As they say in Dragon’s Den, this is where I am.
There were two drivers for this reform:
1. A desire to make GCSE more ‘accessible’ (easier) for students to help raise uptake at KS4 and help the government get closer to its eventual aim of 90% of students doing the whole Ebacc suite. At the moment we are at about 50%, which in recent history is where KS4 uptake seems to settle without compulsion (Dobson, 2018).
The attempt to increase accessibility is exemplified by the changes in question rubrics (making more use of English to reduce ambiguity) and limiting the range of vocabulary which can be used in papers (1200 word families for Foundation Tier and 1700 for Higher). Another example is the insistence that listening texts be delivered at a moderate pace. These changes have been made in response to frequent complaints about unclear question prompts and unfairly hard listening papers.
2. An ideological wish to encourage teachers to adopt any methodology which focuses very explicitly on phonics, vocabulary and grammar. This goes back to the TSC Review (Bauckham, 2016),
This is clearly exemplified by the inclusion of the reading aloud part of the Speaking test and the inclusion of dictation in the listening paper. I would argue that the continued inclusion of translation is a further example. The relatively short vocabulary lists can also be seen as an ideological choice since they are based on a particular view about high-frequency vocabulary. Researchers, e.g. Jim Milton, have pointed out that although it’s important to emphasise common vocabulary, to communicate about what we want to (a stated aim of the Subject Content) we need to use lots of words which fall outside the most frequent 2000 (as defined by corpora - frequency lists).
Another example of ideological bias is the rather grudging acceptance that exam boards can design a small range of broad themes on which to build a specification. In the original proposals, although there was a requirement to set content within the context of the TL culture, there was no wish to have any particular themes or topics. As a reminder, this is because the DfE (and NCELP) believe designing a syllabus based in topics leads to the use of too much specialised vocabulary at the expense of high-frequency language.Thankfully, awarding bodies can now think about some general themes.
Finally, I would mention that the DfE is at pains to ensure that vocabulary lists consist almost entirely of single words and their various inflected forms. This is because they adhere to a traditional, often criticised belief, that we build proficiency by slotting in words into a grammatical frame (‘words + grammar). This is at odds with lexico-grammatical approaches, notably EPI, but also knowledge organiser approaches and other communicative approaches (TPRS would bean example, rarely used in England). History clearly shows that this sort of structuralist, synthetic, brick-building approach has been largely unsuccessful with most students. It is discredited in most second language acquisition literature.
So, how could teachers react to the reformed subject content? Although there are aspects I have strong reservations about (dictation, reading aloud, translation and narrow word lists), I always try to see a positive side.
If I were a Head if Department I would thinking and saying the following:
1. Do nothing for now! I do not believe this new exam should affect very much what happens at KS3 and the first teaching if these new papers won’t be until the current Y7s reach Y10 (2024). The first exam will be in 2026. (Incidentally, this awful government may have gone by then, so there’s an outside chance this reform could be reviewed.)
If you are teaching phonics explicitly and implicitly (it’s a strong focus of EPI, of course); if you are building vocabulary and grammar skill via your chosen approach; then all is fine! Your pupils will be developing sound reading aloud, pronunciation and lexical skill.
2. Wait and see what awarding bodies come up with. Whatever moans you have about exam boards, thety were generally hostile to these reforms and will attempt to design specifications and papers which teachers and students like. (You never please everyone.) They have the freedom to choose themes they believe will appeal and which satisfy the Ofqual brief. They will use their skill to produce lightly glossed texts with decent content, despite the vocabulary constraints.
Remember that the vocabulary lists do let teachers clearly know what has to be learned, even though simple breadth of isolated word knowledge does not produce comprehension.
3. I’d like to stress this next point strongly. Teachers do not need to limit content to the prescribed word lists. Good teachers will be led by what they and their students find interesting. By using interesting, comprehensible texts and activities, the high-frequency words will get used, repeatedly. There is a risk that teachers focus too much on declarative knowledge of prescribed words. They really shouldn't - and, to be fair, NCELP have said the same!
4. I would not be tempted to use the DfE/NCELP resources. In my view, they are far from the best way to get your students where they need to be to achieve good GCSE results. Use what is working already, whether it be a textbook-based course, EPI, KOs, or any hybrid approach which classes find motivating. Remember that proficiency develops not through building dry declarative knowledge of words and grammar. It develops through hearing, reading and using connected language in interesting, communicative contexts. And in the end, GCSE will still be largely assessing proficiency.
For practical workload reasons I would try, as far as possible, to use or adapt the resources and lesson plans you have already. No reinventing of wheels.
In sum, let’s wait a good while and see what sort of specimen papers the exam boards come up with. They will have to through a lengthy, to-and-fro process with Ofqual. They have an extra year to do this, but it will still be a rush. I can’t be sure, but my gut feeling is that what we emerge with may be better than some fear and not hugely different to what we have now. Unlike some, I don’t see this as a revolution.
More broadly, will it achieve the DfE’s Ebacc aims? No. The ‘comparable outcomes’ grading policy means MFL will still be seen as a harder option. (Why don’t they be brave and actually make grades easier than other subjects? That would raise uptake at a stroke.)
Will it actually put off more students? Only if teachers start teaching worse at primary and KS3, or choose resources pupils don’t like.
For now, I’d keep calm and carry on.
References
Bauckham, I. (2016). The TSC Review of MFL Pedagogy. See ncelp.org.
Dobson, A. (2018). Towards ‘MFL for all’ in England: a historical perspective.
Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09571736.2017.1382058
Comments
Post a Comment