Skip to main content

New MFL A-levels - part 2

In my last post I looked at the draft content of the proposed new A-levels for modern languages. I shall now deal with the assessment objectives and mark weightings. Once again, there are very significant changes. Here is the link again:

http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/developing-new-qualifications-for-2016/3-subject-specific-proposals/modern-foreign-languages/

To summarise succinctly:

Listening   20%
Reading (assessed through speech and writing)   30%
Language use (accuracy and appropriacy, both speech and writing)  30%
Culture     20%

We have to be a little careful here, because reading will be partly assessed within the oral. (We may end up with summary and discussion on short texts.)

The big change here is the allocation of marks for cultural knowledge. When the existing post 2000 A-levels were designed teachers expressed the view that culture (literature, film etc) should still feature in courses. It was decided, however, that no marks could be awarded for cultural knowledge. This led to the curious situation of orals and essays being marked without explicit reference to knowledge of books, films etc. Marks could only be given for use of language, relevance, accuracy and structure. I do not know for sure why it was decided at that time not to give marks for cultural knowledge if it was valued by teachers. Perhaps it was felt that language should prevail, or perhaps it was recognised that if you gave free rein on choice of texts and topics, the examiners would not have reliable mark schemes to work to.

I have mixed feelings about this. To reward cultural knowledge means downgrading language to some extent. To include marks for cultural knowledge probably means you need to have set texts as the WJEC chose to do post 2000. If we end up with prescribed texts, as looks almost certain, I just hope they are long, imaginative and give teachers a good chance to find something that both they and students will enjoy.

What is more worrying, and I mentioned this in my last post, is that assessment of literature or film (why just these?) must include essay writing in English (50% of the marks for AO4). This is what many universities still do and I think that it is a poor idea for A-level. Why? Because it will lead to too much use of English in classrooms and, frankly, it may be too easy. Ask a student what they would prefer: to write an essay in English in French or English? They will say English. It is arguable that use of English will allow some deeper level of analysis, but it comes at a cost. My experience over many years was that you could teach serious texts without vast recourse to English and without having to write essays in English. This is a terribly retrograde move. Perhaps they were right in 2000 to keep the focus relentlessly on language.

Just a note that up to 10% of marks will be given for questions and responses in English. Is this really necessary? Is it beyond the wit of examiners to test comprehension of gist and detail through the target language?

What about listening? Why is it considered less important than reading? To my mind it is the key skill and if you award it fewer marks teachers will spend less time on it.

As for oral work, it is not yet clear to me from the assessment objectives precisely how many marks are to be awarded for it. I wonder if it will work out at around 20%.

If so, listening and speaking together would account for roughly 40% of marks. I believe this is too little. Modern languages at A-level should still be viewed primarily as a practical tool and many would argue that listening and speaking are the most useful skills for later.

Overall, the assessment objectives, like the subject content, smell fusty. It's as if we are going back at least three decades. What a shame! This has the fingerprints of the universities all over it and, even if this is what we end up with, I hope teachers and subject associations will have a serious say in the consultations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The latest research on teaching vocabulary

I've been dipping into The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017) edited by Loewen and Sato. This blog is a succinct summary of Chapter 16 by Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt on the topic of teaching vocabulary. I hope you find it useful.

1.  Background

The authors begin by outlining the clear importance of vocabulary knowledge in language acquisition, stating that it's a key predictor of overall language proficiency (e.g. Alderson, 2007). Students often say that their lack of vocabulary is the main reason for their difficulty understanding and using the language (e.g. Nation, 2012). Historically vocabulary has been neglected when compared to grammar, notably in the grammar-translation and audio-lingual traditions as well as  communicative language teaching.

(My note: this is also true, to an extent, of the oral-situational approach which I was trained in where most vocabulary is learned incidentally as part of question-answer sequence…

Delayed dictation

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 earworm is a word, chunk of l…

Dissecting a lesson: using a set of PowerPoint slides

I was prompted to write this just having produced for frenchteacher.net three separate PowerPoint presentations using the same set of 20 pictures (sports). A very good way for you to save time is to reuse the same resource in a number of different ways.

I chose 20 clear, simple, clear and copyright-free images from pixabay.com to produce three presentations on present tense (beginners), near future (post beginner) and perfect tense (post-beginner/low intermediate). Here is one of them:





Below is how I would have taught using this presentation - it won't be everyone's cup of tea, especially of you are not big on choral repetition and PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production), but I'll justify my choice in the plan at each stage. For some readers this will be standard practice.

1. Explain in English that you are going to teach the class how to talk about and understand people talking about sport. By the end of the lesson they will be able to say and understand 20 different sport…

Designing a plan to improve listening skills

Read many books and articles about listening and you’ll see it described as the forgotten skill. It certainly seems to be the one which causes anxiety for both teachers and students. The reasons are clear: you only get a very few chances to hear the material, exercises feel like tests and listening is, well, hard. Just think of the complex processes involved: segmenting the sound stream, knowing lots of words and phrases, using grammatical knowledge to make meaning, coping with a new sound system and more. Add to this the fact that in England they have recently decided to make listening tests harder (too hard) and many teachers are wondering what else they can do to help their classes.

For students to become good listeners takes lots of time and practice, so there are no quick fixes. However, I’m going to suggest, very concisely, what principles could be the basis of an overall plan of action. These could be the basis of a useful departmental discussion or day-to-day chats about meth…

Responsive teaching

Dylan Wiliam, the academic most associated with Assessment for Learning (AfL), aka formative assessment, has stated that these labels have not been the most helpful to teachers. He believes that they have been partly responsible for poor implementation of AfL and the fact that AfL has not led to the improved outcomes originally intended.

Wiliam wrote on Twitter in 2013:

“Example of really big mistake: calling formative assessment formative assessment rather than something like "responsive teaching".”

For the record he subsequently added:

“The point I was making—years ago now—is that it would have been much easier if we had called formative assessment "responsive teaching". However, I now realize that this wouldn't have helped since it would have given many people the idea that it was all about the teacher's role.”

I suspect he’s right about the appellation and its consequences. As a teacher I found it hard to get my head around the terms AfL and formative assess…