Having spent a little time this afternoon looking at the GCSE subject content and assessment objectives for MFL (the "final" version for 'consultation'), I thought I would put fingers to keyboard and type out a few of my thoughts and initial reactions.
I can't think of many language teachers who would not agree with the statement that children should develop a desire to study and communicate in the foreign language through study at GCSE level; however, I can't help but think that the content of the proposed curriculum seems not to consider that aim in the suggested information.
One of the biggest things that jumps out at me is that it is stated that the learning at GCSE should build on the knowledge and skills acquired in KS2 and KS3 (I don't believe that the current subject content states this - but I could be wrong). This is quite a big demand if there is no suggested number of contact hours per week for children in MFL - our current year 9 children have had just one hour per week all the way through KS3; as they go into KS4, there is no way that their knowledge is comparable to that of the students who moved up last year into the final stages of our school. This bit worries me for these students.
I welcome the shift from "me, me, me" to a broader set of themes, but I worry that "factual and literary texts, appropriate to this level" may not be particularly stimulating for the students themselves. The fact that literary texts can include "poems, [...], extract and excerpts from abridged and adapted essays, novels or plays from contemporary and historical sources" seems to be a huge jump in comparison to what is currently expected - is this proposed content for students of all abilities? How will all students be able to access this proposed content? I don't deny that the more able children need to be pushed and that their experiences ought to include access to target language texts from a variety of sources; however, I worry about the children in the class, whose target grades are F-D grades - these children still feel achieved if they earn an E, but I don't know how I would motivate them with this proposed content. This would take some serious reconsideration (which I know is the idea), but this is so far from what we are used to! Eeek. For me the love of French came when I first read Bridget Jones' Diary in its French translation and understood it, and when I watched a Disney film in French and could still follow the story and "get it". I did a degree without reading any literature, but I instead studied history about the nation and learned so much about the history of Germany from 1945 onwards and the importance of French musicians in the post WW1 years - thing I wouldn't have discovered through the reading of literature, but which meant that I learned an awful lot about the people and the social history of the two nations - I inspire our children regularly when I talk to them (in TL or in English) about some of the special topics I studied at university. I don't feel as though my education is worth less, just because I didn't opt to study any literature, and I don't see why this make my language any less valid.
I welcome a return to no longer assessing the students for their speaking exams (and still sending off their written work) - it is something which I panic over every year - I always try my best to mark them correctly and accurately, but I can't help but think that there is more parity if they are all externally assessed.
Equal weighting of the skills? I'm not sure what I think about the return to this; some of me thinks that it is a real step backwards, but other bits of me think that maybe it is sensible - I don't know that there can be a right or a wrong where this is concerned.
I welcomed the change to the questions being written in English in reading and listening exams, as I strongly believe that the children ought not to be penalised for misunderstanding a question, even when they had understood the spoken or the written text itself - seems like a big penalty to me. I'm not sure that, as a life skill goes, in making languages 'real' that it is one of the most important elements ... yes, I would expect my incredibly able top grade students to be able to do so, but I don't think that I would expect my lower ability students to be able to access the paper in the same way.
And as for the ability to translate into French from English ... I spend so much of my time telling the children NOT to write things in English and translate into French because that's not the way to do things that it makes be slightly sad! I seem to recall at uni that, 10 years ago when we had a careers talk from a translation agency, it would be unlikely for us to bee employed as native speakers of English to translate INTO French, but that we would be doing the reverse, as one is usually more competent when translating into one's native language. It goes so much against the grain - I'm a real ambassador for teaching the children grammatical concepts as foundations for being able to then build good German/French in a more natural manner.
I know how I feel about the proposed content of the curriculum; I just hope that whatever ingredients we are ultimately presented with in our 'surprise bag', à la 'Ready, Steady, Cook', I am able to cook up something inspirational to serve to our children.
No comments:
Post a Comment