Skip to main content

Should MFL teachers show films at the end of term?

I gather that some schools and departments have a policy which forbids teachers from showing films to classes at the end of term.

I used to have slightly mixed feelings about this issue, but on balance I believe that showing a movie in the foreign language with subtitles, even without any attached work, is a valid activity. Pourquoi?

If a class has been working solidly for a year on comprehension, speaking, new vocabulary and grammar, it is quite possible that intercultural understanding may have been a little neglected. A good choice of film provides students with an excellent route into the target language culture as well as a pretty good source of authentic language, spoken at natural speed. I say pretty good, because ideally, the language would be basic enough and spoken at such a pace that students could understand it fairly well. This is not the case with movies, but even so, if the film is well selected, pupils will pick up bits and pieces of language, hear the language in real contexts and, maybe crucially, get the impression that the foreign language is not just a school subject, but a living entity used by real people. In addition, a well chosen film will leave a lasting impression on children and hopefully create a positive association with the language.

Oh, and I nearly forgot, most teachers are on their knees by the end of the year, so they need a bit of enjoyment and relaxation too.

There are copyright implications with showing films, but your school may have purchased a licence to allow it. In reality I suppose not many of us worry too much about showing a film we have paid for.

We all have our favourite movies to show classes. My particular favourites were Les Choristes (usable with all ages, charming, funny and always enjoyed), Au revoir les enfants (better with slightly older children, with language spoken clearly at a reasonable pace) and Etre et avoir (good for older classes, but probably too slow-paced for young ones). With younger learners I would avoid Jean de Florette/Manon des sources because the accents are too hard to follow. I would also, with younger viewers, stay clear of films with too much violence or sexual content - this rules out a terrific film like Amélie.

By the way, if you want some quirky short movies for classes, try this collection:

http://filmstore.bfi.org.uk/acatalog/info_17774.html

I showed this one to Y10 classes:



Comments

  1. With all the French films in my school's library and netflix, my French 5 class (17 and 18 year olds) was almost entirely movie based! I think film is a great way to learn and engage students of all levels :) keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for leaving a comment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I totally believe in film as a teaching tool. As an American teacher, I show Disney films in French with English subtitles to French 1 students (usually 14-15 years of age). They know them by heart already. Then I wean them away from the subtitles. I graduate French 2 & 3 (16-17) to French films with English subtitles, then no subtitles.

    I'm currently doing an immersion program in Brest, France. Last week, we showed Astérix chez les Égyptiens with Depardieu as Obélix in French with French subtitles. This opened a whole new world to me. Somehow, it never occurred to me to use the French subtitles. But it made for a positive experience for students of all levels. I will certainly use French subtitles when I begin classes at home in August.

    Thanks for your post!

    Michael Heitz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Michael. Thanks for commenting. Yes, French subtitles can work well for the right students. I wonder to what extent a film with English subtitles represents comprehensible input? Students understand what's happening and being said, but without doing much decoding.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can