MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department of English Language and Literature Teaching teenagers speaking: Developing communicative skills Diploma Thesis Brno 2014 Supervisor: Written by: PhDr. Alena Dobrovolná Mgr. Kristina Gaálová
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Department of English Language and Literature
Teaching teenagers speaking:
Developing communicative skills
Diploma Thesis
Brno 2014
Supervisor: Written by:
PhDr. Alena Dobrovolná Mgr. Kristina Gaálová
Bibliografický záznam
GAÁLOVÁ, Kristina. Teaching teenagers speaking: Developing communicative skills :
Diplomová práce. Brno : Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta pedagogická, Katedra
pedagogiky, 2014. 91 l., 22 l. příl. Vedoucí diplomové práce PhDr. Alena Dobrovolná.
Annotation
This diploma thesis is a case study that deals with teaching productive and
interactive speaking skills to students of the Secondary School of Logistics and
Chemistry in Olomouc.
The theoretical part inquires into reasons why teaching speaking skills at
secondary schools is important. This part further introduces the first three language
levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, the Catalogue
of Requirements for Exams of the Common Part of the Maturita Exam and the
European Language Portfolio as important documents for the State Maturita exam. The
work further deals with the oral part of the Maturita exam, its current changes, suitable
activities for practising speaking skills to pass the Maturita exam and assessment of this
exam.
The practical part introduces the Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry in
more detail, where the whole research has been conducted. It further contains the results
of the questionnaire survey that was realized with the students of the third and fourth
years in 2011 and 2013, findings from observing the chosen sample of students during
oral Maturita exam and results of the interview with former students about their
experience with the oral part of the Maturita exam. The thesis also contains the chart
with overall State Maturita exam results from 2011, 2012 and 2013.
The aim of the work is to provide the English teachers at similar types of
secondary schools enough information about what students, in the lessons devoted to
speaking skills expect, need and what they, in case of need, wish to change.
Key Words:
Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry, students, speaking, productive skills,
interactive skills, oral Maturita exam, speaking activities, interview, picture description,
dialogue, speaking assessment, assessor
Anotace
Diplomová práce je případová studie, která se zabývá výukou produktivních
i interaktivních řečových dovedností v anglickém jazyce studentů Střední odborné školy
logistiky a chemie v Olomouci.
Teoretická část pojednává o důležitosti výuky řečových dovedností studentů středních
škol. Tato část dále představuje první tři jazykové úrovně Společného evropského
referenčního rámce pro jazyky, Katalog požadavků zkoušek společné části maturitní
zkoušky a Evropské jazykové portfolio, jakožto důležité dokumenty pro státní maturitní
zkoušku. Práce se dále zabývá ústní maturitní zkouškou, jejími aktuálními změnami,
vhodnými aktivitami pro nácvik řečových dovedností k maturitní zkoušce
a hodnocením této zkoušky.
Praktická část blíže představuje Střední odbornou školu logistiky a chemie, na které byl
prováděn veškerý výzkum. Dále obsahuje výsledky dotazníkového šetření, které bylo
provedeno se studenty třetích a čtvrtých ročníků v letech 2011 a 2013, poznatky
z pozorování vybraných studentů při ústní maturitní zkoušce a výsledky rozhovoru
s bývalými studenty této školy o průběhu jejich ústní maturitní zkoušky. V práci je
rovněž obsažena tabulka s celkovými výsledky studentů z maturitní zkoušky z let 2011,
2012 a 2013.
Cílem práce je zprostředkovat učitelům anglického jazyka na podobných typech
středních škol informace o tom, co studenti ve výuce řečových dovedností očekávají,
potřebují a co by si případně přáli změnit.
Klíčová slova:
Střední škola logistiky a chemie, studenti, mluvení, produktivní dovednosti, interaktivní
dovednosti, ústní maturitní zkouška, řečové aktivity, rozhovor, popis obrázku, dialog,
hodnocení mluvení, hodnotitel
Declaration
Hereby I declare that I worked on this thesis on my own and used only the sources listed
in the bibliography.
I agree that the thesis be placed in the library of the Faculty of Education of Masaryk
University in Brno and made accessible for study purposes.
Prohlášení
Prohlašuji, že jsem závěrečnou diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně, s využitím
pouze citovaných literárních pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu
s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se
zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem
autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.
Souhlasím, aby práce byla uložena na Masarykově univerzitě v Brně v knihovně
Pedagogické fakulty a zpřístupněna ke studijním účelům.
V Brně dne 14. dubna 2014 …………………………………….
Mgr. Kristina Gaálová
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank to my supervisor PhDr. Alena Dobrovolná for her guidance,
valuable comments on my work, patience and kind and supportive approach.
Furthermore, I would like to thank to the deputy of the Secondary School of Logistics
and Chemistry in Olomouc, RNDr. Lenka Szturcová for providing the detailed results
of the Maturita exams in the years 2011‒2013.
Mgr. Kristina Gaálová
6
Contents
List of figures ................................................................................................................... 7
List of tables .................................................................................................................... 7
List of abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 8
0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9
1 Theoretical Part .................................................................................................... 12
1.1 The reasons for teaching speaking ..................................................................... 12
1.2 Language levels according to the Common European Framework
of reference for languages .................................................................................. 14
1.2.1 Students at the levels A1 and A2 of the CEFR ........................................... 15
1.2.2 The Catalogue of Requirements for Exams of the Common Part
of the Maturita exam and the level B1 of the CEFR .................................. 17
1.2.3 The European Language Portfolio and the importance of self-assessment
of foreign language proficiency .................................................................. 21
1.3 The oral Maturita exam ...................................................................................... 23
1.3.1 Current changes in the organization of the Maturita exam and
its assessment .............................................................................................. 23
1.3.2 The four parts of oral Maturita exam ......................................................... 24
1.3.3 Spoken production and spoken interaction activities ................................. 27
1.3.4 Speaking assessment of the oral part of the Maturita exam ....................... 38
2 Practical Part ......................................................................................................... 43
2.1 The Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry and its students ................... 43
2.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 45
2.3 The attitude of the students of the Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry
towards learning and speaking English.............................................................. 46
2.3.1 The questionnaire and its results ................................................................. 47
2.4 The oral part of the State Maturita exam ........................................................... 65
2.4.1 The observation of the oral part of the State Maturita exam ...................... 65
2.4.2 The results of the interview about the oral part of the State Maturita exam ..
.................................................................................................................... 73
2.5 The overall State Maturita exam results from 2011, 2012 and 2013 ................. 79
2.6 Final summary .................................................................................................... 81
3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 82
References ...................................................................................................................... 89
Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 92
7
List of figures
Fig. 1. Question 1. ...................................................................................................... 47
Fig. 2. Question 2. ...................................................................................................... 48
Fig. 3. Question 3. ...................................................................................................... 49
Fig. 4. Question 4. ...................................................................................................... 49
Fig. 5. Question 5. ...................................................................................................... 50
Fig. 6. Question 6. ...................................................................................................... 51
Fig. 7. Question 7. ...................................................................................................... 52
Fig. 8. Question 8. ...................................................................................................... 53
Fig. 9. Question 12. .................................................................................................... 57
Fig. 10. Question 13. .................................................................................................... 59
List of tables
Tab. 1 Results of oral exams (both regular and resit) in the years 2011‒2013. ....... 79
8
List of abbreviations
ALTE Association of Language Testers in Europe
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment
CERMAT Centrum pro zjišťování výsledků vzdělávání (Centre of Educational
Research in Results of Education)
COE Council of Europe
ELP European Language Portfolio
MSMT Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy (Ministry of Education,
Youth and Sports)
SSLC Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry
9
0 Introduction
The diploma thesis Teaching teenagers speaking: Developing communicative
skills is a case study that deals with a concrete secondary school, the Secondary School
of Logistics and Chemistry (SSLC) in Olomouc and its teenage students and their
speaking skills. I chose this particular school because I have been working there as
teacher of English and French since September 2005 and have thus gathered some
experience in teaching teenagers. As I mostly have experience in teaching students at
this type of secondary school (secondary specialized school), I decided to focus my
research on existing opinions, needs and wishes of its students. The opinions, needs and
wishes of students of other types of secondary schools might therefore differ. The
students of the grammar schools might, for example, have completely different attitudes
as their level of English is usually higher than the level of this school’s students.
I chose the topic of teaching speaking mainly because I consider this topic very
interesting and more than topical these days, when methodologists, teachers and
students themselves start considering this skill more and more important as it is has
become essential to be able to communicate in English fluently in our everyday lives.
The aim of the research at the SSLCH was to delve more deeply into the understanding
of the students’ preferences and attitudes towards learning English, taking into special
consideration whether fluent communication, as a linguistic skill, was regarded as
important by them, as well as whether they considered English to be effortless or
problematical. Another aim was to analyse the questionnaire responses and to find out
what would help students improve their current knowledge of English and their
communication skills, as for example, the increased number of English lessons, fewer
students in study groups or paying more attention to practising a particular skill or skills
that are necessary for passing the State Maturita exam.
The research further focuses on the State Maturita exam and the way students
are being prepared for this exam at school and at home, the students’ favourite language
and speaking activities and concrete language skills relating to this exam. As I have
been cooperating with the CERMAT1 institution as a lecturer and a tutor of assessors of
the oral and written exam since 2009, I made use of my knowledge and experience with
1 Centrum pro zjišťování výsledků vzdělávání (Centre of Educational Research in Results of Education) –
official institution that is entitled to organize and evaluate the State Maturita exam (www.cermat.cz)
10
this exam and largely focused on the oral part of the new State Maturita exam in this
thesis as well.
The theoretical part of the thesis inquires into reasons why teaching speaking at
secondary schools is important and why more attention should be paid to speaking. It
further introduces the language levels according to the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (COE, 2001) which was a fundamental document for
creating all parts and tasks in the State Maturita exam. The work occupies with the
levels A1, A2 which are the levels the most students are at when starting their studies at
SSLCH and B1, which is the target level to be achieved to pass the exam successfully.
Then, the European Language Portfolio (ELP) is introduced, which helps language
learners set and self-assess their current language level and thus represents an important
document which students should be acquainted with. The second half of the theoretical
part deals with the oral Maturita exam, the current changes in the organization and in
the assessment of this exam. It further describes its four parts in detail and recommends
suitable activities that can be done in the lessons of speaking as they are very useful for
preparing students for the exam. The chapter closes with detailed presentation of the
way and the rules of the oral exam assessment and comparison of this analytical way of
assessing with the old model of the Maturita exam where holistic criteria were used.
The practical part focuses on the research carried out at the Secondary School of
Logistics and Chemistry with the students of the third and fourth years. At the beginning
of the practical part, the SSLC, its study fields and its students are introduced as well as
the research methods that were applied to get the answers for my questions. Next, the
findings from the questionnaire that was given to students in 2011 and 2013 are
presented, compared and commented on. After that, the work presents the observation
of the three chosen students when taking their oral part of the Maturita exam, it focuses
on their weak and strong points of their speaking performances and compares their
communicative skills. Then, the findings from the interview with the chosen sample of
the former students of the SSLC, that was realized in order to get the students’ points of
view and their feedback of the oral part of the Maturita exam, are stated. The practical
part is concluded with the table that presents the overall State Maturita exam results of
the students of the SSLC from the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, which is supplemented
with comments and comparison of students’ performances from the years concerned.
The conclusions present the detailed findings of the conducted research and a
recommendation for effective preparations of the students for both the State Maturita
11
exam, as well as for helping them develop their communicative skills useful in real life
situations.
I hope that this work will provide enough information about teaching speaking at
similar types of secondary schools, which are secondary specialized and secondary
vocational schools, and that the information presented in this work will help teachers of
these schools to get the overview of what their students need, expect and wish and will
influence them in adding more speaking activities into their lessons.
12
1 Theoretical Part
1.1 The reasons for teaching speaking
Speaking is an essential part of second language learning and teaching (see, e.g.,
Hinkel, 2011). It should no longer be undervalued in Czech secondary schools or
practised only in forms of drills or memorization of dialogues which are not the right
sort of activities to help our students develop their communicative skills that are more
than necessary for their future lives and careers. We, the teachers, should thus think
about how to involve more speaking into our lessons despite some most common
obstacles, such as big numbers of students in the class (for details, see Glass and Smith,
1979), the obligation to stick to thematic plans and school educational programmes, as
well as a reluctance of some teachers to change their established way of teaching. If our
students are mainly taught grammatical and lexical chunks, they will hardly ever
become fluent in English. Scrivener (2005) comments on this matter that ‘there is no
point knowing a lot about language if students cannot use it’ and adds that ‘many
language learners in the past were able to conjugate a verb, but unable to respond to a
simple question’ (Scrivener, 2005, p. 146). This is unfortunately not the problem of
learners of the past, as this situation still persists even today, which I claim on the basis
of my several years᾿ personal experience of teaching English to Czech teenage students.
To make our students more confident speakers and to improve their speaking abilities,
speaking activation should be a regular feature of each lesson (Harmer, 1998, p. 123‒
124). The more our students activate the various elements of language they have stored
in their brains, the more automatic will their use of these elements become, and students
will gradually be able to use words and phrases fluently without having to concentrate
on them (Harmer, 1998, p. 123‒124).
Harmer (1998) states three main reasons for getting students to speak in English
lessons. These are rehearsal, feedback and engagement. Through the means of
rehearsals of role playing, discussions or problem solving, students gain experience of
what communicating in a foreign language really feels like. Speaking tasks in which
students try to use any or all of the language they know provide feedback for both
teachers and students. Teachers can observe their students’ progress as well as possible
problems they are facing, whilst students can see how difficult is a particular kind of
13
speaking and what they need to improve. If students get fully engaged in speaking
activities which the teacher has set up properly and can then provide useful feedback,
students will get tremendous satisfaction from it. Many speaking tasks are intrinsically
enjoyable in themselves (Harmer, 2007, p. 87‒88).
Teaching speaking can further be divided into teaching speaking skills of spoken
production and spoken interaction. Spoken production means producing the language
(see, e.g., Bonin and Fayol, 2002; Rapp and Goldrick, 2000). It develops students’
productive skills through constant employment of production strategies. In spoken
production, speakers produce an oral text which is received by an audience of one or
more listeners. Through speaking production, they present their capacity of speaking
clearly and correctly, pronouncing words, using the correct stress and intonation and
selecting words that are appropriate for their purpose. Spoken production activities
mainly include reading a written text aloud, speaking from notes, talking individually
on a given topic, giving descriptions, giving instructions, telling a story, giving
presentations and giving a speech or making commentaries (‘Spoken production’,
2014). The thesis will mainly deal with giving descriptions and talking individually on a
given topic, (or giving a short presentation) which are parts of the Maturita exam (see
subchapters 1.3.2 and 1.3.3).
Spoken interaction develops students’ interactive skills. By use of interactive
skills, people are involved into working together and demonstrate influence on each
other. In interactive activities, the language user acts alternately as speaker and listener
with one or more interlocutors so as to construct the conversational discourse
conjointly, through the negotiation of meaning following the co-operative principle.
Reception and production strategies are employed constantly during interaction. Spoken
interaction discourse or co-operative strategies are concerned with managing
cooperation and interaction by turntaking, turngiving and summarizing the point
reached which is further described in subchapter 1.3.2. The most common interactive
activities include dialogues, various types of negotiations, information exchange,
interviewing somebody or being interviewed, formal and informal discussion, debate,
chat, informal conversation, goal-oriented co-operation (COE, 2001, p. 73). This work
will further focus on dialogues, information exchange and interviews which are parts of
the Maturita exam (see subchapters 1.3.2 and 1.3.3).
14
1.2 Language levels according to the Common European
Framework of reference for languages
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment (CEFR) is a guideline used to describe what learners across
Europe have achieved in learning a foreign language, as it ‘brings together cross-
national institutions that are effectively encouraged and funded to achieve
harmonization’ (Fulcher, 2004, p. 254) and ‘offers language test designers and those
involved in producing examinations the possibility of moving collectively towards
a shared language testing system’ (Milanovic, 2002, p. 3). As such, ‘it was designed to
provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive basis for the elaboration of language
syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the teaching and learning materials, and the
assessment of foreign language proficiency’ (COE, 2014). It applies to all languages
across Europe. ‘The CEFR describes in a comprehensive way what language learners
have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge
and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The description also
covers the cultural context in which language is set’ (COE, 2001, p. 1). The levels of
skills set out by the CEFR that enable language users to measure the progress they have
made are six in number. They are A1 – Breakthrough level, A2 Waystage level, B1 –
Threshold level, B2 – Vantage level, C1 – Effective operational proficiency and C2 –
Mastery level. The language users on A1 and A2 levels are called Basic users, those on
B1 or B2 levels are called Independent users and users on C1 and C2 levels are called
Proficient users. In addition to that, there exist three plus levels: A2+, B1+ and B2+
(COE, 2001, p. 23‒24).
The common reference levels are presented as a concrete illustrative set of
descriptors that give a detailed overview of levels described. Table 1 of the CEFR
illustrates the global scale which describes what are the language users on particular
levels able to understand in English (see Appendix 1; COE, 2001, p. 24). Table 2 of the
CEFR is a self-assessment grid that can be used by language users when making their
own language portfolio to help them assess what level of language they have achieved
in particular skills (see Appendix 2; COE, 2001, p. 26–27). Table 3 is a very useful
table for teachers or assessors of speaking, as it provides the description of qualitative
aspects of spoken language use for range, accuracy, fluency, interaction and coherence
(see Appendix 3; COE, 2001, p. 28–29).
15
Illustrative scales are further presented for productive, receptive and interactive
skills. Concerning the spoken production activities, illustrative scales are provided for
the following instances: ‘overall spoken production, sustained monologue: describing
experience, sustained monologue: putting a case (e.g., in a debate), public
announcements and addressing audiences’ (COE, 2001, p. 58‒60). Illustrative scales for
spoken interaction activities are provided for: ‘overall spoken interaction, understanding
a native speaker interlocutor, conversation, informal discussion, formal discussion and
meetings, goal-oriented co-operation, transactions to obtain goods and services and
information exchange’ (COE, 2001, p. 74‒82). The higher levels subsume the levels
below which means that someone at B1 level is automatically considered to be able to
do whatever is stated at A2 level (COE, 2001, p. 36). ‘Not every element of aspect in
a descriptor is repeated at the following level’ (COE, 2001, p. 37). The entries at each
level rather focus on describing what is seen salient or new at that level. Also, not every
level is described on all scales from several reasons. The most frequent reason is that the
given area simply does not exist or is not relevant at the given level (COE, 2001, p. 37).
1.2.1 Students at the levels A1 and A2 of the CEFR
At the beginning of each new school year, I usually test my first year students to
discover their level of English and to get the information about how homogenous or
heterogeneous type of class they are, as well as to plan where to start with them. My
testing usually consists of grammar and listening tests, as well as short tests of speaking
production and interaction (usually in pairs to make the testing quicker). I consider this
testing very useful as it provides important information about the new students and the
speaking activities also help to ‘break the ice’ and to get acquainted with the students.
Most of these students are still at A1 level at the beginning of their studies and
that is the reason why we use the textbook called Maturita Solutions – Elementary level
(Falla and Davies, 2008), which is a suitable book for false beginners. The students
possess some passive knowledge of the English vocabulary and some basis of grammar,
but are unable to speak on their own, or to interact with other students, or with me. Of
all the skills, they are unfortunately worst at speaking. Concerning their global
knowledge of English, they are able to ‘understand and use familiar everyday
expressions and very basic phrases’. They can ‘introduce themselves and others and can
16
ask and answer questions about personal details’. They can ‘interact in a simple way if
the other person speaks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help’ (COE, 2001, p. 24).
Concerning the spoken production, they can ‘produce simple isolated phrases
about people and places’ (COE, 2001, p. 58). They manage to give basic information
about themselves (for example: where they live; COE, 2001, p. 59). When interacting
with other people, they are able to ‘interact in a simple way but communication is
totally dependent on repetition at a slower rate of speech and rephrasing’. They can ‘ask
and answer simple questions, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of
immediate need or on very familiar topics’ (COE, 2001, p. 74). They can ask ‘how
people are and react to news’ (COE, 2001, p. 76). They can ‘indicate time by using
these phrases: next week, last Friday, in November, three o’ clock’ (COE, 2001, p. 81).
They can ‘reply in an interview to simple direct questions spoken very slowly and
clearly in direct non-idiomatic speech’ (COE, 2001, p. 82).
By the end of the first year or the second year of their studies the students still
remain the basic users of the language with their speaking skills corresponding to level
A2 of the CEFR. This means that their general understanding of the language and
communication skills improve, they ‘understand sentences and frequently used
expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance’. They can communicate
about familiar and routine matters. They are starting to be able to ‘describe in simple
terms aspects of their background, environment and matters in areas of immediate need’
(COE, 2001, p. 24).
Concerning the spoken production they become able – instead of using isolated
phrases – to provide ‘description or presentation of people, living or working
conditions, habits and daily routines, plans and arrangements, personal experiences,
likes and dislikes as a short series of simple phrases and sentences linked into a list’
(COE, 2001, p. 58). In this phase of knowledge of the language, students already
manage to tell a story and to use past tenses for the first time to talk about past
activities. They are also able to compare things (COE, 2001, p. 59). They can ‘cope
with a limited number of straightforward follow-up simple questions’ (COE, 2001,
p. 60). Their interactive skills are more developed than at A1 level, as they already
manage to exchange simple and routine information without undue effort, they can ask
and answer questions and exchange ideas on familiar topics in predictable way (COE,
2001, p. 74). They can ‘establish social contact concerning greetings and farewells,
introductions and giving thanks, respond to invitations, suggestions and apologies’
17
(COE, 2001, p. 76). Repetition and reformulation of what has been said is still
sometimes needed. In informal discussions with friends, the language users can agree or
disagree with others, can discuss what to do, where to go and make arrangements for
meet-ups (COE, 2001, p. 77). When exchanging information with others, the users can
‘give and follow simple directions and instructions’, as well as ‘ask for and give
directions referring to a map or plan’ (COE, 2001, p. 81). The students at A2 level are
already able to interview somebody or being interviewed. They can ‘ask and answer
simple questions and respond to simple statements in an interview’ (COE, 2001, p. 82).
The main difference that the teachers might observe is that the language users on
A2 level already have a greater scope of vocabulary and better knowledge of grammar
(verb tenses, comparatives, superlatives, countable and uncountable nouns, prepositions
and conjunctions, pronouns and determiners). This implies that they become able to use
some basic cohesive devices like for example: because, so, but, this one, that one,
which, what, both etc. When presenting or speaking about something, their speech is
still oriented to themselves (mostly the 1st person singular) as topics concerning Me and
The world around me fit them best. They do not manage to speak about more
sophisticated or complex issues such as environmental issues, education, economics or
politics which are issues of B1 and higher levels.
1.2.2 The Catalogue of Requirements for Exams of the Common
Part of the Maturita exam and the level B1 of the CEFR
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (COE, 2001)
served as the main source for creating the so called Katalog požadavků zkoušek
společné části maturitní zkoušky: Anglický jazyk (The Catalogue of Requirements for
Exams of the Common Part of the Maturita Exam: English Language) approved by the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic on the 4th of March
2008, which is the principal document that frames the Maturita exam from English
language (Tvrdoňová, 2010, p. 19). The Maturita exam on the basic level
approximately corresponds with B1 of the CEFR which has been the target level to be
achieved since the 2013, when the second and more difficult variant of the Maturita
exam from higher level (that approximately corresponded with B2 level of the CEFR)
was cancelled. The catalogue defines the Maturita exam requirements for students of all
types of secondary schools taking the basic level of the Maturita exam.
18
The Maturita exam from the English language on the basic level is framed as
a complex exam that examines receptive, productive and interactive skills. The Maturita
exam on the basic level predominantly focuses on general topics and pupils᾿ skills of
reactions in the most common, everyday situations. The only part of the Maturita exam
that exceeds the general topics is the third part of the spoken exam – the individual
spoken production or mini-presentation (or a short interview with the examiner), which
is supposed to examine the specialized vocabulary or skills relating to the field of
pupils᾿ studies. The topics in this part of the exam are prepared by schools themselves
(CERMAT, 2008, p. 4) ‒ see subchapters 1.3.2 and 1.3.3.
The catalogue’s requirements on spoken production are identical with the
definitions of the B1 level spoken production of the CEFR. The catalogue contains extra
information about how this productive skill is being examined and the characteristic of
the communicative situations and thematic topics, and provides information about the
assessment of spoken production (see more information in subchapter 1.3.4). Students
are most often asked to give a simple description (of a thing, place, person, situation,
event, work procedure etc.), to narrate a simple story or to give a short presentation
which is formulated in simple terms. The students are required to speak about concrete,
well-known and common topics and about every-day and easily predictable situations.
The students should also, to a limited extent, manage to express their opinions on
abstract topics. The themes and situations relate to the following areas: personal
(family, friends, the life in the city and the country), personality (hobbies and interests),
public (transport, services, social events), educational (school and education), social
(culture, sport, environment, media) and occupational (common professions, common
workplace equipment) (CERMAT, 2008, p. 10).
The CEFR provides the following definitions of the spoken production of the
students on B1 level: the language users should be able to fluently sustain and relate
a straightforward narrative or description of one of a variety of subjects within their
field of interest and present it as a linear sequence of points (COE, 2001, p. 58). They
can give detailed accounts of experiences, describe their feelings and reactions. They
can ‘relate the plot of a book or film and describe their reactions. They can describe
their dreams, hopes and ambitions, real or imagined events and narrate a story’ (COE,
2001, p. 59). They can also ‘give a prepared straightforward presentation on a familiar
topic which is clear enough to be followed without difficulty most of the time, and in
19
which the main points are explained with reasonable precision. They can take follow up
questions, but may have to ask for repetition in case of rapid speech’ (COE, 2001, p. 60).
The catalogue’s requirements on spoken interaction correspond with the
definitions of the B1 level spoken interaction of the CEFR. The catalogue moreover
contains information about the way the interactive skills are being examined, the
characteristic of communicative situations, thematic topics and information about the
spoken interaction assessment (see more information in subchapter 1.3.4). Students
perform their interactive skills on most typical types of interaction like formal and
informal interview, informal discussion and structured interview. The interaction of the
student and his2 partner in communication relates to concrete and common topics of
everyday life and to easily predictable situations that can, for example, happen in
interaction with a foreigner or a native speaker in the Czech Republic, when travelling
abroad or during the stay abroad (accommodation, shopping, dealing with authorities
etc.). The themes and situations relate to the following areas: personal (family, friends,
housing), personality (hobbies and interests), public (transport, services, social events),
educational (school and education, school events) and occupational (temporary or
summer jobs, future plans, common professions) (CERMAT, 2008, p. 12, 13).
According to the CEFR, the language user on B1 level should possess the
following skills: the overall interactive skills of students on B1 level are good enough to
‘communicate with some confidence on familiar routine and non-routine matters related
to their interests and professional field. They can exchange, check and confirm
information, deal with fewer routine situations, explain a possible problem and invite
others to give their views on how to proceed’ (COE, 2001, p. 74, 79). They can ‘express
thoughts on more abstract, cultural topics like films, books, music etc.’ (COE, 2001,
p. 74). They manage a simple language relating to the topic of travelling. They can
‘enter unprepared into conversation on familiar topics and express and respond to
personal opinions, feelings such as surprise, happiness, sadness, interest and
indifference’ (COE, 2001, p. 74, 76). They are able to ‘compare and contrast
alternatives, discuss what to do, where to go, whom or which to choose etc.’ They can
generally ‘follow the main points in an informal discussion with friends, provided
speech is clearly articulated in a standard dialect, and express belief, opinion, agreement
and disagreement politely’ (COE, 2001, p. 77). They can ‘describe how to do something
and give detailed instructions’. They can ‘summarise and give their opinion about a
2 From now onward, the student (user¸ examiner, teacher, assessor etc.) in singular will only be referred
in male singular gender.
20
short story, article, talk, discussion, interview or documentary and answer further
questions of detail.’ They can ‘ask for and follow detailed directions and obtain more
detailed information’ (COE, 2001, p. 81). When being interviewed, they can ‘carry out
a prepared interview, check and confirm information, though may occasionally have to
ask for repetition in case of rapid or extended other person’s response. They can use a
prepared questionnaire to carry out a structured interview with some spontaneous
questions’ (COE, 2001, p. 82).
Students who achieve the level B1 of the CEFR have managed to make
a significant progress in all aspects of the language. They are no more the basic users
but become the independent users of the language which simply means that they
become more self-reliant in both written and spoken communication and manage to
arrange anything they need to like travelling abroad (buying and booking tickets),
accommodation, shopping, eating out, meeting new people and making friends, compile
a short CV and apply for a part-time job despite some serious and fewer serious
mistakes that sometimes make the communication more difficult. Their level of English
is comparable to an ordinary tourist who travels abroad, manages to communicate, ask
for anything he or she needs but sometimes faces difficulties when partners in
communication start talking faster or start using some idioms or dialectal expressions
that are unknown to the B1 level language user. Even though this user is more
independent that the one on A2 level, the description of the B1 level user states clearly
that he or she, similarly to A2 user, manages to communicate best about general and
well-known topics that relate to his or her everyday life and experience.
Besides the themes relating to personal and personality issues, this user manages
to discuss some basic public, educational, social and occupational issues. He becomes
capable of giving a detailed description of well-known, personal matters like dreams,
hopes or ambitions, express his opinions, agreement or disagreement and clarify why he
disagrees which a user on A2 level does not manage to or manages in a rather limited
language. The user on B1 level also starts to recognize the formal and informal
language and becomes using some polite phrases or expressions which makes his
writing better organized and readable and his speaking sound more natural. It is useful
to tell students what their starting level is and what level they should achieve by the
time of taking the State Maturita exam. They should be informed about the possibility
of self-assessment as a way of controlling whether they are advancing in the foreign
language or not. The students’ self-assessment of foreign language proficiency is thus
introduced in the following subchapter.
21
1.2.3 The European Language Portfolio and the importance of self-
assessment of foreign language proficiency
One way to motivate students to work on improving their English is to help them
see and record their progress. I recommend introducing and explaining them how to
work with the European Language Portfolio (ELP), which is a very suitable tool for this
purpose. The portfolio’s aim is to provide an overall picture of individual’s abilities in a
form which is easily recognisable across Europe, and which is especially relevant for
anyone applying to work or study abroad (ALTE, 2014). As majority of the students
I teach either aim to work or study abroad or to find a job in an international company
in the Czech Republic, the possibility to record and update their progress at regular
intervals and identify their new learning goals is very inspiring for them. The ELP
comprises three parts: passport, language biography and dossier. The passport has
a reporting function, and is most often used for external purposes. It is possible to
record the knowledge of one up to six languages, including the mother tongue. The
language biography enables students recording anything about their language learning
experiences and the dossier serves for uploading sample materials to support the
previous two parts (ALTE, 2014).
The work with the ELP is rather undemanding. Students just have to register on
ELP or Evropské jazykové portfolio pages (ELP, 2014). I recommend the Czech version
if students only wish to monitor their progress in English, as this version is definitely
easier for students to work with.3 In case they wish to use the information in ELP for the
purpose of work or study abroad, the English version could be designated as the more
useful. The portfolio is accessible in six European languages, so students may try to
create the portfolio in any other language they are studying. Under the section entitled
Language Biography students get to record information about their experience with
foreign language and cultures that they have acquired at school, at work, at home or
abroad; they may also discover (via a short questionnaire) what study type they are and
which strategies can help them in learning foreign languages effectively. This section
also helps them set their goals by ticking or writing down what they want to achieve in
the foreign language (ELP, 2014).4
3 http://ejp.rvp.cz/ 4 http://ejp.rvp.cz/index.php?mod=jazykovy_zivotopis
22
The second section called My Progress is very useful and motivating, as it is the
self-assessment grid which, after filling the grid in, shows students their current level in
all language skills and provides information what else can be achieved when learning
the language regularly. The descriptors are identical with the descriptors of the CEFR.
There are three possible options next to each descriptor where the student decides
whether he or she masters the skill well, just a little, or does not master it at all. As soon
as 80% in the given skill and level is achieved, the result appears in student’s Language
Passport (ELP, 2014).5
In the Dossier in the third section, students can save anything about their
successes they have achieved like certificates or diplomas or other possible successes,
any of their written work, recordings, videos etc.; it also contains one directory where
documents shared with the teacher can be saved (ELP, 2014).6 The fourth section is the
Language Passport, where students insert their personal data, fill in the type of school
where they are studying a foreign language (or foreign languages), information about
their linguistic experience and information about possible diplomas or certificates, and
may create their Language Passport in a PDF form, which is very useful when looking
for a job, applying for a school, travelling abroad etc. (ELP, 2014).7
The last section, Teacher Interface, was created for teachers to help them
observe their students᾿ progress. The first step is to create classes and place students
into a particular class. The teacher may then watch individual students᾿ shared
documents from the Dossier and might be a useful referee when being asked by a
student to write a commentary on his or her evaluation (ELP, 2014).8 The work in the
ELP is not difficult and it does not take much time. I would recommend introducing this
programme either by the means of a Power Point presentation (which can be done by
students) or by taking students into a PC classroom and introduce it step by step, which
should not take more than 30 minutes of time, and which can then be used during all
four years of studies. The teacher should then remind the students to update their data
when feeling that they have already made some progress. It should be very encouraging
to see that students have achieved the B1 level in all skills some time before the start of
the Maturita exam and it should boost their self-confidence and reduce their fear of this
exam which is introduced in more detail in the following chapter.
5 http://ejp.rvp.cz/index.php?mod=progress 6 http://ejp.rvp.cz/index.php?mod=uloziste 7 http://ejp.rvp.cz/index.php?mod=jazykovy_pas 8 http://ejp.rvp.cz/index.php?mod=rozhrani_ucitele
23
1.3 The oral Maturita exam
This chapter discusses current changes in the organization of the Maturita exam
and its assessment, introduces all four parts of the oral Maturita exam, presents
activities that are suitable for practising spoken production or interaction and that relate
to the Maturita exam. It further deals with speaking assessment and contrasts it with the
assessment of the former model of the Maturita exam.
1.3.1 Current changes in the organization of the Maturita exam and
its assessment
The most important changes in the organization of the Maturita exam and its
assessment can be found in the official regulations number 371/2012 sb.9 (valid since
November 2012) and regulation number 177 (valid since June 2009), which deal with the
further conditions of finishing secondary education by the Maturita exam. The
regulations change the following points: the student may take the maximum of two
optional exams instead of three. The two levels of difficulty from the compulsory subject
Czech language and literature and compulsorily optional subjects (foreign language or
mathematics) were cancelled and replaced only with one level of difficulty, i.e., the basic
level (Vyhláška 371/2012, 2012). Students from all types of secondary schools took the
Maturita exam at basic level of difficulty in May 2013 for the first time.
Other changes concern the way of assessing the Maturita exam. Didactic tests
from all subjects are further being assessed by CERMAT and the oral exams are further
being examined and assessed by certified assessors who are in most cases employees of
the school. There were some changes made on the level of writing exams from foreign
language where these exams are no further assessed by certified assessors who are
employed as language teachers at schools but by special team of CERMAT assessors.
(Concerning the writing exam in the Czech language and literature, the essays are
further assessed by certified assessors who are employed at school; Vyhláška 177/2009,
2009, §22.)
One more important change for students relates to possible unsatisfactory
grades. As the Maturita exam consists of three parts; the didactic test, the writing exam
and oral exam, the student has to succeed in all parts of the exam to pass the Maturita
9 sb. – abbreviation of the Czech word ‘sbírka’ – statute book
24
exam successfully. When the exam was launched for the first time in May 2011, the
students who failed the oral part (which preceded the didactic test and writing exam)
were not allowed to take the aforementioned exams in the regular term and had to retake
the oral exam first in the autumn term; if they passed the oral part, they could only take
the didactic test and the writing exam. If students, for example, passed the oral exam but
failed either the didactic test or the writing exam in regular term, they had to retake the
whole exam again in the autumn term. This was rather a harsh provision for some
weaker students who had to retake the exam one or two times. This was however,
changed very soon, as in the second year of the State Maturita exam the following
enactment came into force: in case that the exam consists of more parts that are either
taken by an oral or written form and a student fails one of its parts, he retakes only the
part he has not passed successfully (Vyhláška 177/2009, 2009, §25). Nowadays, thus,
the written form of the exam (consisting of a didactic test and a writing exam) precede
the oral exam and students usually learn the results from these two exams before they
take the oral part of the exam10 which in most cases helps students feel more relieved
and confident before taking the oral part of the Maturita exam, which is elaborated in
more detail in the following subchapter.
1.3.2 The four parts of oral Maturita exam
Before I start describing the oral part of the Maturita exam, I will shortly
introduce the other two parts that account for the written exam. They are the didactic
test and the writing exam. The didactic test lasts 95 minutes, consisting of 35 minutes of
listening and 60 minutes of reading comprehension and linguistic competence. The
writing exam lasts 60 minutes and students are supposed to write two texts of longer
and shorter length. The longer text mostly contains the following tasks: an informal
letter to a friend or a formal letter (for example: a letter of application, a letter of
complaint). The length of this text should not be shorter than 120 words and should not
exceed 150 words. The shorter text usually consists of some practical every-day writing
like: a message, an invitation, an announcement, an apology or an advertisement. The
text should be from 60 to 70 words long.
10 The latest possible term for announcing the results from the didactic test and the writing exam is the
15th of May. The first possible day of the start of the oral exams is the 16th of May.
25
The oral exam lasts exactly 15 minutes and students are given 20 minutes to
prepare themselves for the exam. The exam always starts with the short introduction of
the student to the committee, which lasts approximately 30 seconds. The student is
always invited by the examiner to do that. This part of the exam is not assessed and has
two or three purposes: the student introduces himself to the members of the committee
who might not know the student, the student prepares himself for talking and should
reduce the possible stress or nervousness.
In the first part of the exam a student is interviewed by the examiner about the
general, everyday topics like family, friends, school and education, food, free time etc.
This part lasts about 2.5 minutes and the student is usually asked from 3 to 6 questions
and is supposed to develop his answers. The questions in the examiner’s (interlocutor’s)
task sheet are arranged from the least difficult to the most difficult one, but the
examiner is not obliged to ask the questions exactly in this order. He may skip some
questions if they seem to be too easy for the student or if the student is not able to
answer the question. In this case, the student is allowed to ask the examiner to repeat the
question. The student and the examiner’s task sheets differ from each other. While the
examiner’s task sheet contains all the questions, the student is only informed about the
topic from which the questions will be asked (see the examples of student and
interlocutor’s task sheets of the first part of the exam in Appendices 4 and 5).
The second part of the exam tests the student’s productive skills via picture
description. This part consists of three short tasks where the student is supposed to
choose one of two pictures, that he was given within the chosen task sheet, and describe
it, then compare this picture with the second one and answer one additional question
which requires the student to speak about his personal experience that relates closely to
the topic the pictures deal with. When describing the picture, the student should always
start describing things from general and go to more specific details. He should always
say something about the people in the picture, about where they are and what they are
doing. If this is described he might add more information about people’s appearances,
clothes and other details. After that, the student may say what he thinks the people’s
personalities are like and how they might feel and what the relationship between them
might be. When contrasting the pictures, the student should mainly focus on what is the
same and what is different and when answering the additional question, the student is
supposed to provide some examples from his or her real life, present some of his ideas
(for example: ‘What would your ideal room look like?’) and to develop his answers. The
26
amount of time intended for this task is 1.5 minute for description, 1 minute for
comparison and 1.5 minute for interview over the topic depicted by the pictures
(Hastings et al., 2009, p. 44). The examples of student and interlocutor’s task sheets of
the second part of the exam are presented in Appendices 4 and 5.
The third part of the exam lasts exactly 5 minutes and it is the only part that is
prepared by the schools themselves. This part may either be divided into two tasks or can
only consist of one task which is usually a mini-presentation on a chosen topic. The
mini-presentation is mostly suitable for the topics relating to literature, geography
(English speaking countries, important cities or sights in the English speaking countries,
Czech Republic and important places in the Czech Republic), history, politics and feasts
and celebrations. If the third part is divided into two parts (which is highly
recommendable for schools with students whose speaking performance is rather weak), it
usually consists of a short mini-presentation and one more task which schools are free to
create. This task can, for example, be another mini-presentation, the picture description
or the work with the pictures, the dialogue with the examiner, or the short interview, the
comparison of something (school systems, political systems, ways of travelling – air
travel vs. water travel) and so on. It is also up to school to set the required length for
both tasks: both tasks can either be of the equal length (2.5 minutes) or one task, the
more important one, can be longer than the other one. (4 minutes vs. 1 minute or 3
minutes vs. 2 minutes). The teachers who prepare the third part are only obliged to write
the required time for the task or each of the tasks on the student’s task sheet.
Some tasks in the third part should cover the study fields students study, test
their specialized vocabulary and the ability to speak about these topics. Concerning the
Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry, the teachers in the study field Operation
and economy of transport could prepare some tasks relating to transport, logistics etc. or
the teachers of the study field Applied chemistry could prepare some task relating to
chemistry such as description of chemical laboratory etc. The remaining tasks may be
on any topic the English teachers of the school prepare. They may borrow the topics
from the CERMAT᾿s database (which are not however applicable for all types of
schools as they are mainly created for grammar schools) or prepare some topics relating
to literature, geography, politics, feasts and celebrations or just develop the general
topics assigned by the state. It is always important to provide students with some
supporting material in the form of additional questions, pictures, maps, literary excerpts
from the books, brochures etc. to help them manage this task successfully. The
27
examples of student and interlocutor’s task sheets of the third part of the exam are
presented in Appendices 4 and 5.
The fourth part of the exam tests student’s ability to interact with the examiner
in an improvised dialogue on a given topic and to pretend a real-life situation, which is
a very useful practise for students as they get rehearsal for possible situations that may
happen in their real future lives. This part is three minutes long and students should
prove their skill to keep and finish the dialogue (it is the examiner who starts the
dialogue on the B1 level), ask their partner in communication questions, answer the
partner’s questions, give instructions or provide description of someone or something,
find out information from their partner, suggest solution, express agreement, hesitation
or disagreement with their partner and summarize, at the end of the dialogue, what they
have agreed on. The dialogues always start with these words: ‘Imagine the following
situation’, and students are usually required to agree on details, plan or organise
something (a day out, a school trip, a holiday), find information about something or to
persuade their partner in communication about something. The examiner then thanks
the student and announces the end of the oral exam. The examples of student and
interlocutor’s task sheets of the fourth part of the exam are presented in Appendices 4
and 5.
1.3.3 Spoken production and spoken interaction activities
This part of the thesis will focus on how to help teenagers develop their speaking
skills by the use of appropriate activities that practise both spoken production and
interaction and that are closely related to oral part of the Maturita exam. E. Osváth,
freelance EFL teacher, suggested in her Oxford University press webinar Getting teens
to speak that teenagers are most often afraid of speaking due to the following facts:
‘scared of mistakes, lack of ideas, language gap, no point in speaking, laziness, lack of
confidence and peer-pressure’ (Osváth, 2014, p. 10), and suggested that teachers should
chiefly ‘respect them and accept who they are, appreciate who they are and listen to
their needs, wants and interests and respond to them’ (Osváth, 2014, p. 8).
I strongly agree both with the reasons why teenage students have problems with
speaking in the L211 and with Osváth᾿s recommendation on teacher’s ideal attitude
towards their teenage students as I happen to hear my students claiming (sometimes in
11 in the second language they are studying
28
Czech) ‘I don’t know what to say’ or ‘I have no idea’ or ‘I don’t know how to say that in
English’. They thus need to be taken and appreciated as teenagers and the speaking
activities should be adapted to their wishes and needs to succeed in getting them to
speak. If a speaking activity is too lengthy or requires too much explanation or if its
topic is not interesting or is too difficult for students, they will hardly start discussing it
eagerly. A possible key to success according to Osváth is ‘the power of choice, creating
confidence and ensuring engagement’ (Osváth, 2014, p. 25).
Before we start practising speaking, the preparation time for speaking in a form
of warm-up activities should precede. I suppose that these activities are important for
putting the class in the mood for speaking and for getting rid of possible nervousness or
fear of speaking. These activities should last up to maximum of ten minutes as there
should be enough time left for the main speaking activity or activities and they do not
necessarily have to focus on practising spoken production or interaction as their main
goal should be to get to speak. I chose to present the following examples of warm-up
activities as they are easy and fun to do, get students to practise several skills while
doing them and make them participate in speaking. One of the possible and typical
warm-up activity that mainly practises memory and pronunciation are tongue twisters of
any length and difficulty. Another possible way to make students interested in speaking
is Guess what happened activity which consists of giving students or projecting a short
unfinished story and getting them think and suggest and discuss what might have
happened:
Went to opening party for exhibition and invited Mike.
What a disaster! So angry with him. Next time, I’ll go on my own!
(Read the text message from Anna to her friend Libby. What might have
happened? Discuss your ideas using could/might have/can’t have and must
have). (Osváth, 2014, p. 14)
This type of activity can be done at any level and students may either discuss their ideas as
a whole class or in pairs or small groups and then present their ideas to the rest of the class.
Another interesting type of warm-up activity, which requires no preparation and
can be done in five or ten minutes at almost any age and level, is called Letter on the
board (Lindstromberg, 2004). It helps develop the following skills: spontaneity,
fluency, holding the floor and sticking to a topic and its procedure is the following:
29
1) Students pick a letter between A and Z (except for X.) If the student says S
(or whatever), the teacher writes a large S on the board.
2) Teacher asks students to say three nouns that start with S. They might, for
example, say sports, skateboard, summer. Teacher writes these nouns on the
board.
3) Teacher pairs the students up (one or more threesomes is OK) and asks them
to decide who is A and who is B.
4) Each A has to choose one of the topics on the board – summer, for instance –
and talk about it to their partner for 30 seconds (or more if there are fewer
students in the class). The students should not worry about grammatical
accuracy. They should say anything that comes into their heads even if it is
just odd words and phrases. If A gets stuck, B can prompt with questions or
suggestions.
5) Teacher calls ‘Start’. Stays at the front and times 30 seconds and then calls
‘Stop.’
6) B then has to choose a different topic and follow the same rules.
7) (Optional) In case of any trios, the activity is done one more time to make
sure that all the students have had at least one chance to speak.
Follow on
Once students have got used to speaking for 30 seconds (or whatever time they
started with), the time limit can be made a bit longer. Students later take turns
speaking to a large group or to the whole class (Lindstromberg, 2004, p. 75‒76).
Last warming-up activity, that I find interesting for teenagers and that can be
done at any level is called Interrupting the story and is suggested by Ur and Wright
(1992). This activity involves students as they are supposed to listen to the teacher and
ask him questions. Its procedure is the following:
The teacher tells students that he is going to begin a story and that they should
try to stop him saying more than a few words by asking questions. For example:
T.: The other day……
S.: Which day was it?
T: It was Tuesday.
30
S.: Was it in the morning or afternoon?
T.: Afternoon. Anyway, I was….
S.: What time was it? etc. (Ur and Wright, 1992, p. 38).
When preparing students for the first part of the exam, the interview with the
examiner, it is good to let students choose what they want to discuss. Osváth suggests
giving students ‘the power of choice’ in terms of letting them choose ‘the questions they
want to discuss, the words they would like to use, the person they would like to practise
the dialogue/the interview with and the topic they would like to debate’ (Osváth, 2014,
p. 26) which should lead to bigger success in practising dialogues or interviews. One
possible activity is to let students choose among several unfinished sentences to finish
one or two that are the most interesting for them and ask them to tell these sentences to
their partner and see whether their partner completed the same or different sentence and
whether the partner’s answers are the same or not. Another option is to ask students to
tell their sentences to the class and see if anybody has the same or similar answers. This
also helps students practise their listening skills and keep their attention to what their
classmates are saying. They may as well be asked to retell their partner’s or somebody
else’s sentence:
Complete the sentences with and infinitive or –ing form and true information
about yourself.
1. I usually avoid……
2. I really can’t stand……
3. I don’t mind……
4. I spend a lot of time……
5. I really want……
6. I sometimes pretend……(Falla and Davies, 2007, p. 7)
Another way to make students interested in asking and answering the questions
is to introduce them a topic with choice which consists of a mix of questions that cover
some or all Maturita topics and students work in pairs or in small groups choosing one
or two questions they like best and try to answer them in detail. The teacher can project
these questions on the interactive board or hand them printed to the students and this
activity can be done as a whole class activity.
31
The teacher can also make students create questions themselves and thus get
them more engaged in the whole process of asking and answering the questions. One
possible way how to do it within the preparation for the Maturita oral exam is
a variation on Lindstromberg᾿s telling stories:
1) The teacher hands out a question sources and then groups of three or four
prepare a set of other questions about the given topic that will later be asked
to someone else in the class.
2) The teacher brings the class together and finds a fairly proficient student (or
a volunteer) who is willing to occupy a seat at the front of the class.
3) For the next 2.5 minutes the class fires questions at the person in the ‘hot
seat’.
4) When 2.5 minutes are up the interviewed student selects a new one. The
activity should last until at least one person in each group has had a chance
to answer questions (Lindstromberg, 2004, p. 83‒84).
Speaking can be more enjoyable for students when kinaesthetic learning is
involved, which can even be done when practising asking and answering Maturita
questions by letting students conduct various questionnaires and surveys. Harmer
(1998) suggests this activity to provoke conversation and opinion exchange. Students
get firstly involved in preparing the short questionnaires or surveys in small groups and
secondly when walking around and asking and answering the questions and thirdly in
presenting their findings. Harmer claims that ‘encouraging students to get up and walk
around and talking to other classmates (not only the ones they are sitting next to) has
many advantages. It varies the structure of classroom periods, allows people a bit of
physical movement, and provides a welcome variety of interaction’ (Harmer, 1998,
p. 89‒90). I personally do this type of activity with my students and agree with what
Harmer sees as advantages as this is a very popular activity with students, they enjoy
being allowed to move freely in the classroom and interact with various people but they
also enjoy being let free and creative in preparing their questionnaire or survey as well
as presenting it. I usually walk around and help with vocabulary or any possible
problems when the questionnaires or surveys are being prepared and join the class
during the interviews which keeps me busy and makes me enjoy this activity as well.
32
Concerning the second task of the oral part of the Maturita exam the picture
description and picture comparison, I consider the Scrivener’s critique on the activity of
mere describing of pictures logical. He claims that ‘communication is in this case
meaningless because other than in the classroom we would hardly listen to someone
describing something we can see ourselves. It is a display activity, showing off
language learned but there is no real communication here’ (Scrivener, 2005, p. 152).
This is the undeniable truth, though this activity is appropriate for the exam as it is
simple and quick and examiners manage to assess the student’s use of language. During
the preparation of students for this type of activity for the Maturita exam, I would
suggest teachers to employ more of their fantasy and to alter the picture description or
picture comparison activities to make them more applicable for the real life and more
interesting for the students. There are many ways how to do that. Scrivener (2005), for
example, suggests letting the learner describe a picture that the others cannot see and are
meanwhile supposed to draw a basic sketch of that picture. The communication thus
becomes real and the ‘describers’ and ‘artists’ will interact with a specific purpose.
‘This classroom activity effectively mirrors activities that learners might be involved in
when using the language in the outside world, listening to a description of something
over the phone, for instance’ (Scrivener, 2005, p. 152).
One more describing and drawing activity that focuses on communicative
accuracy in giving and comprehending oral instructions is called Describe and draw the
opposite and is presented by Lindstromberg and its recommended procedure is as follows:
1) Students pair up and decide who is student A and who is B.
2) Each A will get a picture to describe to B. But student B should draw
something opposite to what A says. For example, if A says „There is a man.’
B should draw a child, a woman, a dog, a ghost – anything that B thinks is
the opposite of a man. If A says „There is a tree in the foreground,’ B may
draw a telephone pole in the background.
3) They will then compare pictures.
4) B will then try to tell A what A᾿s actual instructions were.
5) As and Bs swap roles. The teacher gives B a new picture and collects A᾿s
picture and gives it to a B in another pair.
6) A mini-exhibition of what students have drawn can be organized in the end
(Lindstromberg, 2004, p. 59).
33
Another simple way how to practise picture description is called Find the
differences and is recommended by Harmer (2007). The procedure is the following:
Students work in pairs and each looks at a picture which is very similar to the
one their partner has. They have to find, say, ten differences between their
pictures without showing their pictures to each other. This means they will have
to do a lot of describing, which will practise their spoken production, and
questioning and answering, which will practise their spoken interaction, to find
the differences (Harmer, 2007, p. 129).
In order to practise the picture comparison, which is the second part of the task
two of the oral Maturita exam, there exist many activities that can be done in the
lessons of speaking and that are more varied than mere comparing of the two pictures.
One interesting activity, Two pictures, which focuses on explaining connections
between pictures, is suggested by Wright et al. (2006) and its process is as follows:
1) The teacher projects or hands students two seemingly unrelated pictures and
asks the learners to suggest a connection between them. Some learners will
suggest very reasonable connections. Some learners will suggest crazy
connections. In one sense, the latter are more useful since more people will
pay attention and think about them! The activity can be done as a whole
class activity but also in pairs or small groups.
2) The teacher may organise a competition to find the most reasonable
connection and the craziest connection (Wright et al., 2006, p. 31‒32).
Wright et al. (2006) also suggest a variation to this activity called Three words,
which can also be applied for students to practise their spoken production skills:
1) The teacher brings 3 objects to the lesson and shows them to class or writes
their names on the board, for example, pencil, ball, table.
2) The teacher invites learners to find as many things as possible which might
connect them, for example:
The pencil and ball are on the table.
34
She does her homework on the table and she uses a pencil. Then she plays table
tennis on the table and uses a table tennis ball (Wright et al., 2006, p. 31‒32).
I find both these activities very useful for practising picture description or
comparison as students are supposed to use their imagination and invent either realistic
or unrealistic stories about people or objects that they can later apply very well when
describing or contrasting pictures as they are supposed to say beside what they see in
the pictures also things what they suppose people in the picture are doing, what are the
relations among them, what the things they are using might serve for etc. They simply
have to prove their ability to improvise. Moreover, students in the second activity get to
practise prepositions of place and conjunctions and other cohesive devices that are very
useful to practise for the purpose of Maturita exam.
Concerning the third part of the exam, the spoken production is almost always
examined when students are required to speak individually on a given topic. Besides
this, this task may be supported by pictures that would require either a description of
what is in the picture (the picture identification) or debate over pictures or discussion
with the examiner. The pictures may relate to pieces of literary work, places in English
speaking countries or some specialized topics according to the type of school. As
activities relating to picture description were already described and the activities
appropriate for practising the discussion will be described in the fourth part of the exam,
I will primarily focus on activities requiring the individual speech on a chosen topic.
Teachers may apply the classic way of examining students what they have learnt
about the given topic and invite them either to speak about the topic in front of the class
or examine students about the topics in small groups while other groups practise these
topics (one student speaking and other student(s) listening) as well. Another way to
practise individual spoken production are presentations, which students themselves find
interesting and useful (see Question 15 of the questionnaire, page 61). Teachers may
prepare the topics and other requirements for the presentation in advance and let
students choose the topic they would like to present. There may be up to three students
for one topic depending on the size of the class. This is the way to get students involved
and interested at least in one topic and students work together to prepare their study
materials for this part of the exam. Teachers should start the first presentation
themselves to give students tips or guidelines how to prepare the presentation and
should spend some time introducing the necessary presentation skills. Also, students,
35
who do not give the presentation, should be encouraged to listen to their classmates
presenting by being given some kind of tasks, additional questions or feedback.
I personally have very good experience with presentations with my teenage students as
most of them are very creative and manage to prepare very good looking presentations
in Power Point software and most of them enjoy ‘their moments’ of performance. We
usually share one class email for this purpose, where I send my instructions, news,
requirements and where students share their work. Harmer also suggests ‘to encourage
students to retell stories which they have read in their books or found in newspapers or
in the Internet’ as he considers such retelling ‘a valuable way of provoking the
activation of previously learnt or acquired language’ (Harmer, 2007, p. 129‒130) and
I consider this activity a good way to practise the students’ spoken production and good
preparation for the third part of the Maturita exam.
There is a great variety of activities that can be done with the students to practice
for the fourth part of the Maturita exam, the dialogue with the examiner. It is
recommendable to start with some easier type of activities with some clues or support
they may make use of. These activities should help students to boost their confidence
and thus make them more likely to join in activities (Osváth, 2014, p. 25). Thornburry
(2005) introduces the term ‘practised control’ and explains that ‘practised control
involves demonstrating progressive control of a skill where the possibility of making
mistake is ever-present but where support is always at hand’. One interesting activity,
where practised control is applied is introduced by Osváth (2014) and is called
Disappearing dialogue. This activity also ensures the students’ engagement by giving
them a real reason both to listen and speak (Osváth, 2014, p. 25). The activity can be
done the following way:
1) The teacher plays a CD record of any dialogue that he or she finds in the
textbook or in other sources. It is applicable on any dialogue and thus
appropriate for any level or language proficiency. Students listen and follow
the dialogue.
2) Students then work in pairs and read the dialogue.
3) The teacher may re-write the dialogue on the board or project it on the
interactive board (which is faster and more comfortable way). He then
erases some parts in the dialogue or projects another slide with erased parts
36
and students are supposed to read the dialogue and complete the missing
parts by heart.
4) Then the teacher erases other parts or projects another slide and students
again retell the dialogue. If students come to the point they do not remember
the original dialogue, they have to start improvising and completing it by
their own words which makes them start speaking and interacting with their
partner (Osváth, 2014, p. 40).
This activity is efficient, as students have fun when improvising, it is
challenging for them, they have a reason to talk, get the necessary support and thus have
bigger confidence in themselves and realize that they speak in English without much
trouble. This is definitely good type of exercise for less advanced students or students
who only started with the preparation for the Maturita exam, which mainly concerns the
students of the first or second year. However, if the teacher chooses a more difficult
dialogue, it can be interesting for more advanced students as well.
Next option how to practise dialogues with less advanced or less experienced
students is suggested by Wright et al. (2006). This activity is called You’re pulling my
leg and is a suitable activity for the whole class practise, but can be done, after some
time, in small groups or even in pairs, once the idea of the game is understood. The
process of this activity is as follows:
1) The teacher thinks up a tall tale to tell learners (or invents one
spontaneously).
2) The teacher discusses the idea that there are always people who like to ‘pull
other people’s legs and explains that this game will train them not to have
their legs pulled.
3) The teacher explains that he will talk and include a few untrue statements
and students must immediately raise their hands on hearing an untrue
statement and say what is wrong with it. For example:
T. Yesterday I went into town and saw a beautiful car. It had six legs and
went very…
S. That’s not true. Cars don’t have legs, they have wheels. And they don’t
have six wheels, they have four wheels etc. (Wright et al., 2006, p. 31‒32).
37
This activity makes students pay attention and listen to the teacher and thus gets
them involved, in addition to that, it enables students to learn to express disagreement
and explain why they disagree (which is useful before they start with more demanding
and real dialogue or discussion activities). It is recommendable for the teacher to have
the story prepared to make sure the activity goes smoothly. Students might also prepare
their own ‘talk’ individually or in small group which makes them practise their writing
production and then present their story to the class.
Another essential activity to practise the dialogues is the role playing which
consists of playing or acting the role the student is given on a role-card. The role-card
can only contain the name of the role such as ‘a thief’, ‘a detective’ etc. or more
information about the role and the protagonist’s behaviour. Students are then given
some time to prepare their role before acting it with the use of their ideas or the ideas
from the role-card. Scrivener (2005) describes what role-cards should contain. He
speaks of ‘background information’ which is composed of ‘name, job, sex, age,
personal appearance, clothes, character, interests’ of the protagonist and ‘points relevant
to the task’ which are ‘pieces of information the protagonist knows (that maybe others
do not), the protagonist’s opinions about the issue, problem, situation, people etc., what
the protagonist wants to happen or is decided to and items of language he or she may
need’ (Scrivener, 2005, p. 155‒157). He also adds that ‘a good set of role-cards should
be designed so that the participants will have distinctly different point of view and
natural disagreement’ (Scrivener, 2005, p. 155‒157) to make the role playing more
exciting and interesting for the students.
Scrivener (2005) also speaks of Group planning tasks which I find very useful as
they make students practise several skills (like reading for information, discussing and
agreeing on one option, preparing short mini-presentation, presenting and defending the
suggestion) at the same time. The students also get a good practise for the dialogue with
the examiner in the fourth part of the oral Maturita exam where the task is often to
choose something from several options and suggest and persuade the examiner about
the choice. The activity procedure is as follows:
The example is ‘planning a holiday’.
1) The teacher collects together a number of advertisements or brochures
advertising a holiday and explains to the students that they can all go on
holiday together, but they must all agree on where they want to go.
38
2) The teacher divides the students into groups of three and gives each group a
selection of a material. Their task is to plan the holiday for the whole group.
The students are allowed a good amount of time to read and select a holiday.
3) They then prepare a presentation in which they attempt to persuade the rest
of the class that they should choose this holiday.
4) When they are ready, each group makes their presentation and the classes
discusses, chooses or votes for a holiday (Scrivener, 2005, p. 153).
1.3.4 Speaking assessment of the oral part of the Maturita exam
The assessing of the speaking performance is quite a demanding and responsible
task for the teachers of English who had to qualify themselves in the CERMAT’s
training course for the oral exam assessors to be allowed to perform this role.
I personally trained the teachers from the Olomouc region for the posts of oral and
written exam assessors as I became the certified lecturer and tutor of assessors in 2009
and have been cooperating with CERMAT since. The main aim of the course was to
acquaint the teachers with the levels of the CEFR and to make them recognize what the
students’ skills on B1 and B2 levels should be. In addition, they were introduced to the
system and rules of assessing the oral exam, as well as to ways of unifying their way of
assessing as much as possible. The following part describes the method of assessing the
oral exam in detail.
The assessors of the oral part of the Maturita exam are obliged to follow the
assessment criteria (see the assessment criteria in Appendix 6) when evaluating the
student’s speaking skills. The assessment criteria were introduced by CERMAT in 2010
during their methodological seminars organized for the oral exam assessors and the
assessors obtained detailed explanation how to work with these criteria to be as
objective as possible when assessing the student’s oral performance. The catalogue of
requirements for exams of the common part of the Maturita exam: English language
(CERMAT, 2008) was an important document for compiling the assessment criteria
both for speaking and writing performance as it contains a detailed description of how
the student should be evaluated. ‘The level of communicative competence of the student
is assessed in relation to the communicative purpose, i.e., whether the student has
managed to convey what he was supposed to, and with regard to the assessed level, how
the student conveyed what he was supposed to. The principles of assessment of the oral
39
performance of the student are not only based on mere monitoring of the student’s
mistakes, but they are, first of all, based on how the student managed to reach the
communicative purpose. The communicative purpose is specified in the assignment of
every part of the oral exam and the quality of its fulfilment is assessed by means of
assessment criteria which enable to assess the student’s oral performance from several
standpoints’ (CERMAT, 2008, p. 13).
The standpoints are: assignment, language means, language functions, formal
and content coherence, interactive skills (for tasks where they are tested) and
phonological competence. Within the scope of assignment, the ability to complete tasks
adequately and unambiguously, keep to the topic and style and use well-balanced
thoughts and ideas are assessed. The language means and language functions verify the
accuracy, extent and comprehensibility of the message. The formal and content
coherence is based on logical, clear and precise application of thoughts, the accuracy
and extent of cohesive devices, fluency and good structuring of the speech. The
interactive skills test whether the student uses them effectively, the measure of
dependency on a partner in communication and the attitude towards this partner and
phonological competence mainly focuses on assessing the speaker’s pronunciation,
comprehensibility and intonation (CERMAT, 2008, p. 13).
The concrete form of assessment is realized in the following way: there are
always two assessors present at each oral exam, one of which is the interlocutor who
examines the student, whilst the second one serves as an observer who only listens to
the student and the interlocutor and makes notes about the student’s performance. The
interlocutor is supposed to take notes as well. There are four tasks of the exam; the
student is assessed for each part separately and may obtain the maximum of 9 points for
each part. At the end of the exam, the student receives the maximum of 3 points for the
phonological competence, which is evaluated for all for tasks together. This means that
the student may receive the maximum of 39 points for the oral part of the exam.
The assessment criteria are divided into four sections which are:
• assignment/content and speech,
• lexical competence,
• grammatical competence and
• cohesive devices and phonological competence.
40
The assessors then write their notes about the student’s performance into the
assessment record (see Appendix 7), as well as the number of points given for each part
of the exam. The section assignment/content and speech contains four descriptors:
• whether the message corresponds to the assignment, is clear, effective and
elaborated,
• whether the message and thoughts are consistent,
• whether the communicative strategies are used appropriately and
• whether the examiner’s assistance is necessary or not (see the assessment
criteria in Appendix 6).
The evaluators are supposed to assign provisional points for each descriptor and
apply an arithmetic average on these points to give either 0, 1, 2 or 3 points for this
section, which they fill in the assessment record. If there is an even number of
descriptors, the descriptors that are placed at the top are more important than those that
are below them, which means that if student gets 3 provisional points for the first two
descriptors and 2 provisional points for the two bottom descriptors, his final assessment
would be 3 points and vice versa.
The section lexical competence contains only two descriptors which are the
lexical extent and lexical accuracy. The assessors again assign provisional points for
both descriptors and use the arithmetic average or apply the rule that the upper
descriptor is more important than the lower one, in this case extent is more important
than accuracy, and give student from 0 to 3 points for this section. The same way is
applied in the third section the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices which
has the identical descriptors as the second section (see the assessment criteria in
Appendix 6). As soon as the assessors assign points for each section and fill them in the
assessment record, they are supposed to count these points up and thus get the result for
each of the four tasks, which can vary from 0 to 9 points.
When the student has completed all four parts of the exam, the assessors assign
from 0 to 3 points for the section of phonological competence which consists of these
descriptors: the fluency of the speech, the correctness of the pronunciation and the
intonation. This number is than filled in the assessment record and then the two
assessors have to compare their assessment and agree on the student’s final points
which represent the consensus between the assessors. The consensus should be reached
the following way: if, for example, one assessor assigns one point for certain section
41
and the second assessor assigns three points, the consensus is usually the average
number, two points. However, it may happen that one assessor could have missed some
good aspects of student’s speech or some serious mistakes and may agree with the other
assessor on his assessment. There is always the golden rule that the assessors have to be
able to defend their opinions in case of student’s appeal and be able to explain what
made them reduce the points for. If assessors differ only in one point, the better
assessment should generally be favoured, unless the assessor who assigned lower
number of points defends his point of view. The cut-off score is set to 44% at the
moment, which means that students pass the oral part of the exam if they achieve at
least 18 points (MSMT, 2014).
In conclusion, I would like to compare the way of assessing students according
to these analytical criteria with the old model of Maturita exam where no assessment
criteria were applied. I consider the new way of assessing much better as it is more
complex, detailed and objective than the old model, which lacked all these qualities.
The assessment is more complex due to each single descriptor the assessors are obliged
to consider and assess, it is more detailed as it gives a student a feedback of which of his
skills are good and which need to improve and more objective for its firm and unified
rules the assessors have to follow. Before this system came into force, the assessors
were let free to assess students in their own way, which either could help them
successfully pass the exam or harm them as the assessment depended on the assessors᾿
subjective feelings. There were even no assessment records, except for what students
noted down during their preparation time or what assessors noted down about student’s
performance, if they ever did, as they were not obliged to do so. It was then difficult to
come back to what was going on during the exam in case of student’s disagreement with
the assessment or his appeal.
I agree with what Z. Růžičková states in her thesis that ‘people who took the old
Maturita exam were not able to use their English relatively soon after their graduations’
and that ‘in previous times examiners assessed performance which students could
prepare at home and in some cases learnt by heart and that there was hardly any space
for students having chance to prove their interaction competences and ability to react in
unexpected situations’ (Růžičková, 2012, p. 13). I agree with these statements as I have
similar experience. The students, who took the old model of Maturita exam, knew that
the exam was somehow passable, if not at the first attempt, they succeeded at worst at
the second attempt, and were not forced or motivated to learn the language to be able to
42
understand it and to use it for communication which is nowadays an indispensable skill.
Moreover, the old model of the Maturita exam did not verify any other skills like
reading and listening receptive skills, writing production or spoken interaction which,
was in my opinion, a serious drawback. I hope that this new way of testing will make
more teachers focus on practising all skills as all are important when teaching a foreign
language but especially on giving more space to practising speaking which has long
been so neglected. More detailed information about the attitudes of the students of the
Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry towards learning English and towards
new Maturita exam is presented in the practical part of this thesis.
43
2 Practical Part
2.1 The Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry and
its students
The Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry (SSLC) is situated at
U Hradiska 29 Street in the outskirts of Olomouc. Two separate vocational schools,
Střední odborné učiliště farmaceutické (the Vocational School of Pharmacy) and
Střední odborné učiliště spojů (the Vocational School of Communication) were located
at this address until 2006. These two small schools were merged on the 1st September
2006 in order to become a bigger and economically stronger school which was given a
provisional name of Střední škola poštovní a chemická (the Secondary Postal and
Chemical School). It then took some time to think of the most appropriate name that
would respond to all study field specializations and as the new four-year study field
Operation and economy of transport was open in 2003 and has consequently gained a
very good reputation and a rise of the number of students who applied for this study
field each year, the school decided to put its specialization (the logistics) into its official
name together with its second important field of study – chemistry – and thus the school
was renamed on the 20th February 2009 to Střední škola logistiky a chemie (the
Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry) and has kept its official title since.
The school offers three four-year study fields (Operation and economy of
transport, Logistic and financial services and Applied chemistry) which are finished by
the state leaving exam and one tree-year study field (Operator of postal transport and
operation) which is finished by an apprenticeship exam (SSLC, 2014). The graduates of
the study field Operation and economy of transport are qualified to work as technical-
economic and administrative workers in all areas of transport within the Czech Republic
and the EU (see the study plan of Operation and economy of transport in Appendix 8).
The graduates of the study field Logistic and financial services are qualified to work as
administrative and operational workers in banks or post offices or as logisticians in any
area of transport (see the study plan of Logistic and financial services in Appendix 9).
The graduates of the study field Applied chemistry are qualified to work as chemical
technicians in the areas of chemistry, pharmacy textiles, hygiene and environment. They
may further work in water and waste management or other related areas, as dispatchers,
controllers of quality, supervisors, technical managers and standard-setters (see the
44
study plan of Applied chemistry in Appendix 10). The students who passed the
apprenticeship exam of the study field Operator of postal transport and operation may
either apply for follow-up studies or may work as postmen or in the areas of postal
transport, postal and courier services and distribution of goods and services (see the
study plan of Operator of postal transport and operation in Appendix 11).
There are 13 various classes in this school year with the number of 335 students
(Szturcová, 2014). The students are taught general secondary school subjects and
technical subjects corresponding to their study field. The second, third and fourth year
students also have practical training once in a week. All study fields are taught one or
two foreign languages. The study fields Operation and economy of transport and
Logistic and financial services are taught a compulsory language which is predominantly
English; there is also German, which is chosen by considerably smaller number of
students and an optional language which is either English (for those whose compulsory
language is German), French, German or Russian. The study fields Applied chemistry
and Operator of postal transport and operation are only taught one compulsory language
which is English. The four-year study fields are taught three forty-five minute lessons of
English in the first and the second year, four forty-five minute lessons in the third year
(consisting of three lessons of English and one lesson of English seminar) and five forty-
five minute lessons of English in the fourth year (consisting of three lessons of English
and two lessons of English seminar). The three-year study field is taught two forty-five
minute lessons of English each year of their studies.
Most of the students are either at A1 or A2 level of the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (COE, 2001) in most of the skills when starting
their studies at this school and some of them do not manage to get to level B1 of the
CEFR by the time of their State Maturita exam. Several students, who had already
taken the state Maturita exam, failed one or some of its parts, or were very close to the
cut-off score which was, in my opinion, partially caused by their inactivity during their
studies and partially by inadequate preparation for the exam. The results of the
questionnaire together with the observation of the chosen example of the students at the
oral part of the Maturita exam and the analysis of the interview with the students
concerned should provide the basis for proposing possible effective steps to help
prepare the students who are going to take the State Maturita exam in the forthcoming
years and enhance their chances to succeed.
45
2.2 Methodology
In order to receive reliable information whether English and the skill of fluent
communication in English is important for the students of the Secondary School of
Logistics and Chemistry, about their own way of preparation for the State Maturita
exam, improving their language skills and about their favourite English language
activities, I decided to use the quantitative questionnaire method, which enabled me to
get a big number of replies to work with. The questionnaire contained eight close-
ended, two half-open and nine open-ended questions. It was distributed to students of
the third and fourth years in 2011 and 2013 to get the opportunity of comparison of the
answers and see whether the answers tend to repeat or differ. The total number of
respondents in 2011 and 2013 was 173 students.
The method of direct observation was used to get information whether the
chosen sample of students managed to succeed at the oral part of the Maturita exam and
to find out what were their strongest and weakest points in order to get information
about what should the teachers, who prepare students for the Maturita exam, focus on.
The way the students were chosen and more information about observation is described
in further detail in subchapter 2.4.
As some of the results of the questionnaire required further clarification,
I decided to ask twelve students, who already passed the oral part of the Maturita exam,
for a short interview. My aim was to address students who took the Maturita exam in
any of the three years (2011, 2012 or 2013) since it has been officially launched and to
address students with various study results and levels of their English to get diverse
views of the oral exam. I was mainly interested to find out whether the great concern of
Maturita exam was reasonable and whether the preparation at school and their own
preparation for the exam and the number of lessons of English and English seminar
were sufficient. I also intended to get either a confirmation or a disproval of my opinion
that I made during the observation of the students that more communicative students
prefer spoken interaction to spoken production which allows them to improvise and
does not usually require much preparation, while less communicative students prefer
spoken production activities which they can get prepared for in advance and thus feel
more confident when speaking. The answers to these questions and more about spoken
interaction and production are discussed in subchapter 2.4.2.
46
The last method that I used for the research of the practical part of this work was
the comparison of the State Maturita exam results from the years 2011, 2012 and 2013,
when most of the respondents took this exam. The reason for this comparison was to
find out whether the number of students who failed any part of the exam decreased due
to teachers and students᾿ better knowledge of the system of the new Maturita exam,
more accessible study materials and more effective preparation for the exam.
2.3 The attitude of the students of the Secondary School of
Logistics and Chemistry towards learning and speaking
English
The aim of the questionnaire was to answer the questions whether the students of
the Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry enjoy learning English language in
general and how important it is for them to become fluent and more advanced speakers
of English. The research also focuses on the way they are being prepared for the State
Maturita exam at school and on their own way of preparation for this exam. The
questionnaire was distributed to the third and fourth year students of the Secondary
School of Logistics and Chemistry in spring 2011 and in spring 2013. All the students
concerned took or are going to take the State Maturita exam from English in 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014. The total number of respondents was 173, which was composed
of 92 students in 2011 and 81 students in 2013. The number of respondents decreased in
2013 due to the smaller number of students attending the third and fourth year during
that school year.
The research was focused on the third and fourth year students because their State
Maturita exam was approaching and because the school adds one extra lesson of the
English seminar to the third year students and two extra lessons of the English seminar to
the fourth year students. The first and the second year students have only three lessons of
general English a week. The English seminar extra classes are focused on the preparation
of the students for the State Maturita exam and it is the teacher of this subject who
organizes the way the students are prepared and who decides how much time to spend on
improving each of the necessary skills to help students pass the exam.
The fact that the same questionnaire was distributed to different students in 2011
and 2013 enabled me to make a comparison of students’ answers that might be useful
47
for stating whether their attitudes or opinions are changing throughout the years or
whether they remain unchanged. In order to keep the students’ attention when filling
this questionnaire in, and in order to receive the most sincere answers, the questionnaire
was designed to contain close-ended, half open and open-ended questions.
Based on my six year work experience at this school and my knowledge of the
students, I generally expected that most students enjoy studying English and speaking
activities and consider speaking to be highly important skill. I also expected that
English is difficult for most of the students and so that they would welcome to have
more lessons of English and fewer students in their study group. In addition to that,
I expected that the majority of students do not prepare for the lessons of English or
English seminar adequately or that they do not prepare at all as I often solve problems
relating to their inadequate preparation for English lessons. The findings are presented
in the following chapter.
2.3.1 The questionnaire and its results
The total number of respondents was 92 in 2011 and 81 in 2013 (see
Appendix 12).
Question 1 (close-ended question): I find the subject of the English language ________.
Fig. 1. Question 1.
48
The majority of students of the SSLC find the English language interesting,
which is in accordance with my expectations. I expected this answer because students in
general enjoy the lessons of English and are interested in cultural topics relating to
English speaking countries. They are mainly interested in popular music, contemporary
film and arts, travelling and working abroad. The percentage of the students who find
English language interesting was almost the same both years and it even slightly
increased from 86% in 2011 to 88% in 2013 (Fig. 1). Teachers of English might thus
expect most of their students to be enthusiastic, willing to pay attention, cooperate and
work constantly on improving their current knowledge. If students were like this in
reality, it would considerably facilitate the teacher’s work. However, despite the fact
that most of the students find English interesting, they do not behave like this. Teachers
should thus regularly reflect upon their work and think about possible ways to make
their lessons more enjoyable to keep their students enthusiastic about their subject.
Question 2 (close-ended question): I find the subject of the English language ________
for my future career.
Fig. 2. Question 2.
The majority of the answers were positive, both in 2011 (86%) and 2013 (90%)
and the results were very similar, again with the slight increase of the students who find
49
English important for their future career in 2013 (Fig. 2). Answers to this question were
not surprising for me and confirm that English is one of the most important subjects at
the Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry and thus should be taught
conscientiously to help students develop their language skills and advance.
Question 3 (close-ended question): I find the subject of the English language ________.
Question 4 (close-ended question): I find the subject of the English seminar _________.
Fig. 3. Question 3.
Fig. 4. Question 4.
50
Students of the SSLC find both the English language and the English seminar
difficult (Figs 3 and 4). Both in 2011 and 2013, students found the subject of general
English slightly more difficult than the subject of English seminar. There was, however,
an increase in the number of students who consider English and the English seminar
difficult in 2013 in comparison to 2011. This result confirms my assumption that
students of our school constantly consider English and the English seminar difficult and
have problems in mastering these subjects. It should be taken into consideration whether
English is difficult for them due to the bad marks they often get (and why their marks
are so bad in the first place) or whether it is the language itself that causes difficulties. It
should not definitely be the aim of the teachers of English at this school to make
English difficult for students. On the other hand, they cannot make the lessons anyhow
easier in terms of doing less difficult activities or requiring less work from students or
giving them better marks as it is the teachers’ responsibility to prepare students for the
State Maturita exam and to keep improving their English.
Question 5 (close-ended question): Enough time to focus on the important skills of
speaking, writing, reading, listening and linguistic competence12 (that are necessary for
passing the State Maturita exam) is devoted at English and the English seminar lessons.
_________.
Fig. 5. Question 5.
12 Linguistic competence is one of the compulsory parts of State Maturita written exam: listening, reading
and linguistic competence and writing (CERMAT, 2010b)
51
The answers to this question are pleasantly surprising as most students claim that
their teachers focus on improving all necessary skills to help them succeed at the State
Maturita exam (Fig. 5). There is even a considerably higher rate of agreement in 2013
(91%) in comparison to 2011 (75%). It is not possible to explain this positive increase
clearly, however, there exist two probable explanations. Firstly, in 2011, two teachers
who were going to retire soon (they refused to attend the teacher’s compulsory training
concerning the new Maturita exam and could not thus prepare students according to
new requirements) were still working at the school, and secondly, those teachers who
qualified themselves for the posts of examiners and adapted their work with students
according to new requirements have gained more experience in preparing students
effectively for the State Maturita exam throughout the years and these circumstances
led to this result. It is, in any case, a proof of good and consistent work of the current
teachers of English at the SSLC.
Question 6 (close-ended question): The number of lessons per week (3 lessons of
English and 1 lesson of English seminar at the third year and 3 lessons of English and
2 lessons of English seminar at the fourth year) is _________.
Fig. 6. Question 6.
52
Most students find the number of 3 lessons of English plus one lesson of the
English seminar at the third and two lessons of the English seminar at the fourth year
sufficient (Fig. 6). The number increased from 68% in 2011 to 79% in 2013. The
reasons for this increase go hand-in-hand with the supposed reasons stated in the
previous question. Having in mind that students feel that they are being prepared well,
they do not feel the need of having more lessons of English at school. Answers to this
question do not correspond with my original expectation as I expected more students
expressing the wish of having more lessons of English per week. I expected that
because most of the students of SSLC enjoy learning English and I also supposed that
they would appreciate if they could spend more time on practising English at school in
order to achieve some improvement and start getting better marks from this subject.
On the other hand, all the students of the third and the fourth years have thirty-
one lessons per week on average, which is the number already high enough. To achieve
an increase in the number of lessons of English would most probably be an impossible
task. Moreover, some other pecuniary obstacles would probably arise (i.e., the necessity
to pay these extra lessons and some other common operating costs), so the only solution
would be the teacher’s possible willingness to organize a study circle for students who
expressed the need to have more lessons of English per week.
Question 7 (close-ended question): I trust myself to pass the State Maturita exam.
Fig. 7. Question 7.
53
The number of students who trust themselves to pass the State Maturita exam
dropped from 57% in 2011 to 46% in 2013 (Fig. 7). The number was neither big in
2011 nor in 2013 when it even fell below 50%. One possible reason why the students of
the third and fourth year trusted themselves less in 2013 could be the fact that they were
given more information about the examination process both from their teachers and
from their older schoolmates who had already passed or failed the State Maturita exam
and informed them about all possible obstacles and difficulties. One more thing that
plays an important role in this case and that has to be taken into consideration is the
question of self-confidence of every single student. While some students think
positively and trust themselves (or even think highly of themselves) some might be very
pessimistic and lack self-confidence. It is therefore possible that there were more self-
confident students in 2011 in comparison to year 2013.
Question 8 (close-ended question): How many hours a week do you spend preparing
for the subject of the English language and the State Maturita exam?
Fig. 8. Question 8.
The answers to questions eight (Fig. 8) were rather surprising as I expected that
most of the students do not prepare themselves for the lessons of English or the State
54
Maturita at all or that they prepare themselves only when the test is announced, or
shortly before the State Maturita exam. The research, however, shows that the students
spend some time preparing themselves for English lessons and State Maturita exam.
There exists no clear answer to the question of how much time should secondary school
students spend preparing themselves for English lessons every day as it depends on each
student’s current level and ability to learn the language, as well as on the fact whether
the student only intends to be prepared well for school and achieve good results or
whether he wants to make progress in English independently from English taught at
school. If students᾿ main aim is to have good school results, it would then be sufficient
for the students of the first and the second year if they spent thirty or forty minutes,
three or four times a week revising for this subject, which altogether makes from hour
and a half to three hours a week. The students of the third and the fourth year should
spend the same time revising for common lessons of English. In addition to that, they
should start doing more work for the State Maturita exam. According to Beare
(2014a,b), the ESL teacher, trainer and content developer an ideal time to spend on
revising English consists of 10 to 15 minutes of listening, 10 to 15 minutes of reading,
10 minutes of grammar, 5 to 10 minutes of speaking and 5 to 10 minutes of vocabulary
revision and should be done from four to seven times a week which altogether makes
from three and a half to seven hours a week. Even more important than the concrete
number of hours is regularity, seen as the key to success. Students should thus be
encouraged to revise at home from the first year of their studies in order to build a
routine that will make learning English a common habit. The teacher might influence
that by regular setting of compulsory and optional homework, projects and
presentations or by drawing students’ attention to various books, magazines, films or
articles and any other interesting study material in English.
The data obtained show that the average time students spent preparing for
English lessons was 1.8 hour in 2011 and even 3.2 hours in 2013, which is not an ideal,
but still a satisfactory number. Discovering the average time students spend studying at
home gives us only a rough idea as it is, to a great extent, the question of every single
student’s approach. Even though, the average result is satisfactory, there might still be
students who do not spend any time to prepare themselves for English lessons or the
State Maturita exam. On the other hand, I consider it useful to get at least a general
knowledge of how our students work at home which may help me clarify some of our
students’ successes or failures.
55
Question 9 (open-ended question): I would spend more time studying English, if
_________
Most of the students of the SSLC would devote more of their time to studying
English if the following conditions were met. 45% of all respondents agreed that they
do not have enough time for studying English because they have too many subjects at
school including specialized subjects and vocational training and some students claimed
that they find these subjects more important than English. Students also seem to be
stressed by the big number of requirements they get from most of their teachers which
leads to a result that they focus only on the most important or the most urgent tasks.
Another reason why some students do not do more English is that they do not enjoy
learning this subject. Even though it is only 10% of all students who claim that, some
steps should be made to make more students enjoy learning English. The last thing that
seems to discourage students from studying is their laziness that 10% of students
acknowledge. The following comments from the respondents are some examples that
illustrate these points:
• ‘If I did not have other subjects.’
• ‘If other subjects were less difficult.’
• ‘If we had English instead of mathematics.’
• ‘If I did not have to prepare myself for other subjects that are more
important for my branch of study.’
• ‘If I were not so busy.’
• ‘If I had more time and enjoyed studying English.’
• ‘If I had more time and was not so lazy. I like English but I do not like
learning.’
• ‘If I were not lazy to open my exercise book.’
• ‘If I managed to convince myself to start studying it.’
Question 10 (open-ended question): The number of students in my English seminar
group is/is not ideal because _________.
56
Most of the students agreed that the number of students in their English seminar
group is ideal. This finding does not correspond with my original expectation as
I expected that students would appreciate if the study groups were less numerous than
they actually are. 42% of students who consider the present number of students in the
English seminar group ideal agreed without providing any explanation. 20% of
respondents claim that the number is ideal because the teacher has time to work with
every single student and help him to improve his skills and also because all students get
involved. About 20% of students did not find this number ideal and expressed
a contrary opinion claiming that the teacher does not have time to work with every
single student and that they cannot concentrate well on work because the group is too
noisy and big. There are on average 15 students in each group, which represents a very
usual number most secondary school teachers are used to work with. On the other hand,
if there were fewer students in the English seminar group, more time could be spent on
practising speaking (both speaking production and interaction) which is a very
important skill for students to develop – if not the most important one.
Question 11 (open-ended question): I think /do not think that we are being prepared
well for the State Maturita exam at school because _________.
Most of the students agree that the teachers do their best to prepare them well for
the State Maturita exam which confirms that the current teachers of English at the
SSLC work responsibly and well. According to 59% of the students the preparation at
school is very good and 7% agree that their teacher is very good. Another 7% expressed
rather neutral opinion that the preparation is quite good but could be still better and 17%
of the respondents do not think that they are prepared well. The majority of the
complaints related to the fact that they do not concentrate enough on speaking and
listening activities, which they find very important to practise in order to pass the State
Maturita exam. They added that it is not easy to practise speaking and listening at home
and would thus expect to do more of this practise at school. The following comments
represent the most frequent students’ beliefs:
• ‘We practise everything that is necessary for passing the Maturita exam.’
• ‘Our teachers of English prepare us well.’
• ‘It is very good – not too many students and a good teacher.’
57
• ‘We have an excellent teacher.’
• ‘We finally got good teachers after two years.’
• ‘We have a good teacher who gives us many useful tips to pass the Maturita
exam.’
• ‘We revise a lot.’
• ‘The preparation is quite good, but could be still better.’
• ‘The preparation is quite good, but I would appreciate doing more speaking
and conversation.’
• ‘I find both good and bad things about the way we are prepared at school.
On the one hand, we spend a lot of time practising some parts of the exam
but on the other hand, there are some parts that we hardly ever practise. We
do not, for example, do dialogues at all.’
• ‘The preparation is not very good because we do not do enough listening
exercises.’
• ‘The preparation is not very good because we hardly ever speak.’
Question 12 (half-open question): Which of the skills of speaking, writing, reading,
listening and linguistic competence (that are necessary for passing the State Maturita
exam) do you consider the most difficult to develop and why?
Fig. 9. Question 12.
58
The students of the SSLC agree that listening and speaking are the most difficult
skills to develop (Fig. 9). While the percentage of the students who considered listening
to be the most difficult skill to develop (45%) was slightly higher in comparison to
students who considered speaking to be the most difficult skill to develop (38%) in
2011, the same percentage was reached in 2013 when 40% of students considered
listening and another 40% considered speaking to be the most difficult skills to develop.
As all other skills of writing, linguistic competence and reading showed considerably
lower percentage both in 2011 and 2013, the further comments will only concern
listening and speaking.
It was interesting to find out that there are only three obvious reasons why
students find listening so difficult. They find it difficult because they do not understand
the recordings, it is too fast for them, or they suppose that their English is not good
enough to be able to understand the recording or they suppose that listening is not
practiced enough in the lessons of English and the English seminar. Contrary to
listening, students stated many more reasons why they find speaking difficult. They
suppose that their vocabulary is weak, they fail to choose the right vocabulary or
expressions, they fail to react properly and quickly enough to the examiner’s questions,
they cannot speak English fluently or they think that they are not good at speaking.
Some students suppose that speaking is not practised enough during the lessons of
English and at the English seminar and some are afraid of speaking in front of the class,
some are nervous when it is their turn to speak or believe that speaking and the oral part
of the Maturita exam represent the most stressful situations for them. Some students
also blamed their teachers of English at elementary school who, according to their
opinion, had failed to teach them the basics of English. The selection of some of the
students’ points of view is as follows:
• ‘Listening. I do not understand every word and I find it difficult to fill in the
gaps.’
• ‘Listening. I find it difficult to understand the CD.’
• ‘Listening. My current level of English is not sufficient to manage to
understand the CD well.’
• ‘Listening. It is too fast for me and I do not understand that.’
59
• ‘Listening. We do not do enough listening at school and I do not feel
confident in listening.’
• ‘Speaking. My vocabulary is insufficient.’
• ‘Speaking. We do not do enough speaking at school.’
• ‘Speaking. I cannot speak English fluently or I find it very difficult to learn to
speak fluently and meaningfully.’
• ‘Speaking represents the most stressful situation.’
• ‘Speaking. I am ashamed to speak in front of the class. My nervousness plays
a significant role.’
• ‘Speaking. I cannot react quickly to what the examiner is saying or asking.’
Question 13 (half-open question): Which of the skills of speaking, writing, reading,
listening and linguistic competence should be practised more than it currently is in the
lessons of English and the English seminar and why?
Fig. 10. Question 13.
Similarly to the previous question, students stated listening and speaking the
most often and both in 2011 and 2013 the students agreed that they would like to
practise these two skills more often at school (Fig. 10). While in 2011 listening and
speaking were chosen by the absolute majority of students, students voted for more
60
skills, especially for writing (16%) in 2013. Nevertheless, only listening and speaking
exceeded 35% of votes both years and in comparison to writing, linguistic competence
and reading, they seem to be important for students and that is why further comments
will only focus on listening and speaking.
The students suggested that listening should be practised more often in order to
improve their ability to understand recordings better and to get used to various types of
listening activities, as well as in order to do well at the listening part of the didactic test.
Some students consider it to be the most difficult skill to develop and do not think that
enough time is spent on listening activities and would thus like to practise it more often.
Some students added that it is very difficult to practise this skill at home.
Considering the speaking, they proposed that they would welcome more
vocabulary activities and even suggested that they would like to take more vocabulary
tests to encourage them to work on building their vocabulary. Furthermore, they
suggested that more time should be given to discussions in order to improve their
interactive skills. They would also like to practise speaking more often in order to
manage to express themselves well in English, to learn to communicate more easily and
to become more competent speaker and to create better linguistic perception. Some
students also believe that speaking is the most important skill, not only for passing the
State Maturita exam, but also for being able to communicate in English well in their
future life and career. Some students pointed out at their difficulties to express
themselves in English even in very simple words and sentences and added that most of
their classmates face the same problem. Last but not least, students would like to
practice speaking to get rid of the stress and the fear of speaking. The following
examples illustrate these viewpoints:
• ‘Listening. I am very weak at it.’
• ‘Listening. We cannot practise it at home and if practising it more often at
school, students would definitely get better at it.’
• ‘Listening. Some students (me included) have difficulties with listening.’
• ‘Listening and speaking. Both represent a big problem for many students.’
• ‘Speaking. It is the most difficult part of the Maturita exam and it is not
possible to practise it at home.’
• ‘Speaking. It is very useful not only for passing the exam, but it is useful for
future life as well.’
61
• ‘Speaking. It is very important to be able to speak fluently and well.’
• ‘Speaking. I would welcome practising dialogues more often.’
• ‘Speaking. Most of my classmates are not able to make a simple sentence.’
• ‘Speaking. It is important to learn to communicate in English.’
• ‘Speaking. It is a language and the language should be spoken.’
Question 14 (open-ended question): Which skill or skills would you like to improve?
Over 60% of students in 2011 and 2013 agreed that they would mainly like to
improve speaking. It was interesting to discover that listening was stated only by 20%
of students in this question. The possible reason why speaking prevailed in students’
answers is that they do not only want to improve speaking to pass the oral part of the
Maturita exam but they also consider speaking to be a very useful skill for travelling,
working or studying abroad or for their future career (see more details in Question 19,
page 64). Other skills besides speaking and listening that students stated repeatedly
were grammar and vocabulary.
Question 15 (open-ended question): What kind of activities do you enjoy doing during
English lessons and the English seminar the most?
The answers to this question were very diverse due to the great choice of
possible activities. The greatest number of students enjoy speaking activities;
particularly interviews, discussions, role-plays, storytelling, chained storytelling, picture
description and comparison, spotting the differences and preparing and giving
presentations on various interesting topics. The presentations usually concern the
Maturita topics and by preparing a presentation on one of these topics, students help
each other prepare for the exam. The other kinds of activities that students like doing
are reading or reading comprehension activities connected with work on interesting
reading comprehension worksheets. They also enjoy combined activities like half-
listening and half-reading, or half-speaking and half-reading activities. Students also
claimed that they enjoy working in a group or competing in teams, playing various
(speaking, listening, reading) games and singing songs.
62
Question 16 (open-ended question): What kind of speaking activities do you enjoy
doing the most during English lessons and the English seminar?
The Students of the SSLC agreed that they enjoy better those activities that focus
on spoken interaction, as 32% of students like asking and answering the questions about
general everyday topics and other 28% of students enjoy role playing activities where
they are supposed to play their role and discuss the given topic with their partner and
come together to a solution. About 13% of students stated that they like doing any
speaking activity because they find speaking very enjoyable. The minority of students
prefer activities where speaking is done with little or no partner’s participation. Giving
talks or presentations on a specific topic was stated by 12% of students and the picture
description was stated by 6%.
Question 17 (open-ended question): My preparation for the State Maturita oral exam
consists of _________.
The answers to this question show that the respondents in 2013 were working
harder to pass the oral exam than the respondents in 2011. While in 2011 about 47% of
students did not prepare for the oral exam at home at all and relied only on schoolwork,
this number dropped significantly to only 14% in 2013. The most frequent form of
home preparation consists of studying and revising the Maturita topics and learning
useful vocabulary. Both in 2011 and 2013 about 10% of students acknowledge hiring
a private English instructor who is expected to help them prepare for the exam. Some
students stated that they also try to speak English with their schoolmates during the
breaks at school and in their free time to get some practice. Unfortunately, students do
not seem to realize that revising the Maturita topics and learning the vocabulary will not
help them speak properly and both they and their teachers should think about more
ways to speak and interact in English. Apart from that, students did not state how they
get prepared for the second part of the exam where picture description and comparison
is examined so it is possible that they do not prepare for this type of activity at all.
63
Question 18 (open-ended question): I consider/do not consider it important to be able
to communicate fluently in English because _________.
It is important to be able to communicate fluently in English for 98% of students
of the SSLC. Only two students disagreed with this statement in 2011 and one student
disagreed in 2013. The remaining 170 answers were positive. About 39% of students
consider it important to learn to communicate fluently in English because they believe
that English is a universal tool for communication nowadays. The fluency in
communication enables them to communicate abroad both in English and non-English
speaking countries. It is very useful when visiting a foreign country or when trying to
get employed in a foreign country. It also enables them to communicate with foreigners
who live or travel to the Czech Republic. The second most frequent reason, which was
given by 29% of students, related to students’ future careers. They believe that most
employers require good communication skills in English nowadays and that it is almost
impossible to find a good job without this capacity. Other 25% of students replied that
they simply consider it important and did not explain why and only the remaining 6% of
students considered it important because they wanted to pass the oral part of the State
Maturita exam and get the best possible results.
The students of the SSLC are thus more motivated by possibility to travel, work
or study abroad, possibility to communicate with people all over the world and with
foreigners in our country and by better chances of finding a good job than by
forthcoming Maturita exam which is only a short term goal for most of them. The
following sentences illustrate these points:
• ‘To be able to communicate with people abroad.’
• ‘I consider it important because I am planning to travel.’
• ‘If we manage to communicate well, we will not get lost in the world.’
• ‘I am planning to go abroad when I finish this school.’
• ‘It is useful when meeting some foreigners in our country.’
• ‘The language is primarily about speaking.’
• ‘It is both professional and personal advantage.’
• ‘English is spoken almost everywhere. I will have better chances to get a
good job.’
• ‘It is important for my future studies and my future job.’
64
• ‘To get a good job, one needs to be fluent in a foreign language.’
• ‘Most job interviews are in English nowadays because foreign companies
predominate the Czech labour market.’
• ‘I would end up at a job centre without this capacity.’
• ‘The fluent communication is important to pass the oral Maturita exam.’
Question 19 (open-ended question): I suppose that I would be able to communicate
better if _________.
More than a quarter of the students (31%) of the SSLC think that they would be
able to communicate better if they tried and studied harder and believe that it is mainly
themselves who can make some positive changes. Other 20% of students suppose that
they would improve their communication skills if they lived, spent some time, travelled
or studied in an English speaking country. As these students are aware of the
improbability to fulfil this condition as long as they study, they do not seem to believe
in a possibility of a speedy improvement of their communication skills. Other group of
students (18%) is persuaded that they would develop their communication skills if there
were more speaking practice at school and 9% of students think that they would
communicate better if they increased their vocabulary range. Besides these four most
frequent opinions, the students provided other various suggestions which all together
account for the remaining percentage of students’ views. Some of the most interesting
explanations are as follows:
• ‘If I spent more time learning English.’
• ‘If I learnt more vocabulary and was given more opportunities to speak.’
• ‘If I spent some time in English speaking countries.’
• ‘If everybody around me spoke English.’
• ‘If I communicated more with English speaking people.’
• ‘If we had more lessons of English at school.’
• ‘If our teacher of English spoke only in English with us and required the
same from us.’
• ‘If I did not practice English only at school.’
• ‘If we did more speaking at school and were offered interesting topics to
discuss.’
65
• ‘If there was more speaking and conversation from the beginning of our
studies.’
• ‘If I were better at learning foreign languages.’
2.4 The oral part of the State Maturita exam
For the purpose of the observation of the oral exam I chose three students of the
study programme Logistic and financial services of the 4.E. class. All these students
were taking the oral part of the State Maturita exam on the 29th of May 2013 in the
following order: Jakub K. at 13:20 PM, Svatava K. at 13:40 PM and Šárka K. at 14:00
PM. The students were chosen intentionally so as to observe the process of the oral
exam of the three different students who had been achieving worse, average and very
good results from the English language during their studies. I primarily wanted to
discover whether the difference between each student’s performance was significant or
not, after which I wanted to discover what where the most and least problematic parts of
the exam. I also aimed to find out whether the above mentioned students tended to make
the same or similar mistakes.
The second criterion for this choice of students was to choose those students
who had been attending the same class and who had been taught by the same teacher as
the potential different teaching styles might influence the students’ performance. These
criteria have been met and the students and their performances are described from worst
to best. In addition to that, the exact number of points that each student was given in
each part of the exam and their total sums are included. The chapter closes with final
notes and observation analysis which should help me discover what were the students᾿
weakest and strongest points (grammatical or lexical competence, keeping to the topic,
solving tasks individually and independently of examiner’s help etc.) and to get the idea
what to focus on when preparing contemporary and future students for this exam.
2.4.1 The observation of the oral part of the State Maturita exam
Jakub’s first task was to answer the examiner’s questions on the topic of Jobs.
He managed to keep to the topic and to use some good communication strategies as
asking the examiner to repeat the question or to explain the word he did not understand.
On the other hand, Jakub was not able to provide more detailed answers to the
66
examiner’s questions and his speech was not coherent. The examiner’s assistance was
thus necessary. Concerning the lexical competence, Jakub was not able to use more
sophisticated vocabulary on the topic of Jobs and persisted in using the very basic
expressions that rather responded to lower levels of the CEFR. He proved quite a good
lexical accuracy and his lexical errors were not on global level and did not prevent
understanding. Jakub performed very bad grammatical competence and the inability to
use the cohesive devices. He made some global errors13 that did not respond to B1 level
of the CEFR: ‘childrens’ or ‘If I am stay.’ The most frequent local errors were the
omission of both indefinite and definite articles and the word order problems and the
omission of the plural -s-: ‘I have there many friend_.’ Jakub was given five points out
of nine for the first part of the exam.14
The second task was to describe and compare the pictures on the topic of School.
Jakub managed to use the suitable phrases for the picture description well: ‘in the
foreground’, ‘in the background of the picture’, ‘we/you can see’, ‘there is/there are’
and the present continuous tense. It was evident that he was well prepared for this task.
His speech was quite well organized and he showed the ability to use some
communication strategies like self-correction. Jakub was worse in picture comparison as
instead of contrasting the pictures and highlighting the differences, he rather
enumerated what was in each of them. He performed sufficient and correct use of
vocabulary that corresponded with this topic, however he made one global mistake
when he confused ‘peoples’ and ‘people’. The grammatical competence and the use of
the cohesive devices were better in comparison to the previous task, nevertheless, there
were several local grammar errors, especially in the correct use of articles, and in the
limited choice of cohesive devices. Jakub was awarded eight points out of nine for this
part of the exam.15
Jakub was supposed to speak on his own on the topic of Health and diseases in
the third part of the exam. He had his speech well organized and prepared and presented
13 Global and local errors: common terminology used by certified assessors of written and oral exams
(CERMAT, 2009). ‘[…] local errors usually need not be corrected since the message is clear and
correction might interrupt a learner in the flow of productive communication. Global errors need to be
treated in some way since the message may otherwise remain garbled’ (Brown, 2000, p. 237). In other
words, global errors hinder communication: they prevent the hearer from comprehending some/all aspect
of the message. Local errors do not prevent the message from being heard. 14 Two points for the assignment/content and the speech, two points for the lexical competence and one
point for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices. 15 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices.
67
a good choice of vocabulary relating to the topic. The only problem in vocabulary was
that Jakub was not able to answer the examiner’s question to name some children’s
illnesses, which he was expected to manage. On the other hand, he made no global or
local vocabulary mistakes so there was no need to reduce any points for his lexical
competence. Concerning the grammatical competence and the use of the cohesive
devices, he kept omitting the articles and made two local mistakes in the use of
prepositions and used only the very basic cohesive devices. Moreover, he made one
global grammatical mistake when using gerund after a modal verb: ‘We shouldn’t
smoking.’ Thus the grammar was again the weakest part of his performance. He
obtained eight points out of nine for this part of the exam.16
In the last part of the exam, Jakub was supposed to agree on details of going for
a trip to an English speaking country with the examiner in the role of his friend. He was
then supposed to show the ability of giving suggestions, asking questions on the
examiner’s opinion and to introduce the vocabulary relating to the topics of Leisure time
and activities, Travelling and the Means of transport and Geography. Jakub did not
manage to play his role properly as he let the examiner take the active role and instead
of equal interaction Jakub only answered the examiner’s questions. As Jakub took the
passive role, he could not present his knowledge and the use of vocabulary on the given
topic but on the other hand, it probably helped him avoid lexical errors. He made some
local grammatical mistakes in articles, word order and in using one typical Czechism
‘I will have work’ instead of I will work or I will be working and one global mistake
when he omitted the infinitive after using would like: ‘I would like _ visit London.’ He
did not either introduce the cohesive devices reflecting the B1 level of the CEFR. He
was given seven points out of nine for this part of the exam.17
Jakub was given two points out of three for the phonological competence, which
is assessed at the end of the exam and comprises all four parts of the exam. Jakub’s
speech was mostly fluent and understandable. His pronunciation was mostly correct but
he made a few mistakes when confusing the word cheek in the parts of the human body
with the word chick or in the wrong pronunciation of free of charge [friː ɒv tʃeəːdʒ] that
together with some unnatural intonation and frequent hesitation in speech led to the
16 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices. 17 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, two points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices.
68
necessity of reducing one point for the phonology. Jakub got thirty points out of thirty-
nine in total for the oral part of the Maturita exam.
Svatava’s first task was to answer the examiner’s questions on the topic of
Technology and science and she managed this task very well. She was able to complete
the task in an expected extent as she developed her answers and used a wide range of
the cohesive devices and expressions of stating an opinion as ‘I think’, ‘I suppose’ or ‘In
my opinion’ etc. and expressions of agreement and affirmation like ‘definitely’ or
‘absolutely.’ She was also able to notice some mistakes she had made when speaking
and correct them immediately afterwards and as she dealt well with all five questions
she was asked, the assistance of the examiner was not necessary. Concerning the lexical
and the grammatical competence and the use of the cohesive devices, there were no
inaccuracies and the scope of her vocabulary, grammar and the cohesive devices was
adequate. She obtained the maximal number of points for this task.18
Svatava’s second task was to describe and then contrast the two pictures on the
topic of Family. Her description of the picture was fluent, logical and well organized.
She self-corrected most of her mistakes she had made. She managed to contrast the
picture A with the picture B instead of describing them. She also proved the ability to
develop her answers so the assistance of the examiner was not necessary. Concerning
the lexical competence, she presented very good vocabulary knowledge on the given
topic but made some local errors when using wrong words. She confused the words
shirt and skirt and instead of saying My favourite food she said ‘My favourite eat.’ The
use of the grammar and grammatical tenses and the cohesive devices was satisfactory
but rather limited, as she spoke only in present continuous and occasionally in present
simple and repeated the most common cohesive devices. Moreover, she made two
global mistakes when saying: ‘two young person’ instead of people and when skipping
the auxiliary verb to be in the following sentence in the present continuous: ‘People
who __ drinking.’ She also made some local mistakes, especially in the use of the
articles and in using some instead of the indefinite article so one point for the
grammatical competence and the cohesive devices had to be reduced. Svatava was
given eight points out of nine for this part of the exam.19
18 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and
three points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices. 19 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices.
69
Svatava was supposed to speak about The means of transport and various
reasons for travelling in the third part of the exam. This topic related closely to
Svatava’s field of study and she was prepared very well for this task. She presented very
good knowledge and the correct use vocabulary and her speech was fluent and well
organized. The examiner did not have to ask additional questions within the given time.
There were again problems with the grammatical accuracy; nevertheless, the choice of
the cohesive devices was satisfactory for the B1 level of the CEFR. Svatava made one
global error: ‘In winter we travelling too,’ and some local errors like the omission of the
articles and the omission of -to- after would like and want: ‘This year I would like _ visit
London,’ or ‘I want _ speak English very well.’ She obtained eight points out of nine for
this part of the exam.20
The last task was to agree with the examiner in the role of her English speaking
friend on how to spend one free afternoon. The student was thus expected to present the
knowledge of the vocabulary on the topic of Leisure time activities, to use the
appropriate grammatical tenses and the appropriate cohesive devices, as well as to show
the ability to use the communication strategies which are carefully examined in this part
of the exam. In addition to that, each examinee was expected to summarize what they
and the examiner had agreed on at the end of the dialogue. Svatava did not manage to
interact properly with the examiner as she remained rather passive for all the time, so
the assistance of the examiner was inevitable. She did not prove the ability to use the
communication strategies well either. She did not ask the examiner any questions and
did not manage to make any suggestions, so the dialogue turned to an interview with the
teacher asking questions and the student answering them, which is the task that is
already being examined in the first part of the exam. Besides that, she failed to
summarize what she and the examiner had agreed on. Concerning the lexical
competence, she was not able to introduce any interesting vocabulary relating to the
given topic. She kept on repeating one activity which was going to the café all the time
and the place where that café was situated and did not suggest any possible activities or
any more places that she was expected to. Concerning the lexical accuracy, she did not
make any serious vocabulary errors in this part of the exam. Svatava made one global
grammatical error when using the gerund after the modal verb: ‘I must listening __
music’ and several local errors: ‘Two hundred Czech crown_’ or some errors in the use
20 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices.
70
of prepositions. The choice of grammatical tenses and the cohesive devices were rather
limited due to her passivity. She was given seven points out of nine for this last task.21
Svatava was given two points out of three for the phonological competence as
her speech was mostly fluent and understandable. Her intonation was predominantly
correct but she made several typical pronunciation errors in the following words: skiing
[ˈskaɪːŋ], by tram [trʌm], comfortable [ˈkʌmfəteɪbl], by plane [plʌn] and café [ˈkefɪ].
Due to these mistakes one point had to be reduced for the phonological competence.
Svatava altogether gained thirty-four points out of thirty-nine for the oral part of the
Maturita exam.
Concerning Šárka’s performance in the oral part of the Maturita exam, she
confirmed to be one of the best students in her class as she did well in all four parts of the
exam and her speech was fluent, well organized and her pronunciation was correct. Her
first task was to answer the examiner’s questions on the topic of Education. She managed
to develop all answers to the questions the examiner had asked her, she introduced a wide
range of vocabulary and showed her competence to use the grammar and the cohesive
devices well. She was given nine points of nine for this part of the exam.22
In the second part of the exam, Šárka was supposed to describe and then contrast
the two pictures on the topic of Holidays. She managed this task very well. When
contrasting the two pictures, she highlighted the differences instead of describing each
picture separately, her speech was logical, well organized and the assistance of the
examiner was not necessary. Her knowledge of vocabulary was in accordance with the
B1 level of the CEFR. Her grammatical competence and the use of the cohesive devices
were satisfactory but she made two global mistakes when using wrong auxiliary verb in
the following sentence: ‘People is smiling’ which she repeated three times and her
answer to the question: ‘What is the most interesting place you’ve ever visited?’,
prevented understanding what she had been intending to say: ‘It’s the same feeling when
I ever met.’ She was thus reduced one point and was given eight points out of nine for
this part of the exam.23
Šárka’s third task was to speak on her own on the topic of Daily routine, and she
managed this task very well. She was fluent and mostly correct in the use of grammar
21 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, two points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices. 22 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and
three points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices. 23 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices.
71
and vocabulary and she was able to use the rich vocabulary and grammar scope and
appropriate cohesive devices. Moreover, she showed her ability to use communication
strategies as asking the examiner politely to repeat her question or explain the meaning
of the word she did not understand: ‘Could you repeat your question, please’, ‘Sorry,
but I don’t know what the household chores is.’ Despite the wrong use of the singular
verb is instead of the plural are, her effort to understand the key word chores to be able
to answer the question and to keep the conversation going is worth praising as many
students remain speechless when they don’t understand the question and wait for the
examiner’s help. There was thus no need of the assistance of the examiner in Šárka’s
case. Concerning the vocabulary mistakes, she made one local mistake when confusing
the word roll for roller when talking about her usual breakfast and concerning the
grammar mistakes, she made some local mistakes in the use of the articles and the
prepositions and one global mistake when putting homework to plural. Šárka got eight
points of nine for this part of the exam.24
The last task of the exam was to agree on details with the examiner in the role of
her friend about Šárka’s aunt’s birthday party which covered the topics of Leisure time
and activities and Shopping and services. Šárka’s performance was much better than
Jakub and Svatava’s as she was the real equal partner of the examiner in their
interaction. She used the communication strategies very well, she often asked the
examiner questions: ‘Can you help me, please?’, expressed her agreement or
disagreement: ‘I don’t think it’s good!‘, suggested solutions: ‘I would like to think about
something on my own.’, took time for formulating her ideas so the dialogue was very
natural. Šárka also managed to summarize what she and the examiner had agreed on at
the end of the dialogue. The use of the vocabulary, grammar and the cohesive devices
was in accordance with the B1 level of the CEFR but she was again reduced one point
for the grammatical competence as she made some local mistakes in the use of the
personal pronouns and the articles and in the omission of the auxiliary verb have in:
‘I ___ never organized a party.’ Plus, she made one global mistake when skipping the
final letter –s– in present simple of the third person singular: ‘She like_.’ She was thus
given eight points out of nine for this part of the exam.25
24 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices. 25 Three points for the assignment/content and the speech, three points for the lexical competence and two
points for the grammatical competence and the cohesive devices.
72
Šárka was awarded the maximal number of three points for her phonological
competence as her speech was fluent, her intonation was natural and she made almost
no pronunciation mistakes. The only words that she pronounced incorrectly were
atmosphere which she pronounced [ˈætməsˌfer] and the word wax which she
pronounced as [wɒks]. Šárka’s final result for the whole oral exam was excellent as she
obtained thirty-six points out of thirty nine.
All the students observed succeeded in the oral part of the State Maturita exam
and achieved quite good results. However, the total difference in points between the
worst and the best student was not as big as it was only six points, the difference between
each student’s performance was obvious.26 The difference was, on one hand, evident due
to the different level of English of each student observed and due to the each student’s
capacity to solve the tasks individually, on the other. As the weakest student kept losing
points for everything that is being evaluated, i.e., for his speech when accomplishing the
assignments, for his lexical and grammatical competence and for the use of cohesive
devices, the other two students lost most of their points only for their grammatical
competence and the use of cohesive devices which were, in general, the two skills the
students were the worst at. Concerning the students’ capacity to solve tasks individually,
it was easy to notice that while Jakub was not able to develop his answers to the
examiner’s questions, repeated what he had prepared at home in the second and the third
part of the exam (which test the spoken production) instead of speaking naturally and
instead of spotting the differences in the second task, he rather described each picture
separately, fought with the lack of vocabulary and remained passive all through the
exam, Svatava managed to develop her answers, use more convenient and more
advanced vocabulary, but still had some problems in interaction with the examiner and
needed her occasional assistance. Šárka proved her capacity of an independent
communication, developing all her answers, fulfilling the tasks (i.e., spotting the
differences instead of describing them), and was the equal partner to the examiner during
her exam. Besides that, her speech was more ‘relaxed’ and natural in comparison to
Jakub and Svatava which was undoubtedly caused by her higher level of English.
Concerning the particular tasks, it was interesting to observe that all students
obtained the same number of points (8) in the second and the third tasks which allow
students to get prepared for them in advance as they test students’ spoken production.
26 Jakub K. 30 points and Šárka K. 36 points
73
On the other hand, the improvised dialogue with the examiner seemed to be the most
problematic task of all as it was very difficult for both Jakub and Svatava to manage.
Besides that, Jakub was having troubles when fulfilling the first task where he was
supposed to answer the examiner’s questions on the given topic. Both, the first and the
fourth tasks focus on the spoken interaction which appears to be rather difficult and
stressful for less advanced students and more complicated than the spoken production
for which they can get prepared for. To find out whether my assumption is correct,
I asked twelve former students of the SSLC for a short interview in which they were
asked questions about their experience with the oral part of the Maturita exam. The
interview analysis is presented in the following subchapter.
2.4.2 The results of the interview about the oral part of the State
Maturita exam
The interview contained three short half-structured questions and two unstructured
questions. I interviewed all students in Olomouc on the 6th of October 2013. All these
students are former students of the SSLC and took their leaving exam either in 2011, 2012
or 2013. I tried to choose a heterogeneous group of students with good, average and
below-average results from English during their studies to avoid one-sided opinion on the
oral part of the Maturita exam (see the list of Interview Questions in Appendix 13).
The first question I asked my students was whether it was rather easy or difficult
for them to pass the oral part of Maturita exam and why. Seven students out of twelve
agreed that it was rather easy for them and these are some of their claims:
• ‘I was looking forward for the oral exam as I was prepared for this exam
quite well and I knew what to expect so it was rather easy for me to pass the
exam.’ (Simona Č., 4.F. class, took exam in May 2013)
• ‘It was easy because I chose the easiest topic ‘My dream world’ and I was
prepared well for the exam.’ (Filip H., 4.EB, May 2011)
• ‘It was easy because I can communicate in English well so I neither have
problems to understand the examiner nor to answer her questions.’ (Šárka
K., 4E, May 2013).
• ‘It was easy – the topics of the oral exam were easy.’ (Barbora V., 4E, May
2012).
• ‘It was easy. Speaking is easy for me.’ (Gabriela V., 4EB, May 2011).
74
The other students considered it rather difficult or were afraid of the exam before
taking it but were surprised to find the exam easier than they expected in the end. The
following comments illustrate their views:
• ‘English was the most difficult subject of all for me but I would not definitely
say that the exam was difficult. The oral exam has the advantage of speaking
about anything and thus ‘saving’ your result and succeed which is not
possible when taking the written exam.’ (Michaela D., 4EB, May 2011).
• ‘The preparation for the exam was very difficult as it is not easy to learn 25
topics. I personally was very lucky to choose the topic of the USA and
Canada as English speaking countries were the only topics I had a good
knowledge of. The exam was, in this case, easy for me.’ (Lucie N., 4EB, May
2011).
• ‘It was rather difficult for me.’ (Julie Č., 4EB, September 2011).
The second question I asked my students was whether they were satisfied with
the result from the oral part of Maturita exam and whether it helped them improve their
final mark from English or vice versa. The majority of respondents agreed that they
were satisfied with their result and that it helped them improve their final mark from
English. Two students disagreed. The following comments represent some of their
opinions:
• ‘I was very satisfied with the result.’ (Simona Č., 4F, May 2013).
• ‘I was astonished with the result of the oral part of the exam as I did not
expect it to be so good. It definitely helped me improve my overall result
from English.’ (Svatava K., 4E, May 2013).
• ‘I was satisfied. It helped me improve my final mark.‘ (Gabriela V., 4EB,
May 2011 and Aneta Z., 4P, May 2011).
• ‘It could be better, but I am glad that I’ve passed it. It definitely did not help
me improve my final mark from English.’ (Michaela D., 4EB, May 2011).
• ‘The oral part of the exam did not help me improve my final mark from
English as I chose the topic of health and diseases and were not prepared
well. The writing saved my final result.’ (František K., 4.EB, May 2011)
75
Even though students were afraid of the Maturita exam both in 2011 and 2013
(see Question 7 in the questionnaire, page 52), these worries were in great number
pointless. The majority of students confirmed that it was not difficult to pass the oral
part of the Maturita exam and that it even improved their final mark in English.
The aim of Interview Question 3 (Appendix 13) was to find out which part of
oral exam was the most difficult for the students and which one was the easiest.
I wanted to find out whether they would reach an agreement and find one part more
difficult than others, or one part very easy in comparison to other parts. I also wanted to
find out what students perceived more difficult whether the spoken production which is
tested in tasks #2 (the picture description) and #3 (spoken production on chosen topic)
or spoken interaction which is tested in tasks #1 (short interview with the examiner) and
#4 (dialogue with the examiner on chosen topic). The results are as follows: The
interviewed students found spoken production more difficult than spoken interaction.
Five students found the task three where students are supposed to speak on their own on
chosen topic the most difficult one. Three students found the fourth task, the improvised
dialogue with the examiner, to be the most difficult one. Two students found the picture
description the most difficult one, one student found the first task, the interview with the
examiner the most difficult task and for one student all four tasks were easy. The
spoken production was thus found slightly more difficult for students (7:4) than spoken
interaction. The students who found tasks #3 and #2 more difficult were usually type of
people who are communicative, enjoy improvisation and do not enjoy learning by heart.
On the other hand, some students, usually the quitter and more introvert ones, found the
improvised dialogue with the examiner very stressful and difficult. Some of the
opinions are as follows:
• ‘The worst part for me was speaking on the topic of health and diseases. The
rest was easy peasy.’ (František K., 4EB, May 2011).
• ‘The third part of the exam was definitely the most difficult part for me. My
topic was easy but as I was stressed I haven’t employed more of my fantasy.’
(Šárka K., 4E, May 2013).
• ‘The second part – the picture was difficult. I did not know the vocabulary
necessary for picture description.’ (Gabriela V. 4EB, May 2011).
• ‘The last part was most difficult for me as I was supposed to react to newly
emerged situation.’ (Eva P. 4P, May 2011).
76
• ‘The third part of the exam was the most difficult part for me. It was not easy
to speak for five minutes and I made mistakes because I was stressed.’
(Barbora V. 4E, May 2012).
• ‘The most difficult part was definitely the fourth part – the communication
with the examiner.’ (Lucie N. 4EB, May 2011).
Concerning the task that students perceived as easier or easiest, six students
agreed that the second task – the picture description was the easiest one, followed by
task number one – the short interview on given topic with the examiner. Task number
two was preferred by students who feel more confident if they are given some time to
prepare for the task and may make use of vocabulary that they have revised and
prepared for the exam. The short interview or the dialogue with the examiner were
preferred by students who are communicative, rather extrovert and enjoy playing with
the language and interaction with a partner. The following examples illustrate these
points:
• ‘The easiest part for me was the picture description and picture comparison
as one might prepare for this task very well.’ (Julie Č., 4. EB, September
2011, Eva P., 4. P., May 2011).
• ‘The easiest part for me was the picture description as I can speak about
anything that I can see.’ (Michaela D., 4. EB, May 2011).
• ‘The first part was the easiest one.’ (Barbora V., 4. E, May 2012).
• ‘The easiest part for me was the last one, the dialogue with the examiner.
I have always liked this part. The improvised communication is fun.’ (Šárka
K., 4. E, May 2013).
The answers to this question show that it is not possible to say whether spoken
production or spoken interaction is more difficult for students. The answers, however,
confirmed my expectation that more advanced and more communicative students were
in general satisfied with spoken interaction where they can employ their fantasy, have
fun and which does not require much revision while less advanced students preferred
the spoken production, especially task number two, the picture description, for which
they can get prepared for in advance. As each student is different, teachers should find
out what kind of study types attend their classes and adapt their teaching to students᾿
77
needs. One way to find it out is a short survey, either a questionnaire or a short
interview and the second way is to observe students and make notes about them which
is a common practise for most teachers. I would then recommend focusing on the least
favourite part of speaking of each student. The introverted students need to be
encouraged to speak, to develop their self-confidence and to remove their fear of
speaking. The talkative kind of students could concentrate on activities like picture
description or giving oral presentation on any Maturita exam topic and thus be
encouraged to prepare and study the topic in advance and pay more attention to it.
Interview Question 4 (Appendix 13) inquired what the respondents would
recommend to students who are going to take the Maturita exam in the nearest future.
Seven respondents out of twelve agreed that they would recommend them to be
prepared well and not to underestimate the preparation for the exam. Some of them
further added that the exam is not as easy as it seems to be, that they would recommend
them to learn the most common vocabulary, phrases and collocations and that it is
necessary to keep on talking even if they chose the bad topic. The remaining five
students expressed the following recommendations:
• ‘Not to sleep during lessons and pay attention and that will do!’ (Filip H., 4.
EB, May 2011).
• ‘If they do not enjoy English at school, I would recommend them to look for
some other more pleasant ways to study English such as watching films in
English with Czech subtitles, looking for Czech translation of lyrics of their
favourite songs or playing games etc.’ (František K., 4. EB, May 2011).
• ‘Based on my own experience, I would recommend them to look for some
way how to improve their basics of English if they did not learn them at
elementary school.’ (Šárka K., 4. E, May 2013).
• ‘I would recommend to students to keep on preparing for the exam for all
three years by using English intensively because the Maturita exam is not
about what we learnt two or three weeks before the exam but it is rather
about how we can use English and how we can communicate in every-day
life.’ (Barbora V., 4. E, May 2012).
• ‘To find some English speaking people to talk with to practise their
knowledge and their ‘ear’ for English and not to underestimate seemingly
easy topics like ‘My family’ etc. These topics might be the most dangerous
78
ones as students soon exhaust their ideas and realize that they do not know
how to continue.’ (Gabriela V., 4. EB, May 2011).
The last interview question asked students to add any final notes concerning the
oral part of State Maturita exam, their personal feelings, observations or critique. Six
respondents agreed that they were very nervous and frightened before the exam, one of
them said that she was nearly ‘collapsing’ before choosing the topic but then the
situation calmed down and that they enjoyed taking the exam in the end. Three students
also added that the examiners were helping them which was very useful, and one
student said that she discovered many interesting things about the English speaking
world. Four students did not add any comment and the remaining two commented upon
it as follows:
• ‘The only thing that crosses my mind is that it was better to take the Maturita
exam in September as I already knew what to expect and it was thus less
stressful than taking it in May.’ (Julie Č., 4. EB, September 2011).
• ‘Nobody knew what the exam will be like so it was kind of weird and
impossible to be prepared precisely.’ (Eva P., 4. P, September 2011).
These two comments were made by girls who took the State Maturita exam
when it was launched for the first time in 2011 and both failed their first attempt. These
concerns have gradually disappeared throughout the consecutive years. The percentage
of students who believed to be prepared well for all parts of the State Maturita exam
climbed from 75% in 2011 to 91% in 2013 which is a considerable high number (see
Question 5 in the questionnaire, page 50). Any of the students, who took the exam in
2012 or 2013, did not express any negative comment to my last question. The positive
thing is that the worries of the students about what will the exam be like are gradually
diminishing owing to better knowledge about the exam, which helps students to get
prepared more effectively than in the previous years. The improvement of the exam
results is evident on the chart that presents the overall State Maturita exam results from
years 2011, 2012 and 2013. More is discussed in the following subchapter.
79
2.5 The overall State Maturita exam results from 2011, 2012
and 2013
Table 1 presents the oral exam results from May and September 2011, 2012 and
2013 (Szturcová, 2014).
Tab. 1 Results of oral exams (both regular and resit) in the years 2011‒2013. ‘# of
students’ stands for the total number of students taking the English Maturita exam.
Figures in brackets are per cent equivalents of the preceding ones. (The resit exam
percentage is in relation to the number of students who have failed the exam).
Year Term # of
students
Grade
1 2 3 4 5
2011 regular 56 ( 58%) 7 (13%) 7 (13%) 10 (18%) 15 (26%) 17 (30%)
retake 17 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 2 (12%) 4 (23%) 11 (65%) 0 ( 0%)
2012 regular 30 ( 38%) 5 (17%) 3 (10%) 8 (26%) 12 (40%) 2 ( 7%)
retake 2 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (50%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (50%)
2013 regular 57 ( 75%) 9 (16%) 7 (12%) 13 (23%) 20 (35%) 8 (14%)
retake 8 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 (25%) 5 (63%) 1 (12%)
The students achieved their worst results in May 2011, when 17 students failed
the oral part of the Maturita exam, which represented 30% of students. The smallest
number of the students who failed the oral part of the exam was recorded in 2012, when
only two students did not manage to pass the exam successfully. On the other hand, in
2012, only 30 students (38%) chose to take the optional exam in English and took it in
math instead, so the low number of failures is influenced by this fact. On the contrary,
in 2013, 75% students decided to take their optional exam in English and 8 students out
of 57 failed the oral part of the Maturita exam which comprised 14%. As there was the
same number of students taking the Maturita exam in English in 2011 and 2013, the
numbers confirm that students improved their performance at the oral level and
managed to achieve better results.
When comparing the three parts of the exam (the oral part, didactic test and
writing exam), the students achieved their best results in the writing exam in all three
years, whilst they achieved their second best results in the didactic test. The worst
results were achieved at the oral exam, with the highest number of failures in 2011 and
2013 (see the complete overview of student’s results from all parts of the exam in
Appendix 14). It was surprising to find out that students mostly failed the oral part of
80
the exam, as I supposed that the didactic test would be more difficult for them (having
in mind that, besides the reading part, it contains a listening part as well, which students
considered the most difficult to develop and to understand) (see Question 12 in the
questionnaire, page 57). I would also like to return back to questions number 5, 6 and 7
in the questionnaire, which discussed whether enough time to focus on the important
skills that are necessary for passing the State Maturita exam is devoted at English and
English seminar lessons (see Question 5 in the questionnaire, page 50), whether the
number of English and English seminar lessons are sufficient or not (see Question 6 in
the questionnaire, page 51) and whether students trust themselves to pass the Maturita
exam (see Question 7 in the questionnaire, page 52). Concerning Question 5, students in
both years 2011 and 2013 agreed with the statement that enough time is spent on
focusing on important Maturita skills. I would, nevertheless, question this opinion and
recommend to devote more time to speaking in the lessons of English and English
seminar at the SSLC, as the results of the Maturita exams show that speaking causes
most difficulties to students and that there are still many students who manage to do the
reading, listening or writing, but are unable to communicate with the examiner on the
required B1 level.
The students of the SSLC then agreed that the number of English lessons and
English seminar lessons are sufficient for them. I would partially agree with this claim,
provided they were willing to work harder at home in order to practise types of exercises
that can be easily done at home (like reading and grammar exercises) and to learn
important vocabulary. I would then recommend focusing more on speaking and listening
activities at school, mainly in English seminar lessons. The students᾿ concern of not
succeeding at the Maturita exam was partially justified, especially in 2011, when 30% of
students really failed the exam and 41% stated in the questionnaire that they were afraid
of failing it, which almost corresponded with the real number. This statement was less
justified in 2012 and 2013, when there were much smaller percentage of failures in
comparison to the statements in the questionnaire, and when the real results were not as
terrifying as the students expected. Students thus do not have to be afraid of not
succeeding in the exam if they work constantly throughout their studies at school, as well
as if they participate on building up their linguistic skills.
81
2.6 Final summary
In order to receive trustworthy information whether English and the skill of
fluent communication is significant for the students of the Secondary School of
Logistics and Chemistry, including their individual way of groundwork for the State
Maturita exam, as well as about improving their language skills and about their
favourite English language activities, a quantitative questionnaire method was used. The
abovementioned method enabled me to receive a solid number of replies for analysis.
The questionnaire contained eight close-ended, two half-open and nine open-ended
questions, and was distributed to students of the third and fourth years in order to get the
opportunity of comparison of the answers and see whether the answers tend to repeat or
differ. The number of respondents in 2011 and 2013 was 173 students.
On overall, the respondents reported that the English language as a subject was
interesting, with a majority considering it to be an important asset for their future
careers. However, the majority also found the subject to be ‘rather difficult’. The vast
majority also stated that enough time is focused on what they consider to be relevant
information and skills during the lessons, as well as that the teaching load (per week)
was sufficient. The most diverse answers were found after the question of whether the
students consider themselves to pass the Maturita exam successfully.
Of the skills the students considered to be the most difficult to develop, a strong
majority voted for speaking and listening (around 80‒90%), due to what they consider
those two elements to be important enough to be practised more often. This was to be
expected, having in mind that it was deemed important to be able to communicate
fluently in English for 98% of students of the SSLC.
The oral exam was analysed by use of three students, all of which achieved good
results, with a difference seen in their personal English competence on an individual
basis. The method of interview was applied in order to get information whether the
chosen sample of 12 students managed to succeed at the oral part of the Maturita exam,
as well as to find out their strongest and weakest points and overall opinion on this
exam. In short, more advanced and more communicative students were more satisfied
with their own spoken interaction, having in mind that they could use their imagination,
have fun and not concentrate on revision, whilst less advanced students preferred
spoken production. All of this was conducted in order to get information about what
teachers should devote their focus on while teaching English.
82
3 Conclusions
The aim of the whole research was to obtain and process answers of the students
of the Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry in Olomouc to several questions
relating to the subject of English language and the skill of speaking in English. The
research focused on English and the English seminar taught at school, the State
Maturita exam and the use of English in students’ future personal and professional life.
I initially tried to find out whether the students of the SSLC possess positive feelings
towards English as a subject and enjoy studying it at school, how they prepare for this
subject and whether they are satisfied with the way they are being taught and prepared
for the Maturita exam at school. Then I focused on the research of the concrete skill of
speaking in English that I realized by asking some questions about the skill of speaking
in the questionnaire, by observing students at the oral part of the Maturita exam and by
interviewing the selected sample of students after they have taken their Maturita exam.
As the whole research focused on the concrete case (the Secondary School of Logistics
and Chemistry and its students), I mainly aimed to explore what these students (or
students who attend similar type of school) miss during the lessons of English or the
English seminar the most, and whether it is possible for English teachers to take some
steps in order to help students achieve better results both in English and the Maturita
exam, but also to expose students to speaking with a stronger intensity, so as to enable
them to use English actively even after they have left school. The findings and the
recommendations are listed in the following paragraphs.
The fact that the majority of students of the SSLC consider English as a subject
interesting and important for their future life is favourable for the teachers of English at
this school, because students should thus be willing to pay attention, cooperate with the
teachers and their classmates and work on improving their current knowledge. The
teachers should therefore try to make lessons as interesting as possible for the students
to keep them motivated and to enable them to enjoy the lessons. The lessons should be
well planned and prepared and the students should be acquainted with the general plan
of lessons for the school year or for the term to see what they are going to learn. They
should also be informed about their duties and rules they are supposed to follow. To
improve the teacher versus students’ cooperation, the teacher might offer students some
help such as consulting hours, create a shared mailbox for the class to put extra sources
83
and materials and most current information if there exists no e-learning support at
school. The teachers might also ask students to evaluate some activities they have been
doing or to suggest some tasks or activities they would like to do. Next, the teacher
should offer students diverse activities to improve both receptive and productive skills.
The frontal way of teaching should not prevail when teaching speaking as there are so
many possibilities how to alter it. The students might work in pairs, small groups,
bigger groups and some kinaesthetic elements should be added at least once in a week
to keep the students more active. The teacher should not avoid playing games,
competing or singing songs, watching short movies or presentations which were found
popular for most of the students.
As majority of students found the subjects of English and English seminar
difficult, some steps should be made to change that. To help our teenagers overcome or
reduce their fear of English and to achieve a more optimal state with having fewer
students considering English and English seminar difficult, teachers should strive to
offer more flexible, democratic and inclusive approaches as well as ordered, organised
and unthreatening environment (Scrivener, 2005, p. 330). When starting with a new
class, I would recommend asking students to fill in the questionnaire, ideally at the
beginning of the school year, to find out more about students’ expectations, interests
and needs and if possible adjust the lesson plans to concrete findings. The next possible
step is to find out what type of learning style (visual, auditory or kinaesthetic) prevails
in the group by giving students a learning style questionnaire and subsequently think of
possible changes or adaptations that would better satisfy their needs. It would also be
advisable to find out the approximate level of English of each student in the group
through the means of a written test and an interview to discover how heterogeneous the
class is, as well as to reflect on strategies how to involve all students in learning.
During the school year, the teacher should try to get regular feedback from
students, either by short questionnaires or by frequent dialogues with students. Another
option how to get immediate feedback is observing students during lessons and noticing
how they work, participate and how they enjoy the lesson or asking students to
summarize what they have learnt at the end of the lesson, testing them regularly or
keeping a reflective teaching diary. These steps help to get to know students quite well
and to get ideas what might be done for them.
To make lessons less difficult for students and to reduce their individual anxiety,
the class can be divided into several smaller groups that would work independently on
84
agreed tasks (Scrivener, 2005, p. 330). If there is a significant difference between the
language levels of the students, it would be useful to think about some extra activities
for more advanced students while working with the weaker ones, or to think about how
one task could be fulfilled differently according to the students’ abilities. When reading
or reviewing an article, a teacher could, for example, ask more difficult questions and
require more complex answers from more advanced students and expect simpler and
shorter answers from the less advanced ones. The same techniques could be used in
writing lessons. When practising listening, the teacher can think of some extra optional
questions for more advanced students while demanding answers for basic questions on
less advanced ones. The strategy of peer teaching from time to time when better
students help the weaker ones could also be of worth to try. Students work in pairs or in
groups and better students explain things or provide good models of language
performance in speaking and writing (Harmer, 2007, p. 128).
The next useful step is to ‘raise students’ awareness about how they are learning,
and as a result, help them to find more effective way of working, so that they can
continue working usefully, even when away from the classroom’ (Scrivener, 2005,
p. 77). According to Scrivener (2005) this help should include ‘both working on study
skills (such as using dictionaries, notebooks, workbooks etc.) but also student
examination of the process of learning and reflection on what is happening, e.g., of
teaching strategies that the teacher is using and the reasons for using them’ (Scrivener,
2005, p. 77).
In conclusion, I would like to add two more suggestions. To make English less
difficult for students, the teacher should set and check homework regularly to ensure
that students spend some time practising English at home. Homework should not be too
lengthy and too difficult in order not to discourage students but rather interesting and
manageable for all students in the class. The teacher might offer some project work on
useful topics that would involve research methods that students will find both
interesting and challenging such as preparing a report on a live topic that interests the
students (Scrivener, 2005, p. 332) or finding, processing, comparing and presenting
information about political systems, systems of education, world cuisines and recipes,
fashion, feasts and celebrations and other Maturita exam topics.
The last proposed recommendation is to think about the way of students’
assessment and some possible changes that could be done in favour of students. To
increase the students’ chances of success in written tests, the tests should never contain
85
only one type of exercise (for example Czech to English sentence translation), which
might be very difficult for some students to deal with and might result in students’
failure. The tests should mainly include various exercises, ideally testing both receptive
and productive skills, like reading or listening comprehension, grammar and vocabulary
exercises and some short writing production which can be done in a short and simple
form of answers to the questions or expressing agreement or disagreement etc. These
tests do not have to be long and do not always have to include all the examples
proposed. The teachers might, for example, prepare four short exercises to test listening,
grammar, vocabulary and writing in short form. If only one skill, for instance writing, is
being tested, the test can again include two or three tasks of various difficulties.
Students are thus given chance to manage at least some of the exercises and get a better
mark. When testing speaking, I would recommend avoiding examining students from
translation of sentences or translation of vocabulary as it is more relevant to teach
students to be able to talk about things, to express their thoughts and opinions and to
teach them to communicate and some important communication strategies. To fulfil this
task, speaking should be tested regularly, and teachers should test both speaking
production and interaction. Teachers can also make this testing less stressful for
students by testing them in pairs or smaller groups or by testing them at their desks
without the necessity of performing speaking in front of the whole class and require less
difficult tasks from younger students and more difficult tasks from older ones.
In order to boost students’ confidence in passing the State Maturita exam,
I would recommend teachers to start giving their students adequate information about
all parts of the written and the oral exam from the first year of their studies. Students
should be informed about each part of the exam separately, ideally at the lesson when
the given skill is being practised. Students should also be familiarised with the oral
examination assessment criteria as well as the writing exam assessment criteria and
taught the useful strategies for both speaking and writing production during the course
of their studies. This can be done with the support of the convenient textbooks like
Maturita Solutions (Falla and Davies, 2007) or Maturita Activator (Hastings et al.,
2009) or other accessible textbooks that focus on this exam.
As students considered speaking and listening to be most difficult skills to
develop (and agreed that these two skills should be practised more in the lessons of
English and the English seminar), I would recommend to focus on these two skills as
much as possible. Especially, in the English seminars speaking and listening should
86
prevail as other skills, necessary for the Maturita exam (like writing production and
reading) are suitable type of activities that can be done individually at home. Moreover,
speaking and listening can be easily combined. Any speaking interaction requires
listening as well or teachers could think of some interesting speaking activity
(discussion, summary, guessing what the speaker is going to say etc.) that would follow
the listening.
Due to the fact that great majority of students consider it important to be able to
communicate fluently in English and believe that good knowledge of English is
essential for their future life, the teachers should give preference to those speaking
activities that would simulate the real-life situations which are mainly: role-plays, the
dialogues, debates, discussions, presentations, giving directions or giving descriptions
that offer students a chance to try out real language use with little or no restriction and
facilitate them transferring language acquisition and study into language use in the real
world (Harmer, 1998, p. 26).
It was interesting to find out that many students like communicating and
working with their partner or partners, the majority of them also claimed that they enjoy
doing more spoken interaction than spoken production activities. It was, however, at the
same time surprising to find out that their home preparation for the Maturita exam
predominantly consists only in reading the Maturita exam topics and learning the
vocabulary. I thus see it important to ‘push’ students to change the way they work at
home. The teachers can influence that by giving them more tasks or homework that
require cooperation such as presentations, preparing discussion questions to Maturita
topics or team projects like searching and preparing suitable study materials which is
most appropriate for the third task of the Maturita exam. For the topic of Canada, one
team can, for example, elaborate information about its history, another team can
elaborate information about its geography etc.
Concerning the findings and recommendations based on the observation of
students during the oral part of the Maturita exam, all observed students passed the
exam with quite good results. However, I observed some problems that could possibly
be prevented. Two of three students had problems when it came to spoken interaction in
first and fourth task of the exam. The examiner took the more dominant role in the
dialogue and students remained rather passive and their points for these tasks were
reduced. Students should thus be more encouraged to enjoy the communication with the
examiner or anybody else and reduce their fear of it. The common every day
87
communication should become a natural thing for them. The very good solution would
be a native-speaking English teacher who would train students in that but as this is not
often possible, the teachers should take his role and speak in English with students as
much as possible and use Czech only in necessary situations. Also, when speaking is
not the aim of the lesson, the teacher should at least include one speaking activity into
the lesson plan, that can, for example, be a short dialogue as a warm-up activity.
The other shortage of the observed students were problems with grammar and
cohesive devices. To improve students’ grammar is not an easy and even realizable task
and the tested level B1 does not even require the perfect knowledge of grammar, but
teachers should still focus on that. They might, for example, take notes about students’
mistakes when speaking and giving them regular feedbacks and after some grammar has
been exposed, they should encourage students to use new structures in their speaking.
The students should not be forced to do that in order to keep their speaking sound
natural. Concerning the cohesive devices, they can be initially exposed to students
within practising writing when students have more time to think about them and use
them when linking words, sentences or paragraphs and then encouraged to use some of
them when speaking.
Concerning the most important findings from the interview in which students
were asked to evaluate their oral Maturita exam, the most of the respondents found the
exam less difficult than they originally expected, they were, in general, satisfied with
their results, which in most of the cases helped them improve their final mark in
English. They did not definitely agree on which type of tasks was more difficult for
them (whether spoken production or spoken interaction activities), which in my opinion,
largely depends on each student’s personality, as more communicative students
preferred spoken interaction and vice versa. When students were asked to recommend
something to students who are going to take the oral exam in the nearest future, most of
them considered the thorough preparation for the exam to be the most important thing to
do. The students also added that they were very nervous and afraid of the exam but the
exam was not as tough as they expected and enjoyed it in the end. On the basis of these
findings, I would recommend teachers to work on preparing students for all parts of the
exam evenly to know what is expected from them and not to be unpleasantly surprised
by anything. The students should be informed about the time for preparation and time
for each task, taught some useful strategies to help them succeed and introduced to the
assessment criteria.
88
In conclusion, I would like to say that the research has enriched me about much
useful information about the opinions, wishes and needs of the students of the
Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry and mostly confirmed what I expected
before I started the research. The received information confirmed my original
expectations that the students of the SSLC enjoy learning English and doing speaking
activities, they consider the skill of fluent communication in English very important. On
the other hand, at the same time, they tend to find English to be a difficult subject. The
only thing that did not correspond with my expectation was the fact that most students
found the number of English lessons and the English seminar sufficient.
It was significant for me to find out that students would definitely welcome more
speaking practise as they are convinced of its importance for their future lives and that
they really miss this practise at school. The students, in my opinion, clearly stated, what
they miss in the lessons of English the most and I suppose that this not an impossible
thing to change. It depends, to a certain extent, on each teacher’s will to make some
changes and his skills to teach speaking which is certainly a demanding task. I
personally regard the information I got to be a valuable message, and therefore plan to
adapt my lessons to suit better to my student’s needs.
89
References
ALTE - Association of Language Testers in Europe (2014). The European Language
Portfolio: Support and Development for Language Learners. Retrieved from
http://www.alte.org/setting_standards/portfolio
Beare, K. (2014a). Study Skills for Beginners. Retrieved from
http://esl.about.com/od/intermediateenglish/a/i_studyskills.htm
Beare, K. (2014b). Study Skills for Intermediate Level Learners. Retrieved from
http://esl.about.com/od/intermediateenglish/a/i_studyskills.htm
Bonin, P. & Fayol, M. (2002). Frequency effects in the written and spoken production
of homophonic picture names. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(3),
289‒313.
Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains,
NY : Pearson Education. 4th ed.
CERMAT - Centrum pro zjišťování výsledků vzdělávání (2008). Katalog požadavků a
zkoušek společné části maturitní zkoušky: Anglický jazyk – základní úroveň
obtížnosti. Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy. Retrieved from
http://www.novamaturita.cz/index.php?id_document=1404033301&at=1
CERMAT - Centrum pro zjišťování výsledků vzdělávání (2009). Příklady a návrhy
korektorských značek pro písemnou práci – AJ. Retrieved from
http://skolajecna.cz/soss/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/CISKOM_3_2_2_1_P19_
Korektorske_znacky.pdf
CERMAT - Centrum pro zjišťování výsledků vzdělávání (2010a). Cizí jazyk - kritéria
hodnocení ústní zkoušky. Příloha č. 6 ke sdělení Ministerstva školství, mládeže a
tělovýchovy Č. j.: MSMT-7620/2014-1. Retrieved from
http://www.novamaturita.cz/index.php?id_document=1404036912&at=1
CERMAT - Centrum pro zjišťování výsledků vzdělávání (2010b). Didaktický test.
Retrieved from http://www.novamaturita.cz/didakticky-test-1404033216.html
90
COE - Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf
COE - Council of Europe (2014). Education and Languages, Language Policy.
Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp
ELP - European Language Portfolio (2014). Retrieved from http://ejp.rvp.cz/
Falla, T. & Davies, P.A. (2007). Maturita Solutions: Pre-Intermediate Student’s Book.
Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Falla, T. & Davies, P.A. (2008). Maturita Solutions: Elementary Student’s Book.
Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The common European framework and
harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 253‒266.
Glass, G. V. & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and
achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 2‒16.
Harmer, J. (1998). How to Teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of English
Language Teaching. Longman.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. New Edition. Harlow : Pearson Education
Ltd.
Hastings, B., Umińska, M., Chandler, D. & Hegedűs, K. (2009). Maturita Activator:
Intenzivní příprava k maturitě. Anglický jazyk, základní úroveň obtížnosti. Harlow :
Pearson Education Ltd.
Hinkel, E. (Ed.), (2011). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning. Vol. 2. New York : Routledge.
Lindstromberg, S. (Ed.) (2004). Language Activities for Teenagers. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Milanovic, M. (2002). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment - Language examining and test development.
Strasbourg : Council of Europe Language, Policy Division.
91
MSMT - Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy (2014). Kritéria hodnocení
zkoušek a dílčích zkoušek společné části maturitní zkoušky. MSMT-7620/2014-1,
13-03-2014.
Osváth, E. (2014). Pair and Groups: Getting Teens to Speak in English. Oxford
University Press Webinar, 04-03-2014. Retrieved from
http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/elt/events/handouts/060314_WW_Getting_
Teens_To_Speak_In_English_Solutions_Speaking_Challenge_1.pdf
Rapp, B. & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word
production. Psychological Review, 107(3), 460‒499.
Růžičková, Z. (2012). State Maturita exam – speaking (Diploma Thesis). Brno :
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Education, Masaryk
University Brno.
Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching: A Guidebook for English Language Teachers.
Oxford : Macmillan. 2nd ed.
Spoken production and spoken interaction (2014, January 27). Retrieved from
http://www.falibo.com/video/2064/spoken-production-and-spoken-interaction
SSLC - Střední škola logistiky a chemie (2014). Studijné obory. Retrieved from
http://www.sslch.cz/
Szturcová, L., personal communication, 28-01-2014.
Thornburry, S. (2005). How to Teach Speaking. Harlow : Pearson Education.
Tvrdoňová, M. (2010). Assessing Speaking (Diploma Thesis). Brno : Department of
English Language and Literature, Faculty of Education, Masaryk University Brno.
Ur, P. & Wright, A. (1992). Five-Minute Activities: A Resource Book for Short
Activities. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Vyhláška č. 177/2009 Sb., o bližších podmínkách ukončování vzdělávání ve středních
školách maturitní zkouškou.
Vyhláška č. 371/2012 Sb., kterou se mění vyhláška č. 177/2009 Sb., o bližších
podmínkách ukončování vzdělávání ve středních školách maturitní zkouškou.
Wright, A., Betteridge, D. & Buckby, M. (2006). Games for Language Learning.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 3rd ed.
92
Appendices
Appendix 1 (Table A.1) Common Reference Levels: global scale. .............................. 93
Appendix 2 (Table A.2) Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid .................. 94
Appendix 3 (Table A.3) Common Reference Levels: qualitative aspects of spoken
language use .................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix 4 Student’s task sheet .................................................................................... 98
Appendix 5 Interlocutor’s task sheet ........................................................................... 101
Appendix 6 Assessment criteria of the oral part of the Maturita exam ....................... 104
Appendix 7 Assessment record of the oral part of the Maturita exam ........................ 105
Appendix 8 Study plan of study field Operation and economy of transport ............... 106
Appendix 9 Study plan of study field Logistic and financial services ........................ 107
Appendix 10 Study plan of study field Applied chemistry – Analytical chemistry .... 108
Appendix 11 Study plan of study field Operator of postal transport and operation .. 109
Appendix 12 English language questionnaire.............................................................. 110
Appendix 13 Interview with the former students of the Secondary School of Logistics
and Chemistry about the oral part of State Maturita exam ........................................... 112
Appendix 14 (Table A.4) Results of oral exams, didactic tests and writing exams
(both regular and retake) in the years 2011‒2013.. ...................................................... 113
93
Appendix 1 (Table A.1) Common Reference Levels: global scale (COE, 2001, Table 1
on p. 24)
94
Appendix 2 (Table A.2) Common Reference Levels: self-assessment grid (COE, 2001,
Table 2 on p. 26‒27)
95
Appendix 2 (continued)
96
Appendix 3 (Table A.3) Common Reference Levels: qualitative aspects of spoken
language use (COE, 2001, Table 3 on p. 28‒29)
97
Appendix 3 (continued)
98
Appendix 4 Student’s task sheet
TOPICS: Food (P1), Housing/Living (P2), Education (P3), Free time (P4)
PART ONE Food 2.5 min.
The examiner is going to ask you some questions. Please answer the questions in as
much detail as possible. If you don’t understand a question, please ask the examiner to
repeat it.
PART TWO Housing/Living 4 min.
Part Two consists of three tasks. Take pictures 2A and 2B. The pictures show two
different kinds of rooms.
Task One 1.5 min.
Look at pictures 2A and 2B. Choose one of the pictures and describe it. The following
ideas may help you:
▪ Colours, light
▪ Atmosphere, style
▪ Size, space
▪ Furniture
▪ Things in the room
▪ Other
2A
99
Task Two 1 min.
Look at both pictures once more and compare them (what is similar/the
same/different?) The following ideas may help you:
▪ Colours, light
▪ Atmosphere, style
▪ Size, space
▪ Furniture
▪ Things in the room
▪ Other
Task Three 1.5 min.
Now talk about your own room.
PART THREE Education 5 min.
Task One 2.5 min.
Now speak on your own about the education system in the Czech Republic. The
following ideas may help you:
▪ Compulsory education
▪ Levels of education (pre-primary, primary etc.)
▪ Length of education
▪ Examinations (school-leaving exams, entrance exams)
▪ Types of schools
▪ Other
2B
100
Task Two 2.5 min.
Now talk about the education system in the United Kingdom. Explain the following
terms that relate closely to the British education system.
Infant school Public school / Boarding school
Junior school General Certificate of Secondary Education
Secondary school Advanced Level Examination / Entry exams
PART FOUR Free time 3 min.
In Part Four of the exam, the examiner and you are going to talk together. Imagine the
following situation: You and your English speaking friend are planning a day out.
Decide together which places you are going to go to and discuss the details of the
day. The examiner is going to play the role of your friend and will start the
conversation.
The following ideas may help you:
What? When? Where? How long? What to take? Other
Possible activities/places to go to:
cinema / swimming pool / picnic / other
101
Appendix 5 Interlocutor’s task sheet
TOPICS: Food (P1), Housing/Living (P2), Education (P3), Free time (P4)
Hello. (Sit down, please. Would you tell me your task sheet number so I can check it,
please?)
First, could you briefly introduce yourself to the committee?
Thank you.
Now let’s go to Part One.
PART ONE Food 2.5 min.
I am going to ask you some questions about the topic food. If possible, give detailed
answers. If you don’t understand the question, please, ask me to repeat it.
Are you ready?
▪ What do you usually have for breakfast?
▪ What can we eat with meat?
▪ Give some examples of fruit and vegetables.
▪ Which spices may you add to flavour your meal?
▪ What do we eat our food with? What do we use for drinking: name some dishes
that you know.
▪ What is English breakfast like?
PART TWO Housing/Living 4 min.
Look at pictures 2A and 2B.
Task One 1.5 min.
Which picture would you like to talk about? Describe it, please. Are you ready?
▪ Colours, light
▪ Atmosphere, style
▪ Size, space
▪ Furniture
▪ Things in the room
▪ Other
How do you like the place?
If you lived in the room, what would you change about it?
Task Two 1 min.
Have a look at both pictures once more. Now, I would like you to compare them. Are
you ready?
102
▪ Colours, light
▪ Atmosphere, style
▪ Size, space
▪ Furniture
▪ Things in the room
▪ Other
Which of the room seems more organized? Why?
What can the hobbies of the people be?
What kind of people can be living there?
Which room would you prefer and why?
Thank you. Now, let’s go to Task Three.
Task Three 1.5 min.
Now tell me about your own room.
What is your room like? Do you share your room with anybody? Do you like sharing
it/being on your own? Is there anything you would like to change about your room?
Why?
Thank you. Now, let’s go to Part Three.
PART THREE Education 5 min.
Task One 2.5 min.
Now speak on your own about the education system in the Czech Republic. Are you
ready?
▪ Compulsory education
▪ Levels of education (pre-primary, primary etc.)
▪ Length of education
▪ Examinations (school-leaving exams, entrance exams)
▪ Types of schools
▪ Other
What does a typical Czech classroom look like?
Thank you. That will do.
Task Two 2.5 min.
Now I’d like you to talk about the education system in the United Kingdom. Explain the
following terms that relate closely to the British education system.
103
Infant school Public school / Boarding school
Junior school General Certificate of Secondary Education
Secondary school Advanced Level Examination / Entry exams
Thank you. Now, let us go to the last part of your exam.
PART FOUR Free time 3 min.
Now we are going to talk together. Imagine the following situation. I am your English
speaking friend and we are planning a day out. We must decide together which places
we are going to go and discuss the details of the day. I am going to start the
conversation. Are you ready?
Possible activities/places to go to: cinema, swimming pool, picnic
What? When? Where? How long? What to take? Other
Which place would you like to go to? What about dancing, bowling,...
What shall we do in the evening? What about doing something else?
How much money will I need for it? How shall we get there? So what have we agreed
on?
Thank you very much. That is the end of the examination.
104
Appendix 6 Assessment criteria of the oral part of the Maturita exam (CERMAT,
2010a, p. 9)
105
Appendix 7 Assessment record of the oral part of the Maturita exam
106
Appendix 8 Study plan of study field Operation and economy of transport of the
Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry (SSLC, 2014)
Kód a název RVP: 37-41-M/01 Provoz a ekonomika dopravy
Název ŠVP: Provoz a ekonomika dopravy - ZASILATELSTVÍ 1.r. 2.r. 3.r. 4.r celkem půlené
Základní všeobecné předměty
Český jazyk a literatura 3 3 3 3 12 0
První cizí jazyk 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12 12
Druhý cizí jazyk 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8
Dějepis 2 2 0
Občanská nauka 1 2 3 0
Ekologie 2 2 0
Fyzika 1 1 0
Chemie 1 1 0
Matematika 3 3 3 3 12 0
Tělesná výchova 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8
Informační a komunikační
technologie 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 5
Základní odborné předměty 0 0
Logistika 2 2 2 6 0
Doprava a přeprava 2 2 2 2 8 0
Přeprava a zasilatelství 2 3 5 0
Dopravní logistika 2 2 0
Sociální a profesní komunikace 2 2 0
Písemná a elektronická komunikace 2 2 1 1 3 3
Ekonomika 2 2 4 0
Marketing-management 2 2 0
Právo v podnikání 2 2 0
Účetnictví 2 2 1 5 0
Finanční gramotnost 1 1 0
Zeměpis 2 2 4 0
Řízení motorových vozidel 1 1 0
Praxe 4 4 3 3 3 3 10 10
Povinně volitelné předměty
Seminář z prvního cizího jazyka 1 1 2 2 3 3
Seminář z matematiky nebo
Společenskovědní seminář 2 2 2 2
Seminář z matematiky nebo mediální
komunikace 2 2 2 2
celkem za ročník 32 11 32 14 32 14 32 14 128 53
Odborná praxe 4 týdny za studium
Sportovní a výcvikové kurzy 2 týdny za studium
(v případě naplněnosti kurzů)
107
Appendix 9 Study plan of study field Logistic and financial services of the Secondary
School of Logistics and Chemistry (SSLC, 2014)
Kód a název RVP: 37-42-M/01 Logistické a finanční služby
Název ŠVP: Logistické a finanční služby 1.r. 2.r. 3.r. 4.r celkem půlené
Základní všeobecné předměty
Český jazyk a literatura 3 3 3 3 12 0
První cizí jazyk 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12 12
Druhý cizí jazyk 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8
Dějepis 2 2 0
Občanská nauka 1 2 3 0
Ekologie 2 2 0
Fyzika 1 1 0
Chemie 1 1 0
Matematika 3 3 3 3 12 0
Tělesná výchova 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8
Informační a komunikační
technologie 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 5
Základní odborné předměty 0 0
Logistika 2 2 0
Poštovnictví 2 2 2 2 8 0
Finančnictví 2 2 2 6 0
Sociální a profesní komunikace 2 2 0
Písemná a elektronická komunikace 2 2 1 1 3 3
Ekonomika 2 2 4 0
Marketing a management 2 2 0
Právo v podnikání 2 2 0
Účetnictví 2 2 1 5 0
Finanční gramotnost 1 1 0
Zeměpis 2 2 4 0
Studentská firma 1 1 1
Praxe 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 17 17
Povinně volitelné předměty
Seminář z AJ 1 1 1 1
Seminář z matematiky nebo seminář z
AJ 2 2 2 2
Seminář z matematiky nebo
Společenskovědní seminář 2 2 2 2
celkem za ročník 32 13 33 15 33 16 30 15 128 58
Odborná praxe 4 týdny za studium
Sportovní a výcvikové kurzy 2 týdny za studium
(v případě naplněnosti kurzů)
108
Appendix 10 Study plan of study field Applied chemistry – Analytical chemistry of the
Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry (SSLC, 2014)
Kód a název RVP: 28-44-M/01 Aplikovaná chemie
Název ŠVP: Aplikovaná chemie - Analytická chemie 1.r. 2.r. 3.r. 4.r celkem půlené
Základní všeobecné předměty
Český jazyk a literatura 3 3 3 3 12 0
Anglický jazyk 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12 12
Dějepis 2 2 0
Občanská nauka 1 2 3 0
Ekologie 2 2 0
Fyzika 2 1 2 1 5 1
Chemie 5 1 4 1 9 2
Matematika 3 3 3 3 12 0
Tělesná výchova 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8
Informační a komunikační
technologie 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 5
Základní odborné předměty 0 0
Fyzikální chemie 3 3 0
Chemické laboratoře 3 3 3 3
Biochemie 2 2 0
Laboratorní cvičení 4 4 3 3 7 7
Analytická chemie 1 1 2 0
Analytická laboratorní cvičení 3 3 3 3 6 6
Chemicko technologické procesy 2 4 4 10 0
Technická příprava 2 2 1 4 1
Ekonomika 2 2 4 0
Profilující předměty -Analytická
chemie
Analytická chemie 1 1 2 0
Biologie 2 2 2 6 0
Analytická laboratorní cvičení 3 3 3 3
Povinně volitelné předměty
Seminář z cizího jazyka 1 1 2 2 3 3
Seminář z matematiky nebo SVS 2 2 2 2 4 4
Minimální týdenní počet hodin 33 13 34 15 31 10 31 13 129 55
Odborná praxe 4 týdny za studium
(ve 3. a 4. ročníku)
Sportovní a výcvikové kurzy 2 týdny za studium
(v případě naplněnosti kurzů)
109
Appendix 11 Study plan of study field Operator of postal transport and operation of
the Secondary School of Logistics and Chemistry (SSLC, 2014)
Učební plán - 37-51-H/01 Manipulant poštovního provozu a přepravy
1 2 3 celkem půlené
32 19 32 18 32 17 96 54
Český jazyk a literatura 2 2 2 6 0
Anglický jazyk 2 2 2 2 3 3 7 7
Občanská nauka 1 2 3 0
Ekologie a chemie 2 2 0
Fyzika 1 1
Člověk a zdraví 1 1 0
Matematika 2 2 2 6 0
Tělesná výchova 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6
Informační a komunikační
technologie 2 2 2 2 4 4
Ekonomika 2 2 4 0
Poštovní provoz a přeprava 3 2 3 8 0
Logistika 2 2 4 0
Písemná a elektronická komunikace 1 1 1 1
Sociální a profesní komunikace 2 2 0
Zeměpis 1 2 2 5 0
celkem za ročník 20 7 20 6 20 5 60 18
Odborná praxe 12 12 12 12 12 12 36 36
Sportovní a výcvikové kurzy 2 týdny za studium
(v případě naplněnosti kurzů)
110
Appendix 12 English language questionnaire
DOTAZNÍK K VÝUCE ANGLICKÉHO JAZYKA
STŘEDNÍ ŠKOLA LOGISTIKY A CHEMIE, U HRADISKA 29, OLOMOUC
3. a 4. ročník – školní rok 2011/2012
Vyber a zakroužkuj jednu z nabízených variant
1) Vyučovací předmět anglický jazyk považuji za
a) velmi zajímavý b) zajímavý c) spíše nezajímavý d) nezajímavý
2) Vyučovací předmět anglický jazyk je pro mou budoucnost
a) velmi významný b) významný c) spíše nevýznamný d) nevýznamný
3) Vyučovací předmět anglický jazyk je pro mne
a) velmi snadný b) spíše snadný c) spíše obtížný d) obtížný
4) Vyučovací předmět seminář z anglického jazyka je pro mne
a) velmi snadný b) spíše snadný c) spíše obtížný d) obtížný
5) Potřebné dovednosti ke složení maturitní zkoušky (mluvení, psaní, čtení a jazyková
kompetence a poslech) jsou v hodinách anglického jazyka a semináře dostatečně a
vyváženě probírány
a) ano b) spíše ano c) spíše ne d) ne
6) Počet vyučovacích hodin (3 hod/týden) a seminář (1 hod/týden – 3.roč., 2 hod/týden –
4. roč.) je
a) dostatečný b) spíše dostatečný c) spíše nedostatečný d) spíše nedostatečný
7) Věřím si, že maturitní zkoušku úspěšně složím
a) ano b) spíše ano c) spíše ne d) ne
Uveď pravdivou odpověď na následující otázku
8) Kolik času věnuješ přípravě na vyučovací předmět anglický jazyk a na maturitní
zkoušku z anglického jazyka?
________________ hodin za týden. Jiná odpověď ________________________________ .
Dokonči tyto věty
9) Studiu anglického jazyka bych věnoval(a) více času, kdyby
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
10) Počet studentů v mé skupině v semináři z anglického jazyka mně vyhovuje/nevyhovuje
(vyber), protože
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
111
11) Způsob přípravy na maturitní zkoušku ve škole mně vyhovuje/nevyhovuje (vyber),
protože
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
12) Kterou z potřebných dovedností k maturitní zkoušce (mluvení, psaní, čtení a jazyková
kompetence a poslech) považuješ za nejsložitější a proč?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
13) Které z potřebných dovedností k maturitní zkoušce (mluvení, psaní, čtení a jazyková
kompetence a poslech) by dle tvého názoru mělo být v hodinách či seminářích AJ
věnováno více času a proč?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
14) V anglickém jazyce se chci především zlepšit v (uveď v jaké dovednosti či jakých
dovednostech)
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
15) V hodinách anglického jazyka a semináře mě nejvíce baví
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
16) Z aktivit věnovaných mluvení a komunikaci mě nejvíce baví
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
17) Na ústní maturitní zkoušku se připravuji formou
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
18) Dovednost plynulé komunikace v anglickém jazyce považuji/nepovažuji (vyber) za
důležitou, protože
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
19) Domnívám se, že bych dokázal(a) lépe komunikovat v anglickém jazyce, kdyby
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Děkuji za vyplnění dotazníku
112
Appendix 13 Interview with the former students of the Secondary School of Logistics
and Chemistry about the oral part of State Maturita exam
Otázky v českém jazyce, ve kterém rozhovor probíhal:
1) Bylo pro tebe zvládnutí ústní zkoušky spíše lehké či složité? (případně napiš proč
tomu tak bylo)?
2) Byl(a) jsi spokojen(a) s výsledkem ústní zkoušky? Pomohla ti celkovou známku
z maturitní zkoušky spíše vylepšit či naopak?
3) Která ze čtyř částí byla pro tebe nejjednodušší a která naopak nejsložitější a proč?
(první část – odpovídání na 5 otázek na vybrané téma zkoušejícímu, druhá část –
popis vybraného obrázku a srovnání dvou obrázků, třetí část – samostatný ústní
projev na téma týkající se buď tvého studijního oboru, reálií či literatury anglicky
mluvících zemí a čtvrtá část – dialog na improvizované téma se zkoušejícím)
4) Co bys doporučil(a) studentům, které tato zkouška teprve čeká?
5) Uveď jakékoliv tvé osobní pocity, postřehy či kritiku týkající se této zkoušky.
(Cokoliv tě napadne)
Questions translated to English:
1) Was it rather easy or difficult for you to pass the oral part of Maturita exam?
Why/why not?
2) Were you satisfied with the result from the oral part of Maturita exam? Did it help
you improve your final mark in English or was it rather vice versa?
3) Which part of the oral exam was the most difficult and which one was the easiest?
4) What would you recommend to students who are going to take the Maturita exam in
the nearest future?
5) Would you like to comment on anything or add anything that comes to your mind
concerning the State Maturita exam?
113
Appendix 14 (Table A.4) Results of oral exams, didactic tests and writing exams (both
regular and retake) in the years 2011‒2013. ‘# of students’ stands for the total number
of students taking the English Maturita exam. Figures in brackets are per cent
equivalents of their preceding ones. (The resit exam percentage is in relation to the
number of students who have failed the exam).
Year Term Type of exam
# of students
Grade
1 2 3 4 5
2011
regular
oral exam 56 ( 58%) 7 (13%) 7 (13%) 10 (18%) 15 (26%) 17 (30%)
didactic test 40 ( 41%) 0 ( 0%) 10 (25%) 15 (37%) 13 (33%) 2 ( 5%)
writing exam 40 ( 41%) 10 (25%) 9 (23%) 7 (17%) 12 (30%) 2 ( 5%)
retake
oral exam 17 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 2 (12%) 4 (23%) 11 (65%) 0 ( 0%)
didactic test 17 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 (12%) 13 (76%) 2 (12%)
writing exam 17 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 3 (18%) 4 (23%) 8 (47%) 2 (12%)
2012
regular
oral exam 30 ( 38%) 5 (17%) 3 (10%) 8 (26%) 12 (40%) 2 ( 7%)
didactic test 30 ( 38%) 2 ( 7%) 5 (16%) 7 (23%) 14 (47%) 2 ( 7%)
writing exam 30 ( 38%) 6 (20%) 10 (33%) 8 (27%) 4 (13%) 2 ( 7%)
retake
oral exam 2 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (50%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (50%)
didactic test 1 ( 50%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)
writing exam 2 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 (100%)
2013
regular
oral exam 57 ( 75%) 9 (16%) 7 (12%) 13 (23%) 20 (35%) 8 (14%)
didactic test 57 ( 75%) 8 (14%) 14 (25%) 17 (29%) 14 (25%) 4 ( 7%)
writing exam 57 ( 75%) 13 (23%) 20 (35%) 10 (18%) 11 (19%) 3 ( 5%)
retake
oral exam 8 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 2 (25%) 5 (63%) 1 (12%)
didactic test 4 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 4 (100%) 0 ( 0%)
writing exam 2 ( 50%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (50%) 0 ( 0%) 1 (50%)
Related Documents
