Ofsted Confusion: Neural Networks, pseudo-science and learning

 I have to start with this slide from HMI Michael Wardle's Webinar on Curriclum Design, because it looks so much like a map of Norfolk with a vastly upgraded transport system.

I think he is using it entirely metaphorically. As a picture of the brain's outline. And a generic representation of a network framed by that brain. To illustrate the point that learning is a complex web of knowledge where connections are made over time.

I don't think this is meant as a representation of an actual physical network in the brain, any more that it represents the actual road network in Norfolk.

But we have to be careful. I HAVE seen representations of "neural networks" and computer generated graphics of "a synapse firing as a memory is created" purporting to show learning physically happening. This was in a different presentation which was urging me to use this understanding of how learning happens in the brain, to help inform my approach to planning learning and teaching. 

As science, it was clearly utterly bogus. A discrete memory is not physically formed by the firing of a synapse in a little package of just the right amount of knowledge to cross the barrier from short term working memory to long term storage memory.

This isn't to say that "cognitive science" isn't useful. But we need to be careful to understand that talking about "storage" or "retrieval" are all metaphorical models. In the same way as we now talk about the brain being "hard-wired" for something, these are using the metaphor of computer storage to help express our understanding of what is going on in the brain.

In previous eras, memory was thought of as a hydraulic system, a series of cogs, a telephone system - whatever the technology of the time suggested. So it's not surprising that today we use the metaphor of computer memory. Except of course, that this is a metaphor within a metaphor. Storage and memory are already metaphors when applied to computers.

Then we also talk about "networks" in the way language works and the brain deals with language. Research on the brain can show what regions of the brain are activated when processing language. The main conclusion would seem to be one of immense flexibility and complexity, that is very far from offering an easy granular process to be followed to create learning. When Michael Wardle says learning depends on a web of knowledge and schemata formed over time, I don't think he means that we can look into the brain and see networks forming or firing. I think he means that it helps if you already know stuff, and new stuff you learn interacts with what you already know. In a complex, dynamic and changing relationship which is very far from a physical network of roads and roundabouts. (Yes, we have roundabouts in Norfolk.)

This storage network metaphor turns up in research in language-learning. For example this study talks about the way words "link" and "compete for space" in the memory. For example it suggests that if you learn a list of words such as lion, tiger, wolf, jaguar... then these will compete for storage and retrieval, and make recall marginally slower. But if you learn words like lion, yawn, yellow, mane... then these words will form a network and reinforce each other in learning and recall.

The metaphor of computer memory with networks and storage might be helpful here and these could be interesting (if marginal) findings. But as a teacher I would have questions as to whether this is less to do with the mechanics of "storage" and more to do with the interest and affective aspects. A list of animals to learn in a deliberate act of memorisation. Versus a set of words that set off the imagination with interesting descriptive detail. The research throws up interesting ideas that can be explored and interpreted in different ways. But reading the article didn't cast light on how the brain worked. It cast light on how the authors thought about the working of the brain.

As linguists, we know other ways that words form a system. We want our learners to see the underlying patterns. Not just so they can apply grammar to be accurate, express themselves, or show complexity. But also because we think it is a shortcut for memorisation. It's easier to remember things that make sense. Knowing a rule can save you from memorising a million examples. This is all true. But it's looking at it from the point of view of someone in possession of the knowledge of the whole system. For a learner, it is entirely different.

In his webinar, Michael Wardle focuses on how we could take this formal grammatical network of French and try to build it in the pupils' brain. He gives the example of introducing pets and adjectives. We have all gone through the complexities of teaching word order and adjectival agreement. Michael Wardle's approach is to start by "hiding" all adjectives which would change for feminine. So he would teach pupils to say they have a red dog, because the word rouge can transfer to saying they have a red tortoise without having to worry about changing the ending.

I can see the logic of this. And as a cunning ploy I am not above using it myself. It's similar to the way when I first went to France, I asked for deux of everything. To avoid making any errors of un / une. Expensive and waist-expanding, but at least I wasn't committing a grammatical mistake. And every year there is a pupil in Year 7 who just says they are going to describe everything as orange because it's invariable. And then I share compound adjectives with them and say as long as you say it's dark blue you don't have to do the agreement either. As I say cunning tricks. That I use half-jokingly.

But this isn't a joke. This is Ofsted setting out how to construct a curriculum. It depends on totally controlling what pupils say, so that it becomes necessary to prohibit self expression and communication at this stage of language-learning. Pupils can talk about red dogs and red tortoises. But as soon as someone has a green spider, then that is inadmissible because it doesn't fit the grammar pattern we want to see exemplified. We saw the same idea in The Great Pet Debate where perro and gato were fine, because they exemplified masculine and feminine endings. But pez, ratón and serpiente were not allowed.

I do think it is important to build pupils' core of language. And that once that core of language is established, then more and more will stick to it.

But it I think there is a sleight of mind going on, thinking that one "network" can be slipped into the mind instead of another. The idea that there are neural networks in the brain, and that knowledge can be described as a web, and that language has an underlying structure of links, does not mean that you can construct a grammatical framework and plug it into the pupil's brain like an extra graphics card into a computer. In the same way that I couldn't use the map at the top of this post to get from here to Hunstanton.

It is a nice theory that collapses on contact with reality of real human learners. It is an attempt to create a grammatical network, built up out of carefully selected knowledge, to make a tightly dictated schema that is predicated on the understanding of the grammatical system. And then it hopes to replicate that grammatical system as a network in the brain. Because of the power of the diagram on the slide to convince us that this is how the brain looks. And the mixed metaphors of neural networks, a web of knowledge, language as a grammatical system.

There are many, many more things in the human brain for learning and language to stick to. There's the sound of words, the way words look, the pupils' own language(s). And their lives and lived experience and ability to interact, and stories, and visualisations and silly associations and mnemonics and emotion and relationships and family and likes and dislikes. And yes, pets. Language engages and interacts with all of these. Not just with itself in an abstract network.

It is an inconvenient but undeniable truth that language attempts to refer to the world. It is not a closed self-referential system. Language is meaning as well as form.

So I might teach pupils cat and dog because they exemplify masculine and feminine endings. But the pupil with three snakes, a mouse and a fish will have very strong "networks" of experience that the words for cat and dog might not stick to. Let alone the owner of the spider and their "web" of knowledge. Meaning is the primary role of language and its strongest way of making links and memories. To put form above meaning in the hope of constructing a network in the brain is misguided and misconceived.

This is the rabbit hole we are being dragged into. By NCELP, Ofsted, and the new GCSE panel. It is an ideology based on creating a synthetic, abstract language, where the emphasis is on exposure to language chosen for its form so that linguistic patterns can be identified. It teaches a limited, reduced and deliberately simplified set of language, so that the learner might easily discern the patterns and supposedly turn them into a mental "network". This can only be done by removing the "obstacle" of the learner wanting to say or learn things that don't fit this carefully selected web of words. So communication and self expression have to be delayed.

And it's not just pets. As we have seen with the proposals for the new GCSE which seek to limit pupils to "high frequency" words, things like step mum, foster family, wheel chair are not to be taught. So if the pupils wanting to use these words can't learn them, then no pupil should be allowed to talk about their actual family. But that's OK because we are going to be talking about red dogs and red tortoises. To practise the language, not the meaning. But it's meaning which creates the strongest experiences, memories, networks.

I could stop there on that point that the goal of memorisation is best achieved when it links to a far richer network of meaning and real experience than just a self-referential linguistic system.

But I will go further (sorry). But I'll make it brief with some points to think about:

The complexity of language is real. But the human brain is up to the job.

The learner's interlanguage is by definition incomplete, partial, and includes misconceptions.

Expressing themselves has an important role in forming the unconscious schemata of the learner's interlanguage. Making meaning from the words and structures they have, exploring how it can be used, how it fits together, and what their current limitations are.

So I will finish with this:

If Ofsted want us to keep a close eye on what pupils can manage and what overwhelms them...

If Ofsted want us to think about how knowledge sticks...

If Ofsted want us to think about how knowledge accumulates...

If Ofsted want us to keep a close eye on how knowledge can be recalled fluently...

...then the best way to achieve all this is the opposite of what they are proposing. The best way is to acknowledge that language has meaning as well as form. The best way is to have a strong focus on curating a growing repertoire of language that pupils can use in order to express themselves with increasing independence, fluency and complexity.

Leadership and Structures - Reviewing our Curriclum

 The posts in this series have been focused on aspects of language-teaching and language-learning from the Ofsted Research Review. I have looked at Target Language use, Grammar, Vocabulary, Assessment, Feedback, Phonics, Transition, and Communication. Also featured in the Research Review is a section on Leadership and Structures. This doesn't directly relate to language teaching and learning, and this blog isn't the place to be washing our linen in public, however clean it may be. But I will outline what I have picked up on as the main issues in the Review. And also describe some of our situation to help document and think-through how we measure up.

The issues around Leadership and Structures that I highlighted in the Ofsted Research Review are:

All pupils should be studying a language throughout KS3 as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.

The so called Ebacc (a schools performance measure, not a qualification) targets are for 75% to be entered for GCSE in 2024 and 90% by 2027.

That Leadership should understand the language-learning process. For example it is not just a process of learning a succession of sets of words.

I should start by saying that we are very lucky with the Leadership we have in our school. And if you know me at all, you know I won't say that just to be nice. Despite the title of this blog. The period of covid disruption has highlighted the extraordinary levels of trust, understanding, care, communication, support, and good sense permeating the school and which were already in place before the crises hit.

In terms of the Ofsted Review criteria, almost all pupils study a language from Year 7 to Year 9. There are one or two individual exceptions where pupils arrived at the school already disapplied from languages as part of a package to focus on individual needs.

At the moment, we have no particular plans to chase the 75% in 2024 ebacc target. This is the year group who will be starting Year 9 in September. No plans to change structures, apart from continuing to teach them a rich KS3 curriculum with clear progression that enables them to use their language with increasing fluency and independence.

We have made some decisions about the number of hours of lessons for Year 9 which I felt might have affected pupil confidence and take up at GCSE. Year 9 will have an increase in timetabled lessons in "core" subjects as part of a "catch-up" drive. This would have meant a reduction in French lessons, but we have avoided this by moving ab-initio Year 9 Spanish to an extra lesson once a week after the end of the school day. This in turn means that Spanish is available to all Year 9 pupils who want to be able to study it, instead of just certain selected teaching groups.

I personally feel the ebacc target has been brought into disrepute by being constantly moved back. Embarrassingly, I started talking to Leadership about planning staffing for the return of compulsory MFL at GCSE back in 2017, which turns out to have been 10 years before it is now supposed to happen. The latest surprise was in an Ofsted report on Primary MFL teaching, where it emerged that the target is for pupils "studying" for GCSE in 2025 but not taking it until 2027. It's hard to plan seriously when the target is literally a moving target.

I also wonder about the integrity of asking 90% of pupils to be entered for something that not only is not an actual qualification, but which by definition many of them cannot achieve. The grading is set so that 90% of pupils cannot possibly achieve a "good" grade in languages. The government policy seems dishonest and cowardly by focusing on a fake "ebacc" enforced by Ofsted rather than a clear statement that languages should be compulsory.

So the decision comes down to whether schools want more pupils to study a language. The answer in our context is that we would love more pupils to pick a language. But do we want to force them to take a language over another subject? Are the other subjects not just as valid and valuable? Of course they are. I think Leadership would argue that languages are as valued as other subjects. I am not sure they want to say that they are more valued.

Our current situation is that the number of option subjects that pupils can pick, has dropped from 4 GCSEs to 3. Without there being a drop in the numbers opting for languages. Since the end of the disastrous Learn fancy answers by rote and repeat the exam until you are perfect GCSE that destroyed language learning, our results have seen an improvement. We have yet to see what message feeds back about the experience of the new KS4 from older pupils, and how MFL compares to other subjects in terms of difficulty and grading. Our approach to developing spontaneous Speaking and Writing across KS3-4 fits much better with the new GCSE. We have had significant turbulence in staffing, but we also have a strong shared vision and a consistent approach across the department.

In September, we must redouble our efforts to gather feedback from pupils on their language-learning experience. And make sure we communicate clearly how they are making progress, including adapting our assessments to make sure they feel successful and aren't labeled as "good" or "bad" at languages based on their underlying literacy rather than what they are learning in language lessons. We are looking forward to a post covid return to a rich KS3 experience based on communication and creativity. One of the greatest incentives to continue with a language is visits and exchanges. We will see how quickly these can return and where they can be boosted by online virtual exchanges. As a school, we are building up to a major celebration of the school's history, ethos and role in the wider world which will help boost our sense of purpose and community cohesion...

Communication - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

 This series of posts looks at the implications of the recent Ofsted Research Review for our KS3 curriculum. This post is on the aspect of Communication.

At every turn so far in looking at the Ofsted Review, it has been the lack of focus on Communication which has stood out. Especially compared with what we do in our curriculum. Our priority is to share with pupils how to get better and better at using the language they have learned. To speak and write with increasing fluency, independence, spontaneity, creativity and self expression.

Here is what I took from the Ofsted Research Review:

Culture and Communication are stated as major goals in the National Curriculum Programme of Study. The Ofsted Review also quotes them as eventual goals, but says they can be delayed. Ofsted prioritise the learning of phonics, vocabulary and grammar first.

The report repeatedly emphasises that our learners in KS3 are "novice" with only a few pupils at higher levels at GCSE reaching "expert" status. At the "novice" level, they want the focus to be on grammar and vocabulary, word-by-word parsing of sentences. It claims that this is necessary in order for a focus on communication to be possible at a later stage.

They make similar points about authentic texts, preferring input that can be decoded word-by-word with known words and grammar. As pupils move towards the more expert levels at higher grades at GCSE, they may be able to add other skills and strategies such as applying cultural and linguistic knowledge to make sense of more complex texts.

This has raised eyebrows, as in my lifetime it has always been axiomatic that you do not delay the ability to communicate or access culture until "expert" level has been reached. For me, this was part of one of those formative conversations in my very early years, where my parents explained to me that although they had A Levels in languages, they had never been taught to use them, but that things would be better for my generation. I have written about this here for the Association for Language Learning page on Speaking, including the story of my dad using Latin to talk to a French car mechanic.

But beyond personal anecdote, there are strong reasons why communication features strongly in our KS3 curriculum.

Pupils want to communicate

Not all pupils make it to "expert"

Using your French to express yourself has a role in systematising knowledge

Challenging pupils to communicate requires us to create a coherent curriculum that equips them to do so

Pupils want to communicate: 

I have written here about the great pet debate. I understand that when you teach pets, you can also teach masculine/feminine endings. But we all know that there is no stronger imperative than the desire of pupils to list their pets. Whether or not they exemplify a grammar pattern. And I wrote here about the way some pupils love being able to recombine language and say silly or nonsense things for the fun of it. Or cry because they desperately want to express themselves. And do get to use their language for real communication in the classroom, online or on exchanges.

When I started as Head of Department, I interviewed pupils and the biggest theme that emerged, was the desire for more tangible outcomes from their language learning. Something they could create, be proud of, show their parents. So we built a curriculum around real projects: an Art Exhibition, a Farm Stamper trail, and letter exchanges with France. I will come back to whether this is in some way an obstacle to learning in the points below.

Not all pupils make it to "expert":

Not all pupils are going to be the few who at higher levels at GCSE or sixth form make it to Ofsted's "expert" level. We need to construct a curriculum that delivers useful learning to pupils who are going to go on to acquire the whole grammatical system, and also to pupils who will cease their study of languages before total mastery is reached. If anything, this would suggest that language for immediate communication is more appropriate in the early stages, with greater grammatical conceptualisation coming later. Fortunately, we don't have to pick between the two. We can devise a curriculum where communication, acquisition of vocabulary and understanding of grammar can all evolve in parallel. Of course we can. 

Using your language has an important role in systematisation:

I am going to quote from a guest blog I wrote for the MEITS project.

It is by using the language from the start that the pupil develops the conscious and unconscious schemata that make learning happen. Being allowed to communicate requires the pupil to draw on their entire developing repertoire. Making the links, seeing how it works, and exploring its limits. It gathers their knowledge into a snowball, stopping their language from melting away, and means more and more language will stick to the snowball they already have.

This is central to the ideas behind Task Based Language Learning, where pupils have to draw on their emerging language to complete a task. An "exercise" focuses more on just practising and producing the specific language point that pupils have been learning. With a "task" it is up to the pupil to find the language needed in order to complete the task. And to be able to find the ways the language fits together and how they can manipulate it. And to become aware of the fact that they do have a slowly crystalising interlanguage that becomes more and more coherent and useable.

Challenging pupils to be creative obliges us to create a curriculum that equips them to do so:

This is the point that these posts have kept inevitably coming back to. On Grammar and Vocabulary our curriculum has to deliver. Because we are asking pupils to draw on their language to communicate, we have to curate a growing core of language that they can use. The curriculum has to be coherent, progressive and cumulative. Pupils learn to use their language with increasing independence, complexity and spontaneity. 

Communication, which Ofsted almost imply could be an obstacle to learning, seems to be precisely the thing that enables and organises it.

Assessment - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

 So far, in posts on Transition, Phonics, Vocabulary, Grammar and Feedback, I think I have concluded that while our department philosophy doesn't match the Ofsted definition, we have a strong enough vision of the big picture to justify what we do. Our focus is on pupils getting better and better at using their language. Speaking and writing with increasing independence, complexity and spontaneity. Ofsted ignore this aspect completely, but in order to achieve it, we do have to tackle many of the things Ofsted say they want us to tackle in terms of progression.

This post is on an aspect where the Ofsted Review has given us serious reason to re-think what we do: Assessment.

We already knew that our KS3 assessments were due for a change, and as soon as the Ofsted Review came out, we started to think through its implications. I have already written about this in a previous post. So if you haven't read it, maybe it would be a good idea to click here and read it first. Then this post is going to be an update on what we have decided to do, along with some drafts of new ideas for assessments.

Here are the main points from the Ofsted Research Review that I identified when I started our departmental review.

Assessments should test what pupils have been taught.

Assessments should help pupils be aware of their progress and make them feel successful.

Assessments should not be too influenced by GCSE.

I am going to concentrate in this post on Listening and Reading assessments. I have written here about assessing Speaking at KS3. We are not planning changes. As you will see from the post, our approach involves pupils in understanding their own progress and success in Speaking. And the post on Feedback gives a good idea about the rationale behind our assessment of Writing.

From our department review

Our old Listening and Reading assessments were based on past papers from AQA FCSE exams selected for the relevant topics. One reason was that they were similar in layout and format to the GCSE so at options evening we could show pupils how it is already familiar to them.

Ofsted aren't keen on KS3 assessments being too driven by GCSE and although this isn't the main reason for changing our assessments, it's something I think I agree on. Hopefully it's part of wanting pupils to have a rich, successful and appropriate KS3 experience. Having said that, there are some great examples of how teachers have created wonderful KS3 tasks that still look forward to the GCSE tasks they will eventually meet. For example @NazihadeLondres has developed lesson starters around TikTok videos to stimulate and scaffold natural conversation in a way that will lead on to the GCSE photocard.

From an AQA FCSE paper

It's more the other 2 highlighted points from the Ofsted Review which have given me food for thought. The philosophy of "test pupils on what they have learned" is not as straight-forward as it looks. Given the Ofsted Review's total omission of the idea of pupils learning to use their language, their statement may be interpreted as, "test pupils' recall of what they have learned." Do we want to have assessments that just check their recall? What about their ability to comprehend Listening and Reading in context? As language teachers, are we not responsible for teaching them literacy strategies for locating answers in texts? Using things like words from the question, cultural knowledge, cognates, grammatical understanding, prediction, deduction, elimination... in order to extract information from texts? 

Or on the other hand, does this requirement just label the pupils with strong underlying literacy as "good at languages"? And label pupils with weaker literacy as "bad at languages"? (I strongly suspect this is exactly what happens at GCSE Listening and Reading, with pupils' grades being a reflection of their literacy more than what they have learned in language lessons.)

I don't have to resolve this question. Because in fact, I think that a Unit test isn't the place to throw those demands of Reading and Listening at the pupils. If we think they are so important, then they should be central to our lessons and our teaching. And I think at the moment, they are not. At the moment (despite experimental forays into Listening for pleasure and Reading a class novel) our curriculum revolves around expanding a core repertoire of language that pupils meet in Listening and Reading and learn to deploy in their Speaking and Writing.

So, I am creating assessments designed to be based on testing how well pupils are learning that core repertoire they are being taught in class. You can see some examples here for Year 8 Unit 1.

Things like:

Listening and picking the correct word. 

Listening for what word has changed. 

Then translating sentences from French to English. 

And then sentences to translate into French where the previous question can act as scaffolding for words and structures.

Previously the most important role of our assessments had been that of identifying whether pupils were on track, or above, or below, depending on their starting points.

Ofsted are keen that we instead bear in mind the role of assessments in helping pupils understand their progress, but also in creating a feeling of success.

This raises a much more difficult question. If this is based on testing pupils' recall of what they have been taught, what mark on the test should we expect or accept? We will have to wait and see how they do!

Feedback - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

 This is one of a series of posts on reviewing our curriculum in the light of the recent Ofsted Research Review in MFL. So far I have looked at Transition, Phonics, Vocabulary and Grammar. Our department's principal focus is on pupils learning to get better and better at using their language, with increasing independence, complexity and spontaneity. This principle is entirely missing from the Ofsted Review. Despite this discrepancy, however, the way we challenge pupils to use their language to express themselves, does mean that our curriculum seems well thought-out in terms of progression and challenge. So while the Ofsted Review doesn't share our aims, so far I think that we do meet many of their expectations in terms of the big picture of careful and sustained progression. There are details for us to tweak, but the majority are on our own terms, not just because we think Ofsted "wants" us to.

This post was going to be on Assessment as well as Feedback. I already know that Assessment is an area where the Ofsted  Review has pushed us to make changes. Our assessments in KS3 are due for an overhaul, and as soon as the Research Review came out, it gave me useful questions to think about. If you haven't read my earlier post on this, then perhaps it is a good place to start. And then this post will concentrate on Feedback and I will need a separate post on Assessment, as a chance to update you on the changes we are already starting to make.

Here's what I highlighted on Feedback from the Ofsted Research Review when I started our own KS3 curriculum review.

Feedback should be specific and focused so pupils can make a difference to one thing at a time. 

In speaking, the teacher can prompt pupils to try again or recast what they have said so the pupil can repeat what they are saying incorporating the correct version.

Feedback should help pupils understand clearly how to make progress and to feel successful.

From our department review

Our school policy on written Feedback was based around "Missions" where pupils were asked to respond to feedback by performing a task to correct, reflect or improve. I was always suspicious of this as it seemed designed to prove to an outside observer that pupils were engaging with feedback, rather than concentrating on what was best for the learner. 

And it ignored the primary recipient of feedback from marking: the teacher. It is the teacher who is best equipped to understand the implications of error or misconceptions or indeed excellence in pupils' work. It is the teacher who can decide how this is going to inform what to do next. Of course it is great to involve pupils in understanding their learning and to have a sense of their progress. But this isn't necessarily best done through doing corrections. The policy has now been relaxed and it is up to departments to decide how they handle feedback and "missions."

Example of a sticky label for marking criteria

As a department, our Feedback is much less focused on "errors" than it is on curating the quality of a piece of writing. We use sticky address labels with key criteria. These are used for work in pupils' books to give formative assessment before the final piece of work which will be assessed against the Key Performance Indicators.

The teacher can tick off the criteria and annotate the label with further comments as needed. From the example you can see that some of the key criteria are about making sure the pupil has included all the "ingredients" required by the task. Here, that means Opinions, Reasons, and reference to Past and Future. Then there are criteria focusing on the quality of the piece of writing: Organisation, Variety and Personal detail. This is part of our department's focus on pupils getting better and better at using their language, which is completely missing from the Ofsted Review.

KPIs for Y8

And there is room for comments on Accuracy. And these comments have to be understood very carefully as part of a wider conversation about progress. Because our assessment model is for all pupils to produce work of much the same standard. But with different levels of support. This is explicit in our Key Performance Indicators. On the Year 8 example, you can see the exemplar texts for each Unit. And underneath you can see the statements relating to support, scaffolding and independence at different levels.

What this means is that Accuracy has to be seen as part of this picture. And pupils have to understand that as they become more adventurous in expressing themselves, as they take more risks, as they move away from scaffolding, then they are going to make more errors.

The Feedback conversations are not going to be about correcting individual errors. They are going to be about the process of reducing dependence on support and moving towards greater independence in self-expression.

This isn't to say that marking isn't important, for the teacher to see exactly where pupils are up to with their internalisation and accurate use of language. But accurate language may well be typical of a pupil more reliant on scaffolding, and inaccurate language the result of a pupil starting to take more risks. We do use feedback to make pupils aware of their progress and to feel successful, but this is an ongoing conversation, not to do with error correction. I recommend you look at this earlier post on using Metaphors to understand the language-learning process if you want to read more on this.

And my next post will be on Assessment, where we are already making changes and the Ofsted Review has been a big factor in informing our thinking.

Grammar - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

 So far in this series of posts on looking at our curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review (Transition, Phonics, Vocabulary), it has been very useful to look at how thought-through our curriculum is, and where we want to continue to make tweaks. Not because we think Ofsted "wants" us to, but because we have identified areas to continue to work on. Let's see if Grammar turns out to be the area where we have to change our plans...

The points I highlighted in the Ofsted Research Review when it comes to Grammar are:

Structures should be revisited in different contexts with increasing spontaneity.

The Grammar pupils are taught should be planned. It should fit with what they need, and what is appropriate. And it shouldn't be rushed to tick things off for the sake of getting through a list of content.

We will need to consider what grammar we teach, based on the pay-offs between its complexity, usefulness and frequency.

Pupils may meet structures in set phrases at first, but should understand what the component parts are and learn to manipulate them. Full paradigms of verbs may be overwhelming if demanded too early.

Grammar should be explained, and pupils should spot and explore patterns, and practise producing structures across Speaking, Listening, Reading and Writing. Pupils shouldn't be left to acquire structures by osmosis.

From our KS3 review

I think our department works from different principles to this, but that they are not incompatible. We have a clear vision that our main aim is for pupils to get better and better at using their language. Extending Speaking and Writing with increasing spontaneity, independence and complexity. This idea is completely missing from the Ofsted Review. But it does mean that our approach to grammar is fine-tuned to what pupils need and can cope with next, in order to extend their repertoire. It means we have a deliberate focus on recycling grammar in different contexts with increasing spontaneity. Ofsted perhaps mean spontaneity in manipulating the form. We mean increasing spontaneity in creating meaning and expressing themselves. Our vision is greater than theirs and includes theirs as one of its elements.

From Steve Smith's linguascope webinar

Because of our focus on pupils being able to use their language, we are very used to the idea that Grammar isn't learned in one go. It may be met in set phrases, or explained as a concept, or as a rule or a process. In all cases, it is going to be something which needs to be met and used over and over in different contexts as pupils' repertoire develops. I wrote in the post on Vocabulary about how our curriculum is like a snowball gathering more snow, and how all our language is joined up and nothing is ever left behind.

So in terms of the bigger picture, the Ofsted Review doesn't seem to hold too many issues for us. But what about the detail?

I have written here about how we plan the teaching of verbs. In Year 7, pupils meet the verbs to be and to have, mainly as lexical items, but with also a glimpse of how the paradigm works. They meet the verb manger in different persons of the present tense and in past and future in the first person. Reflexive verbs are introduced for daily routine in the present tense. Then in Year 8 we build a very strong core of verb + infinitive. We then add present tense in all persons and then the perfect tense. All as part of a coherent repertoire so pupils can say more and more. In Year 9 we introduce verb tables as a valuable tool and to help conceptualise the bigger picture of tenses. I think our plans for verbs are coherent and well thought-through.

I worry that Ofsted think the verbs to be and to have are very important. As we don't have a curriculum built around nouns (and the verb to have) or adjectives (and the verb to be), then these key verbs don't feature as highly as an outsider might expect. As I wrote in the post on Vocabulary, perhaps we are moving in the opposite direction to other schools. We stripped down our curriculum 15 years ago to a core of language we want pupils to get good at. And now we have established that strong core, maybe it is the time to bring back more sets of nouns and adjectives, and the verbs to have and to be.

Similarly, the Ofsted Review expects detailed mapping out of other aspects of Grammar. We do have a plan for when we teach things like adjectival agreement, negation, interrogatives. But I am not convinced that these things are ever taught, finished, done and dusted. Things like du, de la, des can be explained, but the explanation doesn't get you very far in terms of how they are used and what they mean. So we teach them all the time - they never go away. And it is by constant exposure, pattern-spotting, conscious rationalisation and subconscious acquisition, that they are learned. I suppose I could invent a paper-based "plan" of when we claim to teach them. But as I wrote in the post on Vocabulary, a curriculum plan is no replacement for constantly monitoring the pupils and what they need. When it's foggy, concentrate on the road. Don't try to drive by looking at the satnav screen.

I wrote in this article for the Language Learning Journal in 2005 about the difference between enabling, generative grammar, and censoring, corrective grammar. I think that with the grammar that enables pupils to express themselves with a growing repertoire of language, we have a well thought-through curriculum and we share it well with pupils so they understand how they are learning. Perhaps we have more work to do in terms of planning and sharing how we intend to work on the censoring, correcting aspects of grammar. Teaching the nitty-gritty rules and accuracy.

But...

I am not sure with de la confiture or du pain, for example, if pupils really do work it out by thinking through a conscious rule. J'aime manger de la confiture avec du pain. In English it would be, "I like to eat jam with bread." There is no "some" in that sentence in English. And would J'aime manger la confiture avec le pain be the same or would it be different? Language isn't just grammar + vocabulary. It is also idiomatic. By which I don't mean fancy expressions about cats and dogs. I mean that you are learning by chunks and collocation what people actually say.

This brings me back to another point I also made in the post about Vocabulary. Perhaps we don't teach Grammar and Vocabulary as Ofsted envisage as separate "pillars." We teach a repertoire of language where grammar and vocabulary are not taught separately, but as part of a coherent and growing core of language that can be deployed with increasing fluency, independence and complexity.

Vocabulary - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

 Here we go. Unlike the previous two posts on Transition and on Phonics, this one is an issue where we are going to have to think about making a volte-face and throwing out our bathwater, or deciding to stand our ground holding on to our babies. Because this post is about reviewing our curriculum in response to the Ofsted Research Review findings on Vocabulary.

For the Ofsted Review, Vocabulary teaching is a central plank (or pillar) of language-learning. It should be carefully planned. With scheduled re-visiting, involving testing, and meeting words in different topic contexts and in different skills. Language-learning should not be a series of units in which lists (mainly nouns) are learned and then abandoned in a new unit. Pupils should learn more verbs and more high frequency words that are not specific to any one topic.

This neat model of pupils learning words, testing themselves, meeting them in context, being tested by the teacher, then being retested later just in time for the curve of forgetting to be caught and corrected, is all too neat.

Some pupils learn the words. Others don't. They might recognise them but not be able to spell them. Or use them in a sentence. Learning isn't a one off that can be scheduled, ticked off, re-visited just in time so absolutely nothing is forgotten. At the same time as moving forward with grammar and communication. With all the pay-offs between support, independence, complexity, spontaneity, accuracy.

It is much more messy. And it is a mistake to have something neat on paper that doesn't correspond to reality. You can't make reality fit the map. The map helps you negotiate the terrain. And once you start moving, you keep your eye on the terrain, not the map. If it's a bit foggy, slow down and really concentrate on the road. Don't try to drive in fog by watching your satnav. It will end badly.

Keep your eye on the learner. How well do they know what they have already learned? How well can they use it? What do they need next that extends what they can already do? Should you spend more time on something that's not quite sorted yet? Or move on and come back to it later? Teaching them something new might add to what they know, or it might muddle it. Is this a problem or a stage to go through? If they forget something, might it be because that is an important part of how learning happens?

So now we are focusing on the learner and the messy process of learning, we can start to talk about how we want language (and not just vocabulary) to accrue.

We talk to our pupils about having a snowball of French. We talk to them about their responsibility to gather it all up, push it together, make it their own, and stop it melting. We also use the same metaphor to structure our curriculum and the language we teach them. It has to hold together to make a compact core that can get bigger and bigger. Once it reaches a certain size, then more things will start to stick.

Screen shot from Steve Smith's webinar

In his recent linguascope webinar, Steve Smith made this snowball visualisation of how our curriculum works. It also works the same way for the units within any of the Years, with the content in Unit 1 being subsumed into Unit 2, and so on.

The teacher and the learner are curating their growing snowball of French. The French that doesn't stick to the snowball risks melting and being forgotten. To avoid this, we don't necessarily go chasing the melting snow. We concentrate on compacting the core. And what I think makes this work, is requiring pupils to use their French. It's when you have to express yourself, or be creative or communicate, that you find out how your French all fits together.

Our Year 8 curriclum exemplars show how each Unit builds this snowball. There is nothing that isn't joined up, and nothing is left behind. For vocabulary, our Quizlet sets show how each Unit snowballs, from small chunks, to model answers. And how the next Unit grows from the previous one.

And Vocabulary isn't really taught as stand-alone vocabulary. It is taught in chunks and in context. For example we don't teach weather as a "set" of words. It is taught in if sentences to add on to using verb + infinitive: if it is sunny I can... but if it rains I have to... As part of developing an extended answer with more detail and sophistication.

I think this means that we do have "a strong verb lexicon" in that our core of language is based around opinions, verb + infinitive, and then narration. Although these may or may not be the verbs that Ofsted or NCELP think are the most frequent.

Which moves us on to the importance that the Ofsted Research Review gives to "high frequency" words... We definitely have a core of key words that we never let go of. This is not the same as the high frequency words as defined by their occurrence in native speaker corpora. This is one area where we are going to have to examine our curriculum and make changes.

From our KS3 review

You can tell from the first part of this post that we are not going to abandon our core. So the question for us is to work out what "high frequency" vocabulary fits in with the core. And at what point the core is strong and sticky enough, that the snowball can start to pick up other things. Just as once it's big enough, a snowball can start to collect sticks, stones and bits of carrot from snowballs other people let melt. (As I wrote here for an OUP guest blog.)

Firstly, some of the highest frequency words can't be treated as vocabulary but have to be dealt with as grammar. So things like à can change to au or aux. And can mean "at" or "to" or "in". Or even "with the" as in La Dame aux Camélias.

Secondly, yes, we can look and see where our core can pick up more words. But that will be determined on our own terms, not because of the "frequency" of a word in a corpus. For example, much more work on time words, such as sometimes, often, never, after, yesterday, two days ago, on Saturday, would fit in well.

Thirdly, with a group with a strong snowball, I have been working on a class novel. This is as a deliberate counter balance to our curriculum around a narrow (but growing) core. And one of the things that have come out of it is meeting lots of the words that naturally occur in authentic texts. Words like "cela". So we can see when pupils have a consolidated core snowball, what else will stick to it, even if it isn't carefully selected to naturally cohere.

I will certainly be looking at what NCELP and exam boards come up with for lists of "frequent words". And deciding if they fit into Firstly, Secondly or Thirdly as above.

Writing this has made me realise that perhaps for us, Grammar and Vocabulary aren't separate pillars. Maybe we have more of a lexico-grammar approach. But not because we teach grammar lexically. More because we teach vocabulary to fit in with a developing coherent repertoire of language the pupils can deploy. We are deliberately building a coherent core of language that fits together.

I have written here about the fact that maybe our curriculum is moving in the opposite direction to other schools. We stripped down what we teach to a core of the most powerful language about 15 years ago, to concentrate on pupils getting good at using their language. We might be at a stage where we are looking to add more things back in. Now we have a strong core, more things can stick to it. But this needs to be because it makes sense for us, not because we drop everything we are doing and do what we think Ofsted want.

More on this to come, with posts on what the Ofsted Research Review says about Grammar, Assessment and Feedback, Communication and Culture, and Target Language use. 

Phonics - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

 This is one of a series of posts looking at the implications of the Ofsted Research Review for our KS3 Curriculum. In a previous post on the issues raised around Transition, I stressed that we are not intending to make any squealing hand-brake turns, and as I have posted before, the area of Phonics is one where we have already been making strides, so perhaps this is the opportunity for a slight nudge on the tiller.

Here are the issues from the Ofsted Research Review which I highlighted in our department discussion document:

Explicitly teaching the sound-spelling patterns and the link between the two.

Planned revisiting of the sound-spelling patterns.

Focus on small changes of sound/spelling producing differences in meaning.

Reading aloud, dictation, testing - including unknown or made up words.

I am going to focus here on our main language taught from Year 7, which is French. We are confident that we do teach the sound/spelling patterns thoroughly at the start of Year 7. We use Dr Rachel Hawkes'/Comberton Village College's Francophoniques, with keywords and actions. Having the actions is good fun with a new Year 7 class, and maybe helps them learn the sound/spelling. But it also means that a teacher can use the action to anticipate or correct a mispronunciation using the action to prompt the pupil to say the word correctly without the teacher having to model it out loud. For example using the poisson action learned in Year 7 to help a Year 9 pupil pronounce coiffeur correctly.

The first issue we need to look at here is whether we cover all the sounds - in particular, un / une  is missing, and maybe other ways a word can be modified, for example bon / bonne. These are currently taught as grammar points, but it would be best to pre-empt this in the phonics teaching ready for when they are met grammatically.

This leads on to the point about the focus on small changes and when this results in a different meaning. One aspect of this is about accuracy of pupils' knowledge of the sound-spelling link. Are they accurate in distinguishing between dent and dont ? But the other aspect of linking it to meaning is trickier. Is there a pronunciation difference between dent and dans ?  And in Listening, the difference between jouer, joué, joués, jouée, jouées, jouez and jouet and jouets is only discernable through meaning and grammar.

Are we really going to micro plan these as part of phonics? Or should we continue to work on a solid basis of all the key sounds, so that when we get to the grammar of the difference between joué and jouais, the sounds are already in place, so the grammar teaching can take over. I think that after the initial blitz on phonics for pronuniciation in Year 7, it's in Listening that we will pick up on the finer distinctions. Pupils seem to find dictation more challenging than reading aloud.

I am hoping that NCELP materials will also help us to top up pupils' awareness of sound and spelling patterns. Either resources from the NCELP site or videos from Oak Academy based on NCELP's work. This will help us to do more to revisit (as called for by the Ofsted Research Review) and will also pick up on fine distinctions of sound, spelling, meaning and grammar. I hope.

On the other hand, I don't want to just be ticking boxes for the sake of it. After the explicit work on phonics in Year 7, I think there are also more subconscious processes at work. I am happy that our pupils can read aloud, they can tackle a Keep Talking sheet (Why I don't call them Sentence Builders) or learn new words without having to drill the pronunciation. And the number of rules that have to be internalised to read correctly, fluently and with a good accent is phenomenal. Sounds, elision, silent letters, exceptions... So much so that I don't think it is done by conscious and deliberate application of a rule. Exposure to lots of language, written and spoken, can take over once the basics have been done. And it is working, because when I go into a Year 9 class, I can see their confidence in reading aloud in French. And I can spot the ones whose Year 7 teacher really concentrated on phonics early on.

From our KS3 curriculum review

So I think that rather than being distracted by the Ofsted Research Review, we should keep an eye on
issues we have identified for ourselves. Firstly, because it is done early in Year 7, it is vulnerable when we have staffing changes. New teachers getting settled in to a new school and new ways of doing things, may not be up and running with teaching the phonics quite as we would like. And perhaps lockdown and then the Covid restrictions on chanting and pairwork have meant that the current cohort of pupils have not developed their phonics awareness as much as we should like. So we need to work on consistency across the department, resources to support new staff (I made videos of the sounds/spellings/pictures/actions in lockdown), and revisiting phonics either with our key words and actions, or with NCELP materials.

So far the Ofsted Research Review has been a good stimulus for reviewing our curriculum, without being too controversial. Stand by for posts on Vocabulary, Grammar, Communication and Culture, Assessment and Feedback, and Target Language Teaching. Could get exciting!

Transition - Reviewing our Curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review

Our KS3 Review Document

 We are currently reviewing aspects of our curriculum in the light of the Ofsted Research Review. We are not panicking or jumping through hoops with a sudden change of direction as a knee-jerk reaction. (Sounds painful.) I am writing these posts as we think things through and use it as an opportunity to come together as a department. This first post is on the particularly thorny issue of Transition from Primary to Secondary School.

In the ALL Connect Transition Toolkit (2015), Rachel Hawkes said that Joining up KS2 and KS3 is arguably the most important piece of work that many of us will do in our careers over the next decade. And the Toolkit took this approach to Transition - that it's not about handing over a list of pupils' grades at the end of Year 6, but about creating a joined up pupil language-learning experience over the 7 years of KS2 and KS3.

I would also add to this, that Primary Teachers have a professional interest in good KS2-KS3 transition, in that they are dedicated to their pupils and proud of their work in languages. But they don't directly benefit from it. The pupils are leaving them and coming to us. It is Secondary Teachers who have the greatest interest and will see the benefit of good transition, and it's our responsibility to make it work.

So what do Ofsted say about it? From my KS3 departmental review document, I have highlighted what I think are the 3 main points relevant to our school in the Ofsted Research Review: The stipulation of Substantial Progress in One Language in KS2. That the Secondary School Curriculum must take into account pupils' KS2 learning. And the fact that this area is a Weakness.

My initial reflections are to make all the usual excuses: We have so many feeders, they don't all do the same language, our feeders aren't in our Trust, some switch between languages... and so on. 

And then to protest that we do try. Because we do. We have worked with Primaries training teachers through the ALL Connect project, and going in to deliver lessons, and having pupils come here for taster French lessons. And run after school competitions for Primary pupils. And created story books for Primary pupils and planned to create virtual tours of the school...

But these things have now been on hold for two years, so things will have changed. The Teacher in charge of languages may have changed, their curriculum may well have been updated, they may have changed the language(s) they offer! So it is definitely time to be getting in touch and building relationships.

Meanwhile, we need to look carefully at what we do in Year 7.

All subjects have a "baseline test". In languages, I am not keen on having something that feels like an exam and ends up making pupils feel they don't know things they ought to. So ours is an information gathering exercise. It asks pupils questions about their language-learning experiences so far, places they have visited or would like to visit, and languages their family speak. This is the starting point for discussion about languages, knowing and valuing the pupils' experience and ambition. 

There is also a short French passage for them to read and pick out what they understand. We return to this throughout the introductory unit, as they learn to read aloud with confidence and to understand more and more of what it says.

Then there's our choice of topics for the first units. We used to do Rachel Hawkes's Francovision Song Contest as a deliberate Transition tactic. Each Y7 class learned and filmed a French pop song. These were played in assemblies and voted on by different year groups. It was an ideal start, avoiding familiar topics and working on the key objectives of pronunciation, memorisation, and communication. Then some of our feeder schools started using the same idea, inviting our Year 9 International Leaders to go along and be judges. So we had to change.

Our second unit in Y7 is the Art Exhibition, designed to pick up on word order, adjectival agreement, shapes, colours, opinions, and prepositions, but in the context of creating an art gallery exhibition. Each pupil creates an artwork and writes a description and the artist's biography in French. These go on show to the paying public at a local gallery. This is a deliberate way to tackle important basic aspects of French grammar and vocabulary, but in a new creative context that avoids repeating what they have done in KS2. Touch wood, so far none of the Primary Schools have decided to take up the idea themselves.

Which brings me on to our first unit. It is based on personal description of self, family and pets. With the verb to have and the verb to be. With adjectives and sets of nouns, numbers and months... So it does risk some repetition of material already covered. We have to be alert to pupils who have a stronger foundation from KS2, and pupils who have had no language-learning at all.

We hope that what we do helps pull their learning together and upgrades what they can do with it and how it fits into the overall systematisation of how the language fits together. We have a strong focus on phonics, based on Rachel Hawkes's Francophoniques. We expect them to be using Question and Answer in pairwork to develop speaking. And we use scaffolding to extend and personalise their writing.

We also try to theme the topic slightly differently, with a Crime focus. We have descriptions of suspects, create Wanted posters for teachers, play Guess Who, and have a scenario to read aloud and act out.

For now, I think this is good. But we must keep paying attention and as pupils arrive with more and more experience of languages, it will be the first thing to change.

So while Transition is going to continue to be an on-going challenge, it's not one of the areas where the Ofsted Research Review itself comes up with any dilemma. The other areas coming up next are Phonics, Grammar, Vocabulary, Culture and Communication, Assessments and Feedback, Target Language, and Leadership. So I can see there's going to be some issues to deal with in future posts...

A first (collaborative) attempt at writing a literature essay in Spanish.

 When the new A Level introduced a literary set text, I must admit I was nervous. We have very few pupils who study the traditional combination of French, Spanish, English Lit A Levels that was the norm when I was in the Sixth Form. We have pupils who study Chemistry, Health and Social Care, Psychology and a wide range of A Levels alongside Spanish. I also didn't really know what their GCSE English study of An Inspector Calls etc would equip them to do. So I have approached the set text in Spanish in a very step by step manner.

This week Year 12 were writing their first essay after finishing reading the text. This is the sort of thing that in Year 7, if you said, "One day, you will be reading a work of literature in Spanish and writing essays on it in Spanish," they would have been awestruck by the future that awaited them. I do like to remind them just how brilliant they have become!

We started by planning in teams, by writing on the desks. This is designed to make the process public, shared and accessible. No-one is on their own struggling with an essay plan in silence. They are working in pairs, enjoying writing on the tables, happy to try things out and rub them out, and to comment on or steal ideas from other teams.

Practical tips: Watch out for pupils with light coloured clothing where the pen from the desk might smudge on their sleeves. And don't use black or purple felt tips because they are the hardest to rub off. We are using miniwhiteboard pens, so don't worry about the photos showing black pen.

You can see I have given the pupils a structure to follow. They are looking at the character of Martirio in García Lorca's La Casa de Bernarda Alba. They are listing their evidence about the character from the text that fits into 3 ways of looking at the text:

A simple story or melodrama.

A sociological study of life in rural Spain.

A psychological analysis of desire and repression within the human psyche.

Then they write up their ideas in Spanish. Again, knowing that this is going to be rubbed out at the end of the lesson - they are trying out their expression, exploring what they can and can't say and whether it makes any sense! It is a low stakes, ephemeral and experimental approach to writing.

It is possible to turn this into a production line, with students moving between tables, reading and adding to different answers as they evolve. If you want you can ask them to do this in a prescriptive way: An opening topic sentence, evidence, analysis, conclusion. I asked my class if they wanted to do this and they declined.

Before we rub it out, the students take a photo on their phones so they can refer to it at the next stage.

The next stage is still collaborative, but on a shared live Google doc. Each pair of students has a doc to work on together from their own device. And I also have the doc open to make suggestions. Here you can see the two students working on the doc together and some of my suggestions.

The last paragraph to be added was the introduction, which explains why it's currently the one with most uncorrected errors.

They are using their 3 table paragraphs from the previous lesson:

Martirio seen through the lens of "if you consider it as just a story", "if you consider it to be a sociological study", and "if you think it is something deeper."

To this they add an introduction explaining that they are going to examine these 3 perspectives. And a conclusion explaining that the shift in Martirio's character from realistic to symbolic is part of the trajectory of the whole play from real to surreal.

Next lesson we will plan other essay titles, using the same 3 perspective formula. I had a group once who tried to stress-test this formula and see if it was bullet proof. They tried every conceivable essay title to see if they could use this in every case. It seemed unbreakable.

Having said that, as with A Level teaching generally, Year 12 is about routines and formulae to make sure students are where they need to be. And then Year 13 is about moving on and letting them break away from routines to think independently and creatively.

But I didn't need to be scared of the essay. Students love exploring their ideas and seeing something physically emerge as they create it together.