Modern Foreign Languages

Teaching School Subjects 11-19

Norbert Pachler, Michael Evans, Shirley Lawes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• eBook ISBN: 9781134190645
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Covering the training standards for NQTs and the Induction Standards and also fully exploring issues to do with subject knowledge in learning to teach, this is the essential guide for teachers of foreign languages. Acknowledging that an essential element of a secondary teacher's identity is tied up with their subject taught, the book is divided into three sections:

• framing the subject
• teaching the subject
• modern languages within the professional community.

This book aims to provide stimulating assistance to subject specialists by helping them find ways of thinking about their specialism, how to teach with it, and how to enagage with what pupils learn through it.

Written with teachers of modern foreign languages in the years of their early professional development in mind, this book is also suitable for those on PGCE courses, those in their induction year, and those in years two and three of their teaching career.

Part I
The subject

In the first part of this book, we consider the foreign language (FL) subject field both in terms of knowledge of the language, where we discuss contesting views of what it means to know a FL, and also knowledge about FLs and how they are learned. These two aspects of the subject field raise important issues about the transition from linguist to FL teacher that are explored in more depth later in the book.

We begin, in Chapter 1, by setting FL education in its political context by discussing some of the changes in educational policy characterised by a growth in government intervention into what is taught and how it is taught. We consider briefly some of the possible negative consequences of recent initiatives and thinking about FL education. In so doing, we aim to prompt our readers to reflect critically on the effects of policy initiatives on the role of the FL teacher, and the changing place of FLs in the school curriculum. We consider FLs as a discrete field and compare differing and contested views of subject knowledge. We argue that FLs as a subject discipline are undermined by an instrumental, functional view of knowledge, that expert subject knowledge is a prerequisite for effective teaching, and that this is the essential foundation of FL teacher professionalism upon which sound pedagogical and other professional and theoretical knowledge is predicated.

In Chapter 2 we take the discussion further by attempting to categorise the subject knowledge field and begin to look at ways in which the academic knowledge of the linguist is re-orientated towards teaching and learning. The term “subject knowledge’ comprises a highly differentiated field that extends much beyond the narrow conceptualisation of the generic standards for qualified teacher status (QTS). This chapter explores the dimensions of the teacher’s subject knowledge and draws on the three examples of the target language, grammar and cultural awareness to illustrate the relationship between subject knowledge and teacher behaviour. We consider also some of the particular issues relating to the native speaker teacher of FLs, and some of the problems relating to the teaching of a second foreign language (FL2).

Chapter 1
The politics of foreign language learning and the subject knowledge field

INTRODUCTION

Why should a book on teaching and learning foreign languages begin by identifying the field as being in any way political? How is the teaching and learning of FLs political and why? How is this issue important to teachers? These questions have both current and historical aspects to them. The value placed on FLs within the education system at any given time, both in schools and higher education (HE) is a reflection of how we understand what education means. In recent times, attitudes to knowledge have become more functional, and the aims and purposes of education have become closely linked to the perceived needs of society and the economy. What is more, the social aspects of schooling seem to some policymakers to be more important than traditional subject disciplines, and the school curriculum has become infused with ‘cross-curricular themes’ that have influenced our understanding of the subject knowledge field. In this shifting climate, the place of FLs in the school curriculum, and their value in relation to other subjects, have become more vulnerable to intervention by government. We discuss this issue in more detail in Chapters 4 and 7. Moreover, the decline in interest over a number of years, in England at least, in FLs as an area of academic study at undergraduate level, during a period when FLs were compulsory in the school curriculum up to the age of 16, has increased this vulnerability. The National Languages Strategy (DfES, 2002) has introduced quite sweeping changes regarding when and how FLs are taught in schools, which are also impacting on what FLs feature on the school curriculum. Such changes should not be seen by teachers as simply the latest initiative to be handed down and ‘delivered’, but should be considered in an objective, critical light. This chapter will consider some of the features of present-day policy on FLs and their implications. We will discuss differing views of what it means to know a FL, and consider its importance in a world where English has become the dominant world language.

WHY POLITICAL?

When the UK became a member of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973, many teachers of FLs imagined the dawn of a new era for their subject discipline in schools. Although by that time the majority of 11-year-olds were learning a FL, usually French, in secondary school, the subject area was still seen by many as academic and elitist. Membership of the EEC raised awareness and concerns outside the education community about the UK’s poor overall FL capability and fears were expressed that opportunities to reap full benefit of EEC membership would be missed. In 1976, the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, launched ‘The Great Debate’ on education in a landmark speech at Ruskin College, Oxford, in which he identified ‘the need to improve relations between industry and education’ (Maclure, 1988, p. 169). The idea that FL learning might have a practical use for more than a very tiny portion of the population was a challenge that raised issues of what should be learned and how. Importantly, the Ruskin College speech indicated for the first time that education should be linked to the needs of the economy and that educational decisions should not be left only to educators: government and other interested parties had a role to play in educational decision-making.

The combination of membership of the EEC and the shift in the relationship between education and society had an impact on the teaching and learning of FLs. First, for FL teachers, membership of the EEC signalled a possible change in attitudes towards FL learning. Greater numbers and a wider range of learner ability, together with the new opportunities for job mobility in the EEC that many people envisaged, led many teachers to believe that learners might see FLs as more attractive and relevant if they had a vocational purpose. The perceived value and purpose of FL began to change quite rapidly. These changes were accompanied by developments in second language research (see Mitchell and Myles, 1998) and FL teaching methodology (see Jones, 1994, and Hawkins, 1996).

However, until the late 1980s and beyond, the majority of developments in teaching and learning FLs at all levels were teacher-led, although, of course, influenced by outside pressures. For example, developments in methodology throughout that period towards a focus on FLs for communication, ‘authenticity’ of task and materials, and the use of native speakers modelling everyday language were based, in part, on the development of the so-called ‘Graded Objectives Movement’ that sought to change how and when achievement in FLs was assessed. There was a distinction during that period between government, who made policies based on a political outlook, and educational professionals who were mostly in the universities, but also in Local Authorities (LAs) and certainly in schools, who had the freedom to interpret those policies within the educational system based on their professional knowledge, beliefs and expertise. Developments in FL pedagogy and curriculum development at that time, therefore, were seen as a professional responsibility.

Although it is not possible here to go into great historical detail of the last 25 years (see Hawkins, 1996, and Rowlinson, 1994 for a critical account of the period), nevertheless, it is possible to point to the Education Reform Act of 1988 and the subsequent introduction of the National Curriculum for Schools as a watershed in education in England and Wales. Increased intervention by government in education continued throughout the 1990s up to the present time, to the point where all aspects of schooling and school life, from school meals to classroom discipline, are now the subject of policy initiatives that prescribe practice. Other examples of prescriptive policies and their effects that relate to the area of FLs are discussed throughout this book; the point here is to emphasise the extent to which education generally, and FLs specifically, are now seen as important objects of political interest and public policy, in which the government is involved to a far greater extent than at any time in the past.

FL teaching has been dogged by the perception that a lot of FL learning is unsuccessful. Some commentators, recognising that FLs are difficult, observe that perhaps too much is expected of learners. The National Framework for Languages, and in particular, the Key Stage Three (KS3) Framework are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. However, this quite radical shift in government policy at the present time is hailed as an attempt to indicate a firm political commitment to FL learning and a recognition of the importance of increasing Britain’s FL capacity in both economic and educational terms, while at the same time acknowledging the difficulty of the subject area. Perhaps somewhat cynically, it might be seen as a misguided attempt to demonstrate a commitment to boost a somewhat beleaguered curriculum area that will have long-term deleterious effects on FLs in this country. Emerging responses to these recent changes in FL curriculum provision range from applause, tinged with a certain nervousness about how realistic the proposals are (Wicksteed, 2005), to dismay from those who fear for the future of FLs at all levels now that they have been made optional on the school curriculum from the age of 14. Whether seen as a further watershed or a crisis, it is clear that the changes have fuelled both concern and debate over what the FL subject area should constitute, who it should be for and why it is important. It is now more difficult to justify FLs as a subject discipline in its own terms, at a time when what should be taught in schools is increasingly called into question (see White, 2004). Whether, for example, the focus on cross-curricular themes such as information and communications technology (ICT) and citizenship education, as well as the requirement for all teachers to be concerned with literacy and numeracy skills, represents an erosion of our understanding of the subject discipline of FLs or whether it is enhancing, and reflects a change in how we understand subject knowledge, is a matter of some debate. These matters are discussed further in Chapter 7. They do have a significant bearing, however, on FL curriculum content and its knowledge base.

Amidst all the discussion and debate on the perceived intrusiveness of some aspects of government educational policy, FL teachers and teacher educators alike are heard to complain now that they have become ‘deliverers’ rather than innovators. But this somewhat negative view should be challenged.

However, whatever new structures or curriculum initiatives may be introduced by policymakers, it is still FL teachers who have the expert subject knowledge and it is their belief in, and passion for their subject that enables them to inspire learners, and in this sense knowledge is power! Expert subject knowledge is the basis of a teacher’s professional expertise. Belief in the value of FLs as a subject discipline is, therefore, paramount and of overriding importance to whatever structures might be imposed from without. But what do we mean by ‘expert’ subject knowledge? Indeed, what is subject knowledge? What should be the aspirations we have for learners of FLs? These are the questions that we shall turn to in the next section.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO KNOW A FL?

‘Mastery’ and the near-native speaker

In recent times, the ground has shifted quite considerably as to what constitutes ‘knowing’ a FL. The traditional model of ‘near-native speaker’ fluency as the ultimate aspiration of the FL learner has been called into question because it is unachievable for most learners and is, therefore, supposedly demotivating. Furthermore, cultural relativists would argue about what the term ‘native speaker’ actually means. Do we refer to the French spoken in France, the Spanish in Spain, or the variations that exist around the world? Perceptions of what it means to know a FL have changed, and over the past 30 years the trend in both post-16 (A level) and university programmes has been away from the development of FL knowledge through translation, essays, the study of grammar and a heavy emphasis on the study of literature and other cultural knowledge (often called ‘civilisation’), to the development of operational language skills, the teaching of cultural ‘awareness’, which suggests a more ethnographic orientation, and, most importantly, a focus on the target language as the medium through which communication is developed. The study of a large number of texts from the literary canon has been replaced on most degree programmes by more recent works and courses in film and media studies. Indeed, on some modularised degree programmes, it is possible to avoid the study of literature entirely in favour of more ‘relevant’, often vocationally orientated, modules, such as business languages.

It is neither possible nor necessary here to consider in detail the content and changing nature of HE degree programmes (see Coleman, 1995, pp. 1–15 and 1999, pp. 321–41, for a full discussion of trends in HE). Readers will have their own experiences as students to refer to, but it would seem that there is now a far greater degree of variation in FL learning experience on degree programmes, and, therefore, the subject expertise that might traditionally be seen as the corpus of subject knowledge that was the assumed prerequisite for the linguist seeking to become a FL teacher has changed. Nevertheless, we might assume that there is still likely to be some sort of consensus as to what constitutes the body of FL knowledge that can be seen as constituting ‘mastery’ that is deemed a desirable, even necessary, basis for admission to the teaching profession.

As a minimum, a high degree of written and oral fluency in the target language, a firm grasp of the grammar of the language and some experience, knowledge and awareness of the culture or cultures in the ethnographic sense where the language is spoken would seem essential. But if these areas of subject knowledge are necessary, are they sufficient? What is it that inspires passion in FL teachers for their subject? It is an important question, particularly as FL beginner teachers most frequently cite their love of and for their subject and the wish to share their knowledge with young people as being their primary motivation for wanting to teach (Lawes, 2004b). But what do they mean? If all that is meant is that they enjoy speaking the language and want to teach others to do the same, it could be that their ability to inspire future generations of FL learners will be limited and their enthusiasm short-lived. A high level of linguistic ability is, of course, a prerequisite of ‘mastery’, but the heart of FL ‘mastery’ is the opening up to other cultures, indeed to human culture in all its forms, that is, to the best that is thought and known. However, at the present time when much emphasis is placed on the functional and instrumental role of knowledge, and a relativistic view of knowledge prevails, it is not easy to argue for an in-depth knowledge of culture, that is, the literature, arts and history of the country or countries where the FL is spoken, or so-called ‘high culture’, without being accused of being out-of-date or elitist. But what is elitist about aspiring to the best that is thought and known? In fact, access to this body of knowledge is what linguists often cite as being what inspired them most (along with spending periods of time in the country) in their FL learning (see Coleman, 1995). Moreover, it is precisely this cultural knowledge that enables a better understanding of the ethnological forms of culture, that is the traditions, customs, folklore and aspects of daily life. Literature is, after all, the cultural base of the language.

Communicative competence

The term ‘communicative competence’ has been used for some time to describe what FL knowledge entails and the types of skill that learners might be expected to develop. The term has been used for some time, although the way it is used is often divorced from its original meaning. Mitchell (1994, p. 34), in a thoughtful investigation into communicative language teaching (CLT), points out that the term ‘communicative competence’ was first popularised by Dell Hymes in the early 1970s and was used to describe ‘the competent language user (who) not only commands accurately the grammar and vocabulary of the chosen target language, but also knows how to use that linguistic knowledge appropriately in a range of social situations’. Canale (1983) identified four areas of communicative competence:

• grammatical competence
• discourse competence
• sociolinguistic competence and
• strategic competence.

Communicative competence thus defined suggests a relatively high level of knowledge and practical capability that learners might aspire to. But more recent interpretations, not least in the National Curriculum (NC) and GCSE examination specifications are much weaker. CLT, as the vehicle for developing communicative competence, while remaining what Pachler calls the ‘methodological imperative’, has, over the last 20 years remained contentious and, some would argue, flawed. There has been a growing perception that CLT needs ‘revisiting’. Critics suggest that the particular form of CLT developed in the UK, characterised by topic-based syllabuses, performance objectives and much pupil interaction, trivialises FL teaching by placing...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• About the authors
• Editors’ preface
• About this book
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction: foreign language teaching in context
• Part I The subject
• Part II Using the subject in the classroom
• Part III Subject and professional development
• Recommended books
• Recommended journals
• References