The role of Language as subject vis-à-vis language(s) in other subjects Mike Fleming 15 October a.m.

Transcription

1 The role of Language as subject vis-à-vis language(s) in other subjects Mike Fleming 15 October a.m. Before handing over to Jean-Claude I want to make some brief remarks on language as subject. Once it is accepted that language is central to all subjects, it is necessary to ask whether this view affects the way in which the role of language as subject is understood. The term 'language as subject' is used here to refer to the teaching of French in France, German in Germany etc. Of course teaching a second or foreign language is also strictly speaking 'language as subject' but 'language as subject' is being used here to refer to the teaching of a national/official language (and associated literature). Language as subject has traditionally been seen as having the main responsibility for developing proficiency in the language of schooling. It was seen as what could be called a service subject: in other words it was seen as providing a service by teaching the necessary language skills which were then put to use elsewhere in other subjects. There was a separation between the acquisition of skills in one context and their application elsewhere. However if the responsibility for language education is now borne by all subjects, what is the specific role of language as subject? Although language as subject should not be seen as a service subject providing the necessary language teaching that is then used in other subjects, it does have a special role to play in relation to language education that I would suggest has five key dimensions. Teachers of language as subject have a responsibility for monitoring and teaching of basic elements of speaking and listening, reading and writing. This is likely to be more evident in the early years of primary education but may extend for some students and children of migration into the later years. Teachers of other subjects need to be able to support that enterprise but it is important that responsibility for specialist teaching of basic literacy is clearly designated. This is important because they message for subject teachers is not that they are suddenly being asked to take responsibility for the teaching of basic literacy rather the message is that they are being supported in the teaching of their subject by focusing on language. The importance of the specific subject should not be diminished. Language as subject in addition still retains a central role in the development of language at higher levels. This does not mean that certain aspects are taught in

2 language as subject and then just practised in other subjects, for this view does not take sufficient account of the embedded and contextual nature of language and meaning. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that in language as subject it is language itself that is at its centre whereas in other subjects understanding and working with content is the central goal. There have been different traditions in teaching language as subject in different contexts which makes any generalisation difficult. For example the language in use approach gained ground in the 1970s and 1980s in some countries. This is the view that language develops primarily by being used in different contexts (Note: Give ad lib example here if appropriate) rather than by focusing explicitly on language itself. In most contemporary practice I would say there is a balance between pure language in use and focusing on aspects of language itself. Language as subject provides tools for analysis of texts that can also be used in other subjects (liaison between teachers is important to creative consistency in use of terminology and, for example, in ways of conceptualising 'genres'). It is also important that language as subject teachers are not seen as imposing anything on other subject teachers. Language as subject has a key role in the teaching of literature which should be seen as another form of language education not as a separate subject. There is an argument for suggesting that to separate language from literature presents a conception of language which is too narrow and functional. It is literature that encapsulates language in its most subtle and intricate forms where nuances of meaning and ambiguity have to be embraced. Certain objectives are certainly not unique to literature (as they are also relevant to other subjects) but they do fall naturally in a literary context e.g. extracting meaning beyond the literal; identifying ambiguity in a text and understanding whether it is desirable or not; understanding how language can be used in imaginative and innovative ways; comparing texts in terms of structure and style. It is fairly clear that specific requirements do lie in the area of literary aesthetic education. But they are by no means unique to study of literature and are relevant to approaching texts in different subjects. The ability to interrogate a text, look for hidden meanings, think about who wrote the text and why, should take place in all subjects, not just language as subject. Texts in other subjects are not read purely for surface information. Language as subject has a special responsibility in developing explicit knowledge about language, and in ensuring that learners have the necessary terminology to be able to speak about language uses in an informed way. It could be argued that even the study of language itself is not entirely unique to language as subject because opportunities may arise for example in history (in looking at aspects of language

3 change) or in geography (in looking at varieties of languages in the world) but these are probably rare examples. The formulation of a school language policy should be the result of dialogue and negotiation amongst all teachers but language as subject teachers will be in a position to share experience of practical approaches in the classroom to help other subject teachers address aspects of language within their own domain or field. It is reasonable therefore on this basis to say that language as subject has a special though not unique role in relation to language education. That does not mean that language as subject should necessarily determine the detailed approach to language education in a school, prescribing when and how the language elements are taught in other subjects. This message came across very clearly in the seminar we had in the spring. This approach carries the wrong implicit message that the language elements are an additional element that is merely bolted on to the subject learning rather than emerging from the requirements of the subject itself. Such an approach is also in danger of disempowering subject teachers reducing them to the role of language technicians, whereas the aim should be for them to develop awareness and understanding of the central, if not constitutive role of language in the learning of the subject. Whether language as subject teachers take a key coordinating role in the development of a school language policy will depend on the specific context but the development of a common approach to language should happen through dialogue aimed at fostering shared understanding rather than through the imposition of structures and methodologies. Perhaps language policy is the wrong term if it simply means a general statement of goals and values, important though those are. What is required is a policy/working document that seeks to coordinate the approach to language education in a school. It may be that language as subject teachers take an initiative to develop a whole school language policy document but this needs to be done in a tactful cooperative way. Possible items for inclusion in a school language policy document these can be found in the handbook A statement that provides a commitment to the importance of language in all subjects. A description of the relationship between language and learning as a basis for understanding the importance of language in all subjects. An indication of the general attitude towards language that is being fostered in the school, including attitudes to diversities of languages and cultures, related to plurilingual and intercultural education.

4 A statement about the importance of systems and structures but also of the need for sensitivity to language education in context and the dangers of taking a formulaic or mechanistic approach. A glossary of key language terminology students will need to acquire to facilitate their ability to talk about language. An agreed approach to marking and feedback in all subjects, including the approach taken to mistakes in spelling, grammar etc. A description of cognitive-linguistic functions that embody both cognitive operations and the associated verbal performance (e.g. describe, classify, deduce, interpret- see) both within and across subjects. Examples of practical teaching strategies that can be used in all subjects to help support language learning, especially for more vulnerable students (e.g. techniques for reading texts, ideas for scaffolding writing, ways of facilitating oral work etc.). An inventory of key language uses in the form of cognitive-linguistic functions and genres in order to ensure breadth in subject teachers approach to language that can be adapted in the context of specific subjects.

5