Games in the School, 2nd Round

My third and last MOOC of the first term

Created with Padlet

Language Competence at my school

Task 2: Language Competence

The acquisition of English as a foreign language at Newlands School starts at the age of three in kindergarten. Students use the functions of the language as a daily, systematic and organized process, establishing their first encounter with English through songs, games and drama; activities which favour the exposure and exploration. Once students start junior school, they keep learning the language through communicative tasks which are based on meaningful content, contextualized in projects. This fosters the development of the linguistic competence which is required to sit for their first international exam in 6^th form: KET, Key English Test – Cambridge ESOL. When they start senior school students deepen their learning of the language through the study of curricular content in subjects such as environmental management, literature, history. The knowledge acquired allow students to sit for PET (Preliminary English Test), FCE (First Certificate in English) and CAE (Certificate in Advanced English) administered by Cambridge ESOL as well as the diplomas of academic achievement: IGCSE (International General Certificate of Secondary Education); ICE (International Certificate of Education) and AICE (Advanced International Certificate of Education) administered by CIE (Cambridge International Exams) 

In the case of primary school, students’ performance is graded in the report card using four levels: outstanding and satisfactory are given to students who successfully achieve the contents; whereas in needs of improvement and below standard are used with learners who cannot reach the expected performance in the different areas of the language. Report cards show students’ level regarding general knowledge, spoken and written performance, thinking, investigation and communicative skills, behavior among other concepts.  Besides, students are evaluated on the effort they make to achieve those goals, which is described in three categories.

Furthermore, daily achievement is graded bearing in mind a learning intention, and a rubric which expresses the success criteria for each task. These learning intentions or objectives are related to the development of communicative functions of the language such as expressing ideas in the past, making predictions/plans about the future, talking about experiences, giving opinions/suggestions/advice among others. Marks are shared with students daily, and, in some cases, they grade themselves according to their own perception of their performance offered in class.

Taking into consideration the global scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), I consider that some of my students possess the strategies described in B1 level even though they sit for KET, which represents A2 level. I notice that they:

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics, which are familiar, or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

Yet, I think that it is important to point out that some other students in my group are at a lower level (A2) as they master some of the strategies described in A2 as well as a few of the ones mentioned in B1.

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

To conclude, I think my students’ performance varies from basic to an independent user of the language, depending on the aspect in question as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the learner.

Considering my linguistic competence level, I think that that I fall into the category of effective operational proficiency, C1. This category claims that I can understand demanding texts and recognize the implicit meaning, that I can express myself fluently and accurately using a wide range of language for social and academic, and professional purposes, and that I can produce clear, well-structured texts respecting organizational patters, connectors and cohesive devices.  However, I consider I can handle some of the skills describe in the C2 level too. For example I can differentiate finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations

All in all, the CERF is a framework to classify linguistic competence in the foreign language which has proven useful for the design of school programs. As it is claimed, the CERF “[…] was designed to provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the design of teaching and learning materials, and the assessment of foreign language proficiency.” Nonetheless, it should not be taken as fixed description of our students’ level or our yearly plan since variations may occur and competences may be mixed resulting in a new category. As it is mentioned in CERF, it  […] does not offer ready-made solutions but must always be adapted to the requirements of particular contexts.

References:

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp. Retrieved April 19^th 2014.

Task 1: Interview & CLIL

I am participating in a course for bilingual teachers and I would like to share some reflections.

Task 1: Inteview & CLIL

Transforming practice after theory

Four students in my educational context were interviewed with the purpose of analysing the challenges they face by learning content through an additional language and the elements/instances they would pick out as supporting their learning. The students interviewed belong to a bilingual school located in the southern area of Buenos Aires. Two of them are in 5^th form primary school; and the other two are in 3^rd year, secondary school. The four students have attended the same bilingual school since kindergarten and they have a standard level of English, both spoken and written.

To begin with, students were asked about the topics learnt the previous year in order to see whether they gave more importance to content or language, or both. Primary school students mentioned mainly grammatical items of the language. However, secondary school students remembered topics dealt with in different subjects such as literature, environmental management and history. This might give evidence on the fact that the main focus of the lessons in primary school last year was grammar. Therefore, they were asked whether they studied any particular content which might be related to Spanish in order to trigger their memory and they mentioned the knights, Manuel Belgrano and May Revolution.

In relation to the difficulties they find when they have to study content in the foreign language, the four students coincided in that using the correct words is hard and expressing the ideas in English takes them longer than in their Spanish lessons. This might be because the language demanded by the content may not properly highlighted in the lessons, as it is suggested by Coyle (2010). Students stated that when they have to study content it is easier if they work with a partner preparing posters, filling in a shared document, using books or the computers. Finally, they claimed that when there is something that they can’t understand they use the material available to work out meaning, they ask their partners or, as a last resource, they ask the teacher.

Having read The CLIL Tool Kit: Transforming theory into practice, and analysed the answers obtained in the in the interview I realise that it is important to consider the four components of CLIL when planning a project, content, communication, cognition and culture, so as to achieve a successful and meaningful performance. I have significantly improved my understanding of the learning of the different types of language which is demanded by the content (language of, for and through). Additionally, I have learned the theoretical reason behind a task that I have included in my project and which links classrooms throughout the world. As Coyle (2010) puts it “CLIL integrates language learning and content learning at cognitive and cultural levels appropriate to the learning. It is this interaction which results in new learning scenarios which are different from regular language or content lessons”

References

Coyle, D et al. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. UK: CUP.