Skip to main content

Does progressive mean communicative?

I was reading a very politicised article by John Bald who is an experienced languages and literacy consultant who writes a blog, has advised the DfE and who writes for the Conservativehome website. He was arguing that the new national curriculum offers a fresh start and a chance to reject the "progressive" view of language teaching - what he also calls "left" language teaching. By progressive I take John to mean "communicative" or "naturalistic" i.e. the general approach wherby target language dominates and which, in his view, literacy is relegated to a secondary role. I hope I have not misrepresented John too much.

I must confess that I had not really made the link between the communicative approach and "progressivism" in language teaching. Perhaps I should have.

John wrote:

I’ve seen the results of the progressive approach at first hand and discussed them with pupils.
Almost all dislike it and many hate it. It involves equal confusion for all – “It’s as if it’s all one word,” as one pupil put it, and even one of its advocates, at a school with an excellent reputation, told a conference at Wellington College last year that, “We have a lot of tears in the first term.” The long term consequences are the collapse of language learning at A level – German has ceased to be provided in large areas of the country, and had only 3000 entries at A level last year – slower export growth, and impaired international relations.

A little further down he wrote:

The fact that progressive influence in language teaching has led to failure, misery and decline does not put its proponents off for a minute. They continue to use their influence to promote mixed ability teaching and to block research designed to identify effective teaching.

We all come at teaching languages from a particular perspective and with varying experiences, but I have to say that I barely recognise John's assessment.

A bit of context: the communicative approach is said to have a strong and a weak form. The strong form, as I understand it, values near total target language use, little focus on grammar and writing, greater focus on the functions of language. The weak form is the one which many teachers prefer. It still values target language use, but with significant focus on grammatical explanation and written accuracy. It is, if you like, the equivalent of Blair's "third way" in language teaching. You can have your cake and eat it by providing lots of Krashen-style comprehensible input together with a focus on grammatical accuracy and traditional forms of learning and memorisation.

I have the feeling, reading what John wrote, that he is really criticising the strong communicative approach, which may have taken hold somewhat in the 1980s. (I recall an awful textbook which was widely sold at the time called Avantage, which focused relatively little on grammar, more on "functions" and "notions" in language. It was hard to use in class forced the teacher into using too much English.) I have read some research which suggested that pupils were put off languages by teachers using the communicative approach. Perhaps it was done badly, just as grammar-translation was often done badly. I hope that few teachers these days stand by an extreme form of the communicative approach, endeavouring to explain and practise grammar and writing where appropriate.

What concerns me a little is that if you caricature current language teaching by suggesting that it creates "failure, misery and decline" and that it is the "progressive" approach which has led to the collapse in A-level take-up (a faulty assessment in my view and one not supported by the recent JCQ report on the issue), it gives you a pretext for reverting to outmoded methods which failed for many in their day. I believe we have seen evidence of this in the new GCSE curriculum with its inclusion of translation and in the proposed A-levels which lay greater emphasis on the use of English and grammatical analysis.

John's belief is based on research he cites, for example brain research, along with his own experience of success using particular methods. That's fine. We can be pragmatic, but it is quite possible to have the best of both worlds. We can do communication, target language and have literacy and rigour. No tears. Traditional? Progressive? Left? Right? I'm not sure those labels are very useful in the debate.


Comments

  1. You are spot on Steve. This kind of attitude makes me so cross! I work within a brilliant MFL department and all of us teach communicatively. I am a German specialist also teaching some French and am really proud to have been taught to teach this way (St. Martin's College, Carlisle). I still get excited to start the new year in September and in my 16 years' experience, the students, on the whole love being taught in this way! I insist (for the most part) on teaching in the TL, including for grammar where possible (http://ontargetteaching.blogspot.com). People who display this kind of attitude towards language teaching are missing the point; we are teaching students to communicate in French, German etc, therefore it makes sense to teach them IN French or German etc! It's all about finding ways to do it properly and make sure you are understood, by using cognates, mimes and other techniques. There is always a way to make yourself understood!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Rebecca. I have looked at your blogs and agree with you about TL teaching which should be thought of as mainstream these days. I find it strange to label approaches as left or right wing, but the fact that John writes for Conservativehome says something, I guess. It is hard to know for sure what most language teachers do. Ofsted have the most information. They say that what works is "traditional activities done well". I assume this to mean a balance of good structured TL teaching, good questioning, pair work, grammar practice etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope your assumption is correct, otherwise I'm in the wrong job! :-)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

5 great zero preparation lesson ideas

When the pressure is on and there are only so many hours on the week, you need a repertoire of zero preparation go-to activities which promote input and/or practice. Here are five you might well find useful.

1. My weekend

We know that listening is the most important yet often neglected skill for language learning. It's also something some pupils find hard to do. To develop listening skill and provide tailored comprehensible input try this:

You tell the class you are going to recount what you did last weekend and that they have to make notes in English. The amount of detail you go into and the speed you go will depend on your class. Talk for about three minutes. If you spent the whole weekend marking, you can always make stuff up!

You then make some true or false (maybe not mentioned too) statements in the target language about what you said in your account. Class gives hands up (or no hands up) answers. This can then lead into a simple pair work task where pupils make up their own tru…

New GCSE resources on frenchteacher

As well as writing resources for the new A-levels, I have in recent months been posting a good range of materials to support the new GCSEs. First exams are not until 2018, but here is what you can find on the site in addition to the many other resources (grammar exercises, texts, video listening etc).

I shall not produce vocabulary lists since the exam board specifications now offer these, with translations.

Foundation Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Role-plays
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (2)
100 translation sentences into French (with answers)
Reading exam
Reading exam (2)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (Word)

Higher Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier)
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier) (2)
20 translations into French (with answers)
Reading exam (Higher tier)
How to write a good Higher Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a…

What teachers are saying about The Language Teacher Toolkit

"The Language Teacher Toolkit is a really useful book for language teachers to either read all the way through or dip into. What I like about it is that the authors Steve Smith and Gianfranco Conti are totally upfront about what they believe to be good practice but back it up with research evidence." (Ernesto Macaro, Oxford University Department of Education)

"I absolutely love this book based on research and full of activities..  The best manual I've read so far. One of our PDs from the Australian Board of Studies recommended your book as an excellent resource.  I look forward to the conference here in Sydney." Michela Pezzi, Teacher, Australia, Facebook)

"Finally, a book for World Language teachers that provides practical ideas and strategies that can actually be used in the classroom, rather than dry rhetoric and theory that does little to inspire creativity in ways that are engaging for both students and teachers alike." (USA teacher, Amazon review)

Three AQA A-level courses compared

I've put together my three reviews of worthy A-level courses which you might be considering for next September. They are all very useful courses, but with significant differences. The traditional Hodder and OUP book-based courses differ in that the former comes in one chunky two year book, whilst OUP's comes in two parts, the first for AS or the first year of an A-level course. The Attitudes16 course by Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri is based on an online platform from which you would download worksheets and share a logon with studenst who would do the interactive parts (Textivate and video work). The two text books are supported by interactive material (Kerboodle) or an e-text book.

Attitudes16





An excellent resource which should be competing for your attention at the moment is the Attitudes16 course which writers Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri have been working on for some time. You can find it here at dolanguages.com, along with his excellent resources for film and li…

The Language Teacher Toolkit review

We were delighted to receive a review of The Language Teacher Toolkit from eminent applied linguist Ernesto Macaro from Oxford University. Macaro is a leader in the field of second language acquisition and applied linguistics. His main research interests are teacher-student interaction and language learning strategies pupils can use to improve their progress.

Here is Professor Macaro's review:
The Language Teacher Toolkit is a really useful book for language teachers to either read all the way through or dip into. What I like about it is that the authors Steve Smith and Gianfranco Conti are totally upfront about what they believe to be good practice but back it up with research evidence. So for example the ‘methodological principles’ on page 11 are supported by the research they then refer to later in the book and this approach is very similar to the one that we (Ernesto Macaro, Suzanne Graham, Robert Woore) have adopted in our ‘consortium project’(http://pdcinmfl.com). The point i…