David Little

In 2003 I accepted a commission from the NCCA to write a discussion paper on languages in the post-primary curriculum (Little 2003). The commission was prompted by the perceived need to evaluate the “communicative” syllabuses that had been in place for the past fifteen years or so, especially in light of the mixed results reported for “communicative” language teaching. My paper was to be the first step in a general review embracing Irish and foreign languages but not English. Against this, however, there was a general expectation that I would address the issue of a language policy for post-primary level, which necessarily involves English.

Present policy is straightforward: schools are obliged to teach Irish and English but free to decide whether or not to offer foreign languages. The fact that most schools teach at least French is due partly to tradition, but partly also to the NUI’s matriculation requirement of a schoolleaving qualification in Irish and a foreign language. In recent years those of us involved in foreign language teaching have begun to worry that any relaxation of this requirement would have a seriously negative impact. In England and Wales the number of students taking GCSE in foreign languages is in serious, possibly terminal decline. There is no evidence to suggest that, without the prop provided by NUI matriculation, things would be any different in Ireland.

The possible disappearance of foreign languages from our schools, and thus from the general stock of knowledge and skills available to our society, is a matter of indifference to those who believe that “English is enough”. But of course, English is not enough. Although its status as a global lingua franca is undeniable, its reach is far from universal. In any case, speakers of other languages who use English for purposes of international communication will continue to use their mother tongues at home; and those mother tongues will continue to provide the foundation for significant political, social, economic and cultural institutions. Any educational culture that has ceased to care about providing access to such institutions has become dangerously insular and complacent.

My discussion paper argued strongly in favour of developing a language policy that would lead (among other things) to an integrated language curriculum at post-primary level. This idea is by no means new: it was promoted as long ago as 1987 by the Board of Studies for Languages established by the Curriculum and Examinations Board (the NCCA’s predecessor) to review the role of languages at post-primary level. The board’s report defines the curriculum category “language” as follows:

Language is

• the chief means by which we think – all language activities, in whatever language, are exercises in thinking;
• the vehicle through which knowledge is acquired and organized;
• the chief means of interpersonal communication;
• a central factor in the growth of the learner’s personality;
• one of the chief means by which societies and cultures define and organize themselves and by which culture is transmitted within and across societies and cultures. (CEB 1987, p.2)

This humanistic definition provided the basis for the report’s argument that “language” should constitute a key curriculum area that might be divided up in various ways, according to the different and developing needs and interests of students. In this way languages would no longer have to compete with other subjects in the curriculum, and careful planning would ensure that the different languages were not in competition with one another. In keeping with the concept of an integrated language curriculum, the report recommended that the relation between first, second and foreign language learning should be made explicit not just in the curriculum but in classroom practice. This would presumably involve the adoption of common pedagogical practices across the languages; it might also require a degree of team teaching.

At present there are two major differences between the post-primary curriculum for English and the curricula for foreign languages. First, the English curriculum emphasizes the teaching of literature, and its perspective on language may fairly be described as rhetorical rather than grammatical. By contrast, the syllabuses for French, German, Spanish and Italian emphasize communicative language use underpinned by an awareness of language in which grammatical knowledge plays a central role. Secondly, although it is the declared purpose of the Junior Certificate syllabus for English to develop the student’s “personal proficiency in the arts and skills of language”, which might be thought to apply as much to speech as to writing, the English exams are entirely written. In foreign languages, on the other hand, the spoken language is given considerable prominence, though there is no test of speaking in the Junior Certificate. The Irish syllabus occupies a position somewhere between English and foreign languages. It shares with the former a bias towards the study of literature and an emphasis on reading and writing skills, and with the latter a concern to develop communicative proficiency, including speaking, founded on grammatical accuracy.

These differences suggest just three of the many ways in which common pedagogical practice might be adopted to the benefit of all. The first of them has to do with grammar. For decades teachers of foreign languages have deplored the fact that their students learn too little about grammar in their English classes. This complaint seems to reflect two beliefs. First, if teachers of English taught their students what a verb is, this would ease the burden of the foreign language teacher; and secondly, if only students knew more grammar they would learn foreign languages more effectively. Unfortunately neither belief is true. My knowledge of how the verb system works in English can tell me nothing a priori about how the verb system works in German. In any case, knowledge of grammar comes after knowledge of language, not before: I can begin to understand why a particular grammatical error in Italian is an error only when I have learnt enough Italian to make the error in the first place.

Note that this is not an argument against grammatical analysis per se, which may indeed help to sharpen my awareness of the communicative possibilities and stylistic options open to me as a native speaker of English and a learner of German and Italian. Rather, it is a claim that grammatical analysis can have meaning and interest only when it focuses on language that the learner either has or could have produced herself. In this there is no great distinction to be drawn between first, second and foreign languages. For example, a wealth of research evidence casts doubt on the effectiveness of teaching grammar as a means of improving the accuracy and quality of mother tongue speech and writing. A report published recently by London University’s Institute of Education identified current classroom practice in England as “the use of a range of approaches to traditional grammar, language awareness, the development and use of meta-language to describe sentences and sentence construction itself” (EPPI-Centre 2004, p.51). On the basis of an in-depth review of relevant research, the report concluded that only the last of these, sentence construction, which includes combining simple sentences to form more complex structures, is likely to be effective. In other words, the only way of learning to write is to write. That is a truly communicative approach to the learning of any language, first, second or foreign. It is also an approach that should prepare the way for all kinds of analytical activity, including grammatical analysis.

The second kind of common pedagogical practice I want to propose has to do with how we get our students to engage with literary and other texts. Teachers of English are used to giving their students creative writing tasks as a way of generating insight into the challenges and problems of literary composition; but I am unsure to what extent they use literary works themselves as a basis for the same kind of exploration. For example, it takes a few minutes with a photocopier and a bottle of Tippex to create four “gapped” versions of the same poem – the versions differing from one another in the words that have been deleted. The challenge for students working in groups is threefold: to find words to fill the gaps in the version they have been given; to weigh their solutions against the solutions provided by other groups (who have filled different gaps); and to consider the original text in the light of these exercises. When applied to texts in Irish or a foreign language, the same activity can turn the drudgery of cloze into a stimulating exploration of language in action – in which grammatical and stylistic analysis cannot help but play a central role.

In keeping with its conception of “language” as a curriculum area and its concern to do justice to language’s communicative function, the 1987 Board of Studies for Languages report emphasized the importance of developing students’ listening and speaking skills in all language subjects. In the section devoted to English the report recommended that “increased attention [should be given] to the skills of listening and speaking” and that there should be “provision within the examination system for formal assessment of listening and speaking” (CEB 1987, p.14). Although the current syllabuses for English acknowledge the importance of developing skills in oral communication, students continue to be assessed by written examinations only, which leaves teachers of English with little incentive to develop, for example, their students’ oral presentation skills. If the emphasis that teachers of Irish and foreign languages are rightly obliged to place on speaking skills were carried over into the teaching of English, students could be given a contrastive sense of oral expression in first, second and foreign languages. By developing conscious control of the resources available to them in their mother tongue, they would more easily become aware of the challenges they face when they attempt more formal oral communication in Irish or a foreign language.

It should be clear by now that my vision of an integrated language curriculum is “soft” rather than “hard”, a matter of developing shared understandings and goals rather than of strict regimentation. For one thing, the fruits of integration must grow from the interaction of essentially independent pedagogical activity: teaching English will always remain a matter of teaching English, and the same is true of Irish and the other languages of the curriculum. Yet those fruits will grow only where there is explicit collaboration among language teachers, and a readiness to exchange and experiment with one another’s ideas and pedagogical methods. In other contexts the Council of Europe’s European Language Portfolio has proved a highly effective tool for developing whole-school approaches to language teaching.

In its present form it focuses on all languages except the learner’s first language, but it would be easy to remedy this deficiency. (For more information on the European Language Portfolio, go to www.coe.int/portfolio. For evidence of the ELP’s impact on foreign language classrooms in Ireland, go to www.tcd.ie/clcs, select CLCS PROJECTS on the home page menu, then select EUROPEAN LANGUAGE PORTFOLIO.)

At the beginning of the Leaving Certificate syllabus for English we read: “Each person lives in the midst of language. Language is fundamental to learning, communication, personal and cultural identity, and relationships.” These two sentences are themselves the beginning of an argument for an integrated language curriculum. Will such a curriculum ever be a reality? Given the snail’s pace at which our educational system responds to crisis, perhaps not. But in that case, we face the possible loss of foreign languages, the continuing stagnation of Irish, and the isolation of English from what should be the wider linguistic concerns of all educators. In such a scenario, the language diet offered to future generations of students will be thin gruel indeed.

Professor David Little is the Director of the Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin.

References
CEB, 1987: Report of the Board of Studies for Languages. Dublin: Curriculum and Examinations Board.
EPPI-Centre, 2004: The effect of grammar teaching (sentence combining) in English on 5 to 16 year olds’ accuracy and quality in written composition.
University of London, Institute of Education. (Downloadable from eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx)
Little, D., 2003: Languages in the post-primary curriculum: a discussion paper. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (Downloadable from www.ncca.ie).