Framing educational change: Teacher and employer voices in the development of new courses in English for 16-year-olds

Author(s):

Simon Child(presenting / submitting)Martin Johnson Sanjana Mehta Annabel Charles

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 06 B, Curriculum Renewal (Languages): Policy and Practice

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

15:30-17:00

Room:

B111 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Adam Handelzalts

Contribution

During periods of curriculum, educational or qualifications reform, debates typically centre on establishing the fundamental skills and competencies that students should possess in different subject domains. Currently, England is undergoing a period of reform in secondary education, where significant changes to course content are to be introduced (e.g. Smith, 2013). This includes the reform of General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSE), the primary set of qualifications taken by 16-year-olds in England. GCSEs currently serve a range of purposes. For example, they are required to enable students to make a successful transition into the next educational level (Mehta, Suto, & Brown, 2012; Suto, 2012), to provide sufficient skills for later employment, and to form part of the accountability system of secondary schools.

When subject content is under review it is necessary to establish a framework to guide the parameters for change. This is particularly important in the subject of English, which is a compulsory subject in the curriculum of the United Kingdom, and a qualification in English is typically a prerequisite to enter Further Education post-16. There has been an ongoing debate about how English can be defined (Ofqual, 2012; Raban-Bisby, Brooks, & Wolfendale, 1995). This debate has permeated both Anglophone and non-Anglophone countries including New Zealand (Limbrick & Aikman, 2005), Australia (Edwards & Potts, 2008) and Germany (Gnutzmann, 2005).

Definitions of English cover many areas from the ‘aesthetic’ to the ‘functional’ and views have been polarised about where the emphasis should lie (Laugharne, 2007). For example, in recent years, the term ‘literacy’ has been used as a label for a skills framework that divides English into a set of four core competencies: reading, writing, and speaking and listening. This functional definition is in response to the demand for courses in English to prepare students for communication in the workplace and beyond, and has been criticised for narrowing the scope of English qualifications (Edwards & Potts, 2008). More ‘academic’ definitions of English place greater emphasis on personal growth and creativity (Cox, 1991), although this perspective has been criticised for being too broad to be useful in developing qualifications that need to serve multiple purposes.

When redeveloping educational courses or the curriculum, it is important to consider the views of multiple stakeholders, as they can play an essential role in establishing the educational framework from which the course is built. It is currently unclear what models of English as a subject are maintained by different stakeholders, and how these perspectives project onto their views on what content and skills should be taught to 16-year-old students. The present study aimed to resolve this important issue by establishing areas of consensus and contention in stakeholders’ discourse regarding English.

Method

The research project used a mixed methods approach, comprising a questionnaire-based survey and focus groups. The questionnaire was developed to probe contemporary perceptions of English, and comprised three sections: (i) the transition to Further Education; (ii) the transition to later life and independence; and (iii) the assessment of English. To pilot the survey, an initial version was sent to a sample of teachers and employers, who provided written feedback on three aspects: (i) the structure and grammar of the questions; (ii) the use of terminology; and (iii) the response options. The final version of the survey contained 15 questions and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. It was distributed by email to 1103 teachers of English currently working in secondary schools located in England, and 143 employers from across varying employment sectors including manufacturing, service, and financial industries. The return rates were 8.4% (N=93) for the teacher survey and 24.5% (N=35) for the employer survey. The survey data were analysed quantitatively. In addition, two focus groups were convened: one with a group of eleven secondary teachers of GCSE English, and one with five employers from a range of employment sectors. The focus groups were conducted using broad, open-ended questions which aimed to encourage a free discussion among the participants. The teachers were asked for their views on the necessary content and skills that were appropriate for 16-year-olds to have learned in preparation for Further Education, specifically GCE A levels, the primary set of qualifications for 16-19 year olds in England. The employers were asked about what skills in English needed to be in place for 16-year-olds to successfully make the transition to employment. Both groups of stakeholders were asked for their views on how these skills could best be assessed. All discussions were audio recorded and transcribed. The resulting transcripts were analysed thematically, in line with the approach established by Braun and Clarke (2006).

Expected Outcomes

Analysis of the focus group data revealed a degree of overlap on how different stakeholders model English. Their views on where teaching and courses for 16-year-olds in English should focus were conceptualised into three broad themes: the importance of functional English; English as atomistic versus holistic study; and English as critical thought. These themes that emerged from the qualitative data were supplemented and supported by the quantitative survey data. Within each theme differing levels of consensus were achieved between the employers and teachers. For the theme of ‘the importance of functional English’, whilst teachers expected students to have an awareness of the social, moral and personal elements to English, employers felt that English should concern itself more with the applied elements (for example, the writing of effective emails). Within the theme of ‘English as atomistic versus holistic study’, English was defined by both teachers and employers to be an integrated set of skills. However, in their discussion of how English should be assessed, the two stakeholder types thought differing levels of segmentation of English into its constituent parts (for example reading, writing etc.) was appropriate. For the theme of ‘English as critical thought’, teachers wanted students to have an understanding of building an argument, whereas employers felt that critical thinking in English should focus on awareness of audience, both as a reader and writer. The presentation will discuss these findings in relation to the development of English courses for 16-year-olds. The present data were collected within the educational context in England. However, given the status of English as a commonly taught foreign language (European Commission, 2012), and an important 21st Century Skill in Europe (Kyllonen, 2012), the findings of this research may have relevance to the wider debate on how English should be defined and assessed in other countries.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Cox, B. (1991). Cox on Cox: An English curriculum for the 1990s. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Edwards, D., & Potts, A. (2008). What is literacy? Thirty years of Australian literacy debates (1975–2005). Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, 44(1-2), 123-135. European Commission. (2012). Europeans and their languages Retrieved 14th January, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf Gnutzmann, C. (2005). English language teaching in Germany: A reflection of the national and universal importance of English. In G. Braine (Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kyllonen, P. (2012). Measurement of 21st Century skills within the common core state standards Retrieved 15th January, 2014, from http://www.usc.edu/programs/cerpp/docs/Kyllonen_21st_Cent_Skills_and_CCSS.pdf Laugharne, J. (2007). The personal, the community and society: A response to Section 1. In V. Ellis, C. Fox & B. Street (Eds.), Rethinking English in schools. London: Continuum. Limbrick, L., & Aikman, M. (2005). Literacy and English: A discussion document prepared for the Ministry of Education. University of Auckland: Faculty of Education. Mehta, S., Suto, I., & Brown, S. (2012). How effective are curricula for 16 to 19 year olds as a preparation for university? An investigation of lecturers’ views. Paper presented at the The European Conference of Educational Research, Cadiz, Spain. Ofqual. (2012). Moving English foward Retrieved 2nd January 2014, 2013, from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/moving-english-forward Raban-Bisby, B., Brooks, G., & Wolfendale, S. (1995). Developing language and literacy. London: Trentham Books. Smith, M. E. (2013). Independent chair's report on the review of current GCE 'specification content' within subject criteria: A report to Ofqual Retrieved 17th December, 2013, from http://ofqual.gov.uk/qualifications-and-assessments/qualification-reform/a-level-reform/ Suto, I. (2012). How well prepared are new undergraduates for university study? An investigation of lecturers’ perceptions and experiences. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for Research in Higher Education, Newport, Wales.

Author Information

Simon Child (presenting / submitting)

Cambridge Assessment

Research Division

Cambridge

Martin Johnson

Cambridge Assessment, United Kingdom

Sanjana Mehta

Cambridge English, United Kingdom

Annabel Charles