Skip to main content

How might schools deal with decoupled AS-levels?

One very positive aspect of the current regime of AS-levels for modern languages is that a significant number of students are happy to continue with a language for one more year after GCSE. At my former school we would regularly get at least 25 students for AS French. Of these only about half would continue to A2 level. The drop-outs were largely students doing maths and science and who could not fit in a language.

What will happen in the new era of "decoupled" or "stand-alone" AS-levels where the AS-level will not contribute to the whole A-level grade?

Bear in mind that the new AS is designed to be co-teachable with A-level and some schools may do this, but I understand that exam boards are anticipating that there will be a huge fall in AS entries - and with this, alas, a further decline in the number of students doing a language after GCSE. I would not be surprised if the boards are right and that we shall see an undesirable narrowing of the sixth form curriculum.

That said, if a school encourages co-teaching of AS and A-level in the lower sixth (Y12) this has important implications for course structure. To remind you, A-level students will have to study a literary work and film, as well as doing a piece of personal research. AS students do a film or book, but no personal research study.

Departments may decide that for co-taught groups in Y12 it makes more sense to do a film in Y12, probably in the spring term. This feels reasonable to me, especially where there are weaker students involved. Tackling a novel in the lower sixth (although common enough in the 1970s) might present too much of a challenge for some post GCSE students. Even so, covering a film in Y12 would take away a lot of time from general language teaching. How would many average students cope?

Students continuing into the upper sixth, to do a full A-level could, in this scenario, study a book and do their personal research project in Y13.

A question arises. Would it be worth all students in this scenario taking the AS-level exam, as they do now? This would have the advantage of giving a common goal to the whole class, but would come at a cost to the school. Students might also find it odd to be doing two different exams, one in Y12, one in Y13, on the same film. (You could, no doubt, choose a different film in Y13.) Would students be motivated by having two qualifications, one AS and one A-level? I find this unlikely and I doubt the school would gain any "value added" points for students accumulating qualifications.

Alternatively, in the co-taught scenario, the AS students would do their exam and the remainder might do an end-of-year exam of equivalent difficulty. This would be cheaper and seem more reasonable to students. On the other hand, if all students know they will all be entered for AS they will know they can keep their options open for Y13. Some may even make their Y13 choices after getting AS results.

It is very unlikely, by the way, that students would do an AS in Y13 having had a fallow year in Y12.

Another model schools may adopt is to simply tell students that AS-level is not available. They could argue that the greater degree of difficulty of the new A-levels makes it inadvisable to add an extra AS level (i.e. fourth subject, as now). The school will be judged on A-level scores so why risk compromising these? Students may feel the same. They will get their university place based on A-level scores.

Could schools run separate AS courses alongside A-level? This might be feasible in subjects with large take-up but would be most unlikely for modern languages. Indeed, the new regime, without coupled AS-levels, may see some departments stop post-16 languages completely.

I would be interested to hear what schools are planning!




- 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).

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