Skip to main content

A close look at the draft Programme of Study for KS2/3

https://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/f/languages%2004-02-13.pdf

The document begins with a general statement of the aims of learning languages. This "purpose of study" begins with the clunky phrase "liberation from insularity" followed by: "A high-quality languages education should foster pupils’ curiosity and deepen their understanding of the world." No quibble there. The same introductory paragraph continues:

It should also provide opportunities for them to communicate for practical purposes, learn new ways of thinking and read great literature in the original language.

The third of those opportunities is very specific and reveals a bias we shall see flavouring the whole document. Why "read great literature"? Why not "watch great films" or "read online newspapers" or "read scientific papers"? Literature is not of interest to every language learner.

In the four aims of study which follow there is reference to "an appreciation of a range of writing in the language studied". Although there is also a reference to responding to spoken language, the bias towards the written form is evident. The fourth aim seems superfluous to me.

Moving on, I am not going to look at the KS2 section in detail, partly because it is not my area of expertise, but I do note the greater reference to writing in the list of things pupils should be taught to do. It is an impressive list of language activities. I wonder how much time primary teachers will get to do them. This section is entitles "foreign languages" to allow for Latin and ancient Greek.

Now, on to the KS3 section of the document (interestingly entitled Modern Foreign Languages). Does this imply Latin and Greek are out at KS3?

The first section is on grammar and vocabulary. This order is not random and reflects the priority allocated to this area. Two things stand out in this section. Firstly, pupils should be taught to:

use and manipulate a variety of key grammatical structures and patterns, including voices and moods, as appropriate

The reference to voices and moods seems fussy and in any case would be inappropriate in French at this level. Do we wish to teach the passive at KS3? Do we want to teach the difference between indicative, conditional and subjunctive moods?

Secondly, pupils should be taught to:

develop and use a wide-ranging and deepening vocabulary that goes beyond their immediate needs and interests

I would not argue against this, although the emphasis on going beyond personal interest is noteworthy.

The following section, note, separate from grammar and vocabulary, is entitled "linguistic competence". I would like to pick out some items from this list.

First, point 2 states that pupils should be taught to: "transcribe words and short sentences that they hear with increasing accuracy". There is no doubt that this sort of activity is a regular part of many teachers' practice, for example via dictation, note-taking and gap-filling, but I question whether it requires spelling out in this document. It seems over-fussy in a general statement of aims and practice.

Next, pupils should be taught to:

read and show comprehension of original and adapted materials from a range of different sources, understanding the purpose, important ideas and details, and provide an accurate English translation of short, suitable material

I welcome the reference to authentic resources and comprehension, but the reference to translating into English is out of place here and could encourage poor classroom practice, notably a reduction of target language use. This reference has the fingerprints of Michael Gove all over it and I doubt if many applied linguists would support its retention in a final document. Detailed comprehension can be developed and assessed by other means that translation and these other means, using target language, constitute better language learning methodology. I do not think Gove realises this. In addition, I would add that detailed translation into English, whilst a good, enjoyable challenge for many pupils and whilst it develops the use of the mother tongue, does not suit pupils of all abilities.

Next, the document states that pupils should be taught to:

read literary texts in the language, such as stories, songs, poems and letters, to stimulate ideas, develop creative expression and expand understanding of the language and culture

Notice once again the emphasis on literature and creative expression. Now, I have felt for some time that our course books are short on stories which fire the imagination of pupils, but the inclusion of the term "literary texts" seems inappropriate here. At KS3 you could go as far as very short accounts, "stories" if you will, but is the document seriously suggesting pupils read literature? This would break all the rules of gradation and selection, be too hard and ultimately demotivating for the vast majority of students. There is "aspiration", then there is poor methodology.

The final bullet point states that pupils should be taught to:

write prose using an increasingly wide range of grammar and vocabulary, write creatively to express their own ideas and opinions, and translate short written text accurately into the foreign language.

This contains the second reference to translation, this time from English into the target language. Now, I stress that there can be a place for translation here and there, but if you highlight it in this way and then design an assessment system around it, you risk going back to some of the discredited methods of the grammar-translation past. I repeat: whenever you do translation you spend less time doing target language communication and acquisition is compromised. You can acquire grammar without translation.

Of the eight bullet points in this section, four refer to writing and five to reading or writing. This suggests a slight retreat from the most important skills of listening and speaking. Are these competences considered less "rigorous"?

And that's it!

But I wish to add something else at this juncture. The MFL PoS is different to those in other subject areas in an important respect. The history programme, for example, has been much criticised for being a pub quiz style curriculum, a list of things to know. But at least it does not tell teachers HOW to teach, only WHAT. In contrast, the MFL curriculum says little about the what, much more about the how and that goes against the DfE's claim that they have no preferred teaching style and do not wish to tell teachers how to teach.

I note, as others have, that although there is early reference to insularity and deeper understanding of the world, there is nothing what we currently call intercultural understanding. This should feature more heavily. Further, the emphasis on "literature" is too strong and represents a clear cultural bias.

There is no reference in the KS3 section about which languages may be studied. I find this inconsistent with the position at KS2 where the only allowed languages are French, German, Italian, Mandarin, Spanish, Latin or Ancient Greek.

I have not referred to KS2 in this evaluation, but I would note that the inclusion of Latin and Ancient Greek, but the omission of, say, Polish, Russian, Japanese and Arabic is anachronistic. Latin has a place, but not at KS2 or KS3 in my view. There is so little time in the curriculum for languages, that we cannot afford to spend it on classical languages. Michael Gove's own predilections are once again in play.

Finally, let us not forget that, if Michael Gove gets his way, most schools (academies, free schools and independents) would not have to follow this programme anyway! I have never got that.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The latest research on teaching vocabulary

I've been dipping into The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017) edited by Loewen and Sato. This blog is a succinct summary of Chapter 16 by Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt on the topic of teaching vocabulary. I hope you find it useful.

1.  Background

The authors begin by outlining the clear importance of vocabulary knowledge in language acquisition, stating that it's a key predictor of overall language proficiency (e.g. Alderson, 2007). Students often say that their lack of vocabulary is the main reason for their difficulty understanding and using the language (e.g. Nation, 2012). Historically vocabulary has been neglected when compared to grammar, notably in the grammar-translation and audio-lingual traditions as well as  communicative language teaching.

(My note: this is also true, to an extent, of the oral-situational approach which I was trained in where most vocabulary is learned incidentally as part of question-answer sequence…

Delayed dictation

What is “delayed dictation”?

Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music.

It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too.

Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating.

In our language teaching case, though, the earworm is a word, chunk of l…

Designing a plan to improve listening skills

Read many books and articles about listening and you’ll see it described as the forgotten skill. It certainly seems to be the one which causes anxiety for both teachers and students. The reasons are clear: you only get a very few chances to hear the material, exercises feel like tests and listening is, well, hard. Just think of the complex processes involved: segmenting the sound stream, knowing lots of words and phrases, using grammatical knowledge to make meaning, coping with a new sound system and more. Add to this the fact that in England they have recently decided to make listening tests harder (too hard) and many teachers are wondering what else they can do to help their classes.

For students to become good listeners takes lots of time and practice, so there are no quick fixes. However, I’m going to suggest, very concisely, what principles could be the basis of an overall plan of action. These could be the basis of a useful departmental discussion or day-to-day chats about meth…

Five great advanced level French listening sites

If your A-level students would like opportunities to practise listening there are plenty of sources you can recommend for accessible, largely comprehensible and interesting material. Here are some I have come across while searching for resources over recent years.

Daily Geek Show

I love this site. It's fresh, youthful and full of really interesting material. They have an archive of videos, both short and long, from various sources, grouped under a range of themes: insolite (weird news items), science, discovery, technology, ecology and lifestyle. There should be something there to interest all your students while adding to their broader education. Here is one I enjoyed (I shall seriously think about buying tomatoes in winter now):




France Bienvenue

This site has been around for years and is the work of a university team in Marseilles. You get a mixture of audio and video material complete with transcripts and explanations.This is much more about the personal lives of the students …

Responsive teaching

Dylan Wiliam, the academic most associated with Assessment for Learning (AfL), aka formative assessment, has stated that these labels have not been the most helpful to teachers. He believes that they have been partly responsible for poor implementation of AfL and the fact that AfL has not led to the improved outcomes originally intended.

Wiliam wrote on Twitter in 2013:

“Example of really big mistake: calling formative assessment formative assessment rather than something like "responsive teaching".”

For the record he subsequently added:

“The point I was making—years ago now—is that it would have been much easier if we had called formative assessment "responsive teaching". However, I now realize that this wouldn't have helped since it would have given many people the idea that it was all about the teacher's role.”

I suspect he’s right about the appellation and its consequences. As a teacher I found it hard to get my head around the terms AfL and formative assess…