What is the connection between the following words:

 Coiffured, dowerless, sepulchre, docilely, spasmodically, ardour, lament, apoplectic, prostrate, care-worn, apoplectic, urchin, munificence, and extemporise.

Sound familiar? Probably not. They certainly aren’t familiar to most pupils who first encounter them in GCSE English Literature texts (drawn from the 32 choice texts selected across exam boards). 

Emerging research from Maria Korochkina and Kathleen Rastle, entitled ‘The Vocabulary Barrier in the General Certificate of Education (GCSE) in English Literature’, has shown the vocabulary in the GCSE English Literature texts is uniquely rare. They reveal it would prove difficult to access even for avid teen readers, whilst weaker readers have even less chance to engage with the language of the texts. 

In their language analysis, they compared the GCSE texts with a sample of popular books read by teens. They found that GCSE texts were shorter and had fewer words overall, but their language was denser and more difficult.

It will come as no surprise to experienced English teachers. The classic texts on the GCSE curriculum are stuffing full of archaic words and phrases. It is why they are selected for teaching. But they can also compromise the comprehension of countless students. 

Even if the aforementioned words are not essential to understanding text for its key themes and ideas (just like coiffured, dowerless), they clearly obstruct reading and can frustrate pupils. It is probably why vocabulary teaching has proven so popular for so long, in addition to a call for reading more and reading widely.

Worrying about students accessing all the rare words

Now, understanding great literature is more than simply deciphering some rare words. Students can make connections with the author, explore themes that relate to their lives, such as responding to seeing themselves in the characters of Romeo, Juliet, and many more. But so many words not making sense is no doubt a barrier to understanding as well as to enjoyment. 

As a result, Korochkina and Rastle ask: ‘whether the GCSE English Literature texts are aligned with the reading and language skills that would be expected of pupils sitting the examination?’ They draw a causal link between the dense language, current text choices, and the reality that a quarter of students fail to get a good pass. 

A skilled English teacher will deploy an array of strategies to ensure their students make some sense of the Literature texts. They may talk about the text, exploring meaning in sustained discussion. They may teach some words rare words explicitly and in depth. Alternatively, for some words, they may choose to quickly address their meaning, or glossing over them, without breaking the flow of reading. 

But still, the tricky language… Despite good teaching, the authors of the research on this rare vocabulary speculate that, for weaker readers, “they are likely to present an insurmountable barrier”.

They also make an interesting point that showed the GCSE texts are “less similar to one another than the popular books that we studied are to one another”, indicating that “reading one GCSE text may not help pupils to read another”. It would certainly be helpful if they did!

Are we veering back to the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’? 

When Michael Gove initiated plans a new GCSE English specification in 2010, the focus was on rejecting the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’. He had criticised the lack of pre-twentieth century classics. That is to say, the notion that pupils should study the ‘best that has been thought and said’, and drop all those contemporary texts that could characterise ‘low expectations’ (it is fair to say Gove's views were much contested!).

He also led a call to make English Literature – well, more English again. It saw the selected collection of classics still taught today. Over a decade on, and Gove long gone, the questions of what texts should be taught at GCSE emerges again - both classic and contemporary. 

The authors of the new research do not propose that we should chuck out Shakespeare and replace it with Snapchat stories, but they do challenge the current qualification and the choice of texts. They question why only 7% of students sitting the exam in 2019 read a novel or play by a woman, with fewer than 1% reading an author of colour. They call for change amidst the current curriculum review. 

There are no easy solutions. Even when new English literature texts are newly introduced into the GCSEs, teachers routinely stick with the classics they know and have taught before. They have resources, lesson plans, as well as confidence in teaching those texts. As a result, shuffling books on an English literature specification rarely leads to significant change. 

Korochkina and Rastle argue we need to ensure students are “able to engage in the ‘depth and power of the English literary heritage’”. To do that, we should always be considered the appropriateness of the texts that are selected to teach. It is clear too, from their analysis, that we’ll need to consider, and best address, the rare vocabulary problem as part of that selection too.

Related reading: Kathy Rastle shared a copy of her recent excellent ResearchED presentation with Maria Korochkina on 'Words in Books: A Challenge, A Blessing, Or Both'.