ALL London branch   

 

Last update: 27/05/2012

Home
Up
Contact

Introduction
Site Map
Diary
Events-News
People
Subcommittees
Web Links
ICT
FAQ
National ALL
Webinars

Consultation: GCSE Subject Review 2007

This page gives links and downloads to support ALL members in their involvement in national consultations.

GCSE Review June - September 14th 2007

Subject criteria consultation links

Click here to download a word document containing the Guidelines and commentary which are pasted below.

Link to the 'home' page of the consultation: http://www.qca.org.uk/609_18640.html

Link to the draft GCSE qualification criteria (i.e. the general criteria covering all subjects):http://www.qca.org.uk/18753.html

Link to the modern foreign languages draft criteria: (which currently has everything except the grade descriptors) http://www.qca.org.uk/18751.html

Link to the on-line questionnaire for consultation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=CMznDBc0BMWXhm0DYdKWag_3d_3d

Questionnaire in word document format:  word document  

 

Controlled assessment Links

 

The GCSE draft criteria are open for consultation, and points 17, 18 and 19 seem to be related to the issue of controlled assessment:

point 17 - balance external/internal assessment 75%/25%

point 18 - specifications must show how controlled assessment will be reliable and fair 

point 19 - under the heading 'controlled assessment', says use of dictionaries not permitted in any external assessment [I'm a bit confused about the placing of this point ...]

Following discussion at the ALL Members' Meeting yesterday,  it may be helpful to draw attention to the other documents relating to controlled assessments which are due to be included in the new GCSE specifications (taught Sep 2009, first tested June 2011).

These are (a) regulatory views and (b) independent recommendations regarding the nature of controls needed.

The 'home page' for this area is http://www.qca.org.uk/16657_18754.html

The regulatory views (June 2007) can be downloaded from: http://www.qca.org.uk/18756.html

The recommendations (March 2007) are here: http://www.qca.org.uk/18755.html

HEM June 2007

Guidance document pasted below.

GCSE qualification and subject criteria consultation questionnaire.  June 2007.

Guidelines and commentary

These may be of some help to ALL members as they respond, whether as a group or individually.

CONTENTS

Summary

The consultation

Reminders about roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes in education

Roles

The National Curriculum & national assessment with respect to GCSE

Sequence of process for decision making relevant to current consultation

  1. White Paper - Feb 2005

  2. QCA response to White Paper

  3. QCA focus on General Qualifications: overview

  4. Consultation on GCSE criteria prior to June 2007 - how ALL was involved

  5. Consultation on Controlled Assessment.

The Dearing Report

Background

Dearing recommendations relating to GCSE

Commentary on Draft GCSE Qualification Criteria.

Commentary on Draft Revised Subject Criteria.

Remit (reference for question 3)

Aims & learning outcomes of the GCSE (reference for question 6)

Specification Content (reference for question 7)

Assessment objectives (reference for question 8)

Schemes of assessment and assessment techniques (reference for question 9)

Walk-through the consultation questionnaire and cross-reference to comments in relevant sections above

Summary

This is a very important and complex consultation with several different strands.

The detail given in this document is intended to allow ALL members to give an informed and realistic response to the consultation. GCSE has overarching criteria applying to all subjects and needs to be seen to maintain standards over time.

The main areas of change, and those which may need the most detailed consideration, are as follows:

  1. A single tier for all examinations
  2. Short course specifications must examine two skills only
  3. Scope for open-ended content in writing and speaking
  4. The balance of external to controlled assessment (75%:25%)
  5. The nature of the 'controlled assessment'

The review also gives an opportunity for comment on what is necessary to allow for progression and continuity from the new Secondary National Curriculum.

The consultation

The consultation on GCSE criteria is open for public consultation from 13th June to 14th September.

The key sources / documents are as follows:

  1. Link to the 'home' page of the consultation: http://www.qca.org.uk/609_18640.html
  2. Link to the draft GCSE qualification criteria i.e. the general criteria covering all subjects (5 page document): http://www.qca.org.uk/18753.html
  3. Link to the existing criteria: http://www.cilt.org.uk/14-19/docs/gcse_criteria_langs.pdf
  4. Link to the modern foreign languages draft criteria, which currently has everything except the grade descriptors–(18 page document): http://www.qca.org.uk/18751.html
  5. Link to the on-line questionnaire for the consultation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=CMznDBc0BMWXhm0DYdKWag_3d_3d
  6. Questionnaire in a Word document format (12 page document) : http://www.all-london.org.uk/faq_curriculum.htm#GCSE_draft_criteria

We have not been able to locate a link to the existing common criteria.

Alongside this consultation, the nature of 'controlled assessments' has been researched.

  1. The 'home page' for this area is http://www.qca.org.uk/16657_18754.html
  2. The regulatory views (June 2007) can be downloaded from: http://www.qca.org.uk/18756.html
  3. The recommendations (March 2007) are here: http://www.qca.org.uk/18755.html

Background

Reminders about roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes in education

Roles

The Government decides education policy.
The Department for Children, Schools and Family (DCSF) is responsible for implementing this policy.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is the state body responsible for determining and monitoring the National Curriculum and the way it is assessed nationally.
It does this through giving statutory and non-statutory instructions and guidance.
The QCA consults with various representative organisations before making decisions and regularly includes ALL in the process.
Examination boards propose syllabuses which must meet the criteria set by QCA.

The National Curriculum & national assessment with respect to GCSE

GCSE specifications are usually accredited for 5 years. Minor changes were made in 1999. Those accredited in 2000 were extended for 5 years. New specs will be available in September 2008 for first teaching in Sep 2009 and first examination in 2011.

The current National Curriculum has been largely unchanged since 2000. A new Secondary National Curriculum was launched on 12th July 2007. This was not available at the time of the initial review meeting.

A download of the Programme of Study to be taught from September 2008 can be found at http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/MFL_KS3_PoS.pdf The main change in this programme of study is the removal of any reference to topic headings [with the exception of speaking level 3 - talk about their interests] and the increased emphasis on references to creativity. The levels remain largely the same, avoiding precise quantification / exemplification of words and contexts (e.g. 'range' 'short /longer' 'passages' 'longer' 'simple / complex' 'familiar' 'unfamiliar' 'some / little repetition' 'at times' ), maintaining an emphasis on opinions and tenses (emphases which often lead to formulaic tasks / responses) and leading to a description of 'exceptional performance' which appears to describe near-native level. All skills make reference to the use of support or reference sources. Examinations which preclude this support would appear not to allow for coherent schemes.

The regulatory documents which provide a framework for the development and accreditation of a specification are as follows:

1. GCSE Common Criteria which specify (a) the rules (title, content, structure, level, links) (b) the assessment design (c) rules on aggregation and awarding. (Broad-brush statements applicable to all subjects; no significant change was expected for this. We were deliberately asked to look first at the Subject Criteria, without regard for the Common Criteria.)

2. GCSE Qualification Criteria (additional rules relating to use of ICT, detailed assessment requirements, tiering, etc).

3. GCSE Subject Criteria - specifying aims, requirements about content (note tension between comparability and choice), opportunities to develop and generate tasks, 3 key grade descriptors, balance of internal / external tasks specify tiering.

NB Grade Criteria are not being examined in this review

Sequence of process for decision making relevant to current consultation

1. White Paper - Feb 2005

The government published a 14-19 White Paper in Feb 2005 proposing reforms in education with the following aims:

  1. place a greater focus on the basics
  2. offer learners a better curriculum choice
  3. provide learners with more challenging options and activities
  4. provide new ways to tackle disengagement.

2. QCA response to White Paper

The QCA planned an 11-19 reform programme in order to take these aims forward. (See useful summary 11-19reform.pdf) This programme is subdivided into 8 sections

  1. key stage 3
  2. general qualifications
  3. 14–19 curriculum
  4. Specialised Diplomas
  5. functional skills
  6. skills framework
  7. regulation
  8. exams, modernisation and systems

3. QCA focus on General Qualifications: overview

This specific focus of this review is the first part under item (2) above, relating to GCSE.

The QCA states: We are reviewing GCSEs to provide learners with more opportunities for progression and A levels to reduce the assessment burden and challenge the most able learners. An extended project will be introduced to develop individuals’ needs

The overview document of 8 areas gives the following summary with respect to section (2)

What is QCA doing?

The end result

QCA is redeveloping GCSE English, mathematics and ICT to incorporate functional skills. A wider choice of GCSEs is being developed that mixes general and vocational learning. Coursework within GCSEs is being reviewed.

A wider choice of GCSEs that present all learners with an opportunity for progression, and assessment that is consistent

QCA is redesigning A levels with four rather than six

assessment units to reduce the burden of assessment,

introducing greater stretch for the most able students

and ensuring coursework is used appropriately.

New GCE AS/A level specifications and an assessment framework that maintains the A level standard. Top students will also be offered better opportunities to demonstrate their ability.

QCA is developing an overarching framework and specifications for different sorts of projects to support

an individual learner’s needs and interests. These will

be assessed as either a stand-alone qualification or

part of a diploma.

An opportunity for students to explore a subject or sector independently, creatively and in greater depth. Learners will be better prepared for progression to higher education, training or employment.

4. Consultation on GCSE criteria prior to June 2007 - how ALL was involved

QCA held a series of 2-day residential consultation meetings with key stakeholders, including representatives of each exam board (AQA, Edexcel, OCR, WJEC, CCEA), each subject association, (ALL and ISMLA) and three representative teachers (ASTs).

As members of the Executive Committee, Vincent Everett and Helen Myers attended on behalf of ALL.

All subjects were brought together for a presentation on the background, the draft general GCSE criteria and on the importance of being realistic about the constraints. However, a key difference for this consultation was that subjects were invited to be creative in their review and allow for significant change (as opposed to the last review in 1999 when only minor changes were made). We were told that proposals for revisions of the subject criteria were to be made BEFORE proposals for the common criteria (down - up).

The meeting provided the opportunity for all stakeholders to express their views and to listen to others. In particular, it was helpful for us to consider the perspective of exam boards who have to design syllabuses in the light of the GCSE criteria and convince QCA that they can provide valid, reliable exams. Throughout, as ALL representatives, we were trying to represent the perspective of the 'ordinary teacher' working in standard circumstances.

There was a great deal of consensus amongst the group.

Most areas were discussed in full, and we agreed on which areas we needed to discuss in detail. There was little time to address the core grammar or means of assessment, but we were invited to comment on this in subsequent email correspondence.

The elections to the Welsh Assembly delayed the public consultation.

The draft criteria are now open to wider consultation.

5 Consultation on Controlled Assessment.

Alongside the Criteria consultation, QCA has been conducting a study into the means of assessment, in particular considering ways of making assessment more valid, reliable and less formulaic. They have concentrated on the nature of coursework.

They have presented models and invited groups to discuss these. These have now been published for wider consultation. Although there are no specific questions in this consultation on the nature of controlled assessments, this is a fundamental aspect of the success of a GCSE specification, and we need to find out how we can monitor this situation.

The Dearing Review

Background

In October 2006, Lord Dearing was commissioned by the government to conduct an enquiry into the state of languages, in particular to see how pupils could be encouraged to continue their studies of languages post 14.

His interim report was published the day after the two-day residential review in December, and so his specific recommendations were not referenced in the review. However, QCA had been closely involved in the process, and the likely key areas were summarised for the group.

The final Dearing report contained many recommendations. Although the aim of the review was primarily to increase uptake post 14, the area which received an immediate positive response from government was the recommendation for Primary Languages.

Dearing recommendations relating to GCSE

In the context of this consultation, it would be helpful to keep the specific recommendations regarding GCSE in mind. Here are extracts from the report relating specifically to GCSEs. Summary recommendations are in bold..

Chapter 3: What needs to be done - Recognising Achievement (Pages 11-13, 15)

3.16 Recognising that in practice much of the content and organisation of the secondary curriculum is determined by the possible outcomes of the assessment system, we address this matter first. This means reshaping the current GCSE, supporting a range of alternative options and paying particular attention to the new Specialised Diploma programme.

Reforming GCSE

3.17 The GCSE is the examination which drives the curriculum at Key Stage 4 and casts its mantle over the final year of Key Stage 3. It is particularly in these years that the context of the learning needs to be stimulating to pupils and to engage them in discussion, debates and writing about subjects that are of concern and interest to teenagers. Although outstanding teachers can overcome most barriers to learning, as commonly interpreted the present GCSE does not facilitate this. As we said in our consultation report, it has been suggested to us that to facilitate teaching in such contexts, a range of options might be available from which pupils might select a specified number. A strong case has also been put for an alternative, more flexible GCSE in languages perhaps with an international or business orientation and involving the development of a more limited range of skills in several languages. Such an approach may reflect the interests of a proportion of pupils who would seek such more limited skills in a range of say three languages as more relevant, useful to them, and more appealing than continuing with the study of a single language.

3.18 From our discussions with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) we know that they are planning a review of the GCSE and that they are seized of the importance of an examination that will promote a more lively framework within which to learn a language. In our opinion a renaissance of language needs such a review as a matter of urgency.

3.19 We recommend that the review proceeds as a priority in consultation with the Awarding Bodies, and language teachers. We also invite consideration of a more flexible "languages in use" GCSE.

3.20 We now return to the widely held view, as recorded in our consultation report, that the demands of languages in the GCSE are greater than for the great majority of subjects, and the statistical analysis that appeared to give some support for that view in terms of the level of demand for the award of a grade. We recognised that to some extent the conclusions are qualified by recognition that factors like student interest and motivation affect achievement. In our further consultation we have found strong confirmation of the view that the award of grades is more demanding than for most other subjects. This needs to be resolved one way or the other by a definitive study, followed by publication of the conclusions, because the present widely held perception in schools, whether right or wrong, is adversely affecting the continued study of languages through to the GCSE.

3.21 We do not propose any reduction in the demands of the Curriculum but we confirm the proposal that the issue should be resolved as soon as possible and we so recommend.

3.22 We also proposed a new approach to the assessment of speaking and listening, which rightly account for half the marks in the GCSE, on the grounds that the present method is too stressful and too short to be a reliable way of assessing what the candidates can do. It is interesting that when people spoke about the oral test, that however long ago it may have been, it is often remembered as a stressful experience. We therefore proposed that these parts of the examination should be over a period through moderated teacher assessment.

3.23 We recognise that any change has to be made in a way that does not weaken the validity of the assessment, and concerns have been expressed to us about that. But that has to be balanced against the risk that a test that is often highly stressful and over a short period, whilst accurate in its awards against performance on the day, is not a reliable test of the candidates’ capability. We note that assessment of speaking for awards for the Languages Ladder (Asset Languages) is through accredited teacher assessment. We have been advised by one of the examining boards that it is piloting a new approach to assessment, based partly on an ICT programme over half an hour for listening skills, and by teacher assessment over a period for speaking. These are matters for further consideration by the QCA and the examining boards, but we remain of the opinion that the present forms of assessment are not the best test of the candidates’ abilities and contribute to the loss of students to languages.

The Short Course GCSE

3.24 The short course GCSE is not proving popular with learners. It is not distinctively different in approach from the full GCSE. We invite consideration of a programme that is sharper in focus, aimed at those whose interest is in basic functionality in a language in a range of meaningfully relevant contexts to the learner.

New Curriculum Content

3.39 The new languages curriculum for Key Stage 3 that has been presented for consultation by QCA provides the scope for teachers to teach in contexts that engage the interest of teenagers. It gives teachers the opportunity to motivate learning. We would also expect that the changes recommended in this report to GCSE and the recommendations concerning alternative accreditation, will facilitate the introduction of more stimulating and relevant content to the languages syllabus. But that opportunity needs to be realised by concrete schemes of work and above all by teaching approaches that translate it into practice.

3.40 The kind of content that will motivate learners – those "meanings that matter" – are illustrated in the appendix to this report, and it is not the role of this review to prescribe. Characteristic of them all, however, is that they are "real" content, whether related to other parts of the curriculum, to more creative approaches to learning or to the understanding of language itself.

Commentary on Draft GCSE Qualification Criteria.

The draft criteria do not appear to raise any significant changes other than with respect to 'where unitised'.

Commentary on Draft Revised Subject Criteria.

It is helpful to refer to the original and the draft proposed criteria when responding.

Link to the existing criteria: http://www.cilt.org.uk/14-19/docs/gcse_criteria_langs.pdf
Link to the modern foreign languages draft criteria, which currently has everything except the grade descriptors – (18 page document): http://www.qca.org.uk/18751.html

Reminder:

GCSEs are governed by two sets of regulatory criteria:

  1. The GCSE Qualification Criteria set out general rules relating to content, assessment and reporting for all GCSEs.
  2. The GCSE Subject-specific Criteria set out additional detail covering aims, content, assessment objectives and scheme of assessment. Awarding bodies must adhere to both sets of criteria when developing the detail of their specifications.

The purpose of the tables below is to highlight the key differences between the existing and proposed GCSE subject criteria and cross reference to the questionnaire.

Column 1 summarises the area

Column 2 summarises current wording.

Column 3 indicates if wording has been broadly retained or changed. Where additional rows are added in column 2, this indicates new content.

Column 4 gives a commentary on the similarities / differences, raising questions which ALL members may find helpful to discuss / reflect on as they prepare their responses.

COMMENTARY ON DRAFT REVISED SUBJECT CRITERIA

Remit (reference for question 3)

Area

Original (1999)

Draft for consultation (June 07)

Commentary / questions

Description of the remit of the subject specific criteria - how they set out criteria which satisfy common GCSE criteria, and provide criteria against which specifications are drawn up (by exam bodies)

1. Introduction

   

1.1 What the criteria do - what the terms of reference

no significant change - put into points 1 & 2

 

1.2 Title

point 5

 

1.3 Requirement that specifies which significant language content must follow criteria.

point 4

 
 

point 3 - clarifies the purpose of having subject criteria

consistency
rigour
build on NC and prepare for future
help others know what has been studied

This addition incorporates the terms of reference for the review i.e. opportunity for progression, and assessment that is consistent. (cf QCA statement of 'outcomes')

Aims & learning outcomes of the GCSE (reference for question 6)

Aims & learning outcomes of the GCSE.

This sets out broad aims of specifications. Note that this is not the same as 'assessment objectives'.

 

Heading: Aims

Heading: Aims and Learning outcomes

Renamed .. uses terminology more commonly used now.

 

2.1 must give students opportunities to ....

Point 6. should encourage students to ....

Is there a reason for using 'should' instead of 'must'?

Note that aims / learning outcomes are not necessarily all assessment objectives. See later for discussion of this.

7 numbered aims:

6 bullet points:

 

(i) - L&R- range of contexts

6. bullet point 2 - simplified - develop understanding of the language in a variety of contexts

Any significance in using 'variety' rather than 'range?'

(ii)- S&W - range of vocab/ structures

6. bullet point 4 -simplified - 'develop the ability to communicate effectively in the language' - no reference to a range of vocab/ structures

Removing reference to 'range' is realistic for criteria which seeks to satisfy the whole grade spectrum.

(iii) Grammar & apply it

6. bullet point 3 - knowledge of the language and language learning skills

Uses current terminology in line with MFL framework etc. (not just 'grammar')

Minor point, but is there a rationale for reversing the order of aims to put 6 bullet point 3 in between 2 and 4 rather than following 4?

(iv) apply knowledge in variety of relevant contexts which reflect previous learning and maturity

 

incorporated elsewhere - bullet points 2 & 6

Do you feel it needed a separate sentence?

(v) knowledge & understanding of countries and communities

6. bullet point 5 - awareness and understanding of countries and communities

suits current terminology

(vi) positive attitudes to language learning

2.1 bullet point 1 - enjoyment and benefit from language learning

 

(vii) suitable foundation for further study and/or practical use of MFL

2.2. bullet point 6 - help them to take their place in the multilingual global society + (as point vii)

This wording gives value to language learning for practical situations in the present (including their own society which is multilingual, not just 'foreign') and the future.

MISSED OUT FROM THE ORIGINAL REVISED VERSION agreed at our meeting:

'provide a coherent, satisfying and worthwhile course of study for all students' . Would you welcome an aim which recognises the inherent benefit of language learning , not just in terms of its application to practical situations and the future?

Specification Content (reference for question 7)

This section outlines what the specifications must require of students. This is critical for looking ahead to the nature of the related assessments.

Specification content

Subject content

 

3.1 Content must be specified

7 - similar - must allow students to develop the knowledge, skills and understanding as specified below

 

This section specifies the skills

3.2 Require candidates to:

8 - same

 

(i) Listen & respond to different types of spoken language

bullet point 1 - no change

 

(ii) Speaking - express themselves in speech using range of vocabulary, syntax and structures

bullet point 2 - simplified to 'communicate in speech'

reference not made to specific content - we noted that this detail is incorporated in the assessment criteria

(iii) read - variety - including texts from ICT-based sources

bullet point 3 - simplified

reference not made to specific content - this detail is incorporated in the assessment criteria

(iv) W - range of vocab, syntax, structures

bullet point 4- simplified to communicate in writing

reference not made to specific content - this detail is incorporated in the assessment criteria

(v) Grammar at foundation

bullet point 5 - same, without reference to foundation

single tier removes need for extra detail - tiering to be raised separately later on

(vi) authentic sources

not explicit

referred to elsewhere - logical not to have it here, as it is not a skill

3.3 In addition, for higher ...

 

single tier - tiering to be raised separately later on. Presumably the additional requirements will be explicit in the common set of grammar structures (appendix), but what about the vocabulary / range?

Content. This sets out the requirements for the context for the skills.

3.4 Must specify topic areas consistent with NC order

9. Must set out contexts, topics, purposes - interest candidate, maturity, appropriate to culture, may relate to other curriculum areas

This explicitly allows great flexibility - including vocational, CLIL, locally relevant (although some boards noted that current arrangements already allow a great deal of flexibility which is rarely taken up by centres).

Currently many complain that the range of topics / content restrict the opportunity to develop interesting tasks which develop the essential language skills.

Does this explicitly reduce need to cover wide range of topics? How will comparisons be drawn regarding the comparative demands of different specifications with respect to the range of vocabulary expected, especially for the receptive skills? This is a significant element for ensuring validity / reliability across exam boards.

How will this follow on from KS3?

How will such an open-ended requirement satisfy the review's aim to make it clear to others what the qualification means students can do? How does it ensure progression to further study?

   

10. for S & W must allow for choice including the possibility of proposing a context, topic, purpose of their own

This compulsory requirement ('must') should ensure the option of free choice of topic which will satisfy many current concerns

 

For a GCSE short course specification a more restricted range of topics is required.

13. GCSE short courses must require candidates to demonstrate their ability in relation to only 2 of the assessment objectives

More restricted range of contexts, topics and purposes OR reduced assessment objectives? Such flexibility would allow for accrediting all language skills acquired by pupils through learning a language, at the same time allowing for selecting skills (similar to Asset approach)

Are there any advantages in stipulating that a short course qualification must test 2 skills only?

Presumably it is to get around the problem of not having content specified (see above) and therefore specifying reduced content. However, the content issue MUST be addressed separately.

 

3.5 must specify grammar and linguistic structures + for foundation tier only, a minimum core vocabulary. Key words and phrases used in rubrics

11. Same ... except 'rubrics where applicable'

How will minimum core vocabulary be determined? How much will there be? Is it relevant to have core vocabulary for grades C and above as well? How can there be fair comparison across specifications regarding the amount / nature of vocabulary required? (especially in view of listening and reading assessments if they take place in external conditions)

 

4 Key Skills

 

Deleted

Original revised version included these.

Assessment objectives (reference for question 8)

Assessment objectives. This specifies what must be tested (as opposed to aims / learning outcomes which set out opportunities which must be given) and what weighting each objective is given

5. Assessment Objectives

Assessment Objectives in column one

Weighting (see below) in column 2.

Minor point - may be helpful to have numbering system e.g. 12 / 12.1 as per original 5 / 5.1 throughout

Does it matter where weighting is included? (with AOs or with scheme below?)

5.1 LSRW

12. LSRW - simplified descriptions

Should language learning skills (one of the aims) be included as an assessment objective? This could be tested by a task which deliberately allowed pupils access to common reference materials and tested their appropriate use of them (e.g. dictionaries / approved word lists)

Schemes of assessment and assessment techniques (reference for question 9)

Scheme of assessment. This specifies how the objectives are to be assessed:

6. Schemes of assessment and assessment techniques

Scheme of assessment

 

How they are weighted

6.1 equally weighted skills

Weighting in column 2 in previous section

each skill between 20-30 %

This allows for Edexcel applied GCSE pilot to match criteria ... flexibility to increase, for example, writing / speaking. Does this affect comparability across specs?

 

6.2 10% to grammar for S & W

15. same

Would you wish to challenge this?

How much controlled assessment there can be

6.3 terminal exam 70%, staged 50%

17. 75% to external assessment - 25% controlled

Critical area which needs to be discussed in depth in the light of members' concerns, Dearing's recommendations and controlled assessment regulatory views. Definitions of 'staged' and 'terminal examination' needed.

Generally speaking, 'controlled' conditions' equate to a less stressful experience. Dearing has reported the common view of teachers and pupils that listening and speaking exams are particularly stressful. The examples given in the controlled assessment documents both relate to writing. There would seem to be an extremely strong case for allowing as much 'controlled assessment' opportunity as possible for ML, at least in line with other 'performance' / practical subjects.

For L + S+W the 'control' aspects which are the most stressful are those related to the 'task taking' (1) time (2) resource. The task setting and task marking could both be at a high level of control, thereby ensuring validity / reliability / rigour.

How they are 'tiered'

6.4 two tiers of grades

16. single tier

The advantage of the single tier = removing 'playing safe', entering pupils for foundation level and denying them access to higher grades.

The disadvantage of single tier =

(a) pupils sit an exam which has elements which are inappropriate for them - especially damaging in receptive listening and reading exams for the least able.

(b) less time to test and give pupils the opportunity to show what they actually know, understand and can do by making them spend time on tasks which are too easy or too hard for them ... even greater chance that they lose out.

Dearing refers to an exam pilot of a 30-minute listening exam where pupils can control input on a computer. How feasible is this for a typical year entry of at least 50% of the cohort?

A solution would be a return to the compulsory foundation level for all, then the option of adding higher level. Although this would entail more testing, it would give a pupils a better chance of showing what they know, understand and can do and would remove the temptation to 'play safe' and restrict their grades.

Restrictions on entry

6.5 must be entered for either foundation or higher for each tier

 

see above

How much controlled assessment there can be (see above)

6.6. internal assessment no more than 30%

 

see above for discussion about controlled conditions - need for definitions

How the instructions must be worded

6.7 instructions in target language

Deleted

It was agreed at the meeting that this would allow for testing which is 'fit for purpose', which is the main aim of the assessment, and for more authentic texts / task types.

 

6.8 restrictions on use of English

14. must require pupils to express themselves in the language when speaking and writing

We assume this is for the tests whose objective is to test S & W (not L & R)

What access to resources they can have

6.9 use of dictionaries not permitted in external assessment

19. same - see below

Does this restriction interfere with the assessment objectives? Note that language learning skills are specified as an aim, but not an assessment objective. Would there be a case for including intelligent use of reference resources as a criterion?

Does this preclude the use of booklets common to all candidates (e.g. as in the geography Decision Making exercise where reference is issued 6 weeks in advance and candidates have access to it in the exam)

Controlled assessment

No detailed instructions on coursework

Controlled assessment

Point 18

Satisfies brief for the review 'assessment that is consistent'.

How easy will it be for QCA to make comparisons between different levels of control required by different specifications? Can we be involved in discussions relating to this extremely important and complex area?

   

19. The use of dictionaries will not be permitted in any external assessment.

Does this restriction compromise coherence with the emphasis on language learning / use of resources / process skills highlighted in the new Secondary National Curriculum?

 

Grade descriptors

Not available

Need to check these, but we were told that this was not the area for the review.

Appendix

Appendix

   
 

* Foundation / Higher lists

up to grade C / above grade C

Need to look at these in detail. Note that there is little difference between demands of above C and AS/A2. Is this a time to raise this?

* NOTES ON APPENDIX

The rationale for little change is that standards are not changing. However, following review of the AS and A2 exams, it was noted that there was little difference between higher GCSE and AS, and some higher level structures were moved to AS.

We know that exam boards have made independent suggestions to QCA. Suggestions which have been accepted are detailed below, but there were several other recommendations which they made and which have not been accepted, in particular suggesting that various structures should become receptive only.

QCA has helpfully supplied a summary of changes as below. It would be useful if subject communities could comment on these.

French
 Foundation – one change only:

Adjectives: comparative and superlative: regular - meilleur, added (currently features only at Higher tier)

Five items at Higher were originally moved to AS, but exam boards have recommended reinstating four of these (as indicated)

relative: lequel, auquel, dont [R]. The draft criteria reinstate dont [R]
demonstrative (celui). The draft criteria reinstate celui as Receptive [R]
le mien. The draft criteria reinstate as Receptive [R]
verbs: dependent infinitives (faire réparer)
subjunctive mood: present in commonly used expressions [R]. The draft criteria reinstate this.

German

 Foundation – Adverbs: common adverbial phrases. The following examples have been added: (ab und zu, dann und wann, letzte Woche, nächstes Wochenende, so bald wie möglich)
 Foundation – Verbs: 'strong' replaced by regular

 Foundation – Conjunctions: co-ordinating and subordinating - examples given : coordinating (most common eg aber, oder, und) and subordinating (als. obwohl,wenn, weil).

 Higher – Verbs: one line reworded as follows: Verbs: imperfect subjunctive in conditional clauses haben and sein.

Four items at Higher have been moved to AS.

infinitive constructions lassen with infinitive [R]
tenses: perfect modal verbs
passive voice: verbs with direct objects
subordinating: als ob, seitdem [R]

Spanish
Changes at Foundation –

Adjectives: possessive, long form (mío)
Time: use of desde hace with present tense, to be (R) only, plus some more examples added.
Foundation – Verbs: imperfect now receptive (R), with the currently required active use in weather expressions to be maintained, (and therefore to be added to the Higher list).
Foundation – Verbs: present subjunctive. Removed "for formal positive and negative commands and for familiar negative commands"

Walk-through the consultation questionnaire and cross-reference to comments in relevant sections above

1. Introduction

Worthwhile reading this carefully to be aware of context and its constraints.

2. Questions

Personal

3. Changes to the GCSE criteria

SEE 'REMIT' SECTION

These questions refer to the draft GCSE qualification criteria for all subjects, not the subject specific.

3.1. Do you think GCSE criteria are appropriate?

There has been little change.

3.2. Unitisation (does this mean modular? - these comments made assuming this is the case)

You may wish to note the problems when a subject is generally regarded as 'linear' or 'spiral' in approach. It can be difficult to build in allowance for this when testing at an early stage in the course, and this can raise problems when trying to equate 'unitised' GCSEs with others. (Modular vs linear)

In ML the reason unitised courses are popular for some may be more to do with the more candidate -friendly means of testing (e.g. more relaxed when they know they can re-take, less burden on memory when being tested on a narrower range of content at a time). If less stressful means of testing were to be introduced into non-unitised courses (albeit in 'controlled conditions'), this may remove the need for this option (e.g.

on- going controlled conditions assessments which can be taken more than once)

3.3. Proposals that unitised assessment have 50% at end of course.

With existing testing systems, understand the need for this to make more comparable. However, if more 'controlled' assessments are permitted, this could remove the need for this terminal control.

3.4. Balance of assessment

This question is about the principle of putting subjects into two categories. Question 9/2 addresses ML specifically. There does not appear to be a question which invites comment on the definitions and explanations given about controlled assessment. Clarification of this is key to a helpful response to these questions.

 

The balance of assessment types should reflect what is fit for purpose in the particular subject area. It seems unnecessarily artificial to constrain subjects into two groups.

How does this make 'assessment more rational and transparent for the learner'?

If it does achieve the aim of transparency and rationality, how does this balance with the need for an assessment which is fit for purpose and allows the learner to show fairly what s/he knows, understands and can do. Which is more important?

5. GCSE subject-specific criteria

Heading for the next set of questions.

See grid above comparing current with draft for each of these sections.

6. Aims and learning outcomes

Appropriate?

 

SEE 'AIMS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES' SECTION

Suggestion: include aim which recognises the inherent benefit of learning a language per se, without necessarily a practical or future application e.g. 'provide a coherent, satisfying and worthwhile course of study for all students'

7.Specification Content

 

SEE SPECIFICATION CONTENT SECTION

Interesting note regarding additional / optional content. How is this decided? How are the specs fairly compared regarding volume of content?

7.1. Up to date?

Content very similar to current, but worded in a more 'up-to-date’ way using current terminology (e.g. language awareness and language learning skills)

Content seems to avoid any reference to specific topics - and is therefore in line with new Secondary National Curriculum. However, this raises issues of coherence and progression in a subject which has to have content. See below - section 11.

7.2. Appropriate progression to A level?

Skills appropriate for further study to AS and A in its current format.

Is it too demanding, since there is little difference between requirements for AS and GCSE. [Note comments on appendix- some aspects removed then reinstated]

Concern that any decisions about KS3 should allow for relevant progression. How can we ensure this?

7.3. Content covers areas of study that should be required of all students?

Difficult to answer without seeing sample of 'core vocabulary' and knowing how judgements will be reached about suitability of the proposals from exam boards.

When / how can this be discussed?

Appendix detailing grammatical content sets out more specific information which raises concerns, since structures have reappeared which A level review suggested should be removed or made 'receptive only'.

Re: short course - see section 12/2 below

For tiering comment - see section 12/3 below

8. Assessment objectives.

SEE SECTION 'ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES'

8.1 Do they indicate clearly what has to be assessed?

Four skills clear.

Is there a case for introducing assessment objectives which cover other 'aims and learning outcomes' e.g. language learning skills. [Could lead to demonstrating appropriate use of reference materials] / cultural knowledge [note that this has been removed from some AS/A level exams as it was seen to penalise good linguists who may have not referred to target language examples]

Not for short course. Pupils naturally develop in all 4 skill areas, and would be disadvantaged not to have the option of receiving credit for more than 2 skill areas.

Should short course be more flexible and allow for reduced content but all skills?

8.2 Any overlap between assessment objectives?

The review team acknowledged the argument that assessment objectives could be tested jointly and that in 'real life', situations require more than one skill at a time sometimes (e.g in a conversation as opposed to a monologue).

However, very important to be aware that for a fair and reliable test, discrete skill testing is better for the candidate to demonstrate what they know, understand and can do. To test speaking and listening together (e.g. marking response and production in a conversation), while useful in a teaching situation, could doubly penalise a candidate in a time-limited testing situation, and would not lead to a valid reliable test fit for purpose (e.g. if they did not understand a question they would lose marks for comprehension and production, even if they actually know how to form the answer)

8.3 Assessment objectives collectively cover all that is essential for assessment of this subject at GCSE?

Acknowledge that some of the aims are not explicitly tested, but recognise that this would be difficult to do at the same time as adhering to a subject criteria (e.g. cultural knowledge / understanding / enjoyment)

8.4. Relative weightings of Assessment objectives appropriate?

Flexibility may lead to lack of comparability across exam boards?

Would lower weighting for highly stressful assessment objectives (e.g. speaking) reduce the risk of unfairly penalising a pupil who suffers from nerves?

9. Scheme of assessment and tiering

SEE 'SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES' SECTION

9.1. Proposed arrangement appropriate?

See notes. Need to give full and considered response to this. Real concerns - will students be able to have the same opportunity to show what they know in a single tier listening / reading test?

9.2. Balance controlled / external assessment

See notes above. Very strong case for allowing ML to have exam conditions which are less stressful, especially in the light of Dearing recommendations. If the GCSE 'brand' is to compete with other level 2 qualifications which are less 'stressful', it needs to allow for more flexible testing.

10. Maximising accessibility and equality

 

10.1. Take into account all learners?

Pupils with sensory deprivation are particularly excluded from ML (e.g. if selective mute/ severely hearing impaired).

Is there any way of taking this into account? Can the qualification have the same currency if certain skills are waived / significant allowances made?

10.2. Promote cultural understanding, diversity, and gender equality appropriately?

 

10.3. Restrictions for disabled? If so:

 

10.4. Requirement restricting access

 

10.5. Disability group likely to be affected

 

10.6. Essential

Are 10.6/7/8 really separate items?

10.7. Desirable

 

10.8. Not needed

 

10.9. Reasonable adjustments during controlled assessment

 

11. Curriculum opportunities within the GCSE subject criteria

The review took place before the KS3 / secondary review was published and before the Dearing report was published.

11.1. Criteria make clear the ways in which subject complements and reflects the revisions to the overall objectives for KS4 curriculum?

Flexibility in content reflects current move to make meanings relevant.

Although the aims and learning outcomes of the new criteria seem to be coherent with the new secondary curriculum for languages (launched July 2007), it is difficult to judge whether the content / assessment criteria expected offer coherent progression, and the scheme of assessment (if 75% external assessment removes access to support and access to reference sources) does not seem to offer coherence.

The main change in the programme of study is the removal of any reference to topic headings [with the exception of speaking level 3 - talk about their interests] and the increased emphasis on references to creativity. The levels remain largely the same, avoiding precise quantification / exemplification of words and contexts (e.g. 'range' 'short /longer' passages', 'simple / complex' 'familiar' 'unfamiliar' 'some / little repetition' 'at times' ) and maintaining an emphasis on opinions and tenses.

How will judgements be made about comparability of specifications with respect to range / content? How will assessment criteria reflect the emphasis on process / concepts? Will the continued emphasis on opinions, tenses and complex grammar stem or perpetuate the temptation to provide formulaic tasks and responses which 'tick the boxes'?

Note that the description of 'exceptional performance' still appears to describe near-native level. Is this consistent with demands of other subject area descriptors? (i.e. near mastery of the subject area).

All skills make reference at some point to the use of support or reference sources. Examinations which preclude this support (and which in the current draft would count for 75% of an assessment) would appear not to allow for accreditation of these relevant and useful processes.

11.2. More coherent?

see above. Lack of content and scheme of assessment which restricts access to reference sources likely to reduce coherence. Schools tend to prepare students from KS3 with the requirements of KS4 in mind.

11.3. Aims: successful learners / confident individuals / responsible citizens

Learners will feel successful and confident if given realistic tasks matching their abilities. Performing in languages is acknowledged to be stressful (see Dearing report)

The aim of a positive learning experience is essential. A positive experience of language learning can make pupils feel more positive as international citizens. A negative experience can reinforce prejudice.

The scheme of assessment is a critical element for providing a positive experience. Elements of the draft criteria which may compromise this experience are: Single tiered exams, lack of access to reference resources / support, restricted skills in the short course, unknown content for the reading and listening exams.

11.4. Use subject to develop contexts beyond school?

The chance to respond to questions set in English lends itself to more relevant, authentic tasks which may be met in a context beyond school. (Current assessment tasks are often very artificial and unlikely).

11.5. Support development of personal, learning and thinking skills?

This is implicit in language learning. It is important that the assessment schemes reward these skills appropriately by giving realistic tasks matching pupils’ abilities (see above)

11.6. Sufficient flexibility to develop specs that reflect subject and curriculum initiatives and developments?

Flexibility of topics will allow for cross-curricular and vocational themes within the GCSE. Flexibility of entry to different tiers, different skills or combining different languages would be the 'ultimate' response to current curriculum initiatives and developments and may reduce the need for centres to be running several types of qualifications and increase the chance of having an assessment system which satisfies one of the key desired outcomes of this review: 'A wider choice of GCSEs that present all learners with an opportunity for progression, and assessment that is consistent'

12. Subject specific

 
    1. ML:2-5

12.2. Short course - 2 objectives?

see SPECIFICATION CONTENT NOTES:

More restricted range of contexts, topics and purposes OR reduced assessment objectives? Such flexibility would allow for accrediting all language skills acquired by pupils through learning a language, at the same time allowing for selecting skills (similar to Asset approach)

Is short course content appropriate for all? Least able can normally manage a low level in all 4 skills. Requiring testing in just 2 skills only will not give them the opportunity to demonstrate what they know, understand and can do. Dearing (para 3.29) does not recommend this approach. He recommends sharper in focus, aimed at those whose interest is in basic functionality in a language in a range of meaningfully relevant contexts to the learner.

Are there any advantages in stipulating that a short course qualification must test 2 skills only?

Presumably it is to get around the problem of not having content specified (see above) and therefore specifying reduced content. However, the content issue must be addressed separately.

12.3. Question papers not tiered?

See SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT NOTES:

The advantage of the single tier = removing 'playing safe' and denying pupils access to higher grades.

The disadvantage of single tier =

(a) pupils sit an exam which has elements which are inappropriate for them - especially damaging in listening and reading exams for the least able.

(b) less time to test and give pupils the opportunity to show what they actually know understand and can do by making them spend time on tasks which are too easy or too hard for them ... even greater chance that they lose out.

A solution would be a return to the compulsory foundation level for all, then the option of adding higher level. Although this would entail more testing, it would give al pupils a better chance of showing what they know, understand and can do and would remove the temptation to 'play safe' and restrict their grades.

12.4. All specs must include controlled assessment?

Would welcome detailed consultation on nature of controlled assessment.

Is it essential to have controlled assessment as compulsory?

The nature of external assessment could allow for less stressful circumstances if tasks were known in advance and access to a common reference source allowed. [These are lower control elements which are appropriate for most writing and speaking tasks]. Such an arrangement may reduce the need for as much 'controlled assessment' and lead to an even more reliable assessment régime.

12.5. Permit use of dictionaries in controlled assessment?

Need for more discussion about the nature of controlled assessment.

Can we envisage a realistic and relevant task which would credit appropriate use of reference materials in language learning? (i.e. this could be an assessment objective).

Helen Myers