Skip to main content

The problem with specs

In the days of Zeppelin and Floyd we didn't have specifications or syllabuses for modern languages. Like the British constitution, we relied on tradition. We also looked carefully at past papers and made sure our students were prepared for what they would encounter in the prose, unseen translation, comprehension and essays. The nearest we came to a syllabus was the sometimes unappealing list of prescribed literary texts from which we could select. We were effectively preparing students for a French degree at university.

We are probably in a better place now. We test listening skills, use more authentic texts and rely less on translation at A-Level. We also have a clearly explained specification which lists topics, structures, skills and which tells us what will be in the exams and how the mark schemes work. All this enables us to be far more explicit with students about how they will be assessed. We also know that most of our students will not continue with French in higher education and we want them to use their language as a practical tool.

But with modern specs come a number of issues. Whenever you tell teachers what will be taught and assessed, they nearly always do their best to follow instructions to the letter. They follow the spec faithfully, making sure they stick to the topics: media, cinema, new technology, sport etc. There is some sense in this too, because the topics have been chosen by exam boards to supposedly match with students' interests. Indeed students and teachers are consulted carefully when the spec is drawn up. The problem, however, is that in this desire to prepare students effectively, teachers may avoid doing other topics, going off the syllabus, taking risks. If writing is assessed by essay, teachers set lots of essays instead of summary, translation, question and answer. Teachers are encouraged to play safe by text books designed to fit the spec closely and which are sponsored by exam boards. (Have you noticed how dull and uncreative these books and their associated online tasks are?)

Furthermore, when mark schemes are spelled out in detail, teachers spend an inordinate amount of time preparing students to attain the highest grades. I inwardly groan when I display a mark scheme and explain carefully what hoops to have to jump through to make sure you get the highest mark. (Marks which, by the way, as I have commented on previously, often depend as much upon ideas and structure as on linguistic skill.)

I would not argue that we should turn to the 1970s way of doing things, but I do suggest that we should be less slavish to the specs, keeping in mind that the structures and vocabulary we teach are often transferable to all kinds of topics. We should be creative, not use resources because they happen to be in the text book, do other topics beyond the specs, see A-Level as general studies through the medium of French, whilst making sure we do what we must to ensure students are well prepared for their exam.

Comments

  1. music (and art, and drama, and cultural awareness, and maths, and geography, and grammatical understanding, and a little dash of this and that, here and there!) to my ears!

    ReplyDelete

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,

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).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,