So, the death knell has sounded for controlled assessments and it looks very likely that in the nearish future we shall see a return to terminal exams for GCSE. I have to say that as we approach our third and last year group doing CAs we have got used to them, students seem happy with the system and the marks they produce reflect their aptitude. My main reservation has concerned the importance of pure memorisation in the speaking tests. This was a step too far. The written CAs are very much like part of the old coursework format and allow all students to produce acceptable work.
Anyway, the wheel turns and there has been some discussion on the TES forum, mainly led by Martin Lapworth of Taskmagic fame, about what type of exam we should have for GCSE.
Here is my two penneth:
Firstly, tiering should be maintained to allow the examination to be a good test, but manageable by the relatively less able whom we are encouraging to keep languages going.
Secondly it should be fair but challenging test.
Thirdly, it should be as reliable as possible, marked externally.
Fourthly, the testing regime should resemble to a good degree the teaching regime.
And last, grading should be in line with other subjects, which will require some adjustment.
I would be happy enough to see a return to an equal balance of marks across the four skills. I would maintain separate tests for listening, reading, speaking and writing. There are good practical reasons for this: firstly, listening will still be carried out using a CD player or similar from the front and should take at least 30 minutes. If you add on a reading test of about 50 minutes this could make the exam too long.
I would not combine reading and writing for the same reason.
Listening
A mixture of conversation and announcements tested using test types such as matching, gap fill, multi-choice. I would allow greater use of English on the paper for Foundation Tier, but would favour avoiding English as far as possible at Higher Tier. The "backwash effect" is powerful and we would end up with course books filled with English and too little target language use in the classroom. Testing needs to resemble teaching.
Reading
A range of sources, some of them authentic or adapted from authentic sources. A range of test types including matching, multi-choice, gap fill etc. Again, I would discourage English on the paper at Higher Tier. The hardest questions could use multi-choice with good use of distractors. It makes sense to produce papers which can be marked quickly and cheaply, so multi-choice works well.
Speaking
I would return to tiering. We need a balance of tasks which support the less able and stretch the most able. Role-play ensures a degree of spontaneity, traditional conversation allows for a good degree of prior learning (why not?) and a degree of improvisation if the guidelines are set correctly. I would not return to pre-learned presentations. Pictures for discussion are a possibility at Higher Tier. Foundation tier orals need not be shorter as less able candidates often speak more slowly and need more time, even if they have less to say. Orals would be recorded and marked externally.
Writing
Tiered again. This could be a one hour examination at Higher Tier, about 40 minutes at Foundation. The Foundation paper could include a simple grammar assessment (e.g. cloze) and a piece of connected writing based on English bullet points. A choice could be offered. The Higher paper could consist of a grammar task (e.g. cloze) and a piece of connected writing using English bullet points of increasing difficulty. Again, a choice of tasks could be offered. No dictionary (dictionaries vary so this they would make the grading less reliable).
You could argue that what I have laid out is unadventurous and traditional. Well, I could have gone more prehistoric by including picture essays, translation to and from the foreign language, more questions in English. I could have looked forward by suggesting a greater use of technology, such as video recordings for listening assessment or individual listening facilities as per A-level, but there are costs involved in this. I could have allowed for more creativity from students, but as soon as you allow students to produce coursework style pieces of writing, you are introducing an element of unreliability in the assessment because you cannot be sure how much other help has been received.
I hope OFQUAL and the exam boards are getting on to all this already so that whatever we get will have gone through a consultation with teachers. I hope they will look at models from other sources such as Asset Languages in the UK and overseas.
Anyway, the wheel turns and there has been some discussion on the TES forum, mainly led by Martin Lapworth of Taskmagic fame, about what type of exam we should have for GCSE.
Here is my two penneth:
Firstly, tiering should be maintained to allow the examination to be a good test, but manageable by the relatively less able whom we are encouraging to keep languages going.
Secondly it should be fair but challenging test.
Thirdly, it should be as reliable as possible, marked externally.
Fourthly, the testing regime should resemble to a good degree the teaching regime.
And last, grading should be in line with other subjects, which will require some adjustment.
I would be happy enough to see a return to an equal balance of marks across the four skills. I would maintain separate tests for listening, reading, speaking and writing. There are good practical reasons for this: firstly, listening will still be carried out using a CD player or similar from the front and should take at least 30 minutes. If you add on a reading test of about 50 minutes this could make the exam too long.
I would not combine reading and writing for the same reason.
Listening
A mixture of conversation and announcements tested using test types such as matching, gap fill, multi-choice. I would allow greater use of English on the paper for Foundation Tier, but would favour avoiding English as far as possible at Higher Tier. The "backwash effect" is powerful and we would end up with course books filled with English and too little target language use in the classroom. Testing needs to resemble teaching.
Reading
A range of sources, some of them authentic or adapted from authentic sources. A range of test types including matching, multi-choice, gap fill etc. Again, I would discourage English on the paper at Higher Tier. The hardest questions could use multi-choice with good use of distractors. It makes sense to produce papers which can be marked quickly and cheaply, so multi-choice works well.
Speaking
I would return to tiering. We need a balance of tasks which support the less able and stretch the most able. Role-play ensures a degree of spontaneity, traditional conversation allows for a good degree of prior learning (why not?) and a degree of improvisation if the guidelines are set correctly. I would not return to pre-learned presentations. Pictures for discussion are a possibility at Higher Tier. Foundation tier orals need not be shorter as less able candidates often speak more slowly and need more time, even if they have less to say. Orals would be recorded and marked externally.
Writing
Tiered again. This could be a one hour examination at Higher Tier, about 40 minutes at Foundation. The Foundation paper could include a simple grammar assessment (e.g. cloze) and a piece of connected writing based on English bullet points. A choice could be offered. The Higher paper could consist of a grammar task (e.g. cloze) and a piece of connected writing using English bullet points of increasing difficulty. Again, a choice of tasks could be offered. No dictionary (dictionaries vary so this they would make the grading less reliable).
You could argue that what I have laid out is unadventurous and traditional. Well, I could have gone more prehistoric by including picture essays, translation to and from the foreign language, more questions in English. I could have looked forward by suggesting a greater use of technology, such as video recordings for listening assessment or individual listening facilities as per A-level, but there are costs involved in this. I could have allowed for more creativity from students, but as soon as you allow students to produce coursework style pieces of writing, you are introducing an element of unreliability in the assessment because you cannot be sure how much other help has been received.
I hope OFQUAL and the exam boards are getting on to all this already so that whatever we get will have gone through a consultation with teachers. I hope they will look at models from other sources such as Asset Languages in the UK and overseas.
Comments
Post a Comment