Primary Foreign Languages PDF

Preview

Summary

Primary Foreign Languages...

Description

Primary Foreign Languages – Semester 2

Week 1 What are your thoughts on the current situation for progress in languages in schools? Collen, I. (2021) Language Trends 2021. Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England: Survey Report, Reading: Education Development Trust/London: British Council. Available at: language_trends_2021_report.pdf (britishcouncil.org) Teaching the 4 skills What are the four skills? -

Speaking, listening, reading, writing

How would you group them? -

Oracy (speaking and listening) and Literacy (reading and writing)?

But you could group them like this: -

Receptive skills (listening and reading) Productive skills (speaking and writing)

French lesson from an NQT – year 3 KS2 MFL - Story Activities - Using washing line technique to teach specific French phrases (say what you hear, not what you see)

Planning must include development of the four skills as they reinforce one another in the new language. They also support first language cognitive development (Jones and Coffey, 2017). Situation of writing in Primary schools  

‘Out of 13 possible challenges, the teaching of writing …was the most cited difficulty in language teaching’ (Board and Tinsley, 2014). A total of four out of five schools rate the teaching of writing in a language, including the correct use of grammar, as either ‘a major challenge’ (27 per cent) or ‘quite challenging’ (53 per cent) (Board and Tinsley, 2015).

What are the issues with introducing writing in primary schools?

1. Mispronunciation (Jones and Coffey, 2017) 2. Worry that children may feel threatened or lose interest in learning a foreign language (Kirsch, 2008) 3. Sharpe (2001) raises a practical point about the speed at which young children write and questions whether this is a good use of time in an already limited timetable. Writing enhances the other skills  

Enhances students' reading and writing development, but also has a significant impact on the skills of listening and speaking too and enhances the other skills (DfES 2005; Kirsch, 2008). Reinforces primary languages as a ‘serious subject’ (Jones and Coffey, 2017)

Writing as a skill in its own right    

Enables pupils to identify where one word ends and another begins (Sharpe, 2001) Reinforces the association between the sound and the word – if children are taught the correct pronunciation Gives the language a relevance and meaning Creates the possibility of real communication exchanges with children in the new language (Martin, 2008).

Writing as a problem-solving activity 

 

‘Tasks that engage learners in problem-solving and represent a real challenge for them in ideational and/ linguistic terms have more chances of contributing to learning’ (Manchon, 2014:105) ‘Noticing the hole’ (Manchón, 2014) Bridging the hole (Ortega, 2012 and Williams, 2012)

Writing Creatively: activities                 

Pipe cleaner letters Magnetic letter Foam letters Play dough Floor tiles Washing line Microsoft Word – word art Phonics play Label items Guess the word Pictionary Whiteboard (interactive and mini) Create a rap / song to a known melody Paired writing Overlay writing In sand Air writing

 

Back writing Paint / chalk

References   

  

DfES (2005) Key Stage 2 Framework for Languages. Nottingham: DCFS Publications Jones and Coffey (2006) Modern Foreign Languages 5-11 a guide for teachers London, Fulton Manchon, R.M. (2014) ’Learning and teaching writing in the foreign languages classroom’ in P. Driscoll, E. Macaro and A. Swarbrick (eds.) Debates in Modern Languages Education. Abingdon: Routledge Ortega, L (2012) ’Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing SLA interfaces’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 404-415 Sharpe, K. (2001) Modern Foreign Languages in the primary school the what, why and how of early MFL teaching Oxon, Taylor and Francis Williams, J. (2012) ’The potential role(s)of writing in second language development’. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321 - 331

Graham et al (2017) Early Language Learning: The impact of teaching and teacher factors, Language Learning, 67, (4), 922-958 





This study examined the progress in lexical and grammatical knowledge among 252 learners of French in England across the last two years of primary education and into the first year of secondary school in relation to teaching and teacher factors. It compared linguistic outcomes from two different approaches, one which emphasized oracy and the other which combined literacy with attention to oracy development. We also explored the relationship between linguistic outcomes and other teaching/teacher factors: teaching time, teacher level of French proficiency, and teacher level of training in language instruction. Learners completed a sentence repetition task and a photo description task, making small but statistically significant progress in both grammatical and lexical knowledge between test points. While teaching approach had little impact on such progress, other teaching and teacher factors did, particularly the French proficiency level of the primary school teacher and the amount of teaching time devoted to French. This study investigated the nature of the progress made by young learners of French as a foreign language in England across the last two years of primary education and the first year of secondary school. It also explored the extent to which learning outcomes are related to teaching and teacher factors within the primary setting: teacher French language proficiency, teacher level of training in language teaching, teaching time, and teaching approach, namely, the focus of instruction. We considered two approaches: “oracy,” where the teaching emphasis is predominantly on speaking and listening development, and “literacy,” where reading and writing are combined with attention to oracy. An investigation into the progress made by young learners in classroom settings is timely and important because in recent years a growing number of countries have lowered the age at which instructed foreign language learning begins (Murphy, 2014) in the belief that an earlier start will lead to better learning outcomes. Concerns have been expressed, however, that such policy initiatives have been based on the extrapolation of findings from language learning in naturalistic settings to language learning in classroom contexts (Murphy, 2014). Such extrapolations seem to







assume that both types of learning are identical and that an early start in classroom instruction will automatically lead to rapid, effortless learning. On the contrary, any age advantage reported for naturalistic foreign language learning (e.g., discussed in Munoz, 2008) has ˜ not been found in rigorous, longitudinal studies in instructed contexts, with a later start (e.g., at age 11), in fact, often resulting in faster, more efficient learning, as was found, for example, for learners of English in Spain (Munoz, ˜ 2006), learners of French in England (Myles & Mitchell, 2011), and learners of English in Germany (Jaekel, Schurig, Florian, & Ritter, 2017). Furthermore, high variability in learning outcomes for young learners has been reported for instructed settings (e.g., see findings from Europe reported in Enever, 2011a), suggesting that factors other than age contribute to language learning for such children. Additionally, the question of age and its relevance in instructed contexts need to be considered with reference to the ways in which young children are believed to learn a language. DeKeyser (2003) argues that children draw on implicit mechanisms (acquiring grammatical structures through exposure alone), leading to better ultimate attainment, as “many elements of a language are hard to learn explicitly” (p. 335). Older children and adults, by contrast, learn explicitly, drawing on “native language knowledge” (p. 334); greater cognitive maturity enables them to progress more quickly. Furthermore, to be able to draw on implicit mechanisms, young learners require vast amounts of time and input. While such amounts are available in naturalistic contexts, such as residence in the country where the language is spoken, this is far from being the case in instructed foreign language classrooms (DeKeyser, 2003; Munoz, 2006, 2008, 2014). If it is accepted that young learners learn implicitly and that this is a slow process requiring plentiful and high-quality input, the amount of exposure that they receive in instructed settings is of prime importance, more important than the age at which instruction begins, with the consequence that amount of exposure “never ceases to be a determinant factor” in learning outcomes (Munoz, 2014, p. 466). This is also likely to be the case for the quality of that ˜ exposure, which may vary according to the teachers’ level of foreign language proficiency, their pedagogical skills, and the teaching methods they employ. Nevertheless, while there has been plentiful research on the effects of age on language learning, much less is known about the relationship between amount and quality of language exposure, on the one hand, and learners’ language development, on the other, in classroom settings. The present study sought to address that gap and to explore how variation in teaching and teacher factors relates to learners’ grammatical and lexical development. The context of this study is the learning of French in England, a country that has followed the global trend toward an earlier start for language learning, albeit more recently. Foreign language instruction became a compulsory element of the National Curriculum at the primary school level in September 2014. Learners are required to make “substantial progress” in one language during the last 4 years of primary education (Department for Education, 2013, p. 1), that is, from Year 3 (ages 7–8) to Year 6 (ages 10–11). At the same time, annual surveys indicate a great deal of variability across schools in the amount of lesson time allocated to language learning and in teachers’ levels of language proficiency and training (Tinsley & Board, 2016). Variability in teaching and teacher factors is also found both across and within other countries (Enever, 2011b, commenting on Europe), and the relative absence of the target language in the environment within England and in other Anglophone contexts makes it particularly important to understand how such variability affects learning outcomes.







Variability in primary language provision is also likely to have implications for learners’ move to secondary or high school, as it means that learners in England enter secondary school with widely different levels of foreign language proficiency (Tinsley & Board, 2016). This range poses a great challenge to language teachers, which they may seek to address by simply reteaching what was meant to have been covered in earlier years (Office for Standards in Education, 2011). Such issues and practices occur not only in England but also elsewhere, for example, in the United States and Australia (Lo Bianco, 2009; Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011); this also occur in other curriculum areas, such as mathematics and reading (Galton, Gray, & Ruddock, 1999), albeit to a lesser extent because the core nature of those areas means that variability in teaching during primary school is less pronounced. Reteaching may account for findings across a range of contexts, suggesting that learners’ progress slows across the primary to secondary school transition (e.g., Hill, Davies, Oldfield, & Watson, 1998 [Australia]; Low, Brown, Johnstone, & Pirrie, 1995 [Scotland]). By contrast, and more positively, a recent study by Courtney (2014) of 26 learners of French in England across the primary–secondary transition did find evidence of progress in breadth of vocabulary, gender assignment, and verb morphology, although progress was slow and there was much individual variation. While Hill et al. (1998) and Courtney (2014) were relatively small longitudinal studies, Low et al. (1995) had a much larger sample, but used crosssectional data, making it difficult to compare findings across the studies and possibly contributing to the apparent contradictions in their findings. There is also evidence of some plateauing at the end of primary school, as Cable et al. (2010) found for target language phonology and listening in a study of learners of French in England across the last 4 years of primary education (Years 3–6). Slower progress in Year 6 may relate back to teacher factors in primary school, particularly to teachers’ subject knowledge, which may be inadequate to deal with more than the beginner level. In turn, a lack of progress at the end of primary school may then form a shaky foundation for learners as they move into secondary school. Making progress across the primary– secondary transition is likely to have implications for subsequent motivation and success in language learning, both areas in which England has persistent problems (Tinsley & Board, 2016), along with other countries such as Australia (Lo Bianco, 2009). Book then talks about the role of the teacher...

Week 2 – Planning for Progress across the 4 skills 

Planning must include development of the four skills as they reinforce one another in the new language. They also support first language cognitive development. (Jones and Coffey, 2016)

Planning for Progression in your lessons Let’s consider the 3Ps: Presenting, practising, producing (Jones and Coffey, 2016) 1. Presenting language: - What language do the children need to know and what forms or structures need to be taught? - How will you clearly model the new words / explain phonemes?

2. 3. -

Practising language: Repetition activities here to embed the new words / phrases Producing language: How can the children use the new vocabulary / phrases in a new or different context?

How are receptive vs productive skills being used in each section? Presenting new language        

Things to consider: Number of items (Remember Miller’s Law – 7 new things) Language to reflect the world of the children Cognates (le chocolat) - easily understandable Direct borrowings from English (un hamburger) English borrowings from French (la quiche) False friends (les chips – crisps) How will it be used in context?  J’aime – la/ le/ les  Je mange – du, des, de la  Adapted from Jones and Coffey (2016)

Practising language Possible pedagogies to try:         

Say and repeat (clear, slow articulation of the word / phrase) Mood / character voices Teacher writing – break into phonemes Word cards on desks / board / IWB, make a sentence Children in pairs / threes Games / directed role-play – Under over, round robin, matching pairs (snap) Recording resources Creative Writing activities Song / rhyme – to a familiar melody

Producing language       

Adapting role play – substituting words Creating a board game Weather presenter Writing frame e.g. poem ‘Bonjour requin, au revoir jambe!’ Create a song to a known melody Write a script (scaffolded) for a weather forecast Create a mini book

Giving them choices in how they use the new language. Useful scheme - KS2 French Scheme of Work (lightbulblanguages.co.uk)

Weather forecast script Bonjour, Je m’appelle Charlie. C’est Lundi, a Winchester, il pleut.. C’est Mardi, a London, il y a du soleil. C’est Mercredi, a Southampton, il y a du vent. C’est Jeudi, a Glasgow, il neige. C’est Vendredi, a Bournemouth, il fait beau. C’est Samedi, a Plymouth, il fait froid. C’est Dimanche, a Brighton, il fait chaud. References 

Jones and Coffey (2016) Modern Foreign Languages 5-11: A Guide for Teachers, London: Routledge

Jones and Coffey (2016) Chapter 3: Planning and use of resources: doing the groundwork 

In this chapter we will consider how to approach planning MFL teaching and learning. Planning issues that we discuss are those of setting achievable targets – learning intentions or objectives – and using resources effectively. We will suggest ways in which teachers can improvise and adapt material from different sources, not forgetting that the greatest resources available are the teacher and the pupils themselves. We use the metaphor of the Russian doll to emphasise the interconnected nature of micro- and macro-planning and we include examples of lesson plans and schemes of work to illustrate the mesh between learning objectives and the integrated use of resources within short-, medium and longer-term planning.

Key issues  



  

MFL is most effectively delivered when teaching is embedded within a longer-term view to ensure cohesion and progression. As with other subjects, it is important that teachers are sympathetic with the aims and objectives that constitute the scheme of work and that these are meaningfully conveyed to pupils. Resources are overwhelmingly identified by primary teachers as the most important factor in enabling them to teach MFL in primary schools (DfES Report 572, 2004; Wade and Marshall 2009). The single most important resource in MFL teaching is the teacher and the quality of the teacher–pupil relationship. As teachers’ confidence in MFL teaching grows they become less dependent on following prepared material and can instigate activities and adapt materials more freely. Primary teachers’ expertise in using age-appropriate techniques and adapting resources for cross-curricular purposes means they are especially well placed to adapt MFL material to suit the particular needs of pupils.









In recent years a plethora of MFL materials has become available on the market, especially via the internet (see Chapter 8 for more on this and other applications of technology). Many resources offer familiar learning trajectories but familiar characters and storylines are dusted down and revamped or completely rewritten for the twenty-first century. For example, instead of the classic French ‘prototype’ family, Les Dupont, that many of us were familiar with from our textbooks of the 1960s and 1970s, children today are more likely to be presented with the daily routines, likes and dislikes of La famille Simpson or footballers and pop singers presented in colourful moving images. Despite these changes and many developments in our understanding of child learning, however, the pedagogic rationale underlying many of the MFL materials available has not changed fundamentally and many activities that can be seen today in a primary MFL lesson might have been seen 30 or 40 years ago. Does the abundance of good-quality materials blind us to what the learning objectives really are in primary MFL? In this chapter we will look at ways of approaching planning that include setting achievable targets, considerations affecting which new language to present, how to present a new language, how to encourage pupil participation in a way that maximises ownership of the new language, and the use of different resources that contribute to whole-child skills development for early learners. A broad definition of resources includes all support material that is used to help teachers plan and coordinate pupil learning within and away from the classroom. We are including here the syllabus or scheme of work that the teacher has been asked or has chosen to follow, or that they have created themselves. The terms ‘resources’ and ‘materials’ are often used interchangeably to refer to any of the ‘props’ that might be used in the MFL class, such as picture cards, posters, clothes, toys, cue cards, worksheets, books, display items, songs, videoclips, etc. (Internet resources and activities will be dealt with separately in Chapter 8.) Resources can be used in the classroom by t...