Skip to main content

The four skills

Since the late 1980s, at GCSE in England and Wales, we have been assessing the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing separately. We have moved from discrete skill testing, to more mixed skill testing, back to discrete skill testing. By which I mean that, for example, in a reading tests students are not now tested on their writing at the same time. Interestingly, at A-Level we have not been too concerned about testing each skill in this strict discrete fashion.

At the same time, at GCSE, the weighting of the four skills was, for a long time, 25% for each one. Just recently, this changed to 20% listening, 20% reading, 30% oral and 30% writing. This change was entirely owing to the fact that MFL had to be in line with all subjects in allocating 60% of marks to controlled assessments. In languages this was seen to mean speaking and writing where production of tasks was required. (It would be hard to conceive of a listening or reading task which could be done with pupil preparation in the style of a controlled assessment.)

First of all, which is better: discrete skill or mixed skill testing? Both approaches have their supporters, which may be why exam boards/Ofqual have moved from one to the other and back. Proponents of mixed skill testing argue that separating the skills is artificial and leads to a "backwash" effect in classrooms and course books. This is already apparent, especially as exam boards dictate so strongly the content of course books. It is most likely that we are already seeing less use of the target language as teachers practise exam style tasks, for example, reading comprehensions using English questions. On the other hand, proponents of discrete skill testing argue that it is fairer, more accurate in assessing that particular skill and, it has to be said, easier for less able candidates.

I see the case for both sides, but lean towards mixed skill testing, mainly because British teachers have a strong tendency towards teaching to the test, especially in these days of targets, performance management and league tables. This can lead to poor methodology and a lack of authentic, mixed skill tasks. Just take a look at the latest text books to see what I mean. We accept the case for mixing skills at A-level, but not at GCSE. My assumption is that Ofqual wish to make the GCSE exams accessible to all candidates, not just the most able. At A-Level it is correctly assumed that the aptitude of candidates is higher.

As for the weighting of each skill, it is a pity that we allocate so many marks to the hardest of the skills, writing. The previous allocation of equal marks for each skill was better than what we have now, but I would allocate more marks to the two skills which many would consider to be the most useful in language learning, namely listening and speaking. So, if we have to work in round figures, I would argue for the following weighting: 30% listening, 30% speaking, 20% reading and 20% writing. This still rewards writing to a considerable degree and may reflect a continued bias towards the written medium in assessment, but allocating anything less than 20% may encourage teachers to neglect the skill too much.

When controlled assessments disappear, it will be interesting to see what Ofqual decide in terms of skill weightings. I hope they ask teachers for their opinion.

Comments

  1. Sorry, my email address is andrea at upstreamconnections.com
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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,