Conference Agenda

With the rise in migration globally and increasing childhood multilingualism, there is a growing need internationally to accommodate the diverse range and literacy needs of children with English as an additional language need in classrooms. In the Irish context, studies from over fifteen years and a growing body of recent research point to prevailing organisational and pedagogical challenges in providing appropriate support for our changing school population (e.g., Connaughton-Crean & Ó Duibhir, 2017; La Morgia, 2018; Little & Kirwin, 2019; 2021; Murtagh & Francis, 2011; Nowlan, 2008; O’Duibhir & Cummins, 2012; O’Tool & Skinner, 2018; Smyth, Darmody, McGinnity, & Byrne, 2009). The currently-used model for SEN (DES, 2017), is based on curricular and policy reform at primary level (DES, 2017; NCCA, 2019) and an ad hoc, add on to special educational needs (SEN) approach towards supporting EAL learners (Gardiner-Hyland & Burke, 2018; Quigley, O’Toole, Gardiner- Hyland, & Murphy, 2020). Cummins’s interdependence hypothesis reminds us that “skills developed in one language can be transferred to a second language, provided there is adequate exposure to that language and sufficient motivation” (Ó Duibhir & Cummins, 2012, pp. 31–36). While the Common European Framework of Reference acknowledges the adoption of a plurilingual approach which involves “languages interrelating and interacting” (CERF, 2001, p. 4) and “developing a linguistic repertory in which all linguistic abilities have a place” (CERF, p. 5), within an Irish context, some studies have shown that there is a tendency for teachers to be unaware of the benefits of cross-lingual transfer, unaware of the home literacy practices of children and their families from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds and unaware of EAL pupils’ first language proficiency (La Morgia, 2018; Lyons, 2010; Nowlan, 2008). This lack of awareness could have implications for teaching in the multilingual classroom, where acknowledgement, celebration and a consistent integrated use of home languages may be lost to monolingual, deficit approaches to teaching EAL, which Little (2021, p. 12) states is “foolish” and “doomed to failure.”
This paper presents findings from research phase one to three (2019 – 2022) of an initiative established in response to needs identified by ten DEIS schools in Ireland, to support teachers and schools to respond to increasing linguistic and cultural diversity (DEIS is the Irish government policy instrument to address educational disadvantage in schools). Nationally 76,000 primary school children speak a language other than English at home, representing 2 in every class of 30 children (CSO 2017). This figure is far greater for the ten schools involved in the initiative, where influxes of migrant families have changed schools’ demographics to the extent that up to 47 heritage languages are spoken amongst their school populations and between 11-38% of learners have EAL profiles. With an unprecedented emphasis on the importance of affirming cultural and linguistic diversity within schools (Teaching Council 2016; NCCA 2019), the initiative offers customised, relational, inclusive and needs-led approach involving Continuous Professional Development through a Professional Learning Network for Lead EAL teachers and an online Community of Practice with resources available across schools.
This research seeks to analyse the impact of this CPD on evolving teacher knowledge, confidence and practices of teaching EAL learners over time and address the following questions:
1. What are teacher perceptions of the initiative’s impact on their evolving teacher knowledge, confidence and practices of teaching EAL learners over time?
2. What opportunities and challenges do teachers associate with being involved in the PLN and online CoP?
3. How can the initiative support participating teachers and schools to develop collaborative inquiry and reflective practice?

Many theoretical frameworks have been suggested and used to study students’ motivation in learning English as an L2 in higher education (Boo, Dörnyei, & Ryan, 2015). Some of them come from well-known motivational theories, while others have been developed only in the context of L2 learning. This study investigated the motivational factors linked with English language learning motivation in higher education. Specifically, Gardner’s (1985, 2010) Socio-Educational Model, Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS), and “willingness to communicate; WTC” approach suggested by MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei and Noels (1998), and Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017) can be given as examples of the motivational frameworks studied as part of this study. A systematic review aimed to clarify the complexity of conceptualization and operationalization of the previously motivational concepts in L2 learning in the literature of the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program and English Preparatory Program (EPP) contexts, and their relation to educational correlates. In this systematic review, the context-related (e.g., instructional materials) and student-related (e.g., learning strategies) correlates of motivation in EPP and EAP context were identified following the guidance of Gough, Oliver and Thomas (2013) and the PRISMA statement (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009). Regarding the conceptualization of motivational theories, in-depth systematic review of 30 articles showed that only 16 articles defined motivation clearly and consistently with a motivational theory. Among the remaining 14 articles, there were some articles (n = 9) in which there was a partial consistency between a specific theoretical framework and operationalization of motivation. However, there were a few articles (n = 5) in which, although one of the motivational constructs was consistently measured with a motivational theory, another motivational construct was not measured according to the corresponding theory. The findings regarding the operationalization of motivation in published studies in the context of L2 English learning in EAP programs and EPPs showed that there is an overall consistency between the conceptualization and operationalization of the motivational constructs of the prominent motivational theories. The majority of the articles (n = 17) measured motivation fully consistent with the defined motivational constructs and the corresponding theory. There were six articles that measured motivation partially consistent with a specific theoretical framework. There were two articles in which, although one of the motivational constructs was measured consistently with a motivational theory, another motivational construct was not measured according to the corresponding theory. On the other hand, there were five articles two of which measured motivation in an inconsistent with the theory (as well as the definition) manner and three of which did not operationalize motivation at all. Systematic review of 25 articles revealed that very few studies investigated the correlates (either context-related or student-related) of motivation in the EAP and EPP context and in these few studies motivation was only conceptualized by using WTC construct, L2MSS components, achievement goal theory (Dweck 1986; Dweck & Leggett 1988) or attribution theory (Weiner, 1985; 2000). The overall conclusion is that, the concept of motivation is theoretically disorganized, various motivational constructs overlap with each other, and different terminology is used for the same motivational construct (e.g., intrinsic motivation). These lead to a more general problem: there is not a common understanding of what is motivation in EAP and EPP.

Although grammar is not the central focus when teaching English at schools, it is a vital aspect which contributes to achieving the communicative purposes in mastering a foreign language.

Larsen-Freeman (2003) refers to grammar as a skill that speakers develop creatively to convey a message. She also states that this ability is a communicative resource used both to understand the language received when listening or reading, and to produce the language when speaking or writing for communicative purposes. Speakers choose within their grammatical range the structures that help them understand or express a message in a meaningful way within a given context. On the other hand, Ellis (2009) expresses the need to make learners aware regarding grammar, that is, to develop awareness of the relationship between meaning and form and the existence of certain forms that are correct and not others.

There have been studies concerning grammatical difficulties in different languages in diverse countries around the world. Researchers such as Williams and Evans, 1998; Spada et al., 2005; Ammar and Spada, 2006 have described grammatical difficulty in terms of students’ correct use of grammatical features, considering these grammar features to be more difficult to be learned if many students have difficulty using them in an accurate way (in Alhaysony M. (2017)

There are factors that make a grammatical structure easy or difficult to learn or acquire. Concerning this aspect, it is fundamental to consider the factors that make a structure difficult or easy to learn/acquire. First, it is necessary to look at complexity from the point of view of the grammar structure itself: its form, use, meaning, and salience (the degree to which data is available to learners). Then, complexity can be considered in terms of the pedagogical rules necessary to express the linguistic characteristic in question, and after that, it is possible to focus on complexity, that is to say if learning an aspect of grammar is a problem from the learners’ point of view (Ellis, 2008, cited by De Graaf & Housen, 2009). In the same way, De Keyser (2005) identified three factors that determine grammatical complexity: complexity of form, complexity of meaning, and complexity of form-meaning relationship. It is understood by complexity of form ‘the number of choices involved in picking all the right morphemes and allomorphs … and putting them in the right place (pp. 5-6). The complexity of meaning can be a source of difficulty as De Keyser (2005) calls novelty or abstraction (or both). Articles, classifiers, grammatical genders, and verbal aspects are examples of structures that are difficult to acquire for second language learners, whose mother tongue does not have them, or uses different systems. When the relation between form and meaning is not transparent, the difficulty of form-meaning may appear, for example, due to redundancy (third person singular -s in English) or optionally (subject null in Spanish).

Grammar courses have high failure rates in a southern Chilean university. Pre-service teachers of English must master these contents as they would be responsible for teaching English to younger generations in the region with the lowest educational performance in Chile. This study is focused on research intended to identify the most difficult grammar features to be learned in English as a foreign language by pre-service teachers. Hence, these trainee teachers can grasp their form and use, and then teach these structures more confidently and accurately, being a good model for their students.

After that, a focus group of 8 participants was conducted to confirm and clarify information gathered in the questionnaire.