A few years ago, when I was co-researcher on a large Economic and
Social Research Council funded project on year 12 French involving
schools in and around Oxford and Reading, I saw for myself what sixth
formers were producing in written French. In the worst case, the essay
written by an AS-level student who had gained a B at GCSE could only be
understood by being read aloud in a sort of franglais accent as it made
no sense as written French.
My colleagues at Oxford (among many others) who signed the letter to the Guardian last Tuesday are right to draw attention to the grading issue. However, grading is one of many problems which beset modern languages teaching and learning in England and the focus on "severe grading" at A-level will undoubtedly be regarded as a plea for dumbing down or grade inflation.
Grading at A-level needs to be seen in the context of other factors such as the knock-on effect of lenient grading at GCSE, the content of many syllabuses and textbooks, and the current methodologies used to teach modern languages at secondary level.
Most pupils who take French GCSE will have typically spent five years learning it at secondary school. In the cases of German or Spanish, it may be three or four years. Pupils are expected to reach a standard roughly equivalent to A2 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) if they achieve an A* to B in their GCSE exams. This means that they have reached an elementary level and indicates that they:
• Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (eg very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment).
• Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters.
• Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
One problem is that since the focus is on communication rather than on accurate and secure knowledge and skills, pupils can achieve high grades with very shaky command of the foreign language, both written and spoken. Positive marking ensures that accuracy in pronunciation, speaking and writing does not have the weight that it had in my day (when you could lose a mark for each mistake). Without wishing to downplay their hard work, I know pupils who have achieved an A* with what I would consider to be only the most rudimentary ability in French and certainly not a true A2-level.
The effect of low standards is that, in spite of holding A and B passes at GCSE level, many pupils begin AS-level at such a low level that it is almost impossible to get them up to the requirements for top A2 pass through school work alone (hence the "severe grading" issue).
Furthermore, the content of many textbooks is dire. They look engaging with their colourful pictures, range of useful functions, focus on topics which appear to be of relevance to teenagers and cultural information. But as I wrote in an article for the TES in August, 2012, many of these textbooks, for all their superficial attractiveness, are hollow at heart when compared to the exciting and amusing storylines of the Cambridge Latin Course which keep the pages turning. Can you really take a textbook seriously when it has a cast of about 200 random characters?
Lastly, I'll offer just one example of cock-eyed methodology. I recently discovered that asking pupils to read a text aloud is frowned on as bad practice and is considered a waste of time. This came as a surprise to me as it flies in the face of common sense and our own experience. I won't dwell on the shocking extent to which reading is neglected in modern languages teaching these days in favour of largely trivial communication which doesn't stick for long, but I will mention my recent experience of examining a doctorate on decoding skills in French in key stage 3.
It was an excellent piece of research but what it revealed to me was as disturbing as the year 12 piece of writing. Between years 7 to 9, pupils' ability to "decode" written text (that is, converting the written symbols of an alphabetical writing system into the sounds they represent) did not improve and pupils in year 9 were just as likely to pronounce words wrongly as they were in year 7. There appeared to be no sustained and systematic teaching of either decoding skills or pronunciation with obvious consequences for both speaking and listening.
The secure and confident acquisition of basic knowledge and skills is as important in learning foreign languages as it is in maths. When I compare what our children are expected to know in maths to gain a good grade at GCSE, or when I look at what their peers are learning in foreign languages in other EU countries, I have a strong sense that we are letting our children down and failing to equip them adequately for future challenges in foreign languages, either in their GCSE and A-level courses or in the wider world.
Our children are as bright and talented at learning foreign languages as their European peers but are being let down by the current politics and paradigms of language teaching. I am glad that my colleagues have brought the grading issue into the spotlight but the changes have to go much deeper and further – right back to the start of key stage 3.
My colleagues at Oxford (among many others) who signed the letter to the Guardian last Tuesday are right to draw attention to the grading issue. However, grading is one of many problems which beset modern languages teaching and learning in England and the focus on "severe grading" at A-level will undoubtedly be regarded as a plea for dumbing down or grade inflation.
Grading at A-level needs to be seen in the context of other factors such as the knock-on effect of lenient grading at GCSE, the content of many syllabuses and textbooks, and the current methodologies used to teach modern languages at secondary level.
Most pupils who take French GCSE will have typically spent five years learning it at secondary school. In the cases of German or Spanish, it may be three or four years. Pupils are expected to reach a standard roughly equivalent to A2 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) if they achieve an A* to B in their GCSE exams. This means that they have reached an elementary level and indicates that they:
• Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (eg very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment).
• Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters.
• Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
One problem is that since the focus is on communication rather than on accurate and secure knowledge and skills, pupils can achieve high grades with very shaky command of the foreign language, both written and spoken. Positive marking ensures that accuracy in pronunciation, speaking and writing does not have the weight that it had in my day (when you could lose a mark for each mistake). Without wishing to downplay their hard work, I know pupils who have achieved an A* with what I would consider to be only the most rudimentary ability in French and certainly not a true A2-level.
The effect of low standards is that, in spite of holding A and B passes at GCSE level, many pupils begin AS-level at such a low level that it is almost impossible to get them up to the requirements for top A2 pass through school work alone (hence the "severe grading" issue).
Furthermore, the content of many textbooks is dire. They look engaging with their colourful pictures, range of useful functions, focus on topics which appear to be of relevance to teenagers and cultural information. But as I wrote in an article for the TES in August, 2012, many of these textbooks, for all their superficial attractiveness, are hollow at heart when compared to the exciting and amusing storylines of the Cambridge Latin Course which keep the pages turning. Can you really take a textbook seriously when it has a cast of about 200 random characters?
Lastly, I'll offer just one example of cock-eyed methodology. I recently discovered that asking pupils to read a text aloud is frowned on as bad practice and is considered a waste of time. This came as a surprise to me as it flies in the face of common sense and our own experience. I won't dwell on the shocking extent to which reading is neglected in modern languages teaching these days in favour of largely trivial communication which doesn't stick for long, but I will mention my recent experience of examining a doctorate on decoding skills in French in key stage 3.
It was an excellent piece of research but what it revealed to me was as disturbing as the year 12 piece of writing. Between years 7 to 9, pupils' ability to "decode" written text (that is, converting the written symbols of an alphabetical writing system into the sounds they represent) did not improve and pupils in year 9 were just as likely to pronounce words wrongly as they were in year 7. There appeared to be no sustained and systematic teaching of either decoding skills or pronunciation with obvious consequences for both speaking and listening.
The secure and confident acquisition of basic knowledge and skills is as important in learning foreign languages as it is in maths. When I compare what our children are expected to know in maths to gain a good grade at GCSE, or when I look at what their peers are learning in foreign languages in other EU countries, I have a strong sense that we are letting our children down and failing to equip them adequately for future challenges in foreign languages, either in their GCSE and A-level courses or in the wider world.
Our children are as bright and talented at learning foreign languages as their European peers but are being let down by the current politics and paradigms of language teaching. I am glad that my colleagues have brought the grading issue into the spotlight but the changes have to go much deeper and further – right back to the start of key stage 3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment