Even after almost 20 years in the classroom, teaching never ceases to surprise, amuse, amaze. It's what makes it, quite simply, the best job ever. Last September I was trying to teach the notion of 'noun gender' in French to my Year 8 French class using the topic of 'classroom items'. So, I spent a good part of the lesson laboriously emphasising the distinction between 'un' and 'une' as I held up various objects (eg 'un stylo' / 'une gomme') - without telling the children up-front why I was doing this. Then came the crux of the lesson - when I asked the children to 'guess what was in my head' and asked them why I had made the above distinctions in my verbal utterances which were now displayed in written format in all their glory - colour-coded according to gender - on the interactive whiteboard (I'll not tell you which colours I used for fear of being accused of being politically incorrect'!). Having since spent a good part of the past 6 months researching knowledge-based curricula and the dichotomy between so-called traditional and progressive approaches, I can now see how futile my approach was. The concept of noun gender is somewhat alien to English-speaking children who do not have the background knowledge that - actually - most Indo-European languages have noun gender - some languages like German even have a 'neuter' as well as a 'masculine' and 'feminine'.
Anyway, back to my story. So, after some awkward, fumbling questioning, we finally 'discovered' the notion of noun gender and that French nouns typically are either 'masculine' or 'feminine'. Still not perceiving the futility of the 'guess what's in my head' approach, I then took it a step further by pointing pupils to the noun 'des ciseaux' (scissors) and asking them to work out why it started with 'des' and not 'un' or 'une' (hoping they would 'deduce' that 'scissors' was plural). One hand went up at the back of the room. "Sir", came the reply in all innocence, "is that the trans-gender one?"
The answer was quite an amusing reflection of societal change. I was however struck by the realisation that my attempts at 'discovery learning' had failed spectacularly. The pupils simply did not have the cultural knowledge. If I were to do the lesson again, I would hear Olivia Dyer, Head of Science at Michaela, shouting at me to 'JUST TELL THEM!'. The double whammy came when some pupils looked at me blankly when I asked what 'plural' meant!
And yet, 19 years ago as I completed my PGCE, such 'discovery' of grammar in Modern Language learning was 'de jour'. Grammar had to be implicit - not explicit - allowing pupils to 'deduce' and 'discover' it across a range of topic contexts. The pedagogy at the time extolled the notion that such grammar deduction would ultimately ameliorate pupils' linguistic skills and that they would be able to transfer grammatical usage across a range of linguistic contexts. 19 years on - and I'm not convinced. You could 'implicitly' cover the intricacies of German prepositions in the dative when pupils are describing a room in their house ('Das Buch ist auf dem Tisch'), and return to it implicitly 6 months later when they are describing a holiday villa in the topic of 'Holidays'. My experience is that pupils will not remember - and any grammatical rules which may have been flimsily acquired through an implicit approach prior will never have embedded in long-term memory - rendering the ability to make connections and transfer understanding across contexts impossible.
Mastering a language - whether receptively or productively - is a functional activity. 11 years ago I wrote a paper in which I rallied against the 'topic-based' approach to language learning, as reflected in schemata such as the Northern Ireland exam board's (CCEA's) ghastly Graded Objectives in Modern Languages (GOML) accreditation - Topic 1 = pets / Topic 2 = Food and Drink items etc etc - you get the gist. It more or less amounted to a vocabulary list. This is the wrong approach. To succeed, pupils surely need to be able to master and become competent in the functions of language at a very advanced level. To do this, they need a strong breadth of linguistic and grammatical knowledge. Therefore, the transmission of high-level linguistic and grammatical knowledge - taught in a direct and explicit manner - must be at the core of the Modern Language classroom.
Thus began my research into knowledge based Modern Languages curricula. And there are immediate challenges:
1: Most people agree that the confines of school timetabling do not allow for natural cumulative development in language learning. Fitting the learning of a language into two 1-hour blocks within a week goes against the natural processes needed to learn a language effectively. Admittedly, this is not a new argument and is a concern shared by all - no matter what your views on Modern Languages pedagogy.
2: Perhaps - unlike disciplines such as History and Science - determining what 'factual knowledge' looks like in the Modern Languages classroom is a trickier prospect. And this is where I think we need to be really, really careful. Looking at Knowledge Organisers which have been produced by a number of schools, I am concerned that in some cases 'knowledge' seems to be defined by the learning of vocabulary. Some knowledge organisers out there seem to be nothing more than vocabulary lists. Whilst vocabulary knowledge is of course important, I believe this limitation is wrong on a number of fronts. A) it reinforces the topic-based approach which is somewhat alien to the learning of language within a biologically secondary context. B) it severely restricts aspiration. The knowledge-based approach must go hand-in-hand with the highest of expectations and aspirations for our pupils' learning.
And this brings me to Michaela - and their approach to Modern Languages learning. Their approach to Knowledge Organisers - using the PROF and CUDDLES approach - is fascinating, and so aspirational for their learners. Their Knowledge Organisers for French speak volumes about the belief systems at that school. They determine that it IS possible to explicitly teach pupils - from Year 7 onwards - grammatical knowledge relating to structures such as Past, Future and Subjunctive in a manner which allows it to embed in long-term memory using spacing, retrieval and low-stakes testing practices such as drilling, recap and self-quizzing. This, in turn, should give pupils the factual and procedural knowledge which allows them to make connections, transfer meaning and manipulate language effectively at a high level, with the complex interplay between environment, long-term memory and working memory. And for those who may argue that such an approach demotivates learners, my guess is as follows: far from turning pupils off, I would hedge my bets that when pupils hear themselves reading Harry Potter accurately in French after a year or two of language learning, they see for themselves the enormity of their achievement. And using such a method should optimise opportunities for success, because prioritising the transmission of linguistic and grammatical knowledge and its transfer into long-term memory will counter against the confines of a school timetable.
And so in September my journey begins as I change my teaching style away from an implicit skills-based approach to one which prioritises the transmission of high-level knowledge. My first Knowledge Organiser is complete. And thanks, too, to Peps McCrea for the excellent suggestions in his book 'Memorable Teaching' - a must-read for all teachers.