Skip to main content

Worried about the new GCSEs?

Twitter and MFL Facebook groups are replete with posts expressing concerns about the new GCSEs and, in particular, the difficulty of the exam, grades and tiers. I can only comment from a distance since I am no longer in the classroom, but I have been through a number of sea changes in assessment over the years so may have something useful to say.

Firstly, as far as general difficulty of papers is concerned, I think it’s fair to say that the new assessment is harder (not necessarily in terms of grades though). This is particularly evident in the writing tasks and speaking test. Although it will still be possible to work in some memorised material in these parts of the exam, there is no doubt that weaker candidates will have more problems coping with the greater requirement for unrehearsed language. Past experience working with average to very able students tells me some, even those with reasonable attainment, will flounder on the written questions in the heat of the moment. Others will struggle interpreting questions in the target language. Lots of question practice will mitigate the problems, but expect many candidates to come a cropper in speaking and writing. Listening and reading marks may save the day for some.

With respect to grade predictions, because Ofqual will be implementing their “comparable outcomes” policy we can expect the spread of grades to be similar to before (notwithstanding the move to 9-1 grading). In case you didn’t know it, GCSE grade spreads are largely derived from KS2 performance scores. This won’t be much help when trying to relate raw marks on specimen questions used in mocks, but if you add up all your raw marks and make a percentage, you could then concoct some artificial grade boundaries which may be necessary to be in line with your school’s policies. We know from maths and English results in 2017 that low raw marks can still result in acceptable grades. Overall maths and English saw no significant change in the spread of grades. Could Ofqual even take this opportunity to address the MFL severe grading issue under cover, as it were, of 9-1?

With regard to tiering decisions I would be tempted to play safe where there are borderline decisions to be made, keeping strongly your school’s previous performance over the years. With candidates who would have previously been at the C or C/D borderline, then Foundation Tier might make sense. Don’t expect great changes between the mocks and the actual exam. These can happen, but they are exceptional. MFL is a hard subject to cram late in the day. You are the expert so treat student and parental input with great caution.

Overall, what advice could I offer in terms of effective preparation? Well, I may be speaking to the converted here, but here are some bullet points based on my own experience:

- Do plenty of practice tests. Research is clear that learners do better when they are familiar with the test type. Find specimens papers from all the exam boards ( I have made a few for frenchteacher.net).
- Keep modelling high frequency language for the oral and writing tests. Ram home the message “Use what you know, not what you may want to say.” This applies less to very able candidates.
- Share mark schemes and show model answers. Get students to play examiner and examinee.
- For writing keep stressing to weaker students that simplicity and clarity are vital. Poor work can come from either a lack of writing or just producing semi-comprehensible sentences.
- Insist with weaker students that they stick to the point when writing answers.
- For speaking stress the importance of saying a lot. Quantity is more important than quality (accuracy).
- Supply practice oral questions and rehearse them repeatedly (e.g. speed dating, board games, teacher modelling, recording answers). Don’t worry if your students all produce similar answers. Some schools are much better at preparing pupils for orals than others. ( I know this as a former examiner.)
-Emphasise that pupils can reuse the same high frequency language in the speaking and writing tests.
- Remind pupils that the phrase “for example” is one of the best to keep using in speech and writing. It ensures answers are developed.
- In role plays teach students how to score marks by saying as little as possible, e.g. misusing a verb tense when the verb is not needed to get across the message will lose marks.
- For listening do as much intensive work on short extracts as possible. Focus on tasks such as gap-fill and transcription, less on general comprehension than you might normally. Train students to be careful listeners.
- Keep recycling high-frequency vocabulary and chunks, preferably with words used in context, not in isolated lists. Make sure all pupils have in their repertoire chunks such as “I play, I played, I’ll play, I watch, I watched, I go, I went etc etc.
- For the reading paper, as with listening, focus on working short texts intensively, e.g. using gap-fill, “find the French” and linking starts and ends of sentences. Use reading texts for follow-up listening practice or vice versa. Repetition = memory.
- Do a fair amount of instant translation tasks (both ways). Mini-whiteboards and board games are good for this. But lots of call and response teacher-led work can keep modelling high frequency language. Stick to high frequency language in varying contexts (recycling).
- Play fluency games like “Just a minute” to encourage more able pupils to speak at length without fearing error.
- Make sure all pupils know the intricacies of the mark scheme so that they don’t throw away marks by omitting to include certain elements, e.g. opinions or complex sentences with more than one clause.
- Teach a repertoire of “fab phrases” which pupils should try to include in any essay they write. Keep recycling these until they are used automatically.


I’m sure you can think of more.

In the end it’s the pupils who should be worrying, not you.

Good luck!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

  1. This is really helpful for me especially I just signed up to be a tutor on Classes A to Z Thanks a lot!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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,

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

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

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be

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