Friday, 17 May 2013

May 23 Under the Cranes at Birkbeck, Institute of the Moving Image


Film screening: Under the Cranes (2011, UK)

    "If you let it, a street will grow."
    Mixing rarely seen archive footage with new cinematography, Under the Cranesoffers a lyrical, painterly evocation of Hackney over several hundred years. Based on Hackney StreetsMichael Rosen's poetic play for voices, the film moves across time and space as we hear from Shakespeare in Shoreditch, a Jamaican builder, a Turkish barber and the 43 Group taking on Oswald Mosley in Dalston. This is a film which poses questions about the nature of regeneration in the recent period. It also explores the theme of migration, showing some of the struggles that people go through to secure a place for themselves (fighting racists if necessary), but also how migration brings diversity and the seeds of renewal.

    The screening will be followed by a Q&A with writer Michael Rosen and film-maker and Birkbeck alumni Emma-Louise Williams.
    When? 19:40-21:00


    Where? Birkbeck Cinema, 43 Gordon Square


    Booking: This event is free but booking is essential - see http://underthecranes.eventbrite.com/

"Confusion about 'whole language' and phonics" from Krashen


Confusion about whole language and phonics
Published in the Columbia Missourian, May 16, 2013
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/162044/letter-to-the-editor-confusion-about-reading-wars-is-about-terminology/
Much of the confusion about the “reading wars” (“Reading wars pit literacy instruction methods against each other,” May 14) is a confusion of terminology.
What the article calls “phonics-based instruction” is actually “intensive systematic phonics instruction,” a view of phonics that insists we teach all children all the major rules of phonics in a strict order.
 
Whole language is NOT look-see (or look-say). It is firmly based on the hypothesis that we learn to read when we understand what is written, when we understand the text.  Some knowledge of phonics can be helpful in making print more comprehensible, but there are severe limits on how much phonics can be directly taught and consciously learned: many of the rules are very complex with numerous exceptions. They cannot be taught but are gradually acquired, or absorbed, through reading.
 
Research supports whole language: Published scientific studies show that intensive systematic phonics is effective only for performance on tests in which children pronounce lists of words presented in isolation. It has only a microscopic influence on tests in which children have to understand what they read -- tests of reading comprehension given after first grade. Prof. Elaine Garan concluded that this was the case in The National Reading Panel Report and other studies show this as well.
 
Study after study has shown that performance on tests of reading comprehension is heavily influenced by the amount of self-selected free voluntary reading that children do, strong evidence for whole language.
 
The whole language position described here is very similar to the position of authors of Becoming a Nation of Readers, a book widely considered to provide strong support for phonics instruction:  “...phonics instruction should aim to teach only the most important and regular of letter-to-sound relationships ... once the basic relationships have been taught, the best way to get children to refine and extend their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences is through repeated opportunities to read. If this position is correct, then much phonics instruction is overly subtle and probably unproductive.”
 
Stephen Krashen
 
Original article: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/161650/reading-wars-pit-literacy-instruction-methods-against-each-other/

Where does knowledge of grammar come from?


Grammar and Spelling: What the Research Says

Published in the Guardian (UK) 

The real reading problem in England is that policymakers in education have not read the research on literacy development (Report, 14 May). Results are very consistent: 1) Direct instruction in grammar and spelling produces very limited results. 2) Nearly all of our knowledge of grammar and spelling is acquired and absorbed through extensive reading. These studies have been appearing in scientific journals regularly for over the last 100 years. Policymakers are free to disagree with the research, but not free to ignore it.
Stephen Krashen
Professor emeritus, University of Southern California


Original article:  Eleven-year-olds wake up to compulsory spelling and grammar test (May 14)
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/14/spelling-tests-english-sats-england
 
 
Some sources:
 
Cook, W. (1912) Should we teach spelling by rule? Journal of Educational Psychology 3, 316-325.
Cornman, O. (1902) Spelling in the Elementary School. Boston: Ginn.
Elley, W., I. Barham, H. Lamb, and M. Wyllie. (1976) The role of grammar in a secondary school curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English 10, 5-21.
Hammill, D., S. Larson, and G. McNutt. (1977). The effect of spelling instruction: A preliminary study. Elementary School Journal 78, 67-72.
For more sources, please see:
Krashen, S. (2004) The Power of Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, and Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Thursday, 2 May 2013

Bad grammar awards

I put this up on facebook earlier. Just a quick few thoughts in relation to the 'Bad Grammar Awards' that are getting publicity today. The audio link is at the bottom:




One of the more absurd displays of ignorance masked as bullying appeared on BBC radio 4 Today programme this morning when Tom Hodgkinson talked about 'bad grammar awards' that he and his pals are handing out. 
1. He showed that he thinks a word has grammar when it's out of context and stands alone. So he said 'young' is an adjective. No it's not. It is what it is, when it has a function to play in context, where it might be all sorts of things.
2. He found that he couldn't identify what was wrong with a phrase when he couldn't find his grammatical notes. So how useful is the knowledge that he prizes so much?
3. He finds it hard to express himself, and keeps repeating 'sort of' and 'kind of'. No harm in that for a moment, other than that he's set himself up as a judge. Particularly daft when he says 'a kind of grammatical slip'. Is it a slip or is it not a slip?
4. He seems to think that grammar is a set of rules. It's not. It's the means by which we make sense. So there are many variants which enable us to make sense. When he speaks he finds it difficult to make sense. The examples he gave as 'wrong grammar' were very easy to make sense of.

http://audioboo.fm/boos/1366037-just-how-bad-is-bad-grammar

Friday, 26 April 2013

Hoaxes and deceits with exams eg GCSE English

People who design exam systems have special ruses to confuse and bewilder us.

1. Reliability vs validity

If you narrow down what you examine,  you can make an exam more reliable. That's to say it will come up with consistent marking, the curve on the graph of those sitting it will match the standard curve year in year out. However, what you are testing will not necessarily reveal eg the best of what the 'testee' can do, and will not necessarily encourage a wide and deep way of working leading up to the exam. At the end of the day, many people in government either don't know about this or, more likely don't care.  As I've mentioned before, the Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar test has been brought in on a lie about reliability ie the claim that there are right and wrong answers to questions in these three areas. The claim was made in the government's 'Bew' report and acted on but I have not seen anywhere that being taken on as an entirely false claim. It's the rush to reliability that has produced something invalid.

2. If certain methods of testing are producing the 'wrong' results, then that part of the exam producing those false figures, must be abolished.

This is the lie at the heart of the re-design of GCSE English. So, the claim is made that teachers cheating on the speaking and listening section are bumping their students up to A-C. The consequence say the critics is that there is a false picture of who is competent at English, so they are kicking speaking and listening out of the final grade. This is a hoax. Examiners have known for at least a hundred years that if you want to make a grade for which minimum criteria have to be reached in all its sections, then you simply control the marking that way. So, in this case, it would be simple to say that a student getting an A-C needs to reach 3 different minimum levels at the written section to be able to get A, B or C in the final mark. There is absolutely no need to abolish that section of the exam that is deemed to be lifting the final grade into what is thought to be the minimum requirement of being a competent - b good - c outstanding.

Alternatively, examiners dish out  a double mark, one for the written section, one for the oral - as we used to do with foreign languages back in the 50s and you had to pass both to get your 'certificate'. You don't need to abolish one section.

In other words, Ofqual have brought the abolition of talking and listening in off the back of a hoax.


Thursday, 25 April 2013

Sit down, shuttup: it's GCSE English

This is Ofqual's consultation document for GCSE:

http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2013-04-25-gcse-english-consultation-on-the-removal-of-speaking-and-listening.pdf


I think this represents the final break with liberal and humane ideas about 15 and 16 year olds' abilities. It is a clear attempt to say to teachers, parents and students that 'English' equals writing.

By demanding this, the government downgrades drama, film and media studies, talking and listening. In one stroke, this means eliminating a) co-operative and collaborative learning and b) a key area of the students' expertise and knowledge: film and media c) expressive and collaborative arts (ie drama)  in relation to language.

No English teacher will be in any doubt about the effect of this on the so-called 'less able' students. They will find the English course harder, they will find a great deal more of the course harder to do. When we look at the Ofqual document, they make this explicit. Fewer people will get A-C grades. This isn't some haphazard consequence: it is the precise objective of the whole 'reform'. This government wants fewer students to get A-C.

Why? Why should this matter to them? They will justify it with these bizarre, empty words like  'robust' and 'rigorous' but I don't believe this for a moment. Employers, colleges and universities don't have any problem about judging the abilities and skills of the people who apply to their institutions and firms. If they do, they can run their own tests - as indeed many do.

The real reason for all this is down to the point we have reached in society, the era we are in. We are living at a moment where the decision has been made that the UK can only survive financially in the world on the basis of having an extremely low wage economy, with no job security. One way to assist this process is to release on to the labour market each year, people with low grade qualifications or none. To bring this about, you have to produce a) a tiny elite b) a large cohort of failures.

That is what these 'reforms' are really about. Schools are being made into the servants of an economic imperative that is bringing poverty and hardship to millions while the superrich are increasing their wealth. The dynamic going on in the way people in this country receive money is that the sector of people who gain a living through wages are proportionately losing ground to the sector who make money through profits. The ratio of profits to wages is changing in favour of profits.

This is the hard grinding reality behind 'austerity', behind the cuts in the welfare state.

All that Ofqual have done is ensure that their 'reforms' fit into these changes. It represents how this government has made a strategic decision in relation to all of us and this has created the environment in which the government's willing slaves (Ofqual etc) bow to the wind.

Removing arts subjects from the way schools are measured, then removing talk from English is a clear attempt to turn schools into assembly lines for segregating school leavers for the sake of employers.

The 'reforms' won't 'raise standards', they won't make students more willing to learn, or more able to learn. Precisely the opposite. The curriculum, the teachers, the students and the parents will be squeezed into a process in which sitting on your own writing is the sole marker of your abilities.

This is a massively backward step to take.

Sunday, 14 April 2013

Facebook question and answers: how to fight austerity


Could left-minded friends here please give a quick summary of the various 'unity' organisations resisting the cuts etc? I'm lost. Am I right in thinking there's TUSC, Unite the Resistance, Coalition of Resistance, the People's Assembly? Have I included any who don't exist anymore? Have I missed any out? Are these 'unity' organisations competing against each other?
3Like ·  · Promote ·