Skip to main content

Fundamental challenge of new GCSE speaking assessment

It won't be long before we see what the awarding bodies have in mind for the latest version of GCSE speaking test. As always, the fundamental challenge will be to produce an assessment which challenges the most able and supports the least.

The most recent version of oral assessment, the controlled assessment regime, has leaned towards helping the less confident linguist. By allowing students to set answers to memory, we end up with nearly every student being able to say something worthwhile. Weaker students achieve something. At the same time, the most competent linguists still get the chance to excel by producing longer and more linguistically complex responses.

Previous versions of GCSE speaking tests have attempted to achieve the same balancing act by allowing part of the test to be a memorised talk of at least one minute. The earliest version of GCSE speaking, back in 1987-8, as I recall it, leaned too much towards spontaneity for weaker pupils.

The current controlled assessment regime has been rightly criticised for going too far down the road of rote learning at the expense of spontaneity (even though it still allows the best students to shine). Therefore we can expect the new assessment to value unrehearsed responses more highly.

There are various ways to do this: you can get students to speak about pictures, do role plays and answer (relatively) unpredictable conversation questions, for example. The danger is, of course, that we produce an assessment which does not allow for enough pre-learning. I recall very clearly the GCSE speaking tests I used to mark for AQA in the 1990s. Too many candidates were unable to say very much at all. Minutes of silence or the odd uttered word were easy to assess, but you had to question whether the experience was worthwhile for everyone concerned.

Thankfully the DfE accepted the need for tiering in the new exams, but the the challenge remains. Even in an era when so many less able students no longer do MFL GCSE, can the exam boards produce a test which allows for both sufficient spontaneity and advance rehearsal? We should examine specimen tests with this strongly in mind.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

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