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.
From my blog - bit of a rant!
Why are many language teachers unhappy with the current GCSE MFL exams and are
they right to be so?
Firstly, the assessment does not meet the key requirement of an exam. It is unreliable.
60% of the marks are based on four controlled assessments, two of them oral, two written.
Stage One of the CA process involves teacher input and this will vary greatly. Some
teachers will direct pupils more closely than others to the task itself. Some will provide
templates, some will give pupils more freedom. Some will correct work at Stage One,
others may not. During Stage Two (when pupils prepare their task) the teacher cannot be
certain what input has fed into the task. Did the student get help from someone else?
Did the student use an internet translator? Did the student copy another essay from the internet?
As far as the oral tasks are concerned, only one has to be recorded. The exam board requests
a sample of these for moderation. The second set of marks cannot be verified by the
exam board and the teacher could simply make them up. In saying this, I am not claiming that
teachers do abuse the system, but I am saying that the system should not allow for such abuse.
I would be surprised if some teachers did not bend the rules, especially given the pressure on
us to achieve the best grades in this era of what is known as "high stakes accountability".
The actual taking of the oral is also open to abuse, since there is nothing to stop a teacher
allowing a candidate to read out from a script. Depending on the teacher's good will is
inadequate.
Furthermore, the setting of tasks is inconsistent, as the exam board acknowledge in their
advice to centres. Some teachers set tasks which are too challenging, some not challenging
enough.
And what about the optional plannign sheet? Candidates may choose to use a planning
sheet for controlled assessments(with no conjugated verbs), but there is nothing to stop
a teacher then disposing of an inappropriate planning sheet. As far as the written assessments are concerned, once again it would be hard to prove if a
candidate had received unfair assistance. Signing a form to say he or she has not done so
is meaningless. Dubious cases never "go to court". "Controlled conditions" is not the same as
exam conditions. Why do exam boards take such pains to keep teachers out of examination
halls, yet allow them to supervise examined essays in a classroom where candidates cannot
be sat apart properly?? The system is again open to abuse and totally inconsistent. Controlled assessments are in any case deeply flawed as a means of assessing students.
In the case of the oral, they rely on memory learning and regurgitation. The exam boards
advise us to avoid such practice and to allow for spontaneity, claiming this produces
better performances.I do not believe this for one moment. The highest marks go to
candidates who speak at great length, having memorised almost every word. The
pupils themselves recognise how flawed the system but are prepared to play the game.
The written essays are not dissimilar. Once again the most successful students will have
pre-learned an essay and copied it out in class. What's more, the allocation of marks for each skill is inappropriate. 30% for speaking is
justifiable, 30% for writing is not. The key skill of listening is downgraded because MFL
has to fit in the same straitjacket as other subjects. This has a backwash effect,
distorting teaching and leading to too much spoonfeeding.
The current regime of discrete skill testing also has a harmful effect on pedagogy. Why do
we use so much English in listening and reading comprehension papers at GCSE, but avoid
doing so for A-level? Teachers in England will always teach to the test. It is in out blood.
So if an exam uses English questions, the teachers will follow. We rejectedthis type of
testing over a decade ago and have no embraced it again. The results canbe seen in the
latest text books.
Lastly, last year's experience demonstrated a good deal of inconsistency in the application
of the mark scheme, especially for the written assessments. Teachers do not feel they can
trust the board to get the marks right. This may be down to inexperience with a new
specification or the lack of face to face standardisation and moderation.
All in all, MFL teachers are right to criticise the current assessment regime. We need
something more consistent, just, accurate and robust which will test knowledge and skills,
the ability to think on the spot and improvise, not just set language to memory. We need
it to be appropriate for a wide range of abilities and to suitably reflect and influence the
work of the classroom.
OK. That did not copy and paste properly and I cannot edit it. So try this:
frenchteachernet.blogspot.co.uk
Agreed but what can we do. No one seems to listen to us.
geccowhat can we do. No one seems to listen to us.
So I've gone to the trouble of opening the TES site in Firefox instead, just so I can post my hyperlink:
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/486160.aspx?PageIndex=1
mlapworthSorry, can't add hyperlinks in Google chrome - copy and paste it into address bar...
Do the IGCSE which only allows for the speaking element to be rigged.
NIce article from Daily Telegraph. (People are concerned about language learning)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9185900/Bringing-back-tough-A-levels-will-be-hard-but-worth-it.html
Trouble with IGCSE is that it does not suit all abilities, at least as far as the writing element is concerned. Even at a grammar school the lower sets would find the writing section hard. It is clear that IGCSE is aimed at the most able.
You could concoct a tiered reading/writing paper which would work for a wider range of ability.
I read that Telegraph thread. I don't have an issue with MFL A-levels. Criticisms of these should be relatively minor and centre on the use of the essay and its associated mark scheme IMHO.
Geekie I learned recently how to add links via Chrome: before the link, type [ u r l ] and after the link type [ / u r l ] (minus the spaces) Then the link will appear.
Excellent. Thanks :0)
Agree with most of what Steve says and we don't have the sort of pupils who could cope with IGCSE. However, results were good last year, despite the writing debacle. I honestly have no idea why writing and speaking should be worth 60% of the total marks.
gsgloverI honestly have no idea why writing and speaking should be worth 60% of the total marks.
I think it was the brainchild of some genius at the now defunct QCA.
I was just filling in my paperwork today, minus one student who is sitting an extra task next Tuesday, and it just occurred to me how easy and tempting it might be to just "colour-in" a grade, any grade. Shocking really.
Siegen81to82gsgloverI honestly have no idea why writing and speaking should be worth 60% of the total marks.I think it was the brainchild of some genius at the now defunct QCA.
alexlawrenceI think it was the brainchild of some genius at the now defunct QCA. Didn't said genius decree that 'all GCSEs must contain 60% controlled assessment', which when applied to MFL cannot possibly be the reading and listening papers, as they cannot be pre-learnt? So we're stuck with perpetuating the idea that what our pupils can say / write in French has more importance than what they hear someone else say, or what they read? *Deep breaths*
Didn't said genius decree that 'all GCSEs must contain 60% controlled assessment', which when applied to MFL cannot possibly be the reading and listening papers, as they cannot be pre-learnt? So we're stuck with perpetuating the idea that what our pupils can say / write in French has more importance than what they hear someone else say, or what they read? *Deep breaths*
I think we'd have to find and then ask the genius.
When GCSE was first examined 25 summers ago, it was meant in all subjects to give students of a wide range of ability the chance to show and be rewarded for "what they know, understand, and can do". That positive, appreciative approach replaced the destructive and punitive approach of the worst aspects of O level, which are still deliberately used by AQA in the translation exercises at A2, but at least we know that and can prepare A2 candidates accordingly.
The first principles of GCSE - know/understand/can do - have fallen victim over the last 25 years to politics in the form of the importance of grades A-C and then A*-C, league tables, value added, an obsession with data, performance management targets, teacher involvement in the assessment, target grades, intervention, quality assurance interrogations/dialogues, and as we've said many times on the MFL forum the temptation and practice of cheating. For GCSE to be fit for purpose, I would suggest that we define that purpose, and what was good enough in the late 1980s should be reaffirmed now and adhered to. Then we might - just might - be able to have something which has integrity and credibility.
I shall now get off my soapbox.
Your 'rant' at the top of this thread is precisely what QFQUAL, Gove, and the exam boards need to hear. I have never met you, probably never will, but if I could I'd buy you a pint. Well said!
Top of page