Skip to main content

Comparing the new draft A-level specifications (2)

In this blog I am going to look at the assessment regimes of the four exam boards as they appear in the drafts. Usual caveat: this may change a bit! This summary applies to French, German and Spanish.

It is worth saying at the outset that there is far less variation in the pattern of assessment between boards as there is with subject content and prescribed lists of books and films. Nevertheless, if a teacher is weighing up two different boards, they may be slightly influenced by how the exams are arranged (content and timings). You'll see that, as the drafts stand, students will sit in the exam room a bit longer with OCR and Eduqas overall.

I shall look at both AS and A-level this time.

There is a little variation in nomenclature across the boards, but for ease of comparison I'll just use the terms Paper1, Paper 2 and Speaking. Note that you need to add 15 minutes prep time for the AS oral and 5 minutes for A-level.

Note also that even though weighting seem to vary somewhat from board to board, the overall Assessment Objectives (AOs) for each board are weighted identically, as dictated by Ofqual. Each board allocates marks slightly differently.

Again, apologies for the formatting. I shall really master using Blogger one day.


AQA

 AS-level

 Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation into English    1h 45     40%
Paper 2     Translation into TL, essay                              1h 15     30%
Speaking   Discussion of two themes                             12-14m  30%

 A-level
Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation both ways       2h 30     40%
Paper 2     Two essays in TL                                            2h          30%
Speaking   Discussion + pres/discussion of research      16-18m  30%

Total exam time: AS = 3h    A-level = 4h 30     Total      7h30
Eduqas

 AS-level
Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation both ways       2h 30     50%
Paper 2     Essay in TL                                                     1h 15     20%
Speaking  Arguing a point of + discussion                     12-15m  30%

 A-level
Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation both ways       2h 30     50%
Paper 2     Two essays in TL                                            2h          20%
Speaking   Research project + discussion from card      16-18m  30%

Total exam time: AS = 3h 45   A-level = 4h 30  Total     8h 15
OCR

 AS-level
Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation into English    1h 30     37%
Paper 2     Translation into TL + essay in TL                   1h 30    33%
Speaking   Discussion of two themes                              12-14m 30%

 A-level      
Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation into English     2h 30    40%      
Paper 2     Translation into TL + two essays in TL          2h 45    30%
Speaking   Research project + discussion from card      16-18m  30%

Total exam time:  AS = 3h   A-level = 5h 15    Total       8h 15
Pearson

 AS-level     
Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation into English   1h 50    40%
Paper 2    Translation into TL + essay  in TL                 1h 15    30%                  
Speaking  Discussion of two themes                             12-15m 30%

 A-level
Paper 1     Listening, reading, translation into English   1h 50    40%
Paper 2     Translation into TL + two essays in TL         2h 40    30%
Speaking   Research project + discussion                      16-18m 30%    

 Total exam time:   AS = 3h 05   A-level = 4h 30  Total    7h 35

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).
Post a Comment
Read more

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,
4 comments
Read more

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics
5 comments
Read more