What next for Languages?

 I don't know if I am breaking some kind of purdah, but I thought I would attempt some crystal ball gazing as to what might happen next for Language Teaching, as a result of the stimulating discussions and huge debate provoked by the recent proposed GCSE consultation.

The "Quick Fix" Option

This option is the easiest to implement. It's the easiest for exam boards and for teachers. The panel showed that they clearly understood the issues of the current GCSE and things that teachers would like to see changed: The difficulty of the Listening Exam. The rubrics, especially in Writing and the Role Play. Some of the nonsense around Topics. 

So. Change the requirement for the Role Play rubrics to be in the Target Language. It's currently a cryptic interpretation game, that takes up too much teaching time and is unfair in the exam. The insistence that the cues be in the Target Language (but without giving away any of the words pupils might need), mean that they are impenetrable nonsense. Change it.

Change the questions or the mark schemes on the Listening so it tests comprehension. If the answer is "use the same plate" and a pupil puts "use one plate" then they have understood. OK, so they haven't literally translated the word "same", but they have shown they understood what is going on. Change it.

Clarify the guidelines around the conversation topics. You don't have to have questions on "What did you recycle last week?" The environment, ethical shopping, the homeless. These subtopics might suit questions like, "Is it important to..." but not "Do you like..." or "What did you do at the weekend..." The questions (to meet the success criteria) on opinions, reasons, narration of events in the past, can range across the subtopics of the Themes. Edexcel would have to change more here than AQA. But if it's accepted as silly nonsense, then change it.

The "Ugly Dog Statue" Option

In a book of 1970s after dinner speeches I had in the 1970s, there was the story of a firm of architects who always seemed to get their projects approved. When they submitted their plans they always added a pair of obnoxiously ugly dog statues to the façade of the building. The planners then insisted the dogs were removed, and allowed the rest of the project to pass. Regardless of any other defects the building might have had.

Here, the ugly dog statues are the Vocabulary situation. Everyone has focused on the fact that building the GCSE around the list of most commonly used words in native-speaker corpora, seems to be a non-starter. Teaching high frequency words may well be important. But that isn't what is proposed. What is proposed is to restrict learners to that set of words. Learning other words is described as "demotivating" and "unhelpful." I outlined some of the apparent absurdities of this in a post for the MEITS project. 

It would be possible to tweak the proposals for vocabulary. To still keep the focus on a smaller set of high frequency words that are genuinely the most useful for comprehension irrespective of topic. And to remove the restriction on what pupils can learn to say in the expressive productive skills.

This would remove the feature that caused most uproar. But of course it would leave the basic problem of the lack of communication, conversation, spontaneous speaking. And leave us with the mentality of testing memorisation of language, rather than what pupils can do with that language.

The "Learn from the Experience" Option

The response to the proposals has revealed the strength of consensus across sectors and amongst teachers with different priorities and approaches. MFL has emerged as a positive, supportive and vibrant community. Confident in their ability to teach pupils to make progress, aware of the history and continuing evolution of pedagogy, and secure in their values around communication and culture.

Proposals which not only ignore the sector, but which are fully intended to steam-roller them in a certain direction, cannot ever be the way to proceed.

Since the end of the "Learn Fancy Answers By Rote" GCSE, teachers in England and Wales have had to equip pupils with a repertoire of language that means they can respond to unplanned questions in Speaking and Writing. Spontaneous developed answers are returning, based on internalised building blocks. The building blocks of language tend to start with chunks of powerful re-combinable language that can be used for pupils to express themselves on any topic. But also include the manipulation and inflection of language. The key thing is that learning to use the repertoire of language is not delayed. It keeps pace with the learning of the language. It is a key driver, both motivationally and cognitively, of how new language is integrated with what pupils know and can do.

You can imagine the consensus of opinion you would hear from music teachers if it was proposed that instead of being required to play their instrument in the exam, pupils would be asked questions to test their knowledge of how to play the instrument. Well, that's the consensus from language teachers around the importance of learning to use the language. It's not just important in itself. It's not just very important to pupils. It also has an important role in the language-learning process. Learning to use the language is what firms up pupils' conscious and unconscious systematisation of the language. Finding out how it works and fits together.

Calls for change from teachers centre around the Topic content, with many teachers keen to see a boosting of the cultural element. This is variously presented as motivating, educational, socially inclusive and of practical use. It also takes the next step in how our teaching of the language can evolve. Without losing the sense of a developing repertoire, it pushes us along the next step towards talking more about other people. Using the 3rd person, or contrasting it with the 1st person plural. To talk about what happens in other countries and what we might do here. There is plenty to explore here, together with the language teaching community.

So which will it be? The panel are experienced and wise, juggling educational and political priorities and narratives. Maybe they will be able to come up with another option, and surprise us with an elegant solution that takes the sector with them, moving teaching and learning forward to new successes.