Policy and reform
KS3 framework
Papers & recommended reading | Editorial reviews | Tasks for traineesThe National Strategy for
KS3 and its application to modern foreign language teaching
(pdf document)
Heilbronn, R. (2004) Language Learning Journal, 30, pp 42-49
The author carries out a highly significant and carefully critical examination of the KS3 Framework of Objectives for foreign languages in the context of the National Strategy for key stage 3.
On the positive side, the Framework is an attempt to make sense of the need to move the current communicative language teaching model forward, via explicit study of language systems; there is too, she finds, implicit acknowledgement of research into learning theory, and the importance attached to the cultural awareness element is to be welcomed.
However, the author expresses several major concerns: the national training
packages imply the Framework is the only way forward, when in fact, it is
just one interpretation among other language learning models. The reason
for not according it higher status than this is a demonstrable lack of reference
to significant and relevant linguistic and teaching and learning research,
and an apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that sometimes a secure evidence
base on which to recommend any one ‘solution’ may not yet exist. Some links
to research can be made implicitly, but the author justifiably feels such
a major national strategy should make explicit links to a research base.
This failing may well be the root cause of a perceived questionable interpretation
of what constitutes learner progression; this confusion surrounding progression
may in turn reflect the lack of clarity in the Framework’s view of language
acquisition theory. Yet there is hope that this Framework may enjoy a more
substantial foundation if a longer and more intelligent implementation and
training programme encourages deeper engagement from MFL teachers via opportunities
to experiment and engage in action research.
Rethinking the concept of
progression in the National Curriculum for Modern Foreign Languages: a research
perspective (pdf document)
Mitchell, R. (2003) Language Learning Journal, 27, pp 15-23
This paper reviews the issues related to the progression model underpinning the National Curriculum for Modern Foreign Languages.
According to the author ‘the curriculum in its present form has been a missed opportunity for “languages for all” ’ and in the current context the curriculum should be renewed drawing more systematically on research in order to provide most pupils with a more successful experience of learning a modern language.
The author reviews the evidence showing the shortcomings of the model on which the National Curriculum for Modern Foreign Languages is based, argues that a different model is needed and considers its implications for curriculum design.
She concludes that the revitalisation of the linguistic progression along with the revitalisation of curriculum themes and the development of links with other subjects can lead to the revitalisation of ‘languages for all’ today in the UK.
Incidental focus on form and second language learning
Loewen, S. (2005) Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386
The Definition and Measurement of L2 Explicit Knowledge
Ellis, R. (2004) Language Learning 54:2, June 2004, pp. 227–275
The articles by Ellis and Loewen are drawn here into the context of critical examination of the MFL key stage 3 framework in order to address credibility issues raised by Heilbronn (Language Learning Journal, 30, Winter 2004, pp 42-49). Heilbronn claims the Framework suffers from a demonstrable lack of EXPLICIT reference to significant and relevant linguistic and teaching and learning research, and an apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that sometimes a secure evidence base on which to recommend any one ‘solution’ may not yet exist – this in spite of government initiatives to promote teaching as an evidence-based practice. One of the principles of the KS3 National Strategy is “making concepts and conventions explicit” for pupils; the Framework, it might be argued, applies this to MFL teaching in its concentration on literacy-type strategies and grammar teaching; in other words, explicit knowledge of L2 language systems. Yet Ellis, after declaring “a number of theories of second language (L2) acquisition acknowledge a role for explicit L2 knowledge”, proceeds to question these theories on the basis that the constitution of explicit knowledge is arguably insecure “because of the lack of a widely accepted means for measuring L2 explicit knowledge”. After reviewing some of the instruments that have been used to measure this explicit knowledge in the field of second language acquisition research, the article concludes with some guidelines for further investigation into the notion of explicit knowledge in order to fill in some of the research gaps.
Loewen’s study examines the effectiveness of incidental focus on form in promoting second language (L2) learning. This practice overtly draws learners’ attention to linguistic items as they arise spontaneously – without prior planning – in meaning-focused interaction; for many UK practitioners of the 1980s’ version of Communicative Language Teaching’s (CLT), this is instantly recognisable as ‘the teaching of grammar in context’. One of the findings of the research is the importance to successful learning of the learners having raised the questions and effectively formulated the agenda in terms of their learning needs; the prescriptive detail of the key stage 3 MFL Framework suggests a ‘top-down’, teaching, agenda which risks not engaging the learner to the same degree.
While Ellis’ article uncovers the extent to which the concept of the constitution
of knowledge about language may well be very incomplete, both articles underline
how little research done relates to young L2 learners, and further throws
into question the credibility of the key stage 3 Framework’s evidence base.
Research and the National Literacy Strategy
Beard R., (2000), Oxford Review of Education, Volume 26, Numbers
3-4, 1 pp. 421-436, Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
This paper is a summary presentation of the 1998 post hoc review of the research evidence underpinning the National Literacy Strategy, implemented in England in 1998. The paper summarises the Strategy content, and identifies significant influences: international data on primary school pupils' reading performance, school effectiveness research, the findings from literacy programmes with underachieving pupils in the USA and Australia, and evidence from school inspections and the National Literacy Project. If the MFL teaching community is to accept that the MFL KS3 Framework has an implicit basis in research, then study of the foundation in research-based evidence of the associated National Literacy Strategy may prove beneficial.
* The full text of the original in-depth review may be read at, or downloaded from the DfES Standards site by following this link: National Literacy Strategy: Review of Research and other Related Evidence, Beard R., Leeds (1998)
Teaching literacy: the foundations of good practice
Wray, D., (1998), Education 3 to 13, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp 53-59
Does the evidence-based approach to literacy underpin the NLS? The author responds to the need to scrutinise this claim. As the MFL KS3 Framework purports to build upon, and transfer to a comparable teaching and learning context, the principles and practice established by this key primary strategy, Heilbronn (Language Learning Journal 30, Winter 2004) has effectively and properly called for critical accounting of this evidence in the MFL context.
It can be argued that this paper shares Heilbronn’s view that GENERAL teaching
and learning strategies implicit within the Literacy Strategy, and subsequently
the MFL KS3 framework, CAN be linked to evidence-based research, BUT that
approaches to the teaching of literacy itself, (and in the context of the
KS3 MFL Framework, approaches to FL pedagogy) are less well justified. In
particular, ‘Word level’ language study, a key feature of the MFL KS3 framework
is found to be “the aspect which is the least well grounded in research
findings”, whilst ‘Text level’ study is much better supported by research
findings.
The author also raises the important point that the revelation of the research
evidence underpinning key strategies subsequent to their implementation
(e.g. Beard,
1998) is a form of justification likely to arouse suspicion that they
were not based on solid evidence in the first instance.
