Question:

How successful are ESOL courses in UK for both learners and teachers

Answer:

How successful are ESOL courses in UK for both learners and teachers

Introduction

In the UK, ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) courses constitute an important aspect of the language teaching curriculum. These courses are no doubt useful in developing the learners’ level of proficiency. At the same time, they help the speakers of other languages integrate into local communities. In a report titled Breaking the Language Barriers, DfEE (2000, p. 3), recommended that a national inftrastructure for ESOL should be established. This infrastructure would ideally cover a national curriculum, a provision for standards, teacher training, inspection, and frameworks for accreditation. Consequently, an Adult ESOL curriculum was launched in 2002 in the UK.

It is crucial for an analysis of literature on the success of ESOL courses in the UK to be carried out from the perspective of both learners and teachers. This is precisely the aim of this literature review. It also serves as a platform for understanding the existing gaps in literature with regard to the problems encountered by both teachers and learners and the way ESOL courses are perceived. The review also creates a better understanding of the current ESOL practices, different groups of ESOL learners, different types of provision, and variations in levels of competence in English language.

Trends in ESOL literature in the UK

One of the most cited research works is the one carried out by the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Numeracy (2010). In this research, the aim was to identify and define the range of existing ESOL practices and to establish the key distinctive features of learners of ESOL with regard to literacy, numeracy, and dedicated ESOL classes. To achieve this purpose, the researcher focused on five case study sites, in which variety was achieved in terms of different types of provision, different levels of competence in the English language, and different groups of learners. The research took place between January and September 2003. The teams involved operated from Kings College London, the Institute of Education, Lancaster University, University of Leeds, and University of London.

The findings in the study by National Research and Development Centre for Adult Numeracy (2010) have been supported by detailed accounts of classroom practices, learners’ needs, and learning resources. These accounts indicate that ESOL learners differ in numerous ways from all other learners of adult basic skills. While some of them are professionals with highly successful careers, others have had their lives transformed by traumatic experiences and are fearful of the future. These fundamental differences have a huge impact on their ambitions, their ability to learn, and the perception of their personal selves. Because of these differences, or in spite of them, the picture that emerges is that of creative learners who use the classroom as a platform for making meanings relevant to their futures and lives.

In most cases, when there is emphasis on individualized learning, one would expect that the needs of adult ESOL learners are fully supported. However, this is not always the case. For ESOL learners, focus has been on talk as the most significant way of learning. Specifically, group interactions are often singled out just in the same way as opportunities for practicing how to speak and listen to the target language.

For teachers, effectiveness in ESOL is undoubtedly impossible without the use of a combination of measures aimed at supporting the diverse needs of ESOL learners. There is need for mainstream teachers to learn from different approaches so as to improve on the way they provide support to the ESOL learners’ needs in their classrooms.

By way of comment, Burns (2006, p. 99) observes that research on adult ESOL remains both spasmodic and fragmentary at the international level. As a response to this shortcoming, Burns presents new insights into the contemporary ESOL research from the point of view of current pedagogical practices in the British society. However, Burns goes as far as to refer to comparative work in the Australasian and New Zealand contexts. In these countries, comparisons are made on matters of research, policy, and curriculum development.

In a different study, Barton (2003, p. 7) presents an annotated bibliography of studies relating to ESOL in the UK. In one of the papers described, Barton focuses on the needs of those who attend ESOL classes; in most cases, these students are people who have to use English in the UK workplace, yet they are not fully proficient in this language. Typically, these people are aged 18 and above, although in some cases, the learners who arrive in the UK at the age of 16 to 19 are also included. This category excludes all those learners coming to the UK for a short stay to study in different language schools. It also excludes international students in need of professional courses before they can embark on their studies. In this paper, the review is on research that has taken place within the last 15 years. Moreover, it attempts to incorporate all the research that has been done in the UK.

It is interesting to note that even in those studies that focus on the UK context alone, there is a tendency to veer away from this context and into other countries that provide appropriate lessons for the UK, notably Australia, Canada, Europe, and New Zealand. In such studies, it is also common for the starting comments to involve an elaborate analysis of the language learning process while leaving room for individual variations. After such an analysis, the tendency is to expand the scope to cover studies that have been done in the past.

Aspirations of ESOL learners

Cooke (2006 p. 71) notes that while the activities and practices of many ESOL classrooms fulfil such needs as social and affective satisfaction, they often fail to enable migrants realize their full potential as competent users of English, participants in the workforce, and future citizens. Cooke’s findings were based on a corpus of 76 interviews carried out with adult migrants who were learning English in UK settings. The analysis of these interviews was done with the use of a case study methodology. The case studies indicated that in spite of high levels of investment, motivation, and individual ‘agency’, there are far-reaching constraining effects of institutional and structural factors. These factors ought to be put into consideration when planning is being done for the migrants’ educational needs. Cooke also comments on the classrooms that are often used in the UK by ESOL learners and teachers. These classrooms, according to Cooke (2006, p. 72), do not provide the best settings because of the way in which they ignore real-life experiences of the learners. The same thing may be said of the individualized learning plans used.

For Norton (2006, p. 92) focus is on the ways in which teachers select and use written texts in ESOL classrooms. Norton adopts a socio-cultural view of the nature of text and of the reading process and argues that ESOL students tend to have a potentially rich inventory of textual resources. Typically, these resources fail to be acknowledged in the classroom. This is particularly the case with external options that are embodied in published textbooks and worksheets. In this case, these two platforms fail to do acknowledge the diverse textual worlds inhabited by ESOL learners. By way of explanation, Norton (2006, p. 93) draws on the notion of ‘authoring’ to argue that these students need to be encouraged to start repositioning themselves as interpreters of all classroom texts as opposed to being passive consumers. In this argument, it is clear that unlike Cooke (2006), Norton does not focus on the appropriateness of real-life experiences within classroom settings.

Norton argues that reading should be seen as a way of creating new texts, just like in the way interpreters keep rearticulating orthodox meanings to their own ends through shared talk that revolves around text. Norton uses field notes, vignettes, illustrations, and transcripts of interactions held in two ESOL classrooms to demonstrate the contrasting ways in which texts can be selected and used in an ESOL classroom. By way of conclusion, Norton suggests that teachers and ESOL students should view classroom texts as opportunities for them to author texts, whereby whatever is brought to texts is of as great significance as any linguistic or content knowledge that is derived from them.

In order to understand the aspirations of ESOL learners, it is important to first understand the nature of the typical ESOL classroom in the UK (Alderson 1984, p. 78, Roberts 2001, p. 92). According to Barton (2003), the typical UK ESOL classroom is neither stable nor homogenous across all educational settings. Many changes have been taking place, both with regard to policy and the types of learners who attend English language instruction lessons in the UK. Hamilton & Merrifield (2000, p. 39) note that historically, policy towards the provision of ESOL has been rather isolated from other provisions made for adult education.

Barton (2003) also notes that a decade ago, the boundary between mainstream educational provisions in further education and ESOL departments has been blurring. Moreover, many projects have been introduced that explore issues relating to language curriculum support and team teaching. However, more recently, measures by the UK government have led to the inclusion of ESOL within the realm of Adult Basic Skills (Barton, 2003). For this reason, ESOL provision has started adjusting to new boundaries and requirements. Today, it is common to find ESOL learners in literacy and numeracy classes at one moment and in ESOL classes at the other. This move has been closely followed by the introduction of the ESOL Core Curriculum as a core element of the national strategy for language, literacy, and numeracy.

Although language support continues in certain colleges, this happens within the perspective of a different department (Roden1999, p.18). Such policy changes have obviously had a far-reaching effect on the trend of practice as well as the sort of questions that are posed regarding language learning, particularly for ESOL students. Regarding these students, their numbers and their needs have been rapidly changing as well. It is estimated that the number of ESOL learners in the UK today ranges between 1 and 1.5 million.

The provision of ESOL has been shaped largely by the specific needs of settled immigrant communities, mainly from the new commonwealth and from the fluctuating populations of asylum seekers and refugees (Richards 1988, p. 412). Traditionally, these learners have been considered to require forms of instruction and accreditation that are different from those offered by all other branches of English language instruction, notably English as a Foreign Language (EFL).

The debate on the similarities between EFL and ESOL learners has been ongoing for a long time (Vargas 2001, p. 18, Thompson 1994, p. 28, Roberts 1992, p. 104, Hammond 1992, p. 74). For EFL, the materials, language learning theory, teacher training, and research provided, all have been useful for teaching of English overseas as well as for special short-term courses required by learners who come to the UK. Such courses have been a key area of specialty for FE colleges and language schools, and the basic assumption has been that learners already have some exposure to and excellence in English language studies in their home countries. However, some commentators now insist that it is no longer tenable to argue for the existence of such a divide between EFL and ESOL. Such a divide, they argue, does not put into consideration the diverse needs of all the adult English learners attending FE colleges in search of help with their English.

According to Schellekens (2001, p. 49), many asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants arrive into the UK with varied levels of exposure to formal English language learning coupled with a strong desire to pursue higher education or validation of their professional qualifications before pursuing their professional careers. Materials that are designed for EFL markets easily find their way into ESOL classrooms (Schellekens 2001, p. 81). However, EFL accreditation may not be readily on offer in UK’s ESOL classes. Moreover, Britain’s accession to the EU has introduced a new dimension; a rapid increase in the number of Europeans either working or seeking jobs in the UK. These people also seek language support, and they come with a diverse range of educational qualifications (Sunderland 1992, p.82). On the other hand, there is also a sizeable minority of English language learners who come into Britain with little experience by way of formal education. Moreover, there are people of minority communities who have lived in the UK for some time and are in need of assistance, some of them on an outreach basis. On the bigger picture, the ESOL classroom is best recognized through the diversity of needs and backgrounds of its learners.

The classroom as a learning environment for ESOL students

Quite a huge chunk of literature is available on the classroom as a learning environment for ESOL students (Rivera 1999, p. 492, Norton 2001b, p. 311, Braine 2010, p. 73, Breen 2001b, p. 79, Bell 1997, p. 220, Bell 1997, p. 194, Bishop 1989, p. 7). Critics of the classroom setting lament that it fails to focus on real life issues that are of utmost interest to ESOL students. For some of the studies, attention on classroom activities is aimed at attempting to single out the most effective mechanisms for learning language as well as understanding the relationship between learning and teaching (Millam 2000, p. 39). In one pioneering study, Slimani (2001, p. 39) focused on the ESOL setting in an attempt to capture the ever-elusive relationship between individual learning and classroom practice. Slimani investigated the claims of 13 university engineering students regarding what they had learnt during a six-week duration at which time they were attending teacher-centered grammar classes. The researcher further sought to find out how these claims were related with the way in which they interacted inside classrooms. The research recorded and filled in two sets of the so-called ‘uptake questionnaires’ immediately after class and after three hours. Slimani defines uptake as a shorthand term for denoting what learners claim to have learned during a particular class. Slimani found out that the findings turned out to be highly idiosyncratic in 75% of the claims, in which no more than three learners reported the claimed items at a time. Most of these learning arose out of topics that other learners had raised and not those that the teacher had taught in class.

In a related study carried out in the UK by Bird (1998, p. 82), focus was on learning of form, and it was done on an experimental basis, with the subjects being four adult ESOL learners. These learners participated in a series of communicative tasks that were designed to encourage learners to self-monitor their output. After one week, all students demonstrated that they were able to repeatedly modify their output, and they had also become aware of the need to ensure accuracy in the way they used grammar and syntax. Bird (1998, p. 84) noted this to be especially a valuable realization for one of the subjects, who had stayed in the UK for a long time and had even become a fluent English speaker, but whose English was ridden with ‘fossilized’ errors. The main shortcoming of this study was that a great deal of guidance was required of the teacher, yet there was not scope whatsoever for assessing long-term learning. Moreover, the activities turned out to be eating into the teacher’s time because they did not take place during regular class hours.

Studies on learning on form are effective in providing a better understanding of the main elements of formal learning (Rees 1990, p. 182, Auerbach 1996, p. 201). However, these studies fail to offer a holistic picture of social relations and interactions of classroom situations, which give rise to learning (Faine 1988, p. 119). Some scholars are of the view that classrooms should be considered a form of social practice so as to bring about an understanding of formal settings of language learning (Ellis, 2001, p. 182, Dubin 1992, p. 117, Cooke 2000, p.74). For example, Allwright (1996, p. 182) mentions the ‘unpedagogic’ behavior, which often exists in language classroom transcripts. Allwright argues that many pedagogic as well as social demands are always at play inside the classroom, and both of them should be explored in equal measure. Similarly, Breen (2001a, p. 92, Bell 1995, p. 692, and Bell 1993, p. 28) emphasize that there is need to understand the ways in which social relationships work within the classroom, since it is these relationships that orchestrate further opportunities for language learning. Breen reviewed learner participation tasks in classroom studies and ended up calling for a deeper understanding of various classroom discursive practices. Ideally, such an investigation should encompass the relationship between the way learners recognize appropriate participation during classroom interactions and language acquisition. For Breen, the best way to understand language acquisition is to first understand the context of the acquisition.

Learner motivation levels

Motivation is a crucial aspect of language acquisition, not just in the SLA tradition but also within ESOL contexts (Wrigley 1992, p. 92). Khanna (1998, p. 102) did a study on motivation and attitudes in second language learning in the UK. The aim was to examine how attitudes the English language and the British people was related to individuals’ proficiency in the language as reported by teachers. This study required that 133 adult ESOL learners in various parts of Britain complete a questionnaire that had been translated in to the respondents’ mother tongues. The questionnaire contained keywords that alluded to social and linguistic stereotypes. The respondents also gave information regarding their use of English in different contexts. After visiting classes and interviewing the teachers, the researchers asked them to grade the respondents’ level of speaking, reading, listening, and writing. The researchers’ hypothesis was that those learners who had a positive attitude towards both the British people and the English language would have much higher levels of English proficiency.

Of all the respondents participating in Khanna’s (1998, p. 104) study, two fairly large groups came from Pakistan and India, while much smaller groups came from Hong Kong, China, Bangladesh, and a scattering of individuals from other countries. For the Bangladesh respondents, the hypothesis turned out to be true. However, the findings appeared to present a complex picture, considering that there were only 8 Bangladeshi respondents. Khanna’s conclusion was that language learning success is simply a matter of attitude. They also found out that the age of entry into the United Kingdom was a significant factor in success in language learning.

Like many other cross-cultural studies done previously, the one carried out by Khanna (1998) was based on the psychological notion of motivation while at the same time incorporating a sociolinguistic approach in exploring aspects of language use and learning. Studies of this nature have been providing a clear picture of the attitudes, motivations, and trends of language use among adult learners outside the classroom, where it matters most.

In a research carried out in Canada by Norton (2001), it was clear that social contexts and discursive positioning play as important a role as the relations between learning both in and outside the classroom. The most notable observation in Norton’s study, however, was the definition of an excellent language learner, which was seen to be at variance with those defined in the SLA tradition. Norton’s study involved five immigrant language learners, who were engaged in diaries, questionnaires, and interviews for one year, part of which consisted of a six-month intensive language program upon arrival into the country. The research focused on the way these learners acquired language outside the classroom, mainly through interactions with speakers of the target language. After one year, the learners viewed themselves having benefited from the six-month intensive ESOL program, which they said enabled them learn all the basics of the English language. However, they added that it was only through daily conversations outside the classroom that they were able to achieve fluency. Meanwhile, not all the women could access the social networks for such conversations. Moreover, the immigrants were often compelled to communicate in very challenging circumstances.

The success of ESOL courses from teachers’ perspective

It appears that ESOL researchers have been more interested about the level of success for learners than for teachers (Perdue 1993, p. 119, Carr-Hill 1996, p. 95). However, there is a considerably large inventory of research studies relating to the success of ESOL from the perspective of teachers (Wedell 2004, p. 102). In one such study, Reeves (2009, p. 113) talks a out socio-cultural frames, whereby teacher knowledge is seen as emanating from these teachers’ lived experiences rather than merely from the experiences that come with the teacher preparation process. Reeves (2009) observes that teachers’ experiences as learners of a language have a key role to play in shaping their base as ESOL tutors. In essence, Reeves’ study was more or less concerned with teachers’ knowledge base and the extent to which they would feel that they had succeed in their roles in ESOL (Nabei 2002, p. 45). The element of teachers’ knowledge base that was explored was their linguistic knowledge for teaching.

In case studies of two career ESOL teachers who had similar language-learner biographies during the early years of their careers, Reeves concluded that the teachers’ linguistic experiences had a lot of influence on the way ESOL programs were carried out. This was the case considering the far-reaching implications on ESOL teacher education. The implication tended to manifest themselves in the need to attune teacher preparation programs to be in line with teacher candidates’ biographies.

Kambouri (1996, p. 93), on his part, adopted a completely different approach, and focus was on the factors that contributed to dropout and progression rates for students enrolled in 33 ESOL programs in England and Wales. Data for this study was obtained through teacher and student surveys. The results of this study indicated that the level of movement from to and from various ESOL classes among students was high. In more intensive courses, a large number of learners would be graded and many of them would come from other types of programs. At the face of it, teachers interpreted this to mean success in their teaching activities. However, there could be some other deep-seated factors that were influencing the movement of learners.

In Kambouri’s (1996, p. 93) candid observation, a half of the learners continued with their studies into their second year. This made tutors and students alike to start feeling that there were some ways in which the educational services could be improved. Most students tended to have prior English training up to a certain level. Quite interestingly, one-quarter of the learners would either transfer to another class or they would progress out of the ESOL training program altogether. This tendency creates the feeling that the students lacked something that they had been looking for in their current classes and they were hopping from one class to the other hoping to find it. It was also interesting that most of the students who recorded success in terms of reaching their goals came from intensive courses.

The study by Kambouri (1996, p. 93) had a lot of analytical perspectives to be put into consideration. This is a reflection of the great extent into which this study delved into the issue of success in ESOL, not just for students but also for teachers as well. Teachers, for instance, considered the high number of students entering into the intensive program types to be indicators of relative success of these intensive courses. For various reasons, one-quarter of the student population dropped out of ESOL programs throughout the duration of the study. Although one-fifth of the dropouts indicated they were dissatisfied with the courses, their tutors thought that it was only 4% that really felt dissatisfied. For 30% of the students, the reasons for dropping out were personal, yet tutors estimated this group to be only 20%.

To this extent, one observes in Kambouri’s (1996, p. 98) study a tendency among tutors to underestimate the proportion of students dropping out of the ESOL programs. This could because of the need to protect their image so that they do not seem to be underperforming in their duties as teachers. It is also clear that the number of students who drop out of ESOL programs for personal reasons was alarmingly high at 30%; even the 20% projection by tutors is also on the higher side. There may be reasonable grounds to argue that there is an association between the students’ personal reasons and their circumstances as either people of asylum seekers, refugees, or minority groups with incomplete familiarity with the cultural settings in which the English language is spoken.

In retrospect, Phillimorea (2011, p. 321) talked about an increased interest to integrate refugees and asylum seekers who are displaced across the UK. As a background to his study, Kambouri noted that the ability to communicate well in English is considered a priority issue in efforts to facilitate integration. A lack of English language proficiency is considered one of the main barriers to employee employment. For this reason, teacher would have reasonable grounds to cite increased employment rates among refugees and asylum seekers who have completed their ESOL courses as an indication of success in their teaching work in these programs.

Phillimorea (2011, p. 321) indicates that in 2004-2005, some 267 million sterling pounds were spend on ESOL classes in the UK. However, as reported by Phillimorea, commentators indicate that refugees and asylum seekers continue to struggle a lot to say basic things in English. In Phillimorea’s study, data from interviews with ESOL tutors and refugees was examined. Moreover, statutory data recording the rates of retention and achievement of refugees and asylum seekers was also analyzed so as to explore the extent of achievement in ESOL. The researcher also explored the effectiveness of the monitoring system that is being used to assess whether ESOL programs meet the specific needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Phillimorea found out that major inconsistencies existed between all the retention and success rates that were observed in the data monitored and those that were reported by refugees and tutors. The researcher also identified a range of problems indicating that monitoring is currently neither robust nor reliable. Moreover, refugees and asylum seekers were clearly viewed to be struggling to acquire a sufficient level of English proficiency to enable integration.

In a different study, Liu (1998, p. 79) argued that strong ethnocentrism continues to exist in all Western English-speaking countries with regard to TESOL teacher education. Liu argued that in these countries, teacher educators have largely continued to neglect the special needs of the various international students who enrol in their programs. Liu goes on to specify the major needs of these international TESOL students, and finally provides suggestions regarding what TESOL teacher education programs need to do to ensure that these needs are met.

For Brandt (2006, p. 358), focus was on teaching practice, specifically in short, highly intensive, pre-service TESOL courses at the certificate level. After drawing upon the outcomes of recent investigations into participants’ experiences on courses offered by UK-based providers internationally, Brandt observed that there is an opportunity for tutors to improve the quality of TESOL training, especially at the initial stages. A qualitative methodology enabled the researcher identify some 26 critical issues, including a few that had to do with the component on the teaching practice of such courses. Brandt suggested that the teaching practice component should only be used by tutors for purposes of assessment while feedback should take on a secondary function. In essence, the study leaned towards emphasis on only assessable performance rather than developmental practice. Unfortunately, the assessable performance may not necessarily entail the competencies that TESOL students are interested in. This finding has far-reaching implications for tutors, trainees, and language students. Specifically, there is need to improve the quality of the TESOL courses offered so that they offer students the specific competencies that they need to excel in their activities in SLA contexts. Specifically, the courses should be designed in such a way that they account for all the prevailing conceptions of adult learning as well as reflective practice. In this regard, a more learner-oriented approach needs to be adopted if teachers are to record increased levels of success in their teaching activities. In such an approach, teachers would be guaranteed of authentic, developmental practice opportunities.

Problems faced by ESOL learners and teachers: results versus expectations

Literature on results versus expectations with regard to ESOL learners and teachers is by and large scanty (Allwright 2002, p. 75, Brooks 2001, p. 30). However, there are some studies that give mention to the issue (McCargar 1993, p. 203, Kumaravadivelu 2003, p. 712, Kegan 2001, p. 3, Gurnah 2000, p. 49). In one such study, Walker (2001, p. 191) notes that although ESOL institutions are inherently educational in outlook, they are essentially service operations. For this reason, Walker argues that commercial success may be dependent on word-of-mouth referrals and recommendations of satisfied clients. In Walker’s (2001) study, the main finding was that in the minds of TESOL clients, ESOL teachers should ideally play a key service role.

In a related study, (Bordia 2006, p. 62) observed that most TESOL teachers agree that students enrol into these programs with deep-seated expectations about both teaching methodology and course content. These expectations undoubtedly play a key role in motivation and learning. However, Bordia laments that the investigation of student expectations has always been a surprising omission from SLA research. After reporting several studies, Bordia develops a model of student expectations through the adoption of the Expectation Disconfirmation Paradigm, which is commonly used in consumer psychology.

On his part, Burton (1998, p. 431) argues that teachers should be involved in research relating to teaching and examination of specific TESOL research issues relating to professional development. In Burton’s view, TESOL researchers should start by characterizing TESOL professional development activity before considering how it relates to other mainstream educational and research traditional.

For both learners and teachers, Atkinson (1999 p. 634) notes that the aspect of culture has been under-examined in TESOL. Atkinson expresses dismay at the lack of serious discussion and critique on TESOL with regard to culture over the last two decades, if the comparison with what happens in other fields such as cultural studies and anthropology is anything to go by. With regard to cultural awareness, therefore, both learners’ and teachers’ expectations appear not to have been met in ESOL courses.

Summary

In summary, although many gains have been made in efforts to address ESOL-related challenges in the UK, there are still problems that policymakers seem not to be aware of. Although ESOL seem to have educational features, they are inherently fall in the category of service operations. Trends in ESOL literature in the UK indicate a move towards individualized learning. However, on the bigger picture, classroom practices continue to be largely detached from practical application in the real-life challenges that ESOL learners, most of them distraught foreigners, face on a daily basis. As Cooke (2006, p. 61) notes, the typical UK ESOL classroom setting ignores the real-life experiences for learners. This, in essence, translates into a lower level of success for both learners and teachers. With regard to gaps in literature, the main areas worthy of further research are those relating to learner motivation levels, teachers’ perspectives on the success of ESOL, the seemingly unbridgeable disparity between results and expectations, and the problems being encountered by ESOL learners and teachers in the UK.

References

Alderson, C, 1984, Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? Longman, London.

Allwright, D, 1996, Social and pedagogic pressures in the language classroom: The role of socialization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Allwright, D, 2002, Learning (and Teaching) as Well as you know how: Why is it so very difficult? University of Southern Denmark, Odense.

Atkinson, D, 1999, ‘TESOL and Culture’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 625-654.

Auerbach, E, 1996, Adult ESL/ Literacy. From the Community to the Community: A guidebook for Participatory Literacy Training, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Barton, D, 2003, Adult ESOL pedagogy: a review of research, an annotated bibliography and recommendations for future research, Literacy Research Centre, Lancaster University, September 2003.

Bell, J, 1993, ‘Discussion of Kerfoot and Wrigley: The Teacher as Bridge Between Program and Practice’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 467–475.

Bell, J, 1995, ‘The Relationship Between L1 and L2 Literacy: Some Complicating Factors’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 687–704.

Bell, J, 1997, Literacy, Culture and Identity, Peter Lang, New York.

Bell, J, 1997, Literacy, Culture and Identity, Peter Lang, New York.

Bird, S, 1998, Pushing Learners to Focus on Form: TESOL, Institute of Education, London.

Bishop, H, 1989, ‘Contradictions in provision for bilingual students aged 15–19’, Language Issues, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 2–14.

Bordia, S, 2006, ‘Student Expectations Of TESOL Programs: Student And Teacher Perspectives’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol 29, No 1, pp. 49-92.

Braine, G, 2010, Non-native educators in English language teaching, Foundation Press, New York.

Brandt, C, 2006, ‘Allowing for practice: a critical issue in TESOL teacher preparation’, ELT Journal, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 355-364.

Breen, M, 2001a, Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language classroom, Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New directions in research, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Breen, M, 2001b, The Social Context for Language Learning: A Neglected Situation? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brooks, G, 2001, Progress in Adult Literacy: Do learners learn? The Basic Skills Agency, London.

Burns, A, 2006, ‘Surveying landscapes in adult ESOL research’, Linguistics and Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 97-105.

Burton, J, 1998, ‘A Cross-Case Analysis of Teacher Involvement in TESOL Research’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 419-446.

Carr-Hill, R, 1996, Lost Opportunities: The Language Skills of Linguistic Minorities in England and Wales, The Basic Skills Agency, London.

Cooke, M, 2000, Wasted Opportunities: a case study of two ESOL programmes in a Further Education College in central London, Institute of Education, London.

Cooke, M, 2006, ‘“When I wake up I dream of electricity”: The lives, aspirations and ‘needs’ of Adult ESOL learners’, Linguistics and Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 56-73.

Dubin, F, 1992, Cross-Cultural Literacy: global perspectives on reading and writing, Regents/Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Ellis, R, 2001, ‘Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom’ TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 407–432.

Faine, M, 1988, A Further Education response – North-east London: Current Issues in Teaching English as a Second Language to Adults, Edward Arnold, London.

Gurnah, A, 2000, Languages and literacies for autonomy. Multilingual Literacies: reading and writing different worlds, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Hamilton, M, & Merrifield, J, 2000, Adult learning and literacy in the United Kingdom, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Hammond, J, 1992, The Pedagogical Relations Between Adult ESL and Adult Literacy, NCELTR, Macquarie University and the Language and Literacy Centre, University of Technology, Sydney.

Kambouri, M, 1996, Where Next? Drop Out and Progression from ESOL Provision, The Basic Skills Agency, London.

Kegan, R, 2001, Toward a new pluralism in ABE / ESOL classrooms: Teaching to multiple “cultures of mind” National Centre for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, NCSALL, Boston.

Khanna, A, 1998a, Adult ESOL Learners in Britain: A Cross-Cultural Study, MultiLingual Matters, Clevedon.

Kumaravadivelu, B, 2003, ‘Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 709-719.

Liu, D, 1998, ‘Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students’, ELT Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 3-10.

McCargar, D, 1993, Teacher and Student Role Expectations: Cross-Cultural Differences and Implications, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 192-207.

Millam, K, 2000, Computer Assisted Language Learning: A practical guide to integrating CALL into the ESOL Curriculum, London Language and Literacy Unit, London.

Nabei, T, 2002, ‘Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: a case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning’, Language Awareness, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 43–63.

National Research and Development Centre for Adult Numeracy, 2010, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) – case studies of provision, learners’ needs and resources,

Norton, B, 2001, ‘Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 307–322.

Norton, B, 2001b, ‘Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 307–322.

Norton, B, 2006, ‘Not an afterthought: Authoring a text on adult ESOL’, Linguistics and Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 91-96.

Perdue, C, 1993, Adult language acquisition: cross-linguistic perspectives, Cambridge, University Press. Cambridge.

Phillimorea, J, 2011, ‘Monitoring for equality? Asylum seekers and refugees’ retention and achievement in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 317-329.

Rees, S, 1990, Meeting the Demand? London Language and Literacy Unit, London.

Reeves, J, 2009, ‘A socio-cultural perspective on ESOL teachers’ linguistic knowledge for teaching’, Linguistics and Education, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 109-125.

Richards, J, 1988, ‘The Practicum in TESOL’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 9-27.

Rivera, K, 1999, ‘Popular Research and Social Transformation: A Community-Based Approach to Critical Pedagogy’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 485–500.

Roberts, C, 1992, Quality in teaching and learning: Four multicultural classrooms in Further Education, Department of Employment, Sheffield.

Roberts, C, 2001, Language Acquisition or Language Socialisation in and through Discourse? Towards a Redefinition of the domain of SLA: English Language Teaching in its Social Context, Routledge, London.

Roden, J, 1999, ‘Swedish as a Second Language Project for Refugees’ Language Issues, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 8–10.

Schellekens, P, 2001, English Language as a Barrier to Employment, Training and Education, DFEE, London.

Schellekens, P, 2001, English Language as a Barrier to Employment, Training and Education, DFEE, London.

Slimani, A, 2001, Evaluation of Classroom Interaction: English Language Teaching in its Social Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sunderland, H, 1992, A Tutor’s Guide to ESOL Materials for Adult Learners, London Language and Literacy Unit, London.

Thompson, J, 1994, ‘Developing an English for Academic and Professional Purposes Programme for Refugees/Asylum Seekers’, Language Issues, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 29–32.

Vargas, K, 2001, ‘Information Learning Technology (ILT) developments and ESOL’, Language Issues, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 16–19.

Walker, J, 2001, ‘Client views of TESOL service: expectations and perceptions’, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.187 – 196.

Wedell, M, 2004, ‘TESOL initial teacher training and TESOL curriculum goals: making the connection’ In: Initial Education for Teachers of English: What can be learned from the International Experience? 26 April 2004, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago.

Wlazlinski, M, 2010, Non-native English Teacher Educator’s Response to Prevailing Socio-cultural Conditions: Implications for TESOL Education Programs, Routledge, London.

Wrigley, H, 1992, Bringing Literacy to Life: Issues and options in Adult ESL literacy, Dominie Press. San Diego, Ca.