The role of input and practice, including Target Language

2.14.1. Classroom use of Target Language as a source of input

The literature on speaking in MFL lessons (e.g Harris et al, 2001; Horne, 2014) offers a range of approaches which teachers could use in maximising their use of TL as well as a rationale for doing so. However, the last Ofsted report on MFL teaching (DfE, 2011) repeated Ofsted’s earlier criticisms of a lack of TL use by teachers in MFL lessons. Macaro (1997) has charted the differing Ofsted positions on TL use over several years. He noted that teachers commonly agree on the importance of TL use but may ‘confess’ to using less than they believe they should. Ofsted guidance (DfE, 2013) on the use of TL was “intended to help modern language subject leaders implement, monitor and evaluate school improvement” and the descriptor for a ‘good’ lesson included:

Learners occasionally respond to the teacher spontaneously in the TL, but do not seek to use it to communicate with each other [….] a high level of consistency in the quality and quantity of TL use across the department, supported by a unified departmental policy

(DfE, 2013:1) The same document further suggests that teachers’ TL use should be monitored by Subject Leaders. However, the guidance stressed that it was “not an inspection or performance management instrument”. In a culture of performativity, it seems probable that the enforceable instructions will be followed before the guidance. On the one hand, TL use is said to be desirable but not obligatory and yet the lack of TL use is criticised. The basis of Ofsted’s criticism appears arbitrary. As already mentioned, Broady (2014) questioned the exclusive use of TL because it fails to use the first language (L1) as a resource. Macaro (2001:532), having considered arguments on both sides of the debate on teachers switching between L1 and TL in lessons, and the absence of clear research evidence, questioned whether ITE tutors should “refrain from giving student teachers guidelines in the use of codeswitching”. He went on to suggest (2001:545) that the hegemonic principle of avoiding L1 “would appear to stifle reflective practice”.

The emotional effects of maximum L2 use need to be weighed against its advantages. Klapper (2003) includes students’ embarrassment and frustration among the disadvantages of teachers’ insistence on the use of TL. Similarly, some of the adults in Nicolson and Adams' (2010:48,43) study used the words “intimidating, dismayed, anxious, confusion, overwhelming”, among other negatives, to describe their feelings about teachers using “a lot of foreign language”, although “happy” and “willing” were the most commonly used words. For adolescent learners, the emotional response to language learning might be accentuated by relationships with the peer group. While Ellis (1990) argued in favour of maximising teachers’ TL use in lessons to compensate for the students’ lack of exposure to L2 outside the classroom, Macaro (2001) noted that exposure to TL does not necessarily lead to its use by students. This could be related to the type of TL which teachers use in lessons.

2.14.2. The nature of Target Language used in classrooms

Classroom use of TL is essentially inauthentic in both context and content. As Harris et al (2001:2) observed, “However hard we try, the classroom is not the railway station or the dinner table”. Ellis (1990) noted that teachers typically speak more slowly, more simply and more grammatically, than would be the case in natural L2 immersion. However, he also commented on the variations in practice between individual teachers.

This variation would undermine an initiative such as Horton’s (n.d) Group Talk project which emphasised the need for consistency in TL use to achieve success.

There are clear limits to the authenticity of the classroom setting. Perhaps for this reason, textbook lists of classroom language for teachers to use in lessons tend not to contain high frequency words for use outside the classroom, focusing more on teachers’ instructions for whole class work. They may also include a smaller number of expressions for student use which may have negative connotations or consequences, for example, ways of saying they have forgotten a book or their homework or do not have a pen. Students might be given an expression to use when asking to go to the toilet but in some schools this will elicit the answer ‘no’ if there is a rule against visiting the toilet during lessons. Harris et al (2001) advocate progression towards discussing the lesson in TL, so that students use grammatical metalanguage in TL but it may be that this would divert attention from the topic-based content of the scheme of work

Beyond transactional classroom language, the quality of interaction, particularly questioning, in TL was addressed by Hawkes (2014) and by Jones (1992), both of whom stressed the importance of teacher input and students interacting with the teacher in TL. Identifying the teacher as the key source of TL in a classroom, Hawkes (2014) built on the work of Wells (1999) in expanding the initiate-respond-evaluate sequence of questioning to accommodate more open questioning and replicate more normal conversation. She quoted the familiar exchange in which the teacher’s question “Qu’as- tu fait le weekend?” elicits the student response “je suis allé au cinéma” to be followed by the evaluative and unnatural “très bien” from the teacher. Hawkes (2012) suggested a more conversational response but this would require teachers to have adequate confidence in TL use and behaviour management as well as a classroom environment conducive to conversation. Horne (2014) also advocated immersion in TL “from day one” with beginners; this is not possible for trainees joining the school several weeks into the term. These approaches assume a high degree of teacher autonomy within a positive culture of TL use within an MFL department, either of which might prove to problematic for trainees because of their need to “fit in” with existing practice.