Skip to main content

Target Language Toolkit

Allison Chase published, earlier this year, a handy little book which would make a useful addition to a departmental library. It is called Target Language Toolkit (90 ideas to get your language learners using more target language).

The chapter titles are;

What does Ofsted say about the target language?
Identifying key language.
Implementing target language routines.
Monitoring and assessing learners' progress in using the target language.
Games and activities to encourage TL use.
Using ICT.
Target language beyond the classroom.
Cracking the toughest nuts.
Homework and independent learning.
Implementing a whole department TL initiative.

This is very much a practical book, with instantly usable ideas for the classroom. It reports Ofsted observations and guidelines (thereby ticking one teacher box), but does not engage in any discussion of the theoretical basis form using TL, which should be pretty self-evident anyway.

Allison provides useful lists of TL phrases for French, German and Spanish under the headings cognates, language for confusion, giving opinions, making excuses, asking permission, agreeing and disagreeing, teacher instructions and rewards. These form a useful list for new teachers building their repertoire of routines.

There is a handy chapter on implementing TL routines which includes one or two which appealed to me in particular. "Expression of the day" is where students tries to use a particular TL expression as many times a day. The expression could be displayed and every time a student uses it, a responsible student rings a bell! Sounds like useful recycling to me! "Talk time" is where you allocate 5-10 minutes to the end (or maybe the start) of a lesson. You have a secret box or bag in which you keep items to stimulate a discussion (probably with intermediate students). Allison says she once used three bars of chocolate, one white, one dark, one milk, and used these as a basis for a chat about what they preferred and how much they ate. Then students were invited to come to the front, were blindfolded and had to taste one of the chocolate types and say what they thought it was.

The chapter on monitoring and assessing includes tables to show how you might go about this. (I would never have got into that level of tracking!)

The heart of the book for me is the chapter on games and activities, most of which are new to me. I would choose to use all of them since some may fall into that category of being fun, but a bit time-consuming for the language generated. But this is a matter of personal taste.  One activity which looked a lot of fun is "Bush tucker trail". You supply a range of strange food items (weird-flavoured crisps, chili flavoured chocolate, German 'black' bread, strong coffee, strong cheese and so on. (Colleagues could contribute and it need not be expensive.) Students can prepare TL for talking about food: I think it will taste..., It's going to be, I want to try..., i don't want to try.... Then: I thought it was... and X was nicer than Y. then maybe questions such as Did you like...? Which was your favourite food? Why?

The chapter entitles Cracking the Toughest Nuts is a realistic acknowledgement of the practical difficulties facing the implementation of TL, e.g. during exam season. Allison provides a number of ideas for tackling this including a rewards booklet, speaking frames and 'emergency flashcards'.

Overall, teachers may appreciate the very practical nature of this book which comes from a fellow teacher who has, as far as I can tell, considerable experience of working with students of all abilities. I would have liked just a little more on how you incorporate TL within familiar drilling style tasks, but that was not the main aim of the book.

It is a self-published book (using CreateSpace) costs £10 and is available from amazon.co.uk

Comments

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,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

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

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be

An NCELP lesson resource analysed

NCELP (National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy) is the body set up and financed by the DfE in England. based at the University of York and headed by Emma Marsden and Rachel Hawkes. It works through a number of hub secondary schools which, in turn, work with a small group of other schools. Their mission is, broadly speaking, to spread the research findings and principles as laid out in the Teaching Schools Council (TSC) Review of MFL Pedagogy from 2016. By sharing a selected body of research, considered relevant to secondary MFL in England, and creating schemes of work and lesson resources across the hub schools, they hope to spread so-called best practice around the country. As I write this, schemes of learning and lesson resources have been written up to the third term of Y8 for French, German and Spanish. I've been watching with interest as these resources have been built up and in general my view has been that the research resources are very useful and informative (