The first three years of UKLO: A review of the UK Linguistics Olympiad1

The first three years of UKLO: A review of the UK Linguistics Olympiad¹

Laura Tomlinson

Graeme Trousdale

Introduction 3

Section 1: A description of the competition’s current organisation 4

1.1 Competition structure 4

1.2 Question selection 5

1.3 Administrative procedure 5

1.4 Recruitment 7

1.5 Liaison 7

Section 2: A summary of findings from research into Linguistics Olympiads

from around the world 9

Section 3: Studies investigating male and female students’ attitudes to subjects

and academic competition 14

3.1 Female underrepresentation in Science and Mathematics 14

3.2 Male and female attitudes to language learning 15

3.3 Gender and UKLO 17

Section 4: Information gathered from students, teachers and UKLO records 19

4.1 A description of the data gathered 19

4.2 Results and discussion of the data 20

4.2.1 How effective were questions? 20

4.2.2 Benefits for school subjects 26

4.2.3 How effective was the structure of the competition? 27

4.2.4 How effective was administration? 29

4.2.5 School support 31

4.2.6 School recruitment 33

4.2.7 Liaison 34

Summary of recommendations 35

Works Cited 36

Introduction

This report analyses data gathered from research into the structure and organisation of the UK Linguistics Olympiad (UKLO), and aims to provide a full description of current procedures in place, as well as make suggestions for possible future developments for the competition. A relatively recently established Olympiad in the UK, UKLO has been running as a national competition since 2010, and each year of the competition has seen an increase in participating schools, as well a broader age range of students taking part. This report takes the opportunity to analyse the competition’s current organisation, to investigate student performance in the Olympiad to date, and to make recommendations for future developments.

• 
  Section 1 provides a description of UKLO’s current organisation, giving an overview of the competition’s structure, as well as information on administrative procedures, and a description of UKLO’s current links to supporters, universities and other organisations.
  
• 
  Section 2 describes some of the features of comparable competitions, both in the UK and internationally. This section investigates the organisation of other Linguistic Olympiads worldwide, as well as looking at well-established Olympiads in the UK. The data gathered in this section is discussed in relation to UKLO, to investigate plans for future development of the competition, and to make recommendations for areas of improvement.
  
• 
  One of the key issues raised in literature regarding language learning and academic Olympiad performance is gender inequality: female students are underrepresented in Mathematics and Science Olympiads worldwide, while in the UK fewer male students continue to study languages to higher levels. Section 3 presents some of the recent literature on these topics, and investigates male and female students’ participation and performance in UKLO.
  
• 
  As part of the research undertaken for this report, quantitative data was gathered to assess student participation and performance over the three years of the competition, and feedback was gathered from students and teachers involved with UKLO 2012. Further details of the methods used are presented in section 4.1. Section 4.2 presents the results of this research, and provides a series of recommendations based on its findings.
  

A large part of the data for this section was gathered from members of the UKLO committee. A questionnaire was compiled, designed to elicit information from committee members about the competition’s current organisation, including the current administrative procedures involved in UKLO, what relationships exist between UKLO and other organisations, and whether there have been any recent changes to the structure or organisation of the competition. After evaluation of a draft questionnaire by a sample of the UKLO committee, an adjusted questionnaire was emailed to the entire committee at the time. Ten responses were returned: three committee members commented that they were relatively new to the committee, and felt unable to comment in any detail. The seven remaining committee responses (representing one third of the group) are used alongside data found on the UKLO website to describe as fully as possible the current procedures involved with UKLO. The responses also allowed for investigation into planned changes and improvements to the competition.

The current structure of the competition is an in-school first round, followed by a national second round, where the International Olympiad team is selected.

Although UKLO writes some of its own questions, these have mainly been used in the Foundation papers, and most questions are written by members of ELCLO, based in the USA. Other members of ELCLO (including the North American and Australian Olympiads) have used questions from UKLO in their own competitions. The UKLO group aims to write easier questions, suitable for the lower level papers, and using languages that competitors might be familiar with: for instance, Welsh appeared in the 2012 papers. For students who are speakers of these languages, alternative questions are available. There is no specific guidance provided by ELCLO to question-writers, but composers in the ELCLO team aim at a level similar to that found in the UKLO Advanced papers. Questions for the UKLO papers have so far been moderated mainly by the committee chair, Richard Hudson. From 2013, other committee members will be involved in question moderation.

Teachers only need register once for the competition, by supplying their name, email address and other details about themselves and their school. Registration is available online (via the UKLO website: www.uklo.org) through a questionnaire, the responses to which are posted into a database, where schools are primarily identified by postcode. Separate to the one-off registration is the notification of Advanced entries. The deadline for this is one week before Round One, giving the committee time to source markers. There is no pre-test registration for Foundation or Intermediate entries, but schools are asked to send their marks in to UKLO after the Round One competition.

UKLO has developed a number of contacts with the following organisations:

• 
  The Association for Language Learning (ALL) (www.all-languages.org.uk)
  
• 
  The British Academy (www.britac.ac.uk)
  
• 
  The British Association for Applied Linguistics (BAAL) (www.baal.org.uk)
  
• 
  The English Subject Centre (www.english.heacademy.ac.uk)
  
• 
  The Independent Schools’ Modern Languages Association (ISMLA) (www.ismla.co.uk)
  
• 
  The Linguistics Association of Great Britain (LAGB) (www.lagb.org.uk)
  
• 
  Links into Languages (www.linksintolanguages.ac.uk)
  
• 
  National Association for the Teaching of English (NATE) (www.nate.org.uk)
  
• 
  The National Centre for Languages (CILT) (www.cilt.org.uk)
  
• 
  The Philological Society (www.philsoc.org.uk)
  
• 
  Routes into Languages (www.routesintolanguages.ac.uk)
  

These organisations advertise UKLO online and to mailing lists, and teachers on committee forward advertisements on to local networks. Committee members also presented at the Language World Conference in 2012, discussing UKLO as one of a range of language activities designed to promote language learning in schools (Hawkes et al. 2012). In summer 2012, the competition also expanded its online presence, with pages on social media websites used to further develop online networks and publicise the competition.

UKLO provides online material for schools to use in training, and for teachers to use to develop their own skills in training students. These include practice papers, answer sheets and training presentations. As linguistics is not currently offered as a curriculum subject, training in schools, for both students and teachers, is low. UKLO has offered various types of support to teachers, including demonstrations from committee members, but little has been requested from schools up to now.

Foundation and Intermediate papers are marked by teachers in-school, using a mark scheme provided by UKLO. In 2012, UKLO had around 1000 Advanced scripts to mark, and marking was done using a combination of individual markers and markathons (see below). In the autumn term, markers are recruited using a variety of online lists, and markathon markers are recruited. Marking supervisors work alongside the school support team to match markers with schools. They also ensure that markers and schools are put into contact with each other, that markers receive the scripts they have been allocated, that marking is done on time, and that any necessary re-allocation is done. Once the marking is completed, supervisors collect Advanced marks from markers and Foundation/ Intermediate marks from schools to produce statistics for Round One.

The three kinds of organisation required for Round Two are logistic, academic, and competitive. Three Round Two tutors manage the academic organisation of the round, including training. The competitive organisation (providing the test papers etc.) is managed by the problem-setting team and one of the markers. The logistic organisation includes finding a host university, booking rooms, and making travel and meal arrangements. This is undertaken by both committee members and local organisers. In terms of finding a host university, UKLO advertise online and via mailing lists such as the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (LAGB). Once a host is decided, a date is confirmed through coordination between the host and the Round Two tutors. Other considerations at this stage are making sure question papers reach the host site, and organisation of Round Two marking.

Organisation of the annual IOL trip is often problematic, due to issues with finding a local venue and funding for the team. Regular IOL chaperone and UKLO vice-chair Neil Sheldon, and UKLO chair Richard Hudson, currently represent UKLO on the IOL board. This board decides where the IOL should be held, and what the competition rules should be. The board works closely with the Problem Committee, who organise the IOL questions, marking and rewards. UKLO communicates with the IOL board via email, and also makes use of an IOL Google Group and website.

The main focus in terms of recruitment is through developing links with Foreign Language and English Language professional associations and mailing lists, some of which are detailed in section 1.3.2, above. This approach, as well as advertisements online, has proved successful, and there has been an annual increase since the beginning of the competition, both in the number of schools registering and in the number of schools taking part. UKLO has been very successful in recruiting independent schools, and has been moderately successful in recruiting maintained schools. There are many more competitors from independent schools, which might be explained by a general orientation in independent schools towards competitions such as UKLO and other academic Olympiads, and might be connected to stronger Modern and Classical Language departments. The problem is not that maintained schools don’t register: more maintained schools than independent are currently registered for UKLO. Maintained schools enter far fewer students into the final competition than independent schools. A current focus of the UKLO committee is to encourage maintained schools to enter more participants.

UKLO has a good relationship with its supporters, and most supporters have been enthusiastic to get involved. The main involvement in supporting UKLO is financial, although two supporters have provided books (used as Round Two prizes), and the Round Two host department is also considered a supporter. At the end of each year’s competition, UKLO provides a brief report to its supporters, and information on organisations supporting UKLO has been incorporated into the competition website. UKLO is not currently looking to expand its list of supporters.

The Round Two hosts to date have been the Universities of Sheffield, Edinburgh and York, with St Mary’s University College set to host in 2013, and Liverpool Hope University in 2014. The list of universities involved in the 2012 markathon is available on the UKLO website, with involvement from eleven institutions. The relationships held between UKLO and these universities range from very strong to much less so, with some institutions developing links with UKLO over the three years of the competition, and others becoming involved more recently. Although strengthening its connections to UK universities is not an immediate priority for UKLO, these relationships are valuable. As well as the contribution universities make to the running of the competition (in terms of financial support, hosting Round Two, marking, and possibly training for IOL), an important consideration is showing universities how UKLO can be effective in attracting students to linguistics and language study at higher levels.

There is no relationship at the moment between UKLO and the government, and there is no evidence that any government department is aware of UKLO. Due to financial cutbacks, it seems unlikely that the Department for Education would be able to assist with funding. UKLO is interested in developing relationships with the Department, however, especially with a view to recognising linguistics as part of the curriculum.

• 
  Strong links to other subjects (particularly English, foreign languages, mathematics and psychology)
  
• 
  ‘Knowledge About Language²’ (KAL) and its place in the curriculum for language learning and English: linguistics can help students develop KAL, helping them better understand language data, both in English and in learning foreign languages.
  
• 
  Development of analytical skills through analysis of language data (including data presentation and use of analytical frameworks)
  
• 
  Development of key transferable skills of communication and critical thinking
  
• 
  Appeal to both male and female students (discussed in more detail in relation to UKLO in section three, below)
  

Similar points can be raised in discussion of UKLO and its benefits for learning: if UKLO is able to demonstrate a positive effect on students’ attitudes and performance in other subjects, through development of KAL, analytical skills, or communication skills, this may add weight to the proposal to introduce linguistics as a stand-alone A-Level subject, and to incorporate linguistics into English and foreign language classrooms.

A list of national Linguistic Olympiads was compiled using the list of participating countries on the IOL website. From this list, information from nine national Linguistic Olympiads was gathered from websites, news articles, blog entries and email correspondence concerning the IOL and national Olympiads. A similar list of subject Olympiads run in the UK was compiled, using data from online searches and from international Olympiad websites. In total, four subject Olympiads were investigated, with information on their structure and organisation gathered from individual websites. Some of the key points raised in the data gathered are presented below, and discussed in relation to UKLO.

The Russian Olympiad website describes how previous olympians (especially those at university level) are enrolled to train new students in the competition, although no information is given to clarify the stage at which this is offered. A similar scheme is in place as part of the training for the British Mathematical Olympiad, where previous Olympians are enrolled to mentor candidates for the International Mathematical Olympiad squad, and to provide mentoring for younger students who are interested in taking part in the Olympiad. In 2012, UKLO enrolled university students to mentor the IOL team, and is looking to expand this scheme in future years. Although the competition is only in its early years, there may be potential to recruit former IOL students (especially those continuing on to related degree courses) in the training of the UK IOL team.

The Brazilian Olympiad website describes how the committee for the competition is divided into two teams: the Organising Committee, responsible for managing test material, logistics and coordination with the IOL, and the Academic Committee, responsible for question composition and providing support material for teachers. A team structure was proposed in summer 2012 for UKLO, and the current committee has been divided into a number of sub-groups, each responsible for different aspects of organising the competition. The intention was to focus committee activities onto a small team of members, making it easier to know who to contact regarding different issues involved in competition organisation, and ensuring that no one committee member is left with sole responsibility for more than one operation.

There is some indication online of links between Linguistics Olympiads and language learning in schools. The Brazilian Olympiad website, for example, offers suggestions to help teachers incorporate more Linguistics related material into language lessons. In an article about the Estonian Olympiad, Pajasallu (2005: 12) states that linguistics is not taught in Estonian schools, but that the Olympiad is seen as an ideal opportunity to engage students with ideas about language study. The competition is one of a number of linguistics teaching events held in the country: courses in the ‘Fundamentals of Language’ are run online, and Linguistics workshops are involved as part of the training process for the Olympiad itself (Pajasallu 2005: 12). Similarly, an article on German linguistics blog Der Linguistische SprAACHENblog (Keus and Corr 2012) suggests that, although linguistics is not offered as a subject in German schools, there is a growing movement to incorporate more linguistics into German classrooms, with courses offered to prospective German teachers, to help incorporate linguistics and linguistic discussion into the German language classroom.

The British Mathematical Olympiad website describes links between the British and Hungarian teams, with annual training sessions held where the two nations’ teams prepare for the international competition together. As UKLO has established links with AILO (the All Ireland Linguistics Olympiad), through involvement with ELCLO, and from entering alongside AILO in IOL 2009, it would be worth considering developing training with AILO as part of the two teams’ preparations for the IOL. The issues to bear in mind with this are: the cost of arranging a meet-up, the logistics of organising a training session, and the time students would be able to commit to training/competing on top of commitments to the IOL. As well as developing links with other countries running the Olympiad, such a scheme would allow students to train and compete alongside other national teams, helping to improve students’ performance and confidence.

A number of the Olympiad websites for competitions in other countries mention similar activities or competitions linked to the Linguistics Olympiad. Many countries offer a language competition designed to test students’ knowledge of particular languages. In Estonia, a competition of this sort has been run since the 1960s (Pajasallu 2005), while a similar competition in Russian (the ‘Russian Bear – Linguistics for All’ project) is proving popular with students learning the language, both as native speakers and as second language learners.

Linguistics competitions are also available for younger students. In Poland, the ‘Tower of Babel’ competition is designed to help younger students prepare for future participation in the Olympiad. The Russian University Linguistics Tournament is described as being one of the most popular extra-curricular activities among students, despite linguistics not being offered as a school subject. The Tournament is aimed at newcomers to linguistics competitions: participating students are informed about the Olympiad, which is organised about six weeks later, and are invited to participate.
The existence of these competitions aimed at younger students or at those who have yet to participate in the Olympiad is similar to the Challenges offered in the UK for Mathematics, Physics and Biology:

• 
  The Mathematical Challenges on offer in the UK are aimed at students at different ages, and are used as ‘first steps’ into participation in Mathematical Olympiads. As well as the British Mathematical Olympiad itself, there are also Junior and Intermediate Olympiads, participants for which are selected on the basis of performance in Mathematical Challenges. Those who perform well in the Olympiads are invited to take part in the first round of the British Mathematical Olympiad.
  
• 
  The British Physics Olympiad is aimed at students in year 13. Physics Challenges are on offer to students from year 11 and above, and a practical challenge (the Experimental Project) is available for students in year 10 and above. The Challenges are in-school papers marked by teachers, while the Experimental Project is a group project, with the opportunity to tackle a practical physics problem.
  
• 
  The British Biology Olympiad is aimed at students aged 16 and over, with the Biology Challenge available for students in years 9 and 10. The Challenge is an in-school paper, and is not subject to the same restrictions as the formal Olympiad paper.
  

In many ways, this is comparable to the distinction between Advanced and Foundation/Intermediate papers in UKLO: the Advanced paper is aimed at older students, is marked centrally, and is used in selecting potential competitors for the IOL. In contrast, the Foundation/Intermediate papers are aimed at younger students, are marked in-school, and are not used in the IOL selection process. Top performers in these papers may, however, be encouraged to take a higher level paper in future competitions.

It might be worth pursuing the idea of introducing ‘Challenge’ equivalents, or presenting the Foundation/Intermediate papers as ideal for younger students or ‘first-timers’, as seen in other Olympiads. Some of the evidence from feedback surveys suggests this would prove popular:

• 
  A lot of teachers felt that students were daunted by the difficulty of the questions, and were put off from continuing with the paper. A less formal ‘introduction’ challenge might encourage students to continue onto the Olympiad papers themselves.
  
• 
  Non-participating schools feedback suggests that students used the material and enjoyed the activities, but preferred not to compete, or take the test as a formal ‘exam’, with some schools reporting that they would continue to use the material in this way. By either introducing a less competitive round, or by promoting the Foundation/Intermediate levels as less formal, schools might be encouraged to enter officially. This would be beneficial for UKLO’s records, as a way of recording where and how material is being used. It might also encourage high performing students to consider entering a higher level in future years.
  
• 
  The 2012 competition saw younger students taking part than in previous years, and feedback from teachers suggests that younger students are enthusiastic to get involved in the competition next year. By promoting the Foundation/Intermediate rounds as suitable for first-time competitors, UKLO might encourage younger students to participate. The ‘forward-looking’ approach of viewing the Foundation/Intermediate papers as steps towards participation in the Advanced paper could encourage students to continue participation year on year, allowing them to benefit from training and participation year after year, and to further develop their skills.
  

Online material discussing Linguistics Olympiads describes how certain countries have encountered difficulties in securing funding for the competition. Germany has taken part in the IOL since 2008, but was unable to participate in 2011 due to a lack of funding available for competitors. An article appearing on Der Linguistische SprAACHENblog on Germany’s participation in the competition (Meinunger 2012) suggests that few organisations have been willing to support the German team. The main concern here is to raise the profile of the Olympiad, in order to encourage more organisations to see the competition as worthy of backing.

The Science Olympiads offered in the UK have a strong online presence, offering additional resources to students in a variety of forms. The Chemistry Olympiad provides online questions for students to tackle, with the opportunity for students to test their knowledge and see how well they score. The Biology Olympiad website also offers students the opportunity to subscribe to BioNet, an online subscription that includes access to e-magazines, newsletters, and emailed quarterly articles, aimed at school and college students.

Part of the educational rationale of UKLO is to allow students to develop their academic abilities, not only in language study, but also in formal disciplines of analysis and logical thinking. A large part of the test paper itself requires a formal analysis of unfamiliar language data. Although originally aimed at students at (the equivalent of) Key Stage 5 in England and Wales, UKLO now has a much broader range of students getting involved, and can be seen as a means of introducing younger students to formal analysis. This is a skill valuable not only in language study, but in any subject where critical analysis of data is required. Activities such as UKLO may help to build links between language learning and formal analysis.

Tirri (2001) looks at some of the major life events reported by past competitors in the Finnish Mathematical Olympiad to have influenced them in their career choices. The article looks at interview data with previous Olympians, discussing both their personal and professional lives. Tirri discovers that Olympiad participation played an important role in the academic development of all the Olympians interviewed. Other important factors included encouragement from teachers, and support from peers. Female Olympians reported experiencing less positive peer support during their time in school, suggesting that it is important for female students to experience support to help them develop their academic talents. The author recommends that female students “should be guided to pursue intellectual hobbies that support their talent development during their school years.” (7)

• 
  Bias towards male students in scientific fields
  
• 
  Attitudes towards competitive work environments
  
• 
  Social expectations of male and female students.
  

In terms of differences in approaching scientific problems, female Olympians reported a preference for group-work activities, while male Olympians preferred to work independently. Many Mathematical and Science Olympiads focus on individual, competitive work, although some offer opportunities to work in teams. Female Olympians reported confidence in their academic abilities, but a lack of confidence in the face of the pressures of intensive Olympiad training programmes, showing a tendency to be more affected by scores than male Olympians are. The study suggests that Olympiad structures and training schemes favour male attitudes to training and competing. Not only does this risk discouraging female students from participating, but it might also prevent them from reaching their potential if they do participate. Researchers suggest de-emphasising the competitive nature of Olympiad projects, and emphasising their role in developing talent, and incorporating more collaborative aspects to the schemes.

Clark and Trafford (1995) conducted interviews with staff and students from maintained schools in England to investigate the differences between male and female language students. The researchers asked students about their perceptions of learning languages. Their aim was to discover potential reasons for male students performing less well in modern languages than their female classmates. They found that all students struggled to find language learning relevant or beneficial, with responses indicating that the material learned “did not correspond with what they felt they would say if in conversation with native speakers.” (320) The researchers state that the most effective way to improve students’ attitude towards foreign language learning is to improve their confidence in handling language data.

Quantitative data from the past three years of UKLO shows that participation from both male and female students has been largely equal (see Table 1):

In order to fully describe and evaluate UKLO’s structure and organisation, this report also looks at quantitative data from UKLO over the past three years. This section deals mainly with the numbers of students who have taken part in UKLO since 2010, and looks at:

• 
  How many students have taken part
  
• 
  How many schools have entered students
  
• 
  How many independent/maintained schools have taken part
  
• 
  Which age groups students have fallen into
  
• 
  How many students have been entered for each paper level
  

The results from this section also assess which factors are most influential in students’ performance. By looking at these figures, the research aims to show who UKLO is currently including, and how performance patterns demographically.

Data was gathered from teachers who had registered between June 2011 and August 2012. This sample includes teachers who have registered for UKLO but not yet participated. A 10-question online survey was constructed to gather feedback from teachers on the competition structure, plus indications of how popular the test was with students, and whether there have been any positive effects of participation on learning or attitude in class. The link to the survey was distributed via email to a pilot sample of four teachers, who were asked to respond to the survey questions and give feedback on the survey structure. The final survey was distributed to the 312 teachers on the current UKLO mailing list. After six weeks, 35 (=11% of those contacted) teachers in total responded to the survey (see Table 3 for further details).

A large number of schools registered for UKLO 2012 did not submit scores. To investigate why schools chose not to participate, a survey was designed and distributed to schools. All schools that had registered for UKLO after the date of Round One 2012 were excluded, as were all schools who had submitted marks or papers. This left 183 schools, who were sent a survey link via email. In total, 17 teachers responded (9%).

A survey was designed for distribution to students who participated in UKLO 2012. A short written questionnaire was designed and distributed to the IOL team for 2012, asking for feedback on the competition, including the suitability of questions, fairness of marks, and general attitudes towards the Olympiad. All four members of the IOL team responded, and the questionnaire was re-designed as an online survey. This was sent out via email directly to the remaining 12 Round Two participants from 2012, six of whom responded online. The survey was then distributed to the 312 addresses on the UKLO mailing list (as of 4.9.12), and teachers were asked to distribute the survey link to students who had participated in Round One 2012. The survey was designed to be completed individually, and comprised eight questions. After six weeks, a total of 36 students had responded (see Table 4 for details).

Of the ten questions included in Round One 2012, all appeared in at least one of the North American (NACLO) or Australian (OzCLO) Olympiad papers from the same year, with four of the first round questions appearing on round two papers for NACLO or OzCLO. Three of these questions (question 2: Danish, question 3d: Dutch and question 5: Esperanto) appeared on the UKLO Foundation paper, and one (question 9: Waanyi) on the Advanced paper. Although question 3d (Dutch) scores highly on average, questions 5 (Esperanto) and 9 (Waanyi) proved difficult for students, and were the lowest scoring questions of the competition (see Figure 2). These low scores, combined with teacher feedback indicating that students found these questions particularly difficult, and their appearance on the second round papers in other competitions, suggests that certain aspects of the UKLO paper were more difficult than expected at a first round level.

Despite the difficult questions on this year’s paper, marks have improved year on year, with more students scoring in higher bands in 2012 than in previous years³ (Figure 3, over page).

When asked to describe their experiences of UKLO, the majority of feedback from students was positive, with comments on the competition’s difficulty.

• 
  29 out of the 36 students surveyed (=81%) described the competition as ‘challenging’
  
• 
  21 students rated the competition as ‘fun’ (=58%)
  
• 
  27 students rated the competition as ‘interesting’ (=75%)
  
• 
  One third of students found the questions ‘abstract’ (12 students)
  
• 
  One third of students also rated the questions as ‘frustrating’ (12 students)
  
• 
  Very few students indicated that they found the paper boring (2), dull (1), or too difficult (1)
  
• 
  Most students reported that they felt their marks for Round One were fair, with only one student disagreeing.
  
• 
  A total of 12 students felt unable to comment on the fairness of the Round One marks, with half of these reporting that they did not receive their marks from Round One
  

Although the majority of teachers felt the difficulty level was appropriate, many expressed that some students, especially those in lower years, found the test daunting. From the more in-depth feedback gained from teachers, responses indicated that students largely enjoyed the challenge, and were encouraged when they were able to successfully find the correct solution. A point that was raised by more than one teacher was that it might encourage students to have an easier question at the beginning of the foundation paper: students were easily put off by a difficult question early on in the paper, but enjoyed the challenge once they continued with the test.

Specific comments suggested that students were not immediately enthusiastic to take part, but engaged with the material after spending time doing an example problem. Although students found some of the material challenging, teachers emphasised that many students enjoyed the challenge, with particular enthusiasm for tackling difficult logical problems.

More detailed comments suggest that students had found the exercise difficult but enjoyable. One teacher reported that students had commented on how enjoyable UKLO was because it was different from anything they did as part of their A-Level study.

Fifteen teachers reported feeling no effects of student participation in UKLO. Of these, five commented that it was too soon to tell, and one commented that too few students had taken part to tell. Eight of the 15 ‘no’ responses commented that they felt sure benefits had been felt by individuals, and that, in time, positive effects would be felt on a larger scale.

• 
  Improved student interest and enjoyment
  
• 
  Improved student attitude and motivation
  
• 
  Improved student confidence and enthusiasm
  
• 
  Help in letting students see the value in learning languages
  
• 
  Help in developing language skills
  

The remaining five ‘yes’ responses came from English Language or Classics teachers, who commented on:

• 
  Increased student confidence
  
• 
  Positive effects on raising the profile of the subject area
  
• 
  Increased student interest
  
• 
  Improves teacher-student relationships
  

When asked whether they had experienced any benefits from participating in UKLO, 23 of the students indicated that they felt participation had helped them in their academic work. Where specified, most of these students had felt benefits in languages (both classical and modern). Comments indicated that participation particularly helped with:

• 
  Approaching language logically: helping students to break down unfamiliar words and phrases, which has helped with analysing and translating passages
  
• 
  Approach language problems more confidently: helping students to understand grammatical features, and to tackle texts with unknown vocabulary
  
• 
  Exploring linguistics as a possible subject for further study
  
• 
  Skills required in subjects such as mathematics, computer logic and physics: helping students to develop analytical skills in approaching data and finding patterns
  

This feedback suggests that, in the three years it has been run, UKLO has already begun to benefit students and teachers, both in English and foreign language departments, and in other subjects, such as mathematics and science. As discussed in section 3, UKLO’s appeal to students with abilities in languages and in mathematics makes it a valuable tool in bringing together the two disciplines, and encouraging development in both subject areas. As considered in section 1.5.3, evidence of UKLO’s benefits over a wide range of subjects will prove advantageous, not only in helping to secure continued support for the competition, but also in supporting plans for incorporating linguistic study into the classroom. Continued support will also ensure that long-term benefits of participation in UKLO can be felt, and will allow the competition to further develop to meet the needs of growing interest from schools.

The 2012 competition was the first to use volunteer markathons to help with script marking: earlier competitions had been marked by the committee or by volunteer individual markers. Markathons were organised by a number of academics, who enrolled student volunteers to spend an afternoon marking papers. Another change to the marking system involved schools sending scripts directly to their allotted marker, which worked to speed up the marking operation. With an expected increase of entries for 2013, UKLO is looking to make more changes to ensure the marking system copes.

Responses from teachers indicated that some students found it difficult to commit time to training for UKLO. For students in years 10-13, preparations for UKLO often clash with exams or mock exams, with feedback suggesting that this discouraged some student from continuing. Other academic and extra-curricular commitments, such as music examinations and participation in other Olympiads also made it difficult for some students to commit. Teachers expressed concern that competing demands might put too much pressure on students, and might discourage them from continuing.

• 
  The layout of the paper was not very user-friendly
  
• 
  There were problems knowing what was to be sent where
  
• 
  Details for each round weren’t known well enough in advance
  
• 
  It was difficult to know what the scores meant, and to explain this to students
  
• 
  The certificates contained incorrect information
  
• 
  It took a long time for marks to be returned
  
• 
  There were also problems with registration, paper structure and timing
  

Further comments indicated that students found the paper difficult to navigate, with specific comments that there was not always enough room for answers. There was some indication that schools would prefer the competition process to take less time. This was mainly in reference to receiving feedback and marks. Two schools reported issues with registration and notification of Advanced entries, but gave no further details. Most schools indicated that they felt there were no changes that needed to be made to the competition.

Reasons given for not participating in UKLO 2012 were varied.

Further comments indicated that staff felt that sitting the formal test was not suitable for students at that time of year, commenting that academic and time pressures involved in running the test as a formal exam would put too much pressure on students. Of these schools, one reported that scores would probably not be submitted in future, and another commented that they were unsure whether the school would participate in 2013.

• 
  Timetabling and staffing were also primary reasons for not participating: some schools found they did not have enough time between registering and round one to prepare, while others commented that they could not find time, staff or resources to run training sessions or the test itself.
  
• 
  One school reported that, amongst other issues, there was not enough interest from students to run the competition.
  
• 
  Two schools encountered problems with administration, with two schools reporting no further contact from UKLO after registration, and one school reporting that they were unclear on the dates and logistics of round one.
  

• 
  One teacher in the teacher survey indicated that changes to registration were needed, but gave no further information.
  
• 
  Two of the non-participating schools indicated that they had had no further contact from UKLO after registration.
  
• 
  More in-depth interviews with teachers revealed that, although many preferred to get fewer emails, some also found email contact valuable in terms of reminding them about the competition.
  

• 
  Most of the teachers who responded reported hearing about UKLO for the first time via a recommendation, either from a fellow teacher (at the same school or at a different establishment), or from a senior member of staff.
  
• 
  Links between UKLO and the ISMLA also provided teachers with information about the competition.
  
• 
  Many teachers reported hearing about UKLO through publications or emails from various organisations, including:
  
  • 
    Attain Magazine
    
  • 
    British Academy
    
  • 
    JACT (Joint Association of Classical Teachers)
    
  • 
    Routes into Languages
    
  • 
    ALL (Association for Language Learning)
    
• 
  Five teachers reported that they had actively searched for a UKLO-type project, to run in parallel with similar competitions held in Mathematics and Science subjects in their school.
  

• 
  15 of the teachers who responded to the teacher survey reported using past papers as part of their training for students, with others reporting the use of example questions.
  
• 
  At least one teacher mentioned using the PowerPoint available on the UKLO website, to introduce students to the Olympiad.
  
• 
  Teachers also mentioned using online resources including videos on ‘how to approach an Olympiad question’, as well as the promotional posters available for download from UKLO.
  

None of the feedback suggested that teachers had struggled to find the resources online, although in-depth interviews with teachers indicated that additional training resources would be very useful. Teachers were particularly keen to see online material, as they felt it would be the most accessible, both for staff and students preparing for the competition.

The main area where teachers reported a desire for a change in arrangements was in marking and feedback, with many teachers commenting on the complicated structure of the mark scheme, and the time taken for marks to be returned to schools. More in-depth comments indicated that some teachers would prefer a more detailed explanation of how students should be approaching questions. Comments also indicated that schools would prefer to receive marks from Round One sooner, as students were keen to know how they performed. Further feedback indicated that students would benefit from more in-depth feedback, with suggestions of implementing a medal scheme for non-Advanced entries. Teachers felt this might help students understand how they performed in context, and know where they did well and where they could improve.

• 
  23 of the 35 schools provided some training for UKLO 2012
  
• 
  16 teachers describing regular practice sessions, either at lunch-time or after school.
  
• 
  The more detailed feedback showed that around half of the schools that provided training used regular (or at least more than one) training sessions.
  
• 
  Around half reported using past papers or example questions
  
• 
  5 teachers indicated that students worked together in groups, either to work through problems or to discuss their solutions. (NB: this refers to teachers reporting preparation work in groups, with no specific reference to regular training sessions).
  
• 
  2 responses described the use of UKLO materials in-class, with one teacher reporting homework assignments.
  
• 
  4 teachers indicated that they had distributed material via email/school intranet services. For some schools, this was in conjunction with more structured training sessions, while others used only online distribution.
  

Of the schools that reported little or no training, reasons cited included:

• 
  Not having enough time to prepare
  
• 
  Not being able to find time for training
  
• 
  Not feeling confident in delivering training
  

Feedback suggested that these issues may be easier to overcome in future years, with more time to plan training around staff and student commitments. Some teachers commented that they themselves had had no training. Although some teachers mentioned that they enjoyed working collaboratively with students, one teacher mentioned that a lack of knowledge was a reason for not providing in-depth training, as the students seemed better able to tackle the problems than the teachers themselves.

• 
  All but two schools reported that they intended to enter UKLO 2013, with one indicating that they were not sure whether their school would re-enter.
  
• 
  Most schools also reported that they intended to provide training for 2013, with three schools reporting an intention to provide training where none had been provided for the 2012 competition. Responses indicated a wish to provide more structured training sessions, and to use more resources than in 2012, with plans including:
  
  • 
    Running ‘Introduction to Linguistics’ sessions
    
  • 
    Using more past paper resources
    
  • 
    Providing training for younger students interested in taking part
    

One response indicated a lack of certainty about what the best kind of training would be, stating that the teacher was unsure whether any training would be provided. No schools that had provided training for 2012 indicated that they intended to provide no training in 2013.

When asked about the training they had done for Round One:

• 
  11 students reported not having prepared for the test.
  
• 
  The rest had done some form of preparation:
  
  • 
    11 students taking part in organised school sessions (i.e. 11 responses made specific mention of lunchtime/after school sessions or clubs, or worksheets in-class)
    
  • 
    11 going through at least one past paper (either in school or at home). Three students stated that previous participation had helped them with their training.
    

When asked to evaluate their training, students gave a wide variety of responses. Many felt that they had done enough training (looking at past papers, worksheets in class, organised sessions in school), and said that preparation was interesting and engaging. Others reported that they would have liked to do more, with additional comments indicating that some students found it difficult to find time in the midst of other academic commitments. A small number of students indicated that they felt the training they did was not useful, with comments such as ‘It’s not something you can really train for’ and ‘I wasn’t cut out for the Olympiad’.

A suggestion for the development of school support is for UKLO to hold recruitment talks, designed to encourage students to take part. Another idea that has been raised to try and tackle the problem of schools registering but not participating is the introduction of training days for teachers and/or pupils. A training day aimed at teachers is currently being considered by the University of Huddersfield. Given the success of the IOL training scheme, a similar scheme made available for teachers might be valuable.

Following from the success of the IOL training in 2012, a number of students and graduates from the University of Edinburgh have started a project to develop training materials for use by teachers and students in preparation for Round One, and by students wishing to participate in the training scheme in 2013. These resources would fit in well with requests from teachers, which indicate that accessible, online material in the form of training videos or worksheets would be the most effective forms of material, for training both students and teachers in how to approach some of the competition questions.

These results suggest that UKLO’s recruitment is successful at encouraging both maintained and independent schools to register, but may need to work more closely with maintained schools to encourage them to enter more students into the final competition.

• 
  In total, 1848 students participated in UKLO 2012, with 1311 students from independent schools and 537 students from maintained schools.
  
• 
  A large number of younger students took part in 2012, with 495 students in year 9 or below. This represents just over a quarter of all participants, which compares to 20% in 2011 and 16% in 2010.
  

The competition has increased the proportions of younger students taking part, suggesting that UKLO’s recruitment has been successful in appealing to younger students. If this growth continues, UKLO may have to make changes to arrangements in order to provide full support for students in a wider range of age groups.

• 
  It sounded interesting
  
• 
  A teacher had recommended participation
  
• 
  Students also reported that it sounded fun, and that they were entered into the competition as part of a class or larger group of students.
  
• 
  Five students said that they had taken part in 2011 and wanted to participate again
  
• 
  One indicated that a teacher had entered them into the competition on their behalf
  
• 
  One student reported that incentives to attend practice sessions had encouraged him to take part.
  

• 
  Liaison with schools:
  
  • 
    Other nations have noticed the popularity of the Olympiad, despite linguistics not being offered in schools, and have taken the opportunity to use the competition as a way of helping integrate linguistics into the classroom, and of supporting arguments for incorporating linguistics knowledge into language learning. Feedback from schools suggests that teachers are keen to integrate UKLO-type activities into their regular teaching, and use the material not only for extra-curricular activities, but to benefit all students in their learning.
    
  • 
    Feedback also suggests that additional support and resources in training teachers to tackle the material would be valuable.
    

As well as the current contact between UKLO and schools, in terms of promoting the competition, and communicating during the competition itself, it is worth considering what liaison UKLO could develop with schools by means of supporting schools in their use of UKLO material, and in training teachers to prepare students for the competition. Finally, continued liaison with schools in the form of post-competition feedback, both from students and teachers, would help UKLO keep track of key issues that need resolving.

Below is a summary list of the key recommendations made in this report, with references to relevant sections of the report where each issue is discussed in more detail.

• 
  Development of the IOL training scheme, as used in the 2012 competition, to extend the scheme to more UK universities, and to involve input from previous Olympians. This will involve continued contact with IOL students after the competition (see section 1.5.2, section 2, and sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.7).
  
• 
  Increased communication with other nations looking to incorporate linguistics into the classroom, and use of IOL contacts to develop a potential network of groups aiming to promote linguistics in schools (see section 2).
  
• 
  Development of links with AILO (the All Ireland Linguistics Olympiad), and possible development of joint IOL training schemes and workshops (see sections 2 and 4.2.7).
  
• 
  Investigation of either introducing a lower-level introductory paper, aimed at younger students and first-time competitors, or promoting the Foundation/Intermediate papers as ideal for first-time competitors, and inviting high-performing students to enter a higher level paper the following year (see section 2).
  
• 
  Investigation into the current links between academic Olympiads in the UK and their links to the government, and development of links between UKLO and the Department for Education and other relevant government departments (see sections 2 and 4.2.7).
  
• 
  Development of online resources to include online training resources, incorporating past paper materials for students to use in preparation for the competition (see section 2).
  
• 
  Increasing the number of moderators for the Round One, to reduce the risk of errors in the paper, and to ensure no one committee member is left with sole responsibility for moderation (see section 4.2.1).
  
• 
  Pre-testing of questions prior to inclusion in the paper, and especially where alternatives are provided, to ensure difficulty level and time required for completion are accurate.
  
• 
  Inclusion of an easier ‘starter’ question on the Round One paper (see section 4.2.1).
  
• 
  Monitoring of student performance over future years to ensure continued suitability for a broader age range of entrants (see section 4.2.1).
  
• 
  Continued monitoring of performance, and use of teacher and student feedback to ensure necessary support is provided to maintained schools.
  
• 
  Where issues with timetabling, paper length/structure and competing academic demands arise, these problems are difficult to overcome. Establishing a post-competition feedback form for teachers and students may highlight particular areas where improvements can be made (see section 1.1 for considerations when planning the timing of Round One. See section 4.2.3 for further discussion of addressing issues of timetabling, paper structure, and feedback forms).
  
• 
  Revision of the Round One mark scheme, in order to ensure it is accessible for all teachers. Use of the planned UKLO portal to speed up the marking process and ensure marks are returned to schools, ideally before the end of the summer term (see section 4.2.4 and 4.2.5).
  
• 
  Introduction of a medal scheme for the Foundation and Intermediate papers, in line with that used for the Advanced paper (see section 4.2.4)
  
• 
  Use of the planned UKLO portal to allow teachers to amend estimated numbers of Advanced entries (see section 4.2.4).
  
• 
  Sending a clear outline of the competition structure in preliminary emails, to address issues where some schools were unclear on the competition’s structure (see section 4.2.4).
  
• 
  Maintain links to UK institutions through Markathons and contact with previous competitors progressing to higher education.
  
• 
  Maintain links to current supporters to ensure continued support (see sections 1.5.3 and 4.2.7).
  

Clark, Ann and John Trafford. 1995. Boys into modern languages: An investigation of the discrepancy in attitudes and performance between boys and girls in modern languages. Gender and Education 7: 15-26

interviews’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

von Schantz, H., Roos, J. P., Skirgård, H., Engwall, G., Bergman, B., Barting, I., Hartgvigsson, T., Wirén, M., Wardini, E., Linder, K. & Rask, E. 2012. ‘Varför inget stöd till internationella språktävlingar?’ Svenska Dagbladet [online] Available: http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/varfor-inget-stod-till-internationella-spraktavlingar_7339724.svd#article-comments [Accessed: August 2012]

Stables, Andrew and Felicity Wikeley. 1999. ‘From bad to worse? Pupils’ attitudes to modern foreign languages at ages 14 and 15’. The Language Learning Journal 20: 27-31