Waddell (1978)

Notes on the text

Part I

Preliminary pages Contents, Membership
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Educational matters
Chapter 3 Structure of the examining system
Chapter 4 Cost
Chapter 5 Conclusions
Appendices

Part II

Preliminary pages Contents, Membership

Report of the Education Study Group (ESG)

Glossary, Introduction
Chapter 1 Feasibility of common exam system
Chapter 2 English
Chapter 3 Mathematics
Chapter 4 Science
Chapter 5 History
Chapter 6 Geography
Chapter 7 Modern languages
Chapter 8 Classics
Chapter 9 Commerce
Chapter 10 Social science
Chapter 11 Religious studies
Chapter 12 Craft design and technology
Chapter 13 Technical drawing
Chapter 14 Home economics
Chapter 15 Needlecraft and dress
Chapter 16 Art
Chapter 17 Music
Chapter 18 Further work
Appendix A List of witnesses
Appendix B Questions
Appendix C Statistics
Appendix D Joint examinations

Report of the Cost Study Group (CSG)

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Costs in 1976
Chapter 3 Costing a common system
Chapter 4 Changeover costs
Annexes

Report of the Steering Committee established to consider proposals for replacing the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level and Certificate of Secondary Education examinations by a common system of examining

Chairman: Sir James Waddell CB

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales by Command of Her Majesty July 1978

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1978
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Part I: Cmnd 7281-I
Part II: Cmnd 7281-II

Part II - ESG Report

Chapter 7 Modern languages
[pages 44 - 48]

Introduction

133. Foreign language learning concerns above all the ability to communicate - to convey and receive information, ideas and feelings through the spoken or written word. This process has traditionally required cumulative experience of the language over four or five years in the case of the first foreign language (usually French) and two to four years in the case of the second (usually German, Spanish, Italian or Russian). The study of a second foreign language is normally undertaken by students of a narrower and higher range of ability than the first so that a comparable standard can be achieved within a shorter learning period.

134. At present nearly all pupils (90 - 95 per cent) study a foreign language between the ages of 11 and 14 but comparatively few (about a third) continue after that. There is thus a very high drop-out rate at the option stage and candidates preparing for public examinations in modern languages at 16+ come almost entirely from the 100th to the 60th percentile of the ability range. Pressures for more effective language teaching may lead eventually to a widening of the ability range covered. The joint examinations have therefore been considered in terms of both the present position and possible future demand.

135. Current thinking on teaching methods varies the emphasis given to each of the four skills involved - listening, speaking, reading and writing - according to the ability of the pupil. For the less able pupils this implies greater emphasis on listening to and speaking the foreign language, and less on reading and writing it. For the abler pupils, however, considerable ability in all four skills is expected. It follows that the examination process needs to test the four skills separately and to take account of the different teaching goals for pupils of different ability.

The evidence

136. Seven schemes have been offered in the joint examinations, five in French and two in German. The following table shows the numbers of candidates taking each examination:

Table 6

Of these, consortium 4 ceased to function in 1975 but much of its work was absorbed into consortium 2. Other evidence came from meetings with subject interests and with two of the consortia (2 and 7). Further reference to the consortia is made by number as indicated. Papers were also received from a CAMBRIDGE/EAEB Mode III examination in French which had 749 entries in 1976 and 845 in 1977.

The ability range

137. The entry for some schemes did not appear accurately to represent the spread of ability seen in O Level and CSE examinations. The entries for schemes 2 and 4 had too few lower ability pupils, whilst that for 1 had too few high ability candidates initially; this was rectified subsequently. Scheme 5 appeared to have achieved a sample and spread typical of the normal pattern; 6 and 7 sought to ensure the full ability range, although as the subject is German it is unlikely that the lower end is represented.

138. Since the early joint examinations there has been a substantial increase in the entries to 2 and, in percentage terms, to 7. However, there is evidence that ending the requirement to enter all candidates from a school has distorted the pattern of entry. Several schools have entered their abler candidates for O Level examinations while others appear to have reverted to CSE Mode III examinations (sometimes with limited grades) for the weaker candidates. Taken overall, however, the studies involved sufficient candidates over the range of ability taking O Level and CSE examinations to provide a basis for judgement as to feasibility in French and German. We consider that these two subjects may be taken as sufficient indication for other modern languages.

The syllabus and objectives

139. In all cases the objectives were worthwhile, although with five of the consortia they had to be inferred from the form and content of the examination. Two consortia (2 and 4) gave a precise definition of what was to be examined in terms of vocabulary lists and grammatical structures, stating that any deviation would be limited to non-key items for comprehension and would not exceed 5 per cent of the paper. Other studies gave more general definitions of what was required, and encouraged or gave teachers scope to go beyond the syllabus. The consortia which defined a syllabus strictly (2 and 4) or in clear outline (3, 5 and 7) provided a useful service, although modifications would be required before the schemes provided adequately for the ablest and weakest candidates. Of particular benefit has been the re-evaluation of mark apportionment to the various skills, the improved status given to oral work being especially welcome.

140. Schemes 1 to 6 offer a common examination to their candidates with only limited scope for choosing questions, eg choice of picture for oral tests, choice of composition topics. Scheme 7 is alone in offering a choice of exercises with a marking tariff based on their notional difficulty: a reading comprehension carries 10 marks; the same passage translated into English carries 16; three reading comprehension passages (one compulsory and one optional) carry 14 or 10 marks depending on the optional passage chosen; a listening comprehension test carries 16 marks if answered in German, 10 marks if in English.

141. Some very worthwhile work has been initiated in syllabus definition. But it has not reflected any differentiation of objectives for various groups of pupils. The consortia all inclined towards giving equal treatment to the four language skills, without suggesting the need for different levels or types of performance for pupils of differing abilities. If these studies were taken as the model the most able pupils would not receive an adequate grounding for their A Level studies; whilst excessive demands would be made on the least able candidates.

The syllabus and the examination

142. The patterns of assessment used by the consortia reflected a similar uniformity in the weighting of the four skills, thus implying parity between them. This may be entirely logical in the context of the syllabuses developed, but leaves unsolved the problems of catering for the varying needs of pupils of different abilities, and of reflecting accurately their relative attainments in the final assessment.

143. The approaches of the consortia are, however, instructive. Many of the shortcomings that came to light could be avoided: eg failure to define the vocabulary required even though much of the examination is in effect a test of vocabulary; uncertainties about what is being tested, particularly in listening comprehension tests; and the failure to give clear instructions to candidates particularly important in the differentiated form of examination operated by consortium 7. Another initial problem in 7 was the tendency revealed for strong candidates to choose easy options for safety, whilst weaker ones were attracted to the more taxing parts because of higher mark tariff; fortunately this practice has abated recently as the format has become familiar and teachers have offered better guidance.

144. There are major differences between the joint examinations and the present system. Most current GCE and CSE examinations include translation into English; GCE also often includes translation into the foreign language. Only two of the consortia examinations included translation into English and none included translation from English. Again, dictation is a feature of most GCE and some CSE examinations, but appeared only in one of the joint examinations. Such differences highlight the difficulty of seeing the joint examinations as offering a suitable grounding for potential A Level students, given the present form of A Level examinations in French and German.

145. The assessment techniques were generally sound. Oral examinations were very effective, despite difficulties of co-ordination and comparability. This aspect of examining is worth the extra marks it now generally receives. Multiple choice questions were another useful feature. They were used by most consortia to test both reading and listening comprehension, and although not all multiple choice questions were well devised a valuable effect of such questions at their best was to help clarify thinking on what was being tested. Only one scheme included written coursework as an element of assessment. Consortium 4 initially invited teachers to assess all four skills three times a year, but this was found to be too time-consuming. It is, however, a technique of potentially great interest. Teachers now contribute to a major extent in the administration of the oral examination. Some consortia moderate the orals, and some mark them.

The examination and the ability range

146. Much has been said above about the deficiencies of the joint examinations in providing for the whole ability range. The middle of the range currently examined by the dual system seems well catered for by the joint examinations. The problems arise in relation to the two ends, and it is worth emphasising that they are chiefly related to the need to cover a large number of components if pupils of all abilities are to be properly tested and stimulated to give of their best. None of the consortia examinations provided suitable stimuli for all their candidates. The most able needed to have more demands placed on them, particularly in areas calling for intellectual stamina: sustained reading, writing and listening. Too much on the other hand was often asked of the weaker pupils; with over-concentration on writing and on certain comprehension passages.

147. The basic problem was recognised and solutions were sought. Two consortia considered setting additional papers, but rejected the approach because it called for differentiated teaching. Another possible approach is to set questions on an incline of difficulty; but inevitably the weaker candidates would have the unfortunate experience of finding a substantial part of the examination inaccessible to them. Something akin to the tariff system operated by 7 (see paragraph 140) may be more promising, although certain practical difficulties have not yet been overcome, for example the fact that in the examination the less able can earn a higher percentage of their marks for productive skills than can the more able. There is reason to believe that these problems could be overcome.

Marking and grading

148. The varied marking procedures used in the joint examinations appeared to be satisfactory, although a greater degree of uniformity from year to year would help teachers, particularly where credit marks are given for the knowledge and use of vocabulary and structure outside the designed syllabus. The publication of mark schemes, or at least of criteria, would aid teachers greatly and contribute to specifying levels of expectation. A particular difficulty was to make a sufficiently wide range of marks available to allow adequate discrimination of the most and the least able. In two schemes ways were being explored of giving credit to quite modest performance in composition if the candidate had succeeded in conveying meaning even without linguistic accuracy. Unfortunately some of the chief examiners' reports displayed a negative attitude, stressing general defects without attempting to differentiate various levels of performance.

Conclusion

149. For the reasons given above, the joint examinations do not of themselves justify a statement that feasibility has been proved except in oral testing. But they do provide sufficient evidence to support the belief that if certain requirements are met a common examining system in modern languages is feasible. The overall requirement must be that the system should provide adequately for the most able and the least able, as well as the middle of the ability range. The joint examinations have shown that a common examination does not satisfy this requirement and would not provide for candidates at either end of the range to show their capabilities.

150. It would be essential to adopt a differentiated approach to teaching and 3 examining. The evidence from the studies of such a pattern of examining (consortium 7) is less than conclusive partly because the differentiation was slender, partly because the range of ability covered was probably narrower than should be assumed for normal purposes, and partly because numbers were small. Nevertheless, there seems no reason why a sound differentiated approach should not be developed, and existing experience from within the dual system suggests that it could. Different objectives would need to be delineated: oral testing could be common; some elements in listening and reading comprehension might be common, others would need to be differentiated; written elements would certainly need to be differentiated, with writing in the foreign language perhaps omitted for those for whom this would be inappropriate. The potential offered by school-based assessment would need to be further developed.

151. It is reasonable to suppose that a common grading scheme could be applied to such a system, although it may be necessary to award limited grades in the examinations with the highest grades being available only to those candidates who have performed well in all four skills; for example, the candidates who, on the evidence of the joint examinations, find the writing of French a major stumbling-block might nevertheless receive a relatively high grade for good performance in speaking and in understanding the spoken and written word. A good deal more work would be needed, however, in the period preparatory to the introduction of a common system, and a beneficial side-effect of such work might be the extension in due course of the ability range studying, modern languages.