John Bald/language and literacy

German: First Lessons, via Skype.

Lesson 1. 30.12.14

The German toolkit on this site is an attempt to enable pupils to put their thoughts into German from the outset, orally and in writing. This lesson was with an eleven year old, who had been learning German for a term, with no textbook other than an Edexcel GCSE vocabulary book, and a small vocabulary book in which she had written some nouns related to the family. She had a subscription to a website, which did not include any sentence building. 

We began with pronouns. What, I asked, did she think Ich lerne Deutsch might mean? Are you learning Dutch? she replied.  So, she had been learning German for a term, and thought Deutsch meant Dutch. I explained that the words were similar, and had probably come from the same word originally, but that Deutsch was in fact the German word for, well, German.  What did ich mean?  I, she replied, and we got to the meaning of Ich lerne Deutsch, which Suzie, as we will call her, wrote. She left out the s in Deutsch first time, and so inserted it. 

We moved to Du lernst Deutsch. I pointed to myself, and said Ich lerne Deutsch, and then to S, who understood that Du meant you. She wrote the new sentence accurately. I got a figurine of an old man, and S understood that Er lernt Deutsch meant that he was learning German. It took her two goes to write the sentence, as she inserted an s in lernt. A female figurine gave us Sie lernt Deutsch, but it took another attempt to remove that s. We then discussed the idea of first, second and third persons. The first two were parties to a conversation, and the third was outside it. We moved to the plural, now signing with both hands, Wir lernen, Ihr lernt, Sie lernen Deutsch. S picked up quickly that w was pronounced as an English v. We sang the conjugation a couple of times to the verb song from the toolkit, and moved to colours, discussing the links and differences with English colours, and the German pronunciation and spelling, including umlauts and how vowels came to be known as vowels. S did know that German nouns could be masculine, feminine or neutral.

Lesson 2. 31.12.14

S remembered what we'd done yesterday, and was amused at the name I'd given her. I introduced sein and haben, then nicht to make negatives. This gave us enough to begin to build some sentences with Clicker, and to introduce the idea of the subject of a sentence as well as the verb. We made these sentences:

Peter ist mein Bruder. Ich habe einen Bruder. Ich liebe Peter. Peter liebt mich.  Ich liebe meinen Vater und meine Mutter. Ich hasse Sam nicht. Ich bin seine Schwester. Wunderbar.  Alles klar? Ja.   

Then some tenses:

Ich lerne Deutsch.   

Ich habe Deutsch gelernt.                           

Ich werde Deutsch lernen.

and finally Gern.  We looked at some illustrations from Google - Bleib ruhig und lerne Deutsch - and I passed Suzi's dad the address of the primary materials from the Goethe Institut. Mum said she'd loved the lessons.

Lesson 3 follows.

 

Updated. Writing: The Breakthrough. Ros Wilson and Alan Peat, with thanks to Great Berry and Kettlewell Schools.

"How would you get pupils of low ability to write at length?" asked the inspector. This was 1973 and he had just observed a successful reading lesson. I didn't know the answer. He assured me that there was one, but did not say much more than that it would come with experience. It didn't. I also, on reflection, had trouble with his term "low ability". Some of the children who were having problems with literacy were very clearly as intelligent as those of us who were trying to teaching them.

What they couldn't do was write, and what we couldn't do was teach them. I say "we" because over the years I scoured every source of professional information in the English-speakng world in search of an approach that worked. There were plenty of books explaining why these children couldn't write, and some  explaining why we should not expect them to be able to write, and some, such as Jill Pirrie's brilliant On Common Ground that gave insights into how to develop writing once it had got started. Just none that would show us how to teach those who couldn't write much at all. Over time, I developed an approach to spelling, published in the TES as Slimmed Down Spelling, that tackled one part of the problem, and an approach to handwriting that combined research evidence from Rosemary Sassoon with some work I'd seen in France. But not how to ensure that everyone had something interesting to say, and knew how to say it.

It was some time later that I discovered LS Vygotsky's Thought and Language, in which he described the process of becoming literate as moving from the "spontaneous" act of speech to communication through symbols on a page, which, he said, involved "deliberate structuring of the web of meaning."  That made sense, though it did not explain how to enable children do make the transition. There was more than one barrier to overcome. Ros Wilson's Big Writing (OUP) has shown how.  

Her basic idea is to build up children's use of spoken language to include the structures of formal English as well as those of everyday life, and then to use this to develop what she calls a "writing voice - the structuring of language for higher level writing in ways that are different from the language of daily speech."  This writing voice contrasts with the idea of basing teaching on personal expression, and bridges the gap between the colloquial and the formal - it is, alongside the ability to read, the key to success in school.

For this reason, I am going beyond what would normally be seen as a recommendation, even in the highest terms.  The knowledge contained in these books is so fundamental that it needs to be part of every teacher's toolkit, and the highprice of her books and accompanying CD (£120) is to be compared, not with the normal run of books, but with the cost of professional training.  In effect, these are not so much books as a course for teachers, with exceptionally clear plans for teaching and assessment that will save its users a great deal of time. There are aspects that individuals will want to approach in different ways - Ros Wilson uses "posh" as a term for formal, and invites children to conversations with posh people such as a Duke or Duchess, in a way that is reminiscent of Downton Abbey. I might well do this differently myself. I know of some schools that would also have to go well beyond the idea of talk homework in order to build the level of parental interaction and conversation that is the goal of Big Talk. However, it is the underlying ideas of this work that are essential. They contain the solution to a problem that has beset UK education since it was decided that we needed to educate the whole of our population. We have spent, across the English-speaking world, billions of pounds in getting this wrong. We can now get it right.

VCOP - a key idea from Ros Wilson

Alan Peat's series of books, self-published, is less expensive, but, like Ros Wilson's, is not available in most university libraries.  I'm trying to find them at a copyright library, and will review them once I've read them. However, many of his ideas are contained in this series of posters at the TES, and a further selection is here.  I first heard about the work through Ghyllgrove and Great Berry Schools in Basildon. Great Berry School has produced its own series of posters,  here. 

Highland Literacy has an interesting take on the materials, here. 

 

 

And the other key element, reading. The seven year old from Kettlewell school, whose work on reading is described below, had previously used elaborate evasion strategies to avoid taking partin big writing sessions. Enabling him to read texts at a level he was interested in gave him the confidence he needed in order to take part properly, and his teacher, Jodi Storey, has described this as an important breakthrough. The key to teaching him to read was to explain the way the alphabet is used in English in terms he could understand, just as Ros Wilson explains writing in terms pupils can understand. We can expect little progress in any area of education unless we ensure that pupils fully understand their work.

Someone likes Brussels Sprouts/Rosenkohl/les choux de Bruxelles/las coles de Bruselas

Ask children what they don't like, and these are top of the list - except for a handful who like them a lot!

(A good way to teach positive and negative sentences in a new language. There are few neutrals.)

First notes on algebra.

These notes are for a pupil in Y10, who was not sure how to proceed in a test of basic algebra. This is a first draft, and there will be additions and revisions.

First Notes on Algebra.

Algebra is usually a way of finding out something we don't know. This is usually written by a letter.  We are given other information that we have to manipulate to work out the value of this letter.

Algebra does not usually involve big numbers, but we have to make decisions about what we do, and to be careful - often we have to do the same thing twice.

If there's more than one thing we don't know, it becomes complicated.

So, a formula such as y = x + 3 can only give us a range of answers, depending on knowing what either x or y is. If we don't know, we can substitute a number for x and do the calculation. The question will usually tell us what to substiture, so that, if x = 1,  y is 1 + 3,   if x is 2, y is 2 +3.  We can plot the results on a graph, which for this type of formula gives us a straight line.

If we simplify an expression in brackets, we unpack it by carrying out an operation for each item in the bracket.  So, (3x⁴)²  becomes 9x^6.  - we have to square both the 3 and the x⁴

An equation gets its name from the word equal. Usually, equations contain letters and numbers, and we can manipulate the numbers to find a value for the letter. Both sides have to be kept equal, and we do this by doing the same thing to each side.

But how to decide what to do.  Look closely at the equation, and then

If there is a fraction in an equation, multiply both sides by the denominator (whatever is below the line).  This turns the fraction on one side into a whole, and multiplies the other side to make up for this change.  

If both sides contain a number that will divide by a common factor,  (eg 2x =4), divide both sides by that factor, so that x =2.

If it contains a negative number, add that number to each side. This will bring the negative number to 0, and keep balance by adding it as a positive to the other side.  X - 5  = 0  becomes x =5.

If it contains a positive number, bring that number to zero by subtracting it from each side.     X + 5  = 0  becomes x = - 5.

 

 

 

 

Second Lesson in French.

My ten year old friend in Falkirk had her second French lesson just now, and her twelve year old sister her first. Here are the sentences we made. Introducing the negative at this stage is one of the main ideas of my primary toolkit, as it is the basis of requiring children to answer questions in sentences rather than parroting. We also looked at the pattern of x in a plural following u, at companion words (articles), at shared words, and at the letters at the ends of words that are not pronounced.

Todd Risley and Betty Hart. Research into young children's language, and a gap in university library provision.

Dr Todd Risley and Betty Hart researched differences in the spoken language experienced by young children over a period of forty years or so. Dr Risley's account of his work (click on the picture above), is an excellent summary of their findings, which are very litte known inthe UK. I found them through a reference in Sir James Rose's report, cited in Ros Wilson's Big Writing, which I will review shortly. Well worth listening to. Copies are not held in either of two major university libraries which I've just checked, and this seems an attempt at academic censorship - if books are not in the library, students have no way of knowing about them, and in some cases this is not an accident. Dr Risley died in 2008.

A summary of the research in their first book, Meaningful Differences, is here. 

A left-leaning progressive critique is here . It criticises Risley and Hart for their evaluative analysis of the quality of interaction, but does not address the key question of whether or not this analysis is accurate. It certainly is accurate. If the main use of speaking is controlling behaviour and getting through the business of the day,  there is no room for language to operate to develop thinking and understanding. There are three UK sources of corroborative evidence. Tizard's Young Children Learning found that less educated mothers tended to take a more negative attitude to children's questions than more educated ones, the Bristol Child Development Study found that the least successful child in school had had no recorded experience of stories before starting school, and Ward and Ward, in Manchester, found that children in a council estate were being assessed as deaf because they had not learned to respond to the human voice. 

The final paragraph of this critique contains two key points:

But, in our view, the language differences Hart and Risley reported are just that—differences. All children come to school with extraordinary linguistic, cultural, and intellectual resources, just not the same resources. It is the responsibility of teachers to draw on these resources in support of
school learning, including teaching the language practices valued in school. If there are crucial language experiences needed for school success, then teachers must provide them. The remedy
for disproportionate levels of failure among children living in poverty is a school curriculum that
respects their background knowledge and experience and builds on students’ linguistic, cultural
and cognitive “funds of knowledge” (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) to teach them what they
need to achieve success. As Gloria Ladson-Billings’s (1994) research reminds us, respect is
the key to successful teaching. Ultimately, this is about respect for students’ knowledge, who they
are, and where they come from.

The first is an error. International evidence shows clearly that these children are not receiving from home the intellectual element that educated parents give their children. Tizard's evidence on questions is a key point here, and more important than whether a request or instruction is given directly or indirectly.  The second is true, and the foundation of the stronger elements in Reading Recovery, and of the Big Talk in Ros Wilson's work.

Finally, the first author of this critique, Professor Curt Dudley-Marling, could find food for thought in his own CV, which contains frequent references to "learning disability". Most of the people he describes as disabled are not disabled at all - their problem is that they have not been taught effectively, and putting the term disability on top of this makes the situation permanent.

"Life-changing breakthrough" - notes from a parent in Scotland.

After lesson 1, by skype, from Linton, Cambridgeshire, to Falkirk, Stirlingshire.

I wanted to extend my thanks for what can only be described as a life-changing breakthrough for both my daughters. 

Your ability to break down spelling into understandable chunks, in an historical context, has made all the difference.  S. now understands she is not an idiot.  She is walking on air today and is even enjoying maths - all because she now knows that she is not inadequate in any way.  The psychological knot in her mind is being loosened.  She feels that she IS able to learn.

 You are the first person who has been able to explain why our language and spelling system operates the way it does, in a simple (but not simplistic) way that and 11 year old can understand.  Most important was your teaching about word groupings and how groups of letters can sound quite different to their individual parts and even make similar sounds, such as 'sh' as in 'ship' and then 'ti' as in 'patient'.  No one had told S. that before.

 Don't get me wrong: I can see the utility of phonics and it helped my children in the basics of reading but alas, beyond a certain level of complexity, it a bit like trying to complete a jigsaw with one third of the pieces missing.  It's possible to formulate a reasonable guess as to what the finished puzzle will look like but much of the detail will be lost. 

 John, you have shown me that's it time to stop blaming the pupils and even the teachers (who can teach what they do not know?) and to put a system in place that is simple in its delivery but comprehensive in its scope.  I hope that those in positions of power start to listen to you.

 

After lesson 3.

 

Wow!  The children were ecstatic after their seesion with you yesterday and I wanted to let you know what a difference you are making to them (and me).  

 

Firstly, their comments:

"I feel as though I'm making a massive improvement."  

"I have a much clearer view of grammar. "What really made the difference was the combination of simple, clear explanations combined with a greater degree of depth that we have been taught before.  Understanding why things were this way."

 "It was really helpful to get the historical backstory.  It satisfied my curiosity and made things make more sense because they were put in context."

"My maths confidence is through the roof.  I feel now that I CAN do it.  It was just that my teachers at school didn't really teach me a system that is quick and gets right results.  John helped me to see patterns in numbers that I'd never noticed and this has made arithmetic a lot easier."

 

And finally:

"The biggest change is that we feel we can do it.  That we are capable of understanding.  It's like a whole world is being decoded for us.   John is better than any teacher we've ever had - we are light years ahead of where we previously were."  "... and it's nice to be made to feel intelligent, to be praised.  I'm starting to believe..."

 

Not much needs to be added to these statements about the effectiveness of your teaching methods.  My children both INSISTED that they dictate their comments to me - I can assure you it wasn't my idea.  That shows how happy they are, how confident they feel about moving forward.  It is clear that what works is a clear focus, simple and clear instruction whilst elucidating a logical pattern of events so that the children can see how, for example, grammar naturally works that way, or that sentences flow better this way etc.  Understanding the provenance of words (in the absence of Latin and Greek) really opened up a whole world of interest.  My daughter commented that she felt ignorant to believe a 'Utopia' was a paradisical, imaginary world after you'd talked to them about Thomas More.  This has made them want to read 'Utopia' out of sheer interest.  And so the intellect is developed quite naturally without being forced.  I have noticed how interested my children become when you talk to them as if they were intellectually capable as opposed to spoon-feeding snippets of data to be regurgitated in an exam or test.  Now they are willing learners.  What more could parent ask for?

 

You have drawn out the joy of learning which is particularly impressive in S. who was told she was probably dyslexic, engaged in over a year of Reading Recovery to little effect and who disliked school so intensely (apart from the social side) that I had to remove her little over a year ago.  Now, she studies for nine hours per day, much of that self-taught, and voluntarily uses a dictionary, writes stories and volunteers to work maths problems at the board.  Most importantly, her growing confidence is allowing her to 'self-correct'.  She will stop herself, notice that an error has been made and happily fix it.

 

All in all, wonderful results.  I really feel there is an argument for this style of teaching in the classroom.  It may seem like more work but when the time has been taken to explain concepts in depth - the why of things - children make the connections which grow exponentially, across subject areas.

 

We're all over the moon and looking forward to experiencing these same principles applied to French grammar!

 

PS. The first French lesson is here.

Progress in the early stages of language learning - and why do universities insist on promoting things that don't work?

I’m teaching two pupils by skype and webex from Linton to Falkirk, which Google estimates at 6.15 hours’ drive away. The younger, aged ten, is on her first lesson in French, after an attempt to load Webex didn’t work last week. I explain that French likes the spoken language to flow and the written language to be precise. It uses two main techniques to achieve this. The first is to knock off a vowel from a pronoun or article (I call these companion words) to avoid a jerky sound, so that Je ai becomes J’ai.  P writes this on her sleeve without looking and I explain that apostrophe is a shared word between French and English. It also has a shared function. I then use clicker to add un chat, pointing out that the t is not pronounced. P writes “J’ai un chat,” correctly, which is true, as said cat keeps climbing onto the table between her and her computer.  They also have two dogs, so I add elements to Clicker to enable her to make the sentence “Nous avons un chat et deux chiens”.  She writes this accurately.  All very easy, very clear, and introduces elements of French that stump too many GCSE candidates, who keep getting Je and J’ai mixed up.

 

Here is the Clicker grid I made to work with this pupil, and the sentence made by clicking on the words. As we were working remotely, I clicked on the words as she asked me to. The French was read back accurately, apart from the elision. 

 

 

 

 

I had a head-on collision with a colleague, who happens to be a university lecturer, a while ago as to whether it was better to present the spoken and written language together in this way, or to begin with an oral approach. I did not get a reasoned response, just a raised voice. A university postgrad told me that his university insists on the latter approach, and I can see no reason why. Teaching both together enables connections to be made that otherwise have to be taught later. It gives children confidence in writing, and the satisfaction of getting things right, rather than having errors tolerated by teachers, even when they are irksome to children.

 

Following a posting on the linguanet site, Heather Rendall said that two university lecturers had walked out of a talk she had given when she advocated teaching the spoken and written word together. Why they should have done so is a matter for them, but what is being lost in this dispute is a focus on the most effective ways of ensuring success in language learning for all of the children. Thanks to Skype and webex, I can now demonstrate the approach to anyone, anywhere in the world, free.