Join hundreds of MFL teachers in the TES MFL group. Find lesson ideas and inspiration, share best practice and get your questions answered by peers. This is also the place to go to debate the latest issues in MFL.
Examiners/moderators have already been allocated and there is no way that one could choose an examiner/moderator for obvious reasons. Like Vincent I would be worried about higher entries failing but luckily we have already entered everyone in Jan and got good results for both listening and reading so we only have one absent student and one who joined late to worry about. The obvious drawback is that we have been finished for the majority of students for a month or so in order to assess the speaking in time and see if any further writing tasks were needed.
I have a feeling that speaking and writing boundaries will be similar if not the same as last year, but listening and reading have always changed, even under the former specification, so that depends on candidate performance.
Asfor the change to online standardising, I would much rather have face to face meetings, but they are a thing of the past I fear.
I did request that we DIDN'Thave an examiner I seriously disagreed with for A level one year. After years and years of excellent feedback on the coursework marking it was suddenly way out, poor titles etc etc.
But I got my way as the next year I got the chief examiner - they obviously had me down as a stroppy indiviudal - surprise surprise there were no issues at all with my marking or choice of title.....
You do well to remember the name of examiners. I never do even if I don't agree with their marks!
One issue which has cropped up a lot recently is the lack of feedback for teachers about writing as the tasks are marked externally and not moderated, so there is no feedback form to be filled in by AQA examiners. Controlled assessment advisors cannot mark work or parts of work which is understandable, so the only real recourse for help is the website and /or attending a meeting(which will cause cost isues such as attendance costs and cover). We have had local meetings here which seem to have helped, perhaps others have similar experiences.
Just putting together our Speaking marksheets.
Just a thought.....
1. The AQA examiner who scrutinises the "sample" will only put a question mark over our marking if we are one band out (i.e. I put Johnny in band 1 for content, but Mr AQA thinks he should be in band two).
2. Each band has two marks
3. So long as we get the right band, we might as well always go for the upper mark in the band, because Mr AQA will accept it if we are in the same band as he is.
Does this make sense? Am I right? In which case I should add as many as 4 extra marks to many of my candidates....
The moderator will look at the total mark of 30 for the recorded test, and if the marking is more than 2 marks different either way then it is reported to the board, and they make the decision about adjustments once the marks in the sample have been submitted to them. If the mark awarded is 6,8,3,3 but the AQA standard is 6,6,3,3, the mark for that test would still be accepted even though for RA it is a band higher than the mark judged as correct. Plus for fluency and accuracy there is only one mark in each band. Adding 4 marks would take you seriously out of tolerance if the original was correct.
You are incorrect petite joueuse. The total tolerance for each candidate's recorded task is 2. The minute 1 of the sampled candidates is 3 or more out according to the moderator, more will be sampled(originally only 6 candidates, but then more, depending on size of candidature and degree of discrepancies in the marking. Obviously there is then the possibility of regression causing all or many of the marks to be changed. In extreme circumstances of erratic marking by a centre, the whole cohort's work could be summoned.
Petite Joueuseis this tolerance business explained anywhere? i see what you mean but a colleague was told quite specifically on a course that any marks would be accepted so long as the band selected was deemed correct.
conjugatorPetite Joueuseis this tolerance business explained anywhere? i see what you mean but a colleague was told quite specifically on a course that any marks would be accepted so long as the band selected was deemed correct.It is the total mark out of 30 that counts, as others have said. If you are within plus or minus 2 from the true mark, you're ok. You could, for example, be a band above in one category and a band below in another. I think adding marks just for the sake of it is a very dangerous strategy as it could take you way out of tolerance quite quickly. Remember that moderators get paid more if they deem a centre to be out of tolerance and mark beyond the original sample of 6, so they are probably quite happy to do it!
It is the total mark out of 30 that counts, as others have said. If you are within plus or minus 2 from the true mark, you're ok. You could, for example, be a band above in one category and a band below in another. I think adding marks just for the sake of it is a very dangerous strategy as it could take you way out of tolerance quite quickly. Remember that moderators get paid more if they deem a centre to be out of tolerance and mark beyond the original sample of 6, so they are probably quite happy to do it!
Conjugator is giving the right advice here. If you add on extra marks you will almost certainly be out of tolerance, unless you have marked very severely. +/- 2 is not a wide margin of error.
Ploughing through the mounds of paperwork accompanying each CA at the moment - very time-consuming. All our French Oral marks were within tolerance last year but I'm struggling this year to mark a few candidates who do very well on the first 2 or 3 questions, then perform less well for the last 2 or 3. It says in the CA Handbook that candidates who have 5 or more bullet points and one !, and who fail to answer 3 of those can still get a 7 for Communication. This seems to be saying they could only answer 2 very well and still get a good C overall .Am I right here? There doesn't seem to be anything in the mark scheme to cover this aspect - unless I've missed it? Are they judged on the overall oral and does a weak performance in Q 4 and 5 detract from brilliant answers in 1, 2 and 3? I also have a candidate who talks only for about 1.30, answers their first 2 questions reasonably well and develops them, ie more than isolated words, and who responds readily with good pronunciation. I would put their first 2 questions in the 3/4 bracket - the upper mark, but am not sure if I can give an E overall for such a short oral. Any advice? Thanks. And yes, in an ideal world, with more time and less pressure to focus on the C/D borderlines, I would have spent more time helping the E/F candidate.
An admission that makes me very sad.
Actually, have a feeling there's another comment from the moderators about centre marks - not just within tolerance - and ours were all accepted as being spot on last year.
You have to mark on an overall impression and come to a compromise, I would say.
conjugatorRemember that moderators get paid more if they deem a centre to be out of tolerance and mark beyond the original sample of 6, so they are probably quite happy to do it!
Might that explain why some centres had their grades lowered quite dramatically? It would be outrageous if this was true. A bit like paying police officers more if they arrest more people...
As a moderator, I can absolutely say that there is no way that I or any other moderator I know would seek to find fault for greater remuneration. We try to agree the marks if we can and in any case, moderation is checked either twice or 3 times depending on the efficacy of marking of centres allocated to moderators, so it would be counter productive to mark incorrectly as the moderator would not be used again if this marking was out of line.
I guess that the statement that if you choose the correct band you will not be out of tolerance is true for speaking as for communication and range/accuracy you could only be 2 marks out and for intonation/pronunciation and interaction/fluency there is only 1 mark in the band so the mark would be agreed. However, it is safer and easier to work on the +/- 2 out of 30 idea.
Had to post this somewhere, just feeling relieved after finally sorting out CA writing tasks x2 paperwork for 300+ candidates! Man hours spent on this, about 10!!!!
Have just read a post elsewhere which advises teachers to award 30 rather than 29 if in doubt as there is a 2 mark allowance. This is very risky as it should be remembered that one badly or generously marked student can adversely affect the marks of the rest of the cohort!
Top of page
TES Editorial © 2012 TSL Education Ltd. All pages of the Website are
reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any material on the
Website for any commercial purposes. TSL Education Ltd Registered in England (No 02017289) at 26 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4HQ