Skip to main content

Why do we value writing so highly?

In our modern language exams we continue to value writing too highly as a skill. In the new GCSE being taught from September 2016  it will be worth 25% of marks (compared with 30% now). At A-level it will continue to have a high value, even though, as currently proposed, part of the written assessment will be in English.

It is hard to argue that writing is as useful a language skill as speaking, listening and reading. When most people think of being proficient at a language, they are thinking of proficiency in speaking and listening. Most of the contexts we use a new language involve listening and speaking. Yet we continue to set numerous writing tasks in the classroom and at home; we continue to give writing quite a heavy weighting in exams. Why?

We can partly blame tradition. In the days of grammar-translation writing was preeminent since the teaching of modern languages evolved in large part from the way Latin had been taught. Accuracy trumped communication and accuracy was most easily assessed by correcting writing. Nowadays teachers value communication more highly than accuracy. However, our teaching and assessment methods have, somewhat begrudgingly, only taken partial account of this. We have further to go and, at some time in the future, we no doubt will give writing its appropriate place.

Technology plays as important role. In the past it was either impossible or not easy to set listening and speaking tasks at home. This is no longer the case. Computers, tablets and mobile phones make it easy to record and store the voice. Internet links with school should now make it pretty easy to upload and download recordings. Yet most teachers default to writing tasks, most likely because collecting and marking books is more familiar. It is hard to break with established practice and some teachers are reluctant to master new technologies.

Does this mean we should largely abandon writing as a skill? After all, computer translation is becoming more and more accurate and does a very good job at a simple level. I would argue against this, not because we need to develop written skill per se, but because writing supports and helps embed the other skills. Writing out answers to comprehension exercises or grammar drills allows for some thinking time and is one (less than perfect) source of comprehensible input. It does allow students to think through the use of structures and to develop their grammatical and communicative competence.

Thinking pragmatically, it also is the type of skill which keeps classes usefully busy when they and the teacher need some "down time". It is still a way to exert class control, even though it is used far less for this than in the past. A pupil with pen in hand writing notes or typing on a computer keyboard, writing exercises or a composition may be less likely to lose focus.

A written record of a student's knowledge and skills is also permanent evidence, easy to access.The teacher is able to look back through a student's progress more easily on paper than by going through voice recordings.

Deep down, have we found it hard to escape from the idea that writing is somehow more serious, more rigorous than speech? I am sure there is something in this. An educated person has traditionally been viewed as someone who, as well as speaking in an articulate fashion, reads a lot, spells correctly and writes grammatically. The most highly educated people also continue to value standard forms of the language over dialect, despite some evolution in this regard.

Is writing the most demanding skill to master in language learning? Does this give it higher value? Probably not. That honour goes to speaking. At least with writing you have time to reflect, edit, redraft, do more mental translation from the mother tongue, use a dictionary. Speaking, on the other hand, places greater demands on the learner. Very quick reactions to listening input and recall of vocabulary and structure are required. Speaking in the classroom is also an activity which makes many students self-conscious. Less able students are often more comfortable writing things down at a simple level than trying to put sentences together orally.

I would hope that, if we continue to assess the four skills separately (we do not have to), we move towards valuing listening and speaking more highly, reading and writing less. A sensible balance at GCSE and A-level might be something like: Speaking 30%, Listening 30%, Reading 25%, Writing 15%.

Comments

  1. Writing should be valued highly. In fact, productive skills (writing, speaking) are harder than receptive skills (reading, listening), so they should weigh more. I suggest writing (30%), speaking (30%), reading (20%), listening (20%).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. We speak far more than we use any of the other skills. Good writing is far more than grammatical accuracy. No one listens much nowadays, more interested in thinking up what to say next to impose own opinion, and it's easy to find a piece of native speech which would be incomprehensible even to most teachers!!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Sentence Stealers with a twist

Sentence Stealers is a reading aloud game invented by Gianfranco Conti. I'll describe the game to you, then suggest an extension of it which goes a bit further than reading aloud. By the way, I shouldn't need to justify the usefulness of reading aloud, but just in case, we are talking here about matching sounds to spellings, practising listening, pronunciation and intonation and repeating/recycling high frequency language patterns.

This is how it works:

Display around 15 sentences on the board, preferably ones which show language patterns you have been working on recently or some time ago.Hand out four cards or slips of paper to each student.On each card students must secretly write a sentence from the displayed list.Students then circulate around the class, approaching their classmates and reading a sentence from the displayed list. If the other person has that sentence on one of their cards, they must hand over the card. The other person then does the same, choosing a sentenc…

The age factor in language learning

This post draws on a section from Chapter 5 of Jack C. Richards' splendid handbook Key Issues in Language Teaching (2015). I'm going to summarise what Richards writes about how age factors affect language learning, then add my own comments about how this might influence classroom teaching.

It's often said that children seem to learn languages so much more quickly and effectively than adults. Yet adults do have some advantages of their own, as we'll see.

In the 1970s it was theorised that children's success was down to the notion that there is a critical period for language learning (pre-puberty). Once learners pass this period changes in the brain make it harder to learn new languages. Many took this critical period hypothesis to mean that we should get children to start learning other languages at an earlier stage. (The claim is still picked up today by decision-makers arguing for the teaching of languages in primary schools.)

Unfortunately, large amounts of rese…

Dissecting a lesson: teaching an intermediate written text

This post is a beginner’s guide about how you might go about working with a written text with low-intermediate or intermediate students (Y10-11 in England). I must emphasise that this is not what you SHOULD do, just one approach based on my own experience and keeping in mind what we know about learning and language learning in particular. Experienced teachers may find it interesting to compare this sequence with what you do yourself.

You can adapt the sequence below to the class, context and your own preferred style. I’m going to assume that the text is chosen for relevance, interest and comprehensibility. The research suggests that the best texts are at the very least 90% understandable, i.e. you would need to gloss no more than 10% of the words or phrases. The text could be authentic, or more likely adapted authentic from a text book, or teacher written. It would likely be fairly short so you have time to exploit it intensively, recycling as much useful language as possible.

So here w…