ABSTRACT
Early English language teaching (EELT) can be considered the most important development in English language teaching in the past few decades (Rich 2014; Rixon 2013). As English has become the dominant global language for economics and politics, governments have seen it necessary to ensure their competitiveness on the world stage through the encouragement of an English-speaking workforce (Garton et al. 2013; Rich 2014). This has led to the introduction of ELT programmes at ever earlier ages, generally under the questionable assumption that earlier is better for eventual English proficiency. We do not seek to join the ongoing debate over the decision to teach English to younger children (see Singleton and Pfenninger, this volume), but instead to simply recognise that it is happening. The issue in EELT is not necessarily the age of introduction, but rather the question of syllabus fit and related methodology, materials, assessment targets and standards which are too often based on adult ELT programmes and criteria, such as CEFR indicators (Hasselgreen 2013; Hayes 2014; Rich 2014; Rixon 2013). Throughout the chapter, we will be applying Bourke’s (2006) definition of ‘syllabus’ in an EELT context: encompassing course contents, reflecting a particular pedagogical approach and views of SLA as well as explicitly stated goals and related learning aims and objectives. While ‘syllabus’ and ‘curriculum’ are often used interchangeably in ELT literature, in order to unpack key issues and principles involved in what Pantaleoni (1991) calls ‘syllabusing at the primary level’, it is crucial for us to differentiate. A ‘curriculum’ operates at the macro (often national and Ministerial) level while a ‘syllabus’ is ‘a more day-to-day, localised guide for the teacher … a statement of approach … a rationale for how that content should be selected and ordered’ (Pantaleoni 1991, p. 302).
