Welsh test scores

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Welsh-medium school pupils underperform in tests despite more advantaged backgrounds

Secondary schools in Wales that teach pupils through the medium of Welsh are outperformed by their English-speaking counterparts in maths, reading and science tests, according to a new study by Lancaster University.

The average results of pupils attending Welsh-language secondary schools are markedly lower than pupils in English-language schools. This is despite Welsh-medium school pupils having more books available at home, spending more time on their studies outside of school and far fewer qualifying for free school meals.​

The reason for this is as yet uncertain, but the article concludes:

"There are a few plausible explanations for the difference in results that we see. Welsh speaking schools face tougher challenges when recruiting teaching staff, resulting in them fishing in a more limited talent pool. There is also a chance that there are systematic differences in how schools approach these types of standardised tests - they may not taken as seriously by some teachers and pupils as they are by others. To eliminate any doubt, further advances need to be made in terms of releasing data sets about secondary schools in Wales so additional in-depth analysis can be done."​

Obviously, laudatory plans to preserve Welsh culture have had unintended consequences. I hope this can be corrected without scrapping the effort.

 

[exchemist]

From Welsh-medium school pupils underperform in tests despite more advantaged backgrounds

Secondary schools in Wales that teach pupils through the medium of Welsh are outperformed by their English-speaking counterparts in maths, reading and science tests, according to a new study by Lancaster University.

The average results of pupils attending Welsh-language secondary schools are markedly lower than pupils in English-language schools. This is despite Welsh-medium school pupils having more books available at home, spending more time on their studies outside of school and far fewer qualifying for free school meals.​

The reason for this is as yet uncertain, but the article concludes:

"There are a few plausible explanations for the difference in results that we see. Welsh speaking schools face tougher challenges when recruiting teaching staff, resulting in them fishing in a more limited talent pool. There is also a chance that there are systematic differences in how schools approach these types of standardised tests - they may not taken as seriously by some teachers and pupils as they are by others. To eliminate any doubt, further advances need to be made in terms of releasing data sets about secondary schools in Wales so additional in-depth analysis can be done."​

Obviously, laudatory plans to preserve Welsh culture have had unintended consequences. I hope this can be corrected without scrapping the effort.

Indeed. The differences are not huge but still of concern if one is teaching or learning in Welsh, I imagine. As the author says, it may well be harder to get teachers of as good a quality to teach in Welsh, at secondary school level. I don't see an easy fix for that, I'm afraid.

 

[Sunstone]

Indeed, cultural preservation is to be encouraged. The world's sundry cultures are our common human heritage, and since each culture tends to have its own take or perspective on life, we are all made the poorer when we lose one. Besides, who would want to live in a world with just one or a few cultures? It would be like hearing nothing but the top 40 songs over and over again.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Indeed. The differences are not huge but still of concern if one is teaching or learning in Welsh, I imagine. As the author says, it may well be harder to get teachers of as good a quality to teach in Welsh, at secondary school level. I don't see an easy fix for that, I'm afraid.

The article states that "The average results ... are markedly lower than pupils in English-language schools," yet the reported numbers are

• 476 v 485 in math,
• 469 v 494 in reading, and
• 484 v 499 in science.

Apparently these are deemed significant differentials. I honestly don't know.

 

[Sunstone]

I remember reading when I was growing up about a Nobel prize winning scientist from China who said that when he did science, he thought in English, because it was impossible to do science while thinking in Chinese. I have since learned he most likely had some good reasons for saying that, many of them quite subtle -- such as the lack of dichotomous thinking embodied in the Mandarin dialect (and in Chinese culture on the whole), yet it's telling presence in all Indio-European languages. Science seems to crucially rely on dichotomies. So, yes, I can see why the scientist thought in English when doing science.

To me, that poses a problem because it suggests that some languages/cultures might fall behind in a world in which scientific prowess is increasingly important for the survival and success of peoples. However, I don't think that implies those languages/cultures are in any way inferior to any others. Each language/culture on the planet seems to come with its own riches. I think the solution is for us humans to become multi-linguistic and multi-cultural. We need to be able to dance to the tune of more than one worldview, so to speak. We need, in Nietzsche's phrase, to become "cosmic dancers". Or, as a Czech proverb puts it, "Learn a new language, and get a another soul."

 

[exchemist]

The article states that "The average results ... are markedly lower than pupils in English-language schools," yet the reported numbers are

• 476 v 485 in math,
• 469 v 494 in reading, and
• 484 v 499 in science.

Apparently these are deemed significant differentials. I honestly don't know.

I read this to mean they are different enough to be statistically significant. But all that means is the the differences are most likely real, as opposed to being within the margin of accuracy of the method. I'm not sure it necessarily means they are very serious in effect, say enough reason to pull your kid out of school and send them to an English medium school instead.

I suppose it could be the quality of the teachers, or the teaching material available in Welsh (how many chemistry textbooks are translated into Welsh, I wonder?), or maybe even the degree of linguistic facility the pupils have in Welsh, given that they are embedded in a predominantly English-speaking culture.

This, as all good academics say, shows the need for further research [grant, please ].

 

[exchemist]

I remember reading when I was growing up about a Nobel prize winning scientist from China who said that when he did science, he thought in English, because it was impossible to do science while thinking in Chinese. I have since learned he most likely had some good reasons for saying that, many of them quite subtle -- such as the lack of dichotomous thinking embodied in the Mandarin dialect (and in Chinese culture on the whole), yet it's telling presence in all Indio-European languages. Science seems to crucially rely on dichotomies. So, yes, I can see why the scientist thought in English when doing science.

To me, that poses a problem because it suggests that some languages/cultures might fall behind in a world in which scientific prowess is increasingly important for the survival and success of peoples. However, I don't think that implies those languages/cultures are in any way inferior to any others. Each language/culture on the planet seems to come with its own riches. I think the solution is for us humans to become multi-linguistic and multi-cultural. We need to be able to dance to the tune of more than one worldview, so to speak. We need, in Nietzsche's phrase, to become "cosmic dancers".

I've come across the same thing concerning Arabic.

 

[Sunstone]

I've come across the same thing concerning Arabic.

Fascinating! Any idea why Arabic seems poorly adapted to science? I know there are several reasons Chinese is, but I've never heard anything about Arabic in that regard before now.

 

[exchemist]

Fascinating! Any idea why Arabic seems poorly adapted to science? I know there are several reasons Chinese is, but I've never heard anything about Arabic in that regard before now.

It wasn't science actually. It was a Lebanese hotel manager, talking to another Arabic speaker on the phone while I was in his office. He chatted for a few minutes in Arabic, then abruptly switched to English, made the arrangements in English, reverted to Arabic to say farewell and hung up. When I asked him why, given that Arabic was clearly the mother tongue of both parties, he told me that if he had made the business arrangements in Arabic he would have taken 3 times as long - and by the end of it he would still not be absolutely sure of what had been agreed! It is apparently not a very precise language - and you can see this in the way the Arab world functions - or sometimes doesn't.

People think in words and I'm sure how they think depends on the language they think in. I have often wondered if the German reputation for order and thoroughness owes something to having the verb at the end of the sentence. I imagine before you open your mouth you need to have worked out what you are going to say, whereas in English you can start as soon as you know what the subject of your sentence is going to be, and make up the rest while you are speaking. When a German tells you something, you get the impression he has thought about it, at least a bit. The ancient Romans also put the verb at the end. They too had something of a reputation for organisation and thoroughness. But it's just an idea of mine. I have no idea if it is a respectable one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fascinating! Any idea why Arabic seems poorly adapted to science? I know there are several reasons Chinese is, but I've never heard anything about Arabic in that regard before now.

Given it's history, I would think that Arabic was well suited for such things as poetry, philosophy, and science.

 

[Sunstone]

It wasn't science actually. It was a Lebanese hotel manager, talking to another Arabic speaker on the phone while I was in his office. He chatted for a few minutes in Arabic, then abruptly switched to English, made the arrangements in English, reverted to Arabic to say farewell and hung up. When I asked him why, given that Arabic was clearly the mother tongue of both parties, he told me that if he had made the business arrangements in Arabic he would have taken 3 times as long - and by the end of it he would still not be absolutely sure of what had been agreed! It is apparently not a very precise language - and you can see this in the way the Arab world functions - or sometimes doesn't.

That is quite interesting, and it ties in with a story that Edward T. Hall relates in one of his books. Hall was an anthropologist interested in -- broadly speaking -- the ways in which different cultures perceived the world differently. He was, by the way, the ultimate source of our awareness of 'body language' -- though the term was invented by someone else (Hall called the subject, 'proxemics'). At any rate, Hall somewhere talks about two brothers or cousins in Afghanistan circa 1950 who lived apart in distant towns. One day, they happened to run into each other at a festival in a third town. Overjoyed, they agreed to meet again at the same festival. However, the language or culture did not make it easy for them to specify which year they were to meet in. So each knew that in some future year he could find his friend at the festival, but not which year that was going to be! Hence, one of them attended the festival each year for 11 years until the other finally showed up. It was the only way they could do it.

People think in words and I'm sure how they think depends on the language they think in. I have often wondered if the German reputation for order and thoroughness owes something to having the verb at the end of the sentence. I imagine before you open your mouth you need to have worked out what you are going to say, whereas in English you can start as soon as you know what the subject of your sentence is going to be, and make up the rest while you are speaking. When a German tells you something, you get the impression he has thought about it, at least a bit. The ancient Romans also put the verb at the end. They too had something of a reputation for organisation and thoroughness. But it's just an idea of mine. I have no idea if it is a respectable one.

Such subtle differences are recognized among anthropologists and other social scientists as often having significant consequences, so I can see how your thesis could be quite plausible. You'd have to adopt some of the methods of comparative studies to figure out how likely it is to be the case, but I'd guess it was at least a factor in German orderliness. Just judging offhand.

 

[Sunstone]

Given it's history, I would think that Arabic was well suited for such things as poetry, philosophy, and science.

So would I. As you might note, @exchemist turned out to be talking about something besides it's suitability to science. But that was not clear to me from his initial statement.

 

[exchemist]

Given it's history, I would think that Arabic was well suited for such things as poetry, philosophy, and science.

Yes I wondered about that. But how different I wonder is classical Arabic from modern Arabic. One surprise I found, when trying to learn some (very basic) written modern Arabic, is that many of the vowels are not written out and have to be inferred from the context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., Hall somewhere talks about two brothers or cousins in Afghanistan circa 1950 who lived apart in distant towns. One day, they happened to run into each other at a festival in a third town. Overjoyed, they agreed to meet again at the same festival. However, the language or culture did not make it easy for them to specify which year they were to meet in. So each knew that in some future year he could find his friend at the festival, but not which year that was going to be! Hence, one of them attended the festival each year for 11 years until the other finally showed up. It was the only way they could do it.

(The Biblical literalists among us should pay close attention.)

 

[Sunstone]

(The Biblical literalists among us should pay close attention.)

I had to chose between a 'winner' rating and an 'optimistic' rating for that one, but since there is no 'hopelessly optimistic' rating, I decided to go with 'winner'.

 

[Eyes to See]

I remember reading when I was growing up about a Nobel prize winning scientist from China who said that when he did science, he thought in English, because it was impossible to do science while thinking in Chinese. I have since learned he most likely had some good reasons for saying that, many of them quite subtle -- such as the lack of dichotomous thinking embodied in the Mandarin dialect (and in Chinese culture on the whole), yet it's telling presence in all Indio-European languages. Science seems to crucially rely on dichotomies. So, yes, I can see why the scientist thought in English when doing science.

To me, that poses a problem because it suggests that some languages/cultures might fall behind in a world in which scientific prowess is increasingly important for the survival and success of peoples. However, I don't think that implies those languages/cultures are in any way inferior to any others. Each language/culture on the planet seems to come with its own riches. I think the solution is for us humans to become multi-linguistic and multi-cultural. We need to be able to dance to the tune of more than one worldview, so to speak. We need, in Nietzsche's phrase, to become "cosmic dancers". Or, as a Czech proverb puts it, "Learn a new language, and get a another soul."

I used to live in a city here in Mexico that had a well-known University. I would visit the University for several reasons. I had conversations with one of the professors. I had a friend whose son was going there, and I had a Pizzeria, and would drop orders of pizza off. Actually that was a pretty good business. I make a mean pizza, and the school-kids loved it.

Anyway the point is, I noticed that a lot of the technical courses only had English textbooks available. And if you wanted to learn the field, you had to learn English. I don't know why that was, if it was just a lack of Spanish textbooks, or for some other reason. But most if not all college students needed to learn English to get a degree in a lot of professions.

 

[exchemist]

I used to live in a city here in Mexico that had a well-known University. I would visit the University for several reasons. I had conversations with one of the professors. I had a friend who's son was going there, and I had a Pizzaria, and would drop orders of pizza off. Actually that was a pretty good business. I make a mean pizza, and the school-kids loved it.

Anyway the point is, I noticed that a lot of the technical courses only had English textbooks available. And if you wanted to learn the field, you had to learn English. I don't know why that was, if it was just a lack of Spanish textbooks, or for some other reason. But most if not all college students needed to learn English to get a degree in a lot of professions.

I can recall during my chemistry degree some of the dons advising that if I wanted to do research I really ought to learn German, as that was considered the most important language for the subject. If you think about it, a lot of the c.19th advances in organic chemistry came from Germany and of course a great number of the founders of quantum theory were German speakers. But this was in the 1970s: nobody would say that now.

 

[George-ananda]

The article states that "The average results ... are markedly lower than pupils in English-language schools," yet the reported numbers are

• 476 v 485 in math,
• 469 v 494 in reading, and
• 484 v 499 in science.

Apparently these are deemed significant differentials. I honestly don't know.

Well if the standardized tests are being done in English I would expect the English only students to do better. The biggest gap is in reading (in English) I presume. I could have predicted this before the test.

Now if they tested Welsh reading it might have been a gap of 480 to 0 in favor of our Welsh people.

 

[exchemist]

Well if the standardized tests are being done in English I would expect the English only students to do better. The biggest gap is in reading (in English) I presume. I could have predicted this before the test.

Now if they tested Welsh reading it might have been a gap of 480 to 0 in favor of our Welsh people.

It does not say reading in English, just reading. My assumption is it is tested on reading in Welsh, for those taught in Welsh.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well if the standardized tests are being done in English I would expect the English only students to do better. The biggest gap is in reading (in English) I presume. I could have predicted this before the test.

Now if they tested Welsh reading it might have been a gap of 480 to 0 in favor of our Welsh people.

Brilliant