Languages Learning at Key Stage 2 - A Longitudinal Study

28/01/2010

Organisation

The Open University, University of Southampton and Canterbury Christ Church University

Commissioned by DCSF

Timescale

2006-2009

Research Aim

Longitudinal study, commissioned by the DCSF, investigating progress in the teaching of languages at Key Stage 2 over three school years.

This study accompanies the longitudinal research conducted by the NFER which followed the implementation of KS2 languages over the same period. Whilst the NFER study concentrated on quantitative aspects of national provision e.g. number of schools teaching languages and most commonly taught languages, this present study focused on qualitative aspects of delivery.

The main aims were to:

• Review existing evidence on the impact of languages learning on children
• Investigate the nature and quality of the provision of languages learning at Key Stage 2 in a range of schools; and
• Assess its impact on children’s learning in languages and across the curriculum

Research Design

3 strands:

1. Literature review

• Background to study.
• Looking at what is known about language learning and teaching in primary schools in Anglophone contexts.

2. Qualitative case studies

• 40 primary schools already teaching languages in 2006 and prepared to commit to the three years.
• Selected to reflect a range of school types and models of provision.
• Involved lesson observations, interviews with staff, group discussions with children in Years 3-6, attitudinal questionnaires for children.

3. Assessment tasks

• Groups of children in 8 schools completed annual assessments in oracy and literacy. These were specifically devised group assessment activities based on the Key Stage 2 Framework.
• Some Year 6 children also completed Asset Languages Breakthrough assessments.
• A survey was used by Year 6s in the first year of the study to investigate the cross-curricular impact of language learning (impact on wider attitudes to learning and metalinguistic knowledge). Sampling issues meant that in 2008/2009 cross-curricular impact was investigated through interviews with literacy co-ordinators, gauging their perception of the impact of languages on wider learning with a focus on literacy skills.

Outputs

Research brief: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RB198.pdf

Final report: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RR198.pdf

Completed?

Yes

Key Findings

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

International evidence suggested:

• Rationale for primary languages mainly based on increasing opportunities for language learning and capitalising on motivation.
• General weaknesses of primary models – assessment and transition.
• Limited evidence of learning outcomes – suggestions of a focus on formulaic expressions, and of benefits for learning strategies and language awareness.

2. QUALITATIVE CASE STUDIES

a) Perceived benefits of languages learning

• Enthusiasm and commitment of heads, languages co-ordinators and most teachers involved.
• Teachers – belief in contribution to personal/social learning, cultural understanding, communication/literacy skills, KAL and attitudes to learning.
• Some heads – belief in positive contribution to valuing diversity and school ethos.

b) Children’s attitudes

Majority of children:

• Enthusiastic and positive.
• Enjoyed wide range of active learning – games, songs, storytelling etc
• Strong sense of own progress.
• Positive impact on self-esteem - those will difficulties in literacy in English appeared assured in languages and gained confidence through the structured varied oral interaction in languages.

Minority of children:

• Excessive repetition of topics.
• Limited individual work.
• Few opportunities for reading and writing.

c) Key issues in provision

• Discrete timetabled lesson of 30-40 minutes, with extra time in Years 5/6 (few offered 1 hour as recommended in the KS2 F/W).
• 1/4 of schools used specialist teachers; 1/3 used class teachers; others a combination (these schools are ‘early adopters’ of languages which may influence the large proportion using specialist teachers, i.e. to ensure progression).
• Staffing was a key concern of Head teachers – e.g. maintaining provision, ensuring progression, staff mobility. A number commented languages ability was now a recruitment criterion.

d) Staff training and development

• Impact of training on teaching and particular appreciation of opportunities available through LAs, regional support groups and cluster meetings.
• Areas for development – training provision in cross-curricular learning, intercultural understanding, reading and writing and language upskilling.

e) KS2 Framework and schemes of work

• Increasing use of Framework to inform planning.
• Incorporation of learning objectives for oracy, and to a lesser extent literacy, into schemes of work.
• Little evidence of infercultural understanding referred to systematically.
• Increasing use of commercial resources e.g. DVDs, schemes of work, interactive whiteboard materials to support teaching and learning.

f) Teaching and learning

• Key aims focused on promoting enthusiasm for languages and developing speaking and listening skills.
• Focus on topic-related teaching of vocabulary; emphasis on producing memorised items and formulaic phrases

i. Literacy

• Increased attention to literacy activities over the 3 years but they did not form a substantial part of most lessons.
• Focus on reading rather than writing.
• Literacy limited by shortness of lessons and limited confidence and expertise of staff.

ii. Intercultural understanding (IU)

• Limited – in some cases IU objectives being introduced e.g. factual knowledge and expressing attitudes. Some use of native speakers e.g. FLAs, visiting students or other staff.
• Increase in whole school events focusing on culture, and of international links but these were rarely linked o F/W objectives.

iii. Cross-curricular links

• Some evidence of an increase but mainly by individual teachers rather than whole-school planning.
• More frequent when delivery was by class teacher.

g) Progression

• Those with 4 years of learning demonstrated some evidence of progress. Need to work on developing consistency in this area.
• Specialist teachers considered necessary by some school managers to ensure progression.

h) Achievement

• Variable performance across schools.
• Findings indicate that children can achieve nationally expected outcomes in listening, speaking and reading after 4 years of learning 1 language.
• Writing remains a challenge for most, limited by lack of verb knowledge.
• Performances were best where provision had been consistent and teachers had strong linguistic skills.

i) Leadership and management

• Commitment and vision of Heads and effective subject leadership - critical in establishing and sustaining provision.
• However, many languages coordinators were working largely in isolation from other areas of the primary curriculum.

j) Transition and transfer

• Some primary schools passing on information to secondaries, but many were not confidence it was being effectively.
• Concern for possible loss of motivation in KS3.

k) Sustaining provision

• Majority has a school-wide vision for languages, originating with Head; and supported by languages coordinated and class-teacher’s willingness to engage.
• Funding for training and resources was significant in this – and expectation that it will continue.
• Uncertainty about place of languages in curriculum / timetable.
• Those with most sustainable models had capitalised on a range of training opportunities including local networks, projects, international partnerships, local and national funding and award-schemes.