We all know that barely understood statistics based on KS2 English and Maths results are used to tell pupils that they will probably achieve lower grades in languages than in their other subjects. Because the grades given out are set up in order to make this come true. On average. And we may or may not understand that while this is set in stone for the whole cohort, it doesn't mean that the "target" grade has any validity at all for the individual pupil.
The pupils' target grades for languages are lower, not because they personally are worse at languages, but because nationally the grades given out for languages are lower than for other subjects. Knowing that can help get rid of the misconception that the target grade is a reflection of the pupil's ability in the subject. But it doesn't help with the perception that the grades are harder to get in languages, because it is an accurate perception.
Not because the subject matter is harder. But because even before the current GCSE had been examined, it was set by "comparable outcomes" that it would preserve the numbers of pupils getting each grade. With the old A-G grades it was half a grade harder. With the way the new 9-1 grades match up, it is a whole grade harder.
In this post I am going to look at another aspect that got tangled up with this. National Curriculum Levels. The old National Curriculum had levels from 1 to 8. They applied to the years where languages were compulsory or an "entitlement". So KS3 and KS4. They were designed mainly for reporting levels at the end of Year 9. These were assessed by teachers using their own assessments and reported nationally each year.
The problem was, rather than being used for summative assessment, they became seen as some kind of progression model. A purpose for which they were not designed. And where teachers stuck to this flawed (failed) progression model, it did harm the evolution of the successful teaching of languages.
Schools thought that progress was made by pupils starting at Level 1. And working their way up to Level 2. And maybe making it to Level 3. This was reinforced by the totally fictitious invention of "sublevels": 1a, 1b, 1c. It wasn't even clear if you started at a, then worked towards b. Or if "a" meant you were at the top of the level, b in the middle, c at the bottom. Because they were based on nothing. But further gave the impression of a gradation of progression to be worked through. In Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Separately.
And there were schools which thought that this progression model was mandated for every unit. So every time you started a new topic your pupils would start at Level 1 and slowly work their way towards Level 2. Unfortunately, Level 1 meant learning single words. Level 2 was phrases. Level 3 was sentences. Level 4 was paragraphs. Levels 5 upwards involved tenses. And because the National Curriculum applied to KS3 and KS4, it seemed reasonable to expect that KS3 would be Levels 1 to 4. And GCSE would be Levels 5 to 8.
So you could end up with a situation where teachers were carefully working their way through a "progression" model that took pupils in Year 9 to a level where the highest they aimed for was to be thinking about moving from sentences to short paragraphs. And maybe using I'm going to... in order to claim they were using tenses.
Of course, the best way to get pupils to extend their answers and write paragraphs, isn't to spend most of the curriculum time working on learning single words or set phrases one topic at a time.
The best way to get pupils good at extending answers and writing paragraphs, is to spend most of the time working on developing their answers. Teaching speaking, writing, reading and listening together, to develop a core repertoire of language pupils can use across topics.
You can see what the proponents of the new GCSE are reacting to, when they say we need to move away from lists of topic based nouns.
Except of course we already reacted. We already moved away. In 2002 the Open University filmed me teaching a lesson in which pupils were using a core of language to speak spontaneously and develop their own answers creatively in speaking and writing. In the video we talk about Levels 5 and 6 with the Year 8 group. Because the way to get to "Level 6" is to go straight to Level 6 stuff and spend time getting good at it.
In 2005 I published this article in the Language Learning Journal about the grammar needed for GCSE.
It makes the case for going directly to the Level you want to achieve. Equipping the pupils with a "kit" of grammar that they can deploy. And then spending the time getting good at using it.
A grammar which is generative, not censoring. A grammar which pupils can consciously or unconsciously use to create meaning. Grammar defined as the building blocks which allow them to put the language together to create meaning.
Only this first page of the article is accessible. The rest is behind the paywall. The "kit" it goes on to describe is what I used to call the pupils' "Emergency Sheet". The structures for giving and justifying opinions, talking about past and future, which they could use for any topic.
Interestingly, this "kit" is what we now routinely teach in Year 8.
And it serves two purposes. It equips pupils with the language they need for immediate use. To work on developing and extending their answers. But secondly, by giving them that repertoire, that core of language, it means that more and more grammar and grammatical understanding sticks to that core. But the ability to use the language is key. The pupils who go on to A Level and to tackle more and more grammar, often quote me back to myself, saying their moment of realisation was the idea that it's not about learning more language. It's about learning to use the language that you have. And once you start doing that, more and more language and conceptualisation of the language will stick.
Whereas the new GCSE/NCELP/Ofsted new orthodoxy is the opposite. For them, conceptualisation of the language has to come first. And use of the language may or may not follow. Because of the political doctrine that "knowledge" has to come before "skills". Which we can see de-skilling our pupils across the curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment