Content uploaded by Alexandra Schurz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexandra Schurz on Apr 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Connecting Extramural English with ELT:
Teacher Reports from Austria, Finland,
France, and Sweden
1,
*ALEXANDRA SCHURZ and
2
PIA SUNDQVIST
1
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria and
2
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
*
E-mail: alexandra.schurz@univie.ac.at
Today, we globally observe a sharp increase in learners’ engagement in extra-
mural (out-of-class) English (EE; Sundqvist 2009). This undoubtedly affords
new opportunities for, but also challenges to, English language teaching (ELT)
and learning. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore this topic from a
cross-national perspective. Upper secondary English teachers (N¼534) from
Austria, France (‘dubbing countries’), Finland, and Sweden (‘subtitling coun-
tries’) answered a web-based survey on their students’ EE practices and the esti-
mated impact on teaching and learning. Results showed that overall EE use
appears lower in the dubbing countries, especially France (p<0.001). The teach-
ers’ estimated effect of EE on different areas of learning overall was also the
weakest in France (p.01). Further, teachers in subtitling countries agreed
more strongly with statements about adapting instruction to what is (not) learn-
ed extramurally (p<0.001). As EE use is growing, individual learner needs
within a class, such as emerging gaps in learner motivation and/or language
knowledge and skills, will increasingly have to be catered to in ELT.
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS
Today, we observe a sharp increase in engagement in extramural English (EE;
Sundqvist 2009) among teenage learners across Europe and beyond (e.g.
Peters 2018;Hannibal Jensen 2019;Sundqvist 2019; De Wilde et al. 2020; Lee
and Sylv
en 2021). EE is defined as learner-initiated informal (and typically
voluntary) use of English in online and offline settings outside the walls of the
classroom (Sundqvist 2009;Sundqvist and Sylv
en 2016). Clearly, in countries
where the bulk of international TV programmes and movies are subtitled (ma-
jority language translations shown in text on the screen) but not dubbed, such
as in Belgium, Finland, and Sweden, people have a long tradition of using
English extramurally (Media Consulting Group (MCG) 2009). In contrast to
such subtitling countries, the so-called dubbing countries replace the original
soundtrack in English with a soundtrack in the majority language of the coun-
try. In comparison with subtitling countries, dubbing countries have only
more recently experienced a rise in recreational use of English, observed pri-
marily among teenagers. For instance, in Austria, France, and Germany, the
V
CThe Author(s) (2022). Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact
journals.permissions@oup.com
Applied Linguistics 2022: 1–24
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac013
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
spike of EE is a result of the inundation of online services, such as streaming
platforms and social media sites (Schwarz 2020).
Against this background, it seems likely that teachers of English as a second
or foreign language (L2) in countries with a longer tradition of EE have more
experience accounting for this reality in their teaching practices than do
teachers in dubbing countries (see Schurz et al. 2022). Therefore, the present
study aims to compare and contrast these two types of learning environments
in terms of the role that EE plays in English language teaching (ELT).
Applying a cross-national perspective, the contexts of Austria, Finland,
France, and Sweden, as self-reported by teachers, were investigated. While
Austria and France are dubbing countries, Finland and Sweden were picked to
exemplify subtitling countries. Moreover, given that the linguistic distance of
the learners’ L1 from English might affect their level of EE engagement, we
selected countries that cover majority languages of different language families,
Germanic (Swedish in Sweden, German in Austria), Romance (French in
France), and Finno-Ugric (Finnish in Finland).
The overarching aim of the study thus is to compare the relationship be-
tween EE and ELT cross-nationally, and to explore underlying reasons for and
consequences of pedagogical (in-)actions to connect the two spheres of learn-
ing English. Teacher reports were investigated and compared in terms of (i)
teacher interest in students’ EE practices, (ii) how common teachers claim
that different types of EE practices are among students, (iii) the importance
they attribute to connecting such practices to ELT, (iv) the perceived effect
of EE on areas of language learning, and (v) the reported impact on their
teaching practices.
RESEARCH SETTING AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Alongside learning English formally in the classroom, EE is becoming a major
form of informal language learning in Europe and beyond. In what follows,
we discuss differences between the four countries as related to EE and ELT.
Extramural English in the four countries
In Austria and France, most foreign films and TV series are dubbed in German
or French, respectively (MCG 2009;National Research Center of School
Systems (NRCSS) 2019). In France, language policies restrict the import of
English terms and the use of English in public life (e.g. Devine 2019). Yet, as a
result of the pervasiveness of the Internet and online services such as stream-
ing platforms, social media apps, and online games, teenagers in both Austria
and France are increasingly engaging in EE activities. In Austria, about 40 per
cent of eighth graders (age 13–14 years) were reported to watch series and
movies in English multiple times a month or more often (Federal Institute for
Education Research, Innovation and Development 2020). A daily average of
EE engagement of about 4 h was reported for 15- and 16-year-old students in
2A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
the capital, Vienna (Schwarz 2020). While no information on weekly hours is
available for France, 50 per cent of 14-year-old French students reported being
exposed to English on the Internet or in video games often or very often, and 34
per cent viewed TV shows, movies, or series in English with French subtitles
at least once a week (NRCSS 2019).
However, amongst youths in Finland and Sweden, the use of English can be
expected to start earlier and be much more widespread. In Finland, Niitemaa
(2020) examined the informal acquisition of L2 English vocabulary among
teenagers aged 16–17 years (N¼46), of which more than half were in contact
with English on a daily basis. Furthermore, Terhemaa (2018) found that 72
per cent of the 16- to 19-year-old students in his study (total N¼117)
reported spending at least 1 h daily on English-mediated activities outside
school. Pietila¨ and Merikivi (2014) examined the impact of extramural reading
on L2 English vocabulary among students in years 6 (age 13 years, N¼150)
and 9 (age 16 years, N¼180); 59 per cent of the entire sample reported read-
ing English books, magazines, or other texts recreationally on a monthly to
daily basis and scored significantly higher on receptive and productive vocabu-
lary than did non-readers. In studies from Sweden, it was found that 10- and
11-year-olds (N¼76) spent an average of 7.2 h per week on EE activities
(Sundqvist and Sylv
en 2014), while 11- and 12-year-olds (N¼86) spent
9.4 h/week on the same type of activities (Sylv
en and Sundqvist 2012).
Among teenagers, Sundqvist (2009) reports that the 15- and 16-year-olds in
her sample (N¼80) spent 18.4 h/week on EE, while Olsson and Sylv
en
(2015) 6 years later examined a larger sample (N¼230) of teenagers (aged
16–19 years) who averaged more than 35 h of EE per week. Altogether, it is
fair to say that L2 English learning takes place both in and outside the class-
room, especially, but not only, in subtitling countries.
ELT in the four countries
Most typically, English is introduced as a first foreign language in the four
countries when learners are six or seven years old (Leppa¨ nen et al. 2011;
NRCSS 2019;Statistics Austria 2020). National ELT curricula in lower and
upper secondary school in each country rely on communicative language
teaching, but the curricula in Austria and France are more prescriptive in
defining how and/or what should be taught in grammar than is the case in
Finland and Sweden (eRequirements 2014;Finnish National Agency for
Education 2015;French Ministry of National Education 2016,2018;Swedish
National Agency for Education (SNAE) 2017;Austrian Federal Ministry of
Education 2018,2020). Conversely, only the Finnish and Swedish curricula
refer to EE. Rather explicitly, the Finnish curriculum for grades three to nine
state that EE should be ‘considered in planning teaching and in selecting
course content’ (eRequirements 2014). In comparison, the Swedish curricu-
lum is less explicit but makes students’ own experiences and interests an im-
portant aim in instruction, which undoubtedly involves drawing on students’
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 3
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
EE. Further, in assessment, teachers are obliged to ‘broadly’ (Swe. allsidigt)
evaluate students’ knowledge of English in relation to given criteria (SNAE
2017,2021).
Regarding instruction, studies relying on teacher reports through question-
naires (N¼615) (Schurz and Coumel 2020) and teacher interviews (Schurz
and Coumel 2021) showed that Austrian and French teachers attribute a
greater role to form and explicit grammar teaching than what seems to be the
case in Sweden, where ELT is more implicit fluency-based. Moreover, inciden-
tal (rather than systematic, pre-determined) grammar teaching appeared as
more dominant in Sweden as compared to Austria and France. Schurz and
Coumel (2020,2021) suggest that the more implicit, incidental teaching in
Sweden replicates the naturalistic setting in which Swedish youth grows up
acquiring English. However, in the case of Finland, ELT seems to rely widely
on textbooks (Kalaja et al. 2018) and perhaps focuses more on grammar than
is the case in Austria (Brunnbauer 2020). Moreover, as reported by Finnish
upper secondary school students (N¼98), ELT appears to integrate grammar
rules, their exceptions, and grammar exercises (Sormunen 2013). Kalaja et al.
(2018) further report that students perceive their language proficiency based
on grammatical and vocabulary knowledge, and classes often focus on written
language.
Previous research on the ELT and EE relationship
Ushioda (2013: 233) observes that it is becoming more common that L2
English teachers in Europe argue that many of their students ‘seem to dislike
studying English or invest little effort in their formal English lessons, even if
they may engage with English informally outside school’. She goes on, claim-
ing that these ‘motivational dissonances’ are increasingly posing a challenge
for teachers, and especially for teachers in contexts where English-mediated
activities play an important and natural role in students’ daily lives. Ushioda’s
observation is relevant to this study and underscores a need to address previ-
ous research on the relationship between ELT and EE.
In an early study from Finland, Forsman (2004) explored L2 English stu-
dents’ knowledge and attitudes about language, culture, and context and
focused on what she referred to as extracurricular influence. In addition to
finding out that the students in her eighth-grade sample (N¼327; divided
into two sub-samples, South (n¼170) and West (n¼157)) seemed inclined to
prefer American English over British and that watching television was the
most popular EE activity (South: 13.9 h/week; West: 10.8 h/week), she sug-
gests ELT would benefit from drawing more on students’ interests. Several
others have proposed pedagogical implications in line with her suggestion
(Sylv
en and Sundqvist 2012, in Sweden; Schwarz 2020, in Austria; see also
Thorne and Reinhardt 2008). Another study examined Finnish English teach-
ers’ and students’ views about English inside and outside school and revealed
that both groups are highly ‘aware of the lingua franca role of English in the
4A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
“real world",’ which underscores the relevance of relating EE to ELT (Ranta
2010). A study by Toffoli and Sockett (2015) explored conceptions of EFL uni-
versity professors in France (N¼30). A great majority of participants perceived
their students’ EE use to benefit learning, notably listening skills. However,
only about half of the instructors reported their learners’ EE engagement to
influence teaching practices. Finally, in Schurz et al. (2022), interview reports
with lower secondary teachers in Sweden (N¼7) conveyed a more positive
and nuanced understanding of the effect of EE on learning than in Austria
(N¼6) and France (N¼7), especially in terms of grammar. The EE–ELT inter-
play also became more apparent in Sweden, where the implicit nature of
English language use in the learners’ spare time seemed to extend to the class-
room, and where language areas developed only negligibly through EE
appeared to be addressed more intentionally by the teachers.
It needs to be emphasized that teachers’ drawing on students’ EE interests
in instruction is not about interfering in or intruding on learners’ private lives
but about showing a genuine interest and adapting ELT practices accordingly.
For instance, a study from Sweden shows that teachers who felicitously com-
bine English instruction with students’ EE tend to offer lesson tasks that are
characterized by a prominent use of authentic materials and digital technolo-
gies—tasks that encourage students to be very creative (Henry et al. 2018). In
short, this latter study shows that motivational ELT can be about integrating
material students also use outside school. The results of this study corroborate
Thorne and Reinhardt’s (2008) idea about ‘bridging activities’, that is, activ-
ities that serve the purpose of raising student language awareness through
ELT with the help of them-relevant texts, i.e. student-selected texts from out-
side school brought into the classroom.
METHODOLOGY
Research questions and hypotheses
Four research questions guided our comparative study:
RQ1 How common are different EE activities among upper second-
ary students according to their teachers?
RQ2 What is the influence of EE practices on areas and aspects of
language learning as reported by teachers?
RQ3 What importance do teachers attribute to the connection of
EE and ELT?
RQ4 To what degree is EE among students reported to influence
ELT?
In terms of hypotheses, we first assumed teachers across countries to indi-
cate LISTENING TO MUSIC,GAMING and VIEWING VIDEOS and OTHER AUDIOVISUALS as the
most common EE activities; WRITING,SPEAKING and READING were expected to be
less common (e.g. Olsson and Sylv
en 2015;Schwarz 2020) (H1.1). However,
we hypothesized teacher responses from Finland and Sweden to suggest
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 5
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
higher EE engagement than in Austria and France (H1.2) (see section
‘Extramural English in the four countries’). Secondly, owing to the fact that
typically informal language is encountered in EE (see De Wilde et al. 2020;
Sundqvist 2020), teachers across countries were expected to perceive FORMAL
LANGUAGE,WRITING, and GRAMMAR as less positively affected by EE than other
areas of language learning (H2.1). The remainder of hypotheses were more
exploratory given the lack of cross-national research. They draw on the idea
that teachers from countries with a longer tradition of EE may differ from
countries where EE practices have only more recently begun to rise consider-
ably. Thus, teachers in Sweden and Finland were hypothesized to show
greater awareness of the importance of EE in their students’ learning trajecto-
ries and therefore to consider EE as more powerful in fostering aspects of lan-
guage learning overall (H2.2). Thirdly, we hypothesized teachers from Finland
and Sweden to attribute greater importance to connecting EE and ELT than
Austrian and French teachers (H3). Despite the lack of comparative research,
in Sweden, secondary-school English teachers’ motivational strategies seem to
include efforts to bridge the gap between English in and outside school, as
reported in Henry et al. (2018). Fourthly, compared to Austria and France,
teachers in Finland and Sweden may integrate EE material in class more often
(H4.1), for motivational purposes (Henry et al. 2018), and/or to teach what is
not easily acquired through EE, for example formal language (Thorne and
Reinhardt 2008) (H4.2).
The test instrument
The online survey, designed and administered at www.soscisurvey.de, con-
sisted of three sections. Section (1) yielded preliminary information about the
teachers and the respective school (see section ‘Participants’). Section (2)
asked about student and teacher EE practices and the estimated effect of EE
on areas of language learning (Table 1), and section (3) included items target-
ing different concepts of the relationship of EE and ELT (Table 2). While items
in sections 1 and 2 were original, for section 3 we drew on items developed by
Henry et al. (2018). For a copy of the full survey, please visit Applied
Linguistics online.
As to part (3), the items (Table 2) were first inspected as to the range with
which responses covered the Likert scale. Items straightforwardly showing
ceiling effects in the four samples were excluded. In turn, an exploratory fac-
tor analysis was performed separately per country using IBM SPSS Statistics
26. The principal component analysis with Promax rotation suggested the ex-
traction of three factors, as identified based on an Eigenvalue >1 and the the-
oretical assumptions. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
was >0.65, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity in each case was significant, p<
0.001. Factor 1 explained 31.33 per cent to 36.43 per cent of the variance; fac-
tor 2, 17.06–8.44 per cent; and factor 3, 10.26–12.59 per cent. The obtained
factors accurately reflect (i) the importance attributed to establishing a
6A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
connection between intra- and extramural English, (ii) the integration of EE
material in class, and (iii) the teaching of more formal elements of language in
reaction to learners’ extensive use of EE, respectively. For each factor and
country, the mean inter-item correlation was 0.3 to 0.5, suggesting internal
reliability.
Participants
In total, 534 secondary school teachers participated. In each country, teachers
from two school types were recruited to cover a student age range from 13/14
to 18 years. However, for France, this range could not be targeted as precisely
(see Table 3 and section ’Data analysis’). Participation was advertised via calls
on social media and emails to schools and teacher associations. All participants
were informed about and had to give consent to their voluntary and anonym-
ous participation and to the data being used for research purposes.
Considering the sociodemographic information shared (Table 4), the four
samples are comparable in terms of age,
1
the majority of participants identify-
ing as female, and the L1 being the country’s majority language: German in
Table 1: EE practices and assumed influence on learning
How common are the following out-of-school English activities among your students?
Listening to music
Listening to other audios (e.g. radio, podcasts)
Viewing videos (e.g. vlogs, YouTube, TikTok)
Viewing other audiovisuals (e.g. series, movies, documentaries)
Writing (e.g. social media, messages, emails, poetry, songs)
Speaking (online or offline)
Playing video or computer games (e.g. online, offline, PlayStation, Xbox)
How does English outside school influence your students’ English in terms of the
factors listed below?
Reading skills
Listening sills
Writing skills
Speaking skills
Grammar
Vocabulary
Informal language use
Formal language use
Learner confidence
Learner motivation
Note: Five-point Likert scales with endpoints not common at all and very common (first question),
and very negatively influenced and very positively influenced (second question).
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 7
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
Table 2: The three factors and their items with factor loadings for Austria, France, Finland, and Sweden
Factors and respective items AT FR FI SE
Factor 1: The importance of connecting EE and ELT
English encountered outside school should be considered
and used in instruction.
0.84 0.79 0.78 0.73
It is important for me to establish a connection between
English in and outside of school.
0.84 0.89 0.91 0.77
I find it necessary to connect my English classes with
what students do in English in their spare time.
0.72 0.70 0.81 0.90
Factor 2: Bringing EE material to class
I encourage students to bring material to class that they
find interesting so that we can work with it.
0.44 0.83 0.69 0.74
My students sometimes share in class what they do in
English in their spare time.
0.75 0.90 0.86 0.87
I give my students opportunities to use the English they
acquire outside school when working in the classroom.
0.73 0.40 0.58 0.47
I try to integrate as much English as possible from the
world outside school in my lessons.
0.82 0.62 0.70 0.81
Factor 3: Compensating for informal extramural language
use
I try to raise my students’ awareness about how English
from everyday life and popular culture does not always fit
with tasks that we do in class.
0.75 0.90 0.61 0.80
In my teaching I try to compensate for the English stu-
dents do not pick up outside the classroom.
0.59 0.67 0.85 0.73
In groups where students use English a lot outside of the
classroom I try to focus more on formal language.
0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89
Note: Five-point Likert scale with endpoints strongly disagree and strongly agree. Original items developed by Henry et al. (2018).
8A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
Austria, Finnish/Swedish in Finland, French in France, and Swedish in
Sweden. Finland has two official languages, Finnish and Swedish, but the vast
majority of the population, 87.3 per cent, are L1 Finnish speakers (Statistics
Finland 2021). All our data were collected at Finnish-speaking schools. While
in the case of Austria, Finland, and France the preponderance of teachers
reported a Master’s degree or equivalent, almost half of the participants from
Sweden have a Bachelor’s degree as a qualification for teaching. In most cases,
teachers indicated to teach at a public school rather than a different type of
school, such as a private institution. School location ranges from country
towns to large towns in all samples, but with a tendency towards middle- to
large-sized towns in the Finnish and Swedish samples. Teachers with students
with an L1 other than the country’s majority language are more frequent in
the Austrian and Swedish samples.
Data analysis
To explore the types of student EE practices (RQ1) and different areas of lan-
guage learning being affected by EE (RQ2) across countries, a mixed ANOVA
was run. For post hoc tests, Games-Howell (due to inconsistent homogeneity of
variance) and Bonferroni were used for effects between countries and coun-
try–factor interactions, respectively. Due to a lack of space, post-hoc tests of
interactions are reported only through p-values (cutoff at p<0.05) and
Cohen’s d(small effect: jdj¼0.2, medium effect: jdj¼0.5, large effect: jdj¼
0.8 (Cohen 1988)). To explore the connection of EE and ELT (RQ3 and RQ4),
a one-way mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each fac-
tor. Welch’s Fand Games-Howell are reported since homogeneity of variances
was not consistently given. Violations of the assumption of normality were
disregarded given the robustness of ANOVA in this regard. Outliers were
inspected but, upon the absence of abnormalities, retained in order to work
with natural data. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 was used for all analyses.
Table 3: The number of participating teachers per country, school type, and
student age
Student
age
Austria
(N ¼175)
Finland
(N ¼139)
France
(N ¼112)
Sweden
(N ¼108)
11 Middle School
(n¼62)
12
13 Comprehensive
School level 7–9
(n¼62)
Comprehensive
School level 7–9
(n¼60)
14 Academic
High
School (n¼63)
Vocational
College (n¼112)
15 High School
(n¼50)
16 Upper Secondary
General (n¼63)
Vocational School
(n¼14)
Upper Secondary
School
(n¼48)
17
18
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 9
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
In the case of France, participants teaching learners as young as 11 years
and onwards were included. In the other countries, the youngest students
taught were 13–14 years old (Table 3). Because of this divergence, results of
cross-country differences were also looked at considering only teachers from
French upper secondary school but not from French Middle school. Findings
diverging from the main study results are indicated in endnotes.
RESULTS
RQ1: EE practices
Considering descriptive data across and within countries, the sequence of
activities with decreasing frequency was MUSIC,VIDEOS,OTHER AUDIOVISUALS,
GAMING,READING,SPEAKING,OTHER AUDIOS, and WRITING. In France, GAMING was more
Table 4: Participant information on teachers and their schools
Participant information Austria Finland France Sweden
Teacher information
Age, mean 44.03 45.05 44.78 44.82
Age, SD 12.23 10.42 9.87 9.00
Gender, % female 84.2 83.5 82.9 91.6
Gender, % male 15.3 10.8 16.2 7.5
L1, % majority language 96.6 95.7 89.2 82.2
Highest degree, % MA
a
96 92.8 84.7 52.3
Highest degree, % BA 2.8 2.2 11.7 41.1
In profession, mean years 17.77 15.28 18.63 14.26
In profession, SD 12.21 9.76 10.05 8.26
School information
Public (%) 81.9 89.2 80.2 82.2
Other (%) 18.1 10.8 19.8 17.8
Small town (%) 15.2 13.9 37.0 14.0
Town size (%) 29.2 13.1 21.3 10.3
City (%) 35.7 29.2 24.1 46.7
Large city (%)
b
19.9 43.8 17.6 29.0
Students raised multilingually,
c
mean 25.45 13.48 9.11 28.16
Students raised multilingually, SD 21.99 17.10 15.31 27.45
a
Numbers do not add up to 100 per cent given that the remainder of participants indicated
other teaching qualifications, such as TOEFL, or alternative diplomas.
b
Town size categorized as follows: small town less than 8,000 inhabitants, town 8,000–19,999,
city 20,000–99,999, large city more than 100,000.
c
Teacher-estimated proportion of students with another L1 than the majority language.
10 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
frequent than OTHER AUDIOVISUALS and LISTENING more common than SPEAKING.
H1.1, suggesting this very pattern, was consolidated (Table 5).
A mixed ANOVA using the Huynh-Feldt adjustment showed a statistically
significant difference across countries, F(3, 439) ¼90.78, p<0.001, partial g
2
¼
0.38.
2
Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference (p<0.001)
between (i) Austria and France (0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88, d¼–0.7), (ii) Austria
and Finland (–0.44, 95% CI –0.59 to –0.30, d¼0.6), (iii) Austria and Sweden (–
0.31, 95% CI –0.48 to –0.15, d¼0.4), (iv) France and Finland (–1.11, 95% of the
mean difference CI –1.32 to –0.90, d¼1.3), and (v) France and Sweden (–0.98,
95% CI –1.21 to –0.76, d¼1.1). There was no significant difference (p¼0.17)
between Finland and Sweden (0.13, 95% CI –0.03 to 0.28, d¼–0.2). EE use in
Finland and Sweden was thus at a similar level but significantly higher than EE
use in Austria and France, which again differed significantly in EE use being low-
est in France.
Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis showed significant cross-country dif-
ferences for all activities (Figure 1): (i) in READING between all countries (p
0.002, d¼0.5 to 0.7 for FI–AT and FI–SE and d¼1.0–1.8 for the other country
combinations) except Austria and Sweden (p¼0.95, d¼0.2); (ii) in MUSIC,
OTHER AUDIOS, and VIDEOS between France and the other countries (p<0.001, d
0.9 but d¼0.5–0.6 for MUSIC) but not between Austria, Finland, and
Sweden (p¼1.00, d¼0.01–0.2 but p¼0.06 and d¼0.4 for AT–FI in VIDEOS);
(iii) in OTHER AUDIOVISUALS,WRITING, and SPEAKING between all countries (p<
0.001 but p<0.01 for AT–SE in WRITING;d0.9 but d¼0.6 for AT–FI, AT–SE,
and AT–FR in OTHER AUDIOVISUALS and for AT–FR in SPEAKING, and d¼0.4–0.5 for
AT–FI and AT–SE in WRITING) except Finland and Sweden (p¼1.00, d¼–0.2 to
–0.05); and (iv) in GAMING between all countries (p<0.001, d¼0.8–0.9 but d
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of the eight EE activities across countries
Austria Finland France Sweden Total
EE activities Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Reading 3.31 1.08 4.06 0.96 2.14 1.25 3.51 1.09 3.32 1.27
Music 4.85 0.39 4.92 0.32 4.57 0.85 4.88 0.36 4.82 0.51
Other Audios 2.86 1.06 2.89 0.96 1.93 1.05 2.87 0.95 2.69 1.07
Videos 4.69 0.56 4.90 0.38 3.93 1.05 4.78 0.49 4.62 0.72
Other Audiovisuals 4.05 0.92 4.57 0.67 3.43 1.17 4.54 0.73 4.17 0.98
Writing 2.65 1.09 3.16 0.89 1.67 0.99 3.11 1.14 2.69 1.16
Speaking 2.46 0.83 3.26 0.91 1.90 0.96 3.24 0.94 2.72 1.05
Gaming 3.88 0.87 4.52 0.64 3.83 0.98 4.34 0.80 4.14 0.87
Total 3.59 1.08 4.04 0.96 2.92 1.25 3.91 3.91 ––
Notes:n¼147 for Austria, 118 for Finland, 86 for France, 92 for Sweden.
Responses based on five-point Likert scale (not common at all to very common).
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 11
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
¼0.6 for SE–AT and SE–FR), but not between Austria and France and Finland
and Sweden (p>0.70, d¼–0.1 to –0.3). For each activity, the sequence of
countries with decreasing frequency of EE use was Finland, Sweden, Austria,
and France (Table 5). H1.2, expecting teacher reports from Finland and
Sweden to show higher numbers than the ones of Austria and France, could
thus be confirmed overall. Yet, in the individual activities Austria frequently
aligned with the subtitling countries, and both Austria and France differed sig-
nificantly from Sweden and Finland only in GAMING.
3
RQ2: Reported influence of EE on different areas of language
learning
Descriptively, participants from the four countries seemed to agree on
INFORMAL LANGUAGE USE,LISTENING SKILLS, and VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE (in this order)
being most strongly positively influenced by EE. This was with the exception
of French teachers, for whom LEARNER MOTIVATION instead of INFORMAL LANGUAGE
USE was among the top three, and Swedish teachers, for whom SPEAKING SKILLS
instead of VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE ranked high. All countries agreed on WRITING
SKILLS,GRAMMAR, and FORMAL LANGUAGE USE (in any order) not being affected or
even negatively so (Table 6). H2.1, suggesting a similar sequence across coun-
tries, could be corroborated.
A mixed ANOVA using Huynh-Feldt adjustment showed a statistically sig-
nificant difference across countries in the teachers’ strength of agreement
with EE aiding different areas of language learning, F(3, 371) ¼6.59, p<
0.001, partial g
2
¼0.05. Games-Howell post-hoc analysis revealed a significant
Figure 1: Estimated means of teacher reports on popularity of EE across
activities and countries, with 95% CI error bars.
12 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
difference between France and (i) Austria (–0.30, 95% CI of the mean differ-
ence –0.55, –0.04, p¼0.01, d¼0.4), (ii) Sweden (–0.33, 95% CI –0.61 to –
0.06, p¼0.01, d¼0.4), and (iii) Finland (–0.40, 95% CI 0.66 to –0.14, p<
0.001, d¼0.5). There was no significant difference between Austria and (i)
Finland (–0.11, 95% CI –0.28 to 0.06, p¼0.37) and (ii) Sweden (–0.04, 95%
CI –0.23 to 0.15, p¼0.95), nor between Finland and Sweden (0.07, 95% CI –
0.13 to 0.27, p¼0.82, d¼0.1. Thus, H2.2 could be confirmed partly, with
only teachers from France but not Austria believing significantly less in the
benefits of EE than teachers from Finland and Sweden (Table 6).
There was also an interaction of types of effects on learning and countries,
F(22.26, 2,752.39) ¼4.25, p<0.001, partial g
2
¼0.03 (Figure 2). Bonferroni-
adjusted post-hoc analysis showed significant differences in (i) READING SKILLS
between all countries (p>0.01 but p¼– 0.02 for SE–FI, d¼0.6–0.7, but
d¼1.1 for FI–FR and d¼0.4 for SE–FI) except Austria compared to (a)
Sweden (p¼1.00, d¼–0.1) and (b) Finland (p¼0.05, d¼0.4); (ii) in SPEAKING
SKILLS between France compared to (a) Sweden (p<0.01, d¼–0.8) and (b)
Finland (p¼0.02, d¼–0.5) but not between the other countries (p¼0.80) (p
>0.80, d¼0.2, but AT–FR and AT–SE p>0.06 and d¼0.4); and (iii) in
VOCABULARY LEARNING, (iv) INFORMAL LANGUAGE USE, and (v) LEARNER CONFIDENCE
between France and the other countries but not between Finland and Sweden
nor between Austria and the Northern Countries (p¼1.00, d¼0.03–0.2): in
VOCABULARY LEARNING between France and (a) Austria (p<0.001, d¼0.7), (b)
Finland, and (c) Sweden (p<0.01, d¼0.5–0.6); in INFORMAL LANGUAGE USE
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of the reported influence of 10 EE activities on
areas of language learning
Austria Finland France Sweden Total
EE activities Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Reading 3.83 0.83 4.11 0.78 3.23 0.79 3.76 0.86 3.82 0.85
Listening 4.44 0.68 4.50 0.71 4.34 0.70 4.36 0.72 4.43 0.70
Writing 2.95 0.91 3.30 0.95 2.74 0.85 3.08 0.95 3.06 0.94
Speaking 4.04 0.90 4.17 0.86 3.72 0.93 4.36 0.79 4.10 0.89
Grammar 2.93 0.88 2.99 0.85 2.66 0.76 3.01 0.88 2.93 0.86
Vocabulary 4.32 0.70 4.21 0.77 3.79 0.86 4.23 0.68 4.20 0.75
Informal 4.46 0.71 4.51 0.83 3.79 1.00 4.58 0.67 4.42 0.82
Formal 2.30 0.77 2.47 0.85 2.68 0.81 2.38 0.91 2.42 0.84
Confidence 4.11 0.73 4.17 0.76 3.70 0.98 4.09 0.79 4.07 0.80
Motivation 4.07 0.83 4.10 0.87 3.83 0.94 3.99 0.85 4.03 0.86
Total 3.74 0.79 3.85 0.82 3.45 0.86 3.78 0.81 – –
Notes:n¼136 for Austria, 114 for Finland, 47 for France, 78 for Sweden.
Responses based on five-point Likert scale (very negatively influenced to very positively influenced).
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 13
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
between France and (a) Austria, (b) Finland, and (c) Sweden (p<0.001, d¼
0.8–1.0); and in LEARNER CONFIDENCE between France and (a) Austria (p¼0.01),
(b) Finland (p<0.01), and (c) Sweden (p<0.05) (d¼0.5–0.6). No significant
difference occurred for LISTENING SKILLS (p¼1.00, d¼0.03–0.23) and LEARNER
MOTIVATION (p¼1.00, d¼0.04–0.30, but p¼0.63 for AT–FR and p¼0.45 for
FI–FR).
As to the three areas of language learning that teachers assessed as less
positively influenced by EE, significant differences occurred (i) in WRITING
SKILLS between Finland and (a) Austria (p¼0.02, d¼–0.38) and (b) France
(p<0.01, d¼–0.61), but no difference was found between the other coun-
tries (p>0.60, but p¼1.00 for AT–FR and AT–SE, p¼0.31 for FR–SE; d¼
0.1–0.3, but d¼0.4 for FR–SE); (ii) Perceptions of FORMAL LANGUAGE USE dif-
fered only between France and Austria (p<0.05, d¼–0.49) but not the
other countries (p<0.33, d¼0.10–0.34). No difference appeared for
GRAMMAR (p¼1.00, d¼0.02–0.09 for AT–FI, AT–SE, and FI–SE; p¼0.40,
d¼–0.32 for AT–FR; p¼0.16, d¼0.40–0.42 for FR–FI and FR–SE). In sum,
the tendency for English teachers in the subtitling countries to believe more
strongly in the positive effect of EE compared with teachers in the non-
subtitling countries was borne out only for France. In terms of the effect on
LISTENING,MOTIVATION,andGRAMMAR, teacher reports per country appear to be
similar (Figure 2).
4
Figure 2: Estimated means of teacher reports on the influence of EE across
areas of language learning and countries, with 95% CI error bars.
14 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
RQ3 and RQ4: connecting EE and ELT
A one-way ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference between the
groups for factor 1, THE IMPORTANCE OF ESTABLISHING A CONNECTION,F(3, 492) ¼
0.57, p¼0.64, nor for factor 2, BRINGING EE MATERIAL TO CLASS,F(3, 482) ¼2.50, p
¼0.06 (Figure 3). H3 and H4.1, suggesting the northern countries to show sig-
nificantly higher agreement with statements of factors 1 and 2 than Austria
and France, were rejected. In contrast, a significant difference was found for
factor 3, COMPENSATING FOR INFORMAL EE LANGUAGE USE, Welch’s F(3, 236.43) ¼
16.58, p<0.001.
According to Games-Howell post-hoc analysis, teachers from Austria agreed
less strongly with factor 3 than participants from Finland (M
Diff
¼–0.48, 95% CI
–0.73 to –0.24, d¼0.6) and Sweden (M
Diff
¼–0.50, 95% CI –0.75 to –0.24, d¼
0.7). Teachers from France also showed lower approval than participants from
Finland (M
Diff
¼–0.61, 95% CI –0.95 to –0.28) and Sweden (M
Diff
¼–0.63, 95%
CI –0.97 to –0.28) (d¼0.7)—in each case with p<0.001. In contrast, Austria
and France (M
Diff
¼0.13, 95% CI –0.18 to 0.45, p¼0.70, d¼–0.15) and Finland
and Sweden (M
Diff
¼–0.01, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.27, p¼1.00, d¼0.03) did not dif-
fer (Table 7). H4.2, expecting this specific pattern, was confirmed.
5
Figure 3: Estimated means of agreement with factors 1–3, with 95% CI error
bars.
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 15
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
DISCUSSION
Learners’ EE practices and estimated effect on learning
According to the teacher reports, at least four of the EE activities are (very)
common among upper secondary students in the four countries. However, in
Finland and Sweden, EE use seems significantly higher than in Austria and
France. Even if teacher reports of student practices are no direct reflection of
actual student engagement (e.g. Toffoli and Sockett 2015), the observed cross-
country difference seems valid. Learners in dubbing countries are reported not
to be as used to drawing on (digital) content in English as are students in sub-
titling countries, who usually can access English material of interest in their
L1. Subtitling-country students often cannot opt out of using English since
international content is rarely available in, in our case, Finnish and Swedish.
A significant difference also emerged between dubbing countries, as France
showed lower EE levels than Austria, overall and for all individual activities
except GAMING. In addition, Austria aligned with the subtitling countries in the
indicated frequency of MUSIC,OTHER AUDIOS, and VIDEOS. A potential reason for
the lower numbers in France than in Austria are differences in language ideol-
ogies and policies, which tend to restrict the use of English in everyday life in
France more so than in the other participating countries (see section
‘Research setting and previous research’). It is also reported that English learn-
ers in France may often grapple with feelings of inadequacy in their learning
trajectories due to the widespread belief that the French are not good at for-
eign languages (see Kusyk 2019), which could impede EE use. Additionally,
the linguistic distance between the country’s majority language and the target
language English could play a role. Even though both French and German
show large lexical similarities with English (Miller and Chiswick 2005), the
Table 7: Descriptive statistics of the three factors across countries
Factors Country NMean SD Median
Factor 1 Austria 170 3.92 0.80 4.00
Finland 131 3.99 0.73 4.00
France 98 3.98 0.83 4.17
Sweden 97 3.87 0.82 4.00
Factor 2 Austria 167 3.84 0.77 4.00
Finland 131 3.75 0.65 3.75
France 95 3.62 0.82 3.75
Sweden 93 3.88 0.69 4.00
Factor 3 Austria 166 3.35 0.77 3.33
Finland 131 3.83 0.82 4.00
France 93 3.22 1.02 3.33
Sweden 96 3.85 0.78 4.00
Notes: Responses based on five-point Likert scale with endpoints strongly disagree and strongly
agree.
16 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
most frequent (and less formal) vocabulary items in English are more often of
Germanic rather than Latin origin (e.g. Bar-Ilan and Berman 2007). In light of
linguistic distance and perhaps specific subliminal attitudes towards English,
French students seem to be faced with much greater barriers that keep them
from engaging in EE.
Contrarily, EE use in the two subtitling countries was comparable. Finland
and Sweden differed significantly only in READING, which seems to be more
common in Finland. The only cross-country similarity in the frequency of
READING emerged between Austria and Sweden. These findings can be linked to
the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study
(OECD 2019), reporting general student enjoyment in reading as significantly
higher in Finland as compared to Sweden. This could explain why Finnish
learners are more inclined to read in English as well. Moreover, in PISA, en-
joyment in reading was comparable in Austria and Sweden (but also Austria
and Finland). Even though EE is generally lower in Austria than in Sweden, a
reason for equal levels in recreational reading could be that the popularity of
reading seems to be decreasing amongst Swedish youth (Vinterek et al.
2020)—which, however, to a certain degree, is a global phenomenon. In
France, students have a significantly more positive attitude towards reading
compared with the other three contexts (OECD 2019). Still, it is unclear
whether and to what extent this coaxes learners into READING in English,
which, in our study, emerged as a rather uncommon activity in France, and
elsewhere.
Overall, teachers from Austria and France perceive EE engagement as less
powerful or even more detrimental to learning than do the other teacher
groups. Although the significant difference between France and Sweden dis-
appears upon the exclusion of French Middle School teachers, descriptively
the teacher reports still showed the most positive appraisals in Finland and
Sweden, followed by Austria and France. If the data accurately reflect teach-
ers’ perceptions, such a cross-country difference can be traced back to our as-
sumption that in the subtitling countries, teachers have a longer tradition in
EE use and thus know more about its effects on learning. Indeed, research has
demonstrated that EE does influence the development of reading (e.g. Yi
2005;Lefever 2010;Verspoor et al. 2011), listening (e.g. Kuppens 2010;
Lefever 2010), and speaking skills (e.g. Sundqvist 2009;Kuppens 2010;
Lefever 2010;Lyrigkou 2019), vocabulary knowledge (Kusyk and Sockett
2012;Olsson 2016;Peters and Webb 2018), learner confidence (Hannibal
Jensen 2019), and motivation (Sundqvist and Sylv
en 2014;Hannibal Jensen
2019). The more sceptical attitude of Austrian and French teachers might be
reflected in student views on the same matter, such as expressed by an
Austrian learner aged 15–16 years in Schwarz (2020) suggesting they were
‘unlearning English’ through the use of EE (especially gaming). Clearly, this
utterance undermines the multi-faceted nature of language learning and the
different areas EE can affect, as reported above. Nevertheless, it must be
acknowledged that in dubbing countries, where EE is increasing but still
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 17
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
starting rather late, in teenage years, effects on learning cannot be expected to
be as strong and as easily noticeable in student performances as is the case for
subtitling countries.
In contrast to speaking, reading, listening, and learner psychology, it may
be possible that FORMAL LANGUAGE USE,WRITING SKILLS, and the acquisition of
GRAMMAR are less strongly and/or less positively influenced through EE—a
point at which reports from the four countries converged. Along the same
lines, in Toffoli and Sockett (2015), only 5 out of 30 university teachers in
France perceived writing skills to be fostered through English informal learn-
ing, compared to 9 and 22 instructors, respectively, seeing benefits in reading
and listening skills. Similarly, in Schurz et al. (2022), the 13 Austrian and
French lower secondary teachers conveyed in interviews that they did not be-
lieve strongly in their students acquiring grammar through spare-time
English. The seven Swedish teachers, on the other hand, suggested this is pos-
sible, at least to a certain extent. The limited previous research directly meas-
uring the effect of EE on more formal areas of language learning
demonstrated the benefits of EE on the acquisition of advanced vocabulary
(e.g. Sundqvist and Wikstro¨ m 2015;Sundqvist 2019), writing (Lee 2002;Yi
2005;Verspoor et al. 2011;Sundqvist and Wikstro¨ m 2015;Olsson 2016), and
grammar (Persson and Prins 2012). However, the extramural development of
these aspects of language learning is likely to hinge more on the starting age,
regularity, time invested, and types of activities engaged in, and could in sum
be bolstered less through EE than the other language areas and skills.
Connecting EE and ELT
The teachers from all four countries agreed similarly with THE IMPORTANCE OF
ESTABLISHING A CONNECTION between EE and ELT. Thus, this idea is perhaps al-
ready a widespread and acknowledged one across the four European coun-
tries—even if this finding does not reveal the extent or nature of the
connection that teachers veritably establish between EE and ELT. High ap-
proval and no significant difference between countries were also unravelled
for BRINGING EE MATERIAL TO CLASS, that is using authentic content in class and/or
encouraging students to bring their own material that they use recreationally
to class, thereby linking the two spheres. This finding is similar to reports in
Henry et al. (2018), where a great majority of the motivational classroom
activities described by English teachers encompassed authentic materials,
often digital technology and opportunities for students to be creative.
Major differences in the connection between EE and ELT, however, arose
for COMPENSATING FOR INFORMAL EE LANGUAGE USE, that is for what learners might
not learn through EE in class: Swedish and Finnish teachers to a significantly
greater extent approved of those statements than did Austrian and French
teachers. Despite the fact that teachers from all countries indicated that
GRAMMAR,WRITING, and FORMAL LANGUAGE USE are scarcely or even negatively
influenced through EE, Finnish and Swedish teachers seem to be more aware
18 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
of the importance of ‘teaching the gap’ (see Henry et al. 2018). Likewise, in
Schurz et al. (2022), lower secondary teachers in Sweden appeared to more in-
tentionally teach language areas they observed to be only partially developed
through EE—that is grammar and formal language use—than the teachers in
Austria and France. In settings where students enjoy gap-bridging classroom
activities, high demands are placed on English teachers’ linguistic and peda-
gogical skills, and ‘teachers’ language awareness become of significant import-
ance’ (Henry et al. 2018: 247). However, it has to be considered that in Austria
and France, where EE use is less common, no such large deficits in learners’
formal language —compared to their informal language—can emerge. In add-
ition, teacher reports might be biased towards desirability and not fully reflect
actual teacher practices (e.g. Breen et al. 2001).
Yet, with EE being on a constant rise also in dubbing countries, adapting
classes to learners’ EE practices is likely to become a reality also in those
regions in a not too distant future. Catering to the different student needs
within a class, constituted of both low and high EE users, can manifest itself
as a major challenge for English teachers. But also extensive EE users them-
selves form a very diverse group, showing interest and engaging in a variety
of content and text types. Such a teaching setting necessitates practitioners
teach on a learner-differentiated basis. To some extent, such adaptations al-
ready seem to be made by teachers in Sweden. Previous studies reported
Swedish classrooms to typically provide relatively implicit and incidental
(i.e. introducing topics and grammar in response to observed student defi-
ciencies and interests) instruction, replicating the naturalistic out-of-class
learning environment and accounting for proficiency differences within
learner groups, resulting for instance from varying EE levels (Schurz and
Coumel 2020,2021). In contrast, it was found that Austrian and French sec-
ondary teachers tend to teach grammar in a way that is more systematic and
pre-determined, with specific grammatical features being introduced in a
specific grade (e.g. third person -s in grade five) (Schurz and Coumel 2021).
However, with increasing levels of EE, classes are likely to become more di-
verse, so that students in a given group no longer proceed according to a
similar learning trajectory. Even though high EE users might be competent
also in (formal) writing and master a variety of and/or even complex gram-
matical structures, other learners (low or high EE users) perhaps need more
support in these areas. Applying a learner-centred approach, teachers could
start with what students already know, acknowledging and valuing their
knowledge and skills in the classroom, and elaborating on them by for in-
stance drawing comparisons between informal and formal lexis, grammar,
and text types (see Denham and Lobeck 2010).
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study is probably the first to cross-nationally explore teacher cognition on
EE and its connection with ELT. According to the teacher reports, the four
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 19
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
countries appear to be similar in the relative popularity of EE activities, but
students use EE significantly more extensively in the subtitling countries
Finland and Sweden than do learners in the dubbing countries Austria and
particularly France. Although cross-country similarities appeared in the per-
ception of WRITING,GRAMMAR,andFORMAL LANGUAGE being less affected by EE
than for instance VOCABULARY and INFORMAL LANGUAGE,theoverallestimated
impact of EE on aspects of language learning is significantly weaker in
France than in the other countries. Teachers across countries responded
equally positively in terms of the importance of CONNECTING EE AND ELT and the
USEOFEEMATERIALINCLASS. Yet, Swedish and Finnish teachers to a significantly
greater extent indicated compensating for informal EE use than did Austrian
and French teachers. We argued that varying levels of EE, and consequently
also the degree to which teachers react to these circumstances, hinge on the
availability of EE material (subtitling versus dubbing countries), the linguis-
tic distance between the L1 and English, and underlying linguistic ideologies
in a given geo-cultural context. However, as EE use is growing throughout
Europe and beyond, ELT may increasingly need to be adapted to emerging
gaps and individual learner needs within single classrooms—in terms of
overall proficiency, specific knowledge or skill gaps, and learner interests
and motivation. This study opened new avenues in applied linguistic re-
search and calls for future investigations on ways of implementing EE-
friendly classrooms.
LIMITATIONS
This study has some limitations. To begin with, the teacher samples cannot
be expected to be representative of each country. Moreover, teacher reports
may not fully and accurately reflect actual student (e.g. Toffoli and Sockett
2015)andteacherpractices(e.g.Breen et al. 2001). Factors such as desirabil-
ity bias most likely affected responses to some degree, and data triangulation
could have corrected for such bias. In addition, teachers across countries
may vary in their conceptualization of certain constructs referred to in the
questionnaire. For instance, learners’ ‘grammar’ can be understood in terms
of a more implicit or explicit type of knowledge. Another limitation can be
our distinction between ‘dubbing’ and ‘subtitling countries’, because this
division may not be as relevant today as it was in the past. Much of EE
use takes place online, providing increased access to non-dubbed English
content also in dubbing countries. Nevertheless, even on social media and
on-demand streaming platforms, opportunities to engage in content in one’s
first language are still greater for speakers of languages with a large speech
community, such as in the case of German and French. Lastly, it has to be
considered that in Austria and France, where EE use is less common, its
effect on learning is necessarily weaker when compared to contexts
of high EE.
20 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank all the teachers who took part in the online survey.
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary material is available at Applied Linguistics online.
FUNDING
This research was supported by the uni:docs fellowship of the first author, funded by
the University of Vienna.
Conflict of interest statement. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ENDNOTES
1 Correlation coefficients of teacher age
and any dependent variable investi-
gated in this study mostly were r¼
0.1, reaching a maximum of r¼0.3 in
a few cases. Teacher age therefore did
not seem to predict their reports.
2 Homogeneity of covariances, as
assessed by Box’s test (p<0.001), was
not given.
3 Upon the exclusion of French Middle
School teachers (France: N¼37, M¼
3.18, SD ¼1.01), Austria now differed
from Finland in VIDEOS (p¼0.02) and
became comparable to France in
SPEAKING (p¼0.45).
4 Upon the exclusion of French Middle
School teachers, France (N¼25, M¼
3.51, SD ¼0.82) differed only from
Finland (p¼0.02) but not from
Sweden (p¼0.13). In the interac-
tions, significant differences disap-
peared between France and (i)
Sweden for READING SKILLS (p¼0.12),
(ii) Finland (p¼0.24) and Sweden (p
¼0.22) for VOCABULARY, (iii) Austria (p
¼0.12), Finland (p¼0.05), and
Sweden (p¼0.22) for CONFIDENCE, and
(iv) Finland for WRITING (p¼0.05) and
SPEAKING (p¼0.32).
5 Upon the exclusion of French Middle
School teachers, the same cross-
country differences were detected.
REFERENCES
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education. 2018.
‘Neue Mittelschulen [New Middle Schools],’
available at www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/
Bundesnormen/NOR40207228/NOR40207228.
pdf. Accessed 26 July 2021.
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education. 2020.
‘Lehrpla¨ne: Allgemeinbildende Ho¨ here Schule
[Curricula: Academic High School],’ available at
www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=
Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10008568.
Accessed 26 July 2021.
Bar-Ilan, L. and R. A. Berman. 2007. ‘Developing
register differentiation: The Latinate-Germanic
divide in English,’ Linguistics 45/1: 1–35.
Breen, M.,B. Hird,M. Milton,R. Oliver, and
A. Thwaite. 2001. ‘Making sense of language
teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom
practices,’ Applied Linguistics 22: 470–501.
Brunnbauer, J. 2020. ‘A comparative analysis
of reading tasks in Austrian and Finnish upper
secondary English textbooks,’ MA thesis,
University of Vienna.
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 21
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates.
De Wilde, V.,M. Brysbaert, and J. Eyckmans.
2020. ‘Learning English through out-of-school
exposure. Which levels of language proficiency
are attained and which types of input are im-
portant?,’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
23/1: 171–85.
Denham, K. and A. Lobeck (eds). 2010. Linguistics
at School: Language Awareness in Primary and
Secondary Education. Cambridge University Press.
Devine, M. C. 2019. La Loi Toubon: Language Policy
and Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in France.
Carnegie Mellon University.
eRequirements. 2014. ‘Grunderna fo¨r La¨ roplanen
fo¨r den Grundla¨ ggande Utbildningen 2014
[Guidelines for the curriculum of basic education
2014],’ available at eperusteet.opintopolku.fi/#/sv/
perusopetus/419550/sisallot/600171 ?vlk¼428782.
Accessed 26 July 2021.
Federal Institute for Education Research,
Innovation and Development (FIERID).
2020. ‘Standardu¨ berpru¨ fung 2019: Englisch, 8.
Schulstufe, Bundesergebnisbericht [Stan
dardized evaluation 2019: English, 8th Grade,
National Result Report],’ available at www.iqs.
gv.at/_Resources/Persistent/b2f25d7876f79a
9aae779089a6a2eda898fe41a2/BiSt_UE_E8_
2019_Bundesergebnisbericht.pdf. Accessed 26
July 2021.
Finnish National Agency for Education. 2015.
‘Grunderna fo¨ r Gymnasiets La¨roplan 2015
[Guidelines for the Upper Secondary
Curriculum 2015],’ available at www.oph.fi/
sites/default/files/documents/174853_grunderna_
for_gymnasiets_laroplan_2015-1.pdf. Accessed 26
July 2021.
Forsman, L. 2004. Language, Culture and Context:
Exploring Knowledge and Attitudes among
Finland-Swedish EFL-Students with Particular
Focus on Extracurricular Influence.A
˚bo Akademi
University.
French Ministry of National Education. 2016.
‘Communication Langagie`re: Repe`res de
Progressivit
e Linguistique, Anglais [Communi
cating in a language: Guidelines for language
development, English],’ available at cache.me-
dia.eduscol.education.fr/file/Anglais/21/5/
RA16_C4_LV_anglais_declination_linguistique
_578215.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2021.
French Ministry of National Education. 2018.
‘Programme de Langues Vivantes de Premie`re et
Terminale G
en
erales et Technologiques,
Enseignements Commun et Optionnel
[Curriculum for foreign languages in Grades 2-3
of General and Technical Upper Secondary
School, common and optional instruction],’
available at cache.media.education.gouv.
fr/file/SP1-MEN-22-1-2019/70/3/spe585_an
nexe2CORR_1063703.pdf. Accessed 26 July
2021.
Hannibal Jensen, S. 2019. ‘Language learning in
the wild: A young user perspective,’ Language
Learning & Technology 23/1: 72–86.
Henry, A.,H. Korp,P. Sundqvist, and C.
Thorsen. 2018. ‘Motivational strategies and the
reframing of English: Activity design and chal-
lenges for teachers in contexts of extensive
extramural encounters,’ Tesol Quarterly 52/2:
247–73.
Kalaja, P.,R. Alanen, and H. Dufva. 2018. ‘ELT
in Finland’ in J. I. Liontas (ed.): The TESOL
Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.
Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–7.
Kuppens, A. H. 2010. ‘Incidental foreign lan-
guage acquisition from media exposure,’
Learning, Media and Technology 35/1: 65–85.
Kusyk, M. 2019. ‘Informal English learning in
France’ in M. Dressman and R. Sadler (eds):
Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. The Handbook
of Informal Language Learning. Wiley, pp.
333–48.
Kusyk, M. and G. Sockett. 2012. ‘From informal
resource usage to incidental language acquisi-
tion: Language uptake from online television
viewing in English,’ ASp 62: 45–65.
Lee, J. F. 2002. ‘The Incidental Acquisition of
Spanish: Future Tense Morphology through
Reading in a Second Language,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 24: 55–80.
Lee, J. S. and L. K. Sylv
en. 2021. ‘The role of
Informal Digital Learning of English in Korean
and Swedish EFL learners’ communication be-
haviour,’ British Journal of Educational Technology
52/3: 1279–96.
Lefever, S. 2010. ‘English skills of young learners
in Iceland: “I started talking English when I was 4
years old. It just bang... just fall into me,”’
Ra´ðstefnurit Netlu – Menntakvika 1–17. https://netl
a.hi.is/serrit/ 2010/mennta kvika2010/021.pdf.
Leppa¨ nen, S.,A. Pitka¨ nen-Huhta ,T. Nikula,
and S. Kyto¨la¨. 2011. ‘National survey on the
English language in Finland: Uses, meanings
and attitudes,’ available at varieng. helsinki.fi/
series/ volumes/ 05/evarieng-vol5.pdf. Accessed
26 July 2021.
22 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
Lyrigkou, C. 2019. ‘Not to be overlooked: Agency
in informal language contact,’ Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching 13/3: 237–52.
Media Consulting Group (MCG). 2009. ‘Study
on the use of subtitling: The potential of subti-
tling to encourage foreign language learning
and improve the mastery of foreign languages,’
available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publica
tion-detail/-/publication/e4d5cbf4-a839-4a8a-
81d0-7b19a22cc5ce. Accessed 26 July 2021.
Miller, P. and B. Chiswick. 2005. ‘Linguistic
Distance: A Quantitative Measure of the
Distance between English and Other
Languages,’ Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 26/1: 1–11.
National Research Center of School Systems
(NRCSS). 2019. ‘Langues Vivantes E
´trange`res:
Comment Mieux Accompagner les E
´le`ves
[Modern foreign languages: How can schools
better support pupils?],’ available at www.
cnesco.fr/fr/langues-vivantes-etrangeres-com
ment-mieux-accompagner-les-eleves/.
Accessed 26 July 2021.
Niitemaa, M.-L. 2020. ‘Informal acquisition of L2
English vocabulary,’ Nordic Journal of Digital
Literacy 15/2: 86–105.
Olsson, E. 2016. ‘On the impact of extramural
English and CLIL on productive vocabulary,’
Ph.D. thesis, University of Gothenburg.
Olsson, E. and L. K. Sylv
en. 2015. ‘Extramural
English and academic vocabulary. A longitudin-
al study of CLIL and non-CLIL students in
Sweden,’ Apples - Journal of Applied Language
Studies 9/2: 77–103.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development (OECD). 2019. ‘PISA data ex-
plorer,’ available at https://pisadataexplorer.
oecd.org/ide/idepisa. Accessed 21 July 2021.
Persson, L. and T. Prins. 2012. ‘Learning English
inside and outside the classroom’ in N. de Jong,
K. Juffermans, M. Keijzer and L. Rasier (eds):
Papers of the An
ela 2012 Applied Linguistics
Conference. Eburon, pp. 3–13.
Peters, E. 2018. ‘The effect of out-of-class expos-
ure to English language media on learners’ vo-
cabulary knowledge,’ International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 169/1: 142–68.
Peters, E. and S. Webb. 2018. ‘Incidental vocabu-
lary acquisition through viewing L2 television
and factors that affect learning,’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 40: 551–77.
Pietila¨, P. and R. Merikivi. 2014. ‘The impact of
free-time reading on foreign language
vocabulary development,’ Journal of Language
Teaching and Research 5/1: 28–36.
Ranta, E. 2010. ‘English in the real world vs.
English at school: Finnish English teachers’ and
students’ views,’ International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 20/2: 156–77.
Schurz, A. and M. Coumel. 2021. ‘Instructed
EFL learning in Austria, France and Sweden:
Hearing teachers’ voices,’ available at https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/352643
207_Instructed_EFL_Learning_in_Austria_
France_and_Sweden_Hearing_Teachers’_
Voices/stats. Accessed 1 March 2022 (Preprint).
Schurz, A.,M. Coumel, and J. Hu¨ ttner. 2022.
‘Accuracy and fluency teaching and the role of
extramural English: A tale of three countries,’
Languages 7/1: 35.
Schwarz, M. 2020. ‘Beyond the walls: A mixed
methods study of teenagers’ extramural English
practices and their vocabulary knowledge,’
Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna.
Sormunen, M. 2013. ‘Opinions about EFL gram-
mar learning and teaching: A study of Finnish
upper-secondary-school students,’ M.A. thesis,
University of Jyva¨skyla¨.
Statistics Austria. 2020. ‘Bildung in Zahlen:
Tabellenband [Education in numbers: List of
tables],’ available at www.statistik.at/wcm/idc/
idcplg?IdcService=GET_NATIVE_FILE&
RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&
dDocName=126038. Accessed 26 July 2021.
Statistics Finland. 2021. ‘Population,’ available at
https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/ suoluk/suoluk_-
vaesto_sv.html. Accessed 23 November 2021.
Sundqvist, P. 2009. ‘Extramural English matters:
Out-of-school English and its impact on
Swedish ninth graders’ oral proficiency and vo-
cabulary,’ Dissertation, Karlstad University
studies, 2009, 55.
Sundqvist, P. 2019. ‘Commercial-off-the-shelf
games in the digital wild and l2 learner vocabu-
lary,’ Language Learning & Technology 23: 87–113.
Sundqvist, P. 2020. ‘Sweden and informal lan-
guage learning’ in M. Dressman and R. Sadler
(eds): Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. The
Handbook of Informal Language Learning. Wiley,
pp. 319–32.
Sundqvist, P. and L. K. Sylv
en. 2014.
‘Language-related computer use: Focus on
young L2 English learners in Sweden,’ ReCALL
26: 3–20.
Sundqvist, P. and L. K. Sylv
en. 2016.
‘Introduction’ in P. Sundqvist and L. K. Sylv
en
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
(eds): New Language Learning and Teaching
Environments. Extramural English in Teaching and
Learning: From Theory and Research to Practice.
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–17.
Sundqvist, P. and P. Wikstro¨m. 2015.
‘Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school l2
English vocabulary outcomes,’ System 51: 65–76.
Swedish National Agency for Education
(SNAE). 2017. ‘Kommentarmaterial till Kurs
planen i Engelska [Comments on the English cur-
riculum],’ available at www.skolverket.se/getFile?
file=3858. Accessed 26 July 2021.
Swedish National Agency for Education
(SNAE). 2021. ‘Sa¨ tta Betyg i Grundskolan
[Assessment in Comprehensive School],’
available at www.skolverket.se/undervisn
ing/grundskolan/betyg-i-grundskolan/satta-
betyg-i-grundskolan.Accessed26July2021.
Sylv
en, L. K. and P. Sundqvist. 2012. ‘Gaming
as extramural English L2 learning and L2 profi-
ciency among young learners,’ ReCALL 24:
302–21.
Terhemaa, O. 2018. ‘Finnish Secondary school
students’ experiences of informal English learn-
ing: Exploring the acquisition of English from
video games and other extracurricular activ-
ities,’ M.A. thesis, University of Helsinki.
Thorne, S. L. and J. Reinhardt. 2008. ‘“Bridging
activities”, new media literacies, and advanced
foreign language proficiency,’ CALICO Journal
25/3: 558–72.
Toffoli, D. and G. Sockett. 2015. ‘University
teachers’ perceptions of Online Informal
Learning of English (OILE),’ Computer Assisted
Language Learning 28/1: 7–21.
Ushioda, E. 2013. International Perspectives on
Motivation: Language Learning and Professional
Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan.
Verspoor, M. H.,K. de Bot, and E. van Rein.
2011. ‘English as a foreign language: The role of
out-of-school language input’ in A. de Houwer
and A. Wilton (eds): English in Europe Today:
Sociocultural and Educational Perspectives. John
Benjamins Pub. Co, pp. 147–66.
Vinterek, M.,M. Winberg,M. Tegmark,T.
Alatalo, and C. Liberg. 2020. ‘The decrease of
school related reading in Swedish Compulsory
School: Trends between 2007 and 2017,’
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 66/1:
119–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.
1833247.
Yi, Y. 2005. ‘Asian adolescents’ out-of-school
encounters with English and Korean literacy,’
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 15/1: 57–77.
24 A. SCHURZ AND P. SUNDQVIST
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR
Alexandra Schurz is a doctoral fellow at the English Department of the University of
Vienna, Austria. Her main interests are cross-country comparisons of the type of in-
struction in ELT, extramural English, and explicit versus implicit grammatical know-
ledge in L2 English. She has published in Language Teaching Research and Languages and
was recently awarded the Impact.Award of the University and City of Vienna to estab-
lish a dialogue between researchers and practitioners. Address for correspondence:
Department of English and American Studies, University of Vienna, Campus der
Universita¨ t Wien, Hof 8.3, Spitalgasse 2-4, 1090 Vienna, Austria. <alexandra.schurz@
univie.ac.at>
Pia Sundqvist is associate professor of English Language Education at the Department of
Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1099 Blindern,
N-0317 Oslo, Norway. Her research interests are in the field of applied linguistics, with
a focus on informal language learning (especially extramural English and gaming), as-
sessment of L2 oral proficiency, and ELT. Sundqvist is the author of Extramural English
in Teaching and Learning (with Sylv
en, 2016). Her work has appeared in outlets such as
Journal of Pragmatics,Language Learning & Technology,ReCALL, and TESOL Quarterly. She
is a board member of the Swedish Association of Applied Linguistics. <pia.sundqvist@
ils.uio.no>
CONNECTING EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH WITH ELT 25
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac013/6574628 by guest on 27 April 2022
