SECONDARY SCHOOLS
2.1 THE CURRICULUM
Courses
The place of modern languages in the secondary school curriculum derives from Circulars 1178 and 2/1990, which contained a clear expectation that all pupils in S1/S2 should study a modern foreign European language. In S3/S4 it was also expected that all pupils should continue to study at least one language other than English, preferably a modern European language, through a two-year course leading to Standard Grade.
Almost all pupils in S1/S2 study a modern foreign European language. In most of the schools inspected pupils studied a modern language for approximately 160 minutes per week from S1 to S4. In a number of instances an additional 40-65 minutes were provided in one or, very occasionally, two of the four years. Headteachers generally arranged for weekly provision to be made in three or four separate teaching periods, well-spaced throughout the week. However, in some cases individual lesson time allocations were too long or badly spaced, thus restricting the possibility of regular revision of key vocabulary and structures and consolidation of work through short bursts of appropriate homework.
In some of the schools inspected pupils learned two modern languages in S1/S2, including the one they had been learning in primary school. In these cases some additional time was provided but not sufficient to allow most pupils to make good progress in either language. In other schools a single 'taster' period was allocated, often in S2, to allow pupils to sample a second modern language. Such an arrangement was of little benefit to the majority of pupils unless they continued with the study of that language in S3, which very few did.
Eighty-nine per cent of S3/S4 pupils were presented at Standard Grade in a modern language in 1997. A number of other pupils took Latin, Gaelic or another language or studied National Certificate (NC) modules. However, in an increasing number of schools over each of the years covered by this report, some pupils in S3/S4 were not being required to study a modern language.
In S5/S6 10% of pupils took Higher Grade examinations in each of the three years 1995-1997. The figure is low and not increasing, a situation which is currently the subject of an SOEID-funded research project. Most schools allocated around 240 minutes per week to study leading to the Scottish Certificate of Education (SCE) Revised Higher, NC modules or the Certificate of Sixth Year Studies (CSYS). In a majority of schools up to 60% of CSYS course time was allocated to some form of supported self-study. In some instances, where numbers were thought unviable, pupils followed a Revised Higher or CSYS course in a neighbouring school. Occasionally, no co-operative arrangements were made and pupils who had wished to take a particular modern language at Revised Higher or CSYS level opted out of the subject.
Quality of courses in general
Twenty per cent of departments ran courses which were very good. Over 55% had courses which were good overall, but with weaknesses. In 25% of departments courses showed important weaknesses or were unsatisfactory.
Most departments had set out general aims for their subject, but more detailed planning in S1-S4 was often based on coverage of a section of textbook or a series of activities or topics, rather than on a progressive series of language outcomes which pupils were to achieve. Courses in few departments fully matched national advice or had kept pace with key findings from research about the learning and acquisition of a foreign language. Teachers frequently showed an inadequate understanding of the principles on which their general approach to language teaching, and the methodology which they chose, were based. This led to weaknesses in departmental course guidelines and in their implementation by individual teachers.
Quality of courses in S1/S2
Courses at this stage allowed pupils entering S1 mixed opportunities to build on their prior learning. In a number of cases pupils were allowed to choose, or were directed, into a different modern language from the one they had begun to learn in primary school. This constituted a fundamental break in continuity of learning for these pupils. In only a few departments were there signs that good liaison between primary and secondary schools was leading to effective changes to the S1 syllabus. In others teachers made little effort to adapt their learning and teaching programmes. Good features of liaison are noted in Box 7.
Across all the schools inspected over the period of this report, courses were very good in 15% of departments and good - with strengths but also some weaknesses - in nearly 60%. Features of very good courses at this stage are shown in Box 8. Comparing the sample of schools in this survey on a year-by-year basis, however, HMI found that the quality of courses at this stage was deteriorating. For example, in 1996/97 some 40% of courses were judged to be fair or unsatisfactory compared with 20% in 1994/95. Very few departments had revised their S1/S2 courses in the light of the 5-14 National Guidelines, with the result that some strands were under-emphasised. Many courses were narrow in concept, relied too heavily on commercial materials designed for a different education system and did not reflect the need for broad and challenging programmes of study for pupils of all levels of ability.
Courses gave too little attention to the structure of the language and rules of pronunciation or to making pupils aware of links with the workings of other languages, including English. Generally, courses should place greater emphasis on developing skills, on reading, and on acquiring more knowledge about language.
Quality of courses in S3/S4
In S3/S4 15% of courses were judged to be very good and 55% good overall, but with weaknesses. As in S1/S2, a marked decline in quality was evident in the annual sample of schools inspected over the period of this report.
Most departments had created learning materials and adopted approaches which opened the study of a modern language to almost all pupils, including those with special educational needs. However, courses often comprised a series of topic studies with little progression in the development of grammatical competence, length and variety of text in reading or listening, or complexity of language. Teaching guidelines rarely specified the core work to be done, or gave details of language and structures to be learned and outcomes to be achieved. Teachers too often relied on the weighting of the assessment in Standard Grade examinations to provide the pattern for classwork, with up to 50% of time devoted to speaking practice and too little to reading or writing.
Quality of courses in S5/S6
The quality of courses in S5/S6 was markedly better than in S1-S4. In 25% of departments they were judged to be very good and to be good in around 60%. NC module courses were often very good, providing clear targets and encouraging a good balance of teacher-led and independent work commensurate with pupils' levels of maturity. Very good Revised Higher courses often encouraged pupils to take responsibility for their own learning, use IT, explore current issues and use reading and listening as a platform on which to build productive language skills. However, a few courses provided a rather arid experience for pupils because too much time had to be allocated to work which had not been adequately covered in S1-S4.
HMI made three judgements about pupils' attainments:
HMI did not compare standards in S1/S2 with national targets as expressed in the 5-14 National Guidelines in Modern European Languages. In accordance with the timetable set out in 5-14: A Practical Guide, HMI will make such comparisons from session 1998/99 onwards.
Comparisons with national standards in S3-S6 were based on SQA examination statistics. The modern languages departments inspected for this survey were representative of the national patterns for both Standard Grade and Higher Grade.
Standards of attainment in coursework S1/S2
Standards of coursework were very good in 5% of departments, and good overall, but requiring improvement, in a further 70%. In the remaining 25% of departments significant improvements were required. Effective attainment in coursework was in some cases compromised where pupils were learning two modern languages, and most frequently where each modern language was given equal time allocation.
In only 50% of departments were pupils judged to have good overall levels of attainment, with just over 5% in the very good category. In 45% of departments, the overall quality of attainment was judged to have important weaknesses which outweighed strengths. Teachers frequently made modest demands on the most able pupils in their classes, in terms of the pace, quality and volume of work to be covered in class or at home. There were some signs of improvement in the last year covered by this report, as some teachers became more familiar with 5-14 National Guidelines and as more pupils had some primary school experience on which to draw. Where pupils were learning two languages, HMI judged that overall attainment for most was fair. At times interference between the two languages led to unsatisfactory levels of attainment in both.
Departments should set themselves clear targets for the improvement of overall attainment in S1/S2 in a foreign language.
Standards of attainment in S3/S4
Standards of attainment in coursework were very good in 5% of departments and good with some weaknesses in a further 60%. Elsewhere, significant improvements were required. In a very few departments less than half the pupils performed well.
National performance in Standard Grade Modern Languages is shown in Box 9.
National performance in the separate Writing examinations, set only at Credit and General Levels, is shown in Box 10. 48% of the total number of pupils in S4 nationally were presented for the Writing examinations. Few attained good quality grades.
The relatively poor performance of pupils in Writing relates to the extent to which writing is included as a skill in modern languages teaching in S1-S4, the ways in which it is taught, pupils' and teachers' perceptions of the examination as an optional extra, the nature of the main examination and the nature of the Writing examination. In the light of this complex issue, HM Inspectors recommend that the national arrangements for the assessment of modern languages at Standard Grade should be reviewed to ensure appropriate coverage of the full range of language skills.
A very small proportion of pupils in S4 were presented for NC modules in a modern language and achieved full success. Almost all were at the most elementary level and these qualifications were usually sought as an alternative to Standard Grade at Foundation Level.
Overall attainment in S3/S4, taking all the relevant factors into account, was judged to be very good in 5% of departments, good in 50% and fair in almost 45%. These levels are too low. Often pupils of high ability did not achieve their potential. Despite the fact that pupils could operate well in their coursework, many found it difficult to retain much of what they had learned over four years of study. Departments should set themselves clear targets for the improvement of overall attainment in S3/S4.
Standards of attainment in S5/S6
At this stage proportionately more pupils performed well in their coursework than at other stages. This was overwhelmingly the case for pupils following NC module and CSYS courses, and usually so for pupils following Revised Higher courses.
The national performance of pupils in Higher Grade modern languages is shown in Box 11. Over the three years 1995 to 1997, 11% of pupils in S5 were presented for Higher Grade examinations in a modern language, including the small number of pupils who were presented in more than one language.
|
11 Awards (S5) at Higher Grade (1995-97)
% of awards at each Band against the total S5 roll. 14% of pupils presented in modern languages took more than one language. |
A greater percentage of pupils presented gained an A-C pass at Higher Grade than did all pupils across all other subjects. However, the number of pupils taking modern languages was very low and they were generally high achievers in their Standard Grades. Similarly, CSYS students in modern languages achieved better performances than did all pupils across all their other subjects.
In the schools inspected the NC modules taken in S5/S6 by most pupils were French 3, German 3 and Spanish 1 and 2. Most departments offered NC modules either to those pupils wishing to continue study of a language but unlikely to achieve a Higher Grade or to those wishing to start to learn a new foreign language. Numbers of presentations in individual schools varied from below 1% of the S5/S6 roll to over 20%. Pupils were largely successful in their NC module work. With few exceptions, almost all pupils presented achieved full success.
Overall attainment in S5/S6 was better than at other stages. It was very good or good in 70% of departments. However, attainment was only fair in 30% of departments, largely because pupils were following courses at an inappropriate level or because they needed to catch up on basic work not covered in S1-S4.
2.3 QUALITY OF LEARNING AND TEACHING
This section draws together HMI judgements about four major aspects of learning and teaching. Each is covered by a separate published performance indicator.
The quality of learning and teaching in S1/S2
The quality of pupils' learning was good or very good in just over 65% of departments. In no cases was it unsatisfactory. Pupils were generally well motivated. Most were willing to take on some responsibility for their own learning, where that was encouraged by teachers. Weaknesses included instances where paired or group work was unstructured and too predominant. Expectations of pupils' learning were often too low (See Box 12). In some cases only a majority of pupils were making good progress in their learning.
In 10% of departments the quality of teaching was very good. It was good overall in a further 65%. Features of very good teaching are shown in Box 13. A number of weaknesses were, however, apparent in a majority of classes, even where the quality of teaching was considered to be good overall. Too many teachers used the foreign language almost exclusively to conduct activities, and insisted that pupils did the same. The result was that pupils did not always have opportunities to discuss issues about what they were learning. Teaching the language was too frequently understood to be encouraging practice in the skill of speaking. Even where speaking predominated, teachers often did not help pupils learn how to build up speaking skills, make longer utterances or speak at some length. Instances of teaching pupils how to read the foreign language were rare.
The quality of learning and teaching in S3/S4
The overall quality of pupils' learning was good or very good in 60% of departments. Many pupils of all levels of ability were well motivated and clearly enjoyed their language learning experiences. However, in a minority of cases, pupils' learning was not clearly structured and their progress uneven. A significant minority of pupils had untidy and disorganised exercise books or folders which provided little support for learning or revision. Opportunities for working in different groupings existed but were sometimes unproductive and lacked focus. Some pupils of modest abilities were disaffected and made little, if any, progress in skills performance in particular and in language learning in general.
Teaching was consistently very good in 15% of departments. Its key features are shown in Box 14. In a further 65% of departments it was judged to be good overall, although a number of weaknesses were apparent. Such weaknesses were very evident in the remaining 20% of departments where teaching was fair. Most commonly, they related to poor overall structuring of lessons and over-concentration on oral work with little written support to provide effective props for learning.
The quality of learning and teaching in S5/S6
The quality of pupils' learning in S5/S6 was judged to be good or very good in almost 85% of departments. At this stage pupils were typically well motivated, whatever course they were taking, made good progress and accepted considerable responsibility for their own learning. Group work was often very effective. Those few pupils who were not well motivated were poorly matched to the level of their course and thus not making adequate progress to achieve their goal.
The quality of teaching at S5/S6 was good or very good in almost all departments. Teachers generally interacted well with pupils, used the foreign language skilfully to conduct class activities and stimulate discussion and responded effectively to pupils' learning difficulties and language errors.
Meeting pupils' needs
In 75% of departments pupils' needs at S1/S2 were well or very well met. Teachers increasingly provided work which matched pupils' varying learning requirements, but very few departments offered sufficient challenge to the most able pupils, for whom the pace of learning was often too slow and the targets set too modest. Some departments took little account of pupils' experience of the foreign language in the primary school.
In S3/S4 pupils' needs were well or very well met in just over 65% of departments. The content and pace of work suited the needs and capabilities of most pupils, including those with special needs. Very good teachers set high expectations of pupils' achievements.
In S5/S6 pupils' needs were well met or very well met in most departments, particularly where pupils took up a new language through an NC module at level 1 or 2. At times the pace of work for some pupils aiming for Revised Higher was too fast.
Box 15 shows some of the ways in which departments met pupils' needs very effectively.
Assessment as part of teaching
Eighty per cent of departments were good or very good in this respect. Among those judged to be good overall, there were significant strengths but also areas of weakness. Almost all teachers responded well to pupils' utterances in the foreign language. Formal tests were well matched to learning and teaching in S1/S2, because they were often part of the commercial course in use. However, assessments of this type were often too easy and failed to challenge the most able pupils to perform at the higher levels of attainment described in the 5-14 Modern European Languages Guidelines. Very few departments inspected assessed pupils' performance or reported to parents as suggested within that national advice.
Teachers and pupils were generally not well aware of what should be expected in terms of levels of performance. Many teachers needed advice, through exemplification of standards and guidance on assessment at the S1/S2 stage, as they looked to improve pupils' performances in their modern language work.
Assessment arrangements in S3/S4 were usually well matched to examination requirements for Speaking for Standard Grade. In very good cases teachers used examples of pupils' work from previous classes or from pupils' own work in earlier years. Assessment of skills other than speaking, and of formal aspects of grammar, were not well covered.
At S5/S6 teachers were skilful at using pupils' own work to analyse errors and deficiencies and suggest appropriate next steps for both teaching and learning.
Ethos was good or very good in over 80% of departments. In almost all departments good relationships among teachers led to effective teamwork. In some schools teachers gave freely of their time to run extra-curricular modern language activities such as lunch-time clubs and school visits abroad and/or exchanges with foreign schools.
Relationships between staff and pupils were almost always good or very good in S1/S2 and in S5/S6. Relationships were less positive between teachers and pupils in some classes in S3/S4 and, occasionally, S2, often the result of unmotivating course-work, over-concentration on speaking activities and a perception among some pupils that their modern language study was not particularly relevant.
Provision of accommodation and facilities
Almost 75% of departments had accommodation which was good or very good. The features at good accommodation are shown in box 17. Weaknesses in accommodation and facilities most often related to a deficit in the number of dedicated language classrooms, lack of storage and working space for teachers or old or cumbersome desks and chairs. Where teachers had to work outwith a suite of rooms used by the modern languages department, they often had considerable difficulties in transporting materials, including hardware, to other parts of the school.
Provision of resources
Almost 90% of departments were judged to be well resourced or better. Classrooms were frequently fitted out with perimeter audio-learning equipment, although in some instances such equipment was ageing and becoming unreliable. The supply of whiteboards, overhead projectors and screens was generally good. Most departments had easy access to VCRs and television monitors. Weaknesses frequently related to a lack of good reading materials for S1-S4 and inadequate summary materials for pupils to learn from when they did not have an allocated or appropriate textbook. Few departments had ready access to up-to-date computer technology and software. Information and communication technology applications were rarely seen in modern languages departments.
Organisation and use of resources and space
Around 80% of departments made good or very good use of the accommodation and resources allocated to them. Box 18 shows the features in modern language classrooms which were judged to provide good environments for learning. In the best instances departments had managed resources effectively in order to offer a broad range of appropriate stimulus materials. Resources were well organised in most cases, and easily accessible to staff and pupils.
Effectiveness and deployment of staff
In 85% of departments teachers were effective and well deployed. Weaknesses related sometimes to poor co-operation with, and use of, learning support teachers, other languages teachers or foreign language assistants in the classroom. In some cases weaknesses in deployment occurred when there were too many shared classes or when the timetable of some teachers was unbalanced or fragmented because of issues relating to teachers' language qualifications.
Staff development and review
This was not well developed. In a majority of departments teachers had undergone an earlier form of appraisal training but very few had been subject to a formal review process.
In most departments staff development was good or very good. Features included a clear system for identifying staff development needs and linkage to development planning processes. Across the departments inspected two major areas for staff development for modern languages teachers emerged: how to teach language skills more effectively; and the need for a deeper theoretical understanding of the methods used for teaching modern languages.
2.6 MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
Effectiveness of leadership
Seventy per cent of principal teachers of modern languages were found to be good in terms of commitment, encouraging teamwork among staff, and using the talents of staff well. Most principal teachers were themselves good teachers and were thus able to provide good models. However, principal teachers in almost 30% of departments, including some of those judged to be good overall, showed weaknesses in carrying out effective evaluations, in curriculum leadership and in advancing staff development.
Self-evaluation
In only 55% of departments did HMI judge self-evaluation to be good or very good, albeit with an improving trend noted over the years covered by this report. The overall performance of departments related significantly to the priority given to self-evaluation by senior management in the schools concerned and in very few schools did senior promoted staff make a material contribution to departmental self-evaluation. Commendably, an increasing number of departments used the evidence of assessment in S3-S6 to evaluate courses and learning and teaching and then to adjust practices. Generally, however, self-evaluation was not frequently enough focused on improving pupils' attainment at all stages. Features of very good self-evaluation are shown in Box 19.
Development planning
Departments inspected were only tentatively moving towards the notion of development planning, and overall performance in this aspect was weak. In 65% of departments planning was judged to be fair or unsatisfactory. Most frequently in these cases, plans were neither based on good evaluations nor detailed enough to be a helpful development tool.
