Content uploaded by Alexandra Schurz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexandra Schurz on Jun 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
English Language Teaching in the European Union:
Theory and Practice across the Region
Instructed EFL Learning in Austria, France and Sweden:
Hearing Teachers’ Voices
Alexandra Schurz1, Marion Coumel2
1Department of English and American Studies, University of Vienna, Austria
2 Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Abstract
Today, the Common European Framework of Reference (2009) and Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) underpin English Language Teaching (ELT) curricula throughout Europe.
However, given cross-national differences such as ones related to educational policies and
students’ engagement in extramural English (EE), one could expect ELT to vary across
countries. We investigated Austrian, French and Swedish teachers’ type of instruction as well
as how and why they resort to the reported practices by conducting semi-structured interviews
with twenty lower-secondary teachers. Our results show that ELT in all countries seems to
largely rely on CLT but Austrian and French teachers appear to attribute a greater role to
teaching form than do teachers from Sweden. Swedish teachers provide primarily meaning-
focused, fluency-based teaching. Moreover, Austrian and French teachers reported applying
rather pre-determined grammar teaching, whereas ELT in Sweden seems to cater more to
individual student needs. This cross-country comparison provides a detailed picture of how
multiple factors such as curricula, EE, practical constraints (e.g., class size) and student needs
influence pedagogical choices and extends our understanding of how grammar teaching
practices relate to the teaching context.
Keywords: English language teaching, accuracy-based vs. fluency-based teaching, focus-on-
meaning vs. focus-on-form, incidental vs. planned focus-on-form, extramural English
1. Introduction
Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT) is the most recently adopted paradigm
underlying foreign language teaching and learning in Europe. CLT stipulates that form-based
teaching should occur in meaningful, communicative tasks. This should allow the learner to
develop communicative ability, an amalgam of linguistic (or grammatical), sociolinguistic,
discourse, and strategic competences (see Hedge, 2008). The Common European Framework
of Reference (Council of Europe, 2009) (henceforth CEFR) endorses the CLT principles and,
with its level descriptors, facilitates the comparability of language courses and qualifications
across schools and national borders. Even though national curricula and coursebooks of foreign
language teaching throughout Europe evoke the basic principles of CLT and the CEFR,
assuming that language teaching practices across the region reflect these methods is a premature
conclusion. Language and educational policies – influenced by ideologies held within national
borders or cultural spheres – may lead to significant cross-national differences in language
2
instruction. Language policies, on the one hand, regulate a population’s recreational use of
English, i.e. extramural English (henceforth EE) (Sundqvist, 2009), which can aid language
acquisition and arguably influence the type of instruction. On the other hand, educational
policies stipulate for instance the nature of teacher education, the number of hours of English
instruction, class size, and proficiency diversity within classes (influenced primarily through
the presence or absence of a comprehensive school system and grade repetition). Teaching
practices adopted within a geo-cultural context as a result of such language and educational
policies seem to be perpetuated cross-generationally based on the teachers' own experiences
as students (Borg, 2006).
Schurz & Coumel (2020) used an online questionnaire to compare ELT practices in Austria,
France and Sweden and revealed cross-national differences in pedagogical choices. They asked
teachers of the three countries to indicate on Likert scales to which extent statements describing
teaching practices reflected their own pedagogical approaches (e.g., “I discuss grammar rules
explicitly in my English classes.”). Based on the teachers’ reports, lower secondary school
teachers in Austria and France appear to teach grammar significantly more explicitly than
Swedish teachers, who, conversely, seem to teach more implicit fluency-based. Additionally,
the Austrian teachers apparently teach grammar more systematically than the teachers of the
other countries. In the present study, we collected qualitative data with teacher interviews to
further explore these cross-national differences. We enquired six to seven teachers from each
country as to (i) the focus they apply in ELT (accuracy-based vs. fluency-based, form-focused
vs. meaning-focused instruction) and (ii) their degree of forward planning in grammar teaching
(incidental vs. planned instruction). The qualitative interview data allowed us to zoom in on
how exactly teachers implement the reported teaching methods or techniques in the classroom
and on what seem to be underlying reasons for these didactic choices. This should provide a
better understanding of cross-country variation in ELT practices in Europe.
2. A Categorization of Teaching Practices
Although there exist several theoretical conceptualizations to categorize the type of instruction
(see for instance Loewen & Sato, 2018; Spada, 2011), this chapter focuses on accuracy-based
vs. fluency-based (e.g. see Richards, 2015), form-focused vs. meaning-focused (Long, 1988,
1991), and planned vs. incidental instruction (Ellis, 2001). The members of these dichotomies
are considered the poles of continua.
Accuracy-based teaching aims to help students acquire the capacity to produce error-free
language (Richards, 2015, p. 266), whereas fluency-based instruction seeks to foster the ability
to speak continuously to facilitate comprehension and avoid disrupting communication (2015,
p. 266). Hence, this first distinction relates first and foremost to language production.
Contrarily, form-focused vs. meaning-focused instruction can characterize any kind of activity,
thus perhaps being more apt to classify overall instructional approaches. Meaning-focused
instruction prohibits attention to grammatical forms and relies on incidental, implicit second
language learning (Long & Robinson, 1998). Form-focused instruction encompasses a
continuum extending from focus-on-formS to focus-on-form. Focus-on-formS typically entails
traditional language teaching where isolated forms are introduced in an additive manner while
3
largely ignoring the meaning and context of form (Ellis, 2001, 2016). This systematic
introduction of grammar as determined a priori is also designated as planned instruction (Ellis,
2001), and can for instance be based on the curriculum or a coursebook. In focus-on-form, by
contrast, tasks tend to be more meaning-focused and contextualized, and attention is directed
to features primarily when comprehension or production problems arise. This corresponds to
incidental grammar teaching, occurring either pre-emptively – e.g. in preparation to a task
requiring a given structure – or reactively – i.e. in response to learner errors, in the form of
implicit or explicit feedback (Ellis, 2001). Thus, incidental instruction implies more learner-
centred teaching, in which students’ needs rather than a predefined list of grammatical features
guide teaching (Harmer, 2001, p. 56).
The CEFR (Council of Europe, 2009) lists both accuracy and fluency as performance categories
in its common reference levels for spoken and written production. Errors are acceptable until
level B1, potentially beyond if the message remains clear (Council of Europe, 2009, p. 114).
This concurs with CLT, in which accuracy and fluency are taught in a balanced way and errors
are considered part of the learning process (Hedge, 2008; Richards, 2006). Here, the function
of accuracy-based activities is to aid learners in fluency activities (Richards, 2006, p. 15), as
system-based linguistic knowledge (i.e. “’in-the-head’ knowledge” (Scrivener, 2011) of
grammar, lexis, and phonology) is just one aspect of communicative competence (Hedge, 2008,
see 1.). Likewise, in the CEFR, skills-based learning and learning how to carry out action with
language are the most central underlying principles (Council of Europe, 2009). The functional,
communicative purpose of grammar teaching in focus-on-form makes it the approach on the
form-focused to meaning-focused spectrum that reflects CLT the most (Hedge, 2008, p. 47).
Accordingly, grammar should not be taught in isolation and teaching a given grammatical
feature should not be predetermined but emerge incidentally, e.g. out of communicative tasks.
This, again, is in line with the CEFR, which considers the learner (rather than the teacher) and
their individual needs as being at the centre of teaching (Richards, 2006).
3. Intra- and Extramural English in Austria, France, and Sweden
In Austria, France and Sweden, English is the number one first foreign language students learn.
In the EF Proficiency Index (2020), a worldwide annual ranking of 100 countries by the
populations’ English proficiency, Sweden ranks fourth, Austria seventh, and France 28th.
Besides the factor of cross-linguistic differences between learners’ first and second languages,
which are certainly larger for the French context, we estimate ELT and EE to be among the
most influential factors in language attainment.
3.1. English Instruction per Country
In Austria, already after year 4, i.e. at age 10 after primary school, the student population is
split into Middle School and Academic High School students. The latter school type is selective,
i.e. primary school grades or entrance exams determine admission (Austrian Federal Ministry
of Education [AME], 2018a). In contrast, in France, students follow a common educational path
until they enter upper secondary school at age 14/15 (French Ministry of National Education
[FMNE], 2020a, 2020b). Sweden relies on a comprehensive school system, encompassing
years 1-9, only at the end of which the students, aged 15/16, can apply to different branches of
4
upper secondary school (The Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE], 2020a, 2020b).
Although students in France attend the same school type (which is non-selective in the case of
public schools), grade retention might function as a countermeasure to ability differences within
classes. For instance, in 2009, 36.5% of 15-year old students participating in PISA in France
indicated they had repeated a school year in primary and/or lower secondary education,
compared to 9.3% in Austria and 4.5% in Sweden (Education, Audiovisual and Culture
Executive Agency, 2012). Another important factor that varies across the three countries, that
affects in-class diversity and thus likely also the type of instruction is class size. In lower
secondary, Austrian classes include 21.1 students on average, French classes 25.3, and Swedish
classes 21.8 (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2018).
The amount of English instruction per country varies across school types and whether it is
picked as a first or second foreign language and is thus difficult to compare. A comparison of
ELT curricula seems more telling (see Schurz & Coumel, 2020). In each of the three countries,
the curricula are in line with the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2009) and purport CLT, while at
the same time expressing the importance of grammar teaching (AME, 2018b, 2020; FMNE,
2016, 2018a, 2018b; SNAE, 2017). Yet, only the Austrian (AME, 2018b) and French (MEN,
2020c, 2020d) Middle School curricula list specific target grammatical features, whereas the
Swedish curriculum (SNAE, 2017) points out that individual needs, based for instance on the
learners’ L1 and the way they pick up the language, should determine teaching content.
3.2. Extramural English per Country
EE plays an increasingly important role in language learning pathways. In subtitling countries
(i.e., where soundtracks of movies are kept in the original language but transcribed with
captions in the country’s official language), such as Sweden, even young children are frequently
exposed to the English language (Sundin, 2000). Dubbing countries (i.e., where soundtracks of
movies in a foreign language are replaced by ones in the country’s official language), such as
Austria and France, are currently experiencing a major surge in the use of spare time English
among teenagers (Centre National d'Étude des Systèmes Scolaires, 2019; Federal Institute for
Education Research, Innovation and Development, 2020). This is a result of ubiquitous access
to the internet and the abundance of online services such as online games, social media apps
and streaming platforms. In Austria, 15-16 year old students in the capital city of Vienna
experience a daily average of EE engagement of 4 hours and 7 minutes (Schwarz, 2016). In
Sweden, 15-19 year-old teenagers have been found to use English on average for at least 5
hours a day (Olsson & Sylvén, 2015). We found no such information for France.
4. Research Questions
The present study was a qualitative follow-up to the quantitative study in Schurz & Coumel
(2020), representing an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. In this follow-up, we
further explored the significant disparities across the three countries reported in the previous
study (see section 1.) to obtain more specific information regarding the focus in ELT and the
way lesson content is selected. More precisely, we aimed to understand how and why teachers
resorted to the teaching practices they reported. Thus, for each of the three teacher groups, we
addressed the following research questions:
5
RQ1. What seems to be the focus applied in English classes (accuracy-based vs. fluency-
based, form-focused vs. meaning-focused instruction)?
RQ1.1 How is the given approach implemented?
RQ1.2 What are potential reasons for the implementation of this approach?
RQ2. What seems to be the degree of forward planning in grammar teaching (incidental vs.
planned instruction)?
RQ2.1 Based on which factors do teachers report to sequence classroom content?
RQ2.2 What are the underlying reasons for the reported way of proceeding?
Given that the Austrian and French curricula are more explicit regarding which aspects of
grammar should be taught and how (see section 3.1. and Schurz & Coumel, 2020), we had two
hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that in these countries the focus in ELT would lie more
heavily on grammar than in Sweden. This would corroborate the more implicit fluency-based
type of instruction reported for Sweden (Schurz & Coumel, 2020). Second, we expected
grammar teaching to occur more incidentally – i.e. as based on student needs and interests – in
Sweden than in the other countries. Although Sweden and France seemed to be similarly
incidental in their approach in Schurz & Coumel (2020), we expected that French teachers
would report teaching grammar rather systematically as suggested by the French curriculum
(see section 3.1.). The questions of how and why teachers resorted to the teaching practices they
reported were exploratory.
5. Methods
5.1. Recruitment and Participants
We conducted interviews with 20 English teachers in November 2019-2020, six from Austria,
seven from France, and seven from Sweden. In the case of Austria and Sweden, this formed
part of a larger data collection for an ongoing PhD study. Teachers were recruited via the
researchers’ social network, social media, and contact information provided by interested
participants from the previous study (Schurz & Coumel, 2020). All participants were teaching
in lower secondary school, i.e. Mittelschule (Middle School) or Gymnasium Unterstufe (Lower
level of Academic High School) for Austria (age 11-14), Collège (Middle School) for France
(age 11-15), and Högstadiet (Upper Stage Comprehensive School) for Sweden (age 13-15). For
Austria and Sweden, the interviews were conducted while focusing in particular on students at
the age of 13-14 years. For France, due to recruitment constraints, teachers answered the
questions while focusing on a larger age range between the ages of 11 and 15 years old (see
Table 1 for more details about the grade levels). All teachers but one in Sweden (Magnus) and
one in Austria (Lukas) were female. The mean age was 40.2, 48.4 and 43.7 years for Austria,
France, and Sweden respectively, and the mean experience in teaching was 16.8, 22.7, and 14.9
years respectively. 18 teachers taught in a public school, whilst Lucie and Lise reported teaching
at private institutions. The teachers in Austria and Sweden taught at least one additional subject
(except Magnus), which was Swedish or a different language for Sweden and a great variety of
subjects in Austria, but this was not the case for France. For the teachers’ pseudonyms and their
6
age, number of years of teaching experience, and the age group and class size they reported on,
see Table 1.
Table 1. Overview of the teacher sample.
Pseudonym
Age
Teaching
experience
(in years)
Interview based on
Grade(s)
Class size
AUSTRIA
Academic
High
Julia
32
7
Grade 8
Age 13-14
17
Elena
28
6
16
Andrea
30
5
NA
Middle
School
Barbara
62
42
24
Veronika
60
37
21
Lukas
29
4
16
FRANCE
Middle School
Marie
60
28
Grades 6, 8, 9
Age 11-15
NA
Lucie
61
41
Grades 6, 8, 9
Age 11-15
NA
Sophie
46
22
Grade 6, 7
Age 11-13
24-28
Laure
39
15
Grades 7, 8, 9
Age 12-15
25-30
Anne
47
20
Grades 8, 9
Age 14-15
25-30
Charlotte
44
15
Grades 6, 8, 9
Age 11-15
17-28
Lise
42
18
Grade 6
Age 11-12
25
SWEDEN
Comprehensive School
Magnus
28
1
Grade 7
Age 13-14
20
Christine
35
7
23
Pia
55
30
19
Emma
50
22
25
Sara
52
20
24
Eva
44
15
25
Karin
42
9
25
5.2. The Interviews
The semi-structured interviews were based on an outline featuring full-length overarching
questions (see 1-3 in Table 2) and prompts for sub-topics (see bullet points). The first question
was an ice-breaker used to explore the most recent topics discussed in class. The subsequent
questions sought to investigate (2) the focus applied in ELT (accuracy-based vs. fluency-based,
form-focused vs. meaning-focused instruction) and (3) the degree of forward planning in
7
grammar teaching (incidental vs. planned instruction). The interviewers did not necessarily
address all sub-topics but raised individual ones to elicit answers regarding how teachers
implemented their methodological choices and why they opted for them. This way, the
sequence of questions and sub-topics remained flexible and the interviews flowed fairly
naturally. The interviews were voice-recorded and lasted about 10-25 minutes. They were
carried out on-site in the case of Austria and Sweden, and via video-call for France, by the
researchers themselves and in the participants’ native language, i.e. German, French or
Swedish. The teachers provided informed consent before participating in the interview.
Table 2. Outline of the teacher interviews.
1. Introductory question, e.g. What do you currently work on in your English classes with
the participating group(s) of students?
2. What do you find most important when teaching English?
Prompts:
• language areas/skills
• accuracy/fluency
3. According to which factor(s) do you plan a school year?
Prompts:
• syllabus structure based on…
• role of textbook
• level-dependency
5.3. Data Analysis
The interviews were transcribed to prepare the data for analysis. The transcription was
outsourced to native speakers of the given language, and the subsequent translation into English
was carried out by the researchers themselves and a native speaker of English. In the first step
of the analysis, the data was coded according to broad categories using MAXQDA. These
categories were (1) the focus applied in ELT and (2) the degree and nature of forward planning
in grammar teaching. Secondly, these coded segments were synthesized for each teacher and
country by adding more fine-tuned labels, such as “communication” or “grammar” for category
(1) and based on “course book”, “curriculum”, “current events”, and “student needs” for
category (2).
6. Results and Discussion
6.1. The Focus in ELT
6.1.1 ELT in Austria
Although overall, communication appears to be one of the central aspects of ELT in Austria,
there was a key difference between Academic High School and Middle School. When asked
what they found most important when teaching English, the Academic High School teachers
reported focusing on communication in terms of speaking and the negotiation of meaning. This
was expressed in utterances such as “having the courage to talk … that they [the students] just
8
talk, talk, talk” (Julia), “Speaking and listening … the most important thing for me is that they
kind of leave the fourth grade and can just cope in the world” (Andrea). Following this initial
indication, the two teachers claimed grammatical accuracy to be secondary (e.g. “it doesn’t
matter how many grammar mistakes you make”, Andrea) and that writing (Andrea, Julia) and
vocabulary (Julia) were important as well.
The three Middle School teachers seem to focus more heavily on accuracy in their classes. For
instance, Veronika indicated the frequent need to teach grammar: “Sometimes I get the feeling,
if I notice that their grammar isn’t so solid, that you just have to ... invest too much time in
grammar”. Similarly, Lukas underscored the relevance for students to understand the
mechanics of and correctly use grammatical features. Although teaching communicative skills
seems to be somewhat less prioritized, the same teachers expressed the importance of teaching
speaking and listening (e.g. Veronika: “we do make sure that they get the chance to speak,
too”), which was then again followed by reading and writing in the case of Lukas. Interestingly,
though, when elaborating on the relevance of speaking, Veronika mentioned as examples “role
playing dialogues” and “learn[ing] dialogues off by heart to start off with”, and indicated that
this is important “because then they have structures so that they can use [them], too". This
utterance may mirror the traditional approach to grammar teaching in which teachers first select
a target grammatical feature and then select the most appropriate content or context to practice
the form (Richards, 2006, p. 28). This approach of ‘grammar-first’ reflects that grammar is seen
as a major building block that needs to be taught and mastered before introducing a more
communicative focus (Ortega, 2008; Sato & Oyanedel, 2019; Thornbury, 1999; Uysal &
Bardakci, 2014). Possible reasons for the difference across school types could be the nature of
the training teachers receive, their expectations as to the learners’ attitudes towards a given
teaching approach, and the lower English proficiency level of Middle School students as
compared to Academic High School students (e.g. FIERID, 2020). Importantly, however, it is
difficult to establish whether these lower proficiency levels are a reason for or a consequence
of the type of instruction.
6.1.2 ELT in France
The picture emerging from English classrooms in France is equally mixed as in Austria, but
communication does surface as a primary focus in ELT for most teachers. While three teachers
initially mentioned speaking (Marie, Sophie, Lise), others indicated reading skills (Lucie),
learner autonomy and (mostly oral) productive skills (Laure), a balance of “all competences”
(Anne), and learner motivation (Charlotte) in first position. The reference to speaking conveys
a communicative, fluency-based approach for Lise (“for me the priority really is that they talk
without inhibition, at the risk of sometimes making mistakes because it [English] has to remain
a communication tool”). Along similar lines, Charlotte explained that since French students
commonly experience learner anxiety such as the fear of making mistakes (“Ah no, no, I can’t,
I will make a mistake”), encouraging students to express themselves is of utmost importance.
However, Marie appears to attribute equal importance to accuracy (“[what is important] to me
is that they talk and that they still master grammar”). Lucie also mentions grammatical
accuracy and perceives reading as the main source for the acquisition of lexis and
morphosyntax: “starting from the basis [reading] one acquires their own vocabulary, one
9
learns sentence structures … prior to the ‘phase out’, there must be a ‘phase in’. And the ‘phase
in’ happens much more easily through reading”. This explanation somewhat reflects the
traditional focus on system-based teaching of vocabulary and grammar supported by skills-
practice, rather than vice versa (Scrivener, 2011), with language input primarily serving the
purpose of exposing students to grammar (Richards, 2006). Conversely, Anne mentioned
communication as a priority, with “the rest being in support of communication”. In particular,
she indicated speaking being the focus in Middle School, especially when teachers have the
opportunity to teach smaller groups of students. Indeed, judging from the teacher reports, class
size is strikingly higher in France as compared to Austria and Sweden (see Table 1), which is
likely to determine methodological choices and influence learning outcomes.
6.1.3 ELT in Sweden
In Sweden, the teachers almost unanimously conveyed a clear picture of communication-first
and thus primarily meaning-based instruction. When asked about their main foci in ELT, three
teachers explicitly mentioned “communication” or “communicative skills” (Christine, Emma,
Karin). In line with the latter term, the remainder of teachers listed the four skills of speaking,
writing, listening and reading, which they try to teach in a balanced way (Pia, Eva) and this also
applied to Christine. However, Magnus indicated to “mostly … end up … doing reading
comprehensions” but trying to always at least include “both production and comprehension in
the same lesson”. Similarly to Austrian and French teachers, Emma and Karin underlined the
importance of encouraging learners and installing a positive error culture: “We are here to
learn. Make as many mistakes as you want because we help each other.” (Emma). Although
Karin did evoke grammar, she did so to further illustrate that when focusing on accuracy,
“students don’t dare because they are afraid of making mistakes”. The overall more meaning-
based instruction in Sweden might reflect the conditions in which young Swedes acquire
English through their everyday life exposure to the language (Schurz & Coumel, 2020). Merely
Christine also explained that when teaching so-called base groups with lower performance
students, grammar is taught in isolation, as based on the students’ needs. Here, a parallel to
Middle School students in Austria becomes apparent (see 6.1.1).
In sum, across countries, communicative language teaching seems to be pervasive. In particular,
the three contexts were most similar in the reference to the role of a positive error culture, in
line with CLT, and learner encouragement. However, in contrast to Sweden, accuracy appears
to be a central aspect in ELT in Austria and France. A particularly form-based type of
instruction as based on linguistic systems reinforced by skills-practice (Scrivener, 2011, p. 28)
emanated from the interviews with two Austrian Middle School teachers and a teacher in
France. In the case of France, although mentioned by only one teacher, a major problem seems
to be class size, inevitably resulting in the reduction of student-speaking time. Contrarily, ELT
in Sweden appears as widely fluency-based, more meaning-focused and concentrating first and
foremost on skills, with the sole exception of one teacher and her base group. These results
corroborate the ones in Schurz and Coumel (2020), where teachers from all countries indicated
teaching strongly implicitly fluency-based, but with respondents from Sweden reporting doing
so more significantly than teachers from Austria and France, throughout secondary school (p <
.001). The results thus support our first hypothesis.
10
6.2. Incidental vs. Planned Grammar Teaching
The differences in terms of meaning-focused vs. form-focused instruction across countries
observed in the first part of the analysis seem to coincide with the degree to which teachers
introduce pre-selected content, in particular grammatical aspects. This information can be
deduced from the material based on which teachers make choices on course content and the
role attributed to student needs.
6.2.1 The Role of the Curriculum and the Coursebook
Austria. In Austria, only one teacher (Elena) referred to the national curriculum as a
guideline. Teaching otherwise seems to be largely based on the coursebook, thus functioning
as a “hidden curriculum” (Cunningsworth, 1995) in that it guides teachers’ pedagogy, possibly
without them directly consulting the national curriculum itself. All teachers in Austria stated
that they proceed according to the coursebook, mentioning advantages as for instance them
being “a good foundation” (Julia) and providing “an overview” of course content (Elena).
However, they also listed caveats, including discarding units because of time constraints or the
topics being boring or irrelevant, and the order of units and/or grammar chapters sometimes
being altered to match circumstances, e.g. teaching a unit on jobs after the student trainee week
(Lukas). One teacher underscored the importance of adding supplementary authentic material,
e.g. watching a movie on a current societal issue (Andrea). This progression that follows the
coursebook with only minor deviations applies not only to topic areas but also to grammar
aspects that are presented alongside, e.g. “in the first grade [age 11], the book stops … at the
past tense. So there we say no, we’ll put that in the second grade and start with that, because it
makes sense if you talk about the holidays” (Veronika). When enquired about the list of
grammatical features to be taught in grade 8, the teachers (Julia, Elena, Andrea, and Barbara)
readily listed them, all focusing in particular on the revision of tenses and their aspects.
France. In France, most but not all teachers reported to use coursebooks, but mainly in
combination with additional material. For three teachers in particular, the coursebook guides
pedagogical choices (Marie, Sophie, Laure), although current events and topical issues (e.g. the
American elections) also influence course content (Marie, Lucie, Anne, Charlotte). Sophie
explains using additional material in certain grades because the coursebook is “outdated”, and
the order and/or nature of tasks seems to be flexible at least in the case of Laure, who claims
that “none of [her] sequences integrally follow a coursebook”. Likewise, Anne and Charlotte
use them only partially, depending on the grade and the quality of the coursebook. Even more
dissatisfied with coursebooks, Lucie does not rely on them and instead creates her own material
because of frequent reforms and hence new, possibly unsatisfactory, coursebooks.
Although the French teachers appear to use coursebooks less systematically than Austrian
teachers, teaching nevertheless appears rather planned in the entire French sample. The target
topics and grammar aspects in each school year are widely pre-selected, as expressed for
instance by Sophie: “We made a plan over the four years of Middle School with the colleagues
teaching English, so we split up what we want to do across years.” Some teachers explicitly
mentioned that the curriculum determines this progression, e.g. “the instructions provide us
with a list of structures or grammar aspects or linguistic facts that we should discuss with the
11
students” (Lise). Similarly to Austria, Lucie, Anne, and Charlotte provided seemingly pre-
selected target features per grade, with present continuous for instance being one of the foci in
grade 7 (age 12-13). However, two teachers (Anne, Charlotte) clarified they pick themes first,
followed by the integration of grammar aspects, e.g. “we think that this sequence allows [us]
to address that specific grammar aspect, that we do, but we do not decide based on grammar
… I don’t ask myself with which cultural element [we] could work on past tense, for example”
(Charlotte). In this respect, even though grammatical features are pre-selected, the themes or
topics are of interest in and of themselves, rather than functioning as a mere vehicle to address
form.
Sweden. Contrary to Austria and partly France, the teachers in Sweden reported picking
merely selected content from coursebooks. For each topic, the teachers typically assort
classroom material from various sources, namely the internet, fiction books and, to a somewhat
smaller degree, coursebooks, e.g. “I wanted to do a topic and then I would find … from different
sites and things like that and different maybe movies or TV series or … some short video clip,
and then in order to introduce something of substance, … so I would maybe use a couple of
texts that were fitting from a coursebook.” (Magnus). In addition, two teachers evoked the
disadvantages of coursebooks, them being “too boring”, including “too many different things”
(Sara) and “get[ting] old quite quickly” (Karin). Magnus even affirmed that he does not
proceed according to a predefined plan and that lessons are often based on topical issues. In
spite of four other teachers agreeing they did have a plan for the semester or year (Emma, Sara,
Eva, and Karin), they continued by explaining that the sequencing and selection of course
content depends on student needs: “I often do have a plan of how more or less I’m going to
proceed, but it can depend a lot on what I notice that they need, and even on what they’re
interested in” (Eva). Quite different from Austria and France, just one teacher in Sweden
(Emma) tried to list the grammar features she teaches in a given grade, whilst still insisting on
the need to individualize.
6.2.2 The Role of Student Needs
As specified previously, the Swedish context appears to cater to individual student needs most.
In Austria, in response to the question of how course content is selected and sequenced, only
one teacher, Barbara, indicated that “if I notice there’s something … that hasn’t really stuck,
well then I put something in”. The other teachers did not spontaneously evoke reactive teaching
in response to learner deficiencies but Lukas did so after explicit enquiry. In contrast, in France,
three of the teachers raised the issue of student needs by their own means (Anne, Charlotte, and
Lise). While there seems to be a syllabus for a given school year, its implementation can vary
according to student needs, which might require changing the teaching pace (Anne) or re-
working on an aspect (Lise). Notwithstanding the systematic teaching purported by the French
curriculum, the precise way of proceeding is not automatically “set in stone” (Lise): “If we feel
like a student suddenly needs – or the class – a structure that wasn’t planned, I think one must
feel free to introduce it. After all this is common sense”. This quote reflects some leeway in
favor of incidental teaching in reaction to student needs.
12
In Sweden, adapting to student needs seems to go hand in hand with the much greater leeway
granted by the curriculum (see section 2.1.), e.g., “here you have so many years to do that in
order to achieve that level, and it is not specific at all” (Karin). In part, teachers perceive this
leeway positively since it gives them the freedom to teach content based on what “[they] feel
like” (Christine) and “what the group is interested in … because English can be used with
almost anything actually” (Eva). However, the actual need for individualization (also referred
to in the curriculum, see 2.1.) given major proficiency differences within classes can become a
heavy burden in teaching: “In my grade eight class I have beginners, total beginners, and other
students maybe of upper secondary level. … I get to do four plans per class” (Emma). In-class
level disparities seem to be common in Sweden, evidently primarily due to the comprehensive
school system and to grade retention not being very common (see section 2.1.). The resulting
need for incidental teaching is met by addressing form reactively, i.e. based on learner
deficiencies: “I did notice in their stuff that they have deficiencies … So I already decided that
when we’ll discuss these topics I will teach those grammar aspects” (Karin). Furthermore, the
learners’ interest can also spark the teaching of form (Christine, Karin), such as when learners
encounter problems in carrying out a communicative tasks, thus representing opportunities to
establish a ‘form-function mapping’ (Ellis, 2002, p. 225). As shown by Magnus, reactive
grammar teaching is not necessarily teacher-fronted, i.e. with the teacher explaining grammar
to all students simultaneously at the whiteboard: “after … they produced something, I go in and
give individual feedback instead, because they have different parts that they master or do not
master”. Another form of incidental teaching, pre-emptive instruction, emanated from the
interview with Christine, “I start from like the idea that this is going to be a written task. …
And what tools do they need in order to write a good newspaper article?”. In this way of
proceeding, grammar is not in focus but rather approached functionally to allow students to
fulfil communicative tasks (see 'grammar last', Richards, 2015, p. 280).
In sum, our results also seem to support our second hypothesis. Teachers in Austria and France
reported to teach grammar mostly systematically, relying on pre-defined features listed in the
coursebook and/or the curriculum. Minor deviations from these guidelines do occur in both
contexts, although possibly more in France, to discard units due to time constraints or
irrelevance, to include topical issues and additional, perhaps more authentic material, and to
cater to student needs. By contrast, Swedish teachers indicated adopting an a more incidental
approach. These results partly support Schurz and Coumel’s study (2020), where Austrian
teachers reported teaching grammar significantly more systematically than French and Swedish
teachers (p < .001). While teachers of the latter two countries there appeared to be equally
incidental, Swedish teachers were found to teach more strongly according to student needs in
the present study. This ties in with the relatively more open curriculum and the presumed greater
level diversity in Swedish classrooms. Such a way of proceeding suggests prototypical focus-
on-form, in which attention is shifted to form incidentally despite the overriding focus of classes
being on meaning (Long, 1991, quoted in Ellis, 2001, p. 15).
6.3. Implications of the Findings for the Context
The results reported in this study, if solidified by further research, can be of relevance to
educational authorities. With growing EE throughout Europe, teachers may need to redefine
13
their role to accommodate the new learning experiences students face outside of the classroom.
Moreover, more engagement in EE will likely increase proficiency level diversity within
classes, which will in turn require teachers to adapt their ELT practices and material. For
instance, students may require a more individualized and incidental approach in ELT
particularly in countries like Austria and France, where to date the teacher-centred classroom
seems to prevail. A more learner-centred classroom, however, may require small class sizes.
Individualization in Swedish classrooms and elsewhere could be facilitated by means of course
books offering multiple versions of a given task or text, each one corresponding to a different
difficulty level and possibly also targeting a different skill. Moreover, to prevent students using
much extramural English from experiencing instruction as inauthentic (see 'authenticity gap' in
Henry, 2013), teaching material could benefit from becoming increasingly web-based. This
would ensure that its content is regularly updated and includes authentic texts that, if possible,
are of interest to the target audience. Importantly, such material should also target (formal)
writing skills and grammar, i.e. language areas students may not (fully) acquire through EE.
7. Conclusion
This study shows that although the CEFR and CLT underlie curricula and coursebooks across
Europe, lower secondary teachers from Austria, France and Sweden seem to differ in their ELT
practices. Austrian and French teachers teach form more systematically and rely more on
systematic teaching – as based on the coursebook and/or the curriculum – than Swedish
teachers. The latter, by contrast, primarily adopt a meaning-focused, fluency-based approach
and adapt classes to individual student needs. Among other factors, our results suggest that
these disparities may arise from differences in the use of spare time English, proficiency
diversity within classes, and class size. However, the limited sample size of this study as well
as participant self-selection imply that our results are not fully representative of each country.
This study opens new questions regarding typical fluency- and accuracy-based activities in the
given countries, how methodological differences relate to students’ learning achievements and
motivation, and in what way ELT is and should be influenced by EE.
8. References
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME). (2018a). Aufnahme in eine allgemein
bildende höhere Schule (AHS).
https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/schule/beratung/schulinfo/aufnahme_ahs.html
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME). (2018b). Lehrpläne: Neue Mittelschulen.
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40207228/NOR40207228.pdf
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education (AME). (2020). Lehrpläne: Allgemeinbildende
Höhere Schulen.
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnumm
er=10008568
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice.
Continuum.
Centre National d'Étude des Systèmes Scolaires (CNESCO). (2019). Langue vivantes
trangres : Comment l’cole peut-elle mieux accompagner les lves ? [Dossier de
synthse]. https://www.cnesco.fr/fr/langues-vivantes/
14
Council of Europe. (2009). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment (10. printing). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Heinemann.
Education first. (2020). English proficiency index. https://www.ef.co.at/epi/
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (Eurydice). (2012). Grade retention in
schools in Europe: Huge differences between countries.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f2104780-de7f-4fd3-9798-
d7fec2d0db44
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.),
Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning (Vol. 51, pp. 1–46). Blackwell
Pub.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does Form-Focused Instruction Affect the Acquisition of Implicit
Knowledge? A Review of Research. SSLA (Studies in Second Language Acquisition),
24(02). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002073
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–
428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627
Federal Institute for Education Research, Innovation and Development. (2020).
Standardüberprüfung 2019: Englisch, 8. Schulstufe. Bundesergebnisbericht.
https://www.bifie.at/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/BiSt_UE_E8_2019_Bundesergebnisbericht.pdf
French Ministry of National Education (FMNE). (2016). Communication langagière. Repères
des progressivité linguistique. Anglais.
https://cache.media.eduscol.education.fr/file/Anglais/21/5/RA16_C4_LV_anglais_declinati
on_linguistique_578215.pdf
French Ministry of National Education (FMNE). (2018a). Programme de langues vivantes de
premire et terminale gnrales et technologiques, enseignements commun et optionnel.
https://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/SP1-MEN-22-1-
2019/70/3/spe585_annexe2CORR_1063703.pdf
French Ministry of National Education (FMNE). (2018b). Programme de langues vivantes de
seconde gnrale et technologique, enseignements commun et optionnel.
https://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/SP1-MEN-22-1-
2019/95/2/spe585_annexe1_1062952.pdf
French Ministry of National Education (FMNE). (2020a). Le Collège.
https://www.education.gouv.fr/le-college-4940
French Ministry of National Education (FMNE). (2020b). Le Lycée.
https://www.education.gouv.fr/le-lycee-41642
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman.
Hedge, T. (2008). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford handbooks for
language teachers. Oxford University Press.
Henry, A. (2013). Digital games and ELT: Bridging the authenticity gap. In E. Ushioda (Ed.),
International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges
(pp. 133–155). Palgrave Macmillan.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition.
Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125
15
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. M. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in
second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Newbury House Publ.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
R. B. Ginsberg & C. J. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. J.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 15–41). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Olsson, E., & Sylvén, L. K. (2015). Extramural English and academic vocabulary. A
longitudinal study of CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Apples – Journal of Applied
Language Studies, 9(2), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201512234129
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2018). OECD.Stat:
Student-teacher ratio and average class size.
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EDU_CLASS#
Ortega, L. (2008). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Understanding Language.
Hodder Education. http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=564558
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2015). Key issues in language teaching. Cambridge University Press; Ernst
Klett Sprachen GmbH.
Sato, M., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2019). “I think that is a better way to teach but …”: EFL
teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 84, 110–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.005
Schurz, A., & Coumel, M. (2020). Grammar teaching in ELT: A cross-national comparison of
teacher-reported practices. Language Teaching Research, 136216882096413.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820964137
Schwarz, M. (2016). Beyond the walls: Vocabulary learning from extramural English. In M.
Boniecki (Ed.), ÖGSD Tagesberichte 1 (pp. 58–61). https://archiv-
anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/sss_anglistik/%C3%96GSD_TAGUNGSBER
ICHTE_1_14.12.2016.pdf
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching: The essential guide to english language teaching (3.
ed.). Macmillan books for teachers. Macmillan.
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future
research. Language Teaching, 44(2), 225–236.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000224
Sundin, K. (2000). English as a first foreign language for young learners: Sweden. In M.
Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern languages in
Europe and beyond (pp. 151–158). Council of Europe.
Sundqvist, P. (2009). Extramural English Matters: Out-of-School English and Its Impact on
Swedish Ninth Graders' Oral Proficiency and Vocabulary. Dissertation. Karlstad
University studies: 2009:55. Karlstads universitet.
The Swedish National Agency for Education. (2017). Kommentarmaterial till kursplanen i
engelska. https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=3858
16
The Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE). (2020a). Om grundskoleutbildning.
https://utbildningsguiden.skolverket.se/grundskolan/om-grundskoleutbildning/om-
grundskoleutbildning
The Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE). (2020b). Om gymnasieskolan:
Behörighetsregler och meritvärde.
https://utbildningsguiden.skolverket.se/gymnasieskolan/om-
gymnasieskolan/behorighetsregler-och-meritvarde
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Longman.
Uysal, H. H., & Bardakci, M. (2014). Teacher beliefs and practices of grammar teaching:
focusing on meaning, form, or forms? South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.15700/201412120943
