The Multiple Oral Assessment Program

For most teachers the difficulty in integrating more official evaluations of oral skills into the syllabus lies not in believing in their value but rather in the logistics of orchestrating and grading a series of them. Amid the daily lesson plans, committee meetings, undergraduate or graduate student advising and publication schedules, most teachers rightfully feel a sense of accomplishment if they can schedule even one fifteen-minute interview with each of their students in the course of a semester. After scheduling and conducting such an interview, preparing detailed written feedback for the student and determining a grade, the time-cost per student easily rises to twenty-five minutes and the added stress of the whole affair underscores in the teacher's mind that a series of oral assessments is out of the question.

Many language teachers may be unaware that there are numerous types of speaking assessments available to them, several of which are far less time-consuming and stressful for both student and teacher than the traditional oral interview. In this article five particularly useful types of short oral assessments are described: (1) the Stop-in Quiz, (2) the Telephone Quiz, (3) the Written Test Supplement, (4) the In-class, For-class Oral Quiz, and (5) the Peer Conversation. These communicative tests contrast starkly to the Oral Proficiency Interview, in which interviewers probe the linguistic capabilities of the interviewees through leading questions and dialog in order to assign them to a level of ability on an objective scale. The following five types of oral evaluation are task-oriented and prochievement, i.e. they give the students a specific task to accomplish and reward them for level-appropriate completion of that task. Each type of assessment is illustrated below with one example or topic. The topics covered by this sampling of oral assessments appear in many introductory- or intermediate-level textbooks and can, therefore, be integrated with minor adaptations and minimal additional student preparation into most first-year college (or first- and second-year high school) German courses. A table listing each type of assessment with its time-cost and a brief summary of its advantages and disadvantages can be found in Appendix B. Exactly when in the syllabus each oral assessment should be placed will depend on the actual topic chosen and the program, textbook or syllabus in use. Moreover and very importantly, these examples are meant to serve as models; each type of evaluation can be appropriate for several different syllabus topics. Two more suggestions for each type of oral assessment are described briefly in Appendix C.

For each of the five types of oral tasks, a grading sheet is key to being able to evaluate each student quickly and equitably. By relying on pre-determined, specified criteria, both students and instructors can feel that the grading is relatively objective and not solely left to the judgment or pre-judgment of the evaluator. An additional benefit of the grading sheet is that different instructors can base their evaluation on the same set of guidelines, thereby making it easier for several graders to be involved, for students to be assessed by someone other than their instructor, and for multiple sections of a course to maintain standardized expectations. Furthermore, when the grading criteria are determined in advance, the instructor can better convey to the students what is expected of them. Clear definition of expectations may in turn decrease the anxiety that many students feel when facing an official evaluation of their oral skills. Finally, a well-organized grading sheet speeds up the process and decreases the time-cost per student, thus minimizing the stress involved in grading oral tests or quizzes and making a series of them a more reasonable goal.⁴

Each of the following examples includes an estimated time-cost per student, a description of the necessary set-up, concrete ideas for grading, and a few pertinent comments when appropriate. A suggested grading sheet for these particular examples of each assessment type is also included in the appendices.

The Stop-in Quiz: Das Studentenmeldeamt

Topic: Answering basic questions about yourself
Time-cost per student: 3-4 minutes

Set-up

Students are asked to participate in a well-defined and relatively limited role play, in which they have a task to accomplish and some piece of information to retrieve. In this example, the students have lost their personal ID and must go to the Studentenmeldeamt to order a new ID. After announcing their intent to the administrative assistant on duty, students must answer with complete German sentences the questions posed to them^.5 When the assistant is finished filling out the necessary form, the students should ask when they can pick up their new ID. Each student is told a day and time and must report this information later to the teacher. For Stop-in quizzes, the information retrieved is an important element; it forces students to ask questions and listen carefully, thereby further motivating the negotiation of meaning. Grading this portion can be relatively simple if students are told to write the retrieved information, in this case the day and time, on a sheet of paper. The information they understood and recorded can then either be checked on the spot by the evaluator, in this case the Beamte, or handed in to their instructor later and then compared to the information that was given to them during the Stop-in quiz.

Grading

By using a form similar to the one in Appendix D, grading can be done quickly and efficiently. (The suggested grade sheet includes the questions to be asked and a place to note the pick-up date and time told to the student.) In addition, because the role of the administrative assistant is limited and well-defined, it can be played by someone other than the teacher, e.g. a colleague, one or more graduate students, an undergraduate with good German skills, a student teacher or a department language tutor.

Comments

This type of quiz lends itself well to multi-section programs. A set of "open" times can be determined and each participating instructor can be assigned a time slot to be on-duty. In this way the time committment for each instructor can be fairly equal despite potentially unequal section sizes.

Also, the Stop-in Quiz emphasizes the students'abilities to function in a target language situation. Although some language tasks tested via a Stop-in Quiz may seem "easy," those tasks and abilities are still important to learn and learning to communicate effectively in those situations should be rewarded.

Topics: Making small talk, weather, studies, weekend
Time-cost per student: 5-6 minutes

Set up
Telephone quizzes afford several advantages over in-person interviews. Because each student signs up to call the teacher at a specific time, phone quizzes can be arranged at almost any time of the day and can be conducted from the office or the home. They, therefore, involve minimal 'dead time.' Phone quizzes are also generally quite brief, as they involve an exchange of information which mirrors a real-life phone situation. Furthermore, because the student is not physically present, the evaluator can note grammar or usage problems and mark the grade sheet without unduly upsetting the flow of the conversation or attracting the attention of the student. Completing some of the written assessment of the student's performance during the actual quiz is another time-saving factor.

For the Smalltalk telephone quiz, students must call the teacher and make small talk in German for at least 4 minutes. Students are instructed in advance on proper telephone etiquette, including opening the conversation with "Hier ist____." and ending the conversation with "Auf Wiederhören." In this example, the students are told the three topics of conversation in advance: das Wetter, das Semester, and letztes Wochenende. Students should be prepared not only to talk about these three topics themselves but also to ask the teacher questions about those same topics. The conversation should be interactional, involving questions and answers on the part of both assessor and student. In addition to making small talk, students can be given the task of retrieving some important information, e.g. what topics will be covered on the upcoming quiz.

Grading

The grade is determined by a checklist like the one suggested in Appendix E. Included in the list of items to be graded are: giving a proper greeting, answering and asking "Wie geht's?" the ability to chat for 30 to 60 seconds about each of the three small talk topics, a global assessment of the overall conversation skills, retrieving the information about the upcoming quiz, and an appropriate farewell.

Comments

Telephone quizzes present different challenges to the language learner from those of face-to-face quizzes because the visual cues to meaning and intent are missing. However, practice in this mode of target language usage, particularly realistic role-plays, can reflect real language use and prove helpful to the language learner.

The Smalltalk phone quiz is best conducted by the students' instructor, primarily because the situation of phoning and making small talk demands that the interlocutors know each other. Telephone quizzes can, however, involve multi-sections and an "open" times set-up as suggested for the Stop-in Quiz above, if the topic lends itself to this format, e.g. phoning a theater to ask about current shows, times and ticket prices. In cases such as the latter, it may prove prudent to limit the number of telephone quizzes given, because students could easily cheat by having someone else call in and retrieve the information, if evaluators do not know the students well enough to recognize their voice over the phone.

The Written Test Supplement: Zum Arzt gehen

Topics: Health, Illness, Body parts
Time-cost per student: 2-3 minutes

Set up

As its name indicates, the Written Test Supplement is a short speaking activity which is incorporated into a longer written test. For programs which rely primarily on written assessments, this type of official speaking evaluation may be one of the easiest to adopt. During the testing period, each student completes a speaking task with the instructor. Such short speaking evaluations can be completed for all the students in an average-sized class in under an hour while the class is taking the written test. This format allows the instructor to speak with each student for a couple of minutes without the challenges associated with scheduling time for each student outside of the class hour. In this example, the first item on the 'written' test is the speaking assessment, Zum Arzt gehen. Students are instructed that they have several ailments and have an appointment with a doctor. When their name is called, they must go and see the doctor. During their brief consultation they must:

• introduce themselves
• describe their ailments
• answer any questions the doctor may ask
• remember the advice the doctor gives them
• record that advice in writing upon returning to their seat.

Grading

The grade for this speaking assessment is based on quality of interaction as well as the accuracy with which students record the advice given to them. To make the individual assessments more similar to each other, instructors may choose to assign the same set of ailments to all the students. In addition, giving all students the same advice or one of a few sets of advice options can make the grading process somewhat easier. An example of both the Written Test Supplement (the section which students receive at the beginning of the class period) and the grading sheet are presented in Appendix F and Appendix G respectively.

Comments

The main advantages of the Written Test Supplement are the lack of scheduling difficulties and the adaptability of the format. While two other suggestions for Written Test Supplements are presented in Appendix C, other detailed suggestions are available in the Testbank accompanying the second edition of Deutsch: Na klar! (Dykstra-Pruim and Redmann).

Topics: Clothes, Adjectives, Expressing Opinions
Time-cost per student: 2-3 minutes

Set up
In the In-class, For-class Quiz, students complete some speaking task in front of the entire class and receive an evaluation from the teacher. Possibilities may include individual accounts of the previous weekend or the acting out of dialogs from the textbook. However, this type of speaking test can be made significantly less threatening to the students and much more fun for the entire class by choosing an assignment which allows students to work in small groups and encourages creativity. Small group tasks also foster inter-class relationships by rewarding successful group work. Moreover, setting oral assessments in an entertaining context, as in a Modeschau, motivates the audience/class to listen attentively and respond appropriately with laughter and applause.

In Modeschau heute students work in small groups of three or four. Their task is to put together a presentation to be part of a clothes exhibition on the quiz day. One or more members of the group must model the clothing items. Non-modeling members must describe the clothes and try to convince the audience how wonderful it would be to own such fine merchandise. Each group has about 5 minutes for their presentation. All group members, including the "models," must say at least 8-10 sentences, and although notes may be available for reference during the presentation a text should not be read word-for-word.

Grading
One grade sheet per group (exemplified in Appendix H) should be filled out during the fashion show. Since the groups can prepare their texts ahead of time, grammatical and structural accuracy as well as good use of vocabulary are expected. Additional points may be awarded for creativity or entertainment value. Because of the commotion in the classroom and the direction of the class's attention elsewhere, the teacher can sit towards the back of the room and write comments during each presentation without drawing attention to that fact. Furthermore, the time-cost (and stress-cost) per student in this example remains low not only because most of the grading can be completed effectively during the class hour but also because the 5-7-minute assessment covers 3-4 students.

Comments
In this example, each member of the group receives the same grade. Some instructors may feel that this is unfair; however, having one grade for all should encourage students to work together as a group to produce the best possible presentation. Moreover, only a few points are actually allotted to "Mitarbeit" so that groups with an unwilling member are not terribly disadvantaged. In the end, exceptions can always be made if one person refuses to talk and the presentation is otherwise very good. Finally, if a group oral assessment is part of a series of oral assessments, students will receive adequate individualized feedback on their oral language production and have ample opportunity to demonstrate their oral skills.

Topic: Answering and asking basic questions about a person
Time-cost per student: 6-9 minutes

In Einander kennenlernen, students are assigned to an interview slot in pairs. Ideally the students should not already know each other, although in some cases pairing students who are already acquainted cannot be avoided. (In other examples, it may be appropriate for students to sign up in pairs.) Students are told that they will have 10 minutes to conduct the two-way interview. Each student should be prepared to ask at least 10 questions of the interview partner, and each student will in turn be expected to answer the questions posed by the other person. Based on their conversation, each student must later write a brief report of about 15 sentences about the person with whom they spoke.

Grading
Each student is graded separately on the following areas: the questions posed, the answers given in response to questions, pronunciation, and the written report. A suggested weighting and grading scheme for these components is presented in Appendix I. As in some of the earlier assessment options, the evaluator need not be the students' instructor; a faculty or graduate student colleague can easily assess the interview portion while the students' instructor assumes responsibility for checking the written report and calculating the final grades.

This example of a Peer Conversation allows students to use the target language to find out about each other. The communicative context and simple motivation allow students to focus on a defined task, and having a peer as interlocutor may reduce the stress-level for many students. In addition to these advantages, the Peer Conversation format allows the assessor to grade performance during the interview without disrupting the flow of the conversation because the evaluator need not participate in the discourse. Furthermore, although students are intently listening and speaking for 10 minutes, the time-cost for the instructor is only 5-6 minutes per student for the interview portion and  1-3 minutes for checking the brief write-up.

Comments
In some instances the abilities of the paired students may be so disparate that the pair may never achieve a "conversation" and it may prove difficult to determine a grade. Clearly delineating the expectations to the students in advance and allotting time for in-class practice may also help all the students be prepared for such an oral assessment. However, in extreme cases the evaluator may opt to reformulate a question for someone or pose a few questions to jump start the conversation. In any case, if occasional pairing problems arise, that experience may still be valuable to both students, since difficulties understanding and communicating in the target language are part of the language learning experience. If the Peer Conversation is one of several oral assessments, students can also rest assured that they will have other opportunities to prove their oral abilities. Lastly, mismatches could be remedied by a requiz with a different interlocutor.

This series of short, low-stress options for oral assessment is not presented in order to undermine the value of the longer, traditional or OPI-style interview, which can provide valuable information to students and instructors. Instead these suggestions model a viable option or beneficial supplement to the traditional interview, one which is prochievement and potentially more interesting and rewarding for all involved. One should also keep in mind that the types and examples of oral tests described here are not without flaws. Some represent more realistic or authentic language situations than others, some of these assessment types or topics may not work in certain syllabi or at certain institutions, and some instructors may feel uneasy with the suggested grading criteria. Nevertheless, having a handful of models for quick oral testing may encourage more language teachers to attempt multiple or a series of varied oral quizzes; and, perhaps more importantly, these ideas and suggestions may spark further dialog on broad-range oral assessment in the language classroom, its feasibility, and how best to evaluate speaking skills.

While the idea of a series of oral assessments may still sound daunting to some, the examples presented here should alleviate some of the anxiety associated with that undertaking. The time-cost for the five oral tests described in detail here totals 19 to 25 minutes per student, about the same total time-cost as the single, final oral interview exam that some instructors rely on as the main or sole official evaluation of oral skills. The commonly occurring topics and readily adaptable grading sheets included in the appendices should ease the initial transition to a program which includes multiple oral assessments. Also, the description of five different types of quick oral tests may encourage instructors to create new examples, harmonized to different topics, their students and their program's goals.

Although frequent graded assessments in no way guarantee better performance, a series of speaking evaluations in addition to or as partial substitution for current written tests can still prove valuable to all the parties involved: students, instructors and the broader language teaching community. For students, a series of varied oral assessments helps them better understand where they are in their speaking development throughout the course and gives them several opportunities in different contexts to demonstrate their oral communication skills. By assessing students in a variety of spoken tasks, instructors have a more accurate picture of their students' speaking abilities and better justification for the portion of the final grade devoted to "speaking." Finally, integrating a series of oral assessments helps reflect the communicative emphasis that many programs would like to claim, sending the message to the students that the language teaching community is thoughtfully working to bring its practice in line with its goals.

     Special thanks to Stefan Israel and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
     ¹Much research has revolved around the ACTFL OPIs, including that of Moeller and Reschke, who looked at the correlation between grading oral practice and oral performance in an OPI; Stansfield and Kenyon, who studied the reliability of simulated OPIs; Ross and Berwick, who looked at accommodation; and, Young and Milanovic, who investigated discourse variation in OPIs and some of the factors which interact with task in that context. There has been considerable research in many other facets of oral skills. For example, Phillips and Green have investigated the effects of student anxiety and attitudes toward speaking activities and assessments, and Ellis has examined the extent to which learners are able to develop a full range of sociolinguistic competence within the 'communicative' classroom context. Readers interested in a more extensive explanation and practical guide specific to oral testing (types, techniques and evaluation systems) should reference Nic Underhill.
     ²These generalizations are based on a small, informal survey of colleges and universities which was conducted for and presented at the 1993 conference of the German chapter of the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators of Foreign Language Departments (AAUSC). A summary of the results indicating how oral skills were currently assessed in the programs of the 16 respondents is presented below in Appendix A. Regarding the determination of class participation, five respondents specifically listed a number of absences with a grade equivalent. One respondent graded class participation on a point system; each student received a point grade every two weeks. And, one respondent relied on a daily check-minus-plus system. The remaining respondents who listed class participation as a grade component mentioned such items as "quality and quantity of participation," "preparedness for class," and "responses" without any specific grading criteria.
     ³An accessible discussion of personality models, information-processing models, social-interaction models and instructional-preference models of variability in learning styles or learner types is presented in Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational Practices.
     ⁴The suggested grading sheets combine analytic and holistic measures, as well as attention to grammatical accuracy and overall ability to communicate. The error counts and holistic descriptions are not meant to be absolute criteria. Rather the combination is meant, first, to give an idea of what "A," "B," etc. performance might look like and, second, to provide some concrete guidelines for assessing a student's performance and determining a student's grade.  Instructors may well want or need to adjust these criteria or create their own grading criteria and grade sheets to harmonize the expectations they have of their students with the grade the instructors feel a certain level of ability warrants at their institution. (See Halleck for discussion on the correlations between holistic and objective measures of oral proficiency.)
     ⁵Designing and executing oral tests involves a compromise between many factors including making them realistically communicative and at the same time valuable measures of the students' evolving language abilities. Although non-sentence answers might occur in an equivalent real-life situation, whole-sentence responses would not be unusual. If students are told in advance that complete sentences are expected and respond accordingly, the assessor can better evaluate students' mastery of the vocabulary and structures taught in conjunction with this topic. Purists who do not wish to demand complete sentences where native speakers might not use them, could adjust the grading scheme to reflect their demands and expectations.

References and Textbooks Consulted

Claxton, Charles S., and Patricia H. Murrell. Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational Practices. Texas: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1987.

Di Donato, Robert, Monica D. Clyde, Jacqueline Vansant. Deutsch: Na klar!. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

Dollenmayer, David B., Ellen W. Crocker, Thomas S. Hansen. Neue Horizonte. 4th ed. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Co., 1996.

Dykstra-Pruim, Pennylyn, and Jennifer Redmann. Testing Program for Deutsch: Na klar! 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

Green, John M. "Student Attitudes Toward Communicative and Non-Communicative Activities: Do Enjoyment and Effectiveness Go Together?" Modern Language Journal 77 (1993): 1-10.

Halleck, Gene B.  "Assessing Oral Proficiency: A Comparison of Holistic and Objective Measures.  Modern Language Journal 79 (1995): 223-34.

Jurasek, Barbara S., Richard T. Jurasek, Kathryn A. Corl. Sprechen wir Deutsch! 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1992.

Lovik, Thomas A., J. Douglas Guy, Monika Chavez. Vorsprung. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

Moeller, Aleidine J., Claus Reschke. "A Second Look at Grading and Classroom Performance: Report of a Research Study. Modern Language Journal 77 (1993): 163-69.

Moeller, Jack, Helmut Liedloff, Winnifred R. Adolph, Gisela Hoecherl-Alden, Constanze Kirmse, John. F. Lalande, II. Deutsch heute. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.

Moeller, Jack, Helmut Liedloff, Winnifred R. Adolph, Constanze Kirmse. Kaleidoskop: Kultur, Literatur und Grammatik. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1994.

Phillips, Elaine M. "The Effects of Language Anxiety on Students' Oral Test Performance and Attitudes." Modern Language Journal 76 (1992): 14-26.

Sevin, Dieter, Ingrid Sevin, Katrin T. Bean. Wie geht's? 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991.

Stansfield, Charles W., and Dorry Mann Kenyon. "The Development and Validation of a Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview." Modern Language Journal 76 (1992): 129-41.

Terrell, Tracy D., Erwin Tschirner, Brigitte Nikolai, Herbert Genzmer. Kontakte. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Underhill, Nic. Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.

Walker, Ronald W., Erwin Tschirner, Brigitte Nikolai, Gerhard F. Strasser. Assoziationen. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

Young, Richard, and Michael Milanovic. "Discourse Variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14 (1992): 403-24.

---

Appendix A. Survey Results

How Oral Skills Are Assessed	Responses
no specific grading of oral skills	1
no standardized grading of oral skills across sections	1
graded class participation	2
graded class participation and "oral tests" (undefined in survey response)	2
graded class participation, oral reports and/or oral supplements to written tests	1
graded class participation and 2 interview-type oral assessments	5
graded class participation and 1 (-2) interview-type oral assessments	4
Total number of responses	16

---

Appendix B: Overview of Different Types of Oral Assessment

Type	minutes/            Student*	Advantages and Disadvantages
Stop-in Quiz	3-8	Advantages grading time can be equally distributed among instructors with different class sizes focuses on ability to accomplish a task, to negotiate meaning rather than on the minute details of grammar can mirror realistic language scenarios & prove useful for travel or staying in the target community Disadvantages may be viewed as too easy demands a neutral office or room space in which to hold the quiz if open hours are set without students signing up for individual time slots, there may be unused or "dead" time for the graders/ students may have to wait
Telephone Quiz	3-6	Advantages can be easily conducted from different locations (home or office) and at odd hours (late evening, early morning) gives students practice in listening comprehension over the phone can mirror realistic language scenarios & prove useful for travel or staying in the target community Disadvantages while students can practice the chosen scenario in-class, actually practicing over the phone with teacher feed-back is difficult. lack of visual cues and reliance solely on aural input may prove difficult for some students students might use written texts or get someone else to call for them
Written Test Supplement	2-7	Advantages can be conducted during a normal, scheduled written test; no outside scheduling hassles provides some feedback on oral skills without necessitating separate oral assessments can be easily integrated into an existing program with minimal changes by choosing topics and tasks that coincide with the topics being assessed in the written test possible for person other than the instructor to grade students, potentially good for multiple sections because each instructor need donate only one additional hour Disadvantages is difficult to mirror realistic language situations; serves more as a practice rather than a realistic role-play instructors of classes with larger enrollments may not be able to test all students in a class hour, even if testing begins early and extends a bit beyond the class hour
In-class, For-class	2-4	Advantages promotes team work, peer relationships motivates listening comprehension because the class wants to enjoy each other’s contributions assessment & feedback is done during the class hour, no outside scheduling Disadvantages if a group member is weak or unmotivated, others in the group may feel disadvantaged demands class time be set aside for assessment and perhaps for preparation depending on topic, task and syllabus, students may produce and thus hear many non-target forms
Peer Conversation	6-9	Advantages assesses students’ ability to dialog, to negotiate meaning an reflect realistic language situations students may be less nervous with a peer as interlocutor than with the (near-)native speaker / instructor Disadvantages demands outside scheduling and pairing of students partners with vastly disparate skill levels may prove difficult to assess

---

Appendix C: Suggested Topics According to Assessment Type

The table below presents three suggested topics for each type of quick oral assessment. In each case, the first suggested topic is the one detailed in the body of the article. The specifics for the other two suggestions are left to the creativity of the reader.

Type of Assessment	Suggested Topics
The Stop-in Quiz	1 - Studentenmeldeamt - apply for a new ID at the student registration office 2 - Bahnhof - inquire at a train station about trains’ departure and arrival times 3 - Sparkasse - make an initial inquiry about opening a bank account
The Telephone Quiz	1 - Smalltalk - make small talk with the instructor 2 - Theater -call a theater to ask about the current shows, times and ticket prices 3 - Jugendherberge - ask directions on how to get to a youth hostel from the train station
The Written Test Supplement	1 - Zum Arzt gehen - discuss health problems with a doctor and record the doctor’s advice 2 - Hotel - check into a hotel, inquiring about what room one has, where it is, where and when breakfast is served, when checkout is 3 - Diskussion - student chooses which is the biggest problem in the world and must defend his choice
The In-class, For-class Quiz	1 - Modeschau heute - preparing and presenting part of a clothing fashion exhibition 2 - Märchen - rewrite and act out a 5-minute fairy tale 3 - Morgenschau - prepare and perform some segment of a morning news-variety show
The Peer Conversation	1 - Einander kennenlernen interview one another in order to write a brief report about the other person 2 - Mitbewohner - discuss together which apartment from a list they would most like to rent and why, then make a list of questions they should ask when they call 3 - Reise - discuss together which from a list of advertised package tours they would most like to go on and why

Appendix D: Grading Sheet for The Stop-in Quiz

The Stop-in Quiz: Das Studentenmeldeamt

[Beamter/in should ask all questions below marked with a star and 1 of the unmarked questions to total 13 possible points.]
Student/in: Entschuldigung, ich brauche einen neuen Personalausweis.
Beamter/in: Gut. Ich muß dieses Formular ausfüllen.
[Students answer these questions in German. Mistakes may be noted in the blank provided.]

Fragen	Antworten	Punkte
		2	1	3
*1. Wie heißen Sie? (Wie schreibt man das?)	[Ich heiße.... Mein Name ist.... [spell out name]
*2. Woher kommen Sie?	[Ich komme aus....correct preposition?]
*3. Wie alt sind Sie?	[Ich bin....(Jahre alt). is verb correct?]
*4. Wie ist Ihre Telefonnummer?	[write down number]
6. Wie ist Ihre Adresse?	[Meine Adresse ist....]
*7. Was sind Sie von Beruf?	[Ich bin Student/Ich bin Studentin.]
8. Was studieren Sie?	[Ich studiere....]
*9. Wann haben Sie Deutsch?	[Um....Uhr.]

Beamter/in: Gut. Das ist alles. Das Formular ist ausgefüllt.
Student/in: Wann hole ich den Personalausweis ab?
Beamter/in: Am                 , um    Uhr.   4    3    2    1    0    
[Fill in a day and a time for each student. Make them not all the same. The students must record this information and report it to their instructor. Correct day and time are each worth 2 points.]

Impression of evaluator. Circle one of the numbers.
8	= understood all the questions the first time, gave clear, correctly formulated answers
7.5
7	= understood almost everything the first time, answers had a 2-4 minor errors but were understandable and quite clear
6.5
6	= 2-3 questions needed to be repeated or reformulated, answers had 5-7 errors, and may have been somewhat difficult to understand
5.5
5	= 4-5 questions were not understood the first time, answers had 8 or more errors and a couple answers were unclear
4.5
4	= almost all the questions needed to be repeated, answers were full of errors and difficult to understand

---

Appendix E: Grading Sheet for The Telefonquiz

The Telephonequiz: Smalltalk

A. Anfang (Beginning. Greeting)
"(Grüße). Hier ist _______________________________"		2	1	0
B. Wie geht’s? [correct Q & A structure]	3	2	1	0

Gesprächsthemen (Conversation topics )

4 - very good range of vocab, 0-2 avoidable errors, appropriate responses, asks questions well
3 - good vocab usage (1-2 misuses or missing words), 3-5 grammar errors
2 - fair vocab usage (3-4 misuses or missing words), 6-7 grammar errors, did not ask questions or questions were poorly formulated
1 fair - poor vocab usage (5+ misuses or missing words), 8+ grammar errors, no questions asked

C. das Wetter			4	3	2	1	0
D. das Semester			4	3	2	1	0
E. Letztes Wochenende			4	3	2	1	0
F. Fragt über das nächste Quiz (asks about the next quiz)					2	1	0
G. Gesprächfähigkeiten (speaking abilities)			4	3	2	1	0

Can ask for clarification, e.g. Wie bitte? Können Sie das wiederholen? Noch einmal, bitte?
Easy to understand.
Can express interest and attentiveness appropriately, e.g. Ach so!, Ich auch, Wirklich?, Ja(wohl), Das ist interessant.

H. Abschied (farewell) e.g. Bis Morgen/Freitag, Auf Wiederhören

2

1

0

Notizen:

---

Appendix F: The Written Test Supplement Test Item (Student's Copy)

The Written Test Supplement: Zum Arzt gehen

Mündliche Aufgabe für die Prüfung: Zum Arzt gehen.

Situation:	Sie sind krank und fühlen sich nicht wohl.
Symptome:	-You have a headache every evening, - your eyes hurt, - your throat hurts and - you are not able to sleep.
Sie gehen zum Arzt.	- Grüßen Sie den Arzt und sagen Sie Ihren Namen! - Erklären Sie Ihre Symptome! - Beantworten Sie die Fragen des Arztes! - Der Arzt gibt Ihnen Rat {advice}. Schreiben Sie mit ganzen Sätzen seinen Rat unten! Was sollen Sie tun?

---

Appendix G: Grading Sheet for The Written Test Supplement

The Written Test Supplement: Zum Arzt gehen       Note: ________/25

1. Namen sagen			1	0
(says name)
2. Symptome beschreiben. Grammatik und Strukturen sind richtig.
(describing symptoms. Grammar and structures are correct.)
- Kopfschmerzen		2	1	0
- Halsschmerzen		2	1	0
- Augen tun weh		2	1	0
- nicht schlafen können		2	1	0
3. Fragen beantworten. die Fragen verstehen und gut beantworten.
(answering questions. Understands the questions and answers them well.)
- Stehen Sie unter viel Streß? Warum?		2	1	0
- Was essen Sie normalerweise am Tag?		2	1	0
- Trinken Sie Koffein oder Alkohol? Wie oft?		2	1	0
4. Rat geben. Hat der Student/die Studentin den Rat richtig aufgeschrieben. Grammatik, Strukturen und Inhalt. (Giving advice. Did the student record the advice correctly. Grammar, structures and content.)
	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	0

(Possible sets of advice.)
z.B. Rat A: Trinken Sie weniger Koffein und nehmen Sie am Abend (bevor Sie ins Bett gehen) Aspirin!
Rat B: Bevor Sie ins Bett gehen, trinken Sie warme Milch! Kaufen Sie auch Vicks Hustensyrup!
Rat C: Trinken Sie warmen Kräutertee mit Milch, bevor Sie ins Bett gehen! Und nehmen Sie auch Aspirin!

---

Appendix H: Grading Sheet for the In-class, For-class Quiz

Namen:                                    

Gesamtnote für die Gruppe________/25

A. Grammatik/Struktur (Grammar/structure)       | ________/10
10-9.5	"A" Very good grammar and use of learned structures with 0-4 avoidable errors.
9-8.5	"A-/B" Good grammar and use of learned structures with 5-8 avoidable errors.
8-7.5	"B-/C" Fair grammar and use of learned structures with 9-12 avoidable errors.
7-6.5	"C-/D" Fair to poor grammar and use of learned structures with 13-17 errors.
6 - 0	"D-/F" Poor grammar and use of learned structures with 18+ avoidable errors.
B. Wortschatz (Vocabulary)       | ________/10
10-9.5	"A" Very good range and use of learned vocabulary with 0-3 avoidable errors.
9-8.5	"A-/B" Good range and use of learned vocab with 4-7 avoidable errors.
8-7.5	"B-/C" Fair range and use of learned vocab with 8-11 avoidable errors.
7-6.5	"C-/D" Fair to poor range and use of learned vocab with 12-15 avoidable errors.
6-0	"D-/F" Poor range and use of learned vocab with 16+ avoidable errors.
C. Länge/Mitarbeit (Length/working together)       | ________/3
3	at least 8-10 sentences per person
2	one or more persons said only 5-7 sentences
1	one or more persons said only 1-4 sentences
0	one or more persons said nothing
D. Kreativität (creativity) ________/2
3	"A+" for creativity
2	obvious effort made to be creative in presentation, good use of vocabulary, and/or dialog among group members
1	some effort made to be creative
0	no apparent significant effort made to be creative, group did the minimum

---

Appendix I: Grading Sheet for the Peer Conversation

The Peer Conversation: Einander kennenlernen       Gesamtnote: /25

Name:                                     Unterrichtsstunde:                                    

A. FRAGEN GESTELLT. (Posed questions.)
5-4.5	9-10 questions were well-formulated, appropriate, logical. At least 2 slightly interesting questions.
4-3.5	Fewer than 9 questions or 2-3 errors in the questions. At least 1 slightly interesting question.
3-2	4-6 errors in the questions. No original or slightly more interesting questions.
1.5-0	7 or more errors in the questions. Was unprepared to ask 10 questions.
B. ANTWORTEN. (Answers.)
10-9	Understood all well-formulated questions the first time. Responses were well-formulated with fewer than 3 errors.
8-7	Understood all but 1 or 2 questions the first time. Responses were understandable with fewer than 7 errors.
6-5	Did not understand 3 or more questions. Responses were somewhat unclear, due to grammatical structure and/or 8-12 errors.
4.5-0	Did not understand 4 or more questions. Responses were meager and often unclear. Grammatical structures were almost always inaccurate and answers were ridden with errors.
C. AUSSPRACHE. (Pronunciation.)
4-3.5	Excellent-very good pronunciation for student's level. (esp: -ch, umlauted vowels, light r, almost all cognate words correctly pronounced)
3-2.5	Good pronunciation for student's level. (3-5 occurrences of: /k/ for /ch/, weak umlauted vowels, heavier/American r, or an Americanization of some German words)
2-1.5	Fair pronunciation for student's level. (6-8 mispronunciations, see above)
1-0	Poor pronunciation for student's level. Sometimes difficult to understand.
	Bewerter:
D. BERICHT. (Report.)
6-5.5	13-15 Sätze. Accurate grammatical structures, spelling, and vocabulary usage. 2-3 preventable errors.
5-4	9-13 Sätze. 1-2 sentences somewhat inaccurately structured. 3-4 preventable errors.
3.5-3	8-13 Sätze. 3-4 sentences somewhat inaccurately structured. 5-6 preventable errors.
2-0	Fewer than 8 sentences. 5 or more sentences poorly structured. 7 or more preventable errors.

---