Teaching Foreign Languages in the Primary School

Sally Maynard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136645181
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Teaching Foreign Languages in the Primary School is for every teacher –whether generalist or specialist, trainee or experienced – wanting to confidently introduce foreign language teaching into their classroom.

Based on the author's extensive experience of teaching across Key Stages 1-2, this book provides practical strategies that can be easily implemented in your setting. Offering comprehensive guidance on the pedagogy that underpins language teaching, it covers everything you'll need to teach foreign languages effectively:

• Planning, teaching and assessment
• Pedagogical approaches
• Integrating primary languages across the curriculum
• Where to find and how to use good resources
• Using TAs effectively to support language learning
• Inclusive practice
• Using ICT in language teaching
• How to promote children's intercultural understanding

Illustrated with useful lesson ideas and a range of examples from the classroom, Teaching Foreign Languages in the Primary School is an indispensable source of support for all student and practising primary school teachers.

Chapter 1

Why Should Languages be Introduced at Primary Level?

This Chapter Considers:

• a brief history of Primary Languages since the 1970s;
• a discussion of different perspectives as to why languages should be introduced at primary level;
• a picture of national provision and the implementation of Entitlement (see the Preface for a definition of Entitlement);
• teachers’ attitudes towards Primary Languages;
• a discussion as to whether Primary Languages should be introduced at KS1 or KS2;
• whether Primary Languages should be aligned with Foundation subjects (History, Geography, Art, Design and Technology, PSHCE) and Humanities subjects (History, R.E. Philosophy, Literature, Languages, Music, Performing Arts), or whether it should be considered as a ‘core’ subject.

For too long we have failed to value language skills or recognise the contribution they make to society, to the economy and to raising standards in schools. This has led to a cycle of national underperformance in languages, a shortage of language teachers, low take-up of languages beyond schooling and a workforce unable to meet the demands of a globalised economy.

(DfES, 2002)

This statement from Languages for All: Languages for Life is significant because it recognises the fact that our (some would say) dismal achievements in language learning stem from a mind-set rather than an innate inability of UK English-speaking citizens to be successful in learning other languages – an attitude that is widely held. Other views are, of course, that ‘everyone speaks English’, or ‘everyone wants to learn English’, or ‘English is the language of business’. Paradoxically, it is true to say that people who speak one or two languages other than English are generally held in high esteem and admired. Why, then, should this not translate successfully into classroom performance and attitude?

The overwhelming sentiment seems to be: ‘I couldn’t do that’, or ‘I’m no good at languages’, or latterly more frequently, ‘I don’t do languages’. It is crucial not only that our children do learn languages from an early age but that this negative approach be changed. Perhaps the only way this can come about is for trainees and teachers to understand and appreciate how important languages are as part of the curriculum and how they can enhance learning at many levels. Research into the impact of language learning on speaking and listening skills and on children’s developing phonological awareness is key. In addition, trainees and teachers need to have opportunities to experience the value of language learning at first hand. It is particularly important for trainees to enter the profession enthused and aware that languages should be an integral part of the curriculum. Trainees’ and teachers’ attitudes tend to change dramatically once they have participated in some form of overseas placement, whether it is a four-week teaching placement or a two-week assistant-type placement; they come back enthused, committed to teaching languages and with an understanding of how it enhances learning. Not least, they experience the satisfaction of being able to communicate effectively with someone from another country and culture.

Children are motivated to learn languages from an early age – there is no doubt about that. Motivation for teaching children languages is, however, a different matter. Teaching a foreign language (i.e. a language that is not widely used within the community) at primary level has for years been resisted by many schools and teachers. That is not to say that there have not been schools that have been enthusiastic. Indeed, the current status of Primary Languages is largely owed to a small number of schools and teachers who have remained steadfast in their belief that the primary age is the most appropriate age at which to begin learning a foreign language.

In fairness, much of the indifference was and is connected to a lack of confidence in being able to deliver an effective curriculum in a foreign language. Many primary teachers feel that they just do not have the expertise to teach a foreign language to children when they don’t possess the appropriate knowledge or the appropriate qualifications. In addition, their own language-learning experiences may have been negative and they simply do not feel inspired or interested to teach the subject. The crowded curriculum is another factor in schools’ reluctance to develop language teaching. However, with the huge amount of support and resources that is now available this is really no longer a valid objection. Government support is evident within the KS2 Framework for Languages, the National Centre for Languages (CILT) national training for all KS2 teachers, the CILT Primary Languages website, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency’s (QCDA) schemes of work for KS2 languages, the Upskilling Specification (a CILT resource aimed at developing teachers’ linguistic competence) and from any number of commercial and online resources that have exploded onto the market since the 2009/2010 Entitlement was announced.

The model adopted by head teachers in all the schools in which I worked was for me, as a specialist, to teach all the classes in both Key Stages, whilst in the early days my own class was covered by another teacher and latterly by teaching assistants during planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time. PPA time usually constitutes 10 per cent of the working week – generally part of a morning or an afternoon. The former was positively received, on the whole, by the class teachers because a) they didn’t have to do the teaching and b) they could view the lessons as part of their professional development.

From my perspective, however, although the children thoroughly enjoyed the lessons and were extremely motivated, there was hardly any follow-up and many lessons were spent revisiting and reviewing previous work, which meant that the children made slower progress. In addition, because my lessons were ‘extra’ and were, for the most part, comprised of games and songs, children viewed the lessons not as an integral part of the curriculum but more as a fun ‘brain-break’. Often the lessons interrupted something else because of the nature of the school’s (and my) timetable, which didn’t help if children were in the middle of, say, creative writing. The teachers, understandably, were less keen on this aspect of the language teaching because children invariably finished my input on a ‘high’ and were not so keen to carry on with ‘proper work’ – as I vividly remember one teacher commenting. This is not to say that language learning was unsuccessful using this model: on the contrary, it was received very positively by children, staff, parents and governors alike, and was widely recognised as enriching and enhancing the children’s learning overall.

Schools have adopted different approaches to teaching languages; for example, languages clubs have been popular, but this approach tends to be elitist and denies the right of all children to have the opportunity to learn another language. The ‘add-on’ or ‘extra’ approach has engendered a perspective amongst children and staff that learning foreign languages is not a serious subject because (a) they are not learned from the outset of a child’s school career and (b) they have traditionally been taught at secondary level, when some feel that children are more efficient learners.

As a language specialist, I concurred with the view of many teachers (particularly secondary) that languages are an area of the curriculum that necessitate specialist teaching, that they are not a subject that can be ‘genned up’ on before each lesson or one in which the teacher is ‘one step ahead’. However, in recent years I have come to change that view and feel that class teachers, provided they have the appropriate resources and support, are best placed to teach languages at primary level. This view will be expanded upon later.

In order to comprehend the current status of Primary Languages, it will be helpful to look briefly at the journey the subject has taken to reach this point.

History of Primary Languages Provision From 1964 to the Present – an Overview

In 1964 a pilot scheme was introduced in selected schools in England and Wales to teach French from September of that year to 8-year-olds and then to extend the scheme to a further year group the following year until all pupils in the 8–11 age range were involved. The cohort selection criterion for inclusion was based purely on birth date, and was thus ‘characterized by a wide range of ability’. The Burstall report (1974), which evaluated the project, seemed to indicate this as a negative aspect. It is unlikely that differentiation occurred within the teaching and, as such, this perhaps further negated findings.

The purpose of the pilot project was to determine whether it was feasible to extend the teaching of foreign languages to pupils in the primary phase of schooling. French was the only viable language, as the available expertise in other European languages was much less. The scheme was to be delivered by teachers who had received in-service training, and not by specialist French-language teachers. Burstall et al.’s report states that ‘arrangements were made to provide continuity of teaching at the secondary stage, so that all pupils taking part in the experiment would be able to continue learning French without interruption for at least 5 years’.

The scheme was beset with a number of problems from the outset – staffing issues and the lack of training during the first term of the project resulted in the first year being more exploratory than anything else and threw up questions as to the authority of the results gathered from the first cohort. As a result of these problems, pupils did not receive an introduction to French that could be compared to a usual beginning at secondary level. A third cohort (instead of the originally envisaged two cohorts) was studied from September 1968 to further validate findings and to, hopefully, draw positive conclusions about the feasibility of introducing French at primary level. However, the cohorts could not be reasonably compared because they were under study for different periods of time. Nevertheless, the aims of the study were as follows:

• to investigate the long-term development of pupils’ attitudes towards foreign language learning;
• to discover whether pupils’ levels of achievement in French were related to their attitudes;
• to examine the effect of certain pupil variables (e.g. age, gender, socio-economic status, perception of parental encouragement, employment expectations);
• to investigate whether teachers’ attitudes and expectations significantly affected the attitudes and achievements of pupils;
• to examine whether the early introduction of French had a significant impact on achievement in other areas of the curriculum.

Burstall et al.’s report concluded overall that there was no significant improvement in children’s attainment at secondary level, and the damning findings of the Burstall report echoed resoundingly through primary schools for a number of years.

There were, however, pockets of resistance to the findings during the 1980s and 1990s, and gradually the possibility of languages being taught at primary level began to surface again and gathered momentum. Schools were very often working in isolation or in small clusters. Some authorities, notably Kent, worked hard to raise the profile and engender enthusiasm. The pilot schemes in Scotland did (and still do) marvellous work.

Languages: The Next Generation (Nuffield 2000) and the subsequent Languages for All: Languages for Life (DfES 2002) are the significant reports that have started the UK on the way to achieving targets for language learning from primary level. From September 2010 all primary schools had to deliver an ‘Entitlement’ to all children in KS2 so that they might have the opportunity to learn a language other than English. A longitudinal study published in 2009 gave the figure of 18 per cent of schools that were likely not to be ready to provide this Entitlement. Although this figure was relatively high, it should be noted that resources and support were and are available to all schools to help them implement the Entitlement requirements.

So, one argument for languages to be taught a primary level is to familiarise children with language learning strategies (LLS) from an early age, both in order for those strategies to be developed and also to enable children to easily transfer these skills at secondary level to further their language learning and perhaps also learn other languages. We need to take away the ‘can’t do’ mentality and change it to ‘can do’ (and to do it well). This can then, hopefully, impact on the Languages for All conclusions in that performance levels can be raised, more children will take up language learning at GCSE and beyond and the workforce will be better equipped for the global economy. As long ago as 1995 the Guardian stated: ‘evidence indicates that linguists experience less unemployment than many other graduates’. This suggests not that languages are an extra, but rather that they are vital to children in improving their job prospects. In a 2008 report on graduates and their early careers, the Higher Education and Funding Council for England (HEFCE) stated: ‘Of the strategically important subjects, engineering had the highest mean salary for employed graduates after six months. When considering employment three and a half years after graduating, modern foreign language graduates have the highest mean salary.’ The HEFCE also noted in 2009, in a report on the health of modern foreign languages at higher education level, that ‘In the longer term, the Government’s decision to make languages compulsory for all seven year olds from 2011 should help to create more linguistically and culturally aware young people who want to study languages at University’ (Worton, 2009). At the time of writing, however, the decision has been made not to proceed with the primary curriculum that would make languages compulsory – but it is important to note that the entitlement stands and languages should have been evident in all primary schools from the academic year 2009–10.

Psychological and Social Arguments in Favour of an Early Start to Language Learning

It is in the early/primary years that basic skills and concepts of literacy are taught. Children are learning and absorbing their mother-tongue language skills in speaking and listening as well as in reading and writing on a daily basis. They are increasing and consolidating their knowledge of the patterns and functions of the mother tongue in a situation which is familiar and comfortable for them. Each year most children are taught by one teacher, with whom they can develop a secure and trusting relationship. The introduction of language learning in this context would seem to have great benefits for the learner and it seems reasonable to suggest, then, that the basic concepts of languages should also be taught within this age range. Learning languages is far from easy, but we know that children all over the world persevere in the task of acquiring their mother tongue and the majority are remarkably successful. The primary classroom affords the opportunity for teachers to embed language teaching (i.e. to encompass and relate to other subjects) and to develop intercultural understanding as well as linguistic skills.

Bruner (1966) stated that ‘the importance of early experience is only dimly sensed today’. Whether younger children are faster language learners is unclear, but the layman’s view that they are faster at learning languages tends to stem from observations that, under certain conditions, young children do become fluent in a second language when they have been exposed to two different languages from a very early age. These are generally specialised conditions that cannot usually be repeated in a school situation (apart from an immersion approach), but language learning takes time, and from that standpoint alone, the earlier it commences, the better.

Physiological reasons have been mooted that favour an early start to language learning. The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) (Lenneberg 1967), which suggests that pupils at the age of puberty experience difficulties in mastering accents, is an interesting one. If indeed there is a ‘window of opportunity’ of language learning during the period when one acquires the first language, then it would seem sensible to take advantage of this. It is a simplistic notion, however, and the existence of the CPH is fiercely debated. Researchers argue that there are adult and older learners of a second language who acquire good accents, in which case ‘other powerful explanations are needed to account for the dramatic decline in ultimate achievement generally seen in later second language learners compared to young children’ (Birdsong 1999).

All primary teachers are aware of harnessing children’s motivation at primary level – less inhibited primary children will engage readily in conversation and ‘have a go’, provided they are in a situation where they are not anxious and where they are engaged in giving and receiving purposeful messages. Encouraging and giving all children the opportunity to participate in Primary Languages learning is vital, and the primary classroom is the ideal situation for this to flourish. Krashen (1981) states this succinctly: ‘language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not “on the defensive”’. Language acquisition is a slow process but the drip, drip approach of children having to use language every day in meaningful circumstances within the primary classroom (e.g. the teacher asking what time it is, or whether the child requires a packed lunch or school dinner) means that children will absorb and develop their listening skills and grammatical understanding without extensive drilling of rules, and it will prepare them to produce words and phrases when they are ready to do so. They will be looking for meaning and will, if encouraged and praised, take every opportunity to practise. Anyone who has lived in another country knows that it takes a while to be able to attempt to speak in that country’s language; listening and understanding come first.

Another argument is that the desire for languages to be taught at primary level will not go away – in the 1990s it was parental pressure that made primary schools introduce languages; indeed in the Times Educational Supplement on 24 March 1995 Dorothy Lepkowska wrote: ‘The rapid but ad hoc growth of primary language courses – most have been introduced in the past five years, [has been] mainly inspired by parental pressure.’ It is not unreasonable to assume that parents still feel the same way.

Examples of positive parental attitudes can be cited from a 1996 seven-year Primary Languages project carried out by the author in a North Yorkshire school of 250 children where, in response to questions relating to when their child should commence foreign language learning, 90 per cent of parents felt tha...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• 1. Why should languages be introduced at primary level?
• 2. Pedagogical approaches to teaching Primary Languages
• 3. The planning and teaching of Primary Languages
• 4. Primary Languages across the curriculum
• 5. Teaching assistants
• 6. Intercultural understanding
• 7. Assessing Primary Languages
• 8. Inclusive practice in Primary Languages
• 9. Developing competence and the future of Primary Languages
• References and further reading
• Index