural competence in foreign language teaching]. In Y. Vrhovac, V. Berlengi Kapušin, J.
Čengić, R. Geld, A.B. Jelić, S. Letica Krevelj, S. Mardešić & M. Lütze-Miculinić (Eds.), Izazovi
učenja stranoga jezika u osnovnoj školi (pp. 292-302). Zagreb: Ljevak.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja & A. M.
Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches (pp. 7–33). Dortrecht: Springer.
Bagarić, V. (2002). Jezična kompetencija učenika u ranom učenju njemačkoga kao stranoga
jezika. [Language competence of young learners of German as a foreign language]. In I. Vodopija
(Ed.), Dijete i jezik danas: dijete i učenje hrvatskoga jezika: dijete i učenje stranoga jezika (pp.
205-2016). Osijek: Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera, Visoka učiteljska škola u Osijeku.
Bašić, M. (2015). Interkulturalna sastavnica komunikacijske kompetencije. [Intercultural
component of communication competence]. Magistra Iadertina, 9(1), 55-70.
Borg, Simon (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
Brumen, M., Cagran, B., & Rixon, Sh. (2009). Comparative assessment of young learners’ foreign
language competence in three Eastern European countries. Educational Studies, 35(3), 269-
295.
Commission of the European Communities (2005). Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions: Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004 – 2006.
COM (2003) 449 final. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf
Edelenbos, P., & Kubanek, A. (2009). Early foreign language learning: Published research, good
practice and main principles. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age factor and early language learning (pp.
39-58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Emery, H. (2012). A global study of primary English teachers' qualifications, training and career
development. ELT Research Papers, 12-8. British Council: London, UK. Available at:
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/B487_ELTRP_Emery_ResearchPaper_
FINAL_web_V2.pdf
Enever, J. (2012). Current policy issues in early foreign language learning. C.E.P.S. Journal, 2(3),
9-26. Available at: https://www.cepsj.si/index.php/cepsj/article/view/345/187 (September 23,
2019.)
Enever, J. (2014). Primary English teacher education in Europe. ELT Journal, 68(3), 231–242.
Erk, M. (2019). Poučavanje stranoga jezika usklađivanjem jezika i pokreta: Metoda Total Physical
Response. [Foreign language teaching through language and movement: Total Physical
Response]. In Y. Vrhovac, V. Berlengi Kapušin, J. Čengić, R. Geld, A.B. Jelić, S. Letica Krevelj, S.
Mardešić & M. Lütze-Miculinić (Eds.), Izazovi učenja stranoga jezika u osnovnoj školi (pp. 426-
431). Zagreb: Ljevak.
European Union (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18
December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC). Official Journal of the
European Union. OJ L 394, 30.12.2006, 10-18. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32006H0962 (January 15, 2020)
Freudenstein, R. (Ed.). (1979). Teaching Foreign Languages to the Very Young. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Garton, S., Copland, F., & Burns, A. (2011). Investigating global practices in teaching English to
young learners. ELT Research Papers, 11-01. British Council. Available at:
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/B094%20FINAL%20Aston%20Universi
ty%20A4%20report_2column_V3.pdf (January 15, 2020)
Garton, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge Handbook of teaching English to young
learners. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Hrvatski nacionalni obrazovni standard [Croatian National Education Standard] (2005). Zagreb:
Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i športa RH.
Jia, G., & Aaronson, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents learning
English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 131–161.
Johnstone, R. (2019). Language policy and English for young learners in early education. In S.
Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp.
13-29). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Josipović Smojver, Višnja (2019). Usvajanje izgovora stranoga jezika u ranoj školskoj dobi. [The
acquisition of foreign language pronunciation in the early school years]. In Y. Vrhovac, V. Berlengi
Kapušin, J. Čengić, R. Geld, A.B. Jelić, S. Letica Krevelj, S. Mardešić & M. Lütze-Miculinić (Eds.),
Izazovi učenja stranoga jezika u osnovnoj školi (pp. 167-174). Zagreb: Ljevak.
Lázár, I. (2003). Incorporating intercultural communicative competence in language teacher
education. Kapfenberg: Council of Europe. Available at:
http://archive.ecml.at/documents/pub123be2003_lazar.pdf
Lütze-Miculinić, Marija (2019). Izgovor u nastavi stranoga jezika. [Pronunciation in foreign
language instruction]. In Y. Vrhovac, V. Berlengi Kapušin, J. Čengić, R. Geld, A.B. Jelić, S. Letica
Krevelj, S. Mardešić & M. Lütze-Miculinić (Eds.), Izazovi učenja stranoga jezika u osnovnoj školi
(pp. 175-187). Zagreb: Ljevak.
Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2004). Danas i sutra nastave stranih jezika. [The present and past in
foreign language teaching]. In D. Stolac, N. Ivanetić & B. Pritchard (Eds.), Suvremena kretanja u
nastavi stranih jezika (327-334). Zagreb/Rijeka: Hrvatsko društvo za primijenjenu lingvistiku.
Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2013). Multilingual attitudes and attitudes to multilingualism in Croatia.
In D. Singleton, J. A. Fishman, L. Aronin & M. O. Laoire (Eds.), Current multilingualism: A new
linguistic dispensation (pp. 163–186). Bostin/Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2015). Attitudes and motivation of young EFL learners: A longitudinal
perspective. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning & N. Deutsch Muller (Eds.), Children
learning English: From research to practice (pp. 59-76). Reading, UK: Garnet Publishing Ltd.
Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2019). Slušanje. [Listening]. In Y. Vrhovac, V. Berlengi Kapušin, J.
Čengić, R. Geld, A.B. Jelić, S. Letica Krevelj, S. Mardešić & M. Lütze-Miculinić (Eds.), Izazovi
učenja stranoga jezika u osnovnoj školi (pp. 158-166). Zagreb: Ljevak.
Mihaljević Djigunović, J. & Medved Krajnović, M. (Eds.). (2015). Early learning and teaching of
English: New dynamics of primary English. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Mihaljević Djigunović, J., & Mardešić, S. (2009). Kompetencije nastavnika stranih jezika između
politike i stvarnosti. [Foreign language teacher competences between policy and reality]. In
J.Granić (Ed.), Jezična politika i jezična stvarnost (pp. 318-327). Zagreb: Hrvatsko društvo za
primijenjenu lingvistiku.
Mihaljević Djigunović, J. & Vilke, M. (2000). Eight years after: Wishful thinking vs the facts of life.
In J. Moon & M. Nikolov (Ed.), Research into teaching English to young learners (pp. 67-86).
Pécs: University Press Pécs.
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2
phonological attainment. In Th. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 159-
174). Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: the BAF project. In C. Muñoz
(Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 107-126). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Muñoz, C., Cadierno, T., & Casas, I. (2018). Different starting points for English language
learning: A comparative study of Danish and Spanish young learners. Language Learning, 68(4),
1076-1109.
Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate
attainment. Language Teaching, 44(1), 1-35.
Myles, F. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary schools: is younger better? Languages,
Society & Policy. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9806 (January 15, 2020)
Nacionalni okvirni kurikulum [National Framework Curriculum] (2011). Zagreb: Ministarstvo
znanosti, obrazovanja i sporta RH.
Nikolov, M. (2009). The age factor in context. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age factor and early
language learning (pp. 1-37). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Petravić, A. (2016). Međukulturna kompetencija u nastavi stranih jezika. Od teorijskih koncepata
do primjene, Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Petrović, E. (1997). Teaching English to young learners in Osijek. Studia Romanica et Anglica
Zagrabiensia, XLII, 315-320.
Petrović, E. (2002). The best way of learning and teaching foreign languages. Is there one? In E.
Petrović (Ed.), The First Twenty-five Years of English Studies in Osijek, (pp. 163-174). Osijek:
Sveučilište J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku, Pedagoški fakultet.
Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2016). Affect trumps age: A person-in-context relational view of
age and motivation in SLA. Second Language Research, 32(3), 311-345.
Radišić, M., & Pavičić Takač, V. (2008). Using gestures to teach vocabulary for long-term
retention. In H. Sarter (Ed.) Teacher competences and successful learning in early foreign
language classrooms (pp. 71-85). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Radišić, M., Pavičić Takač, V., & Bagarić, V. (Eds.) (2007.) Competences of primary school foreign
language teachers in the Republic of Croatia. Osijek: Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u
Osijeku, Učiteljski fakultet. Rich, S. (Ed.). (2014). International perspectives on teaching English
to young learners. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillian.
Rich, S. (2019). Early language learning teacher education. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 44-59). London and New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Rixon, S. (2013). British Council Survey of Policy and Practice in Primary English Language
Teaching Worldwide, London: British Council
Rokita-Jaśkow, J., & Ellis, M. (2019). Introduction. In J. Rokita-Jaśkow & M. Ellis (Eds.), Early
instructed second language acquisition: Pathways to competence (pp. 1-10). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Singleton, D. & Pfenninger, S. E. (2018). L2 acquisition in childhood, adulthood and old age:
Misreported and under-researched dimensions of the age factor. Journal of Second Language
Studies, 1-2, 254-276.
Vičević Ivanović, S., Patekar, J., & Košuta, N. (2019). Do study programs in Croatia prepare future
foreign language teachers to work with young learners? Croatian Journal of Education, 21(1),
307-344.
Vilke, M. (1982) Why Start Early?. In R. Freudenstein (Ed.), Teaching Foreign Languages to the
Very Young (Second Edition) (pp. 12-28). Pergamon Press
Vilke, M. (1993a). Early foreign language teaching in Croatian primary schools. In M. Vilke & Y.
Vrhovac (Eds.), Children and foreign languages I (pp. 10-26). Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet.
Vilke, M. (1993b). Introduction. In M. Vilke & Y. Vrhovac (Eds.), Children and foreign languages I
(pp. 5-8). Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet.
Vilke, M. (1995a). Children and foreign languages in Croatian primary schools. In M. Vilke (Ed.),
Children and foreign languages II (pp. 1-15). Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet.
Vilke, M. (Ed.). (1995b). Children and foreign languages II. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet.
Vilke, M. (1999). Obrada rječnika. [Teaching vocabulary]. In Y. Vrhovac, M. Kruhan, M. Medved
Krajnović, J. Mihaljević Djigunović, S. Narančić Kovač, N. Sironić-Bonefačić & M. Vilke (Eds.),
Strani jezik u osnovnoj školi (pp. 179-186). Zagreb: Ljevak.
Vilke, M. & Vrhovac, Y. (Eds.). (1993). Children and foreign languages I. Zagreb: Filozofski
fakultet.
Vrhovac, Y. (Ed.). (1999). Strani jezik u osnovnoj školi [Foreign languages in primary schools].
Zagreb: Naprijed.
Vrhovac, Y. (Ed.). (2001). Children and foreign languages III. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet.
Vrhovac, Y. (Ed.). (2012). Introducing the European language Portfolio into Croatian and French
foreign language classrooms. From language use to language awareness. Zagreb: FF press.
Vrhovac, Y., Berlengi Kapušin, V., Čengić, J., Geld, R., Jelić, A. B., Letica Krevelj, S., Mardešić, S., &
Lütze-Miculinić, M. (Eds.). (2019). Izazovi učenja stranoga jezika u osnovnoj školi. [The
challenges of learning foreign languages at primary school]. Zagreb: Ljevak.
Wang, Q. (2009). Primary English in China: Policy, curriculum and implementation. In M. Nikolov
(Ed.), The age factor and early language learning (pp. 277-309). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wilden, E., & Porsch, R. (2017). Researching the professional development of primary EFL
teachers. In E. Wilden & R. Porsch (Eds.), The professional development of primary EFL teachers:
National and international research (pp. 7-23). Münster/New York: Wxmann.
Williams, G., Strubell, M., & Williams, G. O. (2013). Trends in European language education.
Language Learning Journal, 41(1), 1-32.
Zein, S. (2017). Professional development needs of primary EFL teachers: Perspectives of
teachers and teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 293-313.
