There are two meanings to the word "a joke". One is something deliberately risible, to make those in the know laugh. The other meaning is that something is an object of derision. As in "this definition of Good Development" is a joke.
This is from the new specification for GCSE in French, German and Spanish from AQA. And anyone who knows anything about teaching languages will spot the joke. I like to eat carrots because it is interesting is the kind of desperate answer we don't accept from pupils. Our teaching consists of trying to move them on from this kind of answer. There are teachers who ban it is interesting because it's seen as the last resort of pupils who can think of nothing to say and have turned up to an exam utterly unprepared.
Yet here we have "I don't like social media because it's boring" as the very definition of "Good Development."
What is it trying to signal? Two clauses is what is considered a well developed answer. And three clauses counts as an extended response. It is signalling that long pre-learned answers are not required in order to perform well. Its message is all about what is NOT wanted, rather than thinking through what might be required.
In exactly the same way, it is signalling that deliberately fancy expressions thrown in to wow the examiner, are not wanted. In terms of amount of information, it is boring is no worse than a pre-learned autant que je sache. Unfortunately it also means it is boring is just as good as a thoughtful because it takes up too much of my time.
We are looking at very complex arguments being played out, about the nature of the level of difficulty in languages. There are lots more ironic jokes at play here. Like the fact that the autant que je sache was a favourite of teachers most strongly associated with the "Knowledge Curriculum". Supposedly to show how well their pupils could do if taught "properly". When all they were doing was showing that the supposed hierarchy of difficulty is bogus. Just as using je vais used to be a whole National Curriculum level higher than je dois because je vais is the future.
Revenons à nos moutons:
This really should have had no place in the Specification. It too clearly smacks of in-jokes and point scoring in the spat between exam boards and the GCSE panel in the creation of the new exam. It is too focused on what is NOT wanted (rote answers and fancy expressions), rather than thinking through what IS wanted. As such, it could have been guidance on the conduct of the exam rather than the marking criteria. In fact, it is strongly emphasised everywhere that having a narrow list of questions that all pupils are going to be asked, is malpractice.
Given the parameters of the exam, what might be wanted? Firstly, it was advertised as a conversation of between 4 and a half and 5 and a half minutes. On just one theme. So twice as long as the previous GCSE, which had a similar length conversation, but on two themes. Clearly, I don't like social media because it is boring is not going to see you through 5 minutes. Five minutes of such short answers would require about 30 questions in a relentless back and forth. I don't think I have 30 questions on most of the topics in these themes. And I don't think pupils have 30 variations on I don't like... because it is... So clearly, while the exemplars in the specification served their tangential purpose of sending a strong message as to what was NOT wanted, we had to figure out for ourselves what was wanted.
And it seemed reasonable to think that if we teach pupils to develop their answers spontaneously, and to respond to prompts from the teacher which would interrupt any pre-planned answer, then this would be rewarded.
The idea that a pupil who extended their answers spontaneously would be penalised is ridiculous. Or that a teacher who interjects Why? For example? And so? And then? would be penalising their pupils, is also ridiculous.
That is what happened with this week's guidance, now apparently hastily withdrawn. Although I have yet to find anything official from AQA either presenting the guidance or withdrawing it.
A pupil who extended their answers spontaneously, would not necessarily reach the 17 questions total. A teacher who interrupts to prompt or redirect a pupil, pushing them to spontaneously develop an answer, would fragment the 3 clauses into a series of "minimal" answers.
Thank goodness AQA did publish the guidance. Imagine if it was being marked this way. And pupils who spoke and interacted spontaneously were marked down for answering fewer questions or for having fragmented clauses responding to the examiner's interjections. And we wouldn't know why it was happening.
This is the key thing that AQA missed. They think they have to quantify "amount of information." And they think it's only fair to publish it. What they fail to realise is that this then determines what answers we have to train pupils to give. Instead of evaluating what pupils say, the exam board are determining what they have to say. We have to train them to answer 17 questions with 3 clauses (some may fall short of 3 clauses). And because everyone will be doing this, it throws the emphasis onto the other criteria: accuracy and variety.
17 answers carefully box ticked, carefully accurate, deliberately including variety. This is recreating the exact conditions for fancy rote-learned pre-prepared answers. The very thing they were trying to get away from.
NOT Funny.
No comments:
Post a Comment