10 The Linguist Vol/61 No/4 2022
thelinguist.uberflip.com
FEATURES
Will the recommendations in Ofsted's curriculum
review be good or bad for students, asks Robert Woore
I
t may seem hard to believe, but apparently
not everyone loves learning a foreign
language! In English secondary schools in
particular, long-standing problems of declining
uptake and poor learner outcomes have
been well documented, despite the value of
multilingualism for individuals, society and the
economy. Governmental attempts to address
these challenges through a range of policy
initiatives – such as the 'English Baccalaureate',
which includes a language qualification, and
statutory language teaching in primary schools
– have so far failed to turn the ship around.
It is in this context that Ofsted – the
national schools inspectorate for England –
has published its Curriculum Research Review
(OCRR) in languages.
1
This document
"explores the literature relating to the field of
foreign languages education" in order to
"identify factors that contribute to high-quality
school languages curriculums, assessment,
pedagogy and systems". The aim is to tackle
low motivation, poor uptake and student
underachievement in a 'bottom-up' way, by
improving language teaching and learning in
schools. This renewed focus on language
pedagogy is in many ways welcome. Of
course, there have been various other
attempts to synthesise the findings of Second
Language Acquisition research to derive 'best
practice' guidance for teachers.
2
However,
these publications inevitably have a different
status than the OCRR, given that Ofsted also
conducts high-stakes inspections of schools.
The OCRR will not speak its
recommendations softly; the review has
teeth. It is therefore imperative that we
engage critically with it to assess the validity
of its recommendations and the strength of
evidence underpinning them. Let's focus on
two key areas of language learning:
communicativeness and culture.
COMMUNICATIVENESS
At the core of the OCRR is an architectural
metaphor, which sees language learning as
resting on three "pillars": phonics, vocabulary
and grammar. There is an emphasis on
putting the "building blocks" of language in
place through explicit instruction in a carefully
sequenced set of words, structures and
symbol-sound correspondences. Learners can
then gradually "bring these building blocks
together to produce and understand ever
more complex language" as their knowledge
becomes more secure and as they develop
automaticity through practice.
This view of language learning has the
advantage of being clear and readily
understandable, and it can be used to
construct a logical and carefully sequenced
curriculum. But could there be unintended
consequences? The essential function of
language is to communicate, yet if teachers
REVIEWING THE REVIEW
©
SHUTTERSTOCK
