songs', that ,it was time to move on to 'real' learning, that writing was a
necessary part of 'real learning' and 'that it provided a new challenge'
(Low et al., 1995). One girl stated that she was quite glad that she was now
doing some writing:
"...because now I can write things in French as well as just spelling them."
(Lowet. al, 1995: 73)
Another girl stated that writing was quite 'good' because:
"...we hardly did any writing in primary, so it's quite interesting to see how to
actually spell the words." (Low et al., 1995: 73)
It has already been stated in Chapter One that Hawkins (1981) argued that the
Pilot Scheme had to be seen as a 'double venture' in that it represented a
'vertical extension' of the teaching of French down the age range as well as a
'horizontal extension' across the ability range. These two crucial variables, age
and ability, can cause problems for the evaluation of learning outcomes. It
appears that many of the ∞mplex issues involved in the Pilot Scheme were
treated in such a general way that decisive variables, such as age and ability,
could often not be isolated and examined closely enough to arrive at a more
objective picture. Similar problems seem to have affected the Scottish National
Pilot.
154