You will focus on the way you use a specific aspect of pedagogy relevant to your age phase or subject to support learning. You will reflect on the way in which you encourage this approach for learning. Your understanding and critical reflection will be supported by readings from a range of sources in relation to your chosen aspect of pedagogy. Reference to background reading is essential and should be incorporated in all sections. Word count: 4500 totalExample
Introduction
I have chosen the pedagogical focus of promoting the use of transactional spoken language in the Modern Foreign Languages classroom. This is as a result of my mentor being favourably impressed with my previous experiments to integrate more Target Language (TL) use into lessons, to the extent that the establishment of a ‘target language lifestyle’ (XXX, 2011, p.87) is now part of her three-year plan for the department. Specifically, she is interested in how we might develop the ‘communicative performance’ (XXX, 1994, p.5) of pupils, when engaged in practical activities such as pair work. She supports the idea that an environment of ‘rich input’ (XXX, 2007, p.29) should promote both proficiency and confidence among pupils. This is because such activities enable both ‘deliberate practise (sic)’ (XXX 2006) and simulate a ‘vividness, emotional depth and intensity’ (XXXX et al. 2001, p.111) which are critical to driving attention, and thus potentially learning and memory (XXXX, 1994, p.60).
In light of this, I therefore composed the following research question: how can I develop the use of transactional classroom language among mixed-ability year-9 pupils in an inclusive way?
Part 1: Introductory literature review
While the National Curriculum states that teaching should ‘provide opportunities…to communicate for practical purposes’ (XXX, 2012), there is at present no central guidance on what if any ‘Pupil Interaction Language’ (XXX, 2016) should be taught in schools. There is also a tension between the ‘stuffed curriculum’ (XXX, 2006, p.5) and the classroom time required to teach and practise such language. Ofsted only last year published further guidance suggesting cautious use of TL in the classroom to avoid overwhelming pupils (2021); the polemic continues around whether this language is best taught as a ‘rich repertoire of formulaic chunks’ for ‘analysis later on’ (XXX, 2005, pp.210-11) or as examples of the grammatical structures presented throughout the curriculum.
Critics will argue that pupils who find a TL-only approach more challenging might be overwhelmed by this additional layer of complexity, concerned that ‘“unfamiliar” language…is likely to demotivate them’ (XXX, 2021). I can understand why the theory of cognitive load (XXX, 2020) might suggest such a concern, however I have not seen this principle play out in reality; even in specific ‘nurture group’ classrooms, I have found that the challenge of guessing what the teacher is trying to communicate through ‘comprehensible input’ (XXX, 1982) tends to promote competition and motivation among pupils, since they are ‘more likely to perceive it as a useful medium for communication’ (XXX, 2009, p.66). It is true that often pupils require various forms of scaffolding, through clues provided in mime and gesture, or through the provision of context, the use of cognates, leading questions or a grammatical framework for the language – something which experienced teachers do naturally – and underpin with more tangible supports such as a sheet of key vocabulary of ‘formulaic expressions’ (XXX, 2005, p.211), referred to below as a ‘chatty mats’.
My understanding of adaptive teaching, as outlined above and informed by literature, has been the key motivating factor at the heart of my lesson design. To encapsulate this definition, it might be described as ‘teaching to what pupils have in common’ (XXX, 2012). As such it requires the deliberate implementation of strategies which both scaffold and stretch pupil production of Target language (TL). One of the innate advantages of using TL consistently in the classroom is that it immediately raises the level of challenge.
Part 2: Reflective analysis of your pedagogical approach
My research and discussions led to the development of a series of key planning principles in addition to specific tactics for teaching adaptively, as follows:
Key planning principles
i. Pupils would need to be presented with the necessary language as part of completing a relevant task and they would also need opportunities for ‘deliberate practise (sic)’ (XXX, 2006) of this language at ‘interleaved’ intervals (XXX, 2016, np). This was implemented through a carefully-sequenced lesson beginning with presentation of key chunks of language which were repeated, translated and then returned to periodically.
ii. We could reduce the perceived jeopardy of the situation by allowing pupils to work in small groups, thereby lowering the stakes if errors were made, avoiding fear becoming ‘the mind-killer’ (XXX, 2021). This also introduced a competitive element, which for some pupils might provide an ‘extrinsic motivator’ (XXX, 1993).
In reflecting on the lesson outcome, recognising that my own ability to be reflexive is limited by my own beliefs and assumptions, as well as perhaps my ‘expert blind spot’ (XXX, 2003), I have attempted to employ each of Brookfield’s four lenses (1998) in order to engage in ‘the discipline of noticing’ (XXX, 2002) and achieve as complete a picture of the outcome as possible.
My own reflective notes indicate that the adaptive ‘strategies for every pupil’ (XXX, 2001) were effective in both supporting and challenging pupils in different ways…..
Interestingly, it was possible to observe that the degree of engagement from pupils was most heavily influenced not by their prior attainment, or by the degree of support or stretch they received, but by their own feelings about the exercise. As my mentor wrote in her immediate ‘reflection-on-action’ (Schön, 1987):
‘Having initially felt that pupils fail to use TL verbally in class through lack of tools and knowledge, I have a stronger sense that this is dictated more by the character of the individual, and the dynamic of the group around them’ (Appendix E).
This reflects XXX’s claim about ‘the inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning’ (2013).
Part 3 A summary of what you have learned
The next significant implication is the value of an adaptive approach to teaching, which is inclusive of all and provides the right amount of stretch and challenge, a balance between cognitive ease and cognitive strain (XXX, 2015, p. 218). As experienced teachers will admit, it is difficult to plan this perfectly every time, since ‘responsive teaching is expert teaching’ (XXX, 2018, p.12) and part of the skill of developing as an accomplished practitioner is the ability to make the micro-adjustments in real time which draw out pupils’ best performance.
The central unresolved question arising from this project relates to the key insight generated from our study: that it is likely that emotional responses to ‘inherently relational’ (XXX, 2020, p.51) TL usage are the key determiner of pupil performance – and possibly, but yet to be evidenced by me, pupil learning. As an immediate next step I intend as part of the presentation above to open this debate to the department for discussion. It will be fascinating to collaborate on ideas for promoting emotional safety and security within our classrooms to encourage maximum contribution from all pupils, or ‘group cohesiveness’ (ibid, p.76). I will also continue my research on the affective dimension in teaching, including the knotty issue of motivation, through further reading of writers such as Scarcella & Oxford, Dörnyei & Csizér, and Ushioda.
Context
For my study I focused upon a Y10 Spanish class: this was a bottom-set group, composed of eleven boys and twelve girls. I carried out my analysis over the course of three lessons, each separated by a fortnight; the topic studied was ‘La tecnología’. To gather evidence for analysis I took notes from lesson plans, PowerPoint presentations and classroom materials. In addition, I devised a ‘Teacher talk / Pupil talk’ observation form to be used by the host teacher (see Appendix A). In this, I asked them to briefly note down poignant examples of pupils’ use of TL and my response, and vice versa.
Analysis
In addition to the drilling of vocabulary, I also ensured that visual materials were displayed to support TL use. In this way, I sought to maximise the “comprehensible input” available to the students (Swain, 1985, p. 248), providing them with “textual support whilst internalising the structures” (Christie, 2016, p. 81), yet also considering “what language will be transferable to and useful in other contexts” (Jones & Swarbrick, 2004, p. 4). My department uses ‘Chatty Mats’, a laminated reference sheet that pupils can consult for operative vocabulary and phrases such as ‘¿cómo se dice … en español?’(See Appendix B). When pupils wished to pose simple questions, I would refer them to this sheet and only respond when asked in the TL; like Horne (2014), I found it useful “not only to teach these [phrases] explicitly but to also have these available visually” (p.75). What is more, in this visual support, I sought to think ahead to upcoming classes and activities, providing pupils with language that would be repeated.
Less successful, however, was my attempt to prevent pupils from being discouraged in using Spanish by enabling English to be spoken under certain conditions. Christie (2016) notes that the inability to express oneself in the TL may lead learners to feel “resentment and frustration”, or even lead to a sense of “alienation” from the lesson (p. 81). In such instances, allowing pupils to speak their own language may well be warranted, and Satchwell (1997) stresses that “judicious use of the mother tongue … is essential and fully justified” (p. 3). To combat such discouragement, Christie (2016) suggests the use of a “linguistic lifebelt” that enables the pupil to use English if needed (p. 81); inspired by our training sessions, I introduced ‘la pelota inglesa’ that the students could request if they found themselves struggling. This did not prove popular, however: few pupils asked for it unprompted, and when told that they required it to speak English, they were rarely keen to do so. That these were older pupils might explain this reluctance. Macaro (2000) certainly suggests that “it is easier to maintain virtual L2 exclusivity with younger learners” (p. 171) and, whilst I was able to foster a similarly positive environment with my Y10s, it may be that an unwillingness to look foolish in front of their friends discouraged them from catching or playing with a ball. I quickly decided to stop using the linguistic lifebelt in my lessons, and will consider how best to develop this with older learners in future. The results of my reward system, however, more than compensated for this issue. Pupils not only spoke Spanish more frequently, but became increasingly ambitious in their conversation, and this demonstrates the key role played by motivation in fostering TL in the MFL classroom.
When I take full control of my own classes next September, I will look forward to introducing a set of routines that will establish the target language as the expected mode of communication, not just between me and the pupils, but amongst the pupils themselves.
In addition, the focus of the TL talk I hope to generate will be on the proceduralised language that transfers from topic to topic and activity to activity. Such language is the most recyclable, with the greatest number of “entry-points” (q.v. Gardner, cited in Brandt, 1993, p. 7), and is therefore the most likely to bear the fruit of spontaneity over time and with practice.
Reflecting on my success in this sequence and over the course of this term in general has made me realise that I have been more successful in honing the first of the tools referenced by Christie (2016, p. 80), i.e. “target language management”. By embedding and practising a set of carefully considered chunks, I took the first step towards cultivating a flourishing TL garden. In future, however, I will need to work on my “context management” (ibid.), that is to say my techniques for watering and pruning the plants in order that they can weather different conditions and grow into something altogether more surprising and original.
I also need to work harder to build more challenge into my routines and general teaching. I do think there are external factors that impact the potential for spontaneous talk to succeed, such as the pressure at school or department level to cover ‘core’ curriculum content. Assessment schedules are also bound to play a part, as I noted with the profound switch in dynamic with this Y8 class as end-of-term tests approached. This prompted a renewed focus on “test-style questions” (reading and writing exercises) and “relevant content”, such as the partitive article. Such a culture is likely to threaten students’ ability to memorise material for the long term – as the appropriately named Gardner (cited in Brandt, 1993, p. 7) said, “the greatest enemy of understanding is coverage.”
On top of that, however, is the fact that much of the MFL curriculum (especially at GCSE level) is, in my opinion, bloated and tedious, meaning that we constantly risk hampering not just students’ understanding, but their motivation as well. An increased focus on oral interaction and spontaneous talk is, in my experience so far, a powerful tool for countering this perturbing combination, so I will continue to endeavour to work in my TL gardens.