Skip to main content

Ofqual report: changes to A-level marking and grading

http://ofqual.gov.uk/news/improvements-made-level-foreign-languages/

Scroll down for links to a summary and the technical report carried out by Ofqual.

Ofqual have been looking into grading for A-level modern languages, partly in response to concern expressed by subject associations and teachers about the apparent lack of A* grades compared to other subjects. In essence, although MFL gets a reasonable share of A*/A grades (although still tougher than most subjects), of these only a relatively small percentage are A* grades.

As a teacher I was certainly aware of this issue and it is one factor behind the reluctance of students to take up MFL at A-level. When one also bears in mind that a small percentage of candidates are native speakers with, in many cases, a great advantage over their peers, getting an A* has been really tough in MFL.

So what did Ofqual find? Well, firstly they have to be commended for carrying out a very detailed technical report which gets right into the nitty gritty of question setting and mark schemes. Teachers would not believe how complex and technical this whole area is. I got a first insight into this at a recent AQA training meeting. Each exam board was looked at by Ofqual, exam papers, markschemes, marking and awarding were analysed, and specific recommendations have been made for each board, as well general instructions given in relation to summer 2015 and the future.

One example picked up by Ofqual relates to the mark scheme for the AQA essays at AS and A2 level. AQA is the most popular board and teachers have often complained about inconsistent and strict marking of essays. How do you get a really high mark? The issue here is that the level based assessment scheme puts a cap on marks for range/complexity and accuracy, depending on the content of the essay. This means that very able candidates with exceptional language skills are not being rewarded as highly as they should be because the content mark limits their overall mark. Teachers have often grumbled about this, as well as the fact that it is not clear what students have to do to achieve a very high content mark in the first place. Are students better advised to make lots of points relatively superficially or develop a smaller number of points more fully?

I think the original justification for this "limiting by content" approach was that it would stop candidates producing ready-made and totally irrelevant essays. Firstly, I doubt this happens very much, and secondly you can still mark irrelevance down in the content box, whilst still rewarding high quality language.

Ofqual also picks up the fact that exam boards are not thorough enough in how they produce a range of questions of varying challenge. For example, one board is criticised for making the listening questions generally too easy, so that candidates who are very good at listening and weaker at writing are insufficiently rewarded for listening compared with other candidates. In other words, the assessment fails, to some extent, to reward skills equally, marks may become compressed in the middle and rank order of candidates is less reliable than it should be.

As I say these are quite technical issues which exam boards may have been insufficiently hot on in the past and which Ofqual are now picking up. One has to ask the question: why was this not got right back around 2000 when the new specifications and their mark schemes were established? One answer to this may be that Ofqual is now more professional than its equivalent was in 2000 and that perhaps research is teaching us more about the fine detail of producing exams which are both reliable and valid.

I have only touched the surface of the issues involved here (because I only understand some of them!). Ofqual have a good deal to say about oral assessment, generally finding it too generous and unable to distinguish the very good from the exceptional student. Suffice it to say, that exam boards have been instructed to make changes to mark schemes and question setting which will allow for a fairer rank order and potential access to the higher grades. Ofqual state explicitly that changes may lead to more A*s. Some key changes must be made for this year's exams (notably mark scheme changes which will allow for more A*s), others must be kept in mind for new exams to come.

Ofqual are at pains to stress that this should mean no changes in teaching, but no doubt teachers will be keen to share any new essay mark schemes with students as soon as possible.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Sentence Stealers with a twist

Sentence Stealers is a reading aloud game invented by Gianfranco Conti. I'll describe the game to you, then suggest an extension of it which goes a bit further than reading aloud. By the way, I shouldn't need to justify the usefulness of reading aloud, but just in case, we are talking here about matching sounds to spellings, practising listening, pronunciation and intonation and repeating/recycling high frequency language patterns.

This is how it works:

Display around 15 sentences on the board, preferably ones which show language patterns you have been working on recently or some time ago.Hand out four cards or slips of paper to each student.On each card students must secretly write a sentence from the displayed list.Students then circulate around the class, approaching their classmates and reading a sentence from the displayed list. If the other person has that sentence on one of their cards, they must hand over the card. The other person then does the same, choosing a sentenc…

The age factor in language learning

This post draws on a section from Chapter 5 of Jack C. Richards' splendid handbook Key Issues in Language Teaching (2015). I'm going to summarise what Richards writes about how age factors affect language learning, then add my own comments about how this might influence classroom teaching.

It's often said that children seem to learn languages so much more quickly and effectively than adults. Yet adults do have some advantages of their own, as we'll see.

In the 1970s it was theorised that children's success was down to the notion that there is a critical period for language learning (pre-puberty). Once learners pass this period changes in the brain make it harder to learn new languages. Many took this critical period hypothesis to mean that we should get children to start learning other languages at an earlier stage. (The claim is still picked up today by decision-makers arguing for the teaching of languages in primary schools.)

Unfortunately, large amounts of rese…

Dissecting a lesson: teaching an intermediate written text

This post is a beginner’s guide about how you might go about working with a written text with low-intermediate or intermediate students (Y10-11 in England). I must emphasise that this is not what you SHOULD do, just one approach based on my own experience and keeping in mind what we know about learning and language learning in particular. Experienced teachers may find it interesting to compare this sequence with what you do yourself.

You can adapt the sequence below to the class, context and your own preferred style. I’m going to assume that the text is chosen for relevance, interest and comprehensibility. The research suggests that the best texts are at the very least 90% understandable, i.e. you would need to gloss no more than 10% of the words or phrases. The text could be authentic, or more likely adapted authentic from a text book, or teacher written. It would likely be fairly short so you have time to exploit it intensively, recycling as much useful language as possible.

So here w…