This is the third of three posts based on the findings of Rober Sakhrani's PhD thesis about why uptake in MFL has declined in schools in England. Major sections of his thesis centred on interviews carried out with pupils and teachers in four schools in Norfolk, a rural part of eastern England. Have a look at the previous two posts for concise summaries of his findings.
Aftre putting those posts together with help from ChatGPT my next thought was: so what can schools and departments do about uptake where it is poor? Of course, in many schools, particularly independent schools, MFL is compusory up to GCSE — then the question is more about A-level uptake, which is also very problematic. Where MFL is optional, and uptake is perceived as too low, what can be done?
Below is a list of possible strategies:
Firstly, the pupil and teacher interviews suggest that increasing take-up is not mainly about telling pupils that languages are useful. I agree with this, even if it may help at the margins. At the very least, pupils need to know that MFL does not just lead to teaching, interpreting and translating. A more promising approach is to change pupils’ experience of language learning and the social status of MFL within the school: make students feel successful, make languages visibly relevant beyond the classroom, and create a culture in which being a language learner is a positive thing.
Methodology is bound to play a huge role in this, as is (even more so) teacher skill and cognitive empathy — that ability to sense in classes what they find easy and hard, what (for want of a better term) "switches them on". That's one area over which departments have a lot of control.
Build self-efficacy deliberately. Pupils need repeated experiences of “I can actually do this” and "This is fun". Design lessons so that most pupils regularly succeed in understanding and communicating meaningful messages. EPI seems, anecdotally, to have a good record on this and may explain why so many schools have embraced sentence builders and some form of Conti EPI. Other approaches have their advocates too. So-called CI approaches like TPRS seem to do well in some contexts. In many schools, a diet of loosely communicative methodology supported by some formal grammar practice can work well. a "Knowledge Organiser" approach seems to suit some teachers and pupils. So much depends on teacher beliefs and quality of delivery and, most likley, generic teacher skill may trump the method. Underlying any chosen approach should be an understanding of key components of language acquisition such as comprehensible input, interaction and repetition. We learn a language largely implicitly (unconsciously). We are teaching a means of communication, not subject matter, as scholar Bill VanPatten likes to say.
Prioritise listening and speaking, particularly in the earlier years. If students experience a language primarily as grammar exercises, vocabulary tests and extended writing, it is harder for them to develop an identity as someone who can actually use the language. For me this assumes a focus on communication and a move away from traditional word learning and a PPP approach.
Manage grammar carefully rather than abandoning it. Teach grammar where it enables communication, with plenty of modelling and supported practice, rather than allowing grammatical accuracy to become the principal measure of success. The "pop-up grammar" advocated by EPI and TPRS/CI approaches springs to mind. However, keep in mind that in some contexts formal grammar practice may work better than in others. So, much depends on the school and class. That's not to argue for some sort of "two tier" approach, just to acknowledge that aptitude, setting and motivation vary hugely.
Choose more engaging and age-relevant content. Alongside traditional GCSE topics, incorporate music, film, sport, social media, relationships, travel, food, current culture and issues pupils might discuss in their own lives. Keep in mind what enthuses you as well. In terms of content, you don't have to stick slavishly to the specification. High-frequency language is encountered in all sorts of texts and activities.
Give MFL generous curriculum time. The teacher interviews strongly suggest that restricted timetabling lowers the subject's status and encourages rushed, examination-driven teaching. More time permits richer listening, speaking and cultural work. That's an issue for SLT, but Heads of Department have to defend their territory. Less time = lower results.
Protect MFL's status within the curriculum. Senior leaders need to communicate through timetabling, staffing, options procedures and public messaging that languages are an important part of education rather than a difficult optional extra. In some schools, all this is a given. SLTs often reflect society's general view of language learning, so need to be persuaded.
Make trips and exchanges central rather than peripheral. These directly address one of the strongest findings from both sets of interviews: pupils need experiences which allow them to imagine languages as part of their real lives. My own experience was that trips, and especially exchanges, were great motivators. I know it's been a growing challenge to organise them and it demands a lot of teache time, but th rewards are large, for both teachers and students.
Use virtual exchanges where physical exchanges are impractical. Regular contact with a partner class abroad, shared projects and video conversations can make the language feel like a genuine means of communication. The traditional letter exchange has novelty value these days too.
Create more encounters with multilingual people. Invite former pupils, university students, local multilingual residents and people who use languages professionally to speak to pupils. The pupil interviews suggest that access to multilingual role models is very uneven. Having an assistant is useful, as long as they are used wisely and given the right support. Anecdotally, we once invited a local French maître D to come in and talk to students about his background. In most localities, there will be speakers of other languages with stories to tell.
Broaden pupils' understanding of careers involving languages. As mentioned before, avoid presenting “languages careers” primarily as teaching, translating and interpreting. Show how languages combine with engineering, business, law, medicine, technology, tourism, diplomacy, journalism, sport and many other fields. Don't pretend that having a languag leads to more money (it doesn't!), but play on the opportunties for travel and exciting opportunites.
Involve parents early. The interviews suggest that parental attitudes matter considerably. Give parents positive information about language learning before GCSE choices are made, while addressing misconceptions about difficulty, grading and career value. The interviews suggested this is especially useful in some state schools. The positive messages may not always get through, but you can only try. Tell parents what you are doing and why through occasional newsletters, for example.
Celebrate multilingualism already present in the school. Home languages can help establish the idea that knowing several languages is normal and valuable rather than unusual. Many schools already arrange events, for example in the context of the European Day of Languages.
Celebrate success publicly. Awards need not be restricted to the highest attainers. Recognise improvement, successful communication, perseverance, pronunciation, listening and willingness to speak. This reinforces the idea that becoming good at a language is achievable. We used to publicly post "linguists of the week", nominated by colleagues. Reward stickers are widely used and appreciated, even by older students!
Create a positive language-learner identity. The pupil interviews are particularly revealing here. Some pupils comfortably saw themselves as “linguistic”; others clearly did not. Even though we know that language aptitude varies a lot, departments could explicitly challenge the notion that languages are something you either have a natural talent for or you do not. Older pupils may be able to share their experience here. Encourage — dare I say it? — a growth mindset.
Reduce unnecessary anxiety around speaking. This finding stood out to me in the thesis. many pupils are scared of performing orally. Lots of low-stakes pair work, rehearsal, scaffolding and whole-class interaction can normalise speaking before pupils are required to perform individually. Again, not the stress on speaking (and, inevitably, listening — one is usually accompanied by the other).
Make progress visible. Periodically show pupils what they can now understand or say that they could not manage six months earlier. Because progress is gradual, accumulative and messy, try to find ways to show students progress is happening. tell them that no one expects them to speak like a 'native', just as no one expects physics students to be Isaac Newton.
Make KS3 genuinely enjoyable rather than prematurely GCSE-driven. This is important. If the aim is greater GCSE take-up, Years 7–9 need to generate curiosity, confidence and a desire to continue, not simply prepare pupils earlier for examination tasks. So, no need to do photo cards in Y7! Make sure KS3 gets a huge priority. The best students can be pretty much ready to tackle a GCSE by the end of Y9. I know.
Improve primary-secondary transition. This is such a tough nut to crack! Secondary departments could work with feeder primaries so that Year 7 builds upon previous learning rather than either assuming knowledge pupils do not possess or simply starting again. The reality for me was that "starting again" is pretty much inevitable, but pupils with prior experience need to know that their skill is acknowledged.
Give departments greater professional autonomy. The teacher interviews show considerable frustration with prescription (which, as I see it, is becoming more common, e.g. "Every lesson must start with a retreival practice task"). Teachers who can adapt content to their pupils and introduce creative, communicative activities are better placed to build motivation. CPD helps with this — the more teachers know about additional language acquisition, the more likley they are to design enjoyable lessons.
Review the options process itself. Check whether option blocks, setting arrangements, clashes with popular subjects or assumptions about which pupils should take a language are inadvertently suppressing take-up.
Ask pupils regularly why they would or would not continue. Short annual or termly questionnaires or conversations with a focus group could reveal any school-specific barriers before options are finalised. We used questionnaires at the end of each year, mainly to gauge how students were responding to lessons.
There is a useful general principle here: schools need to try to create some of the linguistic "background" that the PhD found naturally occurring in the lives of the more positively disposed pupils. A school cannot change pupils' family backgrounds, but it can provide successful language-learning experiences, contact with multilingual people, travel or exchanges, cultural experiences, role models and a strong institutional message that knowing another language is normal and worthwhile.
But above all, I would put self-efficacy at the centre of the strategy (or "competence" if you prefer that term from Self-Determination Theory). Careers messages and cultural events are unlikely to persuade a 14-year-old to choose French if their overriding experience of French lessons is “I'm not very good at this.” Conversely, “I can understand this and I can actually say things in French” provides a much stronger foundation on which all the other motivational work can build.
Comments
Post a Comment