|
For the Language B classroom this is probably a no-brainer - everybody uses the target language at all times, right ? And the students do the same.
Because, come to think of it, if the teacher doesn't use the target language in the classroom, where else are the students going to hear it ? And if the students don't use the target language in the classroom, where else are they going to use it ? Right, that point has been covered. How about the Ab Initio classroom ? Has anyone had the summer holiday thought that from day 1 we'll walk into that classroom and speak only in the target language, only to find during the first week of teaching that most of these poor wide-eyed students just stare at you and seem to be losing the will to live ? Yes, some of the students will easily pick up recurring instructions and phrases, and some will blur their lines and show that in fact they have a little bit more prior experience than what they claimed in their joining papers or surveys - so we send these ones to the Language B class. For a good proportion of the students though those first few target-language weeks are tough. If there are few cognates between the target language and their mother tongue, or if the teacher's speed of talking is a on the fast side, or if the textbook doesn't quite follow the structure of the class (or the other way round), it is possible for some students to become demotivated or to feel that they aren't up for the task … In order to prevent losing students to another language class, do you teach bilingually ? Do you first say every sentence in the target language and then repeat it in the school's medium of instruction ? Do you select which sentences you repeat in the students' language ? Do you differentiate between content sentences and 'explanatory' content (eg. all the dialogue is done in the target language ("How old are you, when were you born, please describe your family / your home town / your country / your daily routine") but the grammatical explanations are done in the target language (in order to ensure understanding ? in order to save valuable class time ?). Do you explain the grammar in isolation ("this is how we conjugate all the regular verbs") or in context ? Across all our practices and experiences there are a multitude of ways to teach a language, and amongst the students there are a multitude of learning styles. How much time do you spend thinking about the individual student's learning style and adapting your teaching to these various styles ? How do you formatively look for learning ? How do you know that every student 'gets it' ? In his article "Back to school - my top tips for the new academic year", Dr Gianfranco Conti makes a strong case for putting the emphasis in language classes on listening and speaking, presumably in the target language, rather than on reading and writing. In addition, he advocates for spacing out lots of smaller assessments instead of working towards a comprehensive unit test that may (and most probably will) not show a true reflection of a student's progress. Continuous assessment, informal in nature, should guide the teacher in adjusting their plans, the speed of the lessons, the amount of revision and practice that's needed, and so forth. What's your practice ? If your lessons aren't fully conducted in the target language, when and how do you introduce it ? At what point in the course do you speak exclusively in the target language and at what point in the course do you require the students to do the same ? All contributions welcome ! Thanks and till next time. Reference : https://gianfrancoconti.com/2019/08/31/back-to-school-my-top-tips-for-the-new-academic-year/?fbclid=IwAR2YPUxuwkJUJXZz4un4BEuxn70bFSuiJiRCsaW3ayu4GtYvt5iwiIvXbvI
4 Comments
One of the most interesting, and often controversial, discussion in a Group 2 workshop is the one about student placement in the Language Ab Initio and Language B courses.
We've all taken part in these conversations and we've all made up our mind as to which students we allow to enrol in either course. Or … has the decision been taken for us ? In past years the IB provided some guidance by stating that the Language Ab Initio course is designed for students who have no or very minimal experience with/in the target language. The Language B course, on the other hand, is supposedly destined for students who have relatively significant experience with/in the target language. Vague boundaries that offer too many possible interpretations and applications. What does it mean to have had 'minimal exposure' to the target language ? Many possible scenarios present themselves and deserve their own discussion and reflection : - is a year of language study in one secondary school the same as a year of language study in another secondary school ? - is there a number of class hours we should count, in case one secondary school offers three weekly hours of language acquisition whereas another secondary school only offers 40 minutes per week ? - is there a particular curriculum that must have been followed for us to decide whether the student has had 'minimal' or 'significant' exposure to the target language ? Can we assume that every MYP school covers the same language acquisition curriculum in its last two MYP years ? - to what extent does 'living in a target language culture" contribute to the student's minimal or significant exposure, and how do we measure it ? - can we assume that a teenager who lives in a target language culture automatically picks up 'significant' amounts of language ? Over how many years ? - if one of the parents speaks the target language but the family uses another lingua franca, is there an unfair advantage for the child when studying the same target language ? - and what about the comment "I've studied <language x> for seven years but I haven't learned anything and I still can't say anything !" … All of these questions, and many more, don't have a straight-forward answer. Schools will be looking at their Language Ab Initio candidates and their Language B candidates on a case by case basis. A combination of the answers to the above questions may be a good start in the decision-making process. But … we are aware that there are other factors at work, factors that don't have much to do with previous learning, prior exposure, minimal knowledge, basic understanding, scattered schooling … factors that don't look back into the student's past but rather at the student's future … Shall we list these factors and nod in agreement when we recognise one that's at work in the school down the road ? - school pressure to achieve high grades - parental pressure to achieve high grades - student pressure to achieve high grades - school's ability to publish and parade its excellent DP results - keeping it simple and putting Language B and Language Ab Initio in one classroom - keeping it cheap and putting Language B and Language Ab Initio in one classroom - pressure on teachers to produce high grades (appraisal) - 'well, everyone else does it ...' - etc. The IB guides tell us that the students in Group 2 should find an appropriate academic challenge in their Language B course or their Language Ab Initio course. Surely a student who's had five years of prior study isn't going to get challenged in the Language Ab Initio course. If that student claims not to have learned anything in those five years, it's probably a good time to start learning a different language. What's your take on this ? Any anecdotes or real-life situations to share ? And how does your school deal with the above pressure points ? Click that 'Reply' button please ... A new academic year is upon all of us living in the Northern Hemisphere, and the first Group 2 assessments in the 'new' course aren't all that far off anymore. Understandably students are getting a little bit itchy and want to know how to score those top grades … Teachers are doing their very best to provide the necessary answers, and one area that remains a little bit vague maybe is that of the assessment of Conceptual Understanding (Criterion C) in the Paper 1 composition paper.
I am taking the liberty to post some excellent questions that have been asked on social media platforms and that need input from curriculum reviewers, examiners and workshop leaders. Send in your own take on the issue presented, so that we can all learn from each other and better prepare our students for this particular assessment. Thank you in advance ! The question on Conceptual Understanding goes as follows : In the 2020 guide, Criterion C : Conceptual understanding. At the bottom of the criteria explanation there is a rectangular box which says: "Note: A response that ignores context, purpose and audience may receive marks of 0 for criteria B and C, even if the response has received a high mark for criterion A." My questions is: if a student chooses the wrong text type simply because there were 2 text types which could have been right and this poor student chooses the wrong one, what happens? Does he get 0 in Message as well as in Conceptual Understanding or does he get a 0 in CU, but in Message (Criterion B) he is marked according to the text type he has chosen even if it is the one that the IB examiners did not want him to choose? An immediate response was provided by Mr Gabriel Henao, super-experienced teacher and workshop leader of Language Ab Initio : Question : What if a student chooses "the wrong text type"? For starters, there's not such a thing as a "wrong" type of text. The writing task can be satisfactorily carried out with any of the choices provided but there are tasks that are harder to complete with certain kinds of texts. For example, let's say that the task is about requesting the Head of school for support to make a fundraiser for a charity. If one of the options is a diary entry or an interview and the student chooses either of them, it is still possible to satisfy the criteria, but it wouldn't be as easy as with let's say a formal letter or even a brochure. With an interview or a diary entry, the student would need to make a clever manipulation of the text type to hit the spot on context, purpose and audience. Let's say the candidate chooses a diary entry. If the entry is about planning to go and see the head of school and ask for money then we have a problem. Why? Context: it's supposed to call for a persuasive text, not a chronicle or report. Purpose: it's supposed to be a formal request, not a plan to make such request and finally, Audience: it's for the Head of School, not necessarily for the diary or oneself. So here we have a well-intended text that will certainly obtain a 0 in Criterion C. Can you spin the format to fit the intended message? Of course, but it would require a Level B kind of mastery of the language. There are no "wrong" text types, there are only formats that are more suitable than others. To this excellent response I would personally add the following : It is very important for all of us (teachers), and for the students, to know that there is no 'wrong' text type to choose. The three text types given offer the students the opportunity to show that they have considered the five concepts carefully before putting pen to paper. In the past, the text type was given in the instructions, now the students need to read the instructions very carefully and, in my opinion, ask themselves this crucial question : "Who am I writing this text to ?" (audience). The main difference between most of the text types is one of audience (again, this is my humble opinion, it isn't stated anywhere). If the student is to reflect on something he or she has just experienced and isn't going to share this reflection, then they will write a diary entry. If the reflection is shared with a particular person, then it's an email or a letter. If that person requires formal addressing, then it's a formal letter. If the person is a friend or a relative (and then things depend on the culture), it may be an informal letter. If the reflections, or the advice, or the information are to be shared with an unknown audience, then a blog entry would be called for. If the audience is a particular group of people, with a particular interest (eg tourists, visitors to a country), then the students should consider the leaflet or brochure ... Etc. All five concepts are important and need to be taught over and over again, and every time we set a writing task for the students we should have a discussion with them about the various possible audiences and how these affect the choice of text type. In workshops we've already spent quite some time trying to find out how each of the three given text types would look if they were chosen for one particular task, and with some training and teaching it'll become pretty clear which one, of the three given text types, lends itself best to a particular instruction. I believe that Little Miss Sunshine, the star character of the Language Ab Initio Student Workbook, has become even more important in the new course. Careful reading and dissecting of the Paper 1 instruction is absolutely essential and, if our experience is anything to go by, probably the skill that we have to insist the most on with our students nowadays. What's your take on this ? How do you understand, apply and teach Criterion C ? Add your comments please so that we all get further clarification as well as a good level of peace of mind … Thank you in advance ! … and the winner is … the Bible. No surprises there, probably.
Depending on how you look at it or who you ask, the Bible has been translated into 3312 languages, 2191 languages or 670 languages. Whatever the case may be, it is by far the text that has been translated in the highest number of languages. Teachers of IB Literature and of Language & Literature are starting to acquaint themselves with the new Prescribed Reading List that dictates which authors’ works can be studied in these two courses from August 2019 onwards. Leaving the “free choice” aspect to the side, a vast number of authors have just been shortlisted across the fifty-odd languages that are automatically available. One of the requirements in the Literature course is that at least four (HL) and three (SL) texts are taught or studied in translation. MIH Unlimited has embarked on a mega project that invites all the Group 1 teachers around the world, from any language, to contribute their knowledge, their experience and their expertise in literature and help us develop a vast database of authors, works, themes and global issues that will assist teachers and students in constructing relevant, challenging and inspiring courses of study. Teachers who would like to contribute towards this completely free resource can click on the below link and follow the guidelines. Ten minutes of everyone’s time will be sufficient to see this resource grow to epic proportions in a short period of time. https://www.mihunlimited.com/free--prl-authors-and-texts.html As we all look for texts in translation, I have taken the liberty of checking which works of literature have been translated into the most languages. We already know that the Bible takes the top prize, but what about the works of authors who appear on the IB Prescribed Reading List ? Well, Wikipedia has drawn up a list of the 100 works that have been translated in the most languages. Out of these 100 works, 32 authors appear on the PRL, and so we should be able to find the following texts in plenty of translated versions : Title - Author - Date - Translated into this number of languages - Original language 1. The Little Prince - Antoine de Saint Exupéry - 1943 - 300 - French 2. Andersen's Fairy Tales - Hans Christian Andersen - 1835–1852 - 160 - Danish 3. El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha - Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra - 1615 - 140 - Spanish 4. The Upright Revolution: Or Why Humans Walk Upright - Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o - 2016 - >78 - Gikuyu 5. Pippi Longstocking - Astrid Lindgren - 1945 - 70 - Swedish 6. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - Mark Twain - 1885 - 65 - English 7. Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell - 1949 - 65 - English 8. Quo vadis - Henryk Sienkiewicz - 1895 - 61 - Polish 9. My Name Is Red - Orhan Pamuk - 1998 - 60 - Turkish 10. The Good Soldier Švejk - Jaroslav Hašek - 1923 - 58 - Czech 11. A Doll's House - Henrik Ibsen - 1879 - 56 - Norwegian 12. Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro - 2005 - 52 - English 13. Out Stealing Horses - Per Petterson - 2003 - 50 - Norwegian 14. The Bridge on the Drina - Ivo Andrić - 1945 - 47 - Serbo-Croatian 15. The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro - 1989 - 47 - English 16. The Stranger - Albert Camus - 1942 - 45 - French 17. The Moomins - Tove Jansson - 1945 - 43 - Swedish 18. Atonement - Ian McEwan - 2001 - 42 - English 19. The Prophet - Kahlil Gibran - 1923 - 40 - English 20. Amsterdam - Ian McEwan - 1998 - 39 - English 21. The Family of Pascual Duarte - Camilo José Cela - 1942 - 39 - Spanish 22. The General of the Dead Army - Ismail Kadare - 2003 - 37 - Albanian 23. Perfume - Patrick Süskind - 1985 - 37 - German 24. Dictionary of the Khazars - Milorad Pavić - 1984 - 37 - Serbian 25. Norwegian Wood - Haruki Murakami - 1987 - 36 - Japanese 26. White Teeth - Zadie Smith - 1999 - 36 - English 27. Cien Años de Soledad - Gabriel García Márquez - 1967 - > 35 - Spanish 28. Pan Tadeusz - Adam Mickiewicz - 1834 - 34 - Polish 29. The Time of the Doves - Mercè Rodoreda - 1962 - 34 - Catalan 30. 'Art' - Yasmina Reza - 1994 - 30 - French 31. Buddenbrooks - Thomas Mann - 1901 - 30 - German 32. The Tale of Genji - Murasaki Shikibu - 1001 - 30 - Japanese Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_works_by_number_of_translations This table tells us also that the PRL authors’ works that have been translated into the largest number of other languages were originally written in : 1. English (8 works each) 2. French, Spanish (3 works each) 3. Swedish, Polish, Norwegian, Serbo-Croat, German, Japanese (2 works each) 4. Danish, Kikuyu, Turkish, Albanian, Catalan, Czech (1 work each) Looks familiar ? Which of the PRL authors and texts do you plan to teach ? Why ? Which texts do you feel combine well with your chosen works in translation ? And how can students in languages other than English try to avoid that their works in translation mostly come from the English literary tradition ? The construction of the program of texts is very likely to become an organic exercise that grows as the students familiarize themselves with one text after another. Once they have read text 1 and understand its features, its content and context, they can do their research on texts in other languages that share comparable features, content and context. If you are at the stage of planning for your new course, feel free to add any strategies, discoveries and plans in the Comments section. We’re all in this together and we can all learn from each other. See you next time, cheers ! Many, if not all, of us would argue that mother tongue entitlement is one of the essential pillars of any educational system, including the International Baccalaureate.
At the Diploma Program level mother tongue entitlement manifests itself most prominently through the existence of the Literature A School-Supported Self-Taught course option. This course, which has been around for decades, enables schools to ensure that every student can comply with the Group 1 requirement in their strongest language (mother tongue, heritage language, first language). In addition, this course serves to avoid that the IB program remains over-anglicised and therefore a privilege for those who speak English at an academic level. Yes, IB schools around the world commonly also offer their host country's language(s) in Group 1, eg French, Spanish, German, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese etc. The SSST course is an essential hook for the 16- or 17-year old student who finds him- or herself in a foreign country because of their parents' employment or because they have chosen to attend a boarding school overseas. Some students end up in a foreign country because of political or social pressure in their home country. And there may be other reasons. Over the years close to 100 languages have been offered as an SSST option, and this of course is great. What has been a concern though is the SS part of the SSST course. In many schools that we are familiar with, in many workshops and even in official publications, the course is often referred to as "self-taught". This is sometimes an accurate reflection of the status of the course in certain schools, but it is not an accurate reflection of what the course is intended to be. The 'school support' has been an issue for a variety of reasons, none of which we actually have to accept. In their Language Policy IB schools will acknowledge the importance of mother tongue provision, without which the Language Policy is unlikely to be adopted by the visiting team and ultimately by the powers that be themselves. Authorization is highly unlikely to be granted to a school that does not make a commitment to respect every student's mother tongue and find a way to offer every student access to their language. The reality, as we know, does not always match the printed documentation. In order to address a potential lack of 'school support', a number of requirements have now been published as part of the new guides for the Group 1 Literature courses (first examinations in 2021). IBDP schools have always had to appoint an SSST supervisor/coordinator, but this requirement was published only in the Teacher Support Materials. Hands up if you regularly refer to the TSM … This has been the single requirement so far, and in many of the schools that I am familiar with, this role exists and is carried out to the best of the coordinator's ability. This coordinator is most commonly the Head of Languages or a teacher of Literature A (or both). The new requirements though are something we fully support, as they aim to firm up the support that the student receives and to ensure that there is a record of such support.
I am already aware of schools that organise their SSST schedule in such a way that allows the SSST student to attend the taught Language A Literature class (most commonly English Literature A). This exposes the student to the course format, the content, the skills and aptitudes involved, the assessment format and the timeline. I personally find this a great option for schools that have only one or two or three SSST students and that can not run a dedicated SSST class for these students. With the support of the above-mentioned mother tongue tutor, who liaises with the SSST coordinator and possibly the English Literature A teacher, this student will receive ample guidance and will be able to carry out all the necessary practice and official assessments. I also understand that some schools will have an initial reaction of "these requirements seem to make the course more complicated to implement". Such reaction is uncalled for though. I invite any school that feels a need for guidance, support and/or coaching to get in touch and to discuss how their set-up can best implement the SSST course from here onwards. In addition, finding highly qualified and experienced IB mother tongue tutors/teachers has also been made super easy for everyone. Professional online SSST services can be found here : https://www.mihunlimited.com/ibdp-language-a-ssst.html Let's start celebrating the significant make-over that the SSST course undergoes this year, and let's all ensure that every student who needs this course can easily gain access to it. Please feel free to add your thoughts, questions, queries, reactions and excitement to this blog entry. Have a great week everyone ! Many of us are now in the final stages of finalizing the final round of authenticating and submitting our students' final Written Assignments ... (at least, those of us who live by the northern hemisphere IB deadlines).
Finally ! Finally ? A lot has been said and written recently about the 'demise' of the Language Ab Initio and the Language B Written Assignment - or is it the Written Task ? A number of reasons have been given as to why this external assessment has had to go, with the main one being that across the Diploma Programme the IB is doing away with assessments that are not conducted under examination conditions and that are not full research essays. As far as I am aware, the only DP course that will keep a Written Assignment for coursework is the Literature A Higher Level course. The Extended Essay and the ToK essay also persist ... for now ... We may or we may not agree with the reasons that we are aware of, it doesn't really matter. However, the question arises whether the concept of the Ab Initio and the Language B Written Assignment has a place in the new curriculum, whether as a formative internal assessment, a summative internal assessment, a cultural task or a practice and revision tool. Different educators will have different views on this but in my humble opinion, the concept of a Written Assignment that focuses on a comparison between the student's home culture (or the culture in which they live) and one of the target language cultures is a valid way of developing international mindedness and an open mind towards 'foreign' (in every sense of the word) cultures, world views and behaviors. There are a thousand topics that lend themselves to a comparative Written Assignment and we all know that the content of the courses hasn't really changed all that much. Cultural awareness remains not only a strong component of the course, but also one of the main reasons why anyone would acquire a new language in the first place ! I will continue to speak up on behalf of the Written Assignment as a tool to develop cultural understanding, to expose the students to relatively small parts of the target language cultures, to broaden the students' horizons in a fun and creative manner, and to hold on to something good that has been turned into a little ugly duckling for all the wrong reasons. True, I won't insist on some of the formatting, but as far as my courses are concerned, the Written Assignment shall not rest in peace. Let me know which side of the fence you are on ! Well, if there is one thing that has become a whole lot easier for us teachers of Language Ab Initio and Language B to remember, then it's the fact that the four assessments (yes, IB claims there are only three, but we know what they mean, nudge nudge) are worth 25% of the final grade - each ! That's right - the Productive Skills paper (Paper 1), the Listening Comprehension paper (Paper 2 Part 1), the Reading Comprehension paper (Paper 2 Part 2) and the Individual Oral all count for one quarter of that final IB grade. Easy. Give us a comment if you agree that this will prevent you from getting confused between Language A, Language B, Language Ab Initio, EE, ToK and all your MYP courses ... Tee hee.
An interesting posting was made in our Facebook group this weekend :
After a question was asked whether the Language B course can be self-taught, a response was posted along these lines : "I was going to say something about how crazy it would be if students could self-teach Language B, but really why is it not crazy that the IB allows them to self-study Language A? Is it just a practical matter? I might be somewhat insulted if I were a Language A teacher." (author of this post known) Totally understood - why have a teacher if the students can self-teach a highly rigorous Literature course ? Here is my reflection on this : The Language A SSST course exists in recognition that not all IB students have English as their mother tongue, heritage language or 'strongest' language. (Did you know that there are IB students doing English A Lit SSST ?) The essence of the SSST course consists of two parts : school-supported and self-taught. The idea is that students receive detailed and professional instruction about the study of Literature from their school (in a dedicated Language A SSST class or, also allowed until now, in a mainstream 'taught' Language A class (eg English A Lit)). The "school support" consists of providing a Literature teacher (normally in the school's language of instruction), and a classroom, and a spot on the timetable, and resources, and a schedule for the SSST students to follow, etc... The "self-taught" part of the course refers to the fact that the school may not have a teacher who can teach literature in every student's mother tongue, and therefore the school (or the parents, although personally I think the school should do this) must employ the support of a mother tongue tutor. The self-taught part of the course should never really be self-taught, it is better renamed 'mother tongue support'. There is a problem in the name (School-Supported Self-Taught), not only because often it is abbreviated to simple "Self-Taught" (which it should never be - that is indeed an insult to all teachers of IB Literature), but also because it has allowed and continues to allow schools to simply tell their non-native English speakers to fill out the form, go self-study their mother tongue literature, and show up on exam day. If the school provides the "school-support" and the "self-taught" part is in reality a "tutor-support" part, then this course is just as challenging, valuable and meaningful as any other IB Literature course. And in that case, I think we can all agree that these students go through the same rigorous program as their English-speaking peers, and that the role of the teacher (and the tutor) is clearly emphasized. We are working very, very hard to get some of these problems resolved ... we're in it for the long haul but we have the passion, the belief and the conviction that every IB student should be able to study their mother tongue / heritage literature in their own language. Since I work very closely on this with the IB (with my limited influence ...), I welcome any views, opinions, thoughts and suggestions based on your personal experiences. A million thanks ! ;-) It is clear that all Group 2 teachers are spending quite some time figuring out how to best develop the students' listening skills in preparation for the new assessments. The conversations in our Facebook group are a great starting point, and we encourage everyone to continue sharing thoughts, strategies, activities and successes.
May 2020 will probably be upon us sooner than we realise, and besides helping the students prepare for the exams, we also need to think about the practical and technological implications of the discreet listening comprehension assessment. Schools that offer a range of Group 2 courses will need to think carefully about the spaces in which the Listening Comprehension exams will take place. I am aware of schools with as many as seven Group 2 courses, and several of these may have their final assessments on the same day. This is challenge #1. In addition, the quality of the exam space needs to be ensured. Does everyone have the perfect sound system to play the recordings over one or two speakers that allow all the students to hear the sound files in the same way ? Or is your school equipped in such a way that every student will have their own listening device, which would allow you to drown out any outside noises ? Challenge #2. For many of us this new assessment may have budgetary implications, even if it's just to ensure that we have adequate equipment to conduct this assessment. Challenge #3. One thing is for sure - the whole school will need to be notified when the listening comprehension exams take place, and probably the maintenance team most of all. You may already be in this habit from the Individual Oral exams, but it could certainly be argued that a whole class listening to one single recording poses a greater challenge than one student listening to one teacher who sits just a meter or two away from them. Challenge #4. How are you preparing yourselves from a logistical point of view ? Please share. And we are back … We trust that everyone (in the northern hemisphere) has had a restful and exciting summer break and that everyone (in the southern hemisphere) is looking forward to the warmer weather that’s on its way.
Over the past few weeks we’ve had a couple of conversations about the new Paper 2 in Language B and Language Ab Initio. Debates continue to rage about how to best approach the development of listening skills and reading skills and our Facebook group has some very thoughtful insights from a wide range of classroom practitioners. In this blog entry we’d like to focus though on the sequencing in the new Paper 2 assessment. We’ve been wondering which is more beneficial, or easier, for the student : to first take the Listening Comprehension assessment and then the Reading Comprehension assessment (as they are currently sequenced), or to go through this exercise the other way round … Opinion on this varies and we’d like to offer some food for thought, reflection and comment. The literature suggests that in early childhood listening comprehension develops earlier than reading comprehension – for obvious reasons. From day one the child is exposed to sounds which they soon start imitating and making sense of. Reading comprehension only kicks in once the child is in school and someone teaches them the ABCs of the language. By this time, the child’s aural comprehension is already developed to a great extent. However, by the time the child is in (or near) Grade 8, the two types of comprehension are more or less equally developed (Durrell 1969 – a little bit dated). Might we suggest that, based on our perception and what we know about Listening Comprehension assessments, reading comprehension is easier than listening comprehension ? Some arguments in favour of this statement include : - during a reading comprehension assessment the student has continuous access to the source text and can look at it as many times as they wish. In listening comprehension, once the recording has been played (even three times), it’s gone and there is no going back … - in a typical language acquisition course the student is more often exposed to written text than to aural text (partly due to the dearth of level-relevant listening resources in some languages), and therefore their reading comprehension is practised more regularly - during a reading comprehension assessment the student gets ‘in the target language zone’ for an extended period of time (60 minutes in the case of the IB assessment), whereas the listening assessment is really no more than a couple of minutes, with long pauses in between the recordings - external factors (noise, disturbance, movement etc) are likely to have a bigger impact on the listening assessment than on the reading assessment If we are to assume (and this is indeed an assumption) that for 17 and 18 year-olds’ listening comprehension in a foreign language is more difficult than their reading comprehension, then we may also assume that these students can be negatively affected by a poor performance in the listening assessment when they start their reading assessment a couple of minutes afterwards. Imagine a student who fears that he/she has done poorly in the 45 minutes listening assessment – either because of a lack of understanding of the spoken language, or because of a lack of well-developed examination techniques, and who then faces 60 minutes of reading comprehension. We all know what happens in a sprint when the athlete makes a poor start … Some might argue that one of the main purposes of a language acquisition course is so that the learner can use the acquired language in a realistic setting – the target language cultures. The question then is, does most of our ‘foreign language’ communication take place through reading (and writing) or through listening (and speaking) ? Are all four language skills equally important in the context of practical communication ? So, which arguments do we consider in order to decide which sequence is more beneficial to the student ? Maybe some students find listening easier than reading, whereas others may be of the inverse opinion ? What is certain is that as educators, we will need to dedicate the appropriate amount of time not only to the development of both skills, but also to the training in examination techniques. There are undeniable differences between the two assessments, with the “access to the source” text for an extended period of time being one of the main ones. Leave us a comment to let us know what you think … Source : Donald D. Durrell, Listening Comprehension versus Reading Comprehension, Journal of Reading, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Mar., 1969), pp. 455-460, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40012907?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents |
AuthorsWe are practising Language Ab Initio, B and A teachers, examiners and workshop leaders for the International Baccalaureate. We author and publish the “Language Ab Initio Student Workbook”, the various Language Portfolios (for Ab Initio, B and MYP) and the How to Ace Language Ab Initio and Language B series. We are also a language acquisition and mother tongue consultants and tireless advocates for mother tongue entitlement in international education. Beyond our lives as linguists, we travel the world, we publish novels, we practice photography, we play and coach football coach, we write and we read. Archives
September 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed