More I see of the PSC SLE testing, more puzzled I am… On Thursday, Yong was tested for his B and he was thrilled to let me know that the assessor had led him in the fourth part of the exam. I told him not to rejoice that quickly because, three weeks ago, Luna was also taken in the last part of the test and she ended up with an A… I have to say that, though Yong can get his message across and understands fairly well, he is not close to a C according to this level criterias.
The surprise came in Friday afternoon when I got a phone call from Alicia who had just received her oral test results (more than one week later)… The young woman was really down athough she had passed the required level of her position. Of course she was not expecting to get a B!… I was also convinced that she would get a C given that she is bilingual. I never met an Anglophone with an exemption in oral, therefore I was not banking on such a bonus! What went wrong?… Well… nothing went wrong… she tackled the test the way she was expected to and she performed very well. She was led in the fourth part of the exam and she did not encounter any difficulties. Did she make some mistakes? Probably… like anyone else… and do I have to repeat that a C is not described as bilingual according to the PSC?… Someone with a C is still functional, but at a higher level than someone who has a B…
I have seen people with a C who were not at ease speaking French in everyday situations… On the other hand someone like Alicia, who is surrounded by French speaking colleagues, was not considered to be fluent in her second language… Something in this whole assessment process is utterly wrong and absurd. But what is it?… Unfortunately one can only speculate…
Yet, after so many years preparing people for their SLE tests with the government, I have seen enough to have an opinion… Prior to June 2008, it was more difficult to put a finger on the reasons why some people fluent in French would not get a C… since the oral test was more of a conversation, it was more subjective than objective… But with the new version, it is easy to draw some conclusions and if not… at least, to observe a pattern…
First, let me give you the standard descriptions of both levels B and C according to the PPC…
Level B
Level B is the minimum level of second language oral proficiency for positions requiring departure from routine use of the second language. A person speaking at this level can:
-
sustain a conversation on concrete topics
-
report on actions taken
-
give straightforward instructions to employees
-
provide factual descriptions and explanations
A person at this level may have deficiencies in grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary and fluency that are not seriously interfering with communication. Yet a person at this level would have a limited ability to deal with situations involving hypothetical ideas and should not be expected to cope with sensitive situations requiring the understanding or expression of subtle abstract ideas.
To translate this in plain English, someone with a level B can only work in French when dealing with facts!
Level C
Level C is the level of second language oral proficiency for positions that require handling sensitive situations where the understanding and expression of subtle, abstract or complicated ideas are required or where unfamiliar work-related topics must be dealt with. An individual speaking at this level can:
Someone at this level will not have the ease and fluency of a native speaker and may have deficiencies in pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. But such deficiencies rarely interfere with communication. Of course a person at this level is expected to carry out the activities of level B.
What does all this mean in plain English?… Well… I would assume that people at this level could deal with more complex topics and arguments… the way they would do in their mother tongue.
I really love these wordy descriptions… which by the way I summarized because it would have run on several pages! I am convinced that candidates looking for information prior to be tested orally do not have a clue of what these descriptions are about.
Since the oral interaction test is supposed to measure people’s competencies in their second language, I would say that a level B must be able to speak with all of the Indicative tenses while a level C is expected to speak with Subjunctive and Conditional tenses!… And I would like to add that no one with a level C can deal with all the situations listed in the PPC standard description. Only bilingual people can! But… if functional people manage to do well during the oral test and get a C, according to the document they get, they should be able to speak like bilingual individuals. Fortunately they rarely have the opportunity to prove their skills once they go back to work… otherwise it would be quite painful for them. Instead they lose what they learned…
I have been reflecting lately… why bilingual people such as Alicia and Christie (although they were taken in the fourth part of the oral test) could not get a C?… Well… they both had something in common: the language requirement of their positions was a level B… Consequently, on their forms it was written that they were tested for a B and not for a C… Questions (in the first part of the test) are sorted out randomly by a computer according to what candidates are: students, public servants, employees in the private sector, unemployed, etc. I assume that the three topics they are provided with in the third part of the exam are also chosen by a computer… I believe those topics vary according to the level candidates are assessed for. Since both Alicia and Christie were evaluated for a B, I do think the topics they were given for their presentations were about concrete stuff… And since the fourth part is intended to verify candidates’ comprehension by having them listening to a long tape and then summarizing the situation (usually it is a debate between two people), the difference between a B and a C is observed during the presentation. If my theory is good, this would mean that neither Alicia nor Christie had the opportunity to show their language abilities in dealing with abstract or complex topics and arguments.
My question is the following: why, when examiners see that some candidates are really strong, do they not choose another set of topics that could assess their skills at a higher level than the one written on a piece of paper? What about showing some judgment here?… I do not believe that assessors have no room at all for modifying the course of an interview. Useless to mention that people who are fluent in French feel very disappointed when they get a mere B… Of course, they meet the language requirements of their position… but nevertheless they are left with a feeling of inadequacy… even if they know that this test, at no time, is the reflect of their language abilities and skills. I can only hope for the examiners to show discernment… perhaps, then, this whole process would make some sense…
“Les optimistes assurent que nous vivons dans le meilleur des mondes possibles. Il n’y a que les pessimistes pour craindre que cela soit vrai”
James Branch Cabell
So Many Questions and No Answers…
More I see of the PSC SLE testing, more puzzled I am… On Thursday, Yong was tested for his B and he was thrilled to let me know that the assessor had led him in the fourth part of the exam. I told him not to rejoice that quickly because, three weeks ago, Luna was also taken in the last part of the test and she ended up with an A… I have to say that, though Yong can get his message across and understands fairly well, he is not close to a C according to this level criterias.
The surprise came in Friday afternoon when I got a phone call from Alicia who had just received her oral test results (more than one week later)… The young woman was really down athough she had passed the required level of her position. Of course she was not expecting to get a B!… I was also convinced that she would get a C given that she is bilingual. I never met an Anglophone with an exemption in oral, therefore I was not banking on such a bonus! What went wrong?… Well… nothing went wrong… she tackled the test the way she was expected to and she performed very well. She was led in the fourth part of the exam and she did not encounter any difficulties. Did she make some mistakes? Probably… like anyone else… and do I have to repeat that a C is not described as bilingual according to the PSC?… Someone with a C is still functional, but at a higher level than someone who has a B…
I have seen people with a C who were not at ease speaking French in everyday situations… On the other hand someone like Alicia, who is surrounded by French speaking colleagues, was not considered to be fluent in her second language… Something in this whole assessment process is utterly wrong and absurd. But what is it?… Unfortunately one can only speculate…
Yet, after so many years preparing people for their SLE tests with the government, I have seen enough to have an opinion… Prior to June 2008, it was more difficult to put a finger on the reasons why some people fluent in French would not get a C… since the oral test was more of a conversation, it was more subjective than objective… But with the new version, it is easy to draw some conclusions and if not… at least, to observe a pattern…
First, let me give you the standard descriptions of both levels B and C according to the PPC…
Level B
Level B is the minimum level of second language oral proficiency for positions requiring departure from routine use of the second language. A person speaking at this level can:
A person at this level may have deficiencies in grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary and fluency that are not seriously interfering with communication. Yet a person at this level would have a limited ability to deal with situations involving hypothetical ideas and should not be expected to cope with sensitive situations requiring the understanding or expression of subtle abstract ideas.
To translate this in plain English, someone with a level B can only work in French when dealing with facts!
Level C
Level C is the level of second language oral proficiency for positions that require handling sensitive situations where the understanding and expression of subtle, abstract or complicated ideas are required or where unfamiliar work-related topics must be dealt with. An individual speaking at this level can:
Someone at this level will not have the ease and fluency of a native speaker and may have deficiencies in pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. But such deficiencies rarely interfere with communication. Of course a person at this level is expected to carry out the activities of level B.
What does all this mean in plain English?… Well… I would assume that people at this level could deal with more complex topics and arguments… the way they would do in their mother tongue.
I really love these wordy descriptions… which by the way I summarized because it would have run on several pages! I am convinced that candidates looking for information prior to be tested orally do not have a clue of what these descriptions are about.
Since the oral interaction test is supposed to measure people’s competencies in their second language, I would say that a level B must be able to speak with all of the Indicative tenses while a level C is expected to speak with Subjunctive and Conditional tenses!… And I would like to add that no one with a level C can deal with all the situations listed in the PPC standard description. Only bilingual people can! But… if functional people manage to do well during the oral test and get a C, according to the document they get, they should be able to speak like bilingual individuals. Fortunately they rarely have the opportunity to prove their skills once they go back to work… otherwise it would be quite painful for them. Instead they lose what they learned…
I have been reflecting lately… why bilingual people such as Alicia and Christie (although they were taken in the fourth part of the oral test) could not get a C?… Well… they both had something in common: the language requirement of their positions was a level B… Consequently, on their forms it was written that they were tested for a B and not for a C… Questions (in the first part of the test) are sorted out randomly by a computer according to what candidates are: students, public servants, employees in the private sector, unemployed, etc. I assume that the three topics they are provided with in the third part of the exam are also chosen by a computer… I believe those topics vary according to the level candidates are assessed for. Since both Alicia and Christie were evaluated for a B, I do think the topics they were given for their presentations were about concrete stuff… And since the fourth part is intended to verify candidates’ comprehension by having them listening to a long tape and then summarizing the situation (usually it is a debate between two people), the difference between a B and a C is observed during the presentation. If my theory is good, this would mean that neither Alicia nor Christie had the opportunity to show their language abilities in dealing with abstract or complex topics and arguments.
My question is the following: why, when examiners see that some candidates are really strong, do they not choose another set of topics that could assess their skills at a higher level than the one written on a piece of paper? What about showing some judgment here?… I do not believe that assessors have no room at all for modifying the course of an interview. Useless to mention that people who are fluent in French feel very disappointed when they get a mere B… Of course, they meet the language requirements of their position… but nevertheless they are left with a feeling of inadequacy… even if they know that this test, at no time, is the reflect of their language abilities and skills. I can only hope for the examiners to show discernment… perhaps, then, this whole process would make some sense…
“Les optimistes assurent que nous vivons dans le meilleur des mondes possibles. Il n’y a que les pessimistes pour craindre que cela soit vrai”
James Branch Cabell