English teaching in Norway

English was introduced from grade 1 in Norwegian primary schools in 1997, and with extended teaching hours from 2006 (KUF, 1997; Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2006). However, not much time is allotted to the language; for grades 1-4, the total number of hours of English teaching is 138, i.e., only 34.5 hours per year on average (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2013a). With a

30

provision that teaching should take place for at least 38 weeks per year, this corresponds to less than one hour per week (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2007). For the entire primary level, the total number of English teaching hours is 366, which out of a total number of teaching hours of 5234 (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2013c) amounts to slightly under 7% of the total teaching time. This is a normal percentage compared to other European countries (Eurydice & Eurostat, 2012). Some projects to increase exposure to English, for example, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) have been implemented in Norway over the last few years and may provide increased exposure to English also in other subjects in some schools (European Commission, 2009;

Eurydice, 2006; Pérez-Cañado, 2012; Svenhard, 2010, 2012). However, these are typically introduced at secondary level, and certainly not as early as grade 1.

In addition to the low number of teaching hours, another concern about the teaching of English in Norwegian primary schools is the fact that the subject is usually taught by a generalist teacher, typically the homeroom teacher. English is not a compulsory subject in Norwegian general teacher training, and there are also no requirements for language competence or formal English qualifications at this level. Thus, many teachers teach English without formal training (see e.g., Drew, 2004; Drew, Oostdam, & Toorenburg, 2007; Drew & Vigrestad, 2008; Eikrem, 2012; Eurydice & Eurostat, 2012; Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2006, 2008; Lagerstrøm, 2007).

Since many teachers are not trained second/foreign language teachers, not only language competence but also knowledge of SLA may be limited. Lack of fluency, insecurity, and lack of knowledge of the importance of target language exposure may lead many teachers to avoid the use of English in the classroom; Drew et al. (2007), for example, found that most Norwegian primary teachers only partially agree that their communicative competence and language skills are sufficient for use in the English classroom.

Target language use in English in grade 1 has not, to my knowledge, been systematically studied in Norway. However, the hypothesis that low formal English competence among teachers will lead to extensive L1 use is supported by reports (Drew, 2004; Drew et al., 2007; Eikrem, 2012; Flemmen, 2006) that a relatively large percentage of primary school teachers use mainly Norwegian in their English classes. Also Waara’s (2003) report indicating that grammar teaching largely takes place in Norwegian even in upper secondary English classrooms, and Nicolaisen’s (2011) master thesis which found target language use in lower secondary school to vary and depend partly on teachers’ formal education in English, indicate the same. Teachers in grade 1,

31

who lack formal training more often than those in higher grades, can be assumed to be among those who use English the least in the classroom.

The limited role of target language communication and exposure in early Norwegian English classrooms is reflected in the curriculum. The current national curriculum was originally introduced in 2006 (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2006). It does not specify teaching methods, only competence aims at various stages. The first competence aims for English are after grade 2, i.e., after two years of English instruction. In the original version of the curriculum, which was valid during the test period in the present project, relevant aims after year 2 were that students should be able to “understand and use some common English words and phrasesˮ, “ use the most basic English phonology [...]ˮ, “greet people, ask questions and answer simple oral questionsˮ,

“understand simple instructions given in Englishˮ, “recognise some words, expressions and simple sentences in spoken and written textsˮ, and “use numbers in communicationˮ ⁷. Although there are elements of oral comprehension in some of these aims, they lend themselves well to a style of teaching based mainly on the L1, where L2 words and expressions are treated as objects to be learned rather than as parts of natural communication. Unlike the previous curriculum (KUF, 1997), this curriculum does not give recommendations for activities and processes, only aims.

Teaching materials for grades 1 and 2 published at the introduction of this curriculum, such as students workbooks, CDs and their associated web pages (e.g., Bruskeland & Ranke, 2005, 2006; Håkenstad & Vestgård, 2006; Lillevold & Moseng, 2006; Lillevold & Whittaker, 2006; Munden, Elind, Engvall, & Oscarsson, 2006) contain very little incentive for the use of language in context, but instead focus on activities which require simple routine instructions and largely treat words in isolation. Typical activities entail matching words and pictures in various forms. There is also focus on rhymes and songs. It is likely that these activities are mainly intended to provide motivation, in that they are the kinds of language activities which children think are fun.

The curriculum has recently been revised (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2013a), and the new learning aims are slightly more ambitious. Objectives for oral communication after year 2 are that students should be able to “listen for and use English phonemes through practical-aesthetic forms

7 This version of the curriculum is not in effect, and thus it is no longer available in English. However,

quoted here are what were the official translations of the Norwegian objectives which can be retrieved from http://www.udir.no/kl06/ENG1-01/Kompetansemaal/?arst=372029328&kmsn=382571589.

32

of expressionˮ, “listen to and understand basic instructions in Englishˮ, “listen to and understand words and expressions in English nursery rhymes, word games, songs, fairy tales and storiesˮ,

“understand and use some English words, expressions and sentence patterns related to local surroundings and own interestsˮ, “greet people, ask and respond to simple questions and use some polite expressionsˮ, “participate in simple rehearsed dialogues and spontaneous conversations related to local surroundings and own experiencesˮ, and “use figures in

conversation about local surroundings and own experiencesˮ (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2013a, p.

7). The curriculum states in the introduction to the English subject that “[l]anguage learning occurs while encountering a diversity of texts, where the concept of text is used in the broadest sense of the wordˮ (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2013a, p. 2).

With the new curriculum, new learning materials have been published, some of which may pay more attention to the importance of real communication and input. The Explore series (Edwards, Flognfeldt, Moen, Nilsen, & Møkleby, 2013), for example, uses pictures with

accompanying CD texts where children listen to a text and look for familiar words in the picture.

The Quest series (Hansen, Mørner, Næss, & Pritchard, 2012) specifically gives the teacher suggestions for instructions and classroom management which can be used outside of formal English class. However, the suggested volume of input is still very low, and a substantial increase in target language exposure for the students thus minimally depends on teachers emphasizing such activities.

Learning materials in the form of books and associated CDs and web pages of course are not the only resource available to teachers. However, combined with a lack of formal training in English, it is very likely that what seems to be prescribed in the available materials is also what is taught (cf. Drew et al., 2007; Flemmen, 2006). Many schools publish teaching plans on their web pages, including what they are working with in each subject in different weeks. This allows us to gain an (admittedly superficial) impression of the topics and the level of English expected in many schools at once. Common to such plans is that if they publish goals for English learning, they do so by exemplifying what vocabulary items they are working with at various times. In one randomly sampled school for the school year of 2013-14, students in grade 1 are working with the numbers 1-10 in the last week of October, i.e., after more than two months of school. Two weeks later, in mid-November, they report that the children are to learn the colors red, blue, green, and yellow. In mid-January, the goal is to learn some words for body parts in English. This

33

is representative of plans found on the web pages of different schools, all of which reflect clearly limited goals for lexical learning connected to specific topics. There is little doubt that part of the background for the early start in English in Norwegian schools is knowledge of the benefits of a young AoA for language acquisition. However, it is not clear that the way the language is introduced at this point is based on the knowledge we have about the effect of age on acquisition beyond the simplistic “younger is betterˮ.

As discussed above, English is ubiquitous in Norway. A common assumption is that this is also the case in the lives of young children and that they may be picking up the language from outside of school. This, however, is not necessarily true, especially before they are fluent readers in Norwegian. While Anglophone programs and films for adolescents and adults are generally in English with Norwegian subtitles, dubbing is more common for young children. This is the case for all the major children’s TV channels and for films shown in Norwegian movie theaters aimed at young children (cf. Bjørkeng, 2012; Ursin, Aursland, & Ripegutu, 2012). Also computer games for very young children still mainly come in Norwegian, and while popular music in Norway is often in English, songs aimed specifically at young children are almost exclusively in Norwegian.