Skip to main content

They do things differently over there

"The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language" is a quotation attributed to George Bernard Shaw. In the field of modern (foreign) language teaching (UK) or world/foreign language teaching (USA) this is certainly the case. US and UK teachers struggle with similar challenges, notably trying to motivate youngsters to learn a new language in countries where English is the world's language. In the USA geographical isolation makes the task even harder.

Interestingly, despite a shared challenge, we go about teaching languages and talking about languages in somewhat different ways. As an example consider the ACTFL's (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) Performance Descriptors for language learners:

These are divided up by a number of different parameters, e.g. ranges of performance (levels) are described as novice, intermediate and advanced (with sub-divisions of these, e.g. novice high); modes of communication are described as Interpersonal, Interpretive and Presentational. For British teachers these three terms mean the following;

Interpersonal

Where students are talking with each other or the teacher. By the ACTFL's definition this has to be unprepared. Rehearsed conversation is considered to be presentational.

Interpretive

Where students are comprehending from spoken or written texts. One-way listening or reading.

Presentational

Where students are talking or writing for an audience. It's one-way speaking or writing.

These ACTFL descriptors affect the way teachers prepare lessons and may encourage them to achieve a balance of receptive, productive and spontaneous skills. It colours the way teachers talk about language teaching, changes the nature of the discourse. Some US teachers get very concerned about whether their lessons are presentational or interpersonal. Yet in the UK we do not refer to these modes of communication in the same way at all. (Indeed, for myself, I don't see much need for such a set of descriptors.)

Meanwhile in England and Wales we've had our National Curriculum level descriptors (now defunct), four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing), GCSE and A-level (no equivalents in the USA).

Americans, perhaps because of a strong tradition of explicit grammar teaching, talk a lot about proficiency (placed in opposition to grammar teaching) whereas we are more likely in the UK to talk of fluency (placed in opposition to accuracy). We also talk a good deal about spontaneity (as opposed to rote-learned). We all have our dichotomies.

Americans are more likely to talk of quizzing when we usually say testing.

Do these different ways of looking at the same challenge affect the way we teach? Both American and British teachers have witnessed a range of "methods" over the years yet, interestingly, the pendulums are not swinging in unison either side of the Atlantic. 

In the USA there seems to be a strong movement towards teaching for proficiency via comprehensible input, with a parallel move away from explicit grammar teaching. The ACTFL appears to have some influence in this context. Naturalistic approaches à la Stephen Krashen are in vogue and quite passionate debates rage between TPRS teachers and "legacy" teachers.

In contrast in the UK the pendulum has starting to swing back towards explicit grammar, drilling, translation and skill acquisition, whilst still valuing the importance of target language input. Although we have no precise equivalent of the ACTFL, the DfE certainly gives a lead in what is viewed as important. The recent TSC report seems to follow the DfE's line in reflecting the swing back to grammar, translation and practice.

In reality I expect most teachers either side of the pond have their own hybrid approach, one which they believe works best with the pupils in front of them. Whatever pedagogical language they speak, they have to find a pedagigical solution which works in their context, with their assessment regime, their cultural expectations, school and parental expectations. I am sure we can learn from each other, not to mention from other parts of the world.


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,