Skip to main content

MFL A-levels are not dire; they are rather good!

I blogged yesterday about remarks made about the current modern languages A-levels. The accusation was, essentially, that they are dumbed down, lack rigour and are not interesting enough. I categorically rejected that claim but did not go into why I believe the current A-level is very good.

  • The AS level offers a good bridge between GCSE and A2 level. ALCAB made this a criticism, claiming AS was too much like AS level. I think they underestimate how much students like the topics, how stimulating they can be and how weak many students are when they emerge from GCSE. ALCAB believed that the new GCSE might fix the latter issue. It will not.
  • The current A-level stresses target langauge use in nearly every respect, especially as far as the cultural topics are concerned. Discussion and assessment in the target language are best. If you set essays in the target langauge, you will practise them that way. If you set essays in English students will spend hours writing English, not the target language. Assessment through English will harm acquisition.
  • The current A2 topics approach - what I label "general studies through the target language" - has been established for years and it works. ALCAB worried that there was insufficient reference to the culture of the target language, but in practice teachers use resources which, in most cases, refer to the target language countries. In addition, the topics are of great relevance to the modern world and merit continued loyalty: integration, environment, development and so on. These are the issues of the day and they are of relevance in all countries.
  • The balance of communication and grammatical rigour is about right as it stands. If students emerge from A-level without a firm grammatical and lexical basis it is not because of the syllabus. It may be because they are not taught thoroughly enough or that some students do not retain structures as easily as others.
  • The current system of cultural topics gives teachers freedom to choose from a wide range of areas: history, film, drama, the novel, geography and so on. Not all students are motivated by film and literature. A-level need not reflect a university academic bias towards these areas. Prescribed lists may allow for a slightly more robust assessment and greater consistency, but they do sometimes force teachers to teach in areas they are less confident with or enthusiastic about. Any essay-based assessment will always leave room for subjectivity and complaint.
  • The current emphasis on translation is adequate. Indeed, I would remove it completely. You can achieve grammatical and lexical rigour without translation.
  • The current A-level is set at a reasonable level of challenge. I know this having taught students with a range of aptitudes, from E/U-graders to Oxbridge entrants. Noone ever complained it was too easy. Indeed, the grading regime places languages among the hardest subjects, along with sciences.
  • Students are challenged by and enjoy the current A-level. Low take-up at A-level has little to do with the A-level itself. As the recent JCQ report found, it is much more about previous experience of GCSE and the perception that languages are harder to get good grades in, therefore a risky choice. Most students want stimulating courses with a stress on speaking and listening.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,
4 comments
Read more

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).
Post a Comment
Read more

12 principles of second language teaching

This is a short, adapted extract from our book The Language Teacher Toolkit . "We could not possibly recommend a single overall method for second language teaching, but the growing body of research we now have points to certain provisional broad principles which might guide teachers. Canadian professors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada (2013), after reviewing a number of studies over the years to see whether it is better to just use meaning-based approaches or to include elements of explicit grammar teaching and practice, conclude: Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective in promoting second language learning than programmes that are limited to a virtually exclusive emphasis on comprehension. As teachers Gianfranco and I would go along with that general view and would like to suggest our own set of g
2 comments
Read more