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 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,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Delayed dictation

Image: pixabay.com What is “delayed dictation”? Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music. It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too. Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating. In our language teaching case, though, the

Using sentence builder frames for GCSE speaking and writing preparation

Some teachers have cottoned on to the fact that sentence builders (aka substitution tables) are a very useful tool for helping students prepare for their GCSE speaking and writing tests. My own hunch is that would help for students of all levels of proficiency, but may be particularly helpful for those likely to get lower grades, say between 3-6. Much depends, of course, on how complex you make the table. To remind you, here is a typical sentence builder, as found on the frenchteacher site. The topic is talking about where you live. A word of warning - formatting blogs in Blogger is a nightmare when you start with Word documents, so apologies for any issues. It might have taken me another 30 minutes just to sort out the html code underlying the original document. Dans ma ville (in my town) Dans ma région (In my area) il y a (there is/are) des banques (banks) des cafés (cafes) des

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can