HOW I TEACH… REVISION

The benefit to this table is that it offers a structure not only to our writing, but our thinking too, restricting the amount of evidence we can use, prompting us to select carefully. By displaying all the information in one glanceable table it also helps students to better make connections and to spot patterns of difference or similarity.

The 10 seconds it takes to draw the table and the extra couple of minutes to extract the relevant information is, to my mind, well worth it for the added concision and quality of inference this support helps to produce.

However, if students feel drawing and compiling the table will take too long in a question that is admittedly already tight on time, they can of course circle the relevant evidence directly onto the Source and write their response from that.

I still very much recommend rehearsing and modelling this table, though, because even if students decide not to actually draw it in the exam, I’ve still found it significantly helps with how to think about and better understand what this question is expecting from us.

With enough practice, whether or not they physically draw the table, its shape will remain imprinted on students as a way to structure their response as they write.

Question 3

I’ve found that students tend to be on pretty firm ground for this question, given it is effectively the same as Paper 1, Question 2 and indeed similar in skill to more or less any language analysis they would do across their English GCSE.

As such, I approach this question much as I do with Paper 1: students select 3 or 4 images from the relevant extract that strike them as especially rich. These are images they should be able to say multiple things about, and, if rehearsed often enough, it tends to be reasonably easy to identify those images in the passage that are suitably fertile. Once they have highlighted or underlined three or four images, they can start to write the response itself.

I tend to suggest students begin with a ‘big picture’ idea that they express in the first one or two sentences of their response: ‘When considering how the writer uses language to describe the landscape it is immediately obvious it is hostile and dangerous’. This helps to co-ordinate the rest of the analysis, ensuring the students begin their response with an overall argument about how the writer is using language to achieve a specific effect.

Students can then select the first image to discuss, making sure it elucidates or substantiates they big picture idea they have started with, which it should since the opening idea comes out of the three or four images they have already chosen.

I always recommend students begin with whatever image they consider to be most analytically interesting, the image about which they could say the most. This is because English Language as an examination very much succumbs to the law of diminishing returns: most of the marks students receive will come from the opening of their response and as their response continues they will find it harder and harder to squeeze further

marks out of their answer. So, we want the opening of their response to be as good as possible.

This also helps because, as above, the Paper is very tight on time and it might well be students need to stop writing mid-sentence if they reach their imposed question time limit, which might feel galling, but is really crucial for the Paper as a whole. As such, we want the opening to be as good as possible so if they do finish mid-answer they have still been able to accumulate a significant number of marks.

Once they have finished analysing this first image, trying to notice several things about it, and considering the overall impact of the image as well as why specific words may have been used and how they connect to the big picture, they can then move onto the next image. And so on, repeating this same pattern 3 or 4 times.

Question 4

For this question, I basically use the same table structure as Q2, but we deploy it in a different way. So, here is the table:

The top row is the same as in Q2 and is designed to identify an overall difference or similarity, but the content will differ as in this question there is typically a focus on perspectives or feelings.

Again, we then have three or four rows divided between a column for each source, A and B. Same structure, but different use. We extract from the sources images we might like to explore or analyse. Rather than phrases such as ‘… from which we might conclude’ we use more traditional methods of analysis, for instance considering the overall feeling expressed by the given image and why this word and not another one.

As we move down the table, we use Janus-faced transitions to knit the argument together (The writer’s feeling that Y is further suggested by X…) and again include a clear shift to the second source (This is in direct contrast to…).

However, for this question, a variation on how to use this table might be to interleave the analysis. After we select relevant images from Source A and we are ready to look to Source B, we might try to match the two so each row offers a link, like the below. Rather than moving according to column (all of A followed by all of B, with links back) students could move according to row (all of the first row, all of the second row, and so on). I don’t find this as effective, but it might be useful for this question where a focus on both writers at the same time can be helpful.

Given this question is worth 16 marks, the temptation is perhaps to attempt the above process twice. However, after lots of experimentation, I feel this is a mistake, although it is something I’ve done before.

As is always the case, depth trumps breadth. As such, I think it is much better to explore one overarching point of comparison and then really dwell on the imagery and methods being used by the writer to express their perspective and how this compares to the other source.

Question 5

As we now know this question will ask students to write an article, we can be a little more targeted in our preparation. For this question, I teach students an overall response shape I call Describe, Position, Relevance, Now (or DPRN for short) and whilst this can be used with any form of writing, knowing this question will be an article based on the Advanced Information in helps us to work on how to mould this shape specifically to what students will be asked.

But, what is DPRN and how can students use it, both to write and plan? I’ve found this overall shape works brilliantly in helping to give student work a argumentative trajectory or impulse, given that it carries them from some kind of emotional outline to an overview of the issues to an explanation of its relevance and finally how we might address or solve the issue.

When planning, I encourage students to take a single side of A4 in their answer booklet and to divide it into quadrants. In each of the four spaces, students would generate ideas relevant to each element of DPRN. They might, for instance, consider what kind of scene or character to introduce in the descriptive hook and bullet point some ideas before then listing why they think what they think, and so on.

This means that when they come to write they can focus on constructing an authentic voice that is appropriate to the specific task rather than trying to generate ideas in the moment of writing itself. It also helps them to focus on constructing a cogent and linear argument that has a clear thread or perspective running through it, all crucial to success in this question.

And there we have it: an overview of top strategies to help maximise student success for AQA GCSE English Language Paper 2.

ASSESSMENT IN MFL: WHERE ARE WE AT AND WHERE ON EARTH ARE WE GOING?

Are we assessing the right things in the right way in MFL? Sadie Thompson argues that we aren’t. There is a better way…

By Sadie Thompson

The current GCSE assessments for Modern Foreign Languages in England are facing upheaval as the specifications for French, German and Spanish are set to be replaced for first teaching in 2024, with the first of the new exams due to be taken in 2026.

Although these changes are in their infancy and yet to be set in stone in terms of an assessment model, it provides an important point to reflect on assessment in MFL currently and how to design an accurate model which rewards authentic communication and ensures accurate grades for all learners.

What are we striving to achieve?

As a linguist, my primary aim is to ignite a lifelong love for language learning amongst my pupils and to create linguists. Idealist though this may be, secondary to that comes the need for my students to pass exams and secure highest possible outcomes; I’m usually banking on that being a natural and welcome outcome. Yet all too often this is not necessarily the case and talented linguists, indeed sometimes even native speakers who enter for an extra bonus exam grade, can surprisingly lose marks. This leads us to question our assessment model and what we are striving to achieve in the first place. Do we want great results or linguists for life?

Are we expecting too much?

As most MFL teachers across the country will tell you, the current GCSE specification falls short. There is too much content to teach across a two-year key stage 4 and too many exam-specific skills to master.

The assessment is based on 4 key areas, Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing, each comprising 25% of the mark and with no allowance given for the mixing of tiers to play to students’ strengths. It is therefore vital to address the skill of answering exam questions successfully.

Unfortunately, this is too often at the expense of valuable curriculum time which needs to be devoted to an already crammed-full-withcontent specification. Losing the ability to mix tiers is also problematic in that many MFL classrooms are mixed ability. It is also unusual for a given class to be either entirely higher or foundation candidates. So the teacher must also become an expert in teaching a content-heavy specification, while addressing exam skills for groups of students at two different tiers of entry.

Add in the fact that the two tiers then have vastly different mark schemes for Speaking and Writing and you are creating an almost impossible challenge for any classroom teacher to rise to.

Natural speaker or exam performer?

It is no secret that most GCSE candidates dislike the Speaking exam with a passion. In fact, most adults can recollect most details of the toe-curling experience, some can even recite a line or two twenty years later! However, this is probably because the scenario in itself is so high-pressured, so daunting and presents so many

hoops to jump through that it never resembles a real-life conversation.

Even the so-called ‘General Conversation’ comes with a list of structures to try and shoehorn in for top marks in the Range and Accuracy of Language category, all the while sounding natural enough to get full marks in the Spontaneity and Fluency category. Confused? That’s before we’ve even discussed the other 30 marks available for the Role Play and Photo Card elements of the test.

As a linguist first and foremost, this has never sat right with me. My ambition in teaching is to inspire a generation of future linguists. We want pupils who go out into the world with a confidence and an ability to hold a conversation in the target language, at least enough to leave them wanting more and motivated to continue learning so that their next conversation is always better than the last.

I suspect this in the same way a History teacher might want to inspire future historians, or a Food Technology teacher wants to instil a lifetime appreciation for delicious and nutritious food. However, the real frustration is that the Speaking assessment for the current GCSE is not suited to a good natural linguist, but is suited more to someone who is good at memorising chunks of language, and therefore “performing” in exams.

I have known native speakers to drop marks because they did not include enough examples of the future tense, favouring the natural conjecture of the conditional, no matter how accurate or fluent their response. This isn’t right. In the assessment, a native speaker should be able to achieve full marks with minimal effort.

“teachers want their students to be rewarded for authentic communication in the exam without the need to artifi cially squeeze in grammar features that don’t occur in real life conversations.”

Recently on EduTwitter…

In a recent #MFLChat (7/2/2022), the weekly online Twitter chat for MFL teachers, we were asked to imagine if there were no more exams, what lessons would look like. The responses centred mainly on two key themes: incorporating more culture in lessons through the inclusion of music or literature, and a heavier focus on speaking and communication.

We can deduce then that it is not that teachers want to spend less time concentrating on speaking but more that they want to be able to devote more time to more authentic communication. At the very least, teachers want their students to be rewarded for authentic communication in the exam without the need to artificially squeeze in grammar features that don’t occur in real life conversations.

This is may be a fault with the mark schemes. The role-play element of the exam is arguably redundant as time goes on, presenting exchanges such as booking a hotel room or buying concert tickets which would more than likely be done online without the need for any interaction in the target language. But the photo-card elements of description and sharing opinions and a general conversation across several themes seem sensible and appropriate to enable candidates to develop answers and share a range of structures. It is the demands of the mark scheme which requires the jumping through hoops.

What do we need?

We need an assessment model which is in line with age-related expectations, given curriculum constraints, and that also rewards the kinds of real-life interactions that would be useful in real life.

This is probably a conundrum faced by exam boards for all subject areas – how can we authentically test a wide spectrum of knowledge, whilst showing progression over time, but also instil the key skills and attributes of those expert learners? Is it ever possible to create an assessment which rewards those skills of a true historian, a real mathematician?

I’m mindful that the perfect assessment model for languages probably doesn’t exist and that exam boards, restricted by requirements set out by Ofqual, can only seek to change so much when designing exam content and marking criteria.

However, what is painfully apparent is that GCSE results in MFL are historically far lower than other options subjects. How can this be, when it is the same students taking the exams? Surely, we aren’t producing a nation of students that can access the material of a Geography paper and secure a grade 9 but can’t replicate that success in French?

We must ask questions of the current assessment processes, to ensure that in the first instance, our students aren’t short-changed out of the grades they’ve worked hard for, nor that they are discouraged from the rich and diverse experiences learning a language offers in place of securing better grades elsewhere.

We need to level the playing field and that doesn’t have to be through starting again but tweaking what we do have and ensuring it serves our purposes best.

“the Speaking assessment for the current GCSE is not suited to a good natural linguist, but is suited more to someone who is good at memorising chunks of language”

54. What Should I Do When A Promotion Clashes With Maternity Leave?

Making the most of maternity leave when promotion opportunities arise.

59. Is Teaching Part-Time Really Such A Good Idea?

An exploration of the delicate balance between home-life and career.

62. How To Be A Happy Teacher

Tips for maximising your happiness wellbeing as a teacher.