Skip to main content

Listening is the key

I see that in the government's latest version of GCSE modern languages we are returning to an assessment regime based on 25% of marks awarded to each of the four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing. I really do not know why each skill is valued the same; it has that suspicious look of a government target like the one which aimed for 50% of young people going to university.

Although 4 x 25% is better than the current regime it still seriously overvalues writing and undervalues listening. In my perception of language learning (everyone is entitled to their own since science cannot tell us what works best for every person or teacher), listening is at the heart of everything. When we learn our first language we do so by listening and are spared preparing for vocabulary tests, writing essays and doing translation (which would be a bit tricky). When we learn a second language I am happy to go along with the simple and appealing notion that it is a lot like first language acquisition in that we acquire fluency through, above all else, listening to messages we understand. Reading fulfils a similar but less fundamental role.

Therefore, it seems to me, we should be getting students to listen as much as we can and we should be rewarding this skill as much as possible in our assessment regimes. The more marks we allocate to listening in examinations, the more likely we are to spend time on it in class. If we do more listening, we will not only improve comprehension, but bring about greater oral fluency in our students.


As for writing, as I have written before in this blog, the main reason for doing it in class and for homework is to reinforce the other language skills. In later life very few people will need to write in a foreign language, whereas far more will want to engage in simple conversations. Computer translation is already quite sophisticated and rapidly becoming more so, therefore when the need arises to write in a foreign language people will take advantage of Google Translate or similar. I already use Google Translate to save time when I am adapting material from an English language source. I get a first draft from Google, then correct and adapt it, thus producing more quickly a very acceptable piece of written French. I would need to be a native speaker to do much better.

If I were designing a new GCSE assessment regime and wanted to separate out each skill (we don't have to, by the way), then I would weight the skills roughly as follows:

Listening   30%
Speaking  30%
Reading    25%
Writing     15%

It is worth noting that some ways of assessing oral skills demand some additional assessment of listening as, in the context of a conversation or role play, you have to understand to be able to speak, so marks are bound to be awarded ultimately for listening comprehension.

The truth is that we tend to judge a person's skill in a foreign language by their ability to speak. To do this a person has to be able to listen effectively. Reading has its place in some contexts, writing in fewer.

Is such a devaluation of writing a form of dumbing down? I believe not. Grammatical skill is still assessed as part of speaking assessment and also comes in to listening and reading assessment. One might argue that written papers are the ones some students find hardest and all language teachers have had to endure appalling standards of writing at times. However, many students will also report that speaking and listening are the hardest to do because they require such instant reactions and complex skills.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,