DfE consultation on proposed new GCSE subject content for MFL (French, German, Spanish): Draft Response from Creative Multilingualism

Mon, 17th May 2021

We welcome the DfE’s attempts to address issues of uptake and attainment for GCSE in MFL. We acknowledge that giving learners a solid grounding in vocabulary, phonics and grammar is an important part of helping them achieve greater competence in a language. Nevertheless, we have considerable concerns about the proposed changes and believe that they will have the opposite effect from that which is intended. Furthermore, we are concerned that they represent a fundamental misunderstanding of motivation theory, vocabulary research, and the importance of aligning curriculum change with teacher rationales for instruction.

Our response to the DfE’s consultation on the proposed content for MFL GCSE draws on two surveys funded by Creative Multilingualism, that sought the views of language teachers across England on MFL curriculum reform (CML 2020 - 614 teachers; CML, 2021 – 140 teachers). For any reform to assessment to be successful, it needs to involve teachers from the earliest stage, and critically to be based on an assessment of ‘whether change is desirable and whether the education system is ready and able to take on the burden of implementation’ (Wall, 2000: 506).

Our first survey (CML, 2020) showed that MFL teachers believe strongly that the two central purposes of language teaching are to develop learners’ intercultural understanding and their ability to communicate in the language. These beliefs align closely with the stated aims of the proposed GCSE, but not with the proposed changes to content. There is thus a highly problematic internal contradiction to the proposals, as well as a misalignment with what teachers believe to be important in language teaching and learning. Both of these misalignments will seriously undermine implementation, as well as alienating and demoralising teachers.

Our second survey (CML, 2021) showed very little support for any of the proposed changes from practising MFL teachers. Respondents generally felt that the changes would have a detrimental impact on the teaching and learning of languages, on motivation and uptake.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO VOCABULARY

Q.10. Do you agree with the requirement that 90% of words must be taken from the top 2,000 most frequently occurring words in the most widely spoken standard forms of the language

The requirement that 90% of words must be taken from the top 2,000 most frequently occurring words

We do not agree with this proposal for the following reasons:

In our survey (CML, 2021), 63% of teachers felt that this proposal was incompatible with the stated aims of MFL GCSE. They also believed it would have a negative impact on uptake at A-level.
The proposal is also clearly misaligned with teachers’ rationales for language learning and hence are likely to alienate teachers as well as learners.
It also runs counter to vocabulary research which shows that in order to be able to communicate at around A2 level (which is surely where GCSE should be pitched), learners would need around 2000-2500 words, and for those to include not only high-frequency words but also ‘content’ words of a lower frequency (Milton, 2021).
The narrow range of vocabulary proposed in the changes places the examination at A1 level and will make the stated communicative and intercultural goals of the GCSE very hard, if not possible, to attain (Milton, 2021). Learners will be able to communicate about very little of value to them and will not be equipped to communicate their personal views and concerns. They will also be deprived of the opportunity to develop key skills such as inferring meaning.
GCSE grading will not be affected by the proposed changes. We will therefore have the worst of all possible worlds: learners will continue to gain demonstrably lower grades than in other EBacc subjects for an examination that does not equip them with the skills they wish to develop, namely to communicate or engage with authentic language. This will only serve to accentuate their sense of lack of competence in language learning, and hence drive down uptake, rather than increase it.

We recommend that in drawing up any vocabulary lists, frequency should indeed be considered, but must be set alongside learnability, relevance and usefulness. We propose a considerably smaller list of core vocabulary, together with flexibility for teachers to achieve a target vocabulary size based on a menu of themes and contexts. These should be determined by Awarding Bodies in partnership with other stakeholders, to ensure that they include the kind of language that will equip learners for meaningful communication.

Q.11. Do you agree with the requirement for foundation tier students to know no more than 1200 words and higher tier students to know no more than 1700 words?

We do not agree with this proposal for the following reasons:

In our survey (CML, 2021), 66% of teachers felt that this proposal was incompatible with the stated aims of MFL GCSE. They also believed it would have a negative impact on uptake at A-level.
The proposal is also clearly misaligned with teachers’ rationales for language learning and hence are likely to alienate teachers as well as learners.
It also runs counter to vocabulary research which shows that in order to be able to communicate at around A2 level (which is surely where GCSE should be pitched), learners would need around 2000-2500 words, and for those to include not only high-frequency words but also ‘content’ words of a lower frequency (Milton, 2021).
The narrow range of vocabulary proposed in the changes places the examination at A1 level and will make the stated communicative and intercultural goals of the GCSE very hard, if not possible, to attain (Milton, 2021). Learners will be able to communicate about very little of value to them, nor will they develop key skills such as inferring meaning.
GCSE grading will not be affected by the proposed changes. We will therefore have the worst of all possible worlds: learners will continue to gain low grades for an examination that does not equip them to communicate or engage with authentic language. This will only serve to accentuate their sense of lack of competence in language learning, and hence drive down uptake, rather than increase it.

We recommend that in drawing up any vocabulary lists, frequency should indeed be considered, but must be set alongside learnability, relevance and usefulness. A key aim must be to ensure that they include the kind of language that will equip learners for meaningful communication.

Q.12. Do you agree that the vocabulary lists proposed for GCSE should set out all content required for GCSE, even though in many cases some of this may have been learnt prior to the start of the GCSE course itself?

Teachers in our 2021 survey strongly believed that the proposals relating to vocabulary will have a negative impact on MFL learning and teaching at Key Stage 3. Many felt that they pose potential challenges for primary schools. They believe that at Key Stage 3 the proposals will have a negative washback on teaching, as summed up by this quotation:

It will make the teaching at Key Stage 3 very dry - it will return to heavy teaching of single word vocab and grammar.

The proposals do not acknowledge at all the place of Primary Languages. They risk undermining the value and purpose of Key Stage 2. In the words of one respondent to CML (2021), referring to impact on Key Stage 2:

Basically these proposals seek to dumb down languages, they remove interdisciplinary links and content, they don’t prepare students for the real world. I expect them to have a very very negative impact on the perception of languages in society and on uptake.

Q.13. Do you agree that cognate words (words which are very similar or the same in English and the assessed language) should be included and counted in the defined vocabulary in a way which reflects their frequency of occurrence in the assessed language?

This proposal further reduces the amount of vocabulary learners will be expected to know. Therefore we have the same concerns about it as for the proposals in Q11 and Q12.

In our survey (CML, 2021), teachers felt strongly that the proposals regarding vocabulary were incompatible with the stated aims of MFL GCSE. They also believed they would have a negative impact on uptake at A-level.
The proposal is also clearly misaligned with teachers’ rationales for language learning and hence are likely to alienate teachers as well as learners.
It also runs counter to vocabulary research which shows that in order to be able to communicate at around A2 level (which is surely where GCSE should be pitched), learners would need around 2000-2500 words, and for those to include not only high-frequency words but also ‘content’ words of a lower frequency (Milton, 2021).
The narrow range of vocabulary proposed in the changes places the examination at A1 level and will make the stated communicative and intercultural goals of the GCSE very hard, if not possible, to attain (Milton, 2021). Learners will be able to communicate about very little of value to them and will not be equipped to communicate their personal views and concerns. They will also be deprived of the opportunity to develop key skills such as inferring meaning.
GCSE grading will not be affected by the proposed changes. We will therefore have the worst of all possible worlds: learners will continue to gain demonstrably lower grades than in other EBacc subjects for an examination that does not equip them with the skills they wish to develop, namely to communicate or engage with authentic language. This will only serve to accentuate their sense of lack of competence in language learning, and hence drive down uptake, rather than increase it.

Q.14.1. The revised subject content expects higher tier students to read texts that may include a small number of words that fall outside the vocabulary list defined by the awarding organisation. English meanings of such words must be supplied adjacent to the text for reference. Do you agree that no more than 2% of words in any given higher tier text that fall outside the vocabulary list defined by the awarding organisation, must be included in an adjacent glossary?

The stated aims for the proposed GCSE are to develop learners’ ‘ability and ambition to communicate in speech and writing with speakers of the language for authentic purposes and about subjects which are meaningful and interesting to them’; and ‘broaden students’ horizons, encourage them to step beyond familiar cultural boundaries and develop new ways of seeing the world’.

The ability to infer, deduce, and work out meanings is a crucial part of communicative competence referred to in these aims. These are essential skills for learners to develop if they are to have any hope of reading texts ‘for authentic purposes and about subjects which are meaningful and interesting to them’. Hence this proposal is directly at odds with the stated aim of the proposed GCSE.

In our survey of language teachers (CML, 2021), 64% of respondents also felt that this proposal was incompatible with the stated aims of MFL GCSE, as summarised in this quotation from a teacher:

I think the insistence on not requiring students to use 'intelligent guesswork' to tackle unfamiliar vocabulary is also a grave error: building the confidence to do this is a critically important skill for all linguists, as they become more adept at 'joining the dots' and positing connections between what they already know and what they are trying to understand. (In some ways, it is the definition of 'intelligence'!). It is hugely rewarding for students of all abilities to be able to find these connections, and reducing content to a list of very common words may well prove stultifying; there is a lot of delight for example in looking at how compound nouns work in German, or comparing idioms across languages - is this going to be lost? I do agree that the range of vocabulary used in the current GCSE is rather too wide, but I'm not sure that removing the need for students to think things through for themselves is the answer to this.

62% of respondents to CML (2021) also believed the proposals would have a very negative impact on uptake at A-level and increase the gap between GCSE and A-level. The removal of the need to be able to deal with an element of unknown language was cited as one cause for these problems.

Teachers’ views are summed up in the following quotation by an experienced teacher in a non-selective state school:

The skills required for A level, such as recognising cognates, word patterns, independent use of language, using complex constructions, dealing with unseen language, all seem to be actively discouraged.

The proposal also runs counter to the aim of improving self-efficacy and motivation for language learning, for the following reasons:

While expecting to be successful and experiencing success is important for increased self-efficacy, the originator of the term, Bandura (1994) makes the following clear: ‘If people experience only easy successes they come to expect quick results and are easily discouraged by failure. A resilient sense of efficacy requires experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant effort ‘(p. 71). Therefore, this proposed change runs the risk of undermining learner self-efficacy, not increasing it.
Self-efficacy is important but it is only one half of the ‘expectancy-value’ equation that drives motivation. ‘Value’, in the shape of engaging in learning that is meaningful and interesting, is also paramount. Being given the opportunity to work with challenging and interesting reading material is essential to developing this sense of ‘value’.
Learning how to overcome challenges in the form of dealing with an element of unknown vocabulary has been shown to have a particularly strong benefit for the self-efficacy of learners of lower prior attainment and literacy (Graham et al., 2020a).
We also know that learners as young as Year 7 enjoy and can learn from reading texts that contain more than 2% of unknown vocabulary. In the recent FLEUR project (Foreign Language Education: Unlocking Reading, Woore et al., 2018), learners not only felt positive about reading challenging texts in French that gave cultural insights, according to a questionnaire they completed, they also improved their reading skills and vocabulary knowledge. Similarly, in our Creative Multilingualism Year 9 Project (Graham et al, 2020b), reading texts that were more linguistically challenging than those proposed for the GCSE led to very large vocabulary gains for over 500 learners of French.

We therefore recommend that the GCSE curriculum should prepare students linguistically and culturally for encounters with a range of texts in the target language; it should give them the confidence and skills to work with such materials. To do so, at higher tier the examination needs to include texts where not all unknown words are glossed, but where the meaning can be worked out by the sensible and reasoned application of inference. At the same time, we are conscious that the texts currently included in the GCSE include too many unknown words. We suggest a compromise position between the one being proposed and the current scenario.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO THEMATIC AND CULTURAL CONTENT

Q15. Do you agree with the proposal not to require overarching themes and specific topics in the revised subject content?

This proposal was the one which respondents to the CML (2021) survey rejected most strongly, with 78% of them expressing the view that it was incompatible with the stated aims of MFL GCSE.

Reasons given for this included the lack of authenticity it would be bring, and the need for some sort of framework to support teachers’ work.

Many teachers expressed strong concerns about the impact of the proposed changes on their workload and overall practice, with the removal of topics a key concern.

The following quotation from a teacher sums up many of the issues raised by respondents:

[Concern about] the huge extra workload these changes will inevitably generate. Teacher retention is already a challenge, everyone has had an exceptionally exhausting time during the covid pandemic, and we really need some time to let the previous round of curriculum changes linked to the latest GCSE 'bed in' now. Another huge change of direction may well result in resignations from experienced staff who just can't face rewriting key stages 3 and 4 yet again, especially if we feel that the changes will not be to the benefit of our students.

We recommend that the current reform to GCSE is used as an opportunity to introduce content of greater relevance and interest to learners (see Q 22), based on culture of the target language communities, rather than removing all prescribed content. That would then align the examination more closely with teachers’ rationale for language instruction, improve teacher morale, and address learner motivation more effectively. Teachers should be consulted on thematic content their students would find appealing and motivating.

Q16. Do you agree that teaching and assessment will instead be informed by the vocabulary specified for teaching given that, due to its high frequency, this vocabulary can cover a range of topics?

High-frequency vocabulary can contribute to a range of topics but it cannot cover a range of topics, for the reasons given above. Learners need both high-frequency vocabulary and content vocabulary, which often is not high-frequency (Milton, 2021). Please also see our responses to Q11 and Q12.

Q22. Do you agree that, whilst students will continue to learn about the culture of the countries where the language is spoken, cultural content will not be specified or tested in the revised subject content?

Teacher respondents to the CML (2021) survey commented very negatively on the omission of cultural content in the proposed GCSE, as outlined by this respondent:

The joy of MFL is about making connections with other people, finding common ground, and appreciating how and why things are different in other languages and cultures, and all this (which young people by and large have a lot of natural curiosity about) seems in danger of being lost. […] The lack of prescribed cultural content is particularly damaging as it divorces the subject from the very things that really bring MFL alive, and which should be at the centre of what we teach.

A large body of research evidence shows that misalignment between curriculum reforms and teacher beliefs /rationales for instruction leads to poor implementation of the reforms and damaged teacher morale (Handel & Herrington, 2003; Stein & Coburn, 2008). The above quotation sums up how the proposed changes risk having a very negative impact on both teacher morale and learner motivation. Examination content has a powerful impact on classroom teaching, particularly in accountability-driven contexts such as England. Even if teachers have the freedom to include in their teaching a wider range of lexis and cultural content than is contained in the proposed GCSE, they are very likely to feel obliged to focus heavily on the very narrow range of skills and knowledge prescribed.

Learning about culture is essential to student motivation and uptake at GCSE and A-level. While low self-efficacy or confidence contribute to learners giving up MFL study (Graham, 2002, 2004; Graham, 2018), the same studies show that learners’ lack of interest in what they are studying is also very important, and that intrinsic interest in learning about the language and its associated culture are important factors for continuing with language study. Learners at primary school also report enjoying learning about the L2 culture (Graham et al, 2016).

It is therefore essential that culture is included in the GCSE, to ensure that it does feature in classroom practice. The assessment frameworks of other countries such as Ireland do incorporate the assessment of cultural knowledge for GCSE-level learners; it should not therefore be beyond the realms of possibility for the GCSE to include it. This would also align the GCSE more closely with A-level, where cultural knowledge is included in the Assessment Objectives.

QUESTIONS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT

Q17. Do you agree that, where questions are designed to test comprehension of written and spoken texts in the assessed language, they will be constructed in English?

Assessments should be accessible, but this proposal needs to consider the washback effect on teaching. It is likely to very much increase the amount of English used in classroom teaching to a level beyond what is viewed as desirable - i.e. learners need plentiful target language input. Furthermore, it is possible to make target-language questions accessible by only including words from the pre-determined list of core vocabulary, and/or making questions in the target language standard and fully predictable.

Q18. Do you agree that all rubrics will be in English?

Assessments should be accessible, but this proposal needs to consider the washback effect on teaching. It is likely to very much increase the amount of English used in classroom teaching to a level beyond what is viewed as desirable - i.e. learners need plentiful target language input. Furthermore, it is possible to make target-language rubrics accessible by only including words from the pre-determined list of core vocabulary, and/or making questions in the target language standard and fully predictable.

Q19. Do agree with the requirement for students to read aloud short sentences from the written form of the language and demonstrate understanding of them?

Teachers responding to our CML (2021) survey felt strongly (64%) that reading aloud as part of the examination was incompatible with the stated aims of MFL GCSE, because of the task’s lack of authenticity and focus on communication.

It was also felt that the skills assessed by reading aloud were given undue prominence compared with the assessment of spontaneous interaction and communicative competence.

I am appalled that there seems to be no 'general conversation' section to the proposed speaking exam, where pupils will have a chance to speak with a degree of spontaneity, using vocab of their choice that might come from outside the 'defined content' .

We acknowledge that reading aloud can have considerable value in language-teaching, helping to develop the decoding skills critical for language comprehension. Knowledge of phonics and decoding skills form only one part of effective comprehension, however. We share the view of teachers that the emphasis placed on them in the proposals, at the expense of tasks that target more meaning –focused comprehension, as well as unplanned interaction and communication, means that an important element of language learning will be side-lined.

The proposals emphasise the importance of phonics, arguing that phonics teaching has potential benefits for self-efficacy. At the same time they fail to mention evidence that this approach does not suit all students, including evidence from the FLEUR study that reading instruction based on comprehension strategies can have a more beneficial impact on self-efficacy, especially for lower-attaining learners (Graham et al., 2020).

The majority of teacher respondents to the CML (2021) survey felt that the proposed GCSE changes as a whole would have particularly negative consequences for motivation and learning outcomes for learners with SEND. Reading aloud, as well as dictation, was highlighted as likely to have a particularly negative impact.

We recommend that if the reading aloud test is retained, it should be as a small part of the examination only, and that greater prominence must given to the assessment of skills of comprehension of more authentic materials and speaking spontaneously (through a conversation or similar speaking task that includes an element of unpredictability).

Q20. Do you agree with the requirement that students undertake dictation exercises from short spoken extracts, with credit for accurate spelling?

Teachers responding to our CML (2021) survey felt strongly (67%) that dictation as part of the examination was incompatible with the stated aims of MFL GCSE, because of the task’s lack of authenticity.

It was also felt that the skills assessed by dictation were given undue prominence in the proposals compared with the assessment of spontaneous interaction and communicative competence.

In the words of one teacher:

Unfortunately, I think the proposed changes will make MFL a far less attractive option for GCSE. Focusing on accuracy in writing, dictation etc, over communication seems very 'dry' and unappealing. We really should not be going back to the message that if you can't say or write something perfectly, you just shouldn't bother.

We recommend that if the dictation test is retained, it should be as a small part of the examination only, and that greater prominence is given to the assessment of skills of comprehension of a more authentic nature

Q21. Do you agree that, where students are expected to understand spoken extracts, these extracts will be delivered at a pace which is no faster than a moderate pace?

We agree that listening extracts need to be accessible across the attainment range, but this does not mean that they need to be stripped of all authenticity. As stated before, the ability to understand authentic spoken language is important to learners. Stripping spoken language of all authenticity can make it harder to understand – there are factors other than speed that need to be taken into consideration (Brunfaut & Révész, 2014). The issues with the current GCSE listening tasks are more to do with the nature of questions posed and the excessively narrow and ‘tricky’ responses that are required by the mark scheme than the speed of delivery.

We recommend that listening materials used in the exam retain an element of authenticity, and that the overall difficulty of the tasks and questions set is addressed rather than the pace of delivery being only one relevant factor.

Resources

Handel, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 59–69.
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures of learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/org
Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be predicted or controlled? System, 28, 499-509

Strands

Language Learning