Skip to main content

Do we need "pass" and "fail"?

When GCSEs replaced O-levels and CSEs in about 1987 the grading system did not include, if I recall correctly, a fail threshold between grades C and D. The idea was that pupils would be rewarded for their achievement at whatever level. However, although the GCSE was designed to be a qualification for students of almost all abilities, it was always going to be the case that many would get below a grade C.

Once the tradition became quickly established that anything below a C was deemed (not necessarily by name) a "fail" students and schools would soon begin to doubt the value of their study. This contributed to the fall in MFL exam entries once the subject was made optional. In addition, with the growing importance of high stakes accountability measures schools, to a greater and greater extent, focused on the C/D borderline students, which inevitably had an effect on classroom practice.

The DfE has been aware of this side-effect of A-C accountability measures and is hoping to address it with the new eight subject progress measure.

So what if we could do away with the notion of pass and fail? Would the absence of a pass threshold discourage students from working hard to achieve it? Would it free up teachers to be less focused on the C/D borderline?

I doubt if students, on average, would work less hard in the absence of a pass grade. If some did, their number might well be counterbalanced by those who work hard to achieve any grade they can. Currently a C is valued much more highly than a D, whereas the psychological difference between a D and E is minimal. If we have to maintain our treasured tradition of grades, would it not be preferable if students strove to reach the best grade they could, whatever it may be? Maybe with new number grades we can avoid having a particular number as some kind of pass threshold.

With the prospect of a new 1-9 grading system for GCSE and the advent of this new "P8" measure, we have the opportunity to reconsider whether we need passes and fails. If students and schools were judged for their progress across eight subjects without the fear of "failing" any, it might encourage more students to take a language whilst teachers and pupils could take some pride in their achievement whatever the grade achieved.

It is of note that only at GCSE level do we allow large numbers of students to "fail". At A-level U grades are rare, whilst National Curriculum tests have no notion of pass and fail.

I would be all for doing away with the punitive notion of failure and recognising any level of success.Even better would be if we did away with GCSE completely and broaden our post 16 curriculum, bringing us in line with most nations. But that's another matter!


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).

12 principles of second language teaching

This is a short, adapted extract from our book The Language Teacher Toolkit . "We could not possibly recommend a single overall method for second language teaching, but the growing body of research we now have points to certain provisional broad principles which might guide teachers. Canadian professors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada (2013), after reviewing a number of studies over the years to see whether it is better to just use meaning-based approaches or to include elements of explicit grammar teaching and practice, conclude: Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective in promoting second language learning than programmes that are limited to a virtually exclusive emphasis on comprehension. As teachers Gianfranco and I would go along with that general view and would like to suggest our own set of g