Skip to main content

Results of the Ofqual GCSE MFL consultation

Ofqual have recently published the results of the consultation they carried out on MFL GCSE. The main finding can be succinctly summarised as follows:
  • Listening, Reading, Speaking and Writing will be equally weighted at 25%
  • reading, writing and listening will be externally assessed exams
  • speaking assessments will continue to contribute towards the overall student grade
  • speaking will be assessed by non-exam assessment with further details to follow
  • the specifications will be tiered but the requirement to enter all skills at the same tier is new. 
It is worth noting that speaking tests are not classed as exams. They are officially non-exam assessment. That's a technical definition. An exam has to be a paper sat by a group of students at the same time in strict exam conditions.

Nothing has changed in terms of future content of specifications, so we can still expect to see some translation in papers. Oh joy! I have to comment, as I have done before, that although translation both ways can be a useful exercise, if you out it int he exam teachers will end up doing too much of it in class. This is a classic case of the "backwash" effect whereby the test format affects pedagogical practice in the classroom. In this case the result will be less target language use. It's a pretty awful and retrograde decision, one taken in the name of grammatical rigour. We could have had the latter without recourse to 1950s methods.

The main bone of contention among teachers will be the fact that students will have to opt for either Higher or Foundation tier, without the ability to "mix and match", as has been the case for years. Ofqual are clear in their report that teachers favoured a "mixed tier" approach. Teachers are right. We have all known plenty of students who are stronger in some skills than others. It is quite common for a student to be weaker at writing than the other skills, or for a student to be stronger at "passive" skills (reading and listening) than "active" skills (speaking and writing).

So why have Ofqual ruled that mixed tiering will not be allowed?

The precise references can be found in the consultation results which you can find here. (Scroll down for the link.)

AQA argued that mixed tiering would mean having to use a UMS system (as we do now). This means: "marks may have a different value in different parts on the range and compensation between the various components may be distorted. AQA argued that the aggregation of raw marks avoids distortion and is more transparent to both centres and students." This comes across as a rather technical defence of avoiding UMS, which, despite any statistical anomalies, does seem to have worked over a good few years.

Pearson (Edexcel) claimed that mixed tier entry may have an adverse effect of student achievement if candidates were encouraged to enter easier components. Thery also noted that only 10% of its entry were entered for mixed tiers. (This seems a reasonably large number to me.) One might argue that lack of mixed tiering may have an adverse effect on aspiration if schools play safe and enter large numbers of candidates for Foundation to play safe.

OCR felt mixed tiering was not needed if the overlap between Foundation and Higher Tier was great enough.

Overall, I am left thinking that the individual needs of students have been sacrificed for statistical, technical reasons and that teachers will have to make some tougher decisions on tier entry in the future. After doing mock exams, compromises will have to be made and, no doubt, many students will end up doing papers which are either too hard or too easy for them. Typically, middle ability candidates will end up doing Higher Writing when they are not really able to cope with it. The current system is more finely tuned to individual student need and aptitude.

Much may depend on how the overlap element works and whether this will provide a sufficient enough buffer in the case where students are inappropriately entered.

So.... new MFL GCSEs? Any good?

  • For subject content we shall have to wait and see what the specs throw up. 
  • Translation will be a step backwards. Pity. 
  • Literary content will need to be very carefully chosen. 
  • The end of CAs is, on balance, to be welcomed - less memory learning, less disruption of normal teaching, more spontaneity. 
  • Grading may be more robust, but the linear writing test will be a big challenge to many candidates who can currently put together an acceptable piece of rote learned written language. 
  • The new Speaking test will have to tread the fine line between encouraging spontaneous speech (for the most able) and pre-prepared language (to support the less able). 
  • Teachers' views were not taken into consideration nearly enough.
  • Tiering is good, but lack of mixed teiring could end up, paradoxically, offering less challenge
  • It could have been better and it may not age well.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

5 great zero preparation lesson ideas

When the pressure is on and there are only so many hours on the week, you need a repertoire of zero preparation go-to activities which promote input and/or practice. Here are five you might well find useful.

1. My weekend

We know that listening is the most important yet often neglected skill for language learning. It's also something some pupils find hard to do. To develop listening skill and provide tailored comprehensible input try this:

You tell the class you are going to recount what you did last weekend and that they have to make notes in English. The amount of detail you go into and the speed you go will depend on your class. Talk for about three minutes. If you spent the whole weekend marking, you can always make stuff up!

You then make some true or false (maybe not mentioned too) statements in the target language about what you said in your account. Class gives hands up (or no hands up) answers. This can then lead into a simple pair work task where pupils make up their own tru…

New GCSE resources on frenchteacher

As well as writing resources for the new A-levels, I have in recent months been posting a good range of materials to support the new GCSEs. First exams are not until 2018, but here is what you can find on the site in addition to the many other resources (grammar exercises, texts, video listening etc).

I shall not produce vocabulary lists since the exam board specifications now offer these, with translations.

Foundation Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Role-plays
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (2)
100 translation sentences into French (with answers)
Reading exam
Reading exam (2)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (Word)

Higher Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier)
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier) (2)
20 translations into French (with answers)
Reading exam (Higher tier)
How to write a good Higher Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a…

What teachers are saying about The Language Teacher Toolkit

"The Language Teacher Toolkit is a really useful book for language teachers to either read all the way through or dip into. What I like about it is that the authors Steve Smith and Gianfranco Conti are totally upfront about what they believe to be good practice but back it up with research evidence." (Ernesto Macaro, Oxford University Department of Education)

"I absolutely love this book based on research and full of activities..  The best manual I've read so far. One of our PDs from the Australian Board of Studies recommended your book as an excellent resource.  I look forward to the conference here in Sydney." Michela Pezzi, Teacher, Australia, Facebook)

"Finally, a book for World Language teachers that provides practical ideas and strategies that can actually be used in the classroom, rather than dry rhetoric and theory that does little to inspire creativity in ways that are engaging for both students and teachers alike." (USA teacher, Amazon review)

Three AQA A-level courses compared

I've put together my three reviews of worthy A-level courses which you might be considering for next September. They are all very useful courses, but with significant differences. The traditional Hodder and OUP book-based courses differ in that the former comes in one chunky two year book, whilst OUP's comes in two parts, the first for AS or the first year of an A-level course. The Attitudes16 course by Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri is based on an online platform from which you would download worksheets and share a logon with studenst who would do the interactive parts (Textivate and video work). The two text books are supported by interactive material (Kerboodle) or an e-text book.

Attitudes16





An excellent resource which should be competing for your attention at the moment is the Attitudes16 course which writers Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri have been working on for some time. You can find it here at dolanguages.com, along with his excellent resources for film and li…

The Language Teacher Toolkit review

We were delighted to receive a review of The Language Teacher Toolkit from eminent applied linguist Ernesto Macaro from Oxford University. Macaro is a leader in the field of second language acquisition and applied linguistics. His main research interests are teacher-student interaction and language learning strategies pupils can use to improve their progress.

Here is Professor Macaro's review:
The Language Teacher Toolkit is a really useful book for language teachers to either read all the way through or dip into. What I like about it is that the authors Steve Smith and Gianfranco Conti are totally upfront about what they believe to be good practice but back it up with research evidence. So for example the ‘methodological principles’ on page 11 are supported by the research they then refer to later in the book and this approach is very similar to the one that we (Ernesto Macaro, Suzanne Graham, Robert Woore) have adopted in our ‘consortium project’(http://pdcinmfl.com). The point i…