Skip to main content

What about the defined vocabulary lists for the new GCSE?

This will be the last of my posts commenting on the proposals for the new GCSE, currently going through a 10 week consultation period. Once again, my aim is to reflect personally and hopefully help you with your own thinking.

The document is here. It’s only 29 pages long, with a large part (curiously, but signficantly) devoted to grammar lists.

https://consult.education.gov.uk/ebacc-and-arts-and-humanities-team/gcse-mfl-subject-content-review/supporting_documents/GCSE%20MFL%20subject%20content%20document.pdf

The proposal is that Foundation Tier a list of 1200 words will be produced (1700 at Higher Tier). These lists will be based primarily (90%) on what are called frequency corpora - databases of language as it is used. The use of corpora is interesting. To start with, what appears in a corpus depends on where the language is drawn from. Spoken language? Written language? ‘Standard’ forms? Do they include commonly used swear words? Do they include, for example, South American Spanish or Canadian French? You can see a few issues here. The 90% figure allows for some wiggle room in the choice of words. A small number of multi-word phrases are allowed in the lists.

In the new exams only words from these lists will be used, for example in reading and listening texts. Any words not from the lists will have to be glossed separately, but cannot exceed 2% of the words in the text.

As I see it, the reasons for this approach are two-fold. The first is theoretical, stemming from the idea that when we speak a language we largely use high frequency language which is transferable from one context to another. So, even if you are doing a text on recycling in France, the language of that text will contain plenty of words which aren’t just about the environment. This principle underpins the TSC/NCELP approach to vocabulary - focus on high-frequency vocabulary, especially verbs, to produce automaticity in the most efficient manner. This also explains why NCELP eschews a topic-based curriculum, since this may require too much less common, topic-specific vocabulary.

The second reason they have gone for a defined list is that they wished to respond to the common complaint levelled at the current GCSE, namely that texts (especially listening) are too hard and contain too many words not in the vocabulary list. The fact that glossing will also be allowed should mean that the exams seem easier than now and make the subject more attractive. This is key. A major reason for this reform was to respond the perceived crisis in the subject and to help the government achieve its (unrealistic) goal of 90% take-up at GCSE.

As an aside, you can make an exam easier, but this does not mean grades will improve, of course. As it stands, grading remains harsh for MFL, so there are good reasons to allow the new assessment regime to produce better grades. That’s a political decision.

It is easy to find fault with a defined list based, in this case, on quite a low word count - 1700 words at Higher Tier is low when compared to other countries’ syllabuses (thank you MFL Transform). A crucial issue is whether you can do interesting content with limited vocab. The answer is that you cannot, so if text book writers and teachers are to use interesting material they will have to use rarer, topic-specific words. They will also want to teach strategies for working out the meaning of new words. Keep in mind too that there is a strong correlation between language proficiency and vocabulary size. You need a sizeable vocabulary to speak and understand well.

On the other hand, it may seem to you only fair that pupils be tested on what’s in the syllabus, not stuff which isn’t there. After all, we wouldn't expect a geography student to be tested on volcanoes if they had studied rivers, but not volcanoes. But should we test pupils on their ability to infer words from context? This is a real life, important skill.

In addition, if you believe that the key to acquisition is comprehensible input, then it seems right to make sure that exam texts are easy enough and reflect good classroom practice. There is currently a perceived mismatch between the classroom and the exam. As I mentioned before, many teachers complain that the exams are just too hard and therefore unfair.

Another issue to keep in mind is the fact that these lists largely consist of isolated words, not chunks. This may have the negative backwash effect of encouraging teachers to favour word learning at the expense of chunk learning and practice. NCELP has, in my view, failed to take on board the importance of chunking in its methodology. They still, essentially, support a ‘words + grammar’ methodology, believing that is what produces creative language use. We know this has failed for many, many pupils over the years. Chunking does, of course, generate creative language use and is not just about memorising phrases which cannot be used to produce novel sentences.

In sum, there are pros and cons when it comes to defined lists. Note, in passing, that we don’t have any at A-level. My feeling about this is that on balance it’s a good idea, but that that there is a serious risk that teachers end up limiting their ambition by avoiding other useful and interesting vocabulary. Notoriously in England, with its high-stakes GCSE, we teach to the test, this is a real danger. I would argue that it’s up to teachers and writers not to fall into this trap. Too often we are slaves to the exam and need to have the courage to choose texts and tasks because they are inherently stimulating and useful for acquisition.

A second risk, alluded to before, is that some teachers and pupils may imagine that learning the words on the list will guarantee success. This is far from the case.

I also have concerns about NCELP’s rather evangelical rejection of ‘topics’. It feels to me that they have taken one issue (vocabulary frequency and the problems with themed/topic vocabulary lists) and used it as an argument to ditch topics full stop. (The research on the disadvantages of learning from themed lists is not that strong, and previously, eminent writers like Paul Nation encouraged the practice.)  Avoiding topics is unnecessarily zealous. You need content and it makes sense to me to organise that content thematically in some way. I hope the exam boards find interesting ways to do this, if they are allowed to do so by Ofqual.

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 (