Mr. Paul Caffrey:

I was interested to hear Deputy O'Brien's comment on the learning of French. In a newspaper recently a parent asked how it is that a person who gets a B at higher level French cannot go into a shop and ask for a loaf of bread. The parent finished by saying that instead of taking down lists of French verbs and writing postcards to imaginary pen-friends, pupils should spend their time in class speaking and chatting in French and trying out their skills. I hope schools harness new technologies, such as Skype, in imaginative ways to expose students to the real business of language expression and communication rather than the current business of getting through the leaving certificate exam.

As an inspector, I am aware of the challenge there is in moving from the traditional style, which in the worst case scenario is based on teaching through English, with a heavy, grammar-translation approach. However, we also see very exciting things happening in terms of communicative language teaching and the move is in that direction and technology is helping. I was in a school in west Dublin last year where I saw a fifth year second level group Skype colleagues in an exchange school in the north of Italy. This is happening. The post primary languages initiative has, through its website, made some very good video clips available to encourage teachers to teach more through the target language. There is also a Facebook page promoting this. There is a move in that direction.

It is important to point out that assessment can sometimes be the tail that wags the dog. The oral examination at junior certificate level is optional currently and most schools do not do it. This is detrimental in terms of discouraging a truly communicative teaching approach. However, this is changing and some schools are offering a junior certificate oral, prioritising an oral exam. The situation is similar with regard to Irish and now 40% of the marks go to the leaving certificate oral exam. Both teachers and students would say there has been a definite shift in emphasis towards a more communicative style of teaching. When inspectors are in classrooms, this is one of the key factors they consider, at both primary and post-primary level. They are looking to see whether the style of teaching is communicative and whether material is being taught through the target language.

Students must also have the real opportunity to use the language. Learning a language is not like being given a body of knowledge to be retained. It is more like learning to drive a car or play a sport. Often students do not get the opportunity to practise and it can be difficult in a big class to create real communicative opportunities. A movement called content and language integrated learning, CLIL, simply means teaching another subject through Irish, French or whatever. This used to happen to a significant extent, particularly in primary schools in the past when subjects like music, art or history were taught through Irish. The same could be done through French or another foreign language if we had teachers who were graduates in a language and another subject. Transition year provides a possibility for this. Unless students are given opportunities to use the language in a communicative way, either through technology, group work in class or through using the language for everyday communication outside of the language class, the pull of simply being satisfied with being able to tick the boxes and do the right things in the exam is huge.

Unless there are opportunities to practice, there is no language development. That is the reason many of us here for example, who had very good levels of Irish, French or whatever leaving school, would find it difficult to conduct the business of this committee through that language. That is simply because we are out of practice.