No Cover Image

Journal article 383 views 124 downloads

Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages

Jim Milton Orcid Logo

The Language Learning Journal, Volume: 50, Issue: 2, Pages: 156 - 171

Swansea University Author: Jim Milton Orcid Logo

  • 60156.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © 2022 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License

    Download (1.52MB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1080/09571736.2022.2045680

Abstract

This paper reviews the vocabulary section of Ofsted's Curriculum Research Review of Languages (2021). It begins with a reality check and observes that while the review talks confidently of learners achieving expert levels of knowledge and performance, current learner levels are nowhere near exp...

Full description

Published in: The Language Learning Journal
ISSN: 0957-1736 1753-2167
Published: Informa UK Limited 2022
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa60156
first_indexed 2022-06-08T13:13:40Z
last_indexed 2026-05-09T04:27:39Z
id cronfa60156
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2026-05-08T11:23:34.4686259</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>60156</id><entry>2022-06-08</entry><title>Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted&#x2019;s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>7d251e1952cec9d77ed4fc21346fec8d</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-0446-1149</ORCID><firstname>Jim</firstname><surname>Milton</surname><name>Jim Milton</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2022-06-08</date><deptcode>LLML</deptcode><abstract>This paper reviews the vocabulary section of Ofsted's Curriculum Research Review of Languages (2021). It begins with a reality check and observes that while the review talks confidently of learners achieving expert levels of knowledge and performance, current learner levels are nowhere near expert. In terms of vocabulary knowledge, learners at GCSE know only 5&#x2013;10% of the 8000 or 9000 words needed to be expert. It considers criteria for an effective vocabulary curriculum from Milton and Hopwood's (2022) Vocabulary in the Foreign Language Curriculum: Principles for Effective Instruction. None of these criteria is adequately covered. The review is unrepresentative of vocabulary learning research. Guidance on vocabulary size, for example, is missing but language proficiency is very much a function of vocabulary size. This is a disastrous oversight. It advocates teaching a small lexicon of overwhelmingly frequent words, insufficient for anything but the lowest levels of performance in the CEFR. In this review, it is as though a large lexicon were of no importance to language proficiency. It is a falsehood to call this a review of research at all. It gives a false veneer of respectability to current, structuralist teaching practice, which teaches very little vocabulary, and which has led directly to historically low levels of attainment in British schools.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>The Language Learning Journal</journal><volume>50</volume><journalNumber>2</journalNumber><paginationStart>156</paginationStart><paginationEnd>171</paginationEnd><publisher>Informa UK Limited</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>0957-1736</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1753-2167</issnElectronic><keywords/><publishedDay>1</publishedDay><publishedMonth>4</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2022</publishedYear><publishedDate>2022-04-01</publishedDate><doi>10.1080/09571736.2022.2045680</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Literature, Media and Language</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>LLML</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal)</apcterm><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2026-05-08T11:23:34.4686259</lastEdited><Created>2022-06-08T14:10:05.5757261</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Culture and Communication - English Language, Tesol, Applied Linguistics</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Jim</firstname><surname>Milton</surname><orcid>0000-0003-0446-1149</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>60156__24252__9e5f8857101340e597a41cc353e81182.pdf</filename><originalFilename>60156.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2022-06-08T14:15:53.4859574</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>1588970</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>&#xA9; 2022 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2026-05-08T11:23:34.4686259 v2 60156 2022-06-08 Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages 7d251e1952cec9d77ed4fc21346fec8d 0000-0003-0446-1149 Jim Milton Jim Milton true false 2022-06-08 LLML This paper reviews the vocabulary section of Ofsted's Curriculum Research Review of Languages (2021). It begins with a reality check and observes that while the review talks confidently of learners achieving expert levels of knowledge and performance, current learner levels are nowhere near expert. In terms of vocabulary knowledge, learners at GCSE know only 5–10% of the 8000 or 9000 words needed to be expert. It considers criteria for an effective vocabulary curriculum from Milton and Hopwood's (2022) Vocabulary in the Foreign Language Curriculum: Principles for Effective Instruction. None of these criteria is adequately covered. The review is unrepresentative of vocabulary learning research. Guidance on vocabulary size, for example, is missing but language proficiency is very much a function of vocabulary size. This is a disastrous oversight. It advocates teaching a small lexicon of overwhelmingly frequent words, insufficient for anything but the lowest levels of performance in the CEFR. In this review, it is as though a large lexicon were of no importance to language proficiency. It is a falsehood to call this a review of research at all. It gives a false veneer of respectability to current, structuralist teaching practice, which teaches very little vocabulary, and which has led directly to historically low levels of attainment in British schools. Journal Article The Language Learning Journal 50 2 156 171 Informa UK Limited 0957-1736 1753-2167 1 4 2022 2022-04-01 10.1080/09571736.2022.2045680 COLLEGE NANME Literature, Media and Language COLLEGE CODE LLML Swansea University SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal) 2026-05-08T11:23:34.4686259 2022-06-08T14:10:05.5757261 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Culture and Communication - English Language, Tesol, Applied Linguistics Jim Milton 0000-0003-0446-1149 1 60156__24252__9e5f8857101340e597a41cc353e81182.pdf 60156.pdf 2022-06-08T14:15:53.4859574 Output 1588970 application/pdf Version of Record true © 2022 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
title Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages
spellingShingle Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages
Jim Milton
title_short Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages
title_full Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages
title_fullStr Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages
title_full_unstemmed Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages
title_sort Vocabulary denial and the false god of structuralism in Ofsted’s 2021 Curriculum Research Review for languages
author_id_str_mv 7d251e1952cec9d77ed4fc21346fec8d
author_id_fullname_str_mv 7d251e1952cec9d77ed4fc21346fec8d_***_Jim Milton
author Jim Milton
author2 Jim Milton
format Journal article
container_title The Language Learning Journal
container_volume 50
container_issue 2
container_start_page 156
publishDate 2022
institution Swansea University
issn 0957-1736
1753-2167
doi_str_mv 10.1080/09571736.2022.2045680
publisher Informa UK Limited
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str School of Culture and Communication - English Language, Tesol, Applied Linguistics{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Culture and Communication - English Language, Tesol, Applied Linguistics
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description This paper reviews the vocabulary section of Ofsted's Curriculum Research Review of Languages (2021). It begins with a reality check and observes that while the review talks confidently of learners achieving expert levels of knowledge and performance, current learner levels are nowhere near expert. In terms of vocabulary knowledge, learners at GCSE know only 5–10% of the 8000 or 9000 words needed to be expert. It considers criteria for an effective vocabulary curriculum from Milton and Hopwood's (2022) Vocabulary in the Foreign Language Curriculum: Principles for Effective Instruction. None of these criteria is adequately covered. The review is unrepresentative of vocabulary learning research. Guidance on vocabulary size, for example, is missing but language proficiency is very much a function of vocabulary size. This is a disastrous oversight. It advocates teaching a small lexicon of overwhelmingly frequent words, insufficient for anything but the lowest levels of performance in the CEFR. In this review, it is as though a large lexicon were of no importance to language proficiency. It is a falsehood to call this a review of research at all. It gives a false veneer of respectability to current, structuralist teaching practice, which teaches very little vocabulary, and which has led directly to historically low levels of attainment in British schools.
published_date 2022-04-01T05:45:49Z
_version_ 1865137730225176576
score 11.105101

Similar Items