In Teaching Modern Languages (ed Swarbrick 1994), William Rowlinson looks at how the swings of the "educational" philosophy pendulum depend on the dominant political views of the time, more than depending on any educational advances.
He contrasts the study of languages as an intellectual pursuit, with the study of languages for communication. This is not just about the objectives, but also the methodology.
The first of these contrasting approaches is about grammar, structures, learning and applying rules, moving from regular to irregular. It links to the study of ancient languages (in their official standardised forms) and also to the study of Great Literature. For modern languages, the language taught can be artificial, acting as a pretext to practise the grammar being studied. It is part of being a cultivated English person of a certain class. It is not particularly interested in actual "foreigners" to communicate with.
The second is about learning language by hearing and practising, expressing yourself and communicating with speakers of the language. There may be more exposure to authentic language and interest in the target culture and speakers of the language.
Currently in England, the dominant political philosophy is the "Knowledge Curriculum." This is not what you might expect from the title and its declared aims of sharing the knowledge of the privileged elite with previously disadvantaged pupils. It's not (in practice) primarily about higher level thinking, concepts, taxonomies, terminology. It's about recall and rote-learning. For example in English teaching, it has led to pupils learning "important facts" and quotes from a Knowledge Organiser. Instead of reading the actual book. And the books which are chosen are "the best". A report this week from the Runnymede Trust laments the lack of diversity in the books that pupils read in English Literature. This is no accident. Pupils are supposed to be reading the books (and speaking the standard English) that give them access to the Knowledge of the Elite.
This view of education is not educational. It is political. It is done in the name of social mobility, but it is very much in order to preserve the status quo. It promotes conformity and demotes criticism. It promotes "elite" voices and demotes diversity of voices. It demotes creativity. It promotes the role of knowledge over the role of thinking.
It is in this context that we can understand the top-down trends in Languages teaching.
All the elements on Rowlinson's tick list are coming together:
The reinstatement of dead languages alongside modern languages.
The recent ALCAB proposals for A Level languages to have essays on literature written in English to ensure the correct intellectual level.
The GCSE proposals and Ofsted Research Review putting grammar before communication.
NCELP's idea of creating language (word sets and texts) to exemplify grammatical concepts, rather than to serve what pupils might want to say.
Ofsted Research Review defining the skills of reading and listening as word-by-word parsing of sentences containing known words and structures.
A KS3 National Curriculum with the words, "Great Literature" on the front page.
Another clear indicator that these are temporary and local preoccupations is the fact that this only refers to England - in the USA, the political pendulum is currently at stories, authentic voices and materials, the brain's ability to systematise comprehensible input, diversity, and inter-cultural competence.
We can debate the different ideas and approaches to language teaching, but the participants in the debate must be honest, with us and with themselves, about the fact that these positions are primarily political.
No comments:
Post a Comment