Here are my sketchnotes from last weekend's Language World conference.
Dr Andrew Curran |
Jennifer Wozniak-Rush |
Ellie Chettle Cully |
Tracy Williams |
Prof. Terry Lamb |
Vincent Everett |
Dr Liam Printer |
Isabelle Jones |
Lisa Stevens |
Elaine Gelder |
I'm a Modern Languages teacher who changed to Primary after 14 years of Secondary teaching. Read about my creative ideas for language teaching, suitable for more than just primary.
Dr Andrew Curran |
Jennifer Wozniak-Rush |
Ellie Chettle Cully |
Tracy Williams |
Prof. Terry Lamb |
Vincent Everett |
Dr Liam Printer |
Isabelle Jones |
Lisa Stevens |
Elaine Gelder |
This paragraph explains it a little more:
In case you weren't at Language World yesterday and the day before, here is my presentation Read all about it.
When we read, what exactly is it that we do? This is the Oxford English Dictionary definition:
We infer meaning from a series of (usually) black squiggles on a page. We have to learn what each little squiggle is and how it combines with other little squiggles to form blocks of meaning, and how these blocks of meaning (words) go together to create greater meaning.
We want children to read aloud and in their heads, for pleasure, for comprehension and for information. We want children to distinguish the different words in the new language and to understand them, and then to understand the meaning in English of a word, phrase or sentence.
For reading aloud, phonics are crucial to confidence, and it is by reading aloud extended passages of the language that children can hear and practise the intonation of the language. Once the children can decipher the sound of a word, they can link that sound to the word they have already learned and begin to build the meaning and understand the writing. They can also use clues like capital letters, layout and pictures to help them to deduce the meaning. Therefore we read with our eyes, our ears and our mouths. (Thanks to Vicky Cooke for this!)
These are the objectives for reading from the National Curriculum programme of study.
Phonics of course invaluable for confidence in reading aloud and helping to decipher new words.
The "words, phrases and simple writing" part echoes the progression that is built into the old Key Stage 2 Framework, which advocated building up from single words in Year 3 to short texts in Year 6.
"Authentic sources for reading" can comprise children's story and non-fiction books, poems, texts from the internet, magazines, newspapers, publicity material from shops, adverts, leaflets, posters, letters and emails from children in schools in another country.
What would be in "a range of writing"? Perhaps handwriting, machine text, stories, letters and news articles. Also, writing that has been written by a language teacher for practising a particular point, as opposed to authentic materials.
Via reading children will see some of the “patterns, grammar and words” of the language in action, and will also see the grammar points in action that are mentioned in the National Curriculum. Dictionary skills are specified for developing skills for children to help themselves to understand what they are reading.
WORD LEVEL
We’re going to look at ideas and possible resources for word level reading, phrase and sentence level and then text level. Activities are of course very adaptable!
It’s often worth showing children an extended passage of the language – they don’t have to be able to understand it – for them to notice differences in conventions in text. There can be some significant differences in punctuation, accents and so on. This way they are going to be more alert to things as they start to read more. I also get them to practise writing accents and upside down punctuation very early on to make them aware of these special characters which they will see in text and have to replicate for themselves.
PHRASE AND SENTENCE LEVEL
TEXT LEVEL
In 2021 Ofsted began publishing a series of curriculum research reviews. The Languages Curriculum Research Review (Languages OCRR) was the fourth in the series, and was published in June 2021.
The first in the series was Science, which came out in April 2021. It featured substantive knowledge and disciplinary knowledge. This is an excerpt from the Science OCRR:
The terms also appear in the OCRRs for History, Geography and RE, while disciplinary knowledge only is mentioned in the OCRRs for Art and Design, and English. There no mentions in the OCRRs for Computing, PE, Maths, Music or Languages.
These terms appear to be replacing the "knowing more and remembering more" maxim. I have found out this week that it has permeated into other subjects, and I have heard anecdotally that it has come up in some recent Ofsted inspections. Schools have already rewritten their curricula to accommodate the "3 Is" (Intent, Implementation and Impact), language teachers have had to factor in the 3 Pillars (Vocabulary, Grammar and Phonics), and schools are now being encouraged to revisit their curricula and reframe them in terms of substantive and disciplinary knowledge. We will all need to think about what substantive knowledge and disciplinary knowledge look like in our subject.
So what are substantive and disciplinary knowledge in Languages?
Christie Counsell, in her article Taking curriculum seriously, says that "Substantive knowledge is the content that teachers teach as established fact". Disciplinary knowledge, on the other hand, "is a curricular term for what pupils learn about how that knowledge was established, its degree of certainty and how it continues to be revised by scholars, artists or professional practice."
She then goes on to say that "This substantive-disciplinary distinction works to differing extents and in very different ways across subjects. The disciplinary dimension is barely relevant, for example, in school-level modern languages." It is possible that this may support its omission from the Languages OCRR.
Despite this, a Google search for "disciplinary knowledge in languages" reveals that a number of schools have already rewritten their subject paperwork to include mention of substantive and disciplinary knowledge, and it is clear that they have interpreted the two kinds of knowledge in a number of different ways.
I've been reading around the subject, and have put together a list of bullet points for each type of knowledge:
Substantive
knowledge |
Disciplinary
knowledge |
|
|
To put that into some context, I'll use a series of lessons I've recently completed with some Year 4 (age 8-9) beginners in French. The substantive knowledge that I taught them was 10 animals with the indefinite article, including the phonemes in each word. Then I taught them the difference between masculine and feminine nouns, and how to use the indefinite article to differentiate between the two. Finally, as per the scheme of work we are using, I taught them je suis, which enabled us to practise short sentences such as Je suis un oiseau. and Je suis une souris. I then wanted the children to take what they had learned and to apply it in their own work. I gave them a bilingual glossary with many more animal words, and asked them to use their knowledge to write je suis sentences, and work out the correct indefinite article for each animal. For this task they called on their disciplinary knowledge, applying the rules they had learned to solve a problem.
This shows how important it is to build into our schemes of work frequent opportunities for the children to demonstrate what they have learned, to be creative with the language, to "think like a linguist".
How does this picture of substantive and disciplinary knowledge fit in with yours? All constructive comments welcome!
Finally, many thanks to Dr Gianfranco Conti for pointing out the similarities here with Krashen's Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which was a great help for me in getting my thoughts in order.