Skip to main content

Results of the Ofqual GCSE MFL consultation

Ofqual have recently published the results of the consultation they carried out on MFL GCSE. The main finding can be succinctly summarised as follows:
  • Listening, Reading, Speaking and Writing will be equally weighted at 25%
  • reading, writing and listening will be externally assessed exams
  • speaking assessments will continue to contribute towards the overall student grade
  • speaking will be assessed by non-exam assessment with further details to follow
  • the specifications will be tiered but the requirement to enter all skills at the same tier is new. 
It is worth noting that speaking tests are not classed as exams. They are officially non-exam assessment. That's a technical definition. An exam has to be a paper sat by a group of students at the same time in strict exam conditions.

Nothing has changed in terms of future content of specifications, so we can still expect to see some translation in papers. Oh joy! I have to comment, as I have done before, that although translation both ways can be a useful exercise, if you out it int he exam teachers will end up doing too much of it in class. This is a classic case of the "backwash" effect whereby the test format affects pedagogical practice in the classroom. In this case the result will be less target language use. It's a pretty awful and retrograde decision, one taken in the name of grammatical rigour. We could have had the latter without recourse to 1950s methods.

The main bone of contention among teachers will be the fact that students will have to opt for either Higher or Foundation tier, without the ability to "mix and match", as has been the case for years. Ofqual are clear in their report that teachers favoured a "mixed tier" approach. Teachers are right. We have all known plenty of students who are stronger in some skills than others. It is quite common for a student to be weaker at writing than the other skills, or for a student to be stronger at "passive" skills (reading and listening) than "active" skills (speaking and writing).

So why have Ofqual ruled that mixed tiering will not be allowed?

The precise references can be found in the consultation results which you can find here. (Scroll down for the link.)

AQA argued that mixed tiering would mean having to use a UMS system (as we do now). This means: "marks may have a different value in different parts on the range and compensation between the various components may be distorted. AQA argued that the aggregation of raw marks avoids distortion and is more transparent to both centres and students." This comes across as a rather technical defence of avoiding UMS, which, despite any statistical anomalies, does seem to have worked over a good few years.

Pearson (Edexcel) claimed that mixed tier entry may have an adverse effect of student achievement if candidates were encouraged to enter easier components. Thery also noted that only 10% of its entry were entered for mixed tiers. (This seems a reasonably large number to me.) One might argue that lack of mixed tiering may have an adverse effect on aspiration if schools play safe and enter large numbers of candidates for Foundation to play safe.

OCR felt mixed tiering was not needed if the overlap between Foundation and Higher Tier was great enough.

Overall, I am left thinking that the individual needs of students have been sacrificed for statistical, technical reasons and that teachers will have to make some tougher decisions on tier entry in the future. After doing mock exams, compromises will have to be made and, no doubt, many students will end up doing papers which are either too hard or too easy for them. Typically, middle ability candidates will end up doing Higher Writing when they are not really able to cope with it. The current system is more finely tuned to individual student need and aptitude.

Much may depend on how the overlap element works and whether this will provide a sufficient enough buffer in the case where students are inappropriately entered.

So.... new MFL GCSEs? Any good?

  • For subject content we shall have to wait and see what the specs throw up. 
  • Translation will be a step backwards. Pity. 
  • Literary content will need to be very carefully chosen. 
  • The end of CAs is, on balance, to be welcomed - less memory learning, less disruption of normal teaching, more spontaneity. 
  • Grading may be more robust, but the linear writing test will be a big challenge to many candidates who can currently put together an acceptable piece of rote learned written language. 
  • The new Speaking test will have to tread the fine line between encouraging spontaneous speech (for the most able) and pre-prepared language (to support the less able). 
  • Teachers' views were not taken into consideration nearly enough.
  • Tiering is good, but lack of mixed teiring could end up, paradoxically, offering less challenge
  • It could have been better and it may not age well.

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…