Skip to main content

Reflections on the new GCSEs in England and Wales (2)

The new exams will mark a return to using English questions for reading and listening tests. So we will see a return to "discrete skill testing". This issue is hotly debated within the language-teaching community. The argument for it goes that it ensures clarity for children and that a test of listening, for example, should be just that, not a test of someone's ability to understand a written rubric in the target language. This argument has merit and it is the way that Asset Languages decided to go when they designed their assessment system.

I would argue against it. In the UK, because of our high level of public accountability and because of our systems of performance management, we teach strongly to the exam. In fact, this was the case long before league tables when there was a more informal type of accountability. The results of teaching to the test is the "backwash" effect. From half way through the final year before the exam we practise exam skills and work through past papers as far as we can. Text books are designed to fit with the assessment system and feature similar style assessment tasks.

The result of discrete skill testing is, therefore, that teachers will use a lot more English in lessons than they would ideally like to. Methodology will be compromised as we do lots of tests with exercises couched in English.

This happened post 1987 when GCSE first came into being and exams were soon re-designed to include more target language in questions and rubrics. True, this has been adjusted over the years so that we now see a greater emphasis on visuals and multiple choice.

So don't be surprised if there is a backlash against discrete skill testing sometime in the future as the pendulum swings back.

Anyway, discrete skill testing is what we've got, so we must guard carefully against over-using English in the classroom to ensure that our students get enough high quality target language input.

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 skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,