Skip to main content

Comprehension and how to improve GCSE

In my last post I reflected on how, because teachers love to teach to the test, the test has to be good and has to encourage the right methodology. What is wrong with the current GCSE exam and how could we go some way to fixing it so that it reflects sound teaching methodology?

Currently 30% of marks are awarded for speaking and 30% for writing. In addition, these skills are tested by controlled assessment which, notwithstanding its benefits, encourages the rote learning of chunks of language, focus on technique and takes time away from enjoyable, communicative lessons, filled with target language.

Only 40% of marks, therefore, are awarded for comprehension of the language.

Now, I have previously written about how I have some admiration for the Comprehension Hypothesis advanced by Stephen Krashen. Without getting too airy-fairy about this, he claims, somewhat uncontroversially in fact, that acquisition occurs when learners are given access to "comprehensible input". If a student hears and reads language he or she understands, acquisition will take place at a subconscious level. Even traditional supporters of the oral approach, with its insistence on structured practice alongside authentic communication, most probably assume that long term acquisition occurs because of lots of contact with meaningful target language. (I used to say to classes that if they listened carefully, nature would take its course.)

If we are to encourage the use of comprehension-based activities in the classroom, then the final exam should reflect this by rewarding comprehension more and accurate writing and speaking less. Therefore, the current allocation of marks is the wrong way round and we should be rewarding listening and reading to a greater degree. If we did so, teachers would inevitably spend more time on target language comprehension and the horse would now drag the cart.

I would go further: if we spent less time on grammar drilling, learning oral and written chunks by heart, vocabulary learning and more time on communicative tasks with the focus on comprehension of interesting topics, students might feel less threatened and enjoy languages more.

So, when the GCSE is revised, I hope that we allocate no more than 20% of marks to writing and at least 60% of marks to comprehension. I have wondered if we should still award as much as 30% to speaking, since speaking is a highly valued and clearly important skill, but if we believe that the key to good practice and effective acquisition is comprehension, then I would be happy to see it devalued a bit.

If you like the theory stuff, here is a link to an article which summarises the case for comprehension:

http://sdkrashen.com/articles/Comprehension_Hypothesis_Extended.pdf

It isn't long.

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,