Skip to main content

Dangers of rubrics and questions in the target language

I've just been looking at the Cambridge IGCSE French writing paper (2015 specimen paper 4).*  Have a glance at questions 2 and 3. It is a reminder of the dangers of writing task questions in the target language. Good candidates will understand what they have to write, weaker students will be confused, not recognise tense cues or may just carelessly misinterpret the question. The result in both cases will be that they write irrelevant material which will produce a low mark unrepresentative of their writing skill.

Now, in general, if you are going to assess each skill separately (listening, reading, speaking and writing) I tend to favour the use of target language where possible. I know this may not be a majority view! My reasoning is that if you set questions in English, the backwash effect (test dictating teaching) will mean that textbooks and teachers will inevitably overuse English in lessons as they do their best to prepare ther students for the exam. Pedagogy will suffer and students will hear and read less target language. Put another way, there will be less comprehensible input.

However, with written papers it is particularly important that there be no confusion in students' minds. In this case, if we wish to assess a candidate's ability to write connected French in a semi-authentic way (email, letter, social media message) we do need the bullet points or title to be written in English. In terms of comprehensible input little is lost in this case.

But what about the risk of uncertainty in listening and reading papers if target language is used exclusively? I understand the argument: teachers say it is fairer and more reliable to just ask questions in English. But I woudl argue that in this case any confusion should be much more limited and should not destroy a candidate's performance. Using pictures, matching, gap fill and so on helps a good deal in terms of staying in the TL. I acknowledge that students' comprehension may not be assessed absolutely perfectly, but it is worth paying this small price for the huge gains which would be made in the classroom.

Some might argue that teachers are smart enough to maintain a solid TL approach, even if the exam features a good deal of English. Well, firstly I would say that we know from experience what text book writers and teachers do in reality. Textbooks give exam practice and teachers do past papers - lots of them! Secondly, maybe more importantly, a good test should, as far as possible, reflect good practice and be an extension of normal classroom teaching.

I doubt if we shall ever square this circle, but when we eventually see what the next generation of GCSE papers looks like, I hope common sense wins the day in writing assessments.

* If you are not used to the system in England and Wales, the same principles may apply to exam papers you are familiar with.

Comments

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).

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

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,