Skip to main content

Are the new A-level exams harder?

On the day when A-level results come out for 2017 we hear commentators talk of new harder A-levels. Michael Gove, we hear, wanted A-levels to be a match for other qualifications around the world, do away with the constant testing of modules and make the exams a better preparation for university by letting universities have a stronger say in the content of the specifications.

Are the new exams actually harder?

Firstly we need to distinguish between two types of difficulty. On the one hand we have the actual content of the syllabus and exams, on the other we have the issue of grading. You can have hard questions, but with a lenient mark scheme. You can also create a more demanding exam, yet maintain the same range of grades. This is what the Ofqual policy of "comparable outcomes" is meant to achieve year on year, including this year when some exams are new. In 2017 the proportion of A* and A grades rose slightly because of the way Ofqual allocate grades (partly through the questionable procedure of analysing KS2 results). For the new linear papers (not MFL) the proportion of A* grades fell slightly.

So if comparable outcomes are applied then by the second definition of difficulty A-levels will not become harder. I would expect grade patterns to remain very similar at a national level.

But are the exams becoming harder by the first definition? As reported today in the TES "Unlike the new GCSEs, there was no explicit intention that these new A-levels should be tougher than before, despite their linear structure." This has been the message I hear at AQA meetings and report to teachers too. Is the government spin of "tougher exams" inaccurate?

When you look at the old versus the new MFL A-level the most significant changes concern the assessment of the cultural aspects of the syllabus (including film and literature) and the Individual Research Project (assessed in the oral exam). More cultural information has to be memorised and displayed to meet the requirements of the mark scheme (Assessment Objective 4). In addition, within the Listening, Reading and Writing paper the main new testing format is the summary question. At AS-level there is no longer a general language essay and translation both ways now figures prominently, though not at a very high level.

Although I am no longer in the classroom, my work for AQA (writing and presenting) and analysis of specimen and actual AS papers, suggest to me that the new exam is not significantly more difficult than what has gone before. The film and literature assessment is a return to what was done prior to 2000 and requires good knowledge and technique. The summary questions are also a significant challenge, above all requiring candidates to be concise. The mark scheme for the summary question is not ungenerous. The IRP resembles some forms of coursework done before 2000 and requires different study techniques rather than tougher linguistic challenges. Candidates are not tested on specific knowledge but get to show off what they know on their own terms. The translation questions at AS-level are not too hard and at A-level are similar to before. Mark schemes for essays continue to reward both content and range/accuracy much as now.

Meanwhile the reading and listening content of the Listening, Reading and Writing papers, while covering somewhat different themes, looks similar in level of difficulty. Many question types are similar (matching, true/false/not mentioned, gap-fill and so on). In addition, the number of topics to be covered has diminished significantly which means teachers may feel less pressure to work through the treadmill of sub-topics. This allows more time to prepare students for the new techniques they will need.

My impression overall, then, is that while some aspects of the exam are new, the overall standard is not harder. This new A-level has been an evolution, not a revolution. Expect grades to be very similar.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

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).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,