geis miep

To Anca
Reading in general and reading in English in particular have always been an issue with
her and the bone of contention in our relationship. She took the trouble, though, to read
this book to advocate for her generation and impart ideas which, I now realize will save
me out when the credibility criterion comes in question. My lesson: when you involve
adolescents in your writing, make sure there is one around to back you up.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to Codruta Gosa, Professor, Ph.D at the
University of the West for the professional advice she has given me, for the invaluable
workshops which the organizers and assessors of the Timis County English Speaking
Contest have fully benefited from, for the consistent and gracious support she has given
the teachers of English over the years.
I would also like to thank Delia Secula, County Inspector of English, for being ever so
restless.
I would like to thank all the teachers of English who, over the past 7 years, have
contributed their expertise and Saturdays to make the English Speaking Contest a
quality competition.
I would like to thank Mariana Bosneac for her substantiated feedback which fanned my
confidence.
Last but not least, I would like to thank Paul, an almost native speaker of English, who
almost enjoyed to be pestered with my questions as to the naturalness of my English.
DESIGNING TASKS FOR ASSESSING
ORAL PRODUCTION
I.
SYNOPSIS
SPEAKING FORMATS
1.
2.
3.
OF
COMPETITION
To begin with…concepts
Common speaking formats
In other words…
II.
TASKS
AND
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTORS IN INFORMAL DEBATES
1.
2.
3.
Suggested marking scale
Tasks
Analysis of rubric
III. THE
TIMIS
SPEAKING CONTEST
1.
2.
COUNTY
A brand new competition, almost a brand
Rounding off
ENGLISH
I. SYNOPSIS OF SPEAKING FORMATS
1. TO BEGIN WITH…. CONCEPTS
DOING TASKS IS HARD WORK, MAKING AND ASSESSING TASKS
IS EVEN HARDER
The format of a speaking activity indicates the objectives inherent in the set
frame which opens onto certain aspects of the language and skills content which in
its turn puts a pressure on the descriptors in the assessment grid deciding which of
them will carry the most points, thus rounding off or motivating the whole process.
A task designer is therefore an assessor in disguise and no task, whether in a
close or open format, can possibly rise to and meet any standards unless it is
assessment oriented. Setting standards (the task designing stage), meeting standards
(the production stage) and finally recording standards (the evaluation stage) are
critical points in the speaking activity because any message sent implies a natural
request for feedback. Not only are the objectives of the frame connected with the grid
content, but they also dictate the approach to the content itself. A communicator
reacts to a given prompt to arouse a reaction which will position him in a group of
communicators.
STANDARD is a concept which, depending on how rigorous the format, may
describe, indicate, suggest linguistic quantity (vocabulary, structure and we would
consider here function and pronunciation as well, to a limited extent) and quality of
language production (relevance to the task, coherence, cohesion, arguments)
embedded in the task requirements. So STANDARD will inherently point to both the
anticipated level of linguistic competence (A1, A2, B1…) and the relevant descriptors
of oral production, as specified in the marking scale.
Designing tasks for open formats (which this book will mostly concentrate on)
is as rigor-bound as is making tasks for the set assessments. Open as it may be, the
context is not a spontaneous let‟s talk situation, it is a talk so that I may make a fairly
accurate (?) measurement of both your current performance as well as your
communication capacity.
An analytical approach to the process of task designing must take note of the
following components:
FIRST LEVEL:
THE FRAMEWORK
Objectives of a speaking format: creating a
proper and natural environment for the speaker to
1.
shuffle a variety of vocabulary fluently
supported by accurate structure (close formats)
2.
demonstrate
appropriate
and
convincing social skills through language performance
(Public Speaking)
3.
demonstrate argumentative abilities
against larger moral themes (Formal Debate)
4.
demonstrate skills in solving problems
by arguing convincingly within group debate
(Informal Debate)
SECOND LEVEL: LANGUAGE AND SKILLS CONTENT
 vocabulary (v)
 structure (s)
 function
(f)
 coherence & cohesion (c&c)
 argumentation (a)
 relevance of cultural reference (r)
 turn-taking (t-t)
 # other
These components will reveal a specific configuration in the marking scale
thus profiling the projection of the objectives against the larger picture of the
performance.
THIRD LEVEL:
MARKING SCALE CONTENT
Establishes the relevance of the objectives to the set format
2. COMMON FORMATS FOR ASSESSING SPEAKING
SKILLS AND RELEVANCE AT THE TASK DESIGNING LEVEL
A speaker is challenged to speak for various reasons. In other words, each
speaking format will have its own answer to the question “Why do we, designers of
the format and of the task, challenge the speaker to SPEAK, TALK, DISCUSS, SAY
THINGS?”
It is easy to agree upon the top reason on the list of descriptors in the formats
under discussion, but the ranking of all the remaining points of the spectrum may
incise dispute.
What does the task designer/assessor in Public Speaking expect from the
speaker? To give a personal reaction to a general moral, social theme and establish an
interesting rapport with the audience. So what we call the argumentation criterion
(arguing skills) will hold top position. On the quality level, this reaction is expected to
have a certain degree of coherence (based on internal structure and cohesive
elements), of being convincing (this being evinced by vocabulary range, relevance of
examples and cultural references, accuracy of language structure).
In a close format (the speaking section of a standardized exam), the speaker
is expected (MOST OF ALL!) to shuffle a certain vocabulary relevant to a given
context. On the quality level, accuracy will probably follow closely. However,
descriptors such as argumentation and relevance of cultural references may not even
be taken into consideration because what the speaker says is expected to meet only
commonsensical exigencies of logic, never cultural ones.
The formal debate is about winning a battle of ideas with strong arguments
and irrefutable cultural references while abiding by some rigid debate constraints.
Aspects like complexity of vocabulary and language structure are subsidiary precisely
because their level must be very high to carry (!) the battle of ideas. From the
assessing viewpoint, having a high level of linguistic competence somehow goes
without saying.
In the informal debate the speaker is challenged to negotiate a solution
(within a group of debaters) to a given problem/conflict while evincing a certain
degree of fluency and accuracy. The cultural relevance descriptor may or may not be
relevant, this will be up to the task designer to decide.
To conclude: there is a main descriptor (or main descriptors) which relates to
the format of the speaking activity directly, the other descriptors (in which order and
what weight they carry in the assessment grid) will be specifically task related and,
therefore decided by the designer.
Inf. Deb.
Public Speaking
Close Formats
Formal Debate
a
v.
a
c&c
s.
r
a
v
v
f.
c&c
s
t-t
v
r
c&c
a
a*
s
f*
r*
f*
s
t-t
t-t
c&c
f
r*
* The descriptor might not even be taken into account as it bears little or no
relevance to the objectives
OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE SET FRAME
Level of linguistic competence aimed at/invisaged
Language content
Assessment grid content
3. IN OTHER WORDS…
1.
PUBLIC SPEAKING
a)
FORMAT
RELEVANCE
OBJECTIVE
AND
LANGUAGE
PUBLIC SPEAKING has perhaps the most rigid and
inflexible production context of the speaking formats, therefore
production itself is from the outset supposed to be somewhat
mechanical. Proper production involves rehearsal and this is openly
acknowledged, which inadvertently entails focus on production skills
rather than on intrinsic language content. Attributes of the presentation
(self-control, convincing attitude) may indicate only to a limited and
debatable extent that the inherent language and cultural content of the
speech is in fact the speaker‟s own. While it is true that the assessor is
not called upon to decide on the paternity of the speech but to look
professionally into its language and presentational level, a speech
which is not consistent with the speaker‟s personality and language
competence is bound to be poor and therefore downgraded. Language
content is usually shrouded in external aspects of oral production so
objectives, in a public speaking assessment, are fundamentally geared
towards performance skills and speech coherence, a reasonable
amount of attention being nevertheless given to structure of speech
while language per se has to settle for a minor role, albeit the research
aspect of the preparation most assuredly begins by looking into the
language quite thoroughly (how complex, how relevant, how
convincingly the speaker‟s). The language descriptor in the grid
content is understandably overshadowed by the external aspects of the
presentation (style). The PS format targets at individual relevance
within a larger social context: public, professional. The language being
tightly connected to its rigid structure has a high degree of artificiality.
This contributes to assessing language as a background or lesser aspect
of a larger picture instead of analyzing it as inbuilt competence.
b)
TASK AND MARKING SCALE
Apparently, in such open formats, it would be appropriate to
use the phrase set a task rather than make/design a task. And yet…
setting the theme may be a very elaborate process.
The only apparent constraint in settling for a catchy theme to be
tackled by speakers is relevance to the age group or the times. The
cultural paradigm of the task will nevertheless have to be
encompassing enough to meet the exigencies of a wide age category,
8-21. The downside of having a task set weeks beforehand allowing
thus speakers to do thorough research and prepare meticulously lies not
only in the degree of artificiality that the presentation may involve but
also in the highly subjective assessment although the failure of being a
natural is likely to be penalized by the judges. In most cases this varies
from one heat to another, substantiating the fore claimed degree of
subjectivity in the assessment equation. Practice has shown that while
some assessors look deeply into the cultural input of a flawless
structure, others are simply mesmerized by the impeccable
performance, (the actual conveying of the message, the way in which
the ideas, arguments are complemented by posture, eye-contact, tone,
voice pitch, rapport with the audience (style), knowing all along that a
teenager can hardly be expected to come up with some philosophical
approach). Yet another category tend to overlook all these aspects and
allow themselves to be carried away by a charming and very
convincing, though in a clumsy way, personal approach to the given
topic (criteria such as spontaneity and judging on own feet are met in
this case). Moreover, the outcome of this intricate arithmetic is a fair
mean quite likely to have a social counterpart in a real life situation,
public or professional.
c)
TASK – SAMPLE SPEECH – ASSESSMENT
Never openly verbalized in the marking scale but always in the
assessor‟s mind, the natural appropriateness
is the guiding
descriptor which connects the context to the content, as well as the
speaker‟s personality. In other words, would this speaker (age, cultural
background, interests, intellectual capacity) voice these ideas
(arguments, examples) in a real life situation of his own convincingly?
A very open task such as DREAMS AND PHANTASIES
(Public Speaking Contest, 2011) inspired the following approach
(Speaker: female, age: 17)
STEP ONE-DREAM, STEP TWO-MAKE IT TRUE
Have you ever experienced moments when you just couldn’t be who
you wanted to be? Have you ever had such bad times when you didn’t feel
comfortable in your own skin? Have there ever been times when your dream just
didn’t come true? I’m sure most of us here, if not all, can admit to experiencing such
frustrating situations, they are part of life itself.
Not fulfilling a dream is indeed a frustrating experience but easy to swallow
because it is part of our genetic and cosmic code which we take on right after birth,
when we begin to understand what is going on. What really goes beyond my depth is
why some swollen heads feel the urge to contribute to other people’s welfare, to
impart their narrow-mindedness to others and break dreams. It is broken dreams
that I will never bring myself to put up with.
Why do we need to dream? Because it’s human nature, because without
dreams we don’t have hope, we’re unfulfilled, disappointed. What is a dream? What
does it look like? It can be black or white or coloured, plain or patterned,
sophisticated or simple. Irrespective of the form our dreams take, they are as
important as breathing is.
You can dream PHYSIOLOGICAL dreams at night or SPIRITUAL dreams in
broad daylight. A dream can be something small like “oh, I hope Poli wins against
Steaua” or it can be something big, like a goal, or a lifestyle.
Dreams are everywhere, but they have a predator that will tear up every
hope. The predator’s name is criticism. This is the number one enemy of any dream
they ever had, the number one obstacle that will impinge your endeavours to make it
true. Critics will just get in your life and try to make you fail, to lose any hope that you
can be whoever you want to be. They will somehow get you round to thinking there is
no way your dream can be fulfilled. They will try to turn you into something ordinary,
a meager stereotype walking amok.
A friend of mine sent me this mail. It was about a couple with a 12-year old
kid and a donkey who set off on a journey. In the first village they passed through
everyone said: “Look at that poorly behaved child, he’s riding the donkey and the
parents are walking beside”. So because of the continual criticism, the parents
decided that it would be the man who should ride the donkey. In the 2nd village
everyone was whispering: “Look at that shameless man, he’s so comfy on the donkey
while his wife and child are walking beside”. So this time they decided that the wife
would go now on the donkey. In the next village everyone was mumbling: “Look at
that woman, the man works all day long and now he has to pull the donkey, what a
bad example the woman is for that child.” So the three of them decided to get all on
the donkey, but in the next village people were outraged: “You beasts, how can you
treat the animal like that? The three of you on the poor animal?” And so they
decided not to ride the donkey at all. In the next village everyone said: “Just look at
those idiots, they have a donkey and no one is riding it”.
We are born to die. The apprehension of this truth alone does not justify or
warrant mass suicide.
The wonderful actress, scriptwriter and director, Barbra Streisand, in one of
her recent films, The Mirror Has Two Faces, has her character query something like:
Why do we fall in love when we know all too well we will end up being hurt? Her
answer? ……… “Because it feels so f…ing good”.
Pardon my French. I couldn’t have put it any more academically.
Who may assume to deprive me of my right to make my journey my way?
Why do people feel the drive to pass judgments, to have “reactions” when
these are never asked from them? We often hear smart adults trying to shed light
over some kid’s ignorance: “There is no Santa!”
It may be so! But believing in Santa is the catch, not ITS/HIS(!) existence! Who
has the right to take away from me the sheer pleasure of all the thoughts and smells
and sounds that rush through my body while I am looking forward to Christmas,
knowing all along that there is no citizen registered as Mr. Santa Claus.
How do you handle such a situation? Be bold and brash and move on to step
2: BE YOU and pursue your dream no matter what. We all are different, we’re white,
black, Asians, tall, small, rebel, calm, smart, stupid, silly. We are all perfect,
remember that God made us and God doesn’t make any mistakes. Since when is
being different a crime? Yeah, I may not have an appropriate style, hair, vocabulary,
but I am myself and I consider that this is the most important thing in life. Yes, there
are standards and rules and constraints (social, moral, religious) that as social beings
we have to meet and comply with, but what we decide within these standards is
what makes us unique and different, therefore interesting and beautiful human
beings.
So keep your head up, hold on to your dreams and fight for them. Even if it
seems wrong or futile for others, it may be right for you, you alone can tell. In life you
are running, and then you fall, now you can see if you are a powerful person, if you
have the strength and guts to get up, shake all the dust off your clothes and stay the
course. Life doesn’t stop when you fall, no, life passes by you if you don’t get
involved, and I bet that you don’t want that. Never fear to be you, to be who you
want to be.
d) SCALE RELATED ANALYSIS
A descriptor such as relevance to the task will have to look into that
appropriateness constraint. Would this approach be a natural reaction of a 17-year
old girl to the topic? Most likely! If so, is her arguing substantially relevant to a
larger context? Hardly! The speaker is obviously using this opportunity (frame) to
make a point related to some personal experience, (this still shouldn’t be a problem)
but she seems to be pouring her bitterness over some helpless audience. A
looseness of the structure and the redundancy of the theme (people won’t let me
be! So you should expect to be treated in the same discriminating way, BEWARE!)
are aspects which downgrade the speech under analysis. The speech is obviously a
REACTION to a state of the matter in the speaker’s life (never made explicit!), the
approach is personal and superficial, regrettably, in a weak and frivolous way.
Notwithstanding the fairly good language and the interesting examples or the sense
of humour, the structure of the piece is too rickety to carry a consistent message
that would be fully relevant to the task! And to take things further, such open
(should we say philosophical?) tasks are likely to face the risk of inviting (!), in young
an inexperienced speakers, either too simplistic ( frivolous) approaches, or reactions
that sound like endless teenage wining about how frustratingly stifling or unfair life
is. Of course, technically speaking, the 2010 theme in the PS competition (Future)
was definitely less risky from this perspective. But as the theme option range is not
limitless, in an open format setting the theme entails the implicit responsibility of, on
the one hand, making it difficult for the speaker (if too young and too inexperienced) to
hold on to a consistent message and on the other giving the judges no other option but to
read the grid in too subjective a key.
2.
SPEAKING
CAMBRIDGE/IELTS/BACCALAUREATE
(INTERACTIVE!)
The close tests are perhaps the most artificial speaking formats, as their aim is
clearly oriented towards language content and assessment has to be made as
accurately as possible. The tighter the frame, the more reliably handled the assessment
grid content where vocabulary, structure and function carry the most points. Before
the assessor looks into the speaker‟s argumentative, interactive, cultural skills he has
already measured the latter‟s range of vocabulary, complexity of structure, relevance
of language function. No professional/experienced assessor will be mesmerized by
impressionistic elements in the speaker‟s response. As to the interaction criterion, the
whole context is too artificial to be taken too seriously by the speaker. The assessor,
on the other hand, complies with the candidate‟s awkwardness about the interaction
aspect and therefore this criterion will be poorly substantiated in the grid (see the
Baccalaureate testing).
Due to this limited openness of frame (in terms of personal approach), the
prompts choice is quite scarce and therefore quite anticipatory. The frame being too
tight to allow for for free interaction, the format becomes too constraining to apply to
competitions. While keeping content very tight may be a huge advantage assessmentwise, the narrow range of options to react to (mostly pictures, expressing feelings,
speculating on preceding and following events…) makes reaction too artificial and
predictable and therefore less interesting or challenging for a competition/contest. In
terms of personal approach, the approximately 15‟ of interaction are a let’s pretend to
talk about …which can be incredibly discomforting for some candidates who simply
cannot fake conversations of the small talk variety or who have been unlucky
enough to partner with a “narcissist” and simply cannot wedge any of their ideas into
the partner‟s verbosity.
This artificiality is the most significant downside of these test formats. So this
type of oral evaluation will be confined to exam formats.
3. FORMAL DEBATE
The formal debate is highly encompassing culturally and linguistically, very
demanding and restrictive at the presentational level, it involves strict interaction and
goes very deep into the speaker‟s psychological and team work potential. Critical
intelligence and the art of syllogistic argumentation carry the weight in this format.
Assessment in a formal debate looks carefully into the process of arguing,
preparation has to be very thorough and the theme may be appealing to explore and
contemplate.
Let‟s take the topic CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS A SMALL WEAPON IN
THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE in the remarkable film “The great debaters”… which
the Wiley College debaters have to fight IN FAVOUR. If we look at the social
context of the competing parties we understand the magnitude of what is usually at
stake when debate topics are launched. So a task designer who wants to set a really
challenging task will not only cling to a familiar cultural or social aspect (The black
population fighting for civil rights) but also have the debaters argue against the
general belief of the group (disobeying the law of the white will never win the
black any rights).
It is obvious that the assessor here will simply “overlook” the language
component, whose substance will not be questioned, and look at the “argumentative”
ping-pong, the handling of the major and minor premises, the relevance of the
counterarguments and when the “positioning” (in favour or against) of one competitor
is so glaringly in contention with own beliefs, culture or even current policy, the
length/depth of the engagement may take dramatic proportions. Due to this degree of
involvement, to the smart and snappy retorts and the cultural spicing, the formal
debate definitely stands out as the most spectacular, natural (despite the strict rules
the competitors have to comply with) and intellectually challenging speaking format.
4. INFORMAL DEBATE
The fore-mentioned formats have a very formally controlled existence. They
bear the signature of popular organizations and institutions. In all these strictly
controlled cases, the task designers are a few chosen professionals with long years of
practice and thorough expertise usually doubled by expert evaluators.
The speaking format which is challenging enough for students and quite
approachable to „ordinary‟ teachers in local competitions is the informal debate. The
word informal, instead of being a powerful concept, is just an affordable ticket, a
word which means so many things that it does not have to mean anything in
particular. It is likely to save the organizers the responsibility of following very strict
rules, an excuse for possible sloppy management or distancing from rigorous
evaluation. But it is also likely to carry some meaning: informal will cover context,
prompt, assessment descriptors formally open to a large category of teachers who
can customize the content and do up the format for a variety of target groups.
a) SET CONTEXT – OBJECTIVES –MARKING SCALE = “a fearful
symmetry”
A set context may be a local (county/regional) competition targeted at high
school students, levels B2, C1, who like to „argue‟. The performance does not have to
be a complex language unfolding, but rather a convincing reaction to a given „prompt‟
(film, picture, quotes) within group or individual work frame.
The format implies emotional/personal involvement, may be culturally
relevant if proper input is given and calls on the competitors‟ interactive and
„reactive‟ skills. Ideas must be wedged into strict time limitations, turn taking and
cutting in must be naturally handled, so the exigencies of group work may represent
criteria which will make the difference in the assessment apart from the language and
attitude content.
Such competitions encourage students to be pro-active, highly opinionated,
take stands, react and therefore ACT and BE through a language which is not their
mother tongue but which they control at an advanced level of oral competence. Such
competitions will bring together students with different interests and hobbies, they
will have them take a stand and possibly suggest solutions to a climactic point, a
moral dilemma in a given situation. The “developing of moral values or attitudes” is
at least as important as is looking into the level of linguistic competence.
II. TASKS AND EVALUATION DESCRIPTORS FOR INFORMAL
DEBATES
a) MARKING SCALE CONTENT
TASK 1
Group work
EFFECTIVENESS
Relevance
to
the
task
Max. 10p
Vocabulary
Range
Control
Appropriateness
Max. 15p
TASK 2
Individual
Originality
Spontaneity
Overall effect
Grammar
and
vocabulary
Coherence
and
cohesion
Max. 4p
Max. 3p
Max.
3p
INTERACTIVE
COMMUNICATION
Grammatical
accuracy
Fluency
Originality
Flexibility
Coherence
Cohesion
Max. 10p
Max.
15p
Max. 10p
Max. 15p
Turn-taking
Cooperating
Asking for
clarification
Max. 15p
b) TASKS
1.
LEVEL: B2
PROMPT: a 20-25‟ excerpt from film SIDNEY WHITE
DEBATERS: groups of 4
BACKGROUND
Sydney is bitterly disappointed with her life on campus. Nothing seems to sit
well with her: her mother‟s once dignified sorority is now shaping cookie-cutter girl
characters, a misguided social hierarchy is suffocating any expression of personality
and most students feel socially challenged.
Sydney has decided to protest publicly against the artificial and stifling
standards set by the sororities and the fraternities.
Bad publicity will be extremely BAD for the school so the principal has called
for a meeting of the parties concerned. He means to hear everybody out and talk
Sydney into reconsidering her decision to leave the school. A mutually agreeable
TOTAL
solution will be negotiated. Sydney is convinced to stay and a new campus policy is
outlined.
1.
The principal-----you have been blissfully unaware that some of your
students have been miserable with their life in the campus: account for your
negligence, express regret, offer your full support for a solution that will benefit all
parties;
2.
You are a sorority/fraternity representative-----you believe in the
pledges (=public promise) of the organization, you believe in the discipline and the
standards set by your organization, you believe the campus activities organized by
the sorority/fraternity prepare you for life…however, at times these rules do seem a
bit too strict, oppressive…
3.
You are one of the disenfranchised (= someone who is no longer
allowed to vote), the misfits who feels looked down upon, who cannot express
his/her potential…
4.
You are Sydney, you are looking at a different pledge, one of a wider
and more generous scope;
NOTE

The meeting will take about 12’

Each contributor is allotted 3’ altogether
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
The BACKGROUND sums up the events up to the epiphanic moment that
the contestants will have to pick on. It is meant to steer the speakers in a specific,
coherent direction they are invited to take and save time in the preparation
section, on the other hand it will encourage the more timid contestants and help
them avoid any misunderstandings due to poor sound in the case of film prompt (a
shortcoming too often rebuked in the Timis County English Speaking Contest over
the past 6 years).
Steering the students’ performance or having too much guiding , as some
may put it, is accounted for by the intermediate level of linguistic competence (B2)
which corresponds to an early (!) age of language production: 15-16 (9th , 10th
graders) where lack of experience requires more guiding.
It has been argued that there should be no guiding at all and the
contestants should decide which way they go, this being an extra opportunity for
students to stand out. The less bold or experienced students in this case, will
certainly be disadvantaged. While it is true that competitions are for those who are
quick witted, self-possessed and opinionated, a school competition is not
exclusively destined for the already competent ones as it is not an exam, it is also
meant for those with a potential for independent thinking and therefore has a
formative objective to meet as well. And finally, since spontaneity is not
necessarily a criterion in the marking scale, but coherent and consistent reaction is,
a background under the circumstances may be useful.
THE PROMPT selection has to take into consideration the students’
interests, the moral themes they can read, the films they enjoy watching, the
attitudes they are willing to react to. A film such as SIDNEY WHITE is, in the opinion
of any adult, a painful quintessence of Hollywood teenage clichés but very
enjoyable to a majority of B2 level students. A, let’s say, light approach to a well
chosen climactic moment may be the perfect context meant to encourage students
to make the most of their language potential if it gives them the possibility to
‘personalize’ this context. The theme the film dwells on (the cool (???) students
belittling the more modest (???) ones) draws on what students are familiar with in
schools.
It is no less true that the more mature speakers may find watching this film
quite a painful trial.
RELEVANCE TO THE GRID CONTENT
The most delicate descriptors in the grid are relevance to the task and
originality. This should be easy to follow as they are explicit in the rubric. A certain
flexibility, however, is also allowed for. Words like may or seem indicate that the
speaker may choose to take a different course which will unquestionably be valued
if coherent, convincing and in conjunction with the other contestants’ reactions.
2.
LEVEL: B2
PROMPT: 30-35‟ scenes from film THE GREAT DEBATERS
DEBATERS: groups of 3
BACKGROUND
An underdog debate team aspiring to defeat the Harvard University‟s national
champions is a challenge which seems to have taken its toll. The Wiley College so far
undefeated debaters have reached a deadlock.
To break the deadlock, each debater is now called upon to reason and make
significant gestures that would take the team back into contention, possibly to a
longed for victory.
TASK
After the stormy outbreak, the three of you (James Farmer Jr., Henry Lowe
and Samantha Booke) are back together. You will talk/debate in order to boost your
morale, to regain(?) confidence, to help you overcome a moment of weakness caused
by the oppressive circumstances of a gruelling debate which obviously has far more
at stake. The arguments will hopefully get you back in the arena with good winning
prospects.

Each of you will point out one aspect in your teammates’
personality, attitude, strategy and argue about why this aspect will benefit
the team.

You will also indicate one negative aspect, a shortcoming, in
every other teammate which has so far proven to be detrimental to the team
and which needs to be harnessed or better handled so as to benefit the team
(refer back to the deadlock moment).

You will also argue in favour or against summoning Mr. Tolson,
your coach, to be present and give you moral support. Do you think you can
function as a mature, sensible and articulate team or is this challenge a
bridge too far and you still need someone to guide you? In either case,
account for your opinion.
DEBATERS:
1 – James Farmer Jr.
2 – Samantha Booke
3 – Henry Lowe
You will debate for about 12 minutes.
Remember this is not an individual account of the strengths and weaknesses of
the other two team mates, this is a debate in which you cut in, agree or disagree,
resume an idea, take up an idea tackled previously. So…be brash and bold and
convincing!
Each speaker will make reference to what has been said before and steer the
talk towards a firm resolution. Each speaker will cover all the points in the rubric.
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
The rubric helps the assessor by clearly targeting the „personality‟
vocabulary as well as the ability to substantiate the rapport between personality
adjectives, act or behaviour and prospective evolution of events to a mutual
benefit or general detriment. The open option „in favour of or against’ is meant to
alleviate the situation the contestants are in by allowing for more creativity.
The notes following the rubric will save the students a lot of queries, on
the one hand, and send through the message that interaction is mostly about
listening to the others and then being spontaneous and arguing within a
discussion frame, and descriptors such as turn taking or asking for clarification
(cutting in), even fudging (if it makes a point) are closely looked into when it
comes to „measuring‟ the degree of oral competence.
3.
LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: 30‟ from film BANG, BANG YOU‟RE DEAD
DEBATERS: groups of 4-5
BACKGROUND
In the aftermath of the Trogs‟ shocking attempt to shoot the students in the
cafeteria, a stakeholders‟ committee (the principal; Duncan, the drama teacher;
Trevor‟s would be girlfriend, the parents‟ representative; a policeman) meets to trial
Trevor and the football team and work out a strategy that would prevent picking on
other students or any other abuse manifested on the school premises.
1.
The Principal -------you chair the meeting, voice your concerns and
articulate the conclusions of the meeting
2.
Duncan, the drama teacher-----you believe students are not really
listened to, you also think the play will have a cathartic effect
3.
Trevor’s would be (girl)friend------despite the allegations and some
inconclusive evidence, your heart points to a different direction as far as Trevor is
concerned
4.
The parents’ representative------you fear for your child’s safety
5.
The policeman-----you believe in unhesitating law enforcement
NOTE

The meeting will take about 12 minutes

Each contributor is allotted 3’

Each contributor will make reference to the previous ideas agreeing
and/or disagreeing to them

The sequencing of the contributions may be random or controlled,
running or broken BUT coherent and cohesive, leading to a strategy convened upon
that will address students, parents, teachers, the police.
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
Despite the apparently strict instructions to the speaker (you will voice your
concern…), there is some degree of freedom of choice that the latter is allowed as far as
the language structure and functions are concerned. So, the personal approach is never
under threat of being suppressed by overly guided instructions. The attributes of oral
production in a debate frame (the large spectrum of interaction specifics) are insisted
upon to escape the danger of turning a debate into a series of monologues. Once speakers
‘get the idea’ of the prompt, they have to discuss as naturally as possible in the direction
indicated in the rubric, attempting to come up with a solution they believe is appropriate
under the given situation, or better yet , one suggested by another speaker, possibly
invite a reaction from partners. Voicing ideas and concerns, reacting (positively or
negatively) to previous ideas involves a certain maturity and experience of addressing
people, of listening and reacting to what others say. This is what accounts for the C1 level
of language competence as target to such tasks. Obviously, ‘language’ alone is not enough
to convince a panel of judges of one’s oral skills. Communication is ‘language’ dressed up
in skills.
4.
LEVEL: B2
PROMPT: 40‟ from film THE FREEDOM WRITERS
BACKGROUND
An inspirational and dedicated teacher has helped you, students in an
integration program class, to want to change. You have come a long and harsh way
along which you had to put up with the prejudices of the school authorities, your
classmates‟ unaccountable hate and mistrust, the misery of your home life, and most
importantly, with your shattered, confused and all apprehensive SELF. But you are
now changing.
The teacher, with her unconventional methods, past revisits (the Holocaust,
the story of Anne Frank) and a lot of compassion, takes most of the credit for making
you want to change.
On learning that the teacher who believed in you from the very beginning is
not to be your teacher over the senior academic years (school policy!), you have
decided to take your case to the local school authorities and make them keep
Mrs.Gruwell as your senior class teacher.
RUBRIC
Plead your case (class and individual) in front of the local school authorities
by pointing out both the benefits the teacher has brought to you and the inadequacy
of the approach offered as alternative by the school.
Make sure you include:

How you have changed

The most significant aspects of this process

Feelings, moments you have experienced; questions which have got
answers, queries yet to be answered

Personal and group changes

Why the alternative would never have worked
Rationale - 2 to 3 minutes per individual (8-12’ altogether)
You (4 class representatives) are pleading your case in front of the
authorities.
Your group is the whole class in small so feel free to voice any of the
characters you saw in the film.
Each of you will complement the previous speaker/s. Do not repeat what has
been said. If one speaker is too long over their plea, cut in.
Remember you must be convincing both as a group/class and as individuals,
so each one of you has a story worth listening to and arguments that can make a
difference. Each of you is a VOICE that counts and adds to the chances you have
in front of the hearing committee.
ANALYSIS OF TASK
Bulleted requirements can only make both speakers and assessors very
happy. The other exigencies indicate that assessing will carry substantial points
for the „argumentation‟ (relevance to the task), which has to be not only
narratively(!) convincing but also coherently impressive and structurally cohesive.
Narrative pleas are considered to be more appropriate for less experienced
speakers but whose control of the language is nevertheless very good. Also in the
case of „younger‟ speakers, a task which they „can put their finger on‟, (plead in
front of the committee to allow you to…) is one which „hits them home‟ and is
likely to be joyfully embraced, still crediting students with a fairly creative
potential.
5.
LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: 40‟ from film FREEDOM WRITERS
DEBATERS: groups of 4
BACKGROUND
An inspirational and dedicated teacher has helped you, students in an
integration program class, to want to change. You have come a long and harsh way
along which you had to put up with the prejudices of the school authorities, your
classmates‟ unaccountable hate and mistrust, the misery of your home life, and most
importantly, with your shattered, confused and all apprehensive SELF. But you are
now changing.
The story of Anne Frank, to its credit and the teacher‟s, has played a
significant role in your coming round, it has helped you see things in perspective.
You have just learned that Miep Geis, the woman who kept Anne Frank in
hiding, is still alive and you, the whole class of misfits, have decided to write her a
letter.
Debate /brainstorm over what ideas, examples, stories, arguments,
feelings…you should include in the letter to Miep Geis to acknowledge the
contribution which her courageous gesture of saving the life of a human being, be it
Jewish, has had to your redemption.
Feel free to combine the information from the film in any relevant way you
choose.
!!! After the debate, you will go back to the preparation room and write down,
hors concours, the ideas you have just convened upon. This will be the draft of your
letter to Miep Geis and it will be left with the invigilator.
***
ANALYSIS OF TASK
This is perhaps the most „open‟ of the suggested approaches to evaluating
„speaking‟ as it frees the speaker from the prompt specifics quite significantly.
Such substantial amount of freedom of „movement‟ will allow the speaker to
make his own story drawing on a very general input. The performance is
expected to be an argumentation within narrative or cause-effect structure with
proper connectors and appropriate descriptive vocabulary. This is what the
assessor‟s grid will read rather than interactive descriptors. Does the speaker
know that? Well, he cannot be spoon fed all along, there are aspects which
appeal to a mature (C1) speaker whose common sense will show him the way.
The assessor himself is also „left on his own‟. In this case the evaluation escapes a
comfortable „arithmetical‟ grid reading (as in the previous case) slipping into an
impressionistic approach. We are looking here at a very experienced assessor. As
always, the less constraining the form, the more fun the activity. Can the same be
said about assessment in such a case? Hardly! That is why the most
discomforting results are in such open/subjective formats.
6.
LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: PICTURE (FILM STILL): DOUBT, INGLORIOUS
BASTARDS…
Starting from the picture, CREATE/IMAGINE/IDENTIFY a conflicting
situation in which the characters are involved. Your “situation” will have a theme
which you will state before the debate proper.
The situation/conflict must accord with the elements in the picture: setting,
costumes, cultural symbols and will be convened upon in the 15-minute preparation
time. (Not to be assessed!)
The team having decided what the conflict is, you will “debate” for about 12
minutes in front of the judging panel in order to reach a resolution.
It is up to you as a team (and individual voice in the team) to decide who/what
each of you is as well as what your stand is. Each stand must be clearly outlined and
consistent with the situation as a whole (its point, message).
Remember you are together to find a solution to a problem which you have
identified yourselves and which is consistent with the symbols in the prompt. A
problem which is confusing or is incoherently dealt with will entail losing points.
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
The main descriptor will be consistency with a self-set situation on the one
hand and the convincing reading of the given symbols.
7.
Tasks to evaluate spontaneity and single out excellent speakers:
20 sec PREPARATION; about 1 minute PRODUCTION

LEVEL: B2
PROMPT: SKETCH, DRAWING
Starting from the drawing, make up a narrative piece. The drawing will be
embedded in your story as object, metaphor, symbol.
You will be assessed for your creativity, spontaneity…………………….and
English!
DO NOT DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SEE!
POINTS: 10
For a C1 level the rubric would read: Starting from the drawing, make up a
reflective piece.

LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: QUOTES, LYRICS
These are lyrics from a popular song. Speculate on what might have
inspired them.
a.
“My scars remind that the past is real, I tear my
heart open just to feel.”
b.
“Even an end has a start.”
c.
“Hello! Says the devil, let‟s go in my car, I think
we‟ll have a lot of fun.”
d.
“Someone lit the light, „cause there‟s more here to be
seen.”
COMMENTS
Such one-minute tasks are meant to single out outstanding speakers on
the descriptor of spontaneity and originality.
8.
LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: 40‟ from GOOD MORNING VIETNAM
THEME: The little things which make a difference
Background
General Taylor has reluctantly suspended Adrian Cronauer after persistent
complaints coming from Major Dickerson and Lieutenant Hauk regarding the DJ’s
‘inappropriate style and content’ of the radio programmes. It was actually Adrian’s
defying the military censorship constraints which made the general resort to this
drastic measure rather than the silly justifications of the two officers.
Adrian’s uniquely personal approach to the war (superiors, news updates,
fellow servicemen, local ) apparently have made a difference so the non-conformist
DJ is now terribly missed.
Task
The general is taking part in a radio talk show hosted by Lieutenant Hauk. He
has been invited to account for his decision of suspending Adrian. The following
„characters‟ will be put on air and argue in favour of the popular DJ being
reinstated.
1. Private First Class Edward Garlick – has been with Adrian since day one,
so he will focus on the personal approach to the matter
2. A serviceman – his days in Hell have been more bearable with the rock‟n
roll music and the bitter humour coming from Adrain‟s voice on the radio – he will
voice the public concern
3. A young native whom Adrian has befriended and taught English and whose
sister he has been trying to date, never breaching the cultural code – the approach
will be individual and social as well as cultural and moral;
4. The host will also take part in the debate. He will argue against. His
military obedience speaks for itself.
NOTE
REMEMBER this is just an informal debate in which you ARGUE in
favour of or against (Lieutenant Hauk) Adrian being put back on air. The show
will end with a final decision taken by 5. the General (Yes, Adrian will be
reinstated/ No, Adrian will leave Saigon) and thoroughly accounted for.
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
Not only do speakers have to concentrate on the part/character/number
each of them has randomly picked but they also have to coordinate the
performance as a whole to reach the resolution. This will imply hard work in the
preparation time, team work skills, complying with the time constraints. Such a
rubric will impose on the assessor to be more careful with descriptors like
flexibility and cooperating.
9.
LEVEL: B2
PROMPT: prompts from the film MEET THE FOCKERS
In the van, the parents have been splitting hairs over their children‟s
future, marriage, career prospects. Imagine the scene.
 You are Jack Byrnes (father of the bride), former military and
CIA agent. Argue to defend your position in deciding upon the future of the
young couple.
 You are Greg Focker, a nurse by profession; you love Pam
Byrnes but you are locked down upon by Jack Byrnes. Defend your
position in deciding your future with Pam.
 You are Pam Byrnes, a young woman who loves Greg very
much. You decide to stand up to your father, Jack Byrnes. And defend your
future with Greg.
 You are Bernie Focker (father of the groom), former hippie,
very proud of your son. You feel optimistic about the young couple‟s
future. Defend your position accordingly.
 You are Rozalin Focker (mother of the groom), a yoga
instructor; you are open-minded and against any constraints. Argue in
favour of the young couple.
10.
LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: film prompt WHAT WOMEN WANT
You have met in Darcy‟s office to work on how to advertise all the items
in the box and how to launch them on the market.

You are CHARACTER 1. Suggest a strategy and debate on the
others‟ ideas. Work as a group to decide on a successful marketing strategy.

You are CHARACTER 2.

You are CHARACTER 3.

You are CHARACTER 4.

You are CHARACTER 5.
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
The rubric sets the elevated task of assuming that some 16, 17-year olds
are able to imaginatively place themselves in the very expensive shoes of expert
minds of marketing agents. Such a perspective opened (or narrowed down) in
the rubric will undoubtedly force the assessors to read the marking scale mostly
in its „creative‟ key. Although no competition standards ever expect student
speakers to be anything but students pretending to be something just for the sake
of making a point, such a “professionalized” context may generate performances,
approaches which, from a strictly professional point of view, may look awkward
or unusual but to competition standards they may be surprisingly fresh and
convincing providing that students are up to such challenges. To the less creative
or playful, this type of approach is extremely inhibiting. So some speakers will be
dramatically disadvantaged and subsequently, accordingly downgraded.
11.
LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: 25‟ from film WHAT WOMEN WANT
TASK
To your utter surprise, your new boss has just been introduced to you and
it is a WOMAN.
You are now during your coffee break, giving the gossip feedback.
1.
You are NICK MARSHALL, a divorce with a teenage daughter.
2.
You are NICK‟S COLLEAGUE. Your life with him has never
been “heavenly”.
3.
You are NICK‟S SECRETARY. You have always had problems
with bossy women.
4.
You are NICK‟S FRIEND AND CONFIDANT.
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
In free tasks, the assessor will look mostly into the originality of „shaping‟
the reaction and the language input.
12.
LEVEL: C1
PROMPT: film prompt from THE GIRL IN THE CAFÉ
BACKGROUND
The British negotiating team at the G8 Conference (Chancellor, Roger,
his assistant, George, Sunita and Laurence) are having a meeting before leaving
for Iceland. They have convened upon some strategies of pushing the
MILLENNIUM GOALS on the conference agenda to the detriment of GLOBAL
SECURITY ISSUES. A lot is at stake (national, personal). They are all
anticipating tough negotiations.
As if this were not enough, something more of a personal matter has come
up and needs urgent solution.
TASK
Laurence, who has invited Gina to join him on the official trip, is now
imparting the news to his boss, the Chancellor, and the team. The group is arguing
whether it is appropriate, safe, proper…for the British official delegation to „take on‟
a „new member‟, someone they, Laurence included, know hardly anything about.
Give reasons for or against Gina‟s presence in the „delegation‟. The meeting
(your informal debate) will end with a firm resolution.
CANDIDATE 1
You are Laurence.
You are wavering between your usual composure and professionalism and the
strong, apparently silly feelings that you have for Gina whom you have invited to join
you at the Conference. Was it an irrational impulse, infatuation or…? For obvious
reasons, which cannot be verbalized, you want Gina on the trip. You certainly find
her inspirational, on the other hand, she cannot possibly be a threat to the
negotiations. You argue to have her accepted. Convince your team members that she
will not impede, let alone endanger, your work or the negotiations.
CANDIDATE 2
You are the Chancellor.
You are responsible for your team and for the quality and outcome of the
negotiations.
You take decisions.
You sympathize with Laurence.
You know him to be a very hard working and efficient person, you have always
counted on him, he has never failed you, but now, he seems distracted. Too much is at
stake, you want to make the most of this conference for the benefit of the poor, of your
country, of mankind…, so you don‟t want any distractions. However, you are an
open-minded person. You will listen to what everybody has to say, you will argue and
pronounce the decision.
CANDIDATE 3
You are George. You sympathize with Laurence. Give reasons in favour of
taking Gina on.
CANDIDATE 4
You are Roger, the Chancellor‟s assistant. You are strict and cold. You like
things to be done by the book, so complications must be avoided. In work
relationships there is no room for feelings.
CANDIDATE 5
You are Sunita. You are jealous of Gina not because you love Laurence but
because Gina is beautiful and the two seem to be together. Gina cannot be accepted.
This is a debate, so take turns, cut in, agree and disagree.
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
Despite the exceptional quality of the film, choosing it as prompt for
assessing oral production to 16-17-year olds has proved to be counterproductive
and irrelevant. Firstly, the story (although a love one) has aspects which do not
appeal to people this young as the responsibility of a mature relationship cannot
be understood by someone whose experience is superficial and secondly some
CHARACTERS are provided more guiding than others thus making them
appear more complex or, on the contrary, shallow (as reaction to given context)
so the performance was bound to be an unbalanced, therefore an unfair one.
13.
LEVEL: B2
PROMPT: 20‟ from film CARS
TASK
You are at a press conference following the trial. A verdict has been reached.
It is up to you (as a group) to decide what the verdict is and have a debate in a talk
show. Two TV reporters are asking questions to McQueen, the sheriff and Sally
Carrera about the trial.

You are REPORTER 1 and you are working with a local
quality paper.

You are REPORTER 2 and you are working with a local
tabloid.

You are McQueen.

You are Sally Carrera.

You are the Sheriff
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
Yet another case of “professional” standards imposed on people with no
professional experience at all. Such tasks count on the students‟ creative and
ludic nature. It being a one-on-one interaction, some of the interactive
descriptors may not bear any relevance, but if the group decides to turn the
conference into a personal dispute, this may be an interesting debate with
encompassing interactions.
14.
LEVEL: B2
PROMPT: 35‟ from film THE REPLACEMENTS
BACKGROUND
The WASHINGTON SENTINELS football team seems to be unable to
finish the season. The professional players have gone on strike, the rag-tag team of
replacement players does not rise to the expectations of the investors who have
called former coach Jimmy McGinty to coach the misfits to finish the season’s last
four games. The situation calls for urgent measures.
TASK
The board of investors is meeting to analyze the situation: should they
continue with THE REPLACEMENTS (What are their strong points that can be made
the most of? What are their drawbacks? Are the latter insurmountable? Is this team
worth backing up, or should they meet the demands of the professional players?
The meeting will end with a firm resolution.
You are one of the 5 members of the board of investors.
INVESTOR 1
INVESTOR 2
INVESTOR 3
INVESTOR 4
INVESTOR 5
Argue in favour or against keeping THE
analyzing/debating on their strong points and weak points.
NAME
SHANE FALCO

JIMMY MCGINTY


STRONG POINTS
former college football
glory
very technical
unconventional coach
REPLACEMENTS

WEAK POINTS
insecure when the
game is on the line

hasn’t coached for a
CLIFFORD
FRANKLIN
JAMAL AND
ANDRE JACKSON
JUMBO
RAY SMITH
DANIEL
BATEMAN
NIGEL ‘THE
LEG’ GRUFF
BRIAN
MURPHY
WALTER
COCHRAN

likes to win

fast player


bulky, strong




good at pushing people
around
fast player
long time
doesn’t have enough
‘stamina’
for
a
bunch of ‘misfits’
unable to catch the
ball
like
guns,
hate
discipline
immature

good at getting the ball



too edgy
hates policemen
likes to hit people

strong legs


very talented player

cocky, superficial,
blathering mouth
hearing impaired


good skills
is here to say good-bye
to
football,
wants
people to remember
him as a ‘HAS BEEN’

bad knees

Feel free to ‘PICK’ any of the players or all of them. Elaborate on any of
their strong and/or weak points to substantiate your opinions. The meeting is an
informal debate, you will cut in, agree and disagree.
Based on your arguments, you will take a vote in the end: are you going to
keep the replacements or replace them?
ANALYSIS OF RUBRIC
It may be argued that the table is influencing speakers with descriptive
vocabulary regarding the personality of their assigned characters. But unless this
is done, the contestants would not be able to „put their finger‟ on any of the
characters as the film is too „hectic‟: too many names, too much action. The
language spoken is football American English. So here the task designer is left
with two options: he either provides a reminder of who’s who and takes on the
blame of making the task too easy, or drops the task to avoid causing panic or
mayhem among contestants. A way out in the former situation might be an extra
note urging speakers to avoid using the words in the table and resort to
synonyms, descriptions…
III. THE TIMISOARA ENGLISH SPEAKING CONTEST - A
6-YEAR EXPERIENCE FORMAT
The tasks suggested above have been trialed over the years in the brand new
speaking format on the market THE ENGLISH SPEAKING CONTEST organized by
the Timis County School Inspectorate. The analyses given echo some of the reactions
recorded on the feedback sheets and invite further insight into something which is
meant to be fun, culturally stimulating and quite relevant regarding its assessment
value, being meanwhile, like any other oral production, at times quite volatile.
What does it take to establish a brand? A marketing professional would let
loose an intimidatingly impressive flow of ideas and definitions which would obscure
the subject in a sophisticated jargon. That quality content and popularity alone can
hardly set a brand has so many times been demonstrated. Add persistence to the fore
mentioned aspects, however, (and two or three ingredients coming from the political
and financial sectors) and you may have a brand in a surprisingly short time.
An inspirational county inspector of English thought of setting up a format as
alternative to the much criticized English Olympiad. Too restrictive to allow a larger
category of students to take part in it, the latter has been a highly disputed competition
format lately. Due to its holistic approach, the competition falls short of life‟s urgency
to motivate larger categories of students. Now, in all honesty and fairness, there are
not many students who are both rigorous and creative, whose skills are honed to such
levels of perfection that they have the audacity, determination, motivation to consider
participating in a competition which is so complex that hardly any conceivable real
life situation can ever justify the effort or disappointment for that matter. There are on
the other hand, incredibly many opinionated and assertive students who enjoy
debating, who speak English well and convincingly and who are attracted by
competitions which resort to the employment of more dynamic, lucrative skills.
It was such needs that the speaking competition tried to meet. What format
would most appeal to young people who like to express themselves, who can easily
brainstorm ideas and enjoy reacting to what life has to offer but who are by no means
fans of convention? That is how the informal debate became a serious option to
consider.
A non-conventional format relieves much of the pressure of rules which are
too strict and difficult to arbiter and assess. On the other hand, a frame which is too
loose may easily prove a “die hard” experience for both students and assessors, not to
mention organizers. Such open formats must be devised carefully in order to be
handled properly and effectively at all levels. Not having someone else‟s rules to
abide by is all right as long as you have your own rules well thought out.
The risks arising from the attempt to set up a “tradition” were manifold:
selecting relevant input (would this be stimulating enough for the students?),
training assessors to comply with the format and the standards and willing to do
volunteer work on Saturdays, exploring possible avenues in order to inform
teachers and students effectively and in due time of the contest requirements. The
aspect of motivating all parties concerned had to be looked for in the intrinsic
qualities of the competition.
Understandably, such an ambitious prospect makes task designing the most
exciting and pleasant part of the whole competition scaffolding and any teacher would
much rather take on this activity rather than negotiate the budget with authorities, do
discouraging amounts of paperwork, decide on strategically convenient venues for a
contest where over 200 students perform in groups or work out coherent and time
saving activities.
A quality product can be created only against rigorous (even if self-set)
standards which a majority of its professionals accept to meet. This approach has to
fight a popular (and non-professional) belief that no speaking performance can be
wedged into patterns to be assessed with a high degree of accountability.
Whilst getting the students analyze a moral situation the English Speaking
Competition aims at making a wide set of speaking descriptors popular with teachers
and students, setting standards and “training” all parties concerned to comply with
them, developing skills to assess oral production against a set scale of evaluation,
engaging students in negotiating strategies of debate, encouraging argumentative
reaction to ethical issues, disciplining the discourse in argumentative interaction,
enlarging the general knowledge of the students.
Doing some scavenging into the little material “waste” which was filed and
saved from the 2010 competition, TASK 5, may help the analyst surmise (and the
reader understand) what is going on in the preparation section of the competition, the
section in which rubric is read and strategies are made. The draft notes we will be
looking into open onto more than just one type of analysis. They are emblematic and
symptomatic for the way contestants relate themselves to the tasks and provide
invaluable feedback on how this competition impacts the students in general. These
drafts are personal statements, letters to Miep Geis (the hors concours requirement) or
just strategy brainstorming. We will present them as evidence of what lies behind the
contestants‟ performance in the form they were jotted down by the contestants
themselves.
Exhibits 1-18 are samples of reactions to the task and the moral issue raised in
TASK 5 ***
1.
Dear Ms. Geis,
My name is Marcus Brown. I‟m an 18-year old Afro-American from Los
Angeles and I live in Compton. Compton is considered the most dangerous
neighborhood in LA and not without reason.
Here you can find just about every race on the planet. White, black, yellow,
you name it. All this cultural diversity has led to a lot of violence. It‟s every race for
itself and against one another.
I myself have been a victim of this violence. My brother was shot dead right in
front of my eyes when I was only seven. The police didn‟t do anything about it. To
them it was just another dead body in a violent community.
One day our teacher just couldn‟t take any more of our hatred, so she
challenged us to talk. At first we didn‟t want to listen to her because she was white,
but when she told us about the holocaust and about you we found your story very
impressive, and we realized that we are all human, no matter what colour we are or
what country we come from.
Soon after I learned about you, I had the chance to kill my brother‟s murderer.
I had my finger on the trigger, but I couldn‟t do it. I decided that the killing had to
stop somewhere. If I hadn‟t done that then, I would probably be in jail now.
So thank you! I owe everything to you. Maybe, if I help one person and that
person helps another person, one day the world will be a better place.
2.
Dear Miep Geis,
I just want to say thank you. Thank you for showing me that it is better to
tolerate one another.
I don‟t know if I could have done what you did back then for someone you
didn‟t know… and not just one person, but a whole family….putting your life in
danger to save other lives…would never happen in this time and age.
You taught me how to be a human being just as you once were. I‟d be
honoured if you would visit my school in America. I have a lot of questions I just can‟t
ask in a letter, about the Holocaust, about the whole thing you went through…
You have all my respect!
Yours sincerely,
Someone who really wants to meet you!
3.
Dear Ms. Geis,
I am writing this letter to express my gratitude for the heroic gesture you did
when you hid Anne Frank from the Nazis. After I read the book I managed to go
beyond the anger which I often felt seeing the violence on the street. I must confess
that I had always had feelings of hate for the police and my classmates but after I
learned about your courageous act and unconditional love of people I changed
entirely.
It would be wonderful if I could talk with you and tell you how strongly I feel
about your courage. To me, you are a pioneer of generosity and kindness.
4.
Dear Ms. Geis,
Thank you for:
-being alive
-having had the courage to help a human being when she needed it the most
-your generosity and selflessness
We, the students at this college, can relate very well to your story because
racism exists all around us, it is part of our everyday life.
We all felt very strongly about your incredible gesture, the feelings we had
made us realize that a change is necessary to improve things.
We would do anything to help you come all the way from Holland to the USA.
Again, thank you for your lesson and we hope to finally meet you in person so
we can all talk sitting at the table.
5.
Dear Ms. Geis,
I am writing to thank you. Who I am is not important, all that matters is that I
am no longer a prejudiced black teenager thanks to what you did to Anne Frank.
I used to be a Nazi, you see. Not literally, of course, but I was just as bad. I
hated Latinos, Asians and White people. Why? For no reason other than that of being
what they are. Because of their skin, I guess. But then I read Anne Frank‟s diary and I
realized our war was just a petty fight compared to what you went through. Yet you
acted like a human being when most people around you didn‟t and inspired me to do
the same.
I am now thinking of working for an organization that fights against racism.
And it is all because of you! So thank you!
Yours faithfully,
Alicia Kent
6.
The letter to Miep Geis would include




The changes Ms. Geis has brought about in my life. I‟ll show her what my life
has been like before. All the hatred, prejudice and angst that was such a big
part of my life before is not gone completely but has lessened considerably,
which means progress
The possibility of Miep Geis to come and visit us and our chance to talk about
our experiences. Also would it be more effective if she talked to the students
herself or if we read her message to us?
Asking for advice to overcome our prejudices and hatred
We would thank her and say she is really an exceptional person.
7.
Dear Miss Geis,
I am writing this letter on behalf of my class. We believe what you have done is an
inspiration to us all. Your bravery amazes us and restores our faith in humanity. The
book made us realize that there are always people who care. We were fortunate to
have our own…………………………….
8.




The main idea behind this letter is to try to express one‟s admiration for Miep
Geis‟ grand gesture
Moreover, the letter should present one‟s personal story in order for Miep
Geis to relate to it to some extent
However, given the fact that one can‟t be certain whether or not Miep Geis
will reply, there will not be too many pieces of information
To sum up, we should try to convince this inspirational person to come to our
country and be presented to our friends
9.
Dear Miep Geis,
I am writing this letter to thank you for being who you are and doing what you did
during the Holocaust.
I once thought that everyone was against me except my family and my kind. I grew
up in a hostile environment where my mom told me to be careful and not get shot.
Normally mothers tell their children to look both ways when they cross the street.
A few years later I found myself in the same classroom with the people I thought were
my enemies. Fortunately, my teacher opened my eyes. I now know, I now understand
that we all went through the same things. I grew up thinking my situation was the
worst possible.
That was before I learned what the holocaust was. I can only imagine what you
went through day after day after day. The power to save other people‟s life at the risk
of losing yours and putting your family‟s on the line is extraordinary.
10.
Dear Ms. Geis,
I am writing this letter to express my gratitude for what you did in those long
forgotten, bygone years by saving the life of an innocent Jewish girl during the
holocaust and endangering your own.
Through this act of great kindness you have really opened my eyes to a looming
horizon of tolerance and acceptance of others who are not like my kind. You see, I am
a Hispanic teenage student in Ms. Gruwel‟s class and before learning about the
reason behind your act, that of sympathy, understanding and love, I would have never
believed that hunger, hatred, aversion, rout and bloody feuds have no real meaning
and result in nothing more than sordid death.
I cannot deny that I still feel fear whenever I walk out the door, but no more anger
towards the Afro-Americans or Asians as I did before when I considered them to be
the center of my misfortune. They, as I, are humans and worthy of respect for simply
being my colleagues. Otherwise, were all of us tucked under the thick veneer of
ignorance our society would be no different than the glum envisaged by Dostoievski*.
Thank you for the courage and wonderful imprudence of being a savior in
hazardous times!
11.
Dear Ms. Miep Geis,
I am proud to say that I am only one of the people whom you have saved from
dying in war…the street war, that is. I simply want to thank you for inspiring me, but I
also want to share with you, in a few words, the way your heroic story managed to
change my perspective on everything that had been my life until recently.
I grew up in the suburbs, where the street war was happening every day. So many
of my friends got shot and killed. I ended up not making friends anymore, so I
wouldn‟t have to suffer anymore. Even though I tried to mind my own business, the
police always picked on me for my ethnicity. I hated the authorities so I decided to get
involved in the war so next time I would get busted for the right reason. I have shot a
lot of people and it wasn‟t such a bad thing for me anymore. Every day was a fight for
me and my goal was to gain more power and be feared by my enemies.
Since I heard your story and read Anne Frank‟s diary, my life has changed. I
thought about the people I hurt and that haunted me. How you risked your life for
Anne was amazing and made me think about all the abused children of today. I want
to help them, give them normal lives and make them smile again. Now I can get along
with those I considered my enemies and life seems more pleasant.
Dear Ms. Geis, I would like to tell you more but it would take a long time. All I
want to say in the end is thank you, Ms. Geis and wish you all the best.
12.
Dear Ms. Geis,



How her story has changed our perspective and how her gesture made us
more aware of how some people can have a heart and offer a helping hand
Our stories:
Michelle – story about my difficult childhood and school years
John – father in jail (accused of something he didn‟t do), died in jail
Gloria – story about my little brother who was killed
Lisa – story about my little sister killed in a conflict
We appreciate her courageous gesture and we hope that she can come here
and share with us her story
13.
Dear Ms. Geis,
Thanks for your moving story. We all started thinking different about ourselves and
the people surrounding us. Before the teacher told us about your book we all hated
each other, we didn‟t understand our pain and different cultures, way of life, but
luckily, we have all changed now. We would like to invite you to visit us and tell your
story in person so that others will understand how they can help other people in
similar situations. Thank you for what you taught us.
14.
Dear Ms. Geis,
We are four students from an integration program class and we are writing to you
to let you know how your story has changed our lives.
Although our races are different, we were influenced deeply by your courageous
act. We all have a sad past behind and were full of anger and hate but you taught us
not to judge people by their appearance and try to know them first. You taught us that
there are also good people in the world and without your invaluable lesson we would
all possibly be convicts or thieves now.
Although we value your lesson, we need to ask you a few questions to clear some
things in our heads. How can you trust a complete stranger and bring her into your
home? Weren‟t you afraid that she could take advantage of you?
Write to us soon,
Sincerely,
…………..
15.

Introduction –being human
- Not being influenced by mainstream culture/public opinions
- Victims of racism
- Grateful for what she did for Anne Frank
- We felt vulnerable, endangered, powerless
- Giving us power to make a change
- Inspired by your act
- Social status
- Look beyond prejudice
- Accepting the Jewish culture and every other culture
- Helped us make a change in a peaceful way
16.
Two issues need to be taken into consideration here:
1. The marks that were left by slavery in America. The history of black people
exploitation.
2. The problem of immigration in America.
1. Black slaves were delivered from the British colonies in
Africa, they ended up on slave markets and then on
plantations owned by white landowners who treated
them like beasts. The church and most of the common
people did nothing to change this and so slavery went
on as far as the second half of the 19th century.
2. Lots of Hispanics and Mexicans have immigrated into
the States. There was a boom in the 20th century and its
rate is still high these days. Immigrants flock here,
driven by the “American dream” but know little or
nothing about the real world and what is expected of
them. They get to live in very poor neighborhoods,
natives usually see them as those who steal their jobs
and space and do not speak their language. Raised in
such derelict environments, immigrant children are
confronted with violence at an early age and they grow
in gangs where they “socialize”. So their life…
In order to understand these students‟ gratitude towards Miep Geis, we must find the
similarities between the book involving her in the „story‟ of Anne Frank and the
interracial hatred-filled environment of the kids.
Times and places are different, but the key idea is the same. People, and even
nations are seeking someone “not of their own”, to put the blame on, to be held
responsible for all the misery, frustration, failures, hardships, chances not given,
chances not taken. Violence surreptitiously sneaks in and slowly but surely a wall of
hatred is put up and these races are torn apart.
Education made people want to leave behind all the problems that poor
settlements bring forth and fuel.
I can imagine these suburbs in American cities where white people could hardly find
a job; there comes a new wave of people from Mexico, not knowing English and
working for salaries three times as little. Such situations are bound to generate
conflict. Feeling suppressed, the immigrants organize themselves in close circle
gangs. When confronted with authorities or other races these people become violent.
The only way to deal with this problem, in my opinion, is education and a lot of
patience to make the differences fade away and healthy communication be instated.
17.
“Be the change you want to see in the world.”
18.




People are equal, we all have feelings and we all have to overcome hate
We should try to make other people realize that hatred is not good.
We have to organize things better because waiting makes people angry
We have convened upon the fact that her story is similar to our lives, thus it
would be a good idea to talk to her face to face
READING BETWEEN THE LINES
All these bits of „writing‟ make up an interesting patchwork of thought, attitude,
ideas, pop culture and, of course, with some understandable reservation, writing and
speaking skills. Putting them together quite randomly (for how else would it qualify
for the authenticity criterion?) accentuates the transparency of the information these
pieces carry as to how the contestants work, how they handle the task.
UNDERSTANDING RUBRIC
Reading the rubric through seems to be handled with some negligence. This is
consistent with a more general attitude towards speaking performances, on the one
hand, as well as the fact that our evidence consists mainly of draft material. Rushing
on to give the reaction and shake off the assignment, some contestants produced an
individual, personal piece of writing, instead of a group one as specified in the rubric
to the hors concours requirement. So, ensuring that students not only read the rubric,
but understand it also, is of paramount importance.
HOW TO MAKE A CONVINCING STATEMENT?
Ignoring the fact that an “I” reaction fails to meet the rubric in this case, it cannot be
denied that both “I” and “we” texts may carry convincing messages. The handiest and
most efficient technique is the simple narrative in which “I” is committed to the
cause and offers solutions which are commonsensical and draw on personal
experience (exhibits 1, 5, 9). Texts written on behalf of “we” have the prophetic
clarity and deep going effect of the Declaration of Independence (“WE, THE
PEOPLE…”) and when comparisons with the group‟s experience are attempted, the
impact is all the stronger (exhibits 4, 7, 13). However, texts which strive to be
technically correct seem to block out any shred of empathy (which in this case is
important) by using inappropriately sophisticated vocabulary which is obviously there
to impress not to touch (exhibits 14, 10). Exhibit 10 squeezes the name Dostoievsky
into the text and uses an adjective for a noun (glum) after forcing onto us a complex
but gratuitous structure and metaphor: otherwise, were all of us tucked under the thick
veneer… Otherwise, were it a creative writing competition, we would certainly be
suffused with the cathartic dimension of the words! Otherwise,…this was supposed to
be a letter – functional piece of writing! A painfully superficial approach is evinced in
exhibit 8 which due to the use of the indefinite pronoun and the suggested suspicion is
just a bla bla quite off the task. This indicates that some students are handling a
format which is either too tight for them (exhibit 10), or too loose (exhibit 8).
STRATEGY
Some of the picks provide clues as to how the contestants work in groups. There are
pieces which simply jot down ideas. A superficial and not very solid preparation is
likely to result in a loose presentation (exhibits 6, 15, 18). Still, in some of these
notes, the group work skills are quite apparent (exhibit 13). Very interesting to look
into is exhibit 16 which provides an insight into how “culturally” thorough
preparations can be. Someone is showing off by doing a mature and well- structured
analysis, journey into the past, identifying the cause of all evil as well as the
redeeming solutions (education and patience) and setting the strategy. But is it not too
far- fetched? And where are the other group members? The arguments and examples
given are too general and too far reaching to make this a touching plea. Whether
inspirational or not, someone comes up with an idea, it is interesting to see how the
other group members go along it and what they manage to make of it in order to make
it their own during the problem solving presentation. The deadlock here is the fact
that what an invigilator in the preparation room witnesses will never connect with
what the assessors are presented.
Exhibit 17 shows the way. The quote may be an excellent starting point in a
convincing debate. But the way to the definitive product is a long one.
TO SUM UP
Most contestants seem to understand what it is that makes a speaker sound natural:
personal commitment, own experience, relevant examples and comparisons instead
of sophisticated metaphors, generalities, cultural references which bear little or no
relevance to the task, technical appropriateness devoid of any empathetic elements
When you are asked to suggest solutions, you must show you care and you are really
into it.
IV.
ROUNDING OFF
A task designer‟s apparel will always include the doer‟s shoes and the assessor‟s
hat. He will carefully consider, on the one hand, the target speaker‟s language
potential (e.g. Task 12: how sophisticated does a global issues vocabulary have to be
to allow the contestant to argue convincingly in favour or against keeping someone‟s
girlfriend around a team that negotiates the welfare of mankind?), his communicative
experience (15, 16-year olds would much rather respond to personal issues, topics of
some immediacy while 17, 18-year olds may be up to more global issues), the
age/cultural appropriateness of both the input and the requirement (e.g. what is the
age limit for the contestants to find the Sidney White task a compelling one and not
roll over their eyes in bitter disappointment? And what is the relevance of extreme
violence in Task 3 for students who may have experienced or be experiencing
violence in much less aggravating forms?). On the other hand, the task designer will
also make the marking scale and read it with expert eyes.
Assessment of oral production in competitions of this scope (about 250 speakers)
is part of a larger picture, one whose formative dimensions are scientific, social and
cultural. Tasks are not merely set or made as this would imply just administration
and professional expertise, which certainly is no mean feat. The word design is much
more encompassing and, apart from the expertise a professional brings in it, it also
encapsulates the experience of empathizing with students, the pleasure of working
with them, the responsibility of knowing them, the generosity of sympathizing with
their likes and dislikes. A task will create a friendly and intellectually stimulating
environment to potentiate the speaker‟s linguistic and communicative capacity to
measurable standards.
Speaking competitions are more than benchmarking and thought provoking
formats, they develop traditional social skills and arouse cultural interest, they enrich
experience and allow students to observe more “flesh and blood” aspects of human
relationship, understand reactions and attitudes associated with words. And
sometimes these reactions go beyond the debate time as such. The invigilators to the
preparation of the tasks certainly have stories to tell: who is falling in with whom,
who is showing off, who is bullying whom, who is being generous and supportive
towards a weaker partner, who is striving to be heard etc. I take enormous pleasure to
reminisce memorable scenes going on between competitors (scenes to which I was
sometimes a very discrete observer) such as the one which happened in the aftermath
of the competition of 2010. It was actually the prize awarding moment when a male
student was publicly rebuked by a female competitor for having “monopolized the
platform” and persistently cut in whenever she was ready to react during the debate.
The girl‟s boldness to confront the boy publicly and the latter‟s jocular/mock proposal
for marriage to simmer her down received standing (and envious!) ovation from the
audience.
Task designing is therefore part of a much larger experience, one which exists on
more than one paradigm considering the content, the target students, the marking
scale, the larger context of organizing the competition. Mammoth work, to say the
least, but so rewarding!
When students decide to go for one competition or another and teachers decide to
encourage them into doing that, both parties should consider all of the above.
Profiling, therefore, should be seriously considered a crucial stage leading to a
successful performance.