Should a language class be conducted entirely in the language being taught? Are real newspaper articles better than adapted ones? Is it better to be corrected on every mistake? Ofsted’s 2021 research review on languages tackles these perennial questions in its section on pedagogy, drawing on second language acquisition research. This article summarises that section and Ofsted’s announcement of the review. The review concerns school language teaching in England, describes research and debate rather than rules, and says no single approach achieves high-quality provision. Adult learners can read it as background to how classes are designed, not as a guarantee about any particular course. It is general information.
Intentional and incidental learning
The review distinguishes two kinds of learning. Intentional learning happens when the learner is aware of the need to learn, invests effort and knowingly gains explicit knowledge. Incidental learning happens as a by-product of another activity, without the learner realising. Researchers debate whether languages are learned explicitly or implicitly, and the review says the general consensus is that some of both goes on in most situations.
Incidental learning depends on individual differences such as how analytical a learner is, how engaged with the task, and how good their working memory is. The review says that when time is short and exposure to the language is limited, learners are less likely to meet the same phonics, vocabulary and grammar often enough to notice and remember them incidentally. It concludes that, for most learners in most situations, it is likely to be efficient for teachers to promote intentional learning, and that there is little evidence in second-language acquisition research that words or structures learned incidentally are retained better than those learned intentionally. It links this to the expertise reversal effect: explicit teaching tends to work best with novices, while enquiry-based approaches can succeed with advanced learners.
How much target language should the teacher use?
The review calls the role of the target language a perennial debate. It says learners should be exposed to the language but not overwhelmed in the early stages, to the point of demotivation. It also says the teacher’s use of the language should not stop pupils from understanding how the language is structured, while accepting that using it is essential for practice and reinforcement, including familiarity with rhythm, sounds and intonation.
Its conclusions are practical:
- the teacher’s use of the target language should be carefully planned within the scheme of work and build systematically on prior knowledge, with English used when needed;
- the earlier the stage, the more care is needed to avoid overly complex language, and a concrete example is using the target language for classroom routines that learners clearly understand, rather than for explaining complex grammar; and
- learners’ own use of the target language should be central, since the review says there is some evidence linking teachers’ widespread use with effective learning, but clear evidence that pupils’ own use of it positively affects learning.
For learners to say what they actually mean, not just repeat formulaic routines, the review says they need the linguistic capability and the motivation for real speech, and the classroom should give them chances to try the language out.
Are authentic texts better?
An authentic text is one taken largely unamended from a native-speaker environment, such as an article from a French newspaper or website. The review says it is not well evidenced that authenticity alone helps learning or motivation. Texts should support the sequence of vocabulary and grammar being taught, and adapted authentic texts or bespoke ones can serve the purpose. Authentic material can still offer chances for pupils to follow their interests, handle new materials and learn about culture.
The review cites research suggesting that learners need to know around 95% of the words in a written or audio text for adequate comprehension, so teachers must choose resources of suitable difficulty. For listening, it points to the real-time nature of speech, and suggests that presenting audio and written text together can help learners split the sound stream into words, understand and learn vocabulary.
Correcting errors
The review says feedback works best when teachers give salient, focused and clear feedback and pupils are willing and able to notice and use it. It acknowledges a concern that correction can demotivate learners from attempting more complex language, while noting broad consensus that focused correction, clearly understood by pupils, can benefit many. It describes three strategies:
- recasting, where the teacher restates what the pupil said with the error corrected;
- prompting, where the correction is elicited from the learner; and
- explanation, where explicit, often technical, information is given about the rule behind the error.
According to the review, prompting forces the learner to retrieve the language and seems more likely than recasting to be effective for most learners, most of the time, for most types of error, with pronunciation a possible exception that may be best corrected by a direct recast. Recasting relies on learners working out what the error was, and even when they repeat the correction it is not clear that this leads to long-term learning. It adds that early-stage learners may benefit from rule-based correction.
On timing and scope, the review cites a view that correction is most effective when immediate, and evidence that focused correction of one or a few elements is usually more effective than correcting every error. It also says classrooms should treat mistakes as a normal, helpful part of learning.
The bottom line
Ofsted’s review favours planned, intentional teaching, a carefully calibrated amount of teacher target language with plenty of learner speech, texts chosen for what they teach rather than for authenticity alone, and focused correction that prompts learners to retrieve the right form. It is a literature review for schools in England and leaves room for different approaches.
Sources
- GOV.UK, Ofsted, “Research review series: languages”
- GOV.UK, Ofsted, “Ofsted publishes research review on languages education”