1. Association for Language Learning ITET Seminar, 7 July 2016, Sheffield Hallam University Literacy in the languages classroom in England: a challenge for initial teacher education Gee Macrory, MMU

2. Background and rationale  Motivation and attainment in MFL (Coleman, 2009;Tinsley, 2013; Board & Tinsley, 2015; Ofsted, 2015 )  Literacy and language learning (Erler & Macaro, 2011; Woore, 2009, 2010)  Previous research at MMU on relationship between university and school input (Macrory & McLachlan, 2009)  Change in circumstances – statutory primary languages Sept 2014  Ofsted survey, published May 2016  Phonics in primary school – Rose 2006 and impact

3. Work in progress  MFL primary specialists  MFL secondary student teachers in ITE

4. Primary  Total of 55 specialist primary trainees:  - 23 postgraduate (2 placements)  - 32 undergraduate (3 or 4 placements)  Data collected Spring/Summer 2015, and Spring 2016  Questionnaires (N=55) – Likert scale + open text questions  Interviews (N=10) – pairs and individual

5. MFL secondary trainees  Total of 102 questionnaires  2014-15 – 33 STs, 2 placements  2015-16- 43 STs, on first placement + 26 in May 2016 (same trainees as Oct)  Data: questionnaire data + 12 (group/individual) interviews 2015/2016

6. Aims of study: primary  To explore student teachers’ opportunities to: - Observe and teach MFL on placement in general - Observe and teach MFL phonics - Be offered training  To find out: - Student teachers’ views of the place of MFL phonics (and of reading and writing more generally) - Their perceptions of school teachers’ views

7. Findings so far – questionnaire data  Experience of observing and teaching in general: approx. half of UGs were happy with opportunities – more observation than practice; PGCEs more negative  Observing and teaching MFL phonics: much more negative picture

8. Themes emerging from open text comments and interviews  Trainees see a place for phonics – pronunciation/new words : ‘I think it is massively important because it’s not just a case of learning, it’s a case of access’  MFL low priority in schools in general – ‘no presence’  More attention given to oral skills: ‘there was very little reading or writing’  Little training given: ‘when they heard I was a language specialist they said oh you can do that so they threw me in and I took over’ /‘the teacher was kind enough to say “if you want 20 minutes a week to do some German, have it” ’

9. Cont’d  MFL phonics - little awareness on part of teachers, lack of subject knowledge, fear factor: ‘even the ones who think that MFL could be important don’t focus on phonics specifically’ / ‘teachers think that they pick it up without saying anything’/ ‘generally teachers are not confident in MFL phonics themselves so are wary of teaching this to the children’  Comparison with L1 phonics: ‘if we need phonics to learn English, surely you need phonics to learn another language’/ ‘teachers don’t transfer what they know’

10. Aims of study: secondary  To explore student teachers’ opportunities to: - Observe and teach MFL phonics - Be offered training  To find out: - Student teachers’ views of the place of MFL phonics (and of reading and writing more generally) - Their confidence and use of their own subject knowledge in this area - Their perceptions of school teachers’ views

11. Findings so far – questionnaire data  Confidence in subject knowledge – high  Reading and writing more prominent than in primary  Phonics seen as important – explicit approach  Some observation opportunities  Limited training

12. Themes emerging from open text comments and interviews  Focus on reading and writing, but…. ‘formulaic’, ‘constrained’, ‘no independence’  Little focus on phonics ‘teachers are too busy trying to cover the teaching of vocabulary and grammar’/ ‘perhaps seen as a new fad by many more traditional teachers’  Time and pedagogic knowledge ‘I think teachers think it is important but perhaps aren’t too sure about how to go about teaching it or don’t have time to fit it into the SoW’  Cause for optimism? ‘I think teachers are seeing it as important but it might take a while to embed if teachers are used to teaching in other ways’

13. Tentative initial conclusions…..  Contexts different (primary/KS2 languages low priority; secondary exam pressure)  Similar problems re teacher subject knowledge but the issues are different – differing starting points re MFL and phonics  School based training needs support  Do we need a different approach in primary and secondary?

14. Implications for ITE  Course content and school-based tasks  A role for HE?

15. References  DfES (2006) Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Review). London: H.M.S.O.  Coleman, J.A. (2009) Why the British do not learn languages: myths and motivation in the United Kingdom, The Language Learning Journal, 37:1, 111- 127.  Erler, L. & Macaro, E. (2011) Decoding Ability in French as a Foreign Language and Language Learning Motivation. The Modern Language Journal 95, 496- 518.  Macrory, G. & McLachlan, A. (2009) Bringing Modern Languages into the Primary Curriculum in England: Investigating Effective Practice in Teacher Education. European Journal of Teacher Education 32,3 pp259-270.  Ofsted (2015) Key Stage 3: the wasted years? London: H.M.S.O.

16.  Ofsted (2016) Foreign languages and science provision in primary schools. London: H.M.S.O.  Tinsley, T. (2013) The State of the Nation: Demand and supply of language skills in the UK. London: British Academy.  Tinsley, T. and Board, K. (2015) Languages for the Future: which languages the UK needs most and why. London: British Council.  Woore, R.(2010) Thinking aloud about L2 decoding: an exploration of the strategies used by beginner learners when pronouncing unfamiliar French words. The Language Learning Journal, 38:1, 3-17.  Woore, R. (2009) Beginners' progress in decoding L2 French: some longitudinal evidence from English modern foreign languages classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 37:1, 3-18.