At our latest ALL in the East meeting (scroll down on this page), we discussed the implications of the AQA markscheme for the Conversation, in the light of conducting mock exams. The main area of concern was the way the need for information to be delivered in 3 clause chunks, each with a conjugated verb, did not make for a natural conversation with pupils interacting spontaneously with the teacher-examiner.
In the run-up to the mock, I had been confident that despite the confusion around AQA's marking of the conversation, it wouldn't in practice have too much effect. I imagined the stronger candidates would still do well. And the weaker candidates would still do less well.
I was wrong. Stronger candidates tended to put more information into a single clause. Stronger candidates tended to interact more with the examiner. Stronger candidates tended to give an answer that focused on saying something they wanted to say. All of these 3 things penalised them.
Here's an example.
Pupil: I always like to try to eat healthy food like fruit and vegetables.
Teacher: For example?
Pupil: For example yesterday I ate salad for lunch and a potato for tea.
Each of these answers is a single clause, putting this pupil in the bottom band. Their responses are both minimal.
Had they said simply, I like to eat fruit and I love vegetables. I don't like salad, they would have scored in the top band, for an "extended" answer using three conjugated verbs.
One thing that is recommended in the AQA spec, is for the teacher-examiner to use short follow up prompts as I did in the example above, to elicit more information from the candidate. Things like, and...? so...? for example...? Why? And what if it rains...?
I have certainly used this in the previous GCSE, to interrupt and redirect a pupil who had a pre-learned answer to deliver, directing them away from stilted word by word regurgitation, and steering them into a more spontaneous interactive conversation. We also use it in teaching, for example with the conjunctions dice game described in this post, or in working with pupils explicitly on how an answer can develop logically and coherently.
After our discussions in the meeting, I contacted AQA to see if using these interjections to invite the pupil to develop their answer, would allow the two utterances in this example to count as developing the answer. So that my prompting, as recommended in the guidance on conduct of the exam, was allowing the pupil to show that they could continue their idea and spontaneously give further detail in interaction with the teacher-examiner. That's what I asked. And that is what I was hoping they might say.
Or, on the other hand, could it be AQA's decision that interacting like this actually penalises the pupil, because it means that what follows the "For example...?" doesn't count as developing the answer. It counts as a separate minimal answer.
That was indeed AQA's response. In this example from my mocks that I put to them, they determined that this is two minimal answers. This pupil would be in the bottom band.
This means several things.
Firstly it means that I am less likely to use these follow up prompts. Because a pupil who has already given information, could give some more. But may not have the required three items, if they already told me one or two things in their initial answer. Saying, "For example...?" may be trapping them into giving one further detail. So I will be pushed towards falling back on my list of starter questions, making the exam more of a predictable plod through a list of questions. Even though this is explicitly prohibited and undesirable.
Secondly, it means that I have to teach pupils to give answers in chunks of three conjugated verbs. This risks moving towards pre-prepared and over-rehearsed answers in order to achieve this. Again, undesirable.
Thirdly, it means that in conducting the exam, if a pupil only gives a single clause answer, or a two clause answer, I will have to sit and wait for them to add a third clause. Pupils will have to be trained to just say something. Without worrying if it is a logical development, or something they really want to say. As in the example above, just adding, I don't like salad would push you into the top band.
Fourth, and possibly worst of all, I have to train my best pupils to be more like the weakest. I have to train them NOT to talk naturally and put lots of information into a clause. I always like to try to eat healthy food like fruit or vegetables has to be replaced by minimal chunks of information each with a verb. I like cheese. I love cake. I don't like salad.
Sorry. I just realised I accidentally and ironically used the word "minimal" to refer to what would be a top band "extended" answer. This markscheme is topsy-turvy. In this universe, the clause that contained most information was the minimal one.
I must emphasise, that going into the mocks, I told myself that the marking wouldn't be too bad. But the experience did not, unfortunately, live up to that. There were numerous examples of strong candidates putting lots of genuine information into one clause. Here's an exchange with another pupil:
Have you ever had a problem abroad?
Err. Once, on holiday, in a shop in Spain, my mum forgot how to say "coat" in Spanish.
So...?
Oh. So we had to go to another shop to buy a coat.
This doesn't count as a pupil developing their answer in interaction with the teacher-examiner. This counts as two bottom band minimal answers.
I had to explain this to the pupil, using this example from their exam, to show them where they were losing marks. Their response, But that's not how a conversation works.
Well. It is now.
No comments:
Post a Comment