• No results found

The Controversial "Language Choice English"

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Controversial "Language Choice English""

Copied!
29
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Malmö högskola

Lärarutbildningen

Kultur – Språk - Medier

Examensarbete

10 poäng

The Controversial “Language Choice

English”

Det kontroversiella ”Språkval Engelska”

Malena

Andersson

Lärarexamen 180 poäng

Moderna språk med inriktning mot undervisning och lärande i engelska.

Höstterminen 2005

Examinator: Björn Sundmark Handledare: Stefan Early

(2)

Abstract

This dissertation deals with what in Swedish schools is called ”Språkval Engelska”. It will be refered to as Language Choice English in the ongoing text. My interest was aroused after having experienced this controversial subject as a student teacher. I found that different schools work with the subject in different ways. There is no clear syllabus for the subject since the grading is a part of the ordinary English grade. Language Choice English is an option for those who do not want to choose French, German or Spanish as Language Choice. The idea is that the subject is meant for those who cannot cope with yet another language and who need extra support in English. This study shows that not only the so-called weak pupils choose to study Language Choice English. There has been a mismanagement of the subject since so many pupils who are good at English choose it out of convenience and for tactical reasons. The idea of only letting those pupils, who actually need more support choose it, has been lost.

Four different secondary schools have been investigated concerning how Language Choice English is organized. I learned that all of these schools have different organizations. The method I used was formal interviews with six different teachers at four different schools. The results of the interviews show that at some schools the subject works well. At other schools it does not. The reasons for this seem to be many. Reasons such as low status of the subject, large and heterogeneous groups and pupils and teachers who are unmotivated can be mentioned.

(3)

Contents Abstract………. 1. Introduction ... 7 1.1 Background ... 8 2. Purpose ... 9 2.1 Questions...9 3. Literature ... 9 4. Method ... 10 4.1 Selected Schools ... 12

5. Result and Analysis ... 13

5.1. School A ... 13

5.1.1 Organization ... 13

5.1.2 Merits and Demerits ... 16

5.2 School B ... 16

5.2.1 Organization ... 17

5.2.2 Merits and Demerits ... 18

5.3 School C ... 19

5.3.1 Organization ... 19

5.3.2 Merits and Demerits ... 21

5.4 School D ... 21

5.4.1 Organization ... 21

5.4.2 Merits and Demerits ... 23

5.5 Summary; Results and Analysis ... 24

6. Discussion ... 25 6.1 Proposals ... 29 6.2 Final words ... 30 6.3 Critical reflections ... 30 Appendix...31 References...

(4)

1 Introduction

As a teacher student of English I found that English is taught as two different courses in the Swedish Compulsory School. One course is the compulsory one and the other is optional. This is new since I went to secondary school and thus it aroused my interest. It is certainly interesting but also crucial to understand the reason why English exists as two different subjects. It was also important for me, as a future teacher of English, to get an overview of how different schools carry out this optional course.

This dissertation will be on, what in Swedish is called, “språkval Engelska”. I will call it Language Choice English further on in the text. Language Choice English is an option for students who feel that they need more support in English and in some cases Swedish. Instead of studying Spanish, German or French as Language Choice at secondary school there is an option to study English. Language Choice English is also called “reinforced English” since the intention actually is to reinforce English. In contrast to Language Choice Spanish, German or French, pupils do not get a separate grade in Language Choice English. They get their Language Choice grade as a part of their ordinary English grade.

The opinions about Language Choice English differ very much. Some teachers say that it is a fantastic help for students who feel that they cannot cope with a third language, this pertains especially to immigrant pupils. Moreover, it is perfectly suited for pupils, who really need to reinforce their English in order to meet the objectives.

Other teachers say that pupils take Language Choice English for tactical reasons. Some pupils even choose it in order to use it as a free period where it is accepted to relax and where they get the opportunity to talk to each other the whole lesson, instead of putting an effort into studying, learning and hopefully improving their English.

This is how it looks in practice. How does it look in theory? To be able to understand and get an overview of Language Choice I will provide you with background knowledge.

(5)

1.1 Background

In the curriculum from 1962 it was stated that English should be compulsory for four years in the Swedish Compulsory School. There were two different courses of English to choose between, namely a common and a special course. The special course was a requirement for continuous studies at upper secondary school. It was also in the 1962 curriculum it was decided that pupils should choose a compulsory B language to be studied for three years. The alternatives were German and French.1 This was later revised.

In the1969 curriculum, it was stated that English should from then on be compulsory from year three until year nine in Compulsory School. There were also changes concerning the B languages. The study hours for German and French were reduced. New for this curriculum was also that the students had an opportunity to choose a common or a special course in each of the B languages. It was also at this time that the requirements for a B language at the upper secondary school were abolished. As a reaction to this, common and special courses in the B languages were abolished. Another reaction to this was that there were now more subjects to choose from. Apart from German and French there was now an opportunity to choose also economy, art and technology. 2

In the 1980 curriculum the fairly new optional subjects from the 1969 curriculum were abolished. Left were only German and French. However, new optional subjects were introduced in form of local optional subject courses. These courses concentrated first and foremost on science and social science.3

In the 1994 curriculum it is stated that the 30-year-old decision of having common and special courses in English was to run out. Concerning B languages, in the 1994 curriculum, Spanish was introduced as an optional subject. Furthermore, instead of making the B languages compulsory the opportunity to reinforce and deepen the learning in English was offered.4 This is when Language Choice English was introduced.

1 Malmberg, Per, 2000, De moderna språken i grundskolan och gymnasieskolan från 1960 och framåt, 051110, http://skolverket.se

2 Sörensen Christer, 2000, Språkval i grundskolan, 051110,

http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/129;jsessionid=9D1B9BE56B77AA5D6E84AE4467352A10?searchword=Per+M almberg&page=search&website=

3 Sörensen, 2000:2 4 Per Malmberg, 2000:8

(6)

2 Purpose

The aim of this dissertation is to investigate how Language Choice English is organized from the perspective of teachers at four different secondary schools.

2.1 Questions

• How is Language Choice English organized at four different compulsory schools? • What do some teachers of English working with Language Choice think about its

merits and demerits?

3 Literature

Skolverket is a central authority for the public school for children, adolescents and adults in Sweden. Its role in the Swedish educational system is to define aims to rule, to inform to affect, to examine and to improve. Christer Sörensen wrote a text in 2000 on Skolverket’s account. The title of the text is Språkval i grundskolan. He describes the positive and negative effects of the compulsory Language Choice. He has based his study on three different schools at different locations in Sweden. One positive effect with compulsory language choice according to Sörensen is that more pupils study B languages. The biggest disadvantage is that more than 1/5 of the pupils change their language choice into Language Choice English. Per Malmberg’s De moderna språken i grundskolan och gymnasieskolan från 1960 och framåt has provided me with useful background information concerning the history of Language Choice. He describes the history of English and Language Choice in the Swedish Compulsory School and its effects.

The most recent curriculum for compulsory education, Lpo 94, entered into effect in 1994. The curriculum states the school’s fundamental values and basic objectives and guidelines. There are also nationally approved syllabus for the individual subjects. This is the most important steering document that the Swedish education system works with.

I have also used the Swedish parliament’s website on the Internet as a source. The website’s aim is among other things to provide personnel within the educational system with correct

(7)

information and knowledge about the parliament and other political matters concerning the educational system. The website has provided me with the Swedish Education Act, which will be very central further on in this dissertation. Some of the interviewees refer to the Education Act when discussing the problem with the large groups in Language Choice English. According to some teachers, one paragraph in the Education Act is what has caused the large groups. Their interpretation of that specific paragraph is that they cannot deny pupils to change into Language Choice English, hence the large groups. I also had a telephone conversation with the Department of Education, who helped me interpret the Swedish Education Act.

4 Method

I have used a qualitative research method in form of formal interviews. The interviewer is leading the interview and records it on a tape recorder. The questions in formal interviews are just guidelines for what you would like to ask, but the aim is to be lead by the interviewees’ answers. This means that follow-up questions to what the interviewees’ answers are being asked.5

In order to understand the art in doing qualitative research I have used Amos Hatch’s book

Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. He has summarized and given examples of

what to think of when doing, among other things, different kinds of interviews and observations. Another text touching qualitative research methods is Examensarbetet i

lärarutbildningen, written by Bo Johansson and Per Olov Svedner. This book has also been a

great help in planning qualitative interviews. I have also had very much use of the lecture notes from Jonas Aspelins lecture concerning interviews.

After having decided to make formal interviews, the next step was to formulate guiding questions. Since I used Hatch’s book as a guideline I took time to follow his advice of how to best formulate the interview questions. I designed 16 guiding questions. These were mainly general questions about Language Choice English at the chosen school.6 Such questions deals

5 Johansson Bo, Svedner, Examensarbetet i Lärarutbildningen, Uppsala: Kunskapsförlaget, 2004, p. 26 6 Hatch, Amos J, Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. New York: State University of New York Press, 2002, p.94

(8)

with matters as how Language Choice English is structured, how the school work with the subject and which the aims are for Language Choice English at the school.

To understand the meaning of Language Choice English at the different schools, I also asked questions which concern the pupils’ part of Language Choice in English. I wanted to know how many pupils change Language Choice into English, what demands there are from the school for agreeing on changing Language Choice and how the school follows up the pupils in Language Choice English in order to investigate if their skills in English have been reinforced?

The third important step in the process was to decide whom to interview. I have interviewed six different teachers at four different schools. The only demand I had when picking out interview persons was that they were teaching Language Choice English. Instead of selecting particular interviewees, I have selected schools, since I was interested in investigating how different schools in different areas and with different kinds of pupils work with Language Choice English. My main question in this dissertation is how different schools have organized Language Choice English. This is thus why I felt that the focus would have to be on the schools rather than on the persons being interviewed. I chose very different schools. Another reason for interviewing at different schools is that I do not want one school or one teacher to be identified. By carrying out interviews at four very different schools I had access to a very broad spectrum. I started out the interviews by introducing myself, presenting my dissertation and assured the interviewees that they and the schools would be anonymous.7

After each interview I carefully listen through the recorded interviews and transcribed the most essential parts of the material. This was the most time-consuming part of the research method. I used a typological analysis when analysing the interviews8. I used this method since I had constructed my guiding questions for the interviews so that the answers to those questions would mainly be on the matters I was interested in. This is why it was very easy to identify categories when analysing.

7 Aspelin, Jonas, Lecture notes 2005-09-15 8 Hatch 2002:

(9)

4.1 Selected Schools

School A is located in a small village, almost in the very centre of Skåne. According to one of the interviewed teachers, many of the pupils come from broken homes, where the educational level is very low. It is a very calm, small village where everyone knows everyone. Only 5% or less of the pupils are immigrants. Since I have contacts at this school, I visited them and set times for interviews with two different female teachers. Teacher A1 is in her early thirties and has only worked at the school for three and a half years. She has however been teaching Language Choice English from the beginning. Teacher A2 is in her early forties and has worked as a teacher of Swedish and English at the school for 19 years. She has taught the subject for only a few years.

School B is located in a fairly small town in the south-western part of Skåne. The school is fairly big with approximately 800 pupils from kindergarten to year nine. 30% of the pupils are well-integrated immigrants. The area in the town where the school is situated was formerly a working-class district. Nowadays families with academic education, families from the so-called working-class and immigrant families live in the area. School B has introduced something they call “language café,” which is intended for all the Language Choice languages. This means that the school has taken contact with foreign students at a university nearby. The foreign students come to the “language café” and take their time to sit down and talk to the pupils in their native tongue and on the pupils’ Language Choice language. This has become a great success. The pupils are very talented and are able to communicate in their Language Choice language. To appoint an interview at the school I simply called the school and asked for someone who teaches Language Choice English. I was introduced to teacher B1. She has worked at the school for 12 years. She is in her late fifties and she is a primarily teacher of Swedish as a second language but nowadays she works as teacher for pupils with impaired hearing/vision and physical disabilities

School C is located in the very south of Skåne. The school has approximately 360 pupils. Only 3 or 4% of these are immigrants. The school is located in a residential area. There is one other secondary school in the town, which is located closer to the centre. Many pupils prefer this school because of the fact that it is closely situated to the city. According to the interviewed teacher many so called slow learners attend school C. To set interview time, I

(10)

called the school and asked for a teacher of Language Choice English. Teacher C1 is in his early thirties and has worked as an English and music teacher at the school for seven years.

School D is located in a very big city in the south-western part of Skåne. This school has received awards for their work with Language Choice English. The school is situated in an immigrant dense area and 98% of the 250 pupils at secondary school are immigrants. I had heard about this school from a contact of mine who also told me that they have received an international award for their Language Choice English. I called the school and asked for someone who teaches Language Choice English. I came in contact with teacher D1 who unfortunately does not teach Language Choice English at the moment but she did at the time when they received the award. Moreover, she was one of the three teachers who worked out the design of the Language Choice English, which they received the award for. She has worked at the school as a teacher of Swedish and English for six years. She also helped me set time for an interview with teacher D2 who actually teaches Language Choice English at the moment. He is in his early thirties and has worked as a teacher of English at the school for two years.

5 Result and Analysis

The result is divided into two parts. The first part concerns the school’s organization and the teachers’ opinion of Language Choice English. The second part refers to the teachers’ opinions about the merits and demerits with Language Choice English.

5.1. School A

School A is a small school in a small village where only 5% or less of the pupils are immigrants.

5.1.1 Organization

In ninth grade at school A, there are two Language Choice English groups with 20 pupils in each group. In grade eight there were approximately 12 pupils in each group. Malmberg says

(11)

that every fourth pupil in compulsory school change their B Language Choice into English.9 Teacher A1 informs me that the groups more than double from grade six until grade nine. The main reason for this is what she calls a tactical choice. She thinks that many pupils change Language Choice into English in order to be able to study modern languages for beginners at upper secondary school. Other motives for changing Language Choice is that the pupils have lost their study motivation for another third language or that they risk not meeting the criteria for pass and that they actually need to reinforce their English. The groups consist of so-called slow learners and pupils who are very good at English but who do not want to study another B language. This confirms what Sörensen says about the problems with the heterogeneous groups in Language Choice English. He mentions in his study, that teachers’ opinions are that 1/3 of the pupils in the groups have no need for choosing Language Choice English. This makes it harder for the teachers to give the pupils, who actually need extra support, a suitable teaching.10 The real need for Language Choice English is much lower than shown in the large

groups at school A. Teacher A2 estimates that the real need is only three or four in each class.

When changing Language Choice, the pupil fills in a form with their parents’ permission and hands it in to the director of studies. Occasionally, he discusses the possible change with the responsible teacher.

“Ibland frågar studierektorn läraren i språket, men det är bara ibland. Sedan är bytet gjort.”(Teacher A2)

(Occasionally the director of studies asks the teacher in the language, but only sometimes. Then the change is done.)

The director of studies makes the final decision. Since he is not imformed about the pupils’ capability and he does not ask the teachers involved for advice, he lets the pupils change Language Choice into English. Because of that, the groups are too large and there are too many levels in the pupils’ knowledge in the group. Teacher A2 claims that there is nothing that can be done about the large groups since, according to the Education Act; the school is not allowed to deny pupils changing Language Choice. In contrast, teacher A1 means that the teachers do have an influence when pupils want to change into Language Choice English. She also thinks that if the teachers did not have an influence on Language Choice changes, the groups would be enormously large. According to teacher A2, they already are.

9 Malmberg, 2000: 9 10 Sörensen, 2000:14

(12)

Another negative factor is that it is not possible to have the same teacher in both Language Choice English and ordinary English, since there are pupils from different classes choosing Language Choice English, which is a very big disadvantage according to teacher A2. She also thinks that there are no differences in the status between the different Language Choices since so many pupils choose Language Choice English nowadays. Prior, Language Choice English had a very low status and was considered as an easy way out. Moreover, it was only the new teachers who taught Language Choice English. Teacher A1 believes that this is still a fact. She thinks that the status of Language Choice English is very low.

“Man ser det som någon slappelektion, att på språkvalet behöver man inte jobba.”(Teacher A1)

(Pupils consider Language Choice lessons to be slack time, on these lessons they do not have to work.)

At school A the different Language Choice teachers organize their own Language Choice English. Teacher A1 lets the pupils decide what they want to work with themselves. She feels that she has not put enough effort into the Language Choice lessons.

“Jag känner att mina språkvalslektioner skulle kunna vara mycket bättre än de är.”(Teacher A1) (I feel that my Language Choice lessons could be much better than they are.)

Teacher A2 and the pupils plan together what to work with during the lessons. None of the teachers use textbooks since the agreement on the school is that they will not use an extra book in Language Choice English and they will not give pupils homework. Apart from this there is not much cooperation between the Language Choice teachers. Both teacher A1 and teacher A2 are of the opinion that it would be the best for both pupils and teachers if they had the same teacher in both Language Choice English and the ordinary English. If so, the teachers can pinpoint the pupils’ weaknesses and know what they need help with in order to reinforce their English.

Teacher A1 and teacher A2 think that it affects the pupils negatively that they do not get a separate grade in Language Choice English. This influences both their motivation and their achievement since grading put pressure on the pupils.

”Det blir ju mer press med betyg.” (Teacher A2) (There is bigger pressure with grades.)

(13)

A problem at the school is that there is no natural discussion between the teachers in ordinary English and Language Choice English concerning reporting the pupils’ achievement, since the teachers do not work in the same team. No evaluation has been done regarding whether the pupils’ English skills have improved as a result of the Language Choice. No evaluation has been carried out in order to improve the organization of Language Choice English.

5.1.2 Merits and Demerits

The advantage with Language Choice English is the possibility to reach the pupils who risk not getting a grade in English. Language Choice English gives slow learners extra time, extra help and an extra chance to work with English. The disadvantages, however, are that too much time is spent on what teacher A2 calls child minding, that the groups are too large and that it has become an easy way out. In Sörensens interviews with pupils they admit that the lessons are “slack” and that they use the lessons to relax. They also mention that they often are disorderly and that there are no demands on them to interact during the lessons. Sörensen mentions truancy and late arrivals.11 This confirms very much teacher A2’s description and

opinion about Language Choice English.

To make Language Choice English better, teacher A1’s opinion is that there should be a possibility to choose practical subjects as well as theoretical. Not all pupils are suited to study languages, especially not pupils who are already weak in the theoretical subjects. Teacher A2 suggests reinforcement in all the core subjects and that only the pupils who really need reinforcement should be allowed to study it. Another important step is to make it possible for the pupils to have the same teacher in both Language Choice English and ordinary English.

5.2 School B

School B is situated in a fairly small town in a former working-class district. 30% of the 800 pupils who attend the school are well-integrated immigrants.

(14)

5.2.1 Organization

A few years ago, school B changed the organization in Language Choice. The cause behind this was that there was a mismanagement of the subject since it was open for the pupils themselves to choose Language Choice English. As a consequence of this, the laziest pupils chose English as Language Choice because there was no grade given in the subject.

”[…] de som var latast valde detta eftersom de visste att här var det inga betyg.” (Teacher B1)

( […]those who chose the subject were the laziest pupils because they knew that they would not be graded in Language Choice English.)

When the school changed the organization they decided that pupils would not be allowed to make the choice. The teachers pick out the pupils who need Language Choice English. Thanks to this system they do not have any problems with large groups, as pupils cannot choose Language Choice English. Changing is only allowed if special circumstances occur. This system is similar to the situation in one of the schools, described in Sörensen’s report where they also have the tradition of not allowing changes if no special reasons are given. This school has, thanks to this, in principle no pupils at all who have given up French, Spanish or German.12 The pupils who actually are picked out to study Language Choice

English at school B are those who are very weak in English, or immigrants who have just arrived and have not learned the Swedish language properly yet. Both pupils and their parents know that it is not possible to choose English as Language Choice and have accepted it. Teacher B1 claims that the real need for Language Choice English is provided for.

At school B, it is the teachers for pupils with impaired hearing/vision and physical disabilities who teaches Language Choice English. Teacher B1 regards this as a disadvantage since it takes too many resources from the special education. Moreover, the teachers for pupils with impaired hearing/vision and physical disabilities are not educated English teachers and teacher B1 also considers this as a very big drawback. The best scenario would be that the pupils had the same teacher in both Language Choice English and the ordinary English. If so, the teacher could pinpoint the pupils’ weaknesses and know what to push on.

According to teacher B1, the teachers organize their own Language Choice but since there are only one class for each grade there is no need for cooperation between the teachers. School B

(15)

uses a textbook in Language Choice English, which is called Wildcard and is designed especially for the subject. The teacher plans what the pupils will work with during the lessons. However, even if a textbook is used during the lessons, the teacher varies the lessons from time to time partly because the groups vary and partly because variation is needed to make the lessons more profitable. Teacher B1 tries to reinforce the pupils’ English, support them in their ordinary English and adapts the lessons to the pupils. Much of the responsibility lies on the teacher, but the pupils have to take responsibility for their learning themselves.

“Vi försöker göra klart för eleverna att på de här lektionerna får du liksom tre timmar engelska till och då gäller det att använda den tiden att bättra på din ordinarie Engelska.” (Teacher B1)

(We try to make it clear for the pupils that they receive three extra lessons per week and then it is up to them to use that time to improve their English.)

Teacher B1 believes that it would influence the pupils positively if they had a separate grade in Language Choice. She means that it is obvious that grades increase the pupils’ performance and also their motivation. Even so, she claims that the school has made it clear for the pupils that their performances in Language Choice English are used as a complement to the ordinary English grading. No evaluation has been done in order to investigate whether the pupils’ English has been reinforced. Teacher B1 says that their kind of evaluation is that the pupils’ ordinary English teacher declares that the pupils English have improved and that they can meet the criteria for pass. No proper evaluation concerning the subject has been done.

5.2.2 Merits and Demerits

Teacher B1 considers the benefits of Language Choice English to be that it is a preventive measure for pupils who risk not meeting the objectives for pass in English. The disadvantages at school B is first and foremost that it is not educated English teachers who teach Language Choice English.

“Det är en nackdel för eleverna eftersom jag inte är utbildad språklärare, så det hade nog varit bättre tror jag.” (Teacher B1)

(I think it is a disadvantage for the pupils since I am not an educated language teacher, so I think it would have been better.)

Teacher B1 is of the opinion that to make Language Choice English optimal there should be, as mentioned before, educated English teachers. She thinks that Language Choice English

(16)

functions very well at school B since it is all the teachers around the pupils who assess which pupil to be picked for Language Choice English.

5.3 School C

School C is located in a fairly small town in the very south of Sweden. According to teacher C1, the school has an average of slow learners, which in turn affect the teaching somewhat in some subjects. Out of the 360 pupils only 3-4% are immigrants.

5.3.1 Organization

At school C there is, in grade nine, two Language Choice English groups with 16 pupils in each group. In grade seven and eight there is one group for each grade with between 15 – 25 pupils per group. The groups are large and the amount of pupils taking Language Choice English increases for each year.

“Grupperna är för stora och det funkar liksom inte.”(Teacher C1) (The groups are too large and because of that it does not work.)

Language Choice English is for those who decide not to choose French, German or Spanish in sixth grade. However, they are advised by their intermediate teacher what to choose. Even so, many pupils are what teacher C1 calls, stubborn because they choose Language Choice English even if they are good at English. Language Choice English is therefore used to both deepen and reinforce their knowledge in English. Teacher C1 admits that even if it is used to deepen there are no resources for those who choose to do it, since all the resources are given to the slow learners who risk not meeting the objectives for pass in English.

When changing Language Choice into English, the pupils fill in a form where they inform what they would rather study. The note is then handed over to the teacher in the present Language Choice who formulates an opinion about the pupil. Next step is to hand the note over to the receptive teacher who writes down his or her opinion about the pupil. Finally it is handed in to the principal who makes the decision. Teacher C1 says that the problem here is that even if every teacher involved is of the opinion that there are no motives for the pupil to change Language Choice, they have no right to deny a pupil to change Language Choice into English.

(17)

“Någonstans i alla skollagars paragrafer finns det säkert någonting om att de faktiskt har rätt att byta som de vill.” (Teacher C1)

(In the paragraphs of the Education Act there is surely something about pupils’ right to change as they please.)

Teacher C1 also admits that the issue of changing Language Choice into English is brought up at every school conference. The same issue is mentioned in Sörensens report, where he claims that re-elections concerning Language Choice is a constant topic for discussion in schools13.

Teacher C1 thinks that it is positive to have the same teacher in ordinary English and Language Choice English. However, this is not possible at school C due to the organization of the ordinary English. Teacher C1 believes that the status of Language Choice English is fairly low even if many pupils choose it and the groups have grown bigger for each year. He also says that the real need for pupils who choose Language Choice English is around 2/3 in each group.

The teacher in Language Choice English plans the lessons at school C. The lessons are fairly detached from each other even if they require a sense of structure. Teacher C1 has made an agreement with his pupils that one day a week they work with grammar, next day is reserved for computer activities and the third lesson is open for oral exercises or such. By structuring the lessons like this, the pupils know what to expect out of every lesson.

Teacher C1 suspects that grades affect pupils very much, especially if they do not understand that learning is for their own benefit. He believes that not getting a separate grade in Language Choice English affects the motivation as well. Moreover, there is no clear syllabus for the subject since the grading is part of the ordinary English grade and that the syllabus for English is used for Language Choice English as well.14 In order to maintain the pupils’

motivation, school C has decided to retain vocabulary tests and grammar tests also in Language Choice. School C use a so-called Book of English in Language Choice English where the pupils collect their vocabulary tests, grammar tests and essays during the semester. This book is handed over to the ordinary English teacher as a form of report from the Language Choice English teacher.

13 Sörensen, 2000:12

(18)

No proper evaluation has been done in order to investigate whether the pupils’ English skills have improved. At the end of every semester there is a form of evaluation carried out which focuses on what will be worked on during the following term. This evaluation is not reliable since many pupils reveal what they would like to do rather than what they need to practice on. School C has not evaluated the organization of Language Choice English during the time it has been active at the school. They do evaluate the languages as subjects every year and there have been suggestions about how to change Language Choice English in order to improve.

5.3.2 Merits and Demerits

The benefits with Language Choice English are that pupils who require help in English actually do receive extra help. Another advantage is that the lessons are very independent which in turn make the pupils very free to practice on what they need. Teacher C1 thinks that the greatest disadvantage with Language Choice English is that it is dedicated to English only. To make Language Choice better, teacher C1 suggests that those pupils who do not pass the national tests in the core subjects, in fifth grade, should get the opportunity to choose reinforced English, Swedish and mathematics. This in turn would change Language Choice English into core subject support, open for those who fail to pass the national test in fifth grade. This is a fundamental problem at a parliamentary level according to teacher C1.

“Detta är ju ett stort problem på riksdagsnivå och de enda som kan lösa problemet är riksdagen. (Teacher C1)

(This is a problem at a parliamentary level and the problem can only be solved by the parliament.)

5.4 School D

School D is located in a very big city in the south-western part of Skåne. The school is situated in an immigrant dense area. 98% of the 250 pupils are immigrants. The school has received an award for their Language Choice English.

5.4.1 Organization

In seventh grade, 35 out of 75 pupils study Language Choice English. The other groups in grade eight and grade nine are slightly smaller which means approximately 25 pupils in each

(19)

group. The design of Language Choice English at school D focuses on a general perspective and with a main thread throughout the three years at secondary school. In each grade, the teachers plan one theme for each semester, which is dealt with during the whole semester. This gives the pupils a sense of structure, which is needed in a Language Choice English group according to teacher D1. Teacher D2 does not think that the fact that there are many immigrant pupils has affected their way of planning and structuring the lessons.

In grade six, the pupils choose between the different Language Choices the school offers. During secondary school many pupils reconsider and want to change Language Choice into English. Teacher D2 says that the pupils want to change out of convenience because their present Language Choice is too difficult or that they simply have to exert themselves. When changing Language Choice into English, the pupils talk to the responsible teachers and they, in turn, talk to the director of studies. The main rule at the school is that only those who risk not getting a grade in their present Language Choice are allowed to change.

“Det funkar inte om en elev hellre vill sitta på språkval Engelska av ren bekvämlighet, det känns liksom inte så motiverat.”(Teacher D1)

(It does not work if a pupil rather wants to sit in on Language Choice English simply out of convenience, it does not feel very motivated.)

Both teacher D1 and teacher D2 think that Language Choice English has a high status at the school. It is not a so-called “easy way out” according to teacher D1. This is thanks to the design of the subject at the school. The teachers have exerted themselves to create something constant. There is also a kernel of Language Choice English as a very important subject, which ought to have a high status. This attitude reflects the teachers’ attitude, which in turn signals to the pupils that it actually is an important subject.

Language Choice English and ordinary English is linked closely to each other and this is what increase the pupils’ motivation at school D. There are always two teachers per Language Choice English group, and at least one of them is also teacher in ordinary English. Teacher D2 believes that pupils feel that if they perform well in Language Choice English they can actually get a grade in ordinary English. Both teacher D1 and teacher D2 are of the opinion that it works very well, not giving a separate grade in Language Choice English since the pupils know that the two subjects are linked to each other. No evaluation has been done in order to investigate if the pupils’ English skills have improved. Teacher D2 considers such an

(20)

evaluation impossible to accomplish. According to Sörensen there has never been inquired if the language abilities have improved as a result of Language Choice English.15 Both teacher D1 and teacher D2 regard creating meaningfulness and having an option except from Spanish and German, more interesting than evaluating the pupils’ performances.

“Det är viktigare att göra det meningsfullt sen huruvida det höjer betygen eller inte känns inte så meningsfullt att utvärdera.”(Teacher D2)

(It is more important to make it meaningful than to raise the grades.)

Neither an evaluation concerning the function of Language Choice English has been done other than when the three teachers prepared and changed Language Choice English into what it is today.

5.4.2 Merits and Demerits

The advantages with Language Choice English are that the pupils are not forced to study a third language since not all are suited for it. This pertains especially to immigrant pupils who already have a mother tongue as well as Swedish and English as school subjects. Another advantage is that those pupils, who need help, receive more help. Teacher D1 thinks that the disadvantages at many other schools are that Language Choice English is considered as a form of an easy way out, where the lazy pupils do nothing. The status is very low at many schools and the general view of those studying Language Choice English is that they are not intelligent enough, not good enough and that the Language Choice groups are only what teacher D1 refers to as a negative selection. Both teacher D1 and teacher D2 do not think that this is the fact at school D, rather the opposite. The status is high and only those who risk not meeting the objectives for pass or those who actually need extra support in general in English are allowed to study Language Choice English.

“Om man jämför med andra skolor så har språkval Engelska en hög status, det är inget skitämne, det är liksom ingen slaskhink.” (Teacher D1)

(If you compare with other schools, Language Choice English has a high status at our school; it is not a crappy subject, it is not an easy way out.)

To make Language Choice English optimal, both teacher D1 and teacher D2 believe that it is necessary for teachers to cooperate with each other and use each other as sounding boards.

(21)

The teachers at school D are satisfied with their Language Choice English design and agree that it functions well.

5.5 Summary, Results and Analysis

School A and C have a very similar Language Choice English organization. When pupils want to change Language Choice, the procedure is very similar between the two schools. The schools cannot refuse pupils the right to change Language Choice into English. In contrast, school B and school D, also have fairly the same organization but their principle is that pupils are selected for Language Choice English. Thus not everyone is allowed to choose Language Choice in English. The similarity of the four schools is that pupils who want to change into Language Choice English are first and foremost those who have met difficulties in their present Language Choice and those who want to change in convenience.

Concerning the lesson planning, all four schools are organized in different ways. At school B and C the teachers plan the lessons, but in school B the instructor is not an educated language teacher. All the three other schools have educated English teachers, teaching Language Choice English. However, it is only at school D that they have the ordinary English teacher teaching Language Choice as well. School D also differs from the other schools by having two teachers per Language Choice group. School C and school D exert themselves to structure the lessons through thematic plans.

Four of the teachers believe that the pupils’ motivation would increase if they received a separate grade in Language Choice. Also the pupils’ achievement would be affected for the better. School D believes that letting the pupils know that ordinary English and Language Choice English are bound to each other functions to increase their motivation. None of the schools have done evaluations to investigate if the pupils’ English skills have improved, nor have the schools evaluated the design of the present Language Choice English organization.

All teachers believe that the advantage with Language Choice is that those pupils who actually need extra support in English and those who risk not meeting the objectives for pass are given extra support. The disadvantages are at some schools that the groups are too large and the subject is looked upon as an easy way out.

(22)

6 Discussion

The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate how Language Choice English is organized from the perspective of teachers at four different secondary schools. I have also looked into what some of the teachers think about the subject’s merits and demerits.

It is obvious from the interviews that some schools are not satisfied with the way Language Choice English is carried out. This is due to a number of reasons. The status of Language Choice English is fairly low at some schools and it affects both the teachers and the pupils. Teachers do not like to teach in Language Choice English and this reluctance influences the lessons.

More effort is put into the Language Choice English lesson planning when the teachers actually want to teach in the subject. At school D, teachers have really exerted themselves to plan ahead and give meaning and structure to the lessons. The lesson plans are well structured and run from the first semester in grade seven until the last semester in grade nine. There is a clear progression throughout the three years. This makes Language Choice English function well and has even given the school an international award. The teachers use each other to cooperate and exchange ideas. At the other schools there is very little cooperation between the teachers, which influence the pupils negatively. At school A there is no sense of structure of the Language Choice lessons. From my interviews I learned that those schools that are the most positive to Language Choice English are the schools with well-structured lessons with big ongoing themes. These are also the schools where they have many immigrant pupils. Teacher D2 says that they have structured the lessons for all Language Choice pupils, not only for immigrant pupils, in order to get as much out of the subject as possible. In other words, it is feasible to structure the lessons and make the subject meaningful in schools with fewer immigrant pupils as well. Many Language Choice English groups are very heterogeneous. To make the subject meaningful to all individuals in the same group, the idea of having big themes throughout the whole semester sounds reasonable. Regardless of the pupils’ knowledge, all of them would be engaged in the theme, work at their own speed and put as much effort into the project as they are capable of.

The fact that many pupils change Language Choice into English also affects the low status of the subject. With many pupils taking English as Language Choice, the groups have grown

(23)

very large. As a result of this, the main function to reinforce English has gone lost. This is indeed alarming since for those who actually need to reinforce their English, there are not enough resources. At some schools, the Language Choice English groups are so large and so heterogeneous that there is no time for the pupils whom the teaching really is meant for.16 There has become mismanagement within Language Choice English when too many pupils choose it out of the wrong reasons. Due to laziness, convenience and tactical choices, pupils are still allowed to change. This seems to be the biggest demerit with Language Choice English.

The four schools differ in the matter of how pupils go about when they want to change Language Choice. School A and school C mean that they cannot deny a pupil to change into Language Choice English and refers to the Education Act. Their interpretation of the Education Act is that they cannot deny pupils to change into Language Choice English no matter what reason the pupils refer to. Still, school B and school D actually do deny pupils to change Language Choice into English, although they work with the same steering document.

“§2 Alla barn och ungdomar skall, oberoende av kön, geografiskt hemvist samt sociala och ekonomiska förhållanden, ha lika tillgång till utbildning i det offentliga skolväsendet för barn

och ungdom[…]”17

(§2 All children and adolescents shall, independent from gender, geographical domicile and social and economical conditions, have the same access to education in the official schooling for children.)

School A and school C has interpreted this paragraph similarly. They believe that they are under no circumstances allowed to deny pupils to change into Language Choice English. According to Ingrid Lindskog at the department of Education, the so-called right interpretation of this paragraph is that schools are under no circumstances allowed to force a pupil to study another language. Lindskog says thus that schools may deny pupils to change Language Choice into English if they are able to learn another language, but they cannot be forced to choose a particular language to study as Language Choice.18 However, the pupils have an obligation to choose a Language Choice.19. Both Teacher C1 and teacher A2 consider the main problem with large groups impossible to solve, since they have interpreted the

16 Sörensen, 2000:17

17 Riksdagen, 2005: Organization (051114)

www.riksdagen.se

18 Lindskog, Ingrid, 2005, Oral telephone conversation, the Department of Education, 051114 19 Sörensen, 2000:5

(24)

Education Act in a similar way. If school A and school C adapt the interpretation of the Department of Education, the problem with large groups will be solved.

School D and school B have strengthened the status of Language Choice English. They have given the subject meaningfulness and value. At school B, the pupils feel that they gain much by working hard in Language Choice English since the pupils see, notice and show what they have learned in the “language café”. This increases their motivation and achievement. The organization at school D functions as a motivation increaser in itself thanks to the structure, status and meaningfulness which they also received the award for. The pupils feel that there is a value in Language Choice English and that it is an important subject. This reveals that schools, teachers and pupils gain very much by exerting themselves into making Language Choice English funnier and more meaningful for both teachers and pupils. Teachers have to take their responsibility to make it become meaningful.

The interviewed teachers think that the merits with Language Choice English are first and foremost that it functions as a preventive measure for those who risk not meeting the objectives in English, the so-called slow learners who require extra support in English do receive extra help and support in English. At school D which is a very immigrant dense school, the teachers believe that Language Choice English gives an option for the students who cannot cope to study a fourth language. Teacher A1 suggests practical subjects as options since not all pupils are cut out for theoretical subjects such as languages. As mentioned in the introduction, the parliament chose to create Language Choice English, in order not to make Language Choice compulsory. In addition, a B language is more or less compulsory. Obviously there are weaknesses in the decision of making B languages compulsory. There are no demands at upper secondary school for having studied a B language at secondary school. Why make B languages compulsory at secondary school then? Why is there not an opportunity to choose practical subjects for those who would prefer to study that kind of subject? If there were more options with theoretical subjects as well as practical subjects to choose between, perhaps there would not be as many pupils changing Language Choice into English. I believe that this would solve the problem with Language Choice being looked upon, as an easy way out and it would also give those who really need extra support in English more time and help.

(25)

Teacher C1 and teacher A2 think that it is a great disadvantage that Language Choice English is exclusively for those who require extra support in English only. They both mean it would be better if those pupils who do not pass the national tests in fifth grade, could get the opportunity to choose reinforced English, Swedish and mathematics. This in turn would change Language Choice English into core subject support, open for those who fail to pass the national test in fifth grade. It is a very qualified suggestion since many pupils who are weak in Swedish or English also are weak in social science subjects as well as in other core subjects. This is a well-known problem according to Sörensen.

“Elever med behov av särskilt stöd i matematik och naturvetenskapliga ämnen har inte samma möjlighet att få hjälp och stöd som eleverna med motsvarande behov i svenska och engelska.”20

(Students who require special support in mathematics and nature science do not have the same opportunity to receive help and support as students with corresponding needs in Swedish and English.)

This is a problem at a parliamentary level, which unfortunately is impossible to solve without the permission from the parliament.

Yet another demerit with the organization of Language Choice English at the different schools seems to be that at some schools there is no possibility for the pupils to have the same teacher in both Language Choice English and ordinary English. All six teachers I have interviewed have claimed that it would be only positive to have the same teacher in the two closely related subjects. Some of the teachers believe that it is not possible to introduce that in the organization at their schools due to too few resources. It would be more natural for the pupils to see a main thread between the subjects if they had the same teacher in both subjects. As mentioned above, it would also be more obvious that the two subjects were related concerning the grading. School B is the only school where the teacher is a teacher for pupils with impaired hearing/vision and physical disabilities. I think that to have a non-educated English teacher teaching Language Choice English is as big disadvantage as to have unauthorized teachers in any other subject. This is a constant topic at our schools today where many unauthorized teachers are employed. This also reflects that the subject is not important since there is no need of having educated teachers.

It would affect pupils’ motivation if they had the same teachers in both subjects, since they would see the relation between subjects in a clearer way. It would also be the best scenario if

(26)

the pupils had a separate grade in Language Choice English since it would affect both their motivation and their achievement. Some pupils in Sörensens report would also like to have a separate grade in Language Choice English since they would work better and put more effort into the subject. 21 Pupils would probably gain more by having the same teacher in both subjects. They would notice that English and Language Choice English are bound closely to each other in a clearer way which in turn would make the pupils see the connection between the subjects and the grading It would however be hard to motivate two separate grades in English and Language Choice English, which are practically one and the same subject.

None of the schools have done evaluations concerning the use and the design of Language Choice English. Nor have evaluations been done, in order to investigate if the pupils’ English skills have improved on any of the schools. This is remarkable. Language Choice English was introduced in 1994 when the new curriculum was launched. Since then, no evaluation has been carried out at any of the four schools. This could be the reason why some schools have not made any changes in their Language Choice English organization since they introduced the subject at the school.

6.1 Proposals

I believe the following pinpoints are very good advice from the interviewed teachers, which I and hopefully other teachers will gain much from by following.

• Language Choice English should only be for those who require extra support in English and for those who risk not meeting the objectives for pass in English.

• Schools are allowed to deny pupils Language Choice English; they are however not allowed to force pupils to choose a particular Language Choice.

• Try to organize Language Choice English in such way that the pupils have the same teacher in both Language Choice English and ordinary English. Preferably, there should be two teaching teachers in each Language Choice English group.

• Increase the status of the subject and make Language Choice English meaningful for both pupils and teachers

• Structure the lessons by, among other things, planning ongoing big themes which run over a longer period of time. Give Language Choice English a vision of entirety.

(27)

• Let teachers work as a team to be able to cooperate and exchange ideas.

It is important to bear in mind these basic important proposals concerning Language Choice English to make it as meaningful and successful as possible.

6.2 Final words

I have been questioning Language Choice English as a subject after having seen only malfunctioning lessons as a student teacher. This has made me very critical towards the subject. I have however changed opinion during the work with this dissertation. I have learned that not all Language Choice English organizations are malfunctioning. Out of the interviews with the teachers at the schools where Language Choice English actually works well I have got ideas of how to work successfully with the subject and how to make it an important and meaningful subject. The fact is that Language Choice English does not work well at some schools and it is important for such schools to find new angles of approach to make it functional. It is also important to be open for new ideas in order to make Language Choice English an important and meaningful subject.

6.3 Critical reflections

The reliability in the interviews can be questioned. I had the feeling during some interviews that the interviewees did not want to reveal, first and foremost, Language Choice English’s demerits because of the fear of taking the responsibility for the demerits and being criticised. Hence, some of the answers were not consequent. Although the interviews gave me a very good insight into how Language Choice English is organized at the four different schools.

I have lacked research material and previous studies while working on my dissertation. It surprises me that not more research has been done concerning Language Choice English since it has been present as a subject at secondary school for more than ten years. Since the subject is a controversial matter, it should be as important and interesting to do research on Language Choice English as other subjects in secondary school.

(28)

Appendix

Guiding Questions

1. Hur är språkval Engelska utformat på din skola? 2. Hur ser strukturen ut?

3. Hur ser en typisk språkval Engelska lektion ut?

4. Hur många elever väljer språkval Engelska från början?

5. Hur många byter till spv. Eng? (från Franska? Tyska? Spanska) 6. Vad krävs för att få byta?

7. Vilka argument finns för att få byta?

8. Hur är synen på spv. Eng i förhållande till spanska, franska eller tyska? 9. Hur tror du det påverkar att eleverna inte får separat betyg i spv. Eng? 10. Hur stort är det egentliga behovet av spv. Eng?

11. Hur följer man upp eleverna för att undersöka om engelskan har förstärkts? 12. Vad är syftet med spv. Eng på skolan?

13. Vilka anser du är fördelarna och nackdelarna med spv. Eng?

14. Vilka är för och nackdelarna med att ha samma lärare i ordinarie eng. och spv. Eng? 15. Har utformningen sett likadan ut sedan starten?

16. Har det gjorts ngn utvärdering ang. utformningen på spv?

(29)

References

Written sources

Hatch, Amos J, Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. New York: State University of New York Press, 2002

Johansson, Per and Svedner, Per Olov, Examensarbetet i Lärarutbildningen, Uppsala: Kunskapsförlaget, 2004

Internet sources

Malmberg, Per, 2000, De moderna språken i grundskolan och gymnasieskolan från 1960 och

framåt, 051110

http://www.skolverket.se

Riksdagen, Organisation 051114 http://www.riksdagen.se

Sörensen, Christer, 2000, Språkval i grundskolan, 051110 http://www.skolverket.se

Oral sources

Lindskog, Ingrid, Utbildningsdepartementet, 2005: muntl. Telefonsamtal 051114 Aspelin, Jonas, 2005: muntl. Föreläsning 050915

References

Related documents

We recommend to the annual meeting of shareholders that the income statements and balance sheets of the parent company and the group be adopted, that the profit of the parent company

46 Konkreta exempel skulle kunna vara främjandeinsatser för affärsänglar/affärsängelnätverk, skapa arenor där aktörer från utbuds- och efterfrågesidan kan mötas eller

Coad (2007) presenterar resultat som indikerar att små företag inom tillverkningsindustrin i Frankrike generellt kännetecknas av att tillväxten är negativt korrelerad över

So, even if Quirk (1991) may be right in that the most important thing is to aim for a near-native proficiency that would give students the necessary tool for advancement –

The frequency of the words is not the same in the newspapers (corpus) as it is on the Internet (Google). Podcasting comes second. This is not so surprising since the two words are

Today, there is, of course, a written difference between the genitive singular, the plural, and the genitive plural (for example eye’s, eyes.. and eyes’), and there are a few words

The teachers at School 1 as well as School 2 all share the opinion that the advantages with the teacher choosing the literature is that they can see to that the students get books

The teacher tries not to intervene in the language learning process and when observing the content signals and how often they appear in the syllabi, one can see how frequently they