issues in testing business english - cambridgeenglish.org · an empirical investigation of the...

Issues in testing businessEnglish

The revision of the Cambridge BusinessEnglish Certificates

Also in this series:

An investigation into the comparability of two tests of English as a Foreign Language: TheCambridge-TOEFL comparability studyLyle F. Bachman, F. Davidson, K. Ryan, I.-C. Choi

Test taker characteristics and performance: A structural modeling approachAntony John Kunnan

Performance testing, cognition and assessment: Selected papers from the 15th Language TestingResearch Colloquium, Cambridge and ArnhemMichael Milanovic, Nick Saville

The development of IELTS: A study of the effect of background knowledge on readingcomprehensionCaroline Margaret Clapham

Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbookAlison Green

A multilingual glossary of language testing termsPrepared by ALTE members

Dictionary of language testingAlan Davies, Annie Brown, Cathie Elder, Kathryn Hill, Tom Lumley, Tim McNamara

Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modellingapproachJames Enos Purpura

Fairness and validation in language assessment: Selected papers from the 19th Language TestingResearch Colloquium, Orlando, FloridaAntony John Kunnan

Issues in computer-adaptive testing of reading proficiencyMicheline Chalhoub-Deville

Experimenting with uncertainty: Essays in honour of Alan DaviesA. Brown, C. Elder, N. Iwashita, E. Grove, K. Hill, T. Lumley, K. O’Loughlin, T. McNamara

An empirical investigation of the componentiality of L2 reading in English for academic purposesCyril Weir

The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking testsKieran O’Loughlin

A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language testsAnne Lazaraton

Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge Proficiency in English Examination1913–2002Edited by Cyril Weir and Michael Milanovic

European language testing in a global contextEdited by Cyril Weir and Michael Milanovic

A modular approach to testing English language skills: The development of the Certificates in English Language Skills (CELS) examinationsRoger Hawkey

Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback studyLiying Cheng

UnpublishedThe impact of high-stakes examinations on classroom teaching: A case study using insights from testing and innovation theoryDianne Wall

Impact theory and practice: Studies of the IELTS test and Progetto Lingue 2000Roger Hawkey

Issues in testing businessEnglish

The revision of the Cambridge BusinessEnglish Certificates

Barry O’Sullivan

iv

C A M B R I D G E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521013307

© UCLES 2006

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2006

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

ISBN-13 978-0-521-01330-7 paperbackISBN-10 0-521-01330-5 paperback

The author is grateful to the copyright holders for permission to use the copyrightmaterial reproduced in this book. Every effort has been made to trace the copyrightholders. Cambridge University Press apologises for any unintentional omissions andwould be pleased, in such cases, to add an acknowledgement in further editions.

Reprinted 2006

To Maura

v

vii

Contents

Acknowledgements ix

Series Editors’ note x

Abbreviations xii

Chapter 1Introduction to the testing of language for business purposes 1

Chapter 2The revision of BEC 82

Chapter 3Major changes to the suite 119

Chapter 4Changes in the BEC papers 130

Chapter 5Conclusions and the way forward 174

AppendicesAppendix 1.1: JOCT Evaluation Criteria 196Appendix 1.2: CEFLS Pilot Test 197Appendix 1.3: CEIBT – Test of Reading and Writing –

June and November 1992 205Appendix 1.4: BULATS – Standard Test English 225Appendix 1.5: BULATS – Speaking Test 241Appendix 1.6: BULATS – Standard Test German 244Appendix 2.1: ALTE Work Typical Abilities 260Appendix 3.1: BEC 1 Sample Paper 261Appendix 3.2: BEC 2 Sample Paper 277Appendix 3.3: BEC 3 Sample Paper 291Appendix 4.1: BEC Preliminary Sample Paper 302Appendix 4.2: BEC Vantage Sample Paper 328Appendix 4.3: BEC Higher Sample Paper 353

viii

Contents

Additional information on tests of language for business purposes 378

References 381

Index 393

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the many people at Cambridge ESOL who contributed tothis volume. I was lucky enough to be able to interview many of the individualswho were involved in the development and administration of their tests ofEnglish for business purposes, particularly the BULATS and BEC groups. Inparticular, I am indebted to Hugh Bateman, without whom the book could nothave been completed. Others I would like to single out include Mike Milanovicand Nick Saville, who provided historical information and access to internalreports, and Neil Jones, who provided documentation on the grading proceduresfor BEC. I would also like to thank David Thighe who clarified a number ofgrading-related issues, and who made valuable comments on the later drafts ofthis book. Finally, I would like to thank Rowena Akinyemi for all her work inensuring that this book made it to press.

I would also like to thank the following individuals and institutions forproviding information on their tests and for giving their permission for itemsfrom the tests to be included in the book:

Certificazione della conoscenza dell’italiano commerciale (Certificate in Italianfor Commerce – CIC): Professor Giuliana Grego Bolli and Francesca Parizzi ofthe Università per Stranieri di Perugia.JETRO tests: Professor Kiyokata Katoh of Tokyo Gakugei University andReiko Kimura of the Japan External Trade Organization.Pitman tests: Glyn Jones of City and Guilds, London.Cambridge ESOL tests: Dr Mike Milanovic of Cambridge ESOL.Table on page 101: reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press fromOxford Applied Linguistics: Fundamental Considerations in Language Testingby Lyle F Bachman © Lyle F Bachman 1990.

Finally, I would like to thank Professor Cyril Weir who read various parts of thebook and offered invaluable critical comments and advice.

ix

x

Series Editors’ note

The language testing world has flirted with the testing of English for specificpurposes for many years. In small scale testing contexts there have been andcontinue to be numerous specific assessments tailored to particular needs but inthe context of large scale international language testing, specific purpose assess-ments have been far less common.

Cambridge ESOL started testing English in 1913. In some ways you mightconsider the original Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE) a specificpurpose examination designed to meet the needs of those teaching Englishalthough over the years it has become far more general in its emphasis.Cambridge ESOL also collaborated with the British Council on the devel-opment of the English Language Testing Service (ELTS) in the 1970s which hadsix subject specific modules. IELTS, which evolved from ELTS in 1990, saw areduction in the academic modules to 3 and the 1995 revision of IELTS led to thesingle academic module alongside a general training variant.

There are many reasons for this retreat by IELTS, both practical andtheoretical. Developing numerous multiple modules in the quantities requiredwas a far from easy task. Ensuring that candidates took the right module wasdifficult. Equating modules proved technically very demanding. Ensuringcontent appropriateness required access to experts in a number of fields and soon. However, the need to extend the remit of General English assessmentremains. The context of Cambridge ESOL English language assessmentcurrently falls into four broad categories. Academic English (IELTS), BusinessEnglish (BEC and BULATS), Young Learners’ English (YLE) and GeneralEnglish (KET, PET, FCE, CAE, CPE and CELS) and in 2006 Cambridge ESOLwill launch the International Legal English Certificate. This test seeks to addressmore specifically English in the legal domain of use.

In Issues in testing business English, Barry O’Sullivan provides a frameworkfor classifying and understanding specific purpose language assessment. Thefirst part of the volume provides the reader with a comprehensive review ofnumerous business English tests as well as business language tests in otherlanguages. Some of the tests described no longer exist so the volume also servesas a useful historical record. This is followed by a detailed look at the revision ofthe Cambridge Business English Certificates (BEC).

Chapter 1 considers the relationship between general English and English forspecific purposes and the definition of a business English construct. O’Sullivanpresents a continuum ranging from an unspecified purpose to one that is highly

xi

specified. To this he adds construct, test method, skills coverage measurementqualities, degree of specificity/authenticity, non language factors and thereporting of test performance. This provides him with a framework forcomparison and he proceeds to evaluate a series of business language tests onthis basis. Particular attention is paid to some very widely used tests such asTOEIC, BULATS and BEC although the coverage of less widely known assess-ments is comprehensive. The text is illustrated with numerous examples of testitem types which make interesting reading.

Having provided a detailed context against which to understand BEC, subse-quent chapters consider BEC’s revision and look in detail at each of the threeBEC levels. The discussion of development methodology is interesting as is thefocus on test reliability. It is gratifying to note that an examination like BEC,operating on a truncated sample of the test taking population at each of its threelevels, demonstrating very good construct and content validity features andusing a good variety of realistic material with an authentic orientation, cannonetheless achieve respectably high reliability estimates. Throughout thisvolume readers are referred to Volume 15 (Weir, Cyril and Milanovic, Michael(Eds) (2003) Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge Proficiency inEnglish Examination 1913 – 2002 ) in the same series which gives an even moredetailed account of the principles that underline the Cambridge approach to testdevelopment and validation. The appendix has a comprehensive set of BECmaterials but is complemented by a focus on two other tests, the Certificate inEnglish as a Foreign Language for Secretaries and the Certificates in English forInternational Business and Trade which informed the development of BEC butare no longer available.

The final chapter is particularly important as it discusses in some detail theissue of authenticity and its relationship to the specificity continuum linking theargument in with Weir’s validation framework (Cyril J. Weir (2004) LanguageTesting and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach, Palgrave Macmillan).

O’Sullivan presents a multicomponential view of specificity and is able toclearly distinguish between different tests and tasks using his approach. Thevolume concludes with a focus on future research suggestions, part of whichwas arrived at collaboratively with staff at Cambridge ESOL.

Issues in testing business English is the third volume in this series (the othertwo being volumes 15 and 16) to document both a historical perspective and astudy of test revision with a focus on the implications this has. A volume onacademic English assessment authored by Alan Davies is forthcoming. Thisvolume documents the history of the assessment of English for academicpurposes from the 1950s to the present with a particular focus on the devel-opment and validation of IELTS.

Michael MilanovicCyril Weir

Cambridge 2005

Series Editors’ note

xii

Abbreviations

ALTE Association of Language Testers in EuropeAPA American Psychological AssociationBEC Business English CertificateBULATS Business Language Testing SystemCAE Certificate in Advanced EnglishCAL Center for Applied LinguisticsCAT Computer Adaptive TestCBT Computer-Based TestCEF Common European Framework CEFLS Certificate in English as a Foreign Language for SecretariesCEIBT Certificate in English for International Business and TradeCIC Certificate in Italian for Commerce (Certificazione della

conoscenza dell’italiano commerciale)CPE Certificate of Proficiency in EnglishDIF Differential Item FunctioningEAP English for Academic PurposesEBC English for Business CommunicationEFL English as a Foreign LanguageELT English Language TeachingEOS English for Office SkillsESOL English for Speakers of Other LanguagesESP English for Specified PurposesETS Educational Testing ServiceFCE First Certificate in EnglishGIMS General Impression Mark SchemeGQ General QuestionnaireIATEFL International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign

LanguageIELTS International English Language Testing SystemIRT Item Response TheoryJETRO Japan External Trade OrganizationJOCT JETRO Oral Communication TestJRLT JETRO Reading and Listening Comprehension TestKCQ Key Contacts QuestionnaireKET Key English TestLCCIEB London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board

LSP Language for Specific PurposesMCQ Multiple-Choice QuestionOET Occupational English TestOIBEC Oxford International Business English CertificateUODLE University of Oxford Delegacy of Local ExaminationsPET Preliminary English TestPLAB General Medical Council’s Professional and Linguistic

Assessments Board (test of overseas doctors’ language proficiency)

QCA Qualifications and Curriculum AuthorityRITCME Recruitment, Induction, Training, Co-ordination, Monitoring,

EvaluationRSA Royal Society of ArtsSAQ Short Answer QuestionTAAS Texas Assessment of Academic SkillsTEEP Test of English for Educational PurposesTFI Test de français internationalTOEFL Test of English as a Foreign LanguageTOEIC Test of English for International CommunicationUCLES University of Cambridge Local Examinations SyndicateVRIP Validity, Reliability, Impact and Practicality

xiii

Abbreviations

1

Introduction to the testing oflanguage for businesspurposes

A brief historical introductionThough there have been formal tests of general proficiency around for manyyears – see Weir (2003a) for an interesting and informative historicalperspective on the Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE) since its intro-duction in 1913 – interest in language for specific purposes has a far shorterhistory, emerging, according to Swales (1984:11) with Barber’s (1962) SomeMeasurable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose. This is not to say thatthere has been an awareness of the use of language for specific purposes only inrecent times. Schröder reminds us:

. . . when new counting house regulations were issued for the London Salhofin 1554, these stated amongst other things that young apprentices fromGermany would have to spend one year with a clothmaker in the country, sothat they might get a proper command of everyday English and the morespecific technical terms . . . (1981:43).

Much of the early work in the area was driven by research which focused onthe identification of unique instances of language use in specific contexts(Hüllen 1981a, 1981b, Johns 1980, Lackstrom, Selinker and Trimble 1973,Selinker and Douglas 1985, Swales 1971, to list but a few), the issue of authen-ticity in the use of materials for teaching (e.g. Carver 1983) and the central placeof needs analysis in identifying the specific language needs of learners in givencontexts (Alwright and Alwright 1977, Brindley 1984, Gledhill 2000, Hawkey1978, Hutchinson and Walters 1987, Kennedy and Bolitho 1984, LCCIEB1972, Robinson 1980, 1985, Thurstun and Candlin 1998, West 1994). As can beseen from the dates of these publications, much of the English for SpecificPurposes (ESP) debate was conducted almost twenty years ago, yet many of thesame questions continue to be asked today.

Hawkey (2004) outlines the changes in theories of language learning andteaching that lead to the development of a clearly defined ESP methodology,and led to an awareness of the need to establish a set of clearly rationalised testing procedures. In the case of the testing of language for

1

1 Introduction to the testing of language for business purposes

2

business purposes, the first test to emerge was the Test of English for Interna-tional Communication (TOEIC). It was developed by Educational TestingServices (ETS) in the USA and introduced in 1979. The test, originally devisedfor the Japanese market, was based firmly on psychometric–structuralist theory(Spolsky 1995) and represents one of the few remaining (though highlysuccessful from a commercial perspective) examples of a multiple-choiceformat, standardised, international language test.

While the TOEIC looked backwards for its theoretical underpinning, othertests of business language, particularly those developed in the UK, werebeginning to look to a more communicative model. Theorists on communicativecompetence, particularly Canale and Swain (1980), Hymes (1972) and practi-tioners like Munby (1978) had a profound influence on the practice of languageteaching and testing. One major influence was the facilitation of a movementaway from the psychometric–structuralist methodology, based on the teachingand testing of discrete aspects of language, to the psycholinguistic–sociolinguistic era, where language teaching and testing were seen from aholistic or integrated perspective. The shift in emphasis in language teachingfrom language knowledge to language use paved the way for a testing method-ology which reflected the same ideas. Hawkey (2004) traces the historical devel-opment of the theoretical movements of this period and provides acontextualisation for the emerging interest in the teaching and later testing ofESP. With the exception of the TOEIC, the tests described in the followingsections have an essentially performance-based orientation in which emphasisis placed on the contextualisation of the tasks and predicted linguistic responseswithin the business setting.

In the mid-1980s the move to the testing of language for business purposes inthe UK began in earnest with the development by the Royal Society of Arts(RSA) of the Certificate in English as a Foreign Language for Secretaries(CEFLS) – which was later administered as the Certificate in English for Inter-national Business and Trade (CEIBT) – and a corresponding move by theLondon Chamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board (LCCIEB)and Pitman (now part of the City and Guilds Examinations Board) to createlanguage tests with a business focus. When the RSA was subsumed into theUniversity of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) in 1988 theRSA test was administered by UCLES, establishing its portfolio of languagetests for business.

In the early 1990s two new examinations, the Business English Certificate(BEC) and Business Language Testing System (BULATS) were developed byUCLES. It is the former of these tests that forms the basis for the latter part of thisbook, in which the procedures used by Cambridge ESOL in the BusinessEnglish Certificate (BEC) suite revision are outlined and exemplified.

During the mid- to late-1990s a number of tests of other languages forbusiness emerged. These included JETRO (Japanese), Test de français interna-

Theoretical perspectives

3

tional (TFI) from the makers of TOEIC, the Certificate in Italian for Commerce(CIC) and the tests in the BULATS series (French, German and Spanish inaddition to the English version).

There is clearly a growing interest in the area of testing language for businesspurposes, particularly with the internationalisation of business and the need foremployees to interact in more than just a single language. The move towards a‘business language’ testing genre is reflected in the tests mentioned above anddescribed in the latter part of this chapter.

Theoretical perspectivesIn the only serious attempt to date to build a theoretical rationale for the testingof language for specific purposes, Douglas (2000) argues that a theoreticalframework can be built around two principal theoretical foundations. The first ofthese is based on the assumption that language performance varies with thecontext of that performance. This assumption is supported by a well establishedliterature in the area of sociolinguistics – see for example Labov’s (1963) classicstudy of vowel change on Martha’s Vineyard – in addition to research in theareas of second language acquisition (Dickerson 1975, Ellis 1989, Schmidt1980, Smith 1989, Tarone 1985, 1988) and language testing (Berry, 1996, 1997,Brown 1995, 1998, Brown and Lumley 1997, O’Sullivan 1995, 2000a, 2000b,2002a, Porter 1991a, 1991b, Porter and Shen, 1991). This fits well with thegrowing interest in a socio-cognitive approach to language test developmentwhere performance conditions are seen to have a symbiotic relationship with thecognitive processing involved in task completion (introduced by O’Sullivan2000a and discussed in detail by Weir 2004).

In the case of the second foundation, Douglas sees specific purpose languagetests as being ‘precise’ in that they will have lexical, semantic, syntactic andphonological characteristics that distinguish them from the language of more‘general purpose’ contexts. This aspect of Douglas’s position is also supportedby an ever increasing literature, most notably in the area of corpus-based studiesof language in specific contexts (Beeching 1997, Biber et al 1998, Dudley-Evans and St John 1996, Gledhill 2000, Thurstun and Candlin 1998).

When it came to an actual definition of specific purpose tests, Douglas placesthese two foundations within a single overriding concept, that of authenticity,defining a test of specific purposes as:

One in which test content and methods are derived from an analysis of aspecific purpose target language use situation, so that test tasks and contentare authentically representative of tasks in the target situation, allowing foran interaction between the test taker’s language ability and specific purposecontent knowledge, on one hand, and the test tasks on the other. Such a testallows us to make inferences about a test taker’s capacity to use language inthe specific purpose domain (2000:19).


4

This definition highlights the core element of Douglas’s view of LSP tests; thatof authenticity. Douglas does not see this as being a simple matter of replicatingspecific purpose tasks in a testing context, but of addressing authenticity fromtwo perspectives. The first perspective is that of situational authenticity, whereLSP test tasks are seen as being ‘authentic’ in that they are derived from ananalysis of the language use domain with which they are associated. The secondperspective is interactional authenticity, which relates to the actual processingthat takes place in task performance, what Weir (2004) refers to as theory-basedvalidity.

This definition has not remained unquestioned. In fact, Douglas (2001)himself acknowledges that there are a number of issues left unanswered by hisdefinition, an argument also made by Elder (2001). This criticism focuses onwhat Elder (2001) sees as the three principal problematic areas identified in thework of Douglas, namely, the distinguishability of distinct ‘specific purpose’contexts; authenticity; and the impact (and interaction) of non-language factors.

By non-language factors one of two things is meant. The first relates to theelements of communication not associated with language – in everyday commu-nication, transferral of message is achieved through a combination of language,cues, signals and symbols. There is a broad literature in psychology on thisphenomenon (see for example Brown, Palmeta and Moore 2003, Vargo 1994).The second way of looking at this is the impact of background knowledge, in thiscase of the business domain, on an individual’s ability to perform a particulartask, in this case related to an aspect of business communication.

The first of these two perspectives is common across all tests of languageproduction, not solely Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) tests. It is not justrelated to tests of speaking, where variables such as physical appearance, dress,gestures and posture have all been shown to have an effect on interlocutorperceptions of performance (see for example the work in the area of job inter-views of Bordeaux 2002, Chia et al 1998, and Straus, Miles and Levesque 2001),but is also to be seen in tests of writing where handwriting and general presen-tation skills impact on how writing is evaluated by examiners (see for exampleSprouse and Webb 1994, Sweedler-Brown 1992). This aspect of performanceassessment is certainly a potential threat to test validity, and is typically dealtwith in the development of assessment scales or, more likely, throughrater/examiner training.

The latter perspective, the extent to which candidates’ backgroundknowledge impacts on his/her test performance is again not associated solelywith LSP tests. A test of language for specific purposes is situated, by its verynature, in a specific context, and, also by its very nature, expects (if notdemands) of its candidates a knowledge of that context. The literature has shownthat background knowledge has a significant and apparently systematic effecton LSP test performance (see for example Alderson and Urquhart 1984, 1985,1988, Clapham 1996, Steffensen and Joag-Dev 1984). It also appears that as a

Distinguishing LSP from general English

5

test becomes more highly specific this effect becomes more acute and it wouldseem that it is at this extreme that the difficulty in teasing apart languageperformance and task completion occurs – in other words, in a highly specifictest, success on a task is dependent on a successful interplay of language andnon-language elements. This feature of highly specific tests at one time led toinnovations such as in the General Medical Council’s Professional andLinguistic Assessments Board (PLAB) oral test where medics assessed themedical content of ESP tasks and the language examiner commented on thelanguage performance (both informal with patients and formal with profes-sional colleagues, on a generic ELT scale) though specialist lexis etc. remainedthe domain of the subject specialists.

It can be argued that a test of language for a specific purpose should not eventry to avoid the background knowledge issue, as it is this that defines the test.How we deal with the situation will depend on the degree of specificity of thetest and the inferences we intend to draw from performance on the test.

Turning to the remaining criticisms of an ESP approach to testing, we can seethat there are basically two questions that should be addressed. These are:

1. Distinguishing LSP from general language – is it possible and/or feasible?2. Authenticity – can LSP tests be made both situationally and interactionally

authentic?

Distinguishing LSP from general EnglishThere is a considerable body of work over the last thirty years which has quiteclearly demonstrated the distinguishability of language use in specific contexts.We can point to the work on the definition of language needs and usage inspecific contexts of needs analysis researchers and theorists. Among theinfluential early work were studies undertaken by Hawkey (1978), who offereda practical demonstration of how needs analysis can lead to a specific purposecurriculum, and Alwright and Alwright’s (1977) practical advice on anapproach to the teaching of medical English.

In the area of testing language for specific purposes, perhaps the mostimportant undertaking was that of the London Chamber of Commerce andIndustry Examinations Board (LCCIEB) in 1972. The LCCIEB had beenproviding business-related qualifications around the world for almost a hundredyears when, in 1972, its language section undertook a major analysis of ‘foreign’language use involving over 11,500 employees of almost six hundred interna-tional firms. This analysis, and the replications undertaken in the FederalRepublic of Germany, France, Greece and Spain between 1982 and 1985, wereto prove influential in the development of teaching and testing practice in the UKduring the 1970s and 1980s.

In a series of seminal articles in the 1980s, Alderson and Urquhart (1984,


6

1985, 1988) found that ‘academic background can play an important’ thoughnot consistent ‘role in test performance’ (Alderson and Urquhart 1985:201) andthat ‘particular groups of students may be disadvantaged by being tested onareas outside their academic field’ (Alderson and Urquhart 1988:182). Theyalso suggested that their studies ‘demonstrated the need to take account of otherfactors, such as linguistic proficiency’ (Alderson and Urquhart 1985:201). Atabout the same time Steffensen and Joag-Dev (1984) demonstrated thesignificant impact on comprehension of a reader’s cultural background. Thepicture that is developing here is that background knowledge is a significantfactor in specific purpose language testing, a point that was made by Clapham(1996) with reference to highly specific tests.

In fact, Clapham’s (1996) study provided quite a few answers, or at leastdirections in which to look for answers, to many of the questions asked about theimpact of background knowledge on performance in LSP tests. While looking atperformance on a test of English for academic purposes (International EnglishLanguage Testing System IELTS), Clapham’s interpretation of the results ofher in-depth and complex study have direct consequences for the testing oflanguage for any specific purpose. It is therefore worth looking back overClapham’s work. Among other things, Clapham reports that:

• . . . students achieved significantly higher scores on the module in their ownsubject area than on the module outside it (1996:188) … [though] the resultsdepend on the specificity of the tests (1996:189)

• . . . it is possible to identify some of the characteristics which lead topassages being more or less specific, but that these characteristics are notalways immediately obvious (1996:191) . . . [though] it was the rhetoricalfunction of the passages rather than the sources of the texts which affectedtheir specificity (1996:191)

• it is not always easy to classify candidates into simply defined subgroups, asthe evidence from Clapham indicates that her participants were widely readoutside of their own area of study (1996:192–3)

• it seems likely that as the modules became more subject specific,background knowledge had a proportionally stronger effect on test scores(1996:193). In addition, subject area familiarity made a significantcontribution to test scores, whereas topic familiarity did not . . . [this]suggests that knowledge of a subject area might have a greater effect thantopic familiarity on the subject specificity of a reading passage (1996:193)

• there seemed to be a threshold below which students did not make use of this[background] knowledge, and above which they did (1996:194).

The implications of the work referred to earlier in the chapter (e.g. Barber1962, Hüllen 1981a, 1981b, Johns 1980, Lackstrom, Selinker and Trimble1973, LCCIEB 1972, Schröder 1981, Selinker and Douglas 1985, Swales 1971,1984, Weir 1983) when seen in light of these findings suggest that there is a

Authenticity

7

clearly definable language of business (and of other areas of specific interestsuch as science, technology etc.) and that where tests are devised with a deliber-ately high level of specificity towards an explicit area, then candidates whosebackground is grounded in that area can be expected to outperform candidatesfrom a different background, given similar linguistic competence.

There is still a problem, however, in defining the boundaries of specificcontext areas (Cumming 2001, Davies 2001, Elder 2001). It appears to be thecase that while we can identify particular aspects of language use as beingspecific to a given context (such as vocabulary, syntax, rhetorical organisation),we cannot readily identify exact limits to the language that is used in thatcontext. This is because there are no ‘exact limits’. Business language, likescientific or medical language is situated within and interacts with the generallanguage domain, a domain that cannot, by its very nature, be rigidly defined.

AuthenticityThough Douglas (2000) built his definition of what makes a test ‘specific’around the notions of situational and interactional authenticity, he later(Douglas 2001) pointed to some difficulties in operationalising such adefinition. The notion of situational authenticity is relatively easy to conceptu-alise. Situational authenticity refers to the accurate reflection in the test design ofthe conditions of linguistic performance from the language use domain – Weir’s(2004) text and task demands. Tests such as that for air traffic controllersdescribed by Teasdale (1994), where candidates were tested in a situation thatclosely replicated the specific purpose domain, are as close as we can get to acompletely situationally authentic test. The mere fact that the event is being usedas a test lessens the authenticity – though I’m sure that few readers would expectthat the ability of air traffic controllers to cope linguistically with the demands oftheir work should be tested in a truly authentic situation! The opposite to thiswould be the relative situational inauthenticity of the MATHSPEAK test, thespecific purpose version of the SPEAK (the institutional form of the Test ofSpoken English, the TSE) referred to by Elder (2001), where there is no attemptmade to replicate the teaching context it is designed to be generalised to.

However, in the case of interactional authenticity there is a lesser degree ofcertainty in that, to the present time, it has not been clearly conceptualised, letalone operationalised. Though the common view (that the test should result in aninteraction between the task and the relevant language ability) is clear enough,to my knowledge there has not been a significant contribution to its operational-isation – that is, insufficient work has been done to link context-based validityelements to theory-based processing. Test developers and researchers tend torely on anecdotal evidence or ‘expert’ judgements to make decisions on theinteractional authenticity of a test task – in the review of a range of businesslanguage tests that comes later in this chapter, I fall foul of the same tendency.


8

So, critics of an LSP approach to language testing have raised genuineconcerns regarding the distinguishability of distinct ‘specific purpose’ contexts,authenticity, and the impact on test performance of non-language factors – notjust for LSP testing but for language testing in general. I do not believe that theseare insurmountable and I will return to the matter in the final chapter of thisbook.

Assessing performanceWhile the above issues have focused on the test content and on the theoreticaljustification for utilising a particular test task, there are other issues in LSPtesting that have not really been addressed. Like any test, the reliability(stability, consistency and accuracy) of LSP tests is central to the test’s value. Inthe section devoted to reliability in the context of the BEC suite (Chapter 2) Ilook in some detail at this issue, so I will not spend time or space here in anextended discussion, except to say that the way we estimate and report the relia-bility of tests such as the BEC suite is in need of re-appraisal as the statisticalapproaches taken to date offer us only a limited understanding of the true relia-bility of these tests.

A related issue is the way in which we evaluate or assess writing and speakingtest performances, in that it is associated with the creation of the test score,which is central to any test.

There are a number of issues here:

• the scale criteria• the level represented by the scale• the use of the scale (who, how etc.).

The scale criteria

Though the literature abounds with scales that do not seem to have been derivedfrom any particular theoretical or empirical base, the movement in the 1990stowards more supportable scale development means that the current ratingscales which reflect best practice in the area tend to have a sound basis (see North1996, North and Schneider 1998). While the whole area of rating scale devel-opment is far too complex to be dealt with adequately in this short section, it isimportant to point to the need for any rating scale to be based on the same modelor perception of language as drives the rest of the test development process. Agood example of this are the rating scales used in the Cambridge ESOL MainSuite examinations (Hawkey 2001).

In their response to the criticisms voiced by Foot (1999), Saville andHargreaves (1999) present a model of communicative ability upon which theCambridge ESOL Main Suite speaking examinations are based (see Figure 1.1).

Assessing performance

9

This model is based on the earlier work of Canale and Swain (1980) andBachman (1990), as well as on the Council of Europe specifications for theWaystage and Threshold levels of competence (Saville and Hargreaves 1999:46).

We can see that language competence is described in terms of Bachman(1990:84–98) and Bachman and Palmer’s (1996:67) organisational (grammarand discourse), pragmatic and strategic competences.

Figure 1.1 Communicative language ability

Source: Saville and Hargreaves (1999:45)

The rating scales used in the Cambridge Main Suite Speaking paper examinations consist of four criteria, grammar and vocabulary, discoursemanagement, pronunciation and interactive communication, each of which isawarded a score in the range of 0–5. Though it is not clear from Saville andHargreaves exactly how the scale is meant to reflect the model of competencethey quote, it would appear that it is meant to operate as represented inFigure 1.2.

It is clear from this figure that the notion of pragmatic competence is notexplicitly dealt with in the scales (for convenience, only the middle score of 3 ispresented in this figure, though the descriptions offered here are similar to theother levels in terms of relevance to model criteria). The notion of pragmaticcompetence (or knowledge) is seen by Bachman and Palmer as being related tothe ability to ‘create or interpret discourse by relating utterances or sentencesand texts to their meanings’ (1996: 69). In other words, pragmatic competence isseen as being comprised of functional and sociolinguistic knowledge and assuch has been identified here with the criterion discourse management – which,though the name implies an ability to ‘manage’ the interaction (in the sense ofBygate 1987), in the context of this scale it is actually concerned with coherence,

Grammatical

SyntaxMorphologyVocabulary

Pronunciation

Rhetorical OrganisationCoherenceCohesion

e.g. Sensitivity to

illocution

Interaction skillsNon-verbal features of

interaction

Discourse Pragmatic

Spoken Language Ability

Language Competence Strategic Competence


10

cohesion and, if this representation is accepted, an ability to demonstratefunctional and sociolinguistic competence.

Figure 1.2 Communicative language ability and the Cambridge ESOLFCE analytic scale

When advocating a move towards an integrated language/specific areaability approach, Douglas (2000) suggests using what he refers to as‘indigenous’ scales in LSP tests. The argument being that the criteria actuallyemployed in the evaluation of specific purpose performances are specific to thecontext of that performance – a position which is seen as support for the insepa-rability of language and performance of specific purpose tasks (Douglas 2001,Elder 2001). While the case made by Douglas is strong, there are a number ofpoints which still need further consideration.

The central problem here is one of construct definition, and therefore of theinferences that are to be drawn from a particular test. In the case of the Occupa-tional English Test (OET), for instance, which is criticised by Douglas and by itsprinciple creator, McNamara (in Jacoby and McNamara 1999) for using a‘general purpose’ rating scale, rather than one devised from an analysis of thetarget language use (TLU) situation, the criticism has some basis, in that thescale used was a rather primitive adaptation of the FSI oral proficiency scale(Wilds 1975). However, the test, for whatever reason (the one suggested wasbureaucratic expedience) was meant to offer a measure of the ability of overseashealth professionals to cope with the English language demands of theirparticular medical specialisation. The inferences to be drawn from performanceon the test were therefore related to their language competence, nothing else. In

3.0

Band

Grammar is sufficiently

accurate. Usesappropriate

vocabulary indealing with the

tasks.

Grammar andVocabulary

Uses adequaterange of linguisticresources to dealsufficiently wellwith the tasks.

Contributions mayoccasionally belimited or lack

coherence

DiscourseManagement

Produces individualsounds and

prosodic featuressufficiently well to

be understood. L1 accent may

cause occasionaldifficulty.

Pronunciation

Has sufficient interactive ability tocarry out the tasks. Maintains flowof language when carrying out the

tasks although may occasionally lack sensitivity to turn

taking and hesitation may occurwhile searching for

language. Does not require majorassistance or prompting to carry

out the tasks.

Interactive Communication

Grammatical Discourse Pragmatic

Strategic CompetenceLanguage Competence


11

this respect, the OET appears to have been a successful test. If it were to becomea ‘true’ performance measure (in that it should offer a measure of the test taker’sability to perform the particular medical duties under scrutiny) then clearly adifferent approach to the evaluation of the performance would be needed. It maybe, for instance, that the same role-played performance could be used as alanguage measure and, when subjected to scrutiny using ‘indigenous’ criteria(which might include an aspect of language), serve to offer evidence of medicalability (see the reference on page 5 to the PLAB test in the UK).

The level represented by the scale

Scales can be designed to represent a whole range of ability levels, for examplesee the sample band descriptors for the Test of English for Educational Purposes(TEEP) from the University of Reading – Figure 1.3 (O’Sullivan 1999). As wecan see from this figure, this scale ranges from a level of non-language to that ofvery high competence in the language and is obviously designed to be usedacross the whole ability range.

When a test is designed to measure language ability on or around a particularproficiency level – for example if we are planning to design a test of writing forcandidates at the Common European Framework (CEF) level B2 (Vantage) weare faced with a bit of a conundrum. If we decide to create a scale to describeability across all levels (see Figure 1.4), with only the portion corresponding toB2 in use for this particular test, we are faced with either making simpletrichotomous decisions (the candidate is below this level, at this level or abovethis level), or describing multiple levels of ability within each of the six abilitylevels. This would make the scale both extremely difficult to develop andvalidate and also very difficult if not impossible to use, as raters would be facedwith the same problem they met in trying to use the scales devised by Fulcher(1996) where the ‘thick’ description of typical performance at each scale levelwas so detailed that the scale became unusable.

Another option is to create a single scale, which is then interpreted atwhichever ability level it is to be used at (say C1 or A2). With this type of scale,there is increased pressure on the developer to ensure that the scale is sufficientlyclear so as to ensure that users can easily distinguish the different levels ofperformance within the scale, but sufficiently general to allow the scale to beinterpreted at the different levels of ability. While of great practical use, this typeof scale is not easy to develop and validate and depends on examiner/ratertraining and monitoring if it is to be successfully used.

The most commonly used method is to create individual scales for use at eachlevel. In order to ensure that the scales are identifying appropriate levels ofachievement at each level they must be linked in some way. This processinvolves a major investment in resources – and the resulting scale is still


12

dependent on rater training (though not to the extent of the option suggestedabove). However, evidence of improvements in inter- and intra-rater reliabilitysuggest that this approach is viable (see Hawkey 2001 and Hawkey and Barker2004).

The use of the scale (who, how etc.)

The remaining issues associated with the rating scale relate to who should beinvolved in the development and application of the scale. The first of theseissues centres around the content of the scale – to what extent can we define a setof criteria that will offer a valid framework through which a test performance

Figure 1.3 The overall impression scale from the Test of English forEducational Purposes (TEEP)

Source: O’Sullivan (1999)

Overall Impression Score

The writing is completely satisfactory. 9

8

The writing is satisfactory and generally communicates fluently with only occasional 7lapses of organisation and structure. Clear well argued position taken.

The writing is mainly satisfactory and communicates with some degree of fluency. 6Although there is occasional strain for the reader, control of organisational patterns and devices is evident. Clear argument, though the writer’s point of view is not obvious.

The writing sometimes causes strain for the reader. While the reader is aware of an 5overall lack of fluency, there is a sense of an answer which has an underlying coherence. Somewhat poor control of the language and little evidence of the writer’s point of view. May contain occasional direct ‘lifting’ of the text from the input or inappropriate use of quotations or references.

4

The seriousness of the problems in writing prevents meaning from coming through more 3than spasmodically. Evidence of systematic plagiarism or excessive use of quotationsor referencing.

2

• a virtual non-writer; contains no assessable pieces of English writing 1• wholly, or almost wholly copied from the source materials

• less than approximately 50 words

Candidate did not attend or attempt the question in any way. 0


13

can be assessed – while the second point refers to the notion of who is qualifiedto make decisions (based on the scale) in an LSP performance test.

Douglas (2001) argues that the criteria included in a rating scale shouldemerge from the same needs analysis that is used to define the language usedomain, and that these criteria should then be augmented and supported by ourcurrently-used theoretically-based approaches (see Weir 1983). He goes on tosuggest a ‘weaker’ indigenous scale hypothesis:

. . . in which the indigenous criteria may be used first to supplement linguistically-oriented criteria in line with the construct definition, and,secondly, to help guide our interpretations of language performances inspecific purpose tests (Douglas, 2001:183).

What Douglas seems to be saying is that we should attempt to discover thelinguistic criteria relevant to making judgements of performance in a particularTLU domain and try to ‘square’ these with what we know of existing languageability theory. The problem again lies in the area of boundary definition. Howcan we decide where to draw the line between creating a scale that is very muchfocused on the task in question and creating a scale that can be used to generalisebeyond a specific event? It appears that we cannot easily do this. A scale canallow us to draw one type of inference from our test but not both.

Another problem lies in the fact that in performance tests the rating scale is alink between task performance and test score, so it must be theoretically sound(in that it is tied to our construct definition and allows for meaningful inferencesto be drawn from test performance) as well as practically usable. Though there issome evidence to suggest that raters can use rating scales in a similar wayirrespective of their background (Lumley 1998, Lumley and McNamara 1995),this is really only an issue where the decision being reached is specific to aparticular area and where the test is representative of the ‘strong’ view ofperformance testing.

It is important to remember at all times that the purpose of an LSP test is tohelp us draw inferences on the ability of a candidate to use the language of aspecified domain in the context of that domain and in a manner that is

Figure 1.4 Practicality problem with a single scale across all levels

1

2

3

4

5

6

C2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

unused section

‘useful’ section

unused section

‘useful’ section


14

appropriate to that domain. Its purpose is not to allow us to draw inferencesrelated to a candidate’s ability to perform other than linguistically in the domainitself.

Towards a theoretical conceptualisation ofbusiness language testsThe main thrust of this chapter so far is that it is not helpful to take the view thattests can only be seen as being ‘specific purpose’ (SP) if they are very narrowlyfocused on a particular ‘purpose’ area and are representative of, to borrowMcNamara’s (1996) expression, a ‘strong’ view of specific purpose testing.Instead there are a number of perspectives related to ‘specific purpose’ tests thatoffer a not incompatible expansion to the definition of SP tests offered byDouglas (2000:19).

1. As all tests are in some way ‘specific’, it is best to think of all language testsas being placed somewhere on a continuum of specificity, from the broadgeneral purpose test such as the Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE)to the highly specific test (Figure 1.5), such as the test for air trafficcontrollers described by Teasdale (1994).

Figure 1.5 A view of test specificity

2. Very highly specific tests tend to be very poor in terms of generalisability,while the opposite can be said of non-specific tests. There is not a binarychoice in operation here, and if we accept that tests can be developed along aspecificity continuum, then it logically follows that a test which appears tobe placed somewhere other than the extremes of the continuum will have thepotential to be either more or less generalisable.We could conceive of a test task that is specific only in that it is placedwithin the context of an employment/career area (in our case ‘business’),and that will be generalisable to the broader ‘general language use’ contextbecause it is essentially testing non-specific language, or it is not activatingthe same cognitive processes as a task that is more highly specific does.

3. Where a test is situated closer and closer to the more highly specific end ofthe continuum, the focus on situational authenticity also changes. That is, ahighly specific test will most closely reflect the ‘real world’ situation orcontext, while a more general, less specific test will be less likely to do so(though it is not impossible that a specific context might be exploited in a

UnspecifiedPurpose

Highly SpecifiedPurpose

Describing tests of business language

15

test of general proficiency). In other words, a highly specific test will clearlydemonstrate situational authenticity.

4. Since we are essentially focused on tests of language, the aim of any specificpurpose language test is to attempt to say something about a candidate’slanguage ability within the specific context of interest. Therefore, the extentto which a test task engages a candidate’s underlying processing andlanguage resources to the same degree as called for within the specificcontext domain indicates the degree of interactional authenticity of that testtask.

5. The degree to which non-language factors impact on a candidate’s testperformance will reflect the degree of specificity of that test. Therefore, in ahighly specific language test it may not be possible to separate the languagefrom the specific event. Where such a test is called for (i.e. a ‘strong’ form ofspecific purpose tests) this should be recognised in the definition of theconstruct and as such the only possible way to assess language performanceshould be within performance in the event, using, for example, the type of‘indigenous’ assessment rubrics or scales suggested by McNamara andJacoby (1999) and developed by Abdul-Raof (2002).

It is clear from these five points that the notion of ‘degree of specificity’ iscentral to any definition of a specific purpose language test – since the impact ofother factors will vary, depending on the positioning of a test along a specificitycontinuum. In the sections that follow, I will review a series of tests of languagefor business purposes, taking these points into account – though of course noreview would be appropriate without some reference being made to otheraspects of a test’s quality.

Describing tests of business languageIn this section, I will review a series of business language tests from thetheoretical perspective suggested above. From this review, I hope to findevidence to support such a perspective, leading to a more comprehensive under-standing of the issues involved in the testing of language for business purposesin particular and for specific purpose language testing in general.

Of course, tests should not be evaluated solely on the basis of the theoreticalconcepts described above. Those qualities that can be seen to offer morecomprehensive evidence of the test’s usefulness should also be taken intoaccount. Accordingly, the following reviews will be structured using thefollowing framework:

1. A brief introduction to the test.2. A brief description of the test.3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focuses.


16

4. The test method.5. Skills’ coverage.6. Measurement qualities.7. Degree of specificity/Authenticity.8. Impact of non-language factors.9. Reporting of test performance.

Test of English for International Communication(TOEIC)

1. A brief introduction to the testThe testing of language for the purpose of establishing benchmarks for partici-pants in international business or commerce in the modern era appears to havestarted with the development of the Test of English for International Communi-cation (TOEIC). The test, developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS)in response to suggestions by the Japanese government (prompted by its largeindustrial corporations), was first administered in 1979. According to an earlytest user’s guide (ETS 1986:1), the test was designed to test two aspects oflearners’ language:

• ability to understand a business-related conversation in standard English• reading English language work manuals, correspondence, technical books

and articles.

The TOEIC was designed as a standardised test of reading and listeningcomprehension, set in the context of international trade and commerce. Itconsisted of a series of 100 multiple-choice items for each of the two skillstested. While it was originally designed for the Asian (particularly the Japanese)market, its use has now spread to other parts of the world.

2. A brief description of the testThe TOEIC is a 200-item test in which two aspects of a test taker’s language aretested, listening and reading comprehension, as mentioned above, there are 100items for each of the two aspects tested. All items in the TOEIC use a multiple-choice question (MCQ) format.

The Listening sectionThis section consists of 100 items and takes approximately 45 minutes tocomplete. Input consists of four parts

1. Statements related to a series of photographs (20 items, 4-option MCQ).2. Questions, responses required (30 items, 3-option MCQ).

TOEIC

17

3. Short conversations (30 items, 4-option MCQ).4. Short talks (20 items, 4-option MCQ).

The Listening section offers a series of activities ranging from very basiclevel identification of elements related to a set of photographs, through to under-standing the content of short conversations and talks. At no time do the testtakers listen to extended discourse, nor do they need to actually do anything withthe information received (except select either an acceptable reply to a questionor a summary of what was heard).

The Reading section This again consists of 100 items, though here 75 minutes are allowed. There arethree parts:

1. Sentence completion (40 items, 4-option MCQ).2. Error recognition (20 items, 4-option MCQ).3. Comprehension of short texts (40 items, 4-option MCQ).

The ‘comprehension’ section has been criticised (Douglas 2000:235) both forthe fact that it is non-reciprocal in nature and for the disparate sub-skills thatappear to be tested by the different items – which seem to draw on skills such asscanning for detail and making pragmatic as opposed to propositional infer-ences from a text – in other words, drawing on background knowledge. Anothercriticism is the decision to use only largely decontextualised short texts, whichat best represent fragments of texts, rather than use a variety of text types andlengths. Similar criticisms can be made of the other section; for example, the‘sentence completion’ section appears to test grammar and vocabulary, whilethe ‘error recognition’ tests sentence level grammatical and lexical awareness –so, while we may be able to say that a test taker can identify errors in a text, wecannot say that that person would be able to identify non-highlighted errors in alonger script, nor can we say that that person would be able to correct anyidentified errors unless a selection of options is offered. This problem with thelength of the texts is also clearly important, with these two sections only dealingwith single sentence input.

As mentioned above, this format has not changed since TOEIC was firstintroduced in 1979.

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesFrom the standpoint of the theoretical framework of LSP suggested here, theTOEIC is problematic from a number of perspectives. The description of the testhighlights a problem with the way in which the test is specified. It seems thatDouglas’s (2000:236) criticism that ‘it is unlikely that the reading tasks engagethe test takers in genuinely communicative behaviour or in genuinely specificpurpose language use’ suggests that the test should not be considered to be a


18

‘genuine’ LSP test at all, and indicates that it should be placed towards the‘general’ or ‘unspecified’ end of the specificity continuum discussed above.

There is also a problem with the inferences that can be drawn from theTOEIC. According to the TOEIC Users Guide, the test:

. . . measures the everyday English skills of people working in an interna-tional environment. TOEIC test scores indicate how well people cancommunicate in English with others in the global workplace. The test doesnot require specialized knowledge or vocabulary; it only measures the kindof English used in everyday work activities (Chauncey Group 1999:4).

Taking these three assertions separately we can see that there are clear problems.The test purports to measure everyday skills in an international work

environment, yet focuses only on listening and reading – certainly skills usefulin such an environment but hardly sufficient to allow us to say anything aboutthe second assertion, i.e. the ability of people to actually communicate. TheGuide later asserts that speaking and writing are not assessed because theyrequire ‘considerable time and expense, both for administering the test and forscoring’ (Chauncey Group 1999:8), and are comparatively less reliable than thetests of the receptive skills examined. The assertions concerning the relationshipbetween performance on the TOEIC and on separate indicators of speaking andwriting ability appear to have been based, worryingly, on measures of generalproficiency in these skills, adding to the confusion as to the ‘specific’ orientationof the test. This confusion is highlighted again in the final sentence, whichsuggests that the test writers do not see the language of ‘everyday work activ-ities’ to be in any way ‘specialised’ or different from a general languageproficiency.

There are other difficulties with the descriptions used by the test developersof the underlying construct, as reflected in the claims (i.e. inferences that can bedrawn from test scores). Perhaps the most obvious of these are reflected in state-ments quoted below from two major TOEIC websites, that for Europe and forthe USA. The European site states that the TOEIC measures test takers’:

. . . English comprehension, speaking, writing and reading skills in an inter-national environment. The scores indicate how well people can commu-nicate in English with others in business, commerce and industry.

(source: http://www.toeic-europe.com/pages/eng/the_test_pres.htm accessed January2004)

On the other hand, the main (USA-based) site for the test claims that:

. . . The TOEIC test measures the everyday English skills of people workingin an international environment.

(source: http://www.toeic.com/2_2tests.htm accessed January 2004)

There is clearly some confusion as to the underlying construct of the TOEIC.

TOEIC

19

This confusion is manifested in the claims made of what inferences can bedrawn from performance on the test (at present there is very limited empiricalsupport for claims regarding language production) and in the very nature of thetest – is it a test of general proficiency or a test of language for business-relatedcommunication, or both?

4. The test methodThe TOEIC has been criticised by Douglas as representing:

. . . a good example of a well-constructed norm-referenced traditionalmultiple choice test task, with no doubt high reliability, but extremelylimited in the inferences it will allow about language knowledge(2000:236).

This criticism is not particularly surprising given that the TOEIC is a test bornof the psychometric–structuralist era (Spolsky 1995), where tests were ratio-nalised by theoretical insights from ‘associationist learning theory, structurallinguistics, contrastive analysis and psychometrics’ and a belief that the ‘phono-logical, morphological, syntactic and lexical components of language areisolable as are the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing’(Hawkey 1982:124). It is unlikely that any test based on these premises mightprovide evidence of the kind of communicative behaviour referred to byDouglas (2000). Douglas does have an important point to make. The TOEICwas introduced in 1979, at a time when the theoretical rationalisation uponwhich it was based had been superseded by what Spolsky (1995) called thepsycholinguistic–sociolinguistic era. Possibly the harshest criticism that cantherefore be made of the TOEIC is of the failure of its creators to respond tochanges in theoretical perspectives of language competence and related changesin language teaching that had already begun to reshape the language testingscene by the mid- to late-1970s, see Hawkey (2004) for a useful historicaloverview of the period.

The danger of relying on high stakes test instruments based on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) has been highlighted in a number of recent reviews oftest evaluation procedures in the United States (see in particular the review ofthe Texas Assessment of Academic Skills or TAAS by McNeil and Valenzuela2000). These reviews have highlighted the presence of significant bias in theperformance on such tests by minority candidates. When this criticism iscoupled with the added problem of test validity (for example independentresearch indicated that as scores in particular school districts increased on theTAAS test of reading other indicators of the candidates’ actual ability to readshowed a significant decrease), the danger is even greater. This is not to say thatsuch item types are of no real value; when used in addition to other, more directmeasures they can add to our perspectives on the ability of a test candidate (infact the reality of modern tests means that many batteries, such as the Cambridge


20

ESOL Main Suite and the proposed new Test of English as a Foreign Language(TOEFL), already employ a variety of item and task types).

5. Skills’coverageThe TOEIC tests reading and listening only, a situation which means that the testis seen by this writer as something of an anomaly. This is because its veryexistence can only be justified by adapting a theoretical view of language whichis in direct contradiction to the test method used. The TOEIC claims to representa measure of an individual candidate’s ability to communicate in a businessenvironment, yet it uses a methodology which pre-dates the communicative erain which language knowledge is tested as opposed to any ability to actually usethat language. The only empirical evidence that the inferences drawn fromperformance on the test can be related to ‘communication’ comes from Wilson(1989), though there is a serious question mark over the measures he used tocompare TOEIC performance with.

6. Measurement qualitiesThe relationship between the listening, reading and total TOEIC scores areshown below, Table 1.1. The fact that these correlations are really quite highmay point to a muddying of the measure and the ability being measured.

Table 1.1 Correlations between TOEIC sub-tests

Note: * p ≤ .001

Since the listening and reading scores are included in the total score, it is not atall surprising that there are very high correlations reported between thesesections and the overall. What is surprising is the fact that there is such a highcorrelation between the two sub-tests – in correlation analysis of the reading andlistening sub-sections of the Test of English for Educational Purposes (TEEP)(O’Sullivan 1999, Weir 1983) typical correlation coefficients are in the regionof 0.5 to 0.6. Very high correlations suggest that the two tests are very stronglyrelated, for example, in one of the few studies to focus on the TOEIC, thereported correlation coefficient between a direct speaking measure and theTOEIC Total score was 0.74. This was seen by the TOEIC developers asevidence that the test can accurately predict candidates’ speaking ability(Chauncey Group 1998:1–2), yet the correlation of 0.82 reported here is not seenby the developers as a problem.

The internal consistency estimates reported in the TOEIC Technical Manual(Educational Testing Services 1998:2) for what they refer to as ‘the Japanese

Listening Reading Total

Listening 1.000 0.822* 0.952*

Reading 1.000 0.957*

Total 1.000

TOEIC

21

secure administration’ (Woodford 1982:66) are shown in Table 1.2. Thesefigures are not surprising, considering the number of items and the presumablybroad range of candidates tested. It should be noted that reliability estimatessuch as the Kuder Richardson formulae and Cronbach’s Alpha are notoriouslysusceptible to test-taking population variability (so a test can have a reliability of.93 with one population and .63 with another). However, given what we knowabout the TOEIC population, these numbers appear to be quite acceptable.

Table 1.2 KR-20 Reliability Coefficients for the TOEIC test

7. Degree of specificity/authenticityFrom the overview offered here, it would appear that the test developers havenot attempted to deal with the specificity issue and in terms of the frameworksuggested by Douglas (2000), it would be very difficult to justify calling this atrue specific purposes test. With regard to the concept of situational authenticity,which is reflected in the content of the test in terms of text and task demands,there does not seem to be any evidence that the test reflects the specific languageuse domain.

Weir (1993, 2004) suggests how the demands of the content domain might bedescribed (see Table 1.3). Here, the limitations of the TOEIC are clearlyhighlighted. The sample questions from the listening paper that appear in theExaminer’s Handbook (ETS 2002:14 and 17 for example) could be from anytest of general proficiency. While this is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, thefact that the vast majority of the items (in fact all of the items included in theExaminee Handbook) would be equally comfortable in a general proficiencylistening test suggests that there are serious shortcomings across all elements ofthe text demands’ framework – for example, the focus on single word recog-nition or on listening for detail does not reflect the range of demands of thebusiness context.

Similar limitations can be pointed out for the Reading paper – for example, inthe Examinee Handbook, all reading items are based either on sentence-lengthor short paragraph-length texts and while there are items based on short notices,there is no text longer than approximately seventy words and neither is thereanything that resembles any of the more common reading texts from thebusiness context (brochures, e-mails, business letters). Similarly, the taskdemands on both papers are uniform: a set of equally weighted multiple-choiceitems, with no consistent purpose attached to task fulfilment (other thanachieving a satisfactory grade in the test), a response format that does not reflectthat of the target domain and an extremely limited number of operationsinvolved.

Listening ComprehensionReading ComprehensionTotal Test

0.920.930.96


22

Looking at the issue of interactional authenticity, we can only presume thatresponding to multiple-choice items alone can never engage the candidate in thekind of cognitive processing evident in listening or reading in a businessdomain.

In fact this criticism of MCQs is not new. When presenting their model of testtask response, Pollitt and Ahmed, suggest that they:

. . . had found it extremely difficult to model the process of answeringmultiple choice questions, and are inclined to think that, perhaps for thisreason alone, they are of questionable validity for educational assessment(Pollitt and Ahmed 1999:1).

Pollitt and Ahmed were essentially attempting to model the cognitivebehaviour of candidates under test conditions, a concept further developed byWeir (2004) in the ‘theory-based validity’ element of his frameworks. Thelinking of an understanding of the executive processes and resources availableto the test taker is central to the notion of interactional authenticity.

All this suggests that the TOEIC might best be placed close to the ‘non-

Skill Area Task Demands Text Demands

Listening PurposeResponse formatWeightingKnown criteriaOrder of itemsTime constraintsIntended operations

LinguisticMode/channelTypeLengthNature of informationTopic familiarityLexical rangeStructural rangeFunctional range

InterlocutorSpeech rateVariety of accentAcquaintanceshipNumber of speakersGender

Reading PurposeResponse formatWeightingKnown criteriaOrder of itemsTime constraintsIntended operations

LinguisticChannelText typeText lengthNature of informationTopic familiarityLexical rangeStructural rangeFunctional range

Writer-reader relationship

Table 1.3 Task and text demands for Listening and Reading

Source: based on Weir (1993, 2004)

Other tests of language for business purposes

23

specified purpose’ end, calling into question any claim that it might be testinglanguage for a specific ‘business’ purpose.

8. Impact of non-language factorsThere is no evidence that the non-language factors have an unexpected impact onperformance on the TOEIC. Since the previous section places the test squarely inthe category of ‘general proficiency’, it is clear that there are no (or certainly veryfew) elements within the TOEIC that might be affected (negatively or positively)by the business language use domain – for example there are no items in theExaminee Handbook where a background in business would give a candidate anadvantage over a fellow candidate without such a background. The fact that thereare no business-related texts in the reading part, for example, means that acandidate who has never seen or read a business letter (or has had to respond tosuch a letter) would be in no way affected by his or her total lack of experience inthe business world. While it might be argued that this lack of negative bias is agood thing, it seems counter intuitive that a person without such a backgroundwould be seen as capable of communicating ‘in English with others in business,commerce, and industry’ (Chauncey Group 2002:1).

9. Reporting of test performanceThe norm-referencing methodology used in the TOEIC, means that acandidate’s test performance is reported in terms of where the candidate mightbe placed relative to the population who sat for a particular administration of thetest. In a situation where a decision is to be made on a candidate’s ability toperform (in linguistic terms) in a given context, this is problematic. It might be,in an extreme example, that none of the candidates are actually capable ofperforming at the level required by an employer. Results of this sort will not tellthe employer that this is the case however, only that candidate x is better orworse than candidate y. We can then see that the way in which a test of languagefor a specific purpose, such as business, is reported is actually a vital character-istic of that test (a similar argument is made by Douglas 2000). If a test isdesigned to offer an estimation of the ability of a candidate to cope with thelinguistic challenges required of a specific business or work environment, thensome criterion level must be set below which a candidate should not fall. Thiscriterion should only be set in relation to the specific language use domain andnot in relation to the ability of other candidates.

Other tests of language for business purposesThe growing interest in specific purpose testing during the 1990s has resulted inan increased number of tests for business, both for English and other languages.This section looks at a range of such tests, starting out with a representative


24

sample of tests from the UK, Pitman Qualifications and the London Chamber ofCommerce and Industry Examinations Board (LCCIEB). There then followreviews of tests of other languages (French, Italian and Japanese).

Pitman qualificationsThe Pitman tests, now administered by the City and Guilds of London, at presentoffer a pair of tests specifically aimed at business English. These are the Englishfor Business Communication (EBC) and English for Office Skills (EOS).

English for Business Communication

1. A brief introduction to the testThree levels are available: Elementary, Intermediate and Advanced. Accordingto the test developers, these correspond with the Common European Frameworklevels A2–Waystage, B2–Vantage and C2 (see Figure 2.4 for a diagrammaticoutline of the levels). Unlike the other tests referred to in this chapter, these testsare available both to native speakers and to overseas candidates, provided theyhave reached a particular level of language ability as measured by other non-business oriented Pitman tests (intermediate standard in the ESOL examinationor elementary in the English examinations for the Elementary and Intermediatetests respectively). According to the Pitman website, a ‘background knowledgeof office practice and organisation is required’.

The tests are integrative in nature, with each of the three levels involving thecandidate in writing a range of answers in response to input, often handwritten.Before taking a brief look at the suite, it should be pointed out that it is not at allclear that the developers have considered the language level of candidates whoare non-native speakers of English. This is most clearly exemplified by the brief‘Contextualisation’ offered at the beginning of each test level. As can be seenfrom Figure 1.6, the language of these three is almost indistinguishable. Thisapparent lack of concern with the language of the input undermines the suite, asit is quite conceivable that candidates, particularly at the lower levels, mayexperience significant difficulties with understanding the input. This will clearlyhave a negative impact on their test performance.

2. A brief description of the testThe three levels of the test are outlined in the following table (Table 1.4). In thistable we can see that the three levels are quite similar in content, but with agreater number of tasks to be completed (in an ever increasing amount of time).It should also be noted that there is no clear substantive difference (apart fromthe increased number of tasks, which is offset by the increased time allowed) in

Pitman qualifications

25

the output required. It would be interesting to establish, through a latent traitstudy for instance, what the differences in difficulty of the three levels really are.Unfortunately, there is no publicly available documentation on how differencein level is established or maintained – this criticism can be made of the other testdevelopers referred to in this chapter.

It is not clear from the documentation how the benchmarking to the CommonEuropean Framework (CEF) was achieved – whether it was done through a

Figure 1.6 Contextualisation offered at levels 1–3 of the Pitman EBC suite

Level 1 source: Pitman Qualifications English for Business Communication, Past Paper EL–NBC (11:2)Level 2 source: Pitman Qualifications English for Business Communication, Past PaperEL–NBC (12:2)Level 3 source: Pitman Qualifications English for Business Communication, Past Paper EL–NBC (13:2)

Level 1Elementary

SITUATION

As Personal Assistant (PA) to Mr Arthur Jordan,Managing Director of Fine Finishes, a small but flourishing decorating firm, you are frequently left incharge of the office while he is away on business.

Today he has left you the following tasks.

Level 2Intermediate

Level 3Advanced

SITUATION

Light Waves Ahead is a small commercial radio company with a station in Blantyre and another inHarare. Its main source of income is from advertising onthe air by local firms. You are Personal Assistant (PA)to Mr Moses Banda, the General Manager.

SITUATION

You are Personal Assistant (PA) to Mr Joshua Banda,Managing Director (MD) of EAST AFRICA HOTELSLtd, with hotels and holiday lodges in Kenya andZimbabwe. Your Head Office is located atIndependence Way, HARARE, Zimbabwe.


26

qualitative comparison between the test specifications and the CEF, or whetherevidence was gathered from test candidates (as was done in the ALTE ‘Can Do’project).

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesTaking the test descriptions seen in Table 1.4 as a basis, it is clear that the testlevels described are focused primarily on the writing ability of candidates. Infact, the tasks typically involve the candidate reacting to a written prompt, sothere is a genuine attempt to mirror the language use domain of the workenvironment, see Figure 1.7 for an example of how this is conceived in a taskfrom Level 2.

We can therefore say that the construct that seems to underlie the English forBusiness Communication is that of an integrated reading into writing approach.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Benchmarked CEF Waystage (B2) CEF Vantage (C1) CEF Mastery (C2)

Time Allowed 90 minutes* 120 minutes* 150 minutes*

Contextualisation Brief (35 wordsapprox)

Brief (35 wordsapprox)

Brief (35 words approx)

Task 1 Writing – guided letter Writing – guided letter Writing – guided letter

Task 2 Writing – memo Writing – fax guidedby written instruction

Writing – memo guidedby written instruction

Task 3 Writing – fax guidedby written instruction

Writing – memo Writing – fax guided by written instruction

Task 4 Writing – guided letterfrom written input

Writing – guided shortreport fromcharts/tables andwritten input

Writing – notice/memoguided by writteninstruction

Task 5 Writing – guidedarticle from writteninput

Writing – press releaseguided by writteninstruction

Task 6 Writing – report fromcharts/tables and writteninput

No word limit set fortasks, all tasks 25marks

No word limit set fortasks, all tasks 20marks

No word limit set fortasks, all tasks 20 marks except tasks 3 and4 (10 each)

Table 1.4 English for Business Communications (Pitman)

* all tests have an additional 15 minutes of reading time during which candidates are allowed toread through the test paper, but not to write.


27

Figure 1.7 Example of integrated task (reading into writing) from Level 2Pitman EBC

Source: Pitman Qualifications English Business Communication, Past Paper EL–NBC (12:6)

4. The test methodAs described in the previous section, the test is comprised of a series of writtentasks. In the task reproduced above, candidates are told that their work isassessed for quality of layout. Layout is also assessed for one ‘memorandum’and one ‘letter’ task at each of the three levels. The other criteria are ‘language’(though exactly what this means is not defined), ‘content’, ‘neatness’ and‘legibility’.

5. Skills’coverageAn interesting feature of the tests is the lack of a ‘test-like’ rubric. Instead, allinstructions are included in the input for the tasks. However, it appears that thePitman series essentially tests only writing – though there is of course a writteninput to be read in the case of each task, there is no overt examination of thereading skill it is, presumably, tested indirectly through performance on the writing. While this may well represent an accurate picture of the ‘real’ world,the fact that the skills are integrated in this way means that there is a danger ofcross-contamination, in that it will not be clear if a test taker performs poorly dueto a lack of reading ability or a lack of writing ability.

This problem is inferred in the [Pitman] Examinations Report when it isstated of Level 2, that

some candidates lose marks for content because they are so busy inventinginformation to fit their format that they ignore the real purpose of the report(2000:11).

It could be argued that they may not actually fully understand what the focusis because they have misinterpreted the input. The report goes on to describe thefact that ‘[Many] candidates fail to read the prompts carefully enough beforestarting to write’ as an ‘area of weakness’ (2000: 12). It should be pointed outthat this is a criticism that could be made of any test using an integrated format.The problem is usually addressed by carefully monitoring the language of theinput to ensure that it is written at a level that is below that of the test (so thelanguage of input for a C1 level test is usually aimed at level B2). The worry hereis that it is not clear if this monitoring has been adequately done.

6. Measurement qualitiesNo information is currently available in the public domain.

7. Degree of specificity/authenticityAt first glance, it appears that the test is more ‘specific’ in nature than theTOEIC. It may therefore be useful to see why this might be the case, so that wecan develop a clearer picture of how specificity is manifested in this type of test.So what is more specific about the test?


28

In order to look at the degree of specificity it is necessary to consider the testfrom the perspective of situational and interactional authenticity. In the case ofthe latter there is no actual evidence to support any claims in this respect.However, the evidence from the test descriptions and in particular from the itemtype described earlier (Figure 1.7) suggests that there is a serious attempt here torecreate a realistic domain-specific task. The above task involves the candidatein the integration of skills (reading and writing) in order to produce a businessletter. Clearly, there is a major difference here when we compare the readingtasks in the previously reviewed test, where the candidate was expected torespond at all times to an MCQ item.

In terms of situational authenticity, there is evidence that the developers havetried to recreate a ‘business’ context through the tasks (often integratinghandwritten memos and notes to written output) which all appear to have a veryclear business focus.

While all of this is positive, there is some concern over the fact that the testsare only concerned with reading into writing tasks. This very much lessens thetrue business focus of the tests in that a major element of the business languagedomain is simply ignored. This has the effect of lessening the strength of anyspecificity argument we might wish to make for these tests.

8. Impact of non-language factorsDespite the shortcomings associated with testing only a limited aspect of acandidate’s language, there is a relatively high degree of specificity in thedifferent levels of this test. With this degree of specificity, comes a potential fornon-language factors (such as background variables) to have some impact ontest performance. However, before simply accepting that this impact is neces-sarily negative, let’s consider the argument made by Elder (2001) with regard towhat she perceived as the negative impact of non-language factors in tests ofspecific purpose.

Imagine, for example, a test candidate who has had a lot of experience inwriting the sort of letter called for in Figure 1.7. It appears only natural that thisexperience should positively affect that person’s performance on the task.

Now imagine a second scenario where another candidate, this time with littlebusiness experience, but with a similar level of language ability as the firstcandidate and a lot of experience in taking MCQ-based tests, is asked tocomplete an MCQ version of our task. This person too will perform well andagain the impact comes primarily from experience of the task type.

When we consider these two situations we see that there are in fact a numberof ways of looking at non-language factors. The latter form is clearlyproblematic as it constitutes a source of context-irrelevant variance. However,the former is quite different, in that it is certainly not ‘context-irrelevant’, in factthere is a clear argument here for the inclusion of this source of variance in theconstruct definition of tests in a specific purpose domain.


29

If we try to dilute our specific purpose tests until there is little or no danger ofcontext-related non-language impact we end up with tests that are basically non-context dependent general proficiency instruments.

9. Reporting of test performanceTest performances are reported using the criterion levels described in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5 Criterion levels for the EBC (Pitman) levels

The reported pass rates for the three levels in 2002 are seen in Table 1.6.

Table 1.6 Pass rates for the EBC (Pitman) levels – 2002

Source: Pitman (2002).

English for Office Skills

1. A brief introduction to the testThe English for Office Skills’ series offers a pair of tests (Levels 1 and 2), thestated aim of which is

. . . [To] demonstrate accuracy in the use and transcription of English, andthe ability to perform office-related tasks to spoken or written instructions(Pitman 2003:40).

Unlike the other tests reviewed in this chapter, the EOS tests are aimed at bothnative and non-native speakers of English (Pitman 2003:40) and are claimed byits developers to be aimed at ‘[People] who need to carry out tasks in Englishwhere accuracy in writing and following instructions is important’ (Pitman2003:40).

2. A brief description of the testAs with the above Pitman test, the levels of the EOS test are described in Table1.7.


30

Criterion Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Fail < 60 marks < 60 marks < 60 marks

Pass 60 – 74 marks 60 – 74 marks 60 – 74 marks

First Class Pass > 74 marks > 74 marks > 74 marks

Criterion Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Fail 21% 32% 41%

Pass 48% 48% 47%

First Class Pass 31% 20% 12%

Section A at each level focuses on spelling and listening comprehension,while Section B focuses on reading comprehension, vocabulary and accuracy.The descriptive table indicates that writing ability is not tested directly, insteadit is estimated through a candidate’s ability to identify errors in the proof-reading tasks and in the sentence completion task.

Table 1.7 English for Office Skills (Pitman)

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesThese tests do not appear to have been designed to offer a measure of a non-native English-speaking test taker’s proficiency within a business context, butrepresent a more vocational measure of practical skills. The underlyingconstruct is somewhat unclear from the test description. The test seems to focuson the form of the language – identifying different aspects of linguistic accuracyas the underlying construct.

4. The test methodThe test method is essentially confined to short answer format (SAF) itemsbased either on examiner-read input (tape recordings are, as yet, not used in thePitman tests), or on written input. The fact that the listening comprehensionportion is read by the examiner is quite problematic, as there is a clear possibility


31

Level 1 Elementary CEF A2– Waystage [Marks]

Level 2 Intermediate CEF B2– Vantage [Marks]

Section A Spelling Sentence read by examinerTarget word repeated 20 items– accuracy of spelling [20]

Sentence read by examinerTarget word repeated 20 items – accuracy of spelling [20]

Listening Comp. Short passage read twiceForm completion (written) ormessage transfer (oral) [10]

Short passage read twiceForm completion (written) ormessage transfer (oral) [10]

Section B Reading Comp. Read newspaper/magazinearticle – sentence completion[10]

Read newspaper/magazinearticle – sentence completion[10]

Syntax 15 items – proof-reading [15] 20 items – proof-reading

Vocabulary 10 items – select appropriateword (from two) [10]

10 items – select appropriateword (from two) [10]

Punctuation Proof-reading [10] Proof-reading [10]

Proof-reading A Identify error in table offigures [10]

Identify 5 errors in table offigures [5]

Proof-reading B Proof-read letter – identify 15errors (typography, spellingand/or punctuation) [15]

Proof-read letter – identify 10errors (typography, spelling orpunctuation, style) [10]

of an ‘examiner effect’ where different people will be more or less clear in theirreading aloud (thus introducing an element of construct-irrelevant variance).Apart from this criticism, the test method appears to meet the needs of the test (totest language knowledge rather than language use).

5. Skills’coverageAs was outlined above, the skills covered in the test are limited to the ability todemonstrate knowledge of the language through measures of linguisticaccuracy, though as we can see from Figure 1.8 the proof-reading task is morerelated to identifying differences in the numbers in the tables than it is to identi-fying language-related differences. The sources of input, therefore, are quiteimportant in this type of test. The listening element of the test consists of twoparts, lexical knowledge (listening and spelling) and comprehension (through ashort dictation). Here there is no real evidence that the second part measures‘comprehension’ (by which I mean understanding) though I acknowledge thatthis is not an area in which all testers will agree (see for example the argumentsof Lado (1961) and Oller (1979) who disagree on what dictation actually tests).

The reading comprehension items are built around a single passage (approx-imately 350 words at Level 1 and 500 words at Level 2). Items are based onsentence completion, which limits the skill being tested to that of searching forspecific information (and possible lexical synonyms). The remainder of bothpapers contains items related to the display of knowledge of language accuracy.

Both levels contain a proof-reading item as Task 7. In these cases the task isto compare two tables of information, one being accurate and the other said tocontain errors (10 at Level 1 and 5 at Level 2). As can be seen from the extract inFigure 1.8, this is not actually a reading task at all – it is a proofing task and is notdependent on language ability.


7. Degree of specificity/authenticityThe degree of specificity appears to be quite low. While the tasks have been setin a business context, the tasks that are included are not necessarily related to thebusiness domain. In other words, they are more context-oriented (i.e. they are setin the context of the business domain) than context-focused (i.e. they aredesigned to test only the language of the business domain). This suggests thatthe test is more general proficiency focused and should be placed towards thenon-specific end of the continuum.

Taking just one task as an example (Figure 1.9, the reading task which beginsSection B of each test paper) it is interesting to notice how it measures up withregard to the first items on the list of task demands suggested by Weir (1993),


32


33

Figure 1.8 Proof-reading task (#7) from EOS Level 1

Source: Pitman Qualifications English for Office Skills, Past Paper EL–OFFN (11:9)

purpose and response format. While we would expect to see a clear purpose forreading in any test, within a specific purpose domain this need becomes centralto the characterisation of the task. Here, there does not appear to be a clearlyspecified purpose. As for response format, we would expect in a specific purposedomain task that the response format will replicate that of some element of thedomain, again the sentence completion format is not at all relevant to thebusiness domain. This latter criticism is possibly a bit harsh, as it would appearto be very difficult to satisfy the need for business domain-like response formatsfor all skills – in particular receptive skills.

In terms of task demands, the test can be criticised from the perspective ofchannel (tape recordings are not used in these tests so the invigilator reads thelistening passages aloud), text type (while the reading text shown is based on amagazine-type article it is not typical of business-related reading material,which is more likely to be a letter, e-mail, memo or report), and text length (inthis case the text is quite long at about 450 words; however, this is not typical ofbusiness texts, which tend to be brief and to the point).

When it becomes clear that the test can be criticised for its context validity


34

Figure 1.9 Reading items from Pitman qualifications EOS Level 2

(Extract from approx. 450 word passage)

(items related to that section of the passage)

Source: Pitman Qualification: English for Office Skills Level 2; Past Paper EL–OFFN (12:4–5)

(where context validity is seen in terms of task and text demands) the claim ofsituational authenticity is seen as tenuous.

Unlike the other Pitman test reviewed, there is little evidence here of interac-tional authenticity. It could, of course, be argued that the test is focusing on avery discrete level of knowledge and that generalisation to the businesslanguage use domain is possible. The distance between this micro view oflanguage ability and the macro level of language use is great and such anargument is somewhat difficult to sustain.

8. Impact of non-language factorsFrom the review to date, it is clear that the inseparability of skills issue is againproblematic. This is particularly relevant with regard to Tasks 2 (listeningcomprehension) and 7 (proof-reading), where there is a real danger of areader/speaker-related effect in the former and in the latter where the proof-reading skills are focused on identifying numerical rather than lexical orsyntactic differences.

9. Reporting of test performanceTest performance is reported in the same way (and with the same cut scoreboundaries) as the English for Business Communication (EBC) test reviewedabove. This means that the Passing level is set at 60% while the First Class Passlevel is set at 75%. The pass rates for the 2002 administration are shown in Table1.8, though no data on the test population are available.

Table 1.8 Pass rates for the EOS (Pitman) levels – 2002

London Chamber of Commerce and IndustryExaminations Board (LCCIEB) tests of languagefor business and commerce

1. A brief introduction to the testAs the name of the organisation suggests, the London Chamber of Commerceand Industry Examinations Board (LCCIEB), has, as its main focus, theprovision of specialist examinations in the area of business and commerce.Among the many examinations it offers are a number which are dedicated to the

LCCIEB tests of language for business and commerce

35

Criterion Level 1 Level 2

Fail 24% 41%

Pass 34% 33%

First Class Pass 42% 26%

testing of language for business purposes. Since the approach adopted byLCCIEB is rather unique, it will be dealt with somewhat differently to the otherexamination providers.

The uniqueness of the LCCIEB examinations stems from the adherence to asingle framework, which seems to be applied regardless of the language beingtested. This effectively means that a single test specification has been used tocreate what we might call multi-language clones. To illustrate what I mean bythis, I will briefly review their ‘. . . for Business’ range of examinations.

2. A brief description of the testThe following table (Table 1.9) is a breakdown of the description of the tests ofEnglish and Spanish for Business, as described by the LCCIEB in the extendedsyllabuses for these examinations.

Table 1.9 LCCIEB tests of language for business and commerce

MCQ – Multiple-Choice questionsT/F – True/false questionsSAF – Short answer format questionsITr – Information transfer questionsExW – Extended written output required (S = Short; L = Long)Spo – Spoken output requiredCoE – Council of Europe FrameworkEOP – Effective Operational Proficiency* – Not yet available

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesBoth tests focus on reading and writing skills, and are specified in exactly thesame way. While this is not in itself problematic, the fact that the task and itemtypes are essentially identical means that the test developers see no differencebetween different languages at particular levels of proficiency. While it may


36

Test Skills Tested Method CoEBenchmark

L S R W MCQ T/F SAF ITr ExW Spo

English for BusinessPreliminary LevelLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4

•••••

•••••

•

•

• •

••

••••

SSS/LS/LL

BreakthroughWaystageThresholdVantageEOP

Spanish for BusinessPreliminary LevelLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4

•••••

•••••

•

•

• •

••

••••

SSS/LS/LL

BreakthroughWaystageThresholdVantageEOP

seem to be relatively easy to agree that a candidate at a particular level should becapable of performing a particular task or function, the degree of linguisticsophistication needed to achieve this is not exactly the same for all languages.Including the same task regardless of target language is at least potentiallyproblematic.

Alderson (1998) pointed out the danger of adopting such an approach in thecontext of the DIALANG project in Europe. In this project a test format throughwhich a whole series of official European languages could be tested at equiv-alent levels was envisaged. The original plans involved devising a set of detailedspecifications for the English test and then cloning tests in the other languagesfrom this. The developers found that there were real difficulties in identifyingappropriate tasks (as tasks which were seen to be at an acceptable level for onelanguage were found to be more suited to a different level for another language),and in identifying what was considered acceptable performance across differentlanguages for those tasks that were considered appropriate. The solutionadopted by the DIALANG group was to allow developers from each languagebackground to interpret the specifications to create an instrument that theyconsidered appropriate. This approach was also taken by the BULATS teamswho developed tests in the same four languages as the LCCIEB (these arediscussed below).

Not only are the series of tests for each language all based on the same model,in fact, there appears to be no difference in the make-up of the tests in thedifferent languages. For example, the description in the Extended Syllabusdocuments for a particular task at Level 3 for the German (LCCIEB 2001b:3),Spanish (LCCIEB 2001c:3) and French (LCCIEB 2001d:3) tests is shown inTable 1.10.

Table 1.10 Extract from extended Syllabus for LCCIEB tests of German, Spanish and French

When this is compared to the English for Business documentation (LCCIEB2001a:3), we find that it is again exactly the same, see Table 1.11. The suspicion


37

German Level 3 – Task 2 Spanish Level 3 – Task 2 French Level 3 – Task 2

Question 2 involves thedrafting of an internal reportbased on raw data given in theform of graphs, notes, presscuttings, charts, tables, etc.Candidates will have tounderstand, select, collateand, if necessary, supplementthis data in order to write thereport in the light of theinstructions given.



that all of the tests are essentially clones of the original English test, which wasthe first to be introduced, is confirmed when we see the actual tasks.

While the LCCIEB provide details of the syllabuses for each of their exami-nations, together with specimen papers, sample answers and examiner’sreport/comments, there is no evidence supplied in support of the approach theyadopt in creating these tests in the different languages. The same criticism can bemade of the test of Spoken English for Industry and Commerce (SEFIC) and theForeign Languages for Industry and Commerce (FLIC), with only a singledifference between the two sets of examinations (the addition of a translationtask at the highest – fourth – level).

4. The test methodFrom the descriptive table (Table 1.9) we can see that the test includes a range oftask and item types, with multiple-choice (MCQ), short answer format (SAF),true/false (T/F) and written production all included in the response options.

5. Skills’coverageReading and writing are tested at both levels.


7. Degree of specificity/authenticityThese tests appear to be closer to general purpose language tests than to specificpurpose instruments, as the following tasks suggest. The reason for this canagain be traced to the task and text demands implied in the sample materialsprovided by the developers (see Figure 1.10).

It is not easy to know what these listening items are testing. The need for‘complete and grammatically correct answers’ suggests that the items may be


38

English Level 3 – Task 2


Table 1.11 Extract from extended syllabus for LCCIEB test of English

focused on grammar (in the Bachman sense – syntax, lexis etc.), though thenature of the task with which they are associated appears to be communicative(information transfer). Other task demands which do not appear to fit with suchtasks in the business domain are:

response format – we might expect that the listener would create a messageor memo from this type of input, rather than simply respond to a series ofdiscrete items, though it appears that other listening tasks do lead on to awriting taskknown criteria – the above example suggests that candidates might haveproblems responding to the item as the criteria for achieving marks are notrelated to the apparent communicative nature of the task. For the one piece ofwriting included in the test the marks are awarded for ‘correct titles’ (20%),‘the message’ (40%) and again ‘spelling and presentation’ (40%).In terms of the text demands, it is clear that there are limitations of functional

range, nature of information (the items could quite easily be presented as part ofa general proficiency test), and text length (only very brief reading and listeningextracts used). In addition, the lack of contextualisation means that there is noeffort made to establish any meaningful interlocutor-to-listener relationship, soany speaker-related variables remain untapped – again a situation unlikely in thebusiness domain.

The fact that these tests are more focused on the general proficiency domainmeans that there is some likelihood that the test tasks will not result in the kind ofcognitive processing that typifies a business domain task performance. Thissuggests that it is unlikely that interactional authenticity can be successfullyclaimed for these tasks. However, it is not at all clear yet if it is possible to effec-tively identify typical patterns of processing associated with successful taskperformance in a specific domain.

8. Impact of non-language factorsAs we have seen in the other tests reviewed here, the indications are that where atest is situated closer to the general proficiency end of the specificity continuum,


39

Figure 1.10 Listening Item – English for Business, Preliminary level(LCCIEB)

Source: English for Business, Preliminary, sample paper: 6

there is little danger of non-language factors that may be associated withknowledge of the test context impacting on test performance.

9. Reporting of test performanceTest performances are reported using the criterion levels described inTable 1.12.

Table 1.12 Criterion levels for the English for Business (LCCIEB) levels

No details are available on pass rates.

Tests for business purposes in languages otherthan EnglishApart from the tests of English for business, and the foreign language testsadministered by the LCCIEB, there are a growing number of tests in languagesother than English for the purpose of describing candidates’ ability to use thatlanguage in a business or commercial context. Some of these tests are describednow.

Test de français international (TFI)

1. A brief introduction to the testThe TFI is designed to evaluate the level of French of non-native speakers. Likeits sister test, the TOEIC, the test is based on a series of MCQ items focusing onreading and listening. Somewhat confusingly, the developers make quitedifferent claims of what the test aims to measure. On the link to the TFI from themain TOEIC website, it is claimed that it can be used to assess ‘a candidate’sability to understand, speak, read and write French as it is used in the interna-tional workplace and in everyday life’ (ETS 2003a). While there is some verylimited evidence that this may be the case for the TOEIC, there is no evidencewhatsoever to support a similar claim for the TFI. On the TOEIC–Europewebsite the claim is replaced with a less bold statement that the ‘test assesses acandidate’s ability to communicate in French as it is used in the internationalworkplace and in everyday life’ (ETS 2003b).

Interestingly, the claims made of the TFI and the TOEIC are not alwaysconsistent. On the USA-based website the statements made of the TOEIC reflect


40

Preliminary Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Pass 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Credit 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%

Distinction 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

those more conservative statements made of the TFI on the European site, whilethe broader claims of generalisability to all four skill areas made on theEuropean site regarding the TFI are reflected on the USA website, but withregard to the TOEIC.

2. A brief description of the testAs mentioned above, the TFI appears to be a clone of the TOEIC – with the samesub-skills tested using the same item types. Table 1.13 offers an overview of thetest. At the time of writing, no information was available in the public domain onthe make-up of the test, either in the form of a specification or of publishedsupport materials.

Table 1.13 Descriptive table of the Test de français international

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesAs mentioned before, the TFI focuses on the receptive skills of reading andlistening. The claim that it offers a measure of all four skills is neither supportedby the multiple-choice-based approach nor by the decision to test only thereceptive skills.

4. The test methodThe test takes a multiple-choice approach and is solidly based in the samepsychometric–structuralist approach as the TOEIC, which, as I mentionedearlier, has long been abandoned as the primary methodology in gatheringevidence of a test taker’s ability to perform specific language tasks. This is not tosay that the approach is incapable of ever providing evidence. On the contrary,when it comes to obtaining estimates of a clearly defined and realised (orrealisable) trait the theoretical foundations of the approach are as sound today asthey were when they were developed. Among the problems with using theapproach as it is manifested in the two tests here (TFI and TOEIC) is that thepurported construct, as evidenced by the inferences that developers claim can bedrawn from test performance, does not appear to be supportable.

5. Skills’coverageThe TFI consists of two sections, one devoted to listening and the other toreading. As is consistent with the approach taken (see above), the sub-sectionspresent the language in short segments (of reading and listening texts), each

Tests in languages other than English

41

Section I LISTENING (42 min) Section II READING (68 min)

I Question-Answer [40 questions]II Short Dialogues [30 questions]III Short Conversations [20 questions]

IV Error Identification [25 questions]V Incomplete Sentences [25 questions]VI Comprehension [40 questions]

designed to test a specific aspect of the language ability of the test taker.However, we can only make assumptions about the test format and content as, atthe time of writing, there is no evidence (apart from the outline provided on theTFI website) available in the public domain.


7. Degree of specificity/authenticitySince there is very little information about the test available in the publicdomain, it is not possible to make any definitive comment on the degree ofspecificity, though if the TFI really is a clone of the TOEIC, it would appear thatit is more a measure of general language proficiency than of proficiency in aspecific context, and like the TOEIC, it is unlikely to display evidence of eithersituational or interactional authenticity.

8. Impact of non-language factorsAgain, we do not have the evidence to establish if non-language factors have anyimpact on test performance.

9. Reporting of test performanceThe scores are reported in the same way as the scores for TOEIC, so individualscores are reported for reading (on a scale of 5–495) and listening (on a similarscale) and a total score (on a scale of 10–990). There does not appear to be anattempt to indicate what these scores might mean (for example in terms of abenchmark of ability such as the Common European Framework).

Certificazione della conoscenza dell’italiano commerciale(CIC)

1. A brief introduction to the testThe Certificazione della conoscenza dell’italiano commerciale (Certificate inItalian for Commerce – CIC) was developed at the Università per Stranieri diPerugia, Italy during the late 1990s and first administered in June 2000. The testwas developed in response to a perceived demand based on the increasinginterest at that time in the domain of Italian language for business. The CIC isintended to establish a candidate’s ability to use Italian in ‘work-relatedcontexts’: travel agencies, banks, estate agencies, and industry. To date, the testpopulation has reached the level of approximately six hundred candidates peryear – non-native speakers of Italian, working in, or hoping to work in an Italianbusiness context.


42

At the time of writing, the CIC is the only certificated test of Italian forbusiness.

2. A brief description of the testThe CIC consists of five sub-tests: reading, listening, grammar and lexicon,writing and speaking and is offered at two levels, these are intermedio (Interme-diate) which is set at ALTE Level 2 (or CEF Level B1) and avanzado (advanced)set at ALTE Level 4 (CEF Level C1). See Table 1.14 for an outline of the twotests.

As can be seen from this table, the tests offer an extensive assessment of thelanguage level of the candidates. According to the CIC handbook, the tests aredesigned to certify ‘that the holder’s knowledge of the Italian language isadequate for that person to interact and work in business contexts’ [theiremphasis] (CIC 2003a:2) and suggests they can be used by:

• people who work or intend to work in international environments and whowant to enhance their personal curriculum

• companies and organisations selecting personnel or those who wish to checkthe qualifications of their employees

• schools/universities with economic and business courses who want tosurvey or determine the level of knowledge of the Italian language for theirown students.

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesThe test appears to have been built around the model of language abilitysuggested by Bachman (1990) and is similar in design to the Cambridge ESOLmodel. The test therefore takes the same multi-skills approach as similarCambridge ESOL tests.

4. The test methodThe five components of the CIC are weighted as shown in Table 1.15 and aretested using a variety of item types: MCQ, matching, gap-filling, letters, compo-sitions, and short essays. The method is based, to a large extent, on the use ofactual business documentation. These texts are to be found in the reading andlistening components, as well as in the writing and speaking papers. Contextual-isation of test tasks is evident, particularly in the test papers focused on languageproduction – where there is a very clear description of audience, as well asreference to the required level of formality of the output.

5. Skills’coverageAs mentioned above, the CIC includes measures of five aspects of a test taker’slanguage ability – reading, listening, grammar and vocabulary, writing andspeaking.


43


44

Intermedio (Level B1) Avanzado (Level C1)

A. Reading A1. Careful global reading – 10 MCQitems based on 20 to 120 wordpassages (businessdocumentation)

A1. Careful global reading – 8 mainideas items (matching – based onbusiness documentation)

A2. Expeditious global reading(skimming) relate item to passage– 10 items

A2. Careful global reading – passagecompletion (cloze type, givenchoice from 13 phrases) – basedon business documentation

A3. Expeditious and careful globalreading – finding main ideas inpassages 8 items (businessdocumentation – matching andgap-filling)

A3. Careful global – identifyingmain ideas in passage 5 items(MCQ) – based on businessdocumentation

B. Listening B1. Careful global – listening forgeneral understanding, 10 items,short monologues – matching)

B1. Careful global – informationtransformation (note-taking),11 items (SAF)

B.2 Careful local – form/memocompletion 8 items (phonemessage – note-taking)

B.2 Careful local – identify speakersand topics (10 items – matching)

B.3 Careful global – extended text,4 items based on business-relatedmonologue or conversation (MCQ)

B.3 Careful global – extended text,4 items (MCQ)

C. GrammarandVocabulary

C.1 15 item MCQ format C.1 12 item MCQ cloze format

C.2 Cloze passage, 10 items (basedon business communication)

C.2 Cloze passage, 12 items

D. Writing D.1 Writing a formal business letteror informal business relatedemail (90–110 words)

D.1 Writing a report based on inputfrom graphs/charts – about100 words

D.2 Write an argumentative text to aspecific person related to aspecific business topic (200 to250 words)

E. Speaking E.1 Personal Information Exchange –no preparation

E.1 Personal information exchange– no preparation

E.2 Interaction – with examinerbased on read input (materialsgiven 10 minutes before test)

E.2 Interaction – with examinerbased on read input (materialsgiven 15 minutes before test)

E.3 Long turn – on known workrelated topic (materials given10 minutes before test)

E.3 Long turn – monologue ongeneral work related topic(materials given 15 minutesbefore test)

Total Time 115 minutes 225 minutes

Table 1.14 Certificate in Italian for Commerce: description

Source: CIC (2003b)

6. Measurement qualitiesNo information is available in the public domain at the time of writing.However, the test developers are involved in a large scale pan-European projectconcerning the development and validation of an item bank. This will be used tomore accurately define test levels for the CIC (as well as the other tests theycurrently administer).

7. Degree of specificity/authenticityFrom the description of the test presented above we can deduce that there hasbeen an effort on the part of the test developers to include in the CIC tasks thatare based on business documentation and that reflect the use of language in thebusiness domain. The degree to which they succeed appears to be mixed,however. As we have seen in the reviews of the other tests, there seems to be areal problem particularly with the receptive tasks. The example shown here(Figure 1.11) is interesting in that the context is clearly that of the businessdomain and the required output reflects that of the domain, but the degree ofscaffolding (in the form of the guides to what to listen for) acts to reduce its situa-tional authenticity. It is difficult to see how this situation can be resolved; afterall if we just give the candidate a blank page and tell them to listen to the messagewe are completely changing the task. In the real world the listeners will bring tothe event a great deal of background knowledge related to the particularcompany they are working for, so a schema for dealing with the call will be inplace. The function of the scaffold is to reduce the impact of this lack of schema.

The fact that the tasks are typically based on business documentation and areexplicitly benchmarked to the work-related aspect of the CEF and ALTE frame-works (CIC 2003a:5–8) can be seen as evidence of situational authenticity.However, the inclusion of tasks that are clearly not related to the domain (partic-ularly the MCQ responses), and the limitations of tests of receptive skills(implied in the above critique of the listening task) weaken the veracity of thisevidence.

From the perspective of interactional authenticity the evidence is also mixed.The variety of task types included at both levels suggests that the interactionbetween the executive resources available to the candidate and the executiveprocesses (i.e. cognitive and meta-cognitive processing) may well be facilitatedat least for some of the tasks (particularly in the tests of production). However,this same variety means that there are tasks that are very unlikely to have thesame effect. Here I am referring to those based on the receptive skills, languageknowledge display, and in particular those that rely on multiple-choice items.

As for the degree of specificity of the CIC tests, we can see that the test fitsinto the category of a business-oriented test, with some evidence that at leastsome of the papers are also business-focused. The writing test is an example ofthis; there the expected output is in the form of a contextualised business-relatedtext with clearly defined writer/reader relationship and degree of formality.


45

Even here, there is some question over the tests as the written performancesare awarded scores based on language-related criteria – lexical competence,competence in morphology and syntax, sociocultural competence and consis-tency (CIC 2003a:14). The absence of any task- (and therefore business-domain) focused criterion reduces the likelihood that these are highly specifictests.

8. Impact of non-language factorsThe fact that the test consists of a battery of papers, each focusing on a particularskills’ area suggests that any non-language impact will be mixed.

9. Reporting of test performanceThe criterion level for achieving a passing grade is set at 60% – averaged fromthe results on all five components through a weighting system described in Table1.15. This system tells us quite a bit about the interpretation of the construct,with a very clear emphasis on spoken language at both levels (where thiscomponent is worth 30% of the total marks available), and the perception thatwriting becomes more central to business language needs at the higherproficiency level. It goes from being worth just 10% of the total score (the least


46

Figure 1.11 Listening Task B2: CIC Intermediate

important sub-skill) at the intermediate level, to 20% at the advanced level, thesecond most important sub-skill.

Table 1.15 Certificate in Italian for Commerce: weighting system

Candidates are awarded a grade based on a simple addition of the scoresachieved on each part of the examination. There are three passing grades andtwo failing grades – see Table 1.16.

Table 1.16 Certificate in Italian for Commerce: reporting system

There is no information available on the rates of grade achievement for the tests.

Other tests of European languages for business purposes

There are a number of other tests of European language for business (see Table1.17). While I do not have space here to address these tests individually, it isuseful to spend just a little time on them. All of these tests are administered bymembers of the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE), and allfollow similar models – a focus on testing the four skills through a multi-tasktype approach. For more information on these tests see the section at the end ofthe book where contact information is given for all currently administered testsreferred to in this chapter.

JETRO Reading and Listening Comprehension Test (JRLT)

1. A brief introduction to the testThe Hawaii based Japan-America Institute of Management Science, JAIMS,has been involved in the education (language, business and culture) of Japanese


47

Intermedio Avanzado

A. ReadingB. ListeningC. Grammar and vocabularyD. WritingE. SpeakingTotal Score

40 (20%)40 (20%)40 (20%)20 (10%)60 (30%)200

35 (17.5%)35 (17.5%)35 (17.5%)35 (17.5%)60 (30%)200

Grade A Grade B Grade C

Excellent GoodSatisfactory

Pass

Grade D Grade E

UnsatisfactoryVery poor

Fail

and North American graduates for almost thirty years. The organisation admin-isters a test of Japanese language for business purposes, developed by JETRO(Japan External Trade Organization), with the support of over six hundredcompanies in Japan. The test was developed during the early 1990s and firstadministered in 1995. It originally consisted of papers at three levels, thoughfrom 2003 there has been a revised format, which consists of a single paper.

2. A brief description of the testAll items in the Reading and Listening Comprehension Test (JRLT) use a four-option MCQ format. The different types of questions are outlined in Table 1.18.From this description, we can see that the test is based on an assessment of thereceptive skills of the candidate – the associated oral test is described in thesection that follows.

Table 1.18 Item types from the JRLT

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesAccording to JETRO’s website:

‘The JETRO Test is designed to objectively measure and evaluate one’sproficiency in using the Japanese language for communication involving a


48

Levels(ALTE/CEF)

French German Spanish

Level 3/B2 ZDf B (ZertifikatDeutsch für den Berut)

CEN (Certificado deEspanol de los Negocios)

Level 4/C1 PWD (PrüfungWirtschaftsdeutschInternational)

Level 5/C2 DSEC (DiplômeSupérieur d’EtudesCommerciales)

DEN (Diploma de Espanolde los Negocios)

Table 1.17 Other tests of European languages for business purposes

Focus No. Items Time

Listening test Matching written and audio descriptionsMatching written expression to contextCareful global listening

101015

50 min.

Listening andReading test

Matching audio description to written textCareful local listening and matching to short written texts

1515

30 min.

Reading test Grammar and vocabularyCareful local reading (expressions)Careful global listening

101015

40 min.

Total 100 120

variety of situations and circumstances, targeting non-native speakersengaged primarily in business’ (JETRO:2003a).

The developers also claim that

‘The JRLT comprehensively evaluates the examinee’s skill in usingJapanese to deal with a variety of business-related tasks and problems’(JETRO:2003a).

However, since it is clear that the test is focused only on listening and reading,the construct is actually quite limited. As with other tests, this is not a problem initself, though making claims that go beyond the definition of the construct uponwhich the test is based is justifiably seen as problematic, as these claimsrepresent the inferences that the developers believe can be drawn from testperformance. The issue is therefore one of validity.

4. The test methodAs mentioned previously, the test uses MCQ format items throughout. Mosttasks involve matching audio or read input to a visual stimulus. This can be in theform of a photograph (see Figure 1.12 for an example of this task type from theListening paper), or of a piece of written text (see Figure 1.13 for an examplefrom the Reading and Listening paper).

Figure 1.12 JRLT Listening paper: sample item

Source: JETRO (2003b)

With the Reading paper, there are three item types. The first of these is actuallytesting grammar (See Figure 1.14), while the second tests ‘forms of speech’using the same MCQ format.

In the final section of the JRLT, the candidate is asked to respond to an item inwhich they are asked to identify the main point or idea in a text (Figure 1.15).


49

5. Skills’coverageThe test includes papers devoted to listening and reading, though there is anintegrated listening and reading element (see above).

6. Measurement qualitiesThough there are tables of candidature (size and success rate) for each year sincethe test was introduced, there are no figures available which tell us about thequalities of the test (overall/sub-test reliability, item statistics).

7. Degree of specificity/authenticityThe degree of specificity is not high here, with a clear focus on the languagerather than on the context (this can be seen from the items included above wherethe candidates focus on their knowledge of the language as displayed throughtheir responses to MCQ items). The fact is that the MCQ item format is useful interms of the testing of aspects of language (or other skills) that lend themselvesto being broken down into ‘discrete’ elements or chunks. However, the very actof decontextualising the language to this degree negates any claims of situa-tional authenticity.

The test appears to be well constructed, though there appears to be a questionmark over its situational authenticity. This is because it offers a series of taskswith little effort to create a systematic contextualisation through relating the


50

Figure 1.13 JRLT Reading and Listening paper: sample item

Figure 1.14 JRLT Reading paper: sample grammar item



tasks to the sort of demands outlined in the earlier reviews. The interactionalauthenticity is also questionable as responses to all of the tasks are evaluatedusing MCQ items, with no reference to the interlocutor/audience for exampleand little attempt to ensure that the linguistic demands of the texts reflect those oftexts in the business domain.

8. Impact of non-language factorsAs noted above, the somewhat confused description of the construct tested (asreflected in the levels’ ability statements contained on the test website) meansthat it is not possible to identify what the developers of this test are trying toachieve – though the extent to which the non-language factors actually impacton the test performance is not altogether clear.


51

Figure 1.15 JLRT Reading paper: identifying overall meaning


9. Reporting of test performanceAt the time of writing, the actual reporting mechanism is not available in thepublic domain, though according to the website there appears to have been amove from a criterion-referenced (i.e. pass/fail) system to a norm-referencedsystem based on that of the TOEIC and TOEFL. This decision appears to havebeen made without regard to the basic criticism of this type of system (made hereand by Douglas 2000) that the resultant numbers relate to how well the candidateperformed compared to other candidates – it does not tell us if the person cansurvive linguistically in a business environment.

It is required that a score of 530 be reached in order to qualify to sit the JETROOral Communication Test, though students who have achieved a passing gradein the final administration of the pre-revision JRLT may also apply.

The JETRO Oral Communication Test (JOCT)

1. A brief introduction to the testThe JETRO Oral Communication Test (JOCT) is an ‘add-on’ to the JRLT,which can only be taken by candidates who have achieved a score of 530 on theJRLT. Its developers claim that it ‘comprehensively measures and evaluatesone’s proficiency in using Japanese to communicate’ (JETRO, 2003c).

2. A brief description of the testThe JOCT is described on the JETRO website as consisting of two parts (seeTable 1.19), one involving the test taker and the examiners (there are alwaystwo, one specialising in Japanese language and another with a businessbackground) in an interactive dialogue and the other a role-play. Performancesare audio and/or video recorded for later evaluation. The holistic assessmentscale used in the JOCT is included here as Appendix 1.1.

Table 1.19 Task types from the JOCT

Source: JETRO (2003c)

3. An outline of the construct upon which the test focusesThe construct appears to be jointly focused on a candidate’s ability to useJapanese in a more social situation (though it should be noted that the notion of a


52

JOCT Details Duration

Q & Q Conversation, led by tester, about the test taker’s job and topicalsubject related to business

15 minutes

Role Playing Role playing in imaginary business situations, includingmonologues (short speeches, etc.) to see how the test takers dealwith given tasks and situations

15 minutes

conversation between an examiner and a candidate is probably not sustainable,due to the inequalities inherent in the event) and the candidate’s ability to use thelanguage in a typical business setting (as operationalised through a role-playtask).

4. The test methodThere are two parts. In the first part the candidate interacts with a pair ofexaminers. Here, the focus appears to be on the candidate (personal informationexchange, work experience etc.), while the two available tasks which are meantto exemplify the role-play task in part 2 appear to show the candidate in twodifferent situations, suggesting that this part of the test can vary widelyfrom administration to administration. In one version (a video clip is availableon the website) the candidate is engaged in a telephone conversation with anexaminer, while in the other the candidate makes a formal speech. The problemhere is that the first task involves the candidate in an extended interactivediscourse with an examiner while the second involves an extended monologue.We know from experience (O’Sullivan, Weir and Saville 2002, for example)that these different discourse types result in different task output profiles (interms of the language functions elicited) and may well have an effect on testperformance – particularly when we consider the work of Berry (1996, 1997)who has shown that candidates with different personality profiles are affected bytask type.

5. Skills’coverageThis test is focused on speaking only, and apart from the input prompts (whichare spoken) there is no other skill involved.


7. Degree of specificity/authenticityThis seems to be somewhat mixed, with the first (interview) task more focusedon general proficiency, while the role-play task is more specific – in that thetasks are very much situated in the context of business.

The example videos of the role-play tasks show a very formal (and nottypically business) organisation – for example in the task where the candidateinteracts with one of the examiners by telephone, the interaction actually takesplace over the phone, but both are sitting at the same desk and are facing eachother. This affects the situational authenticity – though a simple manipulation ofthe setting, to create a physical distance or barrier between the speakers, could toa large extent, negate this criticism. The degree of interactional authenticity isprobably higher, with the tasks (particularly in the latter part of the test) more


53

likely to result in the candidates’ cognitive processing approaching that of thebusiness language domain.

8. Impact of non-language factorsThere does not appear to be a significant impact here of non-language factors,though the ‘speech’ role-play, the example presented of which is little more thana formal self-introduction, may be more influenced by knowledge of theJapanese business domain. The formality of the language and rhetorical structureof this type of presentation and the non-verbal ‘attitude’ of the speaker (rigidlystanding to attention while speaking) are not for example what a Europeanstudent might expect. We might therefore find that background knowledge mayplay a large part in successful performance on this type of task. The question thenis whether this is a good or a bad thing. While Elder (2001) argued that this typeof non-language impact is negative, we have seen above that it is probablyunavoidable where a test is quite specific, and it could well be seen as a positiveaspect of this type of test; after all it is part of what makes a test specific.

The other point to make related to this example is that business domains fromdifferent cultures may be radically different. So, a learner who is quite proficientin the language but is relatively unfamiliar with the culture may not perform aswell as a learner with experience of the business culture but with a lower level oflanguage proficiency.

9. Reporting of test performancePerformance is reported in terms of the evaluation criteria (see Appendix 1.1).No pass/fail criterion is set, so candidates receive a grade only (A+, A, B+, B, C,D). No effort has been made (beyond the brief descriptions offered in the evalu-ation criteria document) to say what these levels might mean (for example interms of the CEF).

Summary

The tests reviewed to date differed greatly in the language skills they examined.It is interesting that few of the tests include all four skills, though we shall seebelow that this is one of the cornerstones of the tests developed by CambridgeESOL in the UK.

The above tests differed not only in the skills’ area, but also in the approach totest and item format, to how productive language was evaluated and to howoverall performance was reported. As in any testing situation, there is no bestway, though there were examples of decisions that were taken by developers (touse only MCQ; to change from criterion to norm-referencing) that have under-mined the validity of the tests. There is also evidence to show that simply sayingthat a test is ‘specific’ or not is probably not a good idea: the complexity of the


54

matter means that different parts of a test can be seen to be more or less situa-tionally and interactionally authentic. Clearly a more comprehensive (thoughpractical) system of dealing with this issue is needed.

Before discussing that, it is now time to look at how the UK’s most influentialdeveloper of both general and specific purpose language tests have come to testlanguage for business purposes.

The development of business English testing atCambridgeNo mention has yet been made of the tests for business with which CambridgeESOL has been associated over the past decade. I have deliberately refrainedfrom including these tests in a general description of current practice in order totake this opportunity to establish a clearer perspective on the current CambridgeESOL approach to this aspect of testing. In order to more fully appreciate theapproach, we really need to go back to the mid-1980s, before the organisationbecame involved in business language testing. The tests in the following sectionare of historical interest, but as they are no longer administered, I will notattempt to offer the same 9-point analysis as was done for the preceding tests, butwill instead describe them in terms of their contribution to the historical devel-opment of business language testing at Cambridge ESOL.

Certificate in EFL for Secretaries (CEFLS)

In the mid-1980s, the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) in the UK developed a testknown as the Certificate in English as a Foreign Language for Secretaries(CEFLS). Like the TOEIC, this test was created in response to the perceivedneed of local clients, and was piloted from 1986 to 1989. Unlike the TOEIC, theformat of the test was based on the use of materials supplied by real companies,and was designed as a criterion-referenced test.

The report of the pilot scheme for the CEFLS (RSA 1987:4) indicates that atotal of 86 test takers sat the English Oral, Reading and Writing and Listeningtests, while six, 11 and 69 test takers sat the French, German and Swedish Trans-lation tests respectively. The high pass rate was indicated by the fact thatcertificates were awarded to 80 test takers who gained a passing score on allthree of the English tests; no mention is made of those who passed the othertranslation tests.

The Oral test was based on three distinct tasks identified as being represen-tative of ‘the type of interactions a secretary would undertake in his/her normalwork’.

These were:

1. Initiating a telephone call.

Development of business English testing at Cambridge

55

2. Receiving a telephone call.3. Face-to-face interaction with an unknown participant.

The three parts of the test were linked by a common theme, designed to obviatethe necessity for test takers to adopt different personas for each part. Test takerswere initially given a role as an employee of a real company (the Parker PenCompany was used for the 1987 pilot). The results of the pilot appear to havebeen quite satisfactory, though the final task seems to have been problematic,due to the reluctance of test takers to maintain their role (and initiate utterancesfor example), and the subsequent abandonment by the assessors of the role-play.Unfortunately, no reference is made in the report to the assessment criteria used,though there appears to have been a focus on task fulfilment.

The Listening test consisted of a series of five thematically related tasks(again based around information provided by the Parker Pen Company). TheReport tells us that the input was ‘recorded at the normal rate of delivery with arange of native speakers and included non-standard speakers’ (RSA 1987:8).The tasks are outlined in Table 1.20.

Table 1.20 Listening task types from the Certificate in EFL for Secretaries

These tasks appear to have been well attempted by the pilot group, though thehigh pass level suggests that there may have been some problem with the level ofdifficulty of the tasks – the Report (RSA 1987:9) does refer to the relativeweakness of responses to Tasks 2 and 4, which required production skills,though no additional information as to why this might have been the case ispresented.

The Reading and Writing test (Table 1.21) consisted of a set of seven tasks,each designed to test a particular aspect of the test taker’s language ability.These tasks were accompanied by materials taken from sources including theFinancial Times, the Parker Pen Company’s own publicity material, ‘andinvented tasks made as authentic as possible’ (RSA 1987:10).

While the CEFLS can be criticised in hindsight for its relative naivety andlack of professional polish (the pilot test, which is included here as Appendix 1.2was quite crude in its presentation), there were a number of very interesting andinfluential aspects of the test that deserve mention. For example, the view ofauthenticity implied in the use of materials related to real or realistic companies(though adapted or even scripted to suit the test) reflects current thinking to a


56

Task Description

12345

Respond to customer telephone order (complete sales order form)Respond to oral input with summary (in the form of a telex)Understanding of longer [time not given] input (true/false items)Listen for specific details from two telephone messages (written summary)Three extended messages (answer-phone) MCQ items

great degree and can be seen to satisfy the situational authenticity required of anLSP test (Douglas 2000). This authenticity was maintained in the Speaking test,where a range of tasks were included, while in the Listening test a range ofspeakers of English were used. The test developers also made efforts to ensurethat there was a strong measure of interactional authenticity in the type of taskschosen, though it is not now possible to establish empirically that actualcandidate performances reflected this view.

The fact that this test was very highly specified is not at all surprising, in thatit was developed with a particular test taker in mind, and it was never considereda requirement of the test that the results might be generalised to a wider generalpurpose language context. Of course, the question of a potential impact of non-language ability arises here again and it may well have been the case that famil-iarity with the domain may have contributed to performance.

When, in 1988, the RSA Examinations Board was amalgamated into whatwas then the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES),it was decided to broaden the candidate base and CEFLS was redesigned,initially only slightly, and renamed the Certificate in English for InternationalBusiness and Trade (CEIBT).

Certificate in English for International Business and Trade(CEIBT)

The CEIBT consisted of three papers, testing reading and writing, listening andoral interaction. The Reading and Writing paper consisted of an introductory‘Information Page’, in which the test taker was introduced to the company andtheir own position within the company (for the purposes of the test) was contex-tualised. Among the companies used in the test were Rolls Royce, JapanAirlines, McDonald’s and The Body Shop. There followed a series of six taskswhere the test taker was expected to respond to a series of authentic stimulae inthe form of letters, memos, faxes and reports – though due to the authentic natureof the materials the task formats tended to vary from administration to


57

Task Description Marks available

123a3b4567

Questionnaire completionProof-reading task (10 discrete items)Formal letter Less formal letter Interpreting graphs/graphics (discrete items)Formal letter Letter and report formal Telex

1 mark5 marks5 marks5 marks4 marks5 marks5 marks5 marks

Table 1.21 Reading and Writing task types from the Certificate in EFL for Secretaries

administration (one of the factors that led to a revision of the test in 1998). Testtakers were allowed a total of 150 minutes for completion of the six tasks (thisincluded 10 minutes’ reading time).

In the Listening paper, test takers undertook a series of tasks, within thecontext of the same company. On the basis of what they heard in a series of audiorecordings, featuring both native and non-native speakers of English, they wereexpected to undertake a number of tasks. This paper lasted for approximately 65minutes including 5 minutes’ reading time.

Finally, the Oral Interaction paper consisted of a role-play, where the testtaker took the role of a company employee and the examiner took the role of avisitor to the company. The paper lasted for 13–15 minutes, with a total of 15minutes’ preparation time.

While the CEIBT has been praised for its commitment to authenticity of input(see for example Douglas 2000:175), it was this very commitment that had veryreal practical consequences for the production of the examination. One conse-quence was the difficulty in implementing full pretesting of the test tasks due tothe involvement of real companies. Additional problems identified in a 1994review document included the large amount of writing required and, perhapsmore crucially, the problem of what to do with an item shown by pre-testing notto be operating as predicted – as the test was seen as an integrated unit, a non-performing item could not be replaced with a previously banked example. Thislatter difficulty also had serious implications for the application of item bankingto the test system.

It is interesting to note that what was considered the strongest point of theCEIBT, the authenticity of its input, was also its Achilles heel. Apart from theproblems with pretesting referred to above, there were other even moreimportant difficulties. Perhaps the most relevant of these was the extreme viewof authenticity illustrated by the insistence on the use of real unedited material.The review document identified the following conditions for the production ofthe examination:

• ‘importance of obtaining genuine materials [emphasis in original] fromthe company.

• reliance on the materials voluntarily supplied by the context companies,which leads to problems if the company does not oblige [two examplesare provided in the review]

• reluctance to edit material obtained from the context company in thebelief that this is tampering with ‘authenticity’ [emphasis in original]

• belief in the importance of ensuring that the tasks on a particular paperwould actually be carried out by someone working in a particulardepartment within that company

• unwillingness to consider the use of fictional companies as a setting forCEIBT or to change the names [although this was, in fact, adopted forthe revised CEIBT, introduced in 1998]’ (UCLES 1994:13–14).


58

The writer goes on to identify the principal area of concern with this situation: ‘itis the materials obtained from the company rather than the existing testspecifications which drive the test’ (UCLES 1994:14). An additional problem,that of task consistency, was also identified, with examples given of significantvariation in reading load and of differences in task format. This latter situation isexemplified by comparing the two CEIBT tests that were administered in 1992(Table 1.22) where the tasks are not at all similar, either in terms of input or ofexpected response. See Appendix 1.3 for examples of two CEIBT test papers.

Table 1.22 Comparison of two CEIBT examinations

(Both of these tests are included as Appendices 1.3 and 1.4.)

This table shows how difficult it is to make meaningful comparisons betweenthe different versions of the test. This problem was also reflected in the unpre-dictability of the difficulty level of the test from year to year, a situationhighlighted in the review document (UCLES 1994:16), by the differences in thepercentage of candidates achieving a passing grade. It is therefore clear that the commitment to the use of purely authentic materials was compromising thevalidity and reliability of the test.

Other difficulties with the existing CEIBT included a perceived lack of


59

June 1992 November 1992

Task Input Output Input Output

1 Invoice (paymentoverdue)Brief memo

Letter (complaint) Report (cover only)Brief note

Letter (informational)

2 MemoAdvertising proof(10 errors)

Corrected proofFax (instructional)

Fax (3 questions)Office files (x 3)

Fax (informational)

3 Graphic design Letter (request) Fax (approx. 90words)Memo (approx.70 words)Article (approx.400 words)

Letter (informational)

4 Article (approx.600 words)

Report (120 wordsmax.)

Memo Article (informational)

5 Letter(suspendingcontract)Table + Chart

Letter(argumentation)

Memo (handwrittenadditions)

Memo (apologies,informational)

6 Application formMemo (x 2)MessageLetter

Note (prioritising)

clarity of definition of the role and purpose of the test – as compared with, forexample, the TOEIC. This was seen to affect the marketability of the CEIBT,and to have contributed to its relatively low take up (less than 1500 per year), andthe lack of support materials (with no published textbook). As a result of thisextensive review, with the addition of feedback from test takers, administrators,and Cambridge ESOL personnel, it was decided to revise the CEIBT. Thisrevision was to take almost three years, with the new version first administeredin June 1998.

The main changes to the test were:

• each of the three papers was to become a free-standing certificated test• each test had a different company context based on [my emphasis] an

authentic source• the Reading and Writing test and the Listening test were shortened• the Oral test now included an additional ‘mini presentation’ (but overall

length did not change).

A comparison of the test outline (Table 1.23) with that of the pre-revisionversion shows that the changes to the test were actually quite major. The taskswere now less open, in terms of expected response, and while there was definitereduction in specificity, and to some extent in the situational authenticity of thetest (mostly in that ‘real’ companies were no longer used), this does not appearto have been reflected in any way in the potential of the tasks to demonstrateevidence of interactional authenticity. However, the lack of archived data makethis impossible to demonstrate empirically.

Table 1.23 Format of the revised CEIBT Reading and Writing test

Unfortunately, despite these revisions CEIBT continued to attract very smallnumbers of candidates.

This situation, when combined with the successful development and intro-duction of the BEC suite, particularly BEC3, which was aimed at a similar leveltest taker and was able to build on the success of the earlier BEC examinations,meant that the CEIBT was withdrawn.

Another test that was brought into the UCLES fold in the mid-1990s, and thathas had some influence on the Cambridge ESOL approach to the testing ofEnglish for business was the Oxford International Business English Certificate(OIBEC).


60

Task Main Skill Focus

12345

Business correspondenceLanguage systemsBusiness correspondenceReading for detail, global meaning and inferenceExtended business correspondence

Oxford International Business English Certificate (OIBEC)

The OIBEC examinations were developed by the University of OxfordDelegacy of Local Examinations (UODLE) during the late 1980s and first intro-duced in November 1990.

The OIBEC offered tests at two levels, First and Executive. The examina-tions were designed for people with ‘a practical knowledge of English’ whowere ‘learning to use it in a business environment’ (UODLE 1990) and were atthe pre-intermediate and higher-intermediate levels respectively (or at the levelsof 4 and 6 on the English Speaking Union Framework Chart). Both levels werebased on case studies, and included papers testing all four skills.

An interesting feature of the OIBEC examinations was the inclusion of anextensive preparation package, which was given to each candidate three daysbefore the day of the examination. This package appears to have been devised toeliminate any individual ‘background knowledge’ effect on test performance,by giving the candidates three days in which to read through and study thebackground to the topic for the test they were about to sit.

Also of interest is the fact that the Speaking test used a paired format, theearliest inclusion of this format in a large scale test, though the format seems tohave been best exploited only at the Executive level, where the candidates wereinvolved interactively in two tasks (one of which appears to have been seen onlyas an extension of an earlier task and was not awarded individual marks). SeeTable 1.24 for an outline of the test.

CommentaryIn terms of the criteria referred to in the early stages of the chapter, the threeexaminations reviewed above can all be said to have been quite clearly specifiedwithin a business language domain – and as such are quite ‘specific’ in that theylie towards that end of the continuum. The changing attitude to situationalauthenticity can be clearly seen, in that the earlier CEFLS test was devised insuch a way as to mirror as closely as possible the target language use domain, afactor which contributed to a high degree of situational authenticity, and ‘face’validity, but which meant that the test could not be replicated. The focus onsituational authenticity reached its zenith with the CEIBT, a test that was quitepopular with certain stakeholders (teachers for example) but less so with others(candidates, test users and test developers).

The contribution of these testsApart from the obvious experiential aspects of administering tests of languagefor business purposes to an international population, these tests appear to havecontributed to the current Cambridge ESOL approach to business languagetesting in a number of ways. The development of the CEFLS through to the


61

CEIBT in its different versions appears to have demonstrated how the organi-sation moved from an approach where attention was drawn to the genuineness ofthe tasks used (in other words the focus was on the situational authenticity of thetask) to a perception of the test task which takes into account both its situationaland interactional authenticity. The other major change was to understand thatdifferent test versions (i.e. different versions of a single test) must be replica-


62

First Level Executive Level

Preparationpackage

Contents 4 pages of written input – rangefrom report to letter to table andgraphic.

6/7 pages of written input – consists of adetailed contextualisation, with excerptsfrom reports, letters, balance sheets,memos etc.

Reading andWriting

Time allowed

Marks awarded

Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

Task 4

Task 5

Task 6

75 minutes

100

10 SAF – Reading comprehension,based on preparation materials

Reading – Inferencing (3 items tobe identified, SAF)

Writing – register (3 items SAF)

Writing/Reading integrated – tablecompletion/summary

Guided writing – Memo, no wordlimit

Letter writing (scaffolded usingadditional input) – no word limit

95 minutes

100

Writing – Report completion (based onPrep. Materials) – 2 pages allowed,20 marks

Writing – Guided report (based on Prep.Materials) – 2 pages allowed, 15 marks

Reading – 5 SAF items, based onadditional fax input (15 marks)

Proof-reading – 10 items in short memotext (10 marks)

Writing – briefing paper completion(2 paragraphs) 20 marks

Writing – job application letter(150–200 words) 20 marks

Listening

Marks awarded

Time allowed

Task* 1

Task* 2

Task* 3

50

20 minutes

3 items, based on graph/table (SAF)

Complete form, based on input(3 pieces of information required –all SAF)

4 items, 1 table completion,2 additional information,1 inferencing item

* All telephone messages

50

20 minutes

10 comprehension items (MCQ)15 marks

9 comprehension items (SAF) 20 marks

3 items – corrections to tables [15 marks]

Table 1.24 Task types from the Oxford International Business EnglishCertificate

tions from a clear specification if stakeholders are to make consistent inferencesbased on test scores.

Both the CEIBT and the OIBEC contributed to the current approach throughthe move along the specificity continuum, to a situation where the tests whichhad been based on a high degree of specificity (and low generalisability) were, intheir later guises, more centrally located, allowing for a greater degree of gener-alisability than their predecessors.

Business Language Testing System (BULATS)First discussed by members of the Association of Language Testers in Europe(ALTE) shortly after the formation of the association in 1990, the main thrustbehind the development of BULATS appears to have been the decision to createa series of business language tests with a multilingual dimension. To date, testshave been developed in four languages, English (which will be the main focus ofthis review), German, French and Spanish. The tests were developed andmanaged by Cambridge ESOL [English], Alliance Française [French], Goethe-Institut [German] and Universidad de Salamanca [Spanish].

One interesting feature of the BULATS tests is that performance on all of thetests is benchmarked to the ALTE and CEF frameworks, shown in Chapter 2.This allows the test end-user to make informed decisions about performance ontests of proficiency in different languages. While it can be argued that theLCCIEB tests allow for the same cross-language comparisons to be made, thereis a big difference in the tests involved. As we could see from the LCCIEB tests,they all follow the same model. The difference with the BULATS tests is thateach test is developed and administered independently by experienced test

BULATS

63

First Level Executive Level

Speaking

Marks awarded

Time allowed

Format

Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

Not specified

20 minutes

2 candidates, 1 examiner

Each candidate makes a shortpresentation (2–3 minutes) on themerits of a particularmarket/strategy. Followed by shortdiscussion. Each given prompt cardcontaining bulleted pros of ownpoint and cons of that of othercandidate. Finally, candidates mustcome to a decision on which to gofor.

80 marks

20 minutes

2 candidates, 1 examiner

Presentation – (no time suggested)choice from 5 prompts (5 minutes’preparation time)

Decision-making task – from givenprompt cards, candidate to candidateinteraction (2 minutes’ preparation time)

Joint summary of findings [not marked]

Table 1.24 Task types from the Oxford International Business EnglishCertificate (continued)

developers who are native speakers of the target language. They may beworking from the same basic specifications, but here the developers are morelikely to be aware of subtle differences in the language concerned and to takethis into account in developing tests that are more likely to represent a validindication of proficiency in that language for the particular purpose tested.

Another facet of BULATS is the fact that it offers a number of independenttests in each of the four languages currently tested. These tests are:

• the BULATS Standard test – a 110 minute test of listening, reading andgrammar/vocabulary

• the BULATS Computer test• the BULATS Speaking test• the BULATS Writing test.

Each of these tests will be briefly reviewed in the following parts of this section.

The BULATS Standard test

As mentioned above, this is a 110-minute-long test of reading, listening andgrammar/vocabulary. The test is divided into two sections, the listening partlasts for 50 minutes and the reading and language knowledge part lasts for 60minutes. From the outline of the test in Table 1.25, we can see that it represents asubstantial measure of a candidate’s proficiency in these areas (BULATSundated/a).

Table 1.25 BULATS Standard test (English): test outline

All of the examples described below are taken from the sample paper availablethrough the BULATS website – the entire sample paper for English is includedas part of Appendix 1.4 (see Appendix 1.6 for a copy of the BULATS Germanpaper).


64

Part Items Format Focus

Listening

1234

10121018

MCQSAFMatching MCQ

Matching audio description to visuals or short phrasesMemo/form completionIdentify speaker from list of topics/jobs etc.Listen for detail

ReadingandLanguageKnowledge

1 7665

MCQMCQMCQCloze

Reading short memos, signs etc.Selecting appropriate lexical items or chunksReading for comprehension (300–350 words)

2 755667

Matching MC ClozeClozeMCQMCQSAF

Statements to short texts (up to 60 words)Based on 100 word business communicationBased on 100 word general textSelecting appropriate lexical itemsReading for comprehension (500–600 words)Proof-reading – identify and correct errors in text

There are four parts to the Listening section. In the first part, candidates areasked to match an audio description to a set of three visuals or short phrases. Nowriting is expected of the candidates in this section. In total there are 10 items. Inthe example from the sample item below (Figure 1.16), the candidates are askedto listen to the input and to identify a specific piece of information (here, deliverydate).

Figure 1.16 Sample item: Part 1 BULATS Listening (English)

In the second part, candidates listen (just once) to a set of three conversations ortelephone messages, and must complete a series of forms, notes or memos,totalling 12 items – all short answer format (SAF). Figure 1.17 shows anexample of this task type, where the candidate listens again for specific infor-mation and responds using one or two words or numbers.


BULATS

65

In the third part of the test, candidates listen to five people talking about aparticular topic – there is no interaction here, all input is in the form ofmonologic discourse. They should then identify the speaker (from a given list ofspeakers). In the example shown in Figure 1.18, the speakers are talking abouttheir work. Candidates listen and respond by identifying the views held by eachof the five speakers from the list provided.


Finally, candidates listen to a series of three short interactions (see Figure 1.19)and are asked to respond to a set of six MCQ-based items for each listening text,only two of the six items have been included in Figure 1.19. In contrast to theprevious section, here the discourse is interactional in nature. It appears that thedevelopers have attempted to avoid, or at least to limit any test method effect byincluding a range of methods in this part of the test. While there is some readingto be done in order to respond to the items, this is minimal, with the possibleexception of Part 3 – where the options range from two to six words in length,though there are only three options.

The Reading and Language Knowledge section of the test is comprised oftwo parts. Within these parts there are a number of sub-sections (see Table 1.25)which focus on various aspects of reading and language knowledge. This part ofthe test is not as clearly defined as the first part, with the candidates moving fromreading short texts and notices in Section 1 to demonstrating their knowledge ofbusiness-related vocabulary in the following section. In the first part, candidates


66

are presented with seven MCQ items all based on short pieces of input (whichcan be notices, memos, notes, graphics or tables). As with the earlier listeningsection, the MCQ items all have three options though they are all quite long – upto 10 words (see Figure 1.20). All responses are marked directly on to acomputer readable answer sheet.

Figure 1.20 BULATS Reading and Language Knowledge: Section 1

The following section includes a series of six MCQ items based onknowledge of language use (see the example in Figure 1.21). Here the candidateis asked to identify the most appropriate word or phrase to complete a short

BULATS

67


sentence. The focus here is on the lexicon (including lexical chunks) of thebusiness domain.

Figure 1.21 BULATS Reading and Language Knowledge: Section 2

This section then moves on to a series of reading comprehension items whichfocus on reading for detail from a text of approximately 300–350 words. Thissection is then followed by a cloze test consisting of five items which appear tobe designed to test syntax. While the previous section is quite clearly based on abusiness-oriented text, the text on which the cloze is based is less obviouslybusiness-focused.


68

Figure 1.22 BULATS Reading and Language Knowledge: Reading item

In the second part of the Reading and Language Knowledge paper there aresix sub-sections. Here, the focus is on a mixture of reading (Sections 1, 3 and 5),vocabulary (Sections 2 and 4) and grammar (Section 6).

Reading is tested using a variety of item types, matching, cloze and MCQ,with the focus on reading for detail throughout. Figure 1.22 is an example of anitem from Section 1 of this part of the test. In this item candidates are expected tomatch the statements to one of a series of four short texts (I’ve included only twoitems and one of the four texts here – for the whole section see Appendix 1.3).Vocabulary is tested using two different formats (cloze and MCQ), an exampleof the latter is shown here as Figure 1.23.

Figure 1.23 BULATS Reading and Language Knowledge: Vocabularyitem

The final part of the test consists of a short letter or memo, on each line ofwhich there may be an error. Test takers are expected to identify which situationapplies to each line (correct or including an error) and to indicate whatcorrection is needed where an error has been identified – see Figure 1.24 for anextract from the sample paper supplied by the developers.

Figure 1.24 BULATS Reading and Language Knowledge

The BULATS Standard test, therefore, offers a comprehensive measure of atest taker’s receptive language proficiency and their knowledge of the structure

BULATS

69

and lexicon of the language as it is used in a business context. The fact is that theStandard paper is not meant to offer a broad perspective on the language abilityof candidates; instead both it and its computer counterpart are supported byadditional papers for speaking and writing, so comment should not really bepassed on these independent units in terms of approach or construct.

The way in which the test is constructed is interesting: apart from being splitalong the listening–reading/knowledge divide, within the two parts thereappears to have been a deliberate attempt to keep shifting the focus, by movingbetween different types of item and content – particularly true of the Readingand Language Knowledge paper. This is a situation that might not please all testdevelopers or theorists, as it could be argued that the skills might be moreefficiently tested in more compact and homogenous sub-tests. On the otherhand, the constant changing may act to maintain interest in this long paper andmay actually facilitate more accurate measurement. This is an area on which thetest developers might well devise a programme of research in which the impactof the presentation style is investigated.

The BULATS Computer test

The BULATS Computer test is a computer adaptive (CAT) version of theinstrument and like the standard version contains sub-tests of listening andreading comprehension, and vocabulary/grammar tasks. The computer versiontakes advantage of the alternative item types offered by the medium.

The test includes a variety of listening item formats:

• listening to a short monologue to identify the correct response to a writtenitem

• listening to an extended dialogue to answer a series of comprehension items.

The reading items also offer a range of item types:

• reading short texts to identify the correct summary• reading an extended passage to answer a series of comprehension texts.

Finally, the vocabulary/grammar items tend to use one of two types of clozeitem:

• responses from a series of four options• responses typed directly into text boxes.

We can see, therefore, that the format of the test reflects that of the Standard test,though there are a number of different item types used. Another unique featureof BULATS is the way in which it allows the test user to make a number ofdecisions which contribute to adapting or customising the test to suit the needsof their situation. A management dialogue box allows the user to indicate whichdemographic information to include, to decide on the test-supervisor language,


70

the language of instruction (in this case the person might wish that the instruc-tions be given in the candidate’s mother tongue – provided it is on the list ofoptions offered – or that they will be in the target language, here English). Inaddition, this screen also permits the user to decide to allow (or not) the test takerto view their results, to print them or view feedback – depending on the contextand purpose of the test all or none of these options might be chosen. As withother CAT tests the results are available immediately upon completion of thetest.

Like the Standard version, the Computer test is available in a number oflanguages, though only the English version is reviewed here due to limitationsof space. The test is available on CD in each of the four languages (English,French, German and Spanish).

The BULATS Speaking test

This test is independent from the other BULATS tests. The Speaking test usesthe one-to-one format, with a single examiner and test taker (see Appendix 1.5for a sample paper). All tests are audio recorded and assessed by an independentassessor, as well as by the examiner who participates in the test (BULATSundated/b). Table 1.26 shows how the test is organised.

Table 1.26 Speaking test design – BULATS

Performance is assessed on accuracy and appropriacy of grammar and vocab-ulary, discourse features such as cohesion, fluency, pronunciation, interac-tiveness, and degree of accommodation required.

Some example tasks for the Speaking test are presented below. The presen-tation task (Figure 1.25) offers a guided or scaffolded task prompt, where the testtaker is given some bulleted points which should be included in the presentation(it is not clear though if there is some penalty for not including these points in the response – in other words, it is not clear if they are suggestions or explicitdirections).

BULATS

71

Part Title Timing Description Focus

1 Interview 4 mins Personal informationexchange (answer questionsabout themselves, theirwork and interests).

Ability to respond to personalquestions in a conversationalcontext.

2 Presentation 4 mins Talk on topic (choice ofthree) for one minute – oneminute preparation time.Respond to follow-upquestions.

Ability to produce extendeddiscourse and to respond toquestions on the topic.

3 Informationexchange anddiscussion

4 mins Simulation – role play fromgiven input (candidateexpected to take initiative).

Ability to take a more activepart in a conversation.

Figure 1.25 Speaking task types from BULATS (Part 2)

The information exchange task (Figure 1.26) is again scaffolded, though herethere is clearly room for the test taker to demonstrate an ability to expand on thetopic and to offer their own opinions on aspects of the topic. This has the effectof expanding the range of language functions typically observed in an interview(informational) to include both interactional and discourse managementfunctions, see O’Sullivan, Weir and Saville (2002) for a discussion of thisphenomenon.


72

PART 2 Presentation

INSTRUCTIONS

Please read all THREE topics below carefully.

Choose ONE which you feel you will be able to talk about for one minute.

You have one minute to read and prepare your talk.

You may take notes.

Topic A

Describe an important business meeting you attended.You should say:

where it was;what it was about;why it was important.

What were the most interesting moments?

Topic B

Describe someone you particularly enjoy working with.You should say:

what this person does;what sort of work you do with this person;why you like working with this person.

Would you change anything about this person? Give reasons for this answer.

Topic C

Describe the best workplace you have ever had.You should say:

where the workplace was;what you were doing there;why you liked to work there.

Would you change anything about it? Give reasons for your answer.

Figure 1.26 Speaking task types from BULATS (Part 3)

The inclusion of a variety of tasks, each with a different focus, marks an inter-esting attempt to extend the range of discourse type. The paper includesinformal interactive personal information exchange, formal presentation andinformation exchange tasks.

The fact that there is a choice of situations offered to the candidates in Part 2is obviously an effort to ensure that they have an opportunity to perform at theirbest by selecting a topic on which they feel they can perform well. There isalways a danger, of course, that particular topics are either inherently more orless difficult than others, or that the examiner will consider that this may be thecase. This opens up the possibility of the examiner compensating the candidatefor selecting a ‘difficult’ topic – even where the topic may not actually be moredifficult for the candidate. As with many areas of performance assessment, thisis a matter that has received scant attention (though see Lumley and McNamara,1995).

Though no empirical evidence has been published to date, it would be inter-esting to see how the final information exchange task works in actual adminis-trations of the test. This format has been found not to work well in a number oftests as the test takers are often reluctant to adapt to a role – this could be due tothe difference in power and status between the examiner (the ‘expert’) and the

BULATS

73

PART 3 Communicative Activity

CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS

You have one minute to read through this task.

Information Exchange

You are making the arrangements for a one-day conference at a local hotel. The Examiner is the

Conference Organiser for the hotel and is visiting you to discuss the conference.

Find out this information:

i) the size of the largest conference room

ii) the cost for that room

iii) equipment available

Do you think the hotel is offering you a good service for the price it is charging?

Discussion

Now discuss this topic with the Examiner.

What makes a successful conference?

test taker (the ‘novice’). In a test such as BULATS this position is reversed to alarge extent, through the creation of a ‘work-based’ situation, in which the testtaker is the ‘expert’ and the examiner the ‘novice’. This is just speculation at thispoint, though it is certainly worth exploring.

The BULATS Writing test

The BULATS Writing paper consists of a pair of writing tasks, described (Table1.27) and exemplified below (BULATS undated/c). Performance on the tasks isassessed by two trained and accredited examiners working independently of oneanother. The criteria used are accuracy and appropriacy of grammar and vocab-ulary, organisation of ideas, achievement of purpose. As with the otherBULATS test papers, the topic and genre of the writing tasks are contextualisedin a business setting.

As can be seen in Figure 1.27, in the first of the tasks the candidate is given ashort text, such as a letter, memo or advert, together with a set of guidelines forwriting a reply or follow-up letter. Candidates are expected to cover all of thepoints in the instructions within about sixty words – though there are nopenalties for going over that limit. The task is typical of the business domain interms of purpose, length, structure and formality of expected output. It cantherefore be seen as being appropriate in terms of both the text and task demandsof the target domain.

The second task (Figure 1.28) offers candidates a choice of either an extendedletter or a report. The same can be said of this choice as was said of the choiceoffered in the speaking test, and the developers would be well advised tomonitor these options for any unintended bias. On the other hand, both tasks arevery definitely focused on the business domain, and like the first task, the devel-opers can claim that the options represent tasks that are very strong in terms ofsituational authenticity. The tasks are also quite likely to result in interactionallyauthentic performances as they again reflect the task and text demands of thebusiness domain.


74

Part Title Timing Focus

1 Short message/letter(50–60 words)

15 mins Ability to write a short letter, covering (given) relevantpoints and using appropriate style and tone.

2 Extended letter orreport (180–200words)

30 mins Ability to write and structure a piece of extendedwriting, using appropriate style and tone for theintended reader.

Table 1.27 Writing test design – BULATS

CommentaryThe BULATS tests offer an interesting insight into the way language testing ingeneral and specific purpose language testing in particular began to change inthe early 1990s.

Before this period, the traditional Cambridge ESOL approach (whichtypified the ‘British’ approach) had been to focus primarily on performance-based assessment. By this I mean that the tests had been shaped over the years toreflect a current view of the learning process, see Weir’s history of the growth ofthe CPE (2003a), while the need to reflect contemporary thinking on psycho-metric aspects of language testing seemed to take second place. The BULATStests were designed at a time when the influence of psychometrics was still quitestrong, with, for example, the TOEFL/First Certificate in English (FCE) compa-rability study (Bachman et al 1995) suggesting quite strongly that the latter testlacked adequate psychometric quality and issuing dire warnings of the conse-quences of this apparently fatal flaw. The tests, far from abandoning the existingphilosophy can be seen to have moved to embrace the two, often conflicting,movements, by combining a variety of item and task types as well as a variety ofresponse types. BULATS also includes papers on all four skills in addition to a

BULATS

75

Figure 1.27 Writing task from BULATS (Part 1)

separate grammar/vocabulary paper – as we will see later, this reflects the typeof test associated with one of the main BULATS partners (Cambridge ESOL).

Of interest here is the way in which BULATS can be interpreted in terms ofthe degree of specificity issue. It is clear from the examples shown previouslythat the different papers seem to be taking somewhat different perspectives onthe candidates’ ability, with some being quite specific in their content andcontextualisation (suggesting a high degree of situational authenticity), whileothers are apparently deliberately less focused on the business context. Thisrange supports the notion that specificity is not as straightforward as we oncethought. When a test is as complex as the one described here, there will be arange of degrees of specificity within the test (see Table 1.28).


76

Figure 1.28 Writing task from BULATS (Part 2)

Table 1.28 BULATS – degree of specificity in the different papers

In a similar way, we can discuss the related issues of authenticity and theimpact of non-language features on performance. The variation throughout thistest is highly likely to be reflected in tests in which a similarly complex design isused, and is equally likely to result in a broader perspective on the candidate’slanguage ability within the business, or other specific, context and hence to thedrawing of more valid inferences from performance on the test as a whole.

The development of the BEC suiteThe origins of the Business English Certificates (BEC) can be traced to aseries of meetings during 1991–1992 between UCLES representatives andthe National Education Examinations Authority (NEEA) in China. At thesemeetings, the area of business English was identified by the Chinese partners asbeing in urgent need of a new, fresh approach, one designed specifically for aChinese population.

By the end of 1992, the decision to develop such a test had been made, alongwith the decision that the test should be certificated at a low level. With this inmind, a prototype was developed using the Key English Test (KET)/Prelim-inary English Test (PET) model – these represent the lowest levels of theCambridge ESOL Main Suite general proficiency tests. This prototype includeda detailed specification and sample paper.

The partners agreed that the prototype represented an appropriate design anda decision was made in early 1993 to proceed with the development of the test asa joint venture. This led to a detailed exploration of the practical issues involvedin operationalising such a project, issues such as marking, processing, cost,printing, etc. At this early stage it became apparent that the proposed speakingpaper would be problematic from the perspective of examiner recruitment (itshould be remembered that, at that time, there was a serious shortage of qualifiedand experienced English language teachers in China). For this reason, it wasdecided that only those students who had successfully completed the other testpapers would be offered a speaking component.

Development of the BEC suite

77

Paper Degree of specificity Comment

Listening Medium/High Quite a large emphasis on social language, though withclear business-oriented contextualisation

Reading Low/Medium Some focus on business-related text types

Grammar/Vocabulary

Low/Medium Some focus on business-related text types

Speaking Medium Essentially based on more social aspects of spokenlanguage use (though again set in a business context)

Writing High Very much focused on writing in a business context

The first administration of the BEC took place in China in the autumn of1993. Table 1.29 gives some idea of the scale of that first administration.

Table 1.29 Details of the first BEC administration (China)

Even before the first administration of the BEC, it was decided that the existingtest should be supplemented with another, higher level test, envisaged as beinglinked to the existing test in terms of design model, though aimed at a higherlevel. This meant that the Business English Certificates (as the suite was nowcalled) was to consist of a pair of related examinations, called BEC1 and BEC2.

The design and planning phases of the new test were completed by late 1993,and an operational test was developed during the summer of 1994. This new testwas first administered, again in China, in the autumn of 1994. Table 1.30outlines the scope of the 1994 administration.

Table 1.30 The 1994 BEC administration (China)

Following the early burst of development, there followed a hiatus in whichthe existing tests became well established in the ‘base’ market of China. Duringthis time interest in the test in other Asian countries, particularly in India, beganto grow. This growth into other markets was not seen as being problematic, asthere was nothing in the test design that might cause it to be of use only in aChinese context.

Meanwhile, changes in the demographics of the test population, both inChina and in the newer markets, resulted in an increased demand for a test at ahigher level to the existing pair, an idea that had been in existence at the time ofthe CEIBT review in 1994. Extended discussions at this time into the feasibilityor need for an addition to the BEC suite, were influenced by the existence of theCEIBT (see the discussion of its development and administration above), whichhad been designed to test language at a level comparable with the proposed test.Eventually, however, operational difficulties with the CEIBT (again see above),and the expressed preferences of BEC stakeholders for any new test to have adesign similar to that of the existing BEC examinations, led to the decision todevelop what was to become known as BEC3.

Work on the new test began, with the test going live in 1996. This new testwas planned to extend the range of the BEC suite upwards, and was bench-marked to the Certificate in Advanced English (CAE), ALTE level C1. The


78

Number of candidates% of candidates achieving a passing grade

321297%

BEC1 BEC2

Number of candidates% of candidates achieving a passing grade

497493%

312172%

design of the test was again based on the other BEC examinations, offering thesame range of papers. This design is summarised in Table 1.31.

Table 1.31 The BEC suite design

During the period 1998–2000, the BEC suite spread to other parts of the worldand by the end of this time the overall candidature had grown to over 45,000.Changing demographics within the BEC population, related again to changes inthe original market, and changes related to the expanding candidature set thecontext for the revision with which the next part of this book is concerned. Thefollowing chapters outline the Cambridge test development cycle in relation tothe revision of the BEC suite (Chapter 2) and the actual changes to the testpapers (Chapter 3).

Issues resulting from this review

It would appear from this review that there are a number of different approachesto the testing of language for business purposes. The tests reviewed appear to beless than highly specific, in that they are more likely to focus on language use ina particular context, than on the performance of very specific context-relatedtasks. The fact that there is a range appears to support the argument made above,that the specificity continuum exists and that tests placed at different pointsalong the continuum will differ not only in terms of specificity, but also in termsof situational and interactional authenticity, and in terms of the impact of non-language factors on the abilities being tested.

There is also evidence here of a difference in rationale for including tasks in aspecific language test. In general purpose testing, the primary reason forincluding particular tasks is to elicit samples of language which can then beevaluated by a trained rater. On those occasions when task completion may berelevant, we can usually trace the relevance to the specific purpose of thatportion of the test – an example of this in a performance test of writing would bewhere the test taker must complete a job application form, a task that goesbeyond the bounds of general language use. In tests of language for specificpurposes, the notion of task completion becomes more central.

Here, the test taker is often explicitly judged, along with other predeterminedlanguage-related criteria, on whether a particular task has been adequately, orsufficiently completed – this is where Elder’s (2001) inseparability argument ismost clearly seen. It can be argued that relevance and adequacy of response is a


79

BEC1 BEC2 BEC3

Paper 1 – Reading and WritingPaper 2 – ListeningPaper 3 – Speaking

•••

•••

•••

feature of all tests. However, the primary purpose of a task in general languagetests is to elicit a sample of language which will be judged on its linguistic merits(where relevance and adequacy are features of sociolinguistic and pragmaticcompetence). The issue in LSP tests is to decide to what extent the relevance andadequacy of task performance should be judged in relation to the language usecontext in addition to its linguistic merits.

Considering these issues again, together with the suggestions made inrelation to degree of specificity and generalisability above, it might be useful tore-conceptualise specific purpose tests in general, and business language tests inparticular. In order to do this, it is necessary to revisit the three core areas ofconcern suggested by Elder and Douglas.

1. Degree of specificityIf we take the continuum suggested earlier and extend it to its naturalconclusion, that is infinity (represented by the symbol ∞) in both directions(Figure 1.29), it becomes obvious that while a theoretical conceptualisation ofthe extremes is possible, a practical application of these extremes is not. This canbe seen even in the test described by Teasdale (1994) where within the languageof air traffic controllers there will of course be unique or precise aspects of thelanguage, but there will always be a proportion of non-precise language.

Figure 1.29 The degree of test specificity continuum

Since there is a clear link between the degree of specificity and the definition ofthe construct – in that changes to one will affect the other – the obvious impli-cation will be that the inferences that can be drawn from performance on a testtask will be related to the degree of specificity of that task.

2. AuthenticityIn addition to the notion of specificity, the other principal concern with businesslanguage and other LSP tests is that of authenticity. It appears from the briefreview of current practice offered previously, that a task, and in particular a taskrelated to the receptive skills, can normally be shown to have only a measure ofsituational authenticity – though for an example of a truly situationally authentictask see Abdul-Raof (2002) whose participants actually performed realconference presentations that were video recorded and later evaluated bycolleagues from the same profession, as well as by language specialists.

As for interactional authenticity, task performance is clearly affected by theparticipants in that performance, and since its presence (or absence) is therefore


80

Non-Specific Degree of Specificity Very Specific

oo oo

subject to factors outside of the control of the task writer/test developer itappears to be a somewhat unrealistic expectation that all administrations of a testwill be found to demonstrate interactional authenticity. Instead, it seems morereasonable to suggest that tasks can be shown to demonstrate this aspect ofauthenticity under particular operational conditions, but not necessarily underall operational conditions. In other words, if it can be shown that a typicalsuccessful test taker will be prompted by the task to demonstrate an interactionbetween their communicative competence and features of the specific targetlanguage use domain, then interactional authenticity can be claimed of the task.While this operationalisation may not be precise enough for some readers, itdoes represent a practical and measured solution to the problem.

3. Impact of non-language factorsThe interesting thing about this feature of tests of specific purpose is the fact thatthe impact appears to be most obvious where the test is more highly specific, inother words, where it is more difficult to separate the different elements of theability being tested. This was exemplified in the tests reviewed above where agreater effort had been made to situate the test more clearly in the specificpurpose domain. Here, there seems to have been a greater likelihood that theperformance might be influenced by non-language factors.

The point of interest here is that there are a number of potential sources ofimpact, and that these are not only related to business ability or knowledge. Infact, the sources are related to the task itself and to the way in which the task isassessed. The implication is that the more specific a test the more likely theimpact of non-language factors.

The more complex tests reviewed above demonstrate that ‘degree ofspecificity’ is not necessarily a notion that can be applied to a test as a whole.Instead, it is certain that these complex tests will contain papers, and evensections of papers, that have been deliberately manipulated so as to be more orless specific in focus. This suggests that the impact of non-language factors willalso vary within a test.


81

82

The revision of BEC

The Cambridge ESOL test development/revisionmethodologyThe Cambridge ESOL approach to test development and revision is essentiallycyclical and iterative in nature (as can be seen from the summary presented inFigure 2.1). Like all other Cambridge ESOL tests, the original BEC tests weredeveloped using this methodology, and again like other tests, in time a numberof elements combined to create a perceived need for a revision. Among theseelements were advances in test production methodology (many linked to thevarious projects described below), and changes to the test candidature. Theoriginal BEC examinations were designed primarily for the Asia–Pacificregion, particularly China, and as the candidature grew in size over the years, italso changed with the growing international interest in the suite. The decisionwas therefore made in 1998 that any revision of the test should be undertakenwith this wider candidature in mind. Other factors which influenced theperception of the developers included an expansion of our knowledge of howlanguage is used in the specific context of business (through developments incorpus linguistics for example), to a general broadening of our understanding ofthe whole area of language testing. All of these combined to impact on thedecision to instigate a revision in 1999.

The Cambridge ESOL frameworkThe following review of the Cambridge ESOL framework will begin by re-stating the general approach to testing language that informs the framework (seeSaville 2003). This approach is the main driving force behind all CambridgeESOL test development projects.

The Cambridge approach

Saville identifies ‘five main factors’ which underpin the Cambridge ESOLapproach.

These are:

2

The Cambridge ESOL framework

83

1. To assess language skills at a range of levels, each of them having aclearly defined relevance to the needs of language learners.

2. To assess skills which are directly relevant to the range of uses to whichlearners will need to apply the language they have learnt, and cover thefour language skills – listening, speaking, reading and writing.

3. To provide accurate and consistent assessment of each language skill atthe appropriate level.

4. To relate the examinations to the teaching curriculum in such a way thatthey encourage positive learning experiences and to seek to achieve apositive impact wherever possible.

5. To endeavour to be fair to all candidates, whatever their national, ethnicand linguistic background, gender or disability (Saville 2003:62).

Assessment of a wide variety of language skillsThe BEC suite examinations, like the other Cambridge examinations, includethe full range of language skills in their design. That is, all three levels of theBEC suite consist of papers devoted to the assessment of proficiency in the four

Figure 2.1 The Cambridge ESOL test development model

Source: Saville (2003:79)

LIVE Test

Planning Phase

Design Phase

Development Phase

Operational Phase

Monitoring

Review

TriallingAnalysisEvaluation Review

Initial specifications

Evaluation

Revision

Perceived need for newor revised test

Start

2 The revision of BEC

84

skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. In addition, the differentpapers offer a wide range of response formats through the inclusion of a varietyof tasks and item types within each skills’ paper. The benefit of including avariety of task types in the Speaking paper, for example, has been demonstratedby the recent work of O’Sullivan, Weir and Saville (2002) who, when devel-oping a set of observation checklists for monitoring test task responses (in termsof language functions elicited) were able to show that the different task typesresulted in strikingly different function profiles.

A system of criterion levels The BEC suite consists of a set of three examinations, each of which has beendevised to target a distinct level of ability. Like the Cambridge ESOL MainSuite examinations these have been linked to the Common European and ALTEframeworks through a process of benchmarking candidate responses to ‘can do’questionnaires (essentially a series of self-assessment instruments developed toelicit from test candidates estimates of what they ‘can do’ within the four skills’areas in different performance contexts – social, study and work). The impact ofthis project on the BEC revision is described below, but also see Jones (2000,2001b) for a clear outline of the project.

This whole approach allows us to view the three examinations not simply asunique measures, or even as a set of linked measures covering a broad spectrumof language ability within a business context, but essentially as a single unit,with individual elements focused on particular criterion levels of proficiency.The greatest benefit of such a system is that it allows us to make comparisons oftests both vertically (in that they can be shown to measure distinct levels oflanguage proficiency) and horizontally (so that each distinct examination can beshown to represent an empirically described level of ability).

Another advantage of this criterion levels’ approach is that it permits us toview an estimate of attainment within any single test in terms of a broad multi-level range of language ability, rather than within the confines of a single level.The implications of this will be discussed in the relevant section below.

The ALTE Can Do scales were developed to provide a series of criterion-related statements at each of the levels covered by the BEC suite in relation tothe specific domains which are covered in these examinations (situatedlanguage use for social and work purposes). Together with the criterion scale,the Can Do scale provides an external benchmark through which stakeholderscan establish a meaning for reported performance levels.

Assessment for a variety of purposesThe BEC suite of tests are a good example of how Cambridge ESOL has concen-trated on the creation of a range of tests and examinations which are designed fora variety of purposes rather than relying on a single test to address many

The Cambridge ESOL framework

85

purposes. Even within these tests there is a recognition that specific purposelanguage tests are context-oriented rather than context-focused. By context-oriented we mean that the tests are set in the context of business and will includelanguage that is socially-oriented as well as business-oriented, in recognition ofthe fact that much specific purpose language combines these two areas. Context-focused refers to tests that are designed to test only business language. In fact,the LCCIEB needs analysis project (LCCIEB 1972) quite clearly demonstratedthat a context oriented approach is most likely to reflect actual practice in thebusiness language domain. The tests reviewed in Chapter 1 demonstrate that thecontext-oriented approach is typical of current practice in the area.

A commitment to quality and fairnessThe traditional conceptualisation of fairness focuses on technical aspects oftests, such as the reliability of sub-tests. However, the view of fairness that isnow more commonly accepted incorporates more wide-ranging considerationssuch as the production and validation of test materials and assessment proce-dures. Recent events in national testing systems in the UK (failures in test datamanagement systems – Scottish Qualifications Authority 2000; test security –Edexcel 2001; and in test editing Edexcel 2002) demonstrate that these aspectsof a test’s development are as relevant to test fairness as the technical aspectsreferred to above. Cambridge ESOL ensures test quality through a system oftotal quality management, where a series of quality checks are put in place at allpoints of the development and administration process, see Weir and Milanovic(2003).

An ongoing programme of test revisionOne of the great advantages of the Cambridge ESOL commitment to research(both qualitative and quantitative) throughout its different suites of examina-tions and test systems, is the way in which research findings in one area routinelyfeed into other apparently unconnected examinations. Examples of this includethe work in the early 1990s on the development and validation of the use of inter-locutor frames in tests of speaking (first envisaged as a methodology forcontrolling input in the Main Suite Speaking papers, but now used throughoutthe Cambridge ESOL examinations); the development of the observationchecklists (originally developed as part of the CPE revision project but now used– in different guises – across the Cambridge ESOL range of tests); and not leastin the development of quantitative analysis tools for equating tests in particularexamination suites – a development of particular interest when it came to therevision of the BEC suite.

The title of a presentation made by Weir (2002) at the annual IATEFLconference in York sums up the commitment of Cambridge ESOL to an ongoingprogramme of review and revision. The title (The History of the CPE,


86

1913–2013) demonstrates that that particular test, which had just undergone amajor revision, was already being reviewed, at the item, sub-test, and paperlevel, so that any future revision is based on an accurate longitudinal picture ofboth how it performs and how it is perceived throughout the life of this currentversion. In the same way, the BEC suite is also under constant scrutiny. Thisprocess of ongoing revision is also to be found in a number of the tests describedin Chapter 1 – indeed a number were revised during the writing of this book.Sadly, there are still tests out there that have not changed since their introduction(e.g. the TOEIC is still essentially the same test as was introduced a quarter of acentury ago – even though the way in which we understand and engage withlanguage and communication has changed radically in the intervening period).

Some of the five elements are related to what we might call ‘core’ values ofthe Cambridge ESOL organisation – the testing of multiple skills has been adefining feature of Cambridge ESOL examinations since the introduction of theCPE in 1913 (Weir 2002, 2003a), while the commitment to the creation of testinstruments and systems for use in a variety of contexts and for a variety ofpurposes is also long established. Since this book is meant to focus primarily onthe BEC revision, it would be more interesting to look at the process in terms ofhow things like criterion levels and ongoing validation/revision are dealt withand how the developers ensure that the reported grades are accurate andconsistent.

A system of criterion levelsAs mentioned above, the individual tests in the Cambridge ESOL examinationsand test systems are designed to be seen not in the context of a single level, butwithin a wider multi-level context. This concept was realised through theCambridge ESOL Framework Project (see Jones 2000, 2001b) which resultedin a practical and useful instrument which has been used by the organisation toclassify its examinations within a common system of levels.

With the formation of the Association of Language Testers in Europe(ALTE) in 1990, the work on the framework project expanded to involve collab-oration with other international organisations (such as the Council of Europeand the European Association for Quality Language Services or EAQUALS)and fellow ALTE members. This expansion also broadened the aims to includesome of the following key areas of activity:

• ALTE and Common European Framework • ALTE CAN DO project

– Development of CAN DO scales – Validation of the scales

• Linking learner-responses to their performance on examinations • Linking ALTE Can Do Statements to the CEF

• production of Multilingual Glossary of Testing Terms in 10 languages

• production of guidelines for training item writers, including the Councilof Europe Users Guide for Examiners as supplement to the CommonEuropean Framework

• development of Content analysis checklists for analysing and comparingexaminations

• an evaluation of the Council of Europe’s Vantage Level (UCLES2000:2).

One aim of this expanded view of the project was to promote what Jones referredto as ‘the transnational recognition of certification in Europe’ (2000:11). Theproject also identifies a series of distinct levels of language ability and as such isideal as a benchmark against which individual tests are measured. This facili-tated the other aim of the project, which was to link levels of language abilityacross European national boundaries to a common proficiency scale.

While a complete description of the project is clearly beyond the scope of thisbook, it may be useful at this juncture to briefly overview its central elements.Figure 2.2 outlines the project, though does not do justice to the complexity or tothe range of different sub-projects that contributed to the overall design.

Figure 2.2 The Cambridge ESOL/ALTE framework project (outline)

Though this volume is dedicated to the BEC revision, and not to the frameworkproject, it is clear that all parts of the project have had a direct impact on the BECrevision process.

The impact of the 5-level system/Common EuropeanFramework

The ‘Can Do’ project – see Jones (2000, 2001b) for an introduction – wasdevised with the principal aim of providing a comprehensive description of

A system of criterion levels

87

Descriptive System foritem-based tests

Local Item BankingSystem (LIBS)

Investigating candidatebackground and test

performance

Linking learner responsesto their test performance

Linking the UCLES/ALTE

framework to the CEF

The Framework Project

The UCLES/ALTECommon Scale

Benchmarkingspecific tests to the

scale

Development of test‘quality assurance’

structures & instruments

The ALTE ‘Can Do’Project

The Can Do Scales

Good User

Competent User

Independent User

Threshold User

Waystage User

Breakthrough

Qualitative Data

Quantitative Data


88

what language users can typically do with the language at a number of distinctlevels, in the various language skills and in a range of contexts. The project wascreated with the purposes of:

• helping end users to understand the meaning of exam certificates atparticular levels, and

• contributing to the development of the Framework itself by providing across-language frame of reference.

Basically, the ‘Can Do’ project was meant to offer a practical guide to the appli-cation of the framework in test development. This is summarised neatly in thefollowing figure (Figure 2.3) from Jones (2001a). Here, we can see that theproject aimed to provide a framework through which examinations for differentlanguages and contexts could be compared.

Figure 2.3 The aims of the ‘Can Do’ project

Figure 2.4 shows where the three BEC examinations are designed to fit withinthis system of criterion definition. In order to ensure that this relationship ismore than just at a superficial level, a series of research studies was carried out.These focused on the exploration of the nature of the relationship from a quali-tative perspective by using expert judgements to establish links between each ofthe three BEC tests and a relevant ALTE level. In addition to this qualitativedata, quantitative data generated by the ALTE ‘Can Do’ project providedadditional support for the equivalence claims implicit in Figure 2.4.

Description of level in termsof typical patterns of ability:What a person at this levelcan do – by skill, by area

Englishexams

Frenchexams

Etc. ...

5

4

3

2

1

A system of criterion levels

89

Figure 2.4 Benchmarking the BEC suite to the CEF and ALTEframework

This process was made somewhat more complex due to the fact that the originalBEC tests were not benchmarked to individual levels within the ALTEframework. One design feature of the original BEC suite was that BEC1 (thelowest of the three levels) was created to straddle the Waystage and Thresholdlevels – accounting for at least some of the perceived difficulties with the test.Since the decision to address this represents one of the major changes to the BECsuite it will be dealt with in Chapter 3.

The ‘Can Do’ scales currently consist of approximately four hundred state-ments (translated into thirteen languages – Catalan, French, Portuguese, Danish,German, Spanish, Dutch, Greek, Swedish, English, Italian, Finnish, Norwe-gian) which are organised into three general areas (social and tourist, work andstudy). Obviously, for this validation project the work-related scales were used.Each of the three areas are further sub-divided into a series of more specificareas, each of which in turn includes up to three scales (listening/ speaking,reading, writing). Figure 2.5 is a graphical representation of the organisation ofthe ‘work-related’ statements. As can be seen in Figure 2.5, each of the threeareas has been sub-divided into a number of more specific situations; these areseen as being related to a particular aspect of the work environment and asdrawing from a range of language skills. In the example shown, only thelistening/speaking and writing language skills are identified as being requiredfor the meetings and seminars situation. The ‘Can Do’ statements for the work-related section are therefore built around each element of Figure 2.5, so therewill be statements at up to five levels related to the two language skills’ areasidentified here within the context of meetings and seminars. The reason that

C2 Mastery

C1Effective

Proficiency

B2 Vantage

B1 Threshold

A2 Waystage

A1 Breakthrough

ALTE Level 5Good User CPE

ALTE Level 4Competent User CAE

BECHigher

ALTE Level 3Independent User FCE

BECVantage

ALTE Level 2Threshold User PET

BECPreliminary

ALTE WaystageUser KET

ALTE BreakthroughLevelA

Com

mon

Eur

opea

n Fr

amew

ork

of R

efer

ence

Cou

ncil

of E

urop

e

C

B

A


90

there are ‘up to’ five levels is in recognition of the fact that in some instanceseven a relatively basic level of proficiency is sufficient to successfully deal witha situation.

Another advantage to the linking of each test in the BEC suite to a single scaleis related to the way in which we think about the reliability of the judgementsmade in score/grade awarding. While the area of reliability as it relates to theBEC tests (and potentially to all tests which are designed to work only at alimited range of ability) will be discussed in the following section when thequalities of test usefulness are examined, it is useful to make a connection at thispoint between the ALTE framework and the notion of reliability.

Figure 2.6 shows how results on one examination can be situated in relationto the much wider continuum of ability – so the proficiency level of a candidatewho achieves a Grade C for BEC Vantage can be seen beyond the specific test tothe whole range of proficiency as described in the ALTE/CEF framework. Inthis example a Grade C on BEC Vantage can be seen in terms of BEC Vantage(1), the BEC suite as a unit (2), and the whole range of ability as described by theCEF/ALTE frameworks (3). Reliability, therefore, becomes a matter of theaccuracy of level assignment within the overall continuum, and implies a verydifferent perspective on how evidence of this ‘reliability’ should be reported.

Defining the construct of business EnglishThe construct of business English as operationalised in the BEC suite of tests isbased on the clear specification of the concept from a number of perspectives:

• test taker• theory-based validity• context-based validity• scoring validity.

Figure 2.5 The ALTE ‘Can Do’ work-related statements

Social & Tourist

Work

Study

Work-related Services

Meetings & Seminars

Formal Presentations & Demonstrations

Correspondence

Reports

Publicly Available Information

Instructions & Guidelines

Telephone

Listening/Speaking

Reading

Writing

1

2

3

4

5

Statements at upto 5 levels

Defining the construct of business English

91

The test taker

Cambridge ESOL routinely collects information about test takers by askingthem to complete a Candidate Information Sheet (CIS). This is done primarily toensure that there are no tasks or items that result in uncharacteristically low testperformance from a particular sub-group of the population. Another reason forgathering this information is to better understand the population so that appro-priate tasks and items are included in the test.

The candidate information collected reflects two of the three groups of testtaker characteristics’ categories suggested by O’Sullivan (2000a), namely,physical and experiential characteristics – the third group of characteristics ispsychological, which is seen as more of a research issue related to test design,see for example O’Sullivan (2000a), who investigated among other variables,the effect on performance of candidate perceptions of the personality of peercandidates in the FCE test of speaking. By collecting data on the physicalcharacteristics of the candidates, validation officers can carry out bias studies (toensure that there is no gender bias for example, or no bias that may be related insome way to the age of the candidate), while developers can ensure that accom-modations are set in place which can allow students with special needs an equal

Figure 2.6 Viewing an estimate of attainment at one level in terms of alllevels

C2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

ALTE Level 5

ALTE Level 4 BEC Higher

ALTE Level 3 BEC Vantage

ALTE Level 2 BEC Preliminary

ALTE Level 1

Breakthrough

C

B

A

A

B

C

D

E1

2

3


92

opportunity to sit for their tests, see Gutteridge (2003) and Taylor andGutteridge (2003) for a description of the approach taken by Cambridge ESOL.

By knowing more about the background of each candidate, the test developercan also investigate the degree to which particular background variables mightimpact on test performance, a particularly relevant area of research in a specificpurpose test.

Theory-based validity

In their response to the criticisms voiced by Foot (1999), Saville and Hargreaves(1999) presented a model of communicative ability, grounded in the work ofBachman (1990) and upon which the UCLES Main Suite Speaking examina-tions are based. This model also forms the basis of the BEC suite tests. It takesaccount of the executive resources available to the candidate in terms of theircommunicative language ability and also the metacognitive strategies they willneed to deploy for effective communication in the spoken mode.

The model, see Figure 1.1, is itself based on the earlier models of Bachman(1990) and Canale and Swain (1980), as well as on the Council of Europespecifications for the Waystage and Threshold levels of competence (Savilleand Hargreaves 1999:46). Though this model deals adequately with thecognitive aspects of language as communication, or what Weir (2004) refers toas theory-based validity, it does not satisfactorily address the importance ofthe context of language use on performance (Weir’s context validity). Recentdevelopments in the socio-cognitive approach to defining language proficiencyfor testing purposes (Chalhoub-Deville 2003, McNamara 1996, O’Sullivan2000a, Weir 2004) stress the necessity of looking at both the context- andtheory-based validity of tests and the interaction between these. In other words,defining the construct involves at its core a description of the test taker (in whichtheory-based validity is embedded) in the context of a particular languagedomain as mirrored in a test. In order to complete the definition, some evidenceof the scoring validity of the test is required, so that decisions or inferences basedon test scores can be shown to share the same theoretical rationale as the otherelements of the construct.

In line with this socio-cognitive development, Cambridge ESOL defines theconstruct from these multiple-validity perspectives of which communicativelanguage ability is only one aspect. These are discussed briefly below and thenin more detail in Chapter 5.

Context-based validity

The handbooks for the BEC suite provide sets of specifications for the teststhat are freely available in the public domain. These specifications outline

Defining the construct of business English

93

the language demands of the tasks and items included in the test, while alsoidentifying the conditions under which the tests are administered. More detailedspecifications are prepared for use by test writers within Cambridge ESOL inorder to ensure the compatibility of different versions of the same test in termsof what is being tested, how it is to be tested, and how the tests are to be adminis-tered.

As can be seen from the earlier sections in this chapter, the language of theBEC suite of tests has been closely linked (or benchmarked) to the CommonEuropean Framework (CEF). This ensures that the content and levels of eachtest version can be seen in terms not only of the BEC suite, but also of the rangeof ability as defined by the CEF. In addition, Ball (2002) described how thewordlists for the three BEC levels were revised based on extensive corpus-basedresearch further grounding the context validity of these tests.

In addition to looking at the language of the tasks (input and expected output),the performance conditions are designed, as far as is practicable, to reflect thoseof the business language domain – both in terms of the physical replication of thedomain and of the replication of the conditions in which aspects of languageability which can be used to define the domain are potentially present (in thelinguistic responses of successful candidates). In order to complement theseareas, Cambridge ESOL also ensures that all tests are administered in asystematic and fair way according to pre-set guidelines. These guidelines –which again attempt to reflect the business domain where possible – add to thesituational authenticity of the test event, while setting the foundations for fairand reliable scoring and interpretation of scores.

Figure 2.7 Defining the construct

Source: based on Weir (2004)

Context-Based Validity

Scoring Validity

Test Taker

Theory-Based Validity

Response


94

Scoring validity

The final element of the definition relates to the transformation of the candidateresponse into a meaningful score. In the past, test developers (and users) weremost interested in the area of reliability in all its guises (stability, consistencyetc.). However, it is now believed that this represents just one aspect of whatWeir (2004) calls scoring validity.

While this area is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 of this book, it isuseful at this juncture, to look at the relevance of scoring validity in thedefinition of the construct.

Since scoring validity is concerned with all aspects of the score awardingprocedures, all decisions made here should reflect the developer’s view oflanguage ability and approach to testing. In the BEC suite, this means that themodel of language ability should be reflected in both theory- and context-basedvalidity evidences as well as in the scoring procedures. This can be shown for theBEC suite Speaking tests for example, by linking the tasks and the rating scale tothe Saville and Hargreaves model (Figure 2.8). Each element of the model isreflected initially in the expected response by a test taker to a particular speakingtask (context-based) and in the predicted language knowledge of the test taker(theory-based). The elements are then reflected in the rating scale used to makejudgements related to the actual response on the task. This triangulation is abasic requirement for meaningful scoring of any test event.

Figure 2.8 Linking the Model to the Rating Scale

In the very brief overview offered in this section, I have attempted to give thereader some idea of the complexity of construct definition. While suggesting amodel of language ability on which tests are based is an important element ofthis definition, on its own it is clearly not enough. The approach taken byCambridge ESOL described above marks an attempt to ensure that the constructis defined from the multiple perspectives suggested by Weir (2004) which aredescribed in more detail in the final chapter of this book.

Scale Pronunciation Grammar & Discourse InteractiveVocabulary Management Communication

Model Language Competence StrategicCompetence

An on-going programme of validation and test revision

95

An ongoing programme of validation and testrevisionThis section will focus on a number of issues central to the Cambridge ESOLtest development methodology. These are related to the qualities of testusefulness as identified in the Validity, Reliability, Impact and Practicality(VRIP) system.

Examination qualities VRIP

As mentioned by Saville (2003: 65) all Cambridge ESOL examinations are builtaround four ‘essential’ qualities:

• validity• reliability• impact• practicality.

These four qualities were abbreviated by Saville to VRIP, a convention I willalso follow here. Also similar to the approach of Weir (2004) will be my consid-eration of the four qualities as being of central importance to the overallusefulness of any test. I would argue, however, that the former pair, validity andreliability, are actually two aspects of the unitary concept of validity – and thatthis view may provide us with a more useful model of test development than amodel in which the pair are separated, but more of that later.

Before discussing the impact of VRIP on the BEC revision process, I will firstbriefly summarise the concept of VRIP as outlined by Saville (2003), andsummarised in Figure 2.9.

ValidityThe view of validity, as seen by Saville (2003), is best described as ‘mainstream’in that it propounds the by now widely supported ‘unitary’ model suggested byMessick, which sees multiple sources of evidence as adding different levels ofsupport to the central issue of validity. This view places construct-relatedvalidity at the core of validation. For this reason, it is considered imperative thata test should be based on a model of communicative language ability that can beempirically supported. According to Saville and Hargreaves (1999), the modelwhich drives the Cambridge ESOL test development and revision practice (seeFigure 1.1) has been influenced by the work of Bachman (1990) and the Councilof Europe, among others.

The rationale behind collecting evidence of content-related validity has to dowith the need to demonstrate ‘the degree to which the sample of items, tasks, orquestions on an examination are representative of a defined domain of content.


96

It is concerned with both relevance and coverage’ Saville (2003:67). This repre-sentativeness can be specified through a model (as the model suggested bySaville and Hargreaves 1999 is used to specify the Cambridge ESOL tests) inaddition to judgements made by experts in the field. Expert judgements may alsobe used when making decisions on the relative importance of various samples.

The relevance of content validation becomes apparent when we consider oneparticular feature of a test – a feature often associated with Cambridge ESOLMain Suite examinations and of particular relevance in the BEC series – that ofauthenticity. Weir (2002) argues that ‘the relationship between the “input” andthe expected response or “output” is an important feature of content validation’.He goes on to suggest that:

The examination content must be designed to provide sufficient evidence ofthe underlying abilities (i.e. construct) through the way the test takerresponds to this input. The responses to the test input (tasks, items, etc.)occur as a result of an interaction between the test taker and the test content.The authenticity of test content and the authenticity of the candidate’s inter-action with that content are important considerations for the examinationdeveloper in achieving high validity (ibid).

This can be seen as offering evidence in support of Messick’s view of validity, inthat it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a clear distinction between theconcepts of construct- and content-related evidence of a test’s validity.

More evidence in support of Messick can be found in the way in which theBEC series (in the same way as the other Cambridge ESOL examinations) are

Figure 2.9 The four qualities of test usefulness

PRACTICALITY

RELIABILITYVALIDITY IMPACT

Evidence

Construct-related

Content-related

Criterion-related

Evidence

Measurement

Framework-related

Quality-related

Evidence

Anecdotal

Observational

Varied Sources


97

benchmarked to an external criterion – in this case the ALTE framework. Thisbenchmarking is an important aspect of the design of the tests, and also hasimplications for test content. We can therefore see that all three aspects ofvalidity are interlinked to form a ‘unitary’ conceptualisation of validity.

ReliabilityThe view of reliability within the Cambridge ESOL test development frame-work is that it ‘concerns the extent to which test results are stable, consistent,and free from bias and random error’ (Saville 2003:69). The need to developinstruments that conform to this view is, of course, paramount. However, thefact that no practical consideration of how reliability decisions impact on a testcan be made without also considering the implications that these decisionsmight have on the validity of the inferences we can draw from performances onthat test means that there is a limit to the lengths to which it is possible to go inorder to achieve maximum reliability. This last statement, apparently obviousthough it is, actually highlights a real concern with the way in which we estimatethe reliability of our tests.

Problems with the existing measuresThe most critical error in the perception of reliability of many test developersand test users is the assumption that estimates of internal consistency that arebased on item variance are measures of test reliability. I would argue that theseestimates are particularly useful for certain types of test (e.g. multi-itemstandardised tests where there is clear evidence that the items are deliberatelychosen because they test a single construct) but are not suitable for a criterion-referenced test, particularly where there is a truncated test population (i.e. alimited range of proficiency is represented in the population).

The attenuation paradox, first identified by Loevinger (1954), identifies acritical deficiency in the way we measure reliability. While writers such asBrown (1996:192) and Hughes (1989:31) suggest that 1.0 represents a ‘perfect’reliability coefficient, the attenuation paradox means that, for a test to achievethis ‘perfection’ the only possible response patterns are a perfect full score or aperfect zero score. So the data set represented in Table 2.1, will result in a‘perfectly’ reliable test (i.e. it will have a reliability coefficient of 1.0).

Table 2.1 Example of the response patterns in a ‘perfectly’ reliable test

CandIDs

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10

1234

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010


98

The other difficulty with the way in which we estimate reliability lies in the factthat it is not even necessary that the response patterns should be neatly dividedinto two equal groups of candidates. In fact, if only a single candidate achieves aperfect full score while all others score zero, the test will still appear to have a‘perfect’ reliability.

One problem with this feature of how ‘reliability’ has come to be seen is thatit is very much dependent on the test population. Where a population containsexamples of extreme behaviour the likelihood is that the ‘reliability’ estimatewill be high. The implications for any test that is benchmarked to a particularlevel of performance, as is the case with the BEC suite (as well as the CambridgeESOL Main Suite examination and the Pitman and LCCIEB tests referred to inChapter 1), is quite clear. Where a test is drawing on a truncated population, inthat the ability range of the test takers is confined to a relatively narrow range ofability, the estimates of internal consistency will always be low. This type ofmeasure is therefore unsuitable for analysing the type of tests referred to here,that is level-based tests (though it may be used as a practical measure ofcomparing the internal consistency of different administrations of the same testwhich have been proven to have similar truncated candidate populations). Toput it another way, and perhaps more accurately, it is not reasonable to expectthat these tests will result in the very high measures of variance-based internalconsistency that can be achieved by tests which test across a wide range ofability.

The real difficulty lies in the fact that we have come to accept that estimatesbased on internal consistency (KR20, Chronbach’s alpha) are accurateindicators of the reliability of a test. They are not.

Saville also argues that ‘in the case of the Cambridge ESOL examinations,which employ a wide variety of task-based materials and item types . . . veryhigh internal consistency may not be an appropriate aim’ (2003:70). He goes onto suggest that the replacement of discrete point multiple-choice items by task-based exercises (which provide far greater context and authenticity, both situa-tional and interactional) means a reduction in the number of items and also of theestimated reliability using an internal consistency estimate.

Cronbach’s alpha does not divide the test according to tasks, but items, sothat both halves of the test may contain items from one task. Items from onetask are not independent of each other to the same degree as discrete items.That is to say, if a candidate has correctly answered the first item of a multi-item task they are more likely to answer the next item correctly because oftheir response to the first item. In this case Cronbach’s alpha would exaggeratethe reliability of such a test in much the same way as if the candidate’sresponse to the same item was placed in both halves of the split test (Anastasi1988).

A solution to the above would appear to be if the internal consistency of a test


99

is calculated by splitting the test according to task, not item. However, as we canexpect candidates to perform differently according to task type, the reliabilitycoefficient calculated in this way would be lower than for a discrete item testeven if the discrete item test contained a variety of (single item) tasks and istherefore not, strictly, comparable.

The problem is compounded for tests such as BEC. Not only is the testpopulation truncated, but also the task types tend to result in reliability measure-ments that are not comparable to those values calculated on a fully discrete itemtest. What is clear from the above is that these estimates do not tell the wholestory about a test’s reliability.

However, internal measurements of reliability, such as Cronbach’s alpha, areuseful in the test development process in providing convenient conventionalisedmeasurements of reliability between different parallel forms of the same test.This occurs in different administrations of the same test at different sessionsthroughout the year. Here the error noted above in what may be termed the‘absolute’ reliability is not as important as the insight the measurements give inmaintaining standards across different administrations.

Estimates have been systematically calculated for BEC suite tests over theyears. Based on the information contained in Tables 2.2–2.4, it is possible tomake reference to the kind of cross-administration comparisons mentionedabove. It is possible to see, for example, that the internal consistency of theReading and Listening papers varies very little over the different sessionsreported in a 2-year period. It is interesting to note also that the estimates arehigh enough to be considered acceptable in a norm referenced test for apopulation where there is a full range of ability.

Table 2.2 Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for BEC Preliminary, Readingand Listening components, selected sessions 2002–2003

Table 2.3 Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for BEC Vantage, Reading andListening components, selected sessions 2002–2003

Session Reliability Reading Reliability Listening Sample Size

May–02Nov–02May–03Dec–03

0.850.850.860.86

0.840.820.870.83

108790510641873


May–02Nov–02May–03Nov–03

0.820.860.840.85

0.830.780.800.81

14587541084998


100

Table 2.4 Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for BEC Higher, Reading andListening components, selected sessions 2002–2003

As with the Cambridge ESOL Main Suite examinations, reliability of the BECsuite tests of Speaking and Writing should be seen from the perspectives of theaccuracy and consistency of the ratings which are awarded, as dictated by thecurrent American Psychological Association Standards (APA 1999).

Cambridge ESOL tests have included the pair format as the standard formatfor all Main Suite speaking papers since the early 1990s and all BEC levels arebased on the format (with two candidates and two examiners, one in the role ofinterlocutor/assessor and the other in the role of observer/assessor). Since bothexaminers use slightly different scales (the interlocutor uses a holistic scalewhich is derived from the four criteria analytic scale used by the observer), thereare some problems with any simple correlations between the scores they award.However, there are similar difficulties with any correlation procedure, as theoutcomes are affected by the nature of the scale used and by the range of abilityof the test population

In addition to calculating the correlation of scores awarded by raters, it mayalso be fruitful to compare the grades each individual examiner’s score mightlead to – in other words, an examination of classification accuracy. Multi-faceted Rasch (MFR) analysis has been suggested as a possible solution tothe inter-rater reliability problem. This process produces output tables for thedifferent variables (or facets) included in the analysis. Each output tableincludes a ‘separation reliability’ estimate. Where the output table for candi-dates is concerned we would hope that the separation reliability is high(indicating that the candidates have a range of significantly different ability). Asfar as raters are concerned, we want the separation reliability to be low(indicating that they have the same severity).

Since Rasch is a probabilistic model, the expectation is that the raters will belocally independent (they will demonstrate some amount of disagreement).This suggests that MFR offers an interesting solution, though the differentscales will represent a practical (though not insurmountable) concern indesigning a study. The other difficulty with MFR is that it is ideal for experi-mental studies, whereas little work has been done to date in expanding the method into a large-scale ‘real world’ test, mainly due to the problem ofestablishing connectivity issues among the raters – though initial groundworkhas been undertaken by Myford and Wolfe (2000) in their study of minimal


Mar–02Nov–02May–03Nov–03

0.850.850.810.85

0.850.860.780.80

511271581359


101

connectivity requirements for a large-scale test administration. Weir (2004) alsosuggests that generalisability theory may offer another direction of exploration.It would appear that for any performance test (of writing or speaking) it wouldbe safer to report reliability from a number of perspectives rather than rely onany single estimate.

The above discussion essentially argues that the notion of ‘reliability’ as itexists is not useful for the type of tests I am writing about here, except as aconvenient and conventionalised means of comparing similar tests with similartruncated populations (e.g. in different administrations of the same test) as notedby Saville (2003:71). Instead, it would be more beneficial to see the true relia-bility of a test as being centred on the degree to which, to repeat Saville ‘theresults are stable, consistent, and free from bias and random error’ (2003:69).This definition essentially brings us back to the perspective suggested byBachman who sees reliability as being associated with ‘sources of error in agiven measure of communicative language ability’ (1990:160). The sources ofthreat to reliability are suggested in Figure 2.10.

Bachman (1990) argues that test method facets should be seen as beingrelated to the testing environment, the test rubric, input and expected response,and the relationship between input and response (1990:118–152) and as being‘systematic to the extent that they are uniform from one test administration toanother’ (1990:164). This notion of systematicity is also applied to the definition

Figure 2.10 Factors that affect language test scores

Source: Bachman (1990:165)

Communicativelanguage ability

Randomfactors

Personalattributes

Test methodfacets

TESTSCORE


102

of ‘personal attributes’ (1990:164); random factors are seen by Bachman(1990:164–5) as being unsystematic variables associated with:

• the candidates (such as mental alertness, emotional state) • the test facets (such as changes in test performance conditions)• the test administrators (‘idiosyncratic differences in the way different test

administrators carry out their responsibilities’)• incomplete language sample• scale imprecision.

When this view of reliability is considered, we can really see the limitationsin the ‘reliability as internal consistency’ perspective that currently dominateslanguage testing – certainly if we are to take what we read in journal articles andtest reports as reflecting current practice. We can also include among these‘random’ factors sources of variance implied in the Milanovic and Saville(1996) framework, see Figure 2.11. When we consider the likelihood that thevariables included in this framework are potential sources of systematic and/orunsystematic or random variance, we get some notion of the difficultiesinvolved in establishing the conditions for truly reliable testing to take place,and of the necessity of seeing true reliability as being a function of what I wouldcall test quality.

Figure 2.11 A conceptual framework for performance testing

Source: Milanovic and Saville (1996)

EXAMINATIONDEVELOPER

CANDIDATES

EXAMINERS

KNOWLEDGEAND ABILITY

SCORE

KNOWLEDGEAND ABILITY

SPECIFICATIONSAND

CONSTRUCTASSESSMENT

CRITERIA

TASKS

ASSESSMENTCONDITIONS

AND TRAINING

EXAMINATIONCONDITIONS

SAMPLE OFLANGUAGE


103

This then raises the question of how we demonstrate true reliability. I wouldargue that the true reliability of any test is a unitary concept, much like the waywe look at test validity, but with multiple perspectives, again much like withvalidity. Therefore, to demonstrate it we need to provide evidence of test qualityacross a whole range of perspectives, and as far as the BEC suite is concerned,one major source of evidence is the way in which the overall approach to testdevelopment, construction and administration outlined above is applied to thesuite.

ImpactSaville suggests that:

‘From a validation perspective, it is important to be able to monitor andinvestigate the educational impact that examinations have within thecontexts they are used. As a point of principle, examination developers likeCambridge ESOL should operate with the aim that their examinations willnot have a negative impact and, as far as possible, strive to achieve positiveimpact’ (2003:74).

He identifies the following issues as central to any test organisation’s validationprocedures, this in reference to an a priori perspective on Messick’s notion ofConsequential Validity:

• the development and presentation of examination specifications anddetailed syllabus designs;

• provision of professional support programmes for institutions andindividual teachers/students who use the examinations

• the identification of suitable experts within the field to work on allaspects of examination development

• the training and employment of suitable experts within the field to act asquestion/item writers in examination production

• the training and employment of suitable experts within the field to act asexaminers’ (op. cit.).

Within the context of the BEC revision, these issues have been approached in anumber of ways (Table 2.5).

In addition to the above issues, Saville argues for a similar concern with an aposteriori perspective on test impact when he suggests that procedures also needto be put into place after an examination becomes operational to collect infor-mation which allows impact to be estimated. This should involve collecting dataon the following:

• who is taking the examination (i.e. a profile of the candidates)• who is using the examination results and for what purpose• who is teaching towards the examination and under what circumstances• what kinds of courses and materials are being designed and used to prepare

candidates


104

• what effect the examination has on public perceptions generally (e.g.regarding educational standards)

• how the examination is viewed by those directly involved in educationalprocesses (e.g. by students, examination takers, teachers, parents, etc.)

• how the examination is viewed by members of society outside education(e.g. by politicians, businessmen etc.) (Saville 2003:75).

These issues have been addressed in the BEC suite examinations as outlinedin Table 2.6.

PracticalityThough its importance is often neglected in the language testing literature,practicality is ‘an integral part of the concept of test usefulness and affects manydifferent aspects of an examination’ (Saville 2003:76).

The section above, in which the project structure was described, is particu-larly important here as we can see that it includes many of the aspects of practi-cality suggested by Saville as being of relevance to any test:

• ‘the management structure for the development project• a clear and integrated assignment of roles and responsibilities• a means of monitoring progress in terms of development schedules and

resources• a methodology for managing the examination production process when

Issue Action

development and presentation ofexamination specifications anddetailed syllabus designs

through the dissemination of information through theBEC website (www.cambridge-efl.org/exam/business/bg_bec.htm) and the latest BEChandbooks (downloadable from the website)

provision of professional supportprogrammes for institutions andindividual teachers/students who usethe examinations

through the professional seminar programme

identification of suitable expertswithin the field to work on all aspectsof examination development

through the appointment of leading researchers andacademics to act as consultants in all aspects of therevision process

training and employment of suitableexperts within the field to act asquestion/item writers in examinationproduction

through the provision of detailed training manuals (e.g.CAMBRIDGE ESOL’s involvement in the ALTE ItemWriters Guidelines’ Project ) and the recognition ofexpertise within the organisation

training and employment of suitableexperts within the field to act asexaminers

through detailed Minimum Professional Requirements’(MPR) documents, and the setting of rigorous selectionand accreditation standards

Table 2.5 Impact issues in the BEC tests (a priori)


105

the examination becomes operational (item writing, vetting, moderation,pre-testing, item banking, question paper construction)’ (Saville2003:77).

For the BEC examinations (as with other Cambridge ESOL tests), practicality isa major concern, impacting on a whole range of areas of test production, admin-istration and evaluation. The areas concerned have been identified in Weir andMilanovic’s work on the CPE revision, though clearly the list is equally valid forthe BEC examination:

• design features related to format and content of the four skills approache.g. length of papers – number of items and time allowed, type of tasks

• test production featurese.g. number of items required, replicability of tasks

• availability of the examination in terms of: examinations dates and the frequency of administrationlocation and number of centres

• level of fees to be paid by test takers• central costs in terms of:

production of question papersmarking and scoringvalidation

• local costs in relation to administration at centrese.g. hire of venues, training and deployment of oral examiners, etc.

Issue Action

who is taking the examination data related to the candidates isroutinely collected through theCandidate Information Sheet (CIS)and used in test, task and item levelanalyses

who is using the examination results and for whatpurpose

These are monitored through routinesurveys of stakeholders (bothformally and informally). The datacollected are used in all majordecisions regarding the tests inquestion – particularly in makingdecisions related to review andrevision.In the BEC revision two revisionquestionnaires were developed:• general (primarily aimed at

teachers)• key contacts (for principal

stakeholders).

who is teaching towards the examination and under whatcircumstance

what kinds of courses and materials are being designedand used to prepare candidates

what effect the examination has on public perceptionsgenerally

how the examination is viewed by those directlyinvolved in educational processes

how the examination is viewed by members of societyoutside education

Table 2.6 Impact issues in the BEC tests (a posteriori)


106

• central administration entry procedures – exchange of data with centrescollection of feesdespatch of materialsmarking and grading proceduresissue of results

• local administration at centres• security• special circumstances

e.g. arrangements for candidates with special needs.

Recruitment, Induction, Training, Co-ordination, Monitoring,Evaluation (RITCME)One aspect of ‘test usefulness’ that has an impact on a number of the above areasof concern is that of the structure and maintenance of what is known as the TeamLeader system for examiners (this is particularly relevant to the examiners whoare involved with the assessment of the productive skills).

As the reader can imagine, the logistics of administering a test on an interna-tional level are beyond the experience of most organisations, let aloneindividuals. In tests of speaking, for example, there is evidence of an ‘inter-locutor effect’ (Lumley and O’Sullivan 2001, O’Sullivan 1995, 2000a, 2000b,2002a), an ‘observer/assessor effect’ (McNamara and Lumley, 1997 – wherethe assessors were apparently systematic in taking into account what theyperceived as the adequacy of the performance of the examiner in awarding ascore to the individual candidates), and a ‘candidate by task effect’, for exampleBerry (1997) demonstrated how candidates of different psychological make upperformed more or less well depending on the task. While the latter effect ismore related to test design (suggesting that any performance test would benefitfrom a variety of tasks), the former pair of effects highlight the need for thecareful recruitment, induction, training, co-ordination, monitoring, and evalu-ation of all examiners.

As with the other Cambridge ESOL examinations (in which over 10,000examiners participate on a regular basis worldwide), there are a number oflevels of professional responsibility within the BEC examiner system, inaddition to the Cambridge ESOL staff. These levels are summarised in Figure2.12.

At the operational level are the Examiners (both oral and written). Incountries where there are sufficient numbers of examiners to merit it, there areTeam Leaders who have responsibility for the professional supervision ofexaminers. Team Leaders typically work with anywhere from 5–30 examiners.Where there is an ample number of Team Leaders in a country, they will besupervised by a Senior Team Leader, the average ratio being 15:1. It should benoted that all of the above are actually practising examiners, so while there is a

hierarchical structure, its principal rationale is to ensure that there is a clear two-way channel of communication through the test administration system.

The set of procedures which regulates the activities of these three profes-sional levels is summarised by the acronym RITCME – Recruitment, Induction,Training, Co-ordination, Monitoring, Evaluation. Each procedure is defined bya list of minimum professional requirements, which sets down the minimumlevels and standards (for recruitment, induction, training programmes, etc.) thatmust be achieved in order to meet the professional requirements of adminis-tering the Speaking tests and sustain a fully effective Team Leader System(Taylor 2000) .

The great advantage to this set of guidelines is that it allows local exami-nation secretaries outside of the UK to ensure that their practices mirror that ofthe UK-based parent group. Cambridge ESOL itself ‘has the primary responsi-bility for the supervision and deployment’ of examiners in the UK (UCLES1999:1) .

Ensuring accuracy and consistency of gradesAn important aspect of the Cambridge ESOL approach is the concern withensuring that the final grades awarded to candidates are a consistent, accurateand a fair reflection of the levels defined in the ALTE/CEF frameworks and thatscores and grades reflect a consistent language ability over time.

A number of key areas, related to the work of the research and validation unitwithin Cambridge ESOL, are briefly discussed below but the process of

Ensuring accuracy and consistency of grades

107

Figure 2.12 The Team Leader system

Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Examiner

Senior Team Leader

ensuring construct and content validity permeates the test construction processat each stage. For example, items are commissioned from experienced ESOLprofessionals who receive ongoing training. Similarly, at the pre-editing stageitems are examined by experts for any obvious biased or culturally inappropriatematerial.

Pretesting and test construction

The construction of tests to specified content and difficulty targets is achieved bythe item-banking process employed for BEC as for other Cambridge ESOLexams. Reading and Listening items are pretested under exam conditions, on asuitably large and diverse group of learners at an appropriate level. Whereverpossible these are BEC candidates who will be taking an exam in the near future.Pretests include so-called anchor items. These are items of known difficultytaken from previous live administrations that have been selected for theiradequate facility, discrimination and difficulty and perceived lack of biastowards or against one or more groups of test takers.

Writing and Speaking tasks are trialled on a smaller but representative groupof candidates to ensure that they elicit the desired responses and that the tasks donot contain lexical items or phrases within the instructions that would beproblematic to candidates at that level.

When the response data are analysed the anchor enables the difficulties of thepretested tasks to be located on the measurement scale which underlies theCambridge/ALTE levels’ system.

Item banking

The calibrated tasks are then stored in a sophisticated item bank: LIBS (LocalItem Banking System). This is a computer-based management and analysis tooldeveloped by UCLES, not only to store calibrated items but to handle the entireproduction process. LIBS contains a large bank of materials for use in theexaminations, which have been fully edited and pretested according to theprocedures described in some detail by Saville (2003:90–95). LIBS enablescomplete test versions to be constructed to quite precise targets in terms ofcontent and difficulty. However, versions may still vary slightly in meandifficulty, because most items are embedded within tasks and thus cannotindividually be juggled to achieve an exact mean difficulty.

Item banking exploits latent trait (item response theory) techniques. Theparticular latent trait model used by Cambridge ESOL is the Rasch model,which has proved to be well-suited to the construction of a broad measurement framework capable of accommodating a suite of communicative language


108

proficiency exams at different levels and covering a range of skills.

Administration

The conditions under which the exam is administered are also important forensuring that all candidates are given an equal chance to perform to their best.The assessment of the Speaking component is particularly important in thisregard, and depends on the professional skills of the oral examiners, so that thetraining, standardisation and monitoring of this cadre can be seen as a vitalelement in the achievement of a common standard.

Marking, scaling, weighting

Following the administration and before grading can take place, candidates’responses must be captured and marked.

Three kinds of marking are employed:

1. Automatic, in the case of Reading and Listening multiple-choice tasks,where the candidate indicates a choice on an optically markable answersheet.

2. Clerical, in the case of short free-text responses which allow a strictlylimited set of correct answers, and which can be marked to a high degree ofreliability by clerical staff under the supervision of a co-ordinating examinerwho has analysed live responses to ensure that the key is complete andunderstood by clerical markers.

3. Examiner marking, as in the case of Writing, where trained and standardisedexaminers apply a mark scheme and their knowledge of the level to assign amark.

The next step is scaling, where the distribution of marks for the Writingcomponent is adjusted to compensate for differences in the marking patterns ofWriting examiners. Scaling is designed to ensure that markers who are morelenient or severe compared to all other markers have their individual marks forcandidates adjusted to compensate for these tendencies. In scaling the distri-bution of marks for all candidates in writing is compared to the distribution ofmarks for candidates of a particular marker. Adjustments are made to the marksof candidates at a number of points on the markers’ candidate writing scoredistribution to bring this in line with all candidates’ writing score distribution.Allowances are made for the difference in mean and standard deviation of themarkers and all candidates as observed in the Reading and Listening compo-nents.

Next marks for each component are weighted. For BEC as for otherCambridge ESOL exams the general principle is adopted that each component

Ensuring accuracy and consistency of grades

109

should contribute an equal proportion of marks to the total available for theexam. Thus in the case of BEC each of the four components contributes 30marks to the exam total of 120. In fact the number of raw marks in the Readingpaper is greater than 30. A candidate’s Reading mark is thus weighted by multi-plying it by 30/45 (for Preliminary and Vantage) or 30/52 (for Higher).

A candidate’s total mark in the exam is a simple sum of the marks gained ineach component, after the processes described above.

Grading

A passing grade at BEC locates a candidate within a broad proficiencyframework: Passes at BEC Preliminary, Vantage and Higher correspond toALTE Levels 2, 3 and 4, or to Council of Europe Levels B1, B2 and C1 respec-tively. Thus BEC can be broadly compared with other exams at the same level.

For such interpretations to be valid it is of course necessary that BEC begraded to a consistent standard. Every stage of the exam administration cycle,from test design through exam conduct to marking and grading, is relevant toensuring this consistency.

The grade thresholds should reflect a constant standard across sessions, butthe precise number of marks needed to achieve each grade will vary within anarrow range, reflecting a judgement about the difficulty of the components in aparticular session. This judgement is based on several types of quantitative andqualitative information:

1. The difficulty of each objective component. The estimate of this depends onthe calibration of items at pretesting and another, independent, calibrationgiven by live anchor tests. These are short tests of items with knowndifficulty and suitable facility and discrimination levels, administered to aproportion of candidates at the same time or shortly before the adminis-tration of the exam itself. In BEC all candidates are requested to completeanchor tests. This ensures that a representative sample of candidates sits theanchor tests and that the estimate of difficulty for items and componentscalculated using anchor tests can be checked for the effect of first languageand ability on performance in the anchor tests. The difficulty of Reading andListening components are arrived at then by examining and weighing three,independent, sources; pretest statistics, live anchor statistics, and compar-isons with performance of live candidates in the criteria-based componentsSpeaking and Writing.

2. The performance of particular ‘cohorts’ i.e. major groups of candidates,compared with their historical trends. While it is clear that cohorts mayfollow upward or downward trends, reflecting changes in the size or make-


110

up of the group, it is expected that these trends will be steady, and thatgrading should not result in abrupt shifts in the pass rate for many cohorts.

3. A judgement about the standard applied to the performance components(Speaking and Writing). The mark schemes for these are criterion refer-enced, and thus the marks awarded should directly reflect the standard.Mean scores at task level and feedback from chief examiners are noted toindicate whether individual tasks in writing have proved difficult. If so somecorrection will be made for this in the grading.

Estimating the internal consistency of eachadministrationWhile acknowledging the potential difficulties associated with reportinginternal consistency estimates for each BEC examination, Cambridge ESOLreports the estimates for each BEC level for Reading and Listening (see Tables2.2 to 2.4). The overall consistency of an exam such as BEC, i.e. it is comprisedof several component papers, is known as its composite reliability.

Using the Feldt and Brennan (1989) approach, the composite reliability forthe BEC suite tests has been reported by Cambridge ESOL as lying in the rangeof 0.88 to 0.91 for all sessions in 2003 (see Table 2.7). When viewed with all ofthe other procedures that are in place to ensure the accuracy of the final gradesawarded to candidates, these figures can be seen as adding significantly to theoverall reliability evidence.

Estimating internal consistency

111

Table 2.7 Composite reliability and SEM for all BEC Levels 2003

*R= Reliability**SEM= Standard Error of Measurement*** No administration

Level Session Mar 03 May 03 June 03 July 03 Nov 03 Dec 03

BEC P Comp R*Comp SEM**Sample Size

0.904.892008

0.905.331064

0.904.991956

0.905.30885

0.895.06982

0.905.281873

BEC V Comp RComp SEMSample Size

0.904.921819

0.894.841084

0.894.892926

0.914.31791

0.904.85998

0.894.611760

BEC H Comp RComp SEMSample Size

0.903.83482

0.884.08581

0.883.941565

*** 0.894.20359

0.894.01952

Additional proceduresSeveral additional procedures are followed to ensure that as far as possiblecandidates’ final grades reflect their true ability.

Grade review is a process which follows grading in which the Writing scriptsof candidates just below the passing grade are reviewed, and if necessary theWriting mark is amended.

Examination centres may ask for ‘special consideration’ on behalf of candi-dates because of personal circumstances surrounding the exam, or because theybelieve the administration of the exam was such as to disadvantage them – forexample, that the Listening component was disrupted by noise outside the examroom. Where appropriate these cases are evaluated by a panel which followsguidelines and is informed by relevant statistical information on theperformance of the candidates. This statistical information examines thediscrepancy between the marks achieved in the administration of the componentunder question and the performance of the candidates in their other components(allowing for differences in mean score and standard deviation between compo-nents) to observe if there is a significant difference between the two.

Cases of alleged malpractice are also investigated, and where proven resultsare withheld.

All the procedures outlined above are not specific to BEC but rather arestandard practice across Cambridge ESOL examinations, and are dealt with inmore detail in Weir and Milanovic (2003:88–109).

The context for the revision of BECSince the early 1990s there have been major documented revisions to a numberof the Cambridge ESOL Main Suite examinations, most notably the Certificateof Proficiency in English (CPE), see Weir (2003a). In this excellent overview ofthe (CPE) revision project, Weir outlines in great detail the development cycledevised by the organisation for these revision/development projects thatinforms the Cambridge ESOL language testing systems. In his review, Weirlooks not only at the latest revision to the CPE and the methodology thatsupported that process, but demonstrates the connections between the revisionpractice and its outcomes over the long history of the CPE (it was first adminis-tered in 1913). While such a historical perspective is clearly beyond this book,after all the testing of language for business purposes is a very newphenomenon, as can be seen in the previous chapter, it is worthwhile revisitingthe revision methodology in order to better understand how the present BECsuite has come to reflect the Cambridge ESOL language testing philosophy bothof test quality and content.

The development cycle has been outlined in detail by Saville (2003) and will


112

be summarised in the remainder of this chapter only in relation to the impact ithas had on the BEC revision project.

The revision processThe Planning and Design phases for the BEC revision project took placebetween 1999 and 2000 and included the production of preliminary revisedspecifications, consultation with stakeholder groups as well as some experi-mental trialling – though the lessons learned from the recent FCE and CPErevision projects were also influential.

The development phase, which included trialling and analysis of proposedchanges took place in 2000. The specifications for internal use were approved in2000 and a revised specifications’ booklet was published in early 2001.

Groups involved in the revision process

The review/revision process was, as in other Cambridge ESOL revisionprojects, initiated within a project review group at one of its regular meetings.For a very detailed and informative overview of how this process was applied ina formal revision project, see the chapters by Ashton (Chapter 3); Weighill andShaw (Chapter 4); Barratt (Chapter 5); Boroughs (Chapter 6) and ffrench(Chapter 7) in Weir and Milanovic (2003). The rationale for the BEC revisionwas less related to actual or perceived dissatisfaction with the tests, but to anawareness of the various changes (detailed above) which resulted in anexpanded and more culturally diverse candidature.

As with the CPE revision, the first stage was to set up the necessarymanagement structures to oversee the review or revision project. This meant thecreation of a Management Steering Group chaired by the Director or DeputyDirector EFL and consisting of Cambridge ESOL senior management (e.g.group managers and the project co-ordinator). This group was empowered withthe oversight of the whole process and the management of resource allocation.Among the specific duties of the group were:

• to define parameters• to initiate research and development• to make judgements• to ratify the revised specification• to allocate appropriate level of staff time for co-ordination of the project and

participation in an Internal Working Group• to create a number of Consultants’ Working Groups (one group per skill

area, each group was headed by a member of the internal working group).

The revision process

113

The internal working groups were made up of Cambridge ESOL specialist staff(including research and validation staff).

These groups were asked to:

• co-ordinate external groups• act on recommendations from the steering group• trial revised specifications• develop and propose final specifications to the steering group• report on the revision project to the steering group.

Finally, the Consultant Working Groups, which consisted of Cambridge ESOLconsultants (typically senior researchers and academics at key British univer-sities), specialist internal staff and research and validation staff were chargedwith devising revised specifications for each component of the tests.

The plan for the revision project was similar to that designed for the CPEproject, in that it focused on the main areas shown in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8 BEC revision project plan

While many of these areas are of little interest to the reader in that they arerelatively mundane and an ‘everyday’ part of any test development project, thefirst area is of particular interest in the BEC revision process as it was clearlyinfluential in all later decisions. It is therefore to this aspect of the process that wenow turn.

The consultative exercises

The internal working group first established a Project Plan, starting with a


114

Number Item Focus

12

Consultation exerciseIdentify areas for revision

Consultation exercisesIdentify priority areas for revision

34

Redraft specifications and item writer guidelinesTrialling

Draft specificationsTrialling

56

WordlistsValidation work

Validation projects

7891011

Information seminarsPublication of revised specificationsItem writer guidelines and trainingSample materialsRelease information to the public and centres

Finalised specificationsRelease of information

1213

Live test material productionTraining of oral examiners Training

14 Live administration

Situational Analysis. The key aim of this phase of the project was to establish aproject timeline with an anticipated end point.

The situational analysis began with a review of validation evidence, whichhad been routinely gathered since the earliest administration of the BEC tests.This evidence was related to the qualities of test usefulness identified in theCambridge ESOL approach, and discussed in the relevant section above (i.e.validity, reliability, impact and practicality).

In order to gain insights into the impact of the existing BEC tests, a survey ofthe views and attitudes of major stakeholders was conducted. There also existedan amount of formal and informal feedback collected over the years, though thiswas not considered sufficient on its own to allow for major decisions to be made.The stakeholders consulted included:

• Local Secretaries who administer the exam• the language schools/teachers preparing candidates• the senior consultants and other professionals who are employed to work on

the materials and assessment procedures (Senior Team Leaders, TeamLeaders, chairs of item writing teams, Principal Examiners etc.).

Two main groups were surveyed using a pair of questionnaires designed by theworking groups for the project. These groups were BEC centres (the question-naires were expected to be completed with teachers involved in preparing candi-dates for the existing BEC tests) and people with detailed knowledge of the BECtests (who were also experts in language testing). These two questionnaires areoutlined briefly below, while the results are reported in the relevant chaptersrelated to the different skills.

One of the questionnaires was called the Key Contacts Questionnaire (KCQ),and was designed to elicit information from major stakeholders around theworld, including local secretaries of major markets. The KCQ consisted of atotal of 60 statements in a series of sub-sections which looked at overall orgeneral comments as well as at the papers within each level (see Table 2.9).

All items offered a 5-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘stronglydisagree’, with an additional ‘no knowledge’ option.

A total of 40 KCQs were distributed in early 1999 of which 21 were returned.In the resulting interim report, presented in May 1999, a number of points werehighlighted as being problematic. These were:

• the speaking paper in general• the reporting of the speaking paper (as a separate mark)• the level of BEC1• one section of the BEC1 Reading and Writing (Part 5).

At the same time as the KCQ, a second instrument, called the GeneralQuestionnaire (GQ), was distributed to 300 test centres around the world, ofwhich a total of 67 responded. The GQ consisted of a set of seven items related

The revision process

115

to BEC1, seven more for BEC2, eight for BEC3 and three items devoted tooverall impressions of the suite. The results of the GQ are summarised in Table2.10.

As can be seen from this table, there was a clearly positive feeling for the teststhough there was a suggestion that the Speaking paper at each level (with thepossible exception of BEC3) was less than satisfactory – with over 13%expressing a high degree of dissatisfaction with the paper in BEC1 and BEC2(just short of 8% expressed a similar level of dissatisfaction with the speakingpaper in BEC3).

Table 2.10 General Questionnaire – results summary


116

Test Paper % Satisfaction

BEC1 ReadingWritingListeningSpeakingGeneral

95% positive95%90%59%86%


92%85%89%65%85%


93%85%100%85%88%

Table 2.9 Key Contacts Questionnaire – design

Focus Number of Items

General Comments 7

BEC1 Reading and WritingListeningSpeakingGeneral

10643

BEC2 Reading and WritingListeningSpeaking

654

BEC3 Reading and WritingListeningSpeaking

942

In addition to the questions about the BEC papers, respondents were asked tocomment on the proposal to amalgamate the CEIBT (see Chapter 1) with BEC3– as both tests were essentially aimed at the same candidature. The response tothis item indicated that a clear majority (76%) of the respondents believed it wasa good idea.

The various consultative exercises resulted in the identification of a numberof areas which were potentially in need of revision. These were:

1. Changes to the overall structure of the tests:• more transparent names • BEC Preliminary to be refocused to the Main Suite PET level• speaking to have a stronger business focus • one overall grade (this included the issue of weighting of component

papers)• more explicit benchmarking for each level.

2. Other changes to specific test papers:• more time for Reading and Writing• Reading and Writing separate in Vantage and Higher• choice of tasks in Higher Writing (Part 2)• more attractive presentation• Speaking tests improved to generate greater range of language.

SummaryIn this chapter I reviewed the context for the revision of BEC, focusing on thetest development and revision methodology currently employed by CambridgeESOL. The revision was seen to have taken place through the setting up of taskspecific groups who were initially guided by the outcomes of an extensiveconsultative exercise – in which the impressions and observations of a range ofstakeholders were elicited.

The actual approach taken was guided by Cambridge ESOL’s five prongedapproach, which is designed to show a commitment to the assessment of a widevariety of language skills; assessment for a variety of purposes; a system ofcriterion levels; quality and fairness; and finally to an ongoing programme ofvalidation and test revision.

Another key element in the Cambridge ESOL approach is the focus on theVRIP (Validity, Reliability, Impact and Practicality) system of identifyingexamination qualities. While all of these were discussed, the focus on how relia-bility of language tests is viewed and reported was highlighted – with thesuggestion that what was called true reliability is not simply a measurementissue, but is related to all aspects of test and test system quality.

The design of the revision project was highlighted through the impact on the

Summary

117

decision-making process of the consultation exercises. The main findings ofthese exercises were described in terms of the changes suggested both within thedifferent levels and within each test. In the following chapter, these changes willbe described.


118

119

Major changes to the suite

Before looking at the changes to the individual papers in the BEC suite, it wouldbe useful to first identify and briefly describe some of the more significantchanges that have been made. Copies of sample papers at all three levels for theoriginal BEC suite can be found in Appendices 3.1 to 3.3, while past exami-nation papers for all three levels of the revised suits are included as Appendices4.1 to 4.3, and are published by Cambridge ESOL (2002a, 2002b, 2002c).

Reporting of results as one overall grade In the original BEC design, performance on the Speaking paper was reportedas a separate grade. This was because the original construct design did notinclude a speaking component, partially due to the perception in the marketfor which the test was originally designed that speaking was not as relevant tobusiness needs as the other skills, and partially to practical constraints. The mainconstraint was the lack of the considerable resources required to effectivelyoperate a Team Leader (TL) system (see Chapter 2). However, a Speaking paperwas made available to those candidates who had successfully completed theother papers as it was felt that the inclusion of a separate grade for these candi-dates gave a useful indication of the candidate’s language profile in the daysbefore graphical profiling was introduced.

By 1996, the TL system was in place in China and from that time all candi-dates were offered a Speaking paper. When the BEC suite came up for review in1999 graphical profiling was an established part of the Cambridge ESOLapproach to test performance reporting (i.e. in the Main Suite tests). This meantthat the conditions were in place for these innovations to be introduced.

The original system of reporting meant that each candidate received anoverall grade for performance on the three skills (Reading, Writing andListening). In addition, for those candidates who had passed at this point, aSpeaking paper was offered, performance on which was reported as:

• 1 – Higher• 2 – Minimum satisfactory• No Grade – less than satisfactory or absent.

Since the revised BEC suite examinations are designed to mirror the Main Suitetests at similar levels (see Figure 2.4), the reporting procedures reflect this. ForBEC Preliminary, results are reported as two passing grades (Pass with Merit

3

3 Major changes to the suite

120

and Pass) and two failing grades (Narrow Fail and Fail). This follows the modelused by the Cambridge ESOL Main Suite test at the equivalent level (PET).

Again following the model of the equivalent level Main Suite tests (FCE andCAE), in the BEC Vantage and BEC Higher, results are reported as threepassing grades (A, B and C) and two failing grades (D and E).

For all levels of BEC, candidates receive statements of results which, inaddition to their grades, show a graphical profile of their performance in eachskill. These are shown against the scale Exceptional – Good – Borderline –Weak, and indicate the candidate’s performance in each skill (see Figure 3.1).This scale takes account of relative differences in candidates’ performancesacross components and also if candidates have met fixed criteria in theSpeaking and Writing components. It is solely designed to provide feedbackto candidates to allow them to make considered judgements on their strengthsand weaknesses and so to allow them to adjust the focus of their languagelearning in the future.

Figure 3.1 The BEC statement of results

An additional impact of reporting performance as a single overall grade was thenotion of how the individual components were to be weighted.

Weighting of componentsOne change that has been made is the weighting of the different components ofthe tests, both within each paper, and within each BEC level. This weighting

Within each paper

121

system was designed both for improved measurement characteristics and toencourage a positive washback effect.

Within each paperThe system of scoring within each of the Reading papers is outlined in Tables3.1 – 3.3. As can be seen from these tables, there have been very minor changesto the internal weighting of the papers. The greatest single changes are to befound at the initial level, where there are an additional five items in the generalcomprehension and grammar sections.

Table 3.1 Internal weighting – Reading BEC1/BEC Preliminary

Table 3.2 Internal weighting – Reading BEC2/BEC Vantage

Table 3.3 Internal weighting – Reading BEC3/BEC Higher

Within the Writing paper the changes in weighting are to be found in Tables3.4 – 3.6. From these tables, we can see that it is at the initial level that the mostsignificant change has been made. These have the effect of making the three

Main Skill Focus BEC1 BEC Preliminary

Reading and vocabularyReading interpreting visual informationReading comprehensionGrammar

1051510

1051812

40 45

Main Skill Focus BEC2 BEC Vantage

Reading (scanning and gist)Reading comprehensionReading (gist and scanning for detail)VocabularyReading and grammar

7581510

7561512

45 45

Main Skill Focus BEC3 BEC Higher

Reading (gist and main idea)Reading (details and structure)Reading (gist and scanning for detail)VocabularyReading and grammarGrammar

866101010

866101012

50 52


122

levels more similar in terms of how the tasks are presented and weighted – witheach level now consisting of a pair of tasks, the first of which is worth one-thirdof the available marks and the other worth the remaining two-thirds.

Table 3.4 Internal weighting – Writing BEC1/BEC Preliminary

Table 3.5 Internal weighting – BEC2/BEC Vantage

Table 3.6 Internal weighting – Writing BEC3/BEC Higher

Tables 3.7 – 3.9 indicate that the changes in internal weighting within theListening papers are again quite small. It is only at the earliest level that there isany change to be found. Here, there is an increase in the number of items in theinitial set of tasks – where the focus is on listening for detail, with the emphasison the second set of items reduced.

Table 3.7 Internal weighting – Listening BEC1/BEC Preliminary

Main Skill Focus BEC1 BEC Preliminary

Reading of written inputNote, message, memo or e-mail writingLetter writing

5510

Now a reading task1020

20 30


Note, message or memo writingCorrespondence, report or proposal writing

1015

1020

25 30


Report writing – describing, comparing, inferringReport or proposal or correspondence writing

1020

1020

30 30

Main Skill Focus BEC1 BECPreliminary

Main Skill Focus

Listening for detail Listening for detail (numbers)Listening for specific informationListening for detail

84108

8778

Listening for specific informationListening for specific informationListening for specific informationListening for gist/specificinformation

30 30

Within each level

123

Table 3.8 Internal weighting – Listening BEC2/BEC Vantage

Table 3.9 Internal Weighting – BEC3/BEC Higher

Finally, while there have been major changes within the Speaking paper therehas been no change in the internal weighting. This is because the Speakingpaper, like other Cambridge ESOL Speaking papers, is scored by the awardingof a single score or set of scores (by the interlocutor and observer respectively)at the end of the test event – i.e. no distinction is made of performance on thedifferent tasks.

Within each levelIn the original BEC suite, the Reading paper was seen by the developers as beingthe most relevant skill for the candidates likely to sit the tests. For this reason theReading paper was the most heavily weighted. However, changes in the testpopulation, both within the original market and in the emerging BEC markets,meant that this situation could no longer be supported. Each paper in the revisedBEC tests is equally weighted, meaning that each skill now contributes 25% ofthe total marks available to the candidate. The effect of this is very clear. In theoriginal tests, there was a very heavy weighting on the receptive skills (over70% of the available marks not including the Speaking test). The new weightingmeans that there is a far greater emphasis on the productive skills, even at thelowest level. This change in emphasis is designed to bring the BEC tests into linewith the Cambridge ESOL approach (outlined in Chapter 2) and to promotewhat is perceived as positive washback. There was a slight difference in theweighting profile of the BEC2 papers when these are compared with BEC1.Again, the more heavily weighted components were related to the receptiveskills, with 45% of the available marks awarded for reading. A similar picturewas found in BEC3.


Listening for detailListening to identify topic, context, function etc.Listening for specific information

12108

12108

30 30


Listening for detailListening to identify topic, context, function, opinion etc.Listening for specific information

1020

1020

30 30


124

Table 3.11 Weighting at BEC2/BEC Vantage

Table 3.12 Weighting at BEC3/BEC Higher

These tables show how the weighting process has been used to radically alter theoverall distribution of focus within the BEC suite. In the original versions, the Reading paper was apparently seen as the most important, with 45% of theavailable marks available at each of the three levels. The Writing paper was leastheavily weighted at BEC1 with a systematic increase in weighting as the level ofthe test increased. This system was designed to show the greater importance ofwriting as overall proficiency level increased.

Speaking to have a stronger business focusThe original BEC Speaking papers were criticised during the consultationexercises for being too general in nature and for not really having a strong‘business’ orientation. The example of Task 2 from BEC1 (Task 1 was based onpersonal information exchange during a one-to-one interview) highlights theperceived problem, see Figure 4.16 in the next chapter. While we can see fromthe task that the topic of the information exchange task is business-related, theexpected output is at a very basic level (with little meaningful interaction or evenlanguage required to complete the task).

The revised test at this level (BEC Preliminary) has been radically changed.While the opening task remains focused on personal information exchange, thetime allowed has been much reduced. The old Task 2 has now been replacedwith a pair of tasks designed to elicit a broader range of language (see the sectionon the Speaking papers in the next chapter). In the new Task 2, candidates make

Table 3.10 Weighting at BEC1/BEC Preliminary

Level 1 Reading Writing Listening Speaking

Old system 40 (45%) 20 (22%) 30 (33%) Optional – reported on different scale

New system 45 (25%) 30 (25%) 30 (25%) 40 (25%)

Level 2 Reading Writing Listening Speaking


New system 45 (25%) 30 (25%) 30 (25%) 40 (25%)

Level Reading Writing Listening Speaking


New system 52 (25%) 30 (25%) 30 (25%) 40 (25%)

Speaking to have a stronger business focus

125

a mini-presentation on a business-related topic (see the example in Figure 4.17in the next chapter). In this task, there is clearly a greater emphasis on productionof language (the candidates may choose one of the two options, take one minutefor preparation, and then speak for a further minute on the topic).

In Task 3, the examiner outlines a scenario (see Figure 3.2), which the candi-dates discuss for two minutes before being asked further questions.

These examples from BEC Preliminary demonstrate how the paper at thislevel has changed, with a broader range of language potentially elicited, andmore relevantly for this section, a clearer focus on the business context. Thetasks shown here can claim a far greater degree of specificity (in terms of taskcontent and focus) and authenticity (both situational and interactional) than theoriginal BEC speaking task at the same level.

Figure 3.2 Discussion task – BEC Preliminary

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Handbook (2001:40)


126

Other major changesIn addition to the changes described above, there are a number of relatedchanges to the BEC suite which at first sight appear cosmetic, but upon furtherinspection reveal something of how the benchmarking process (mentionedbefore in Chapter 2) impacted on the way in which the three individual testswere situated in terms of the Common European Framework.

Names

One criticism of the original BEC suite was the suggestion that the names of thetests were less than helpful to the stakeholders who either had to decide at whichlevel the tests were aimed or what performance they were based on, for examplewhat BEC2 might mean in terms of language ability.

The revised BEC exams have been renamed, partly in order to answer thiscriticism, but also to comply with the accreditation requirements of theQualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) in the United Kingdom – alltests in all subjects must submit documentation to the QCA in order to beaccredited for use in the UK. The exams were also renamed in order to reflect thegrowing influence of the Common European Framework (CEF) and Associ-ation of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) framework.

Table 3.13 Changes to the BEC names

As can be seen in Table 3.13, the names of the revised exams have been changedfrom the original numbered system to one that more clearly reflects the level ofeach of the three. The most obvious of the names is BEC Vantage, named afterthe CEF level at which it is benchmarked (B2 or Vantage). The others arepossibly more obvious to the stakeholder who may be unfamiliar with theCEF/ALTE frameworks.

Another area of potential confusion with the original system was the factthat the numbers of the BEC tests did not correspond with the ALTE or CEFlevels they were designed to reflect, i.e. BEC1 was benchmarked to ALTELevels 1 and 2, BEC2 was benchmarked to ALTE Level 3 and BEC3 to ALTELevel 4.

The renamed exams were, with the exception of BEC1/BEC Preliminary,designed to replace the existing levels with an exam at the same level – though aswe shall see in the coming chapter, there were changes in the papers making up

Original name Name after revision process

BEC3BEC2BEC1

BEC HigherBEC VantageBEC Preliminary

Summary

127

the tests. Therefore we can say that the new BEC Preliminary represents themore challenging end of BEC1 (see the following section where this is exploredin more detail).

Level of BEC1/Preliminary

The results of the consultative exercise (see Chapter 2) indicated that, with theexception of the Speaking tests, the most noticeable area of concern was withBEC1. This concern was based on the fact that it essentially straddled two levelsof the CEF/ALTE framework and was dealt with in the original test by givingfour passing grades (with two each designed to reflect performance at each of thetwo levels tested within the test). Though this system was accepted and used bythe BEC stakeholders, the difficulty of adequately sampling from the broadlanguage domain covered by the test, given the constraints of test time andadministration, made the system difficult to operationalise in the longer term.

Table 3.14 Level of BEC1 and BEC Preliminary

The re-focusing of this level was achieved through the dual process of a detailedreference to the CEF/ALTE frameworks, and by making cross-comparisonswith the Main Suite tests which were representative of the same level CEF/ALTE levels.

An outline of the perceived level criteria for the revised examinationswas presented at a revision group meeting in October 1999. This documentcontained the data from which Table 3.15 has been created. In the table we cansee again that all three of the revised exams have been more deliberately bench-marked, with level descriptions, outlines of both formal language knowledgeand language use that more clearly identify the level at which each exam hasbeen aimed.

SummaryIn this short chapter I have outlined the major changes to the BEC suite. Thesechanges have been in the areas of:

• how results are reported – with a graphical representation of a performanceprofile, designed to have a diagnostic use for the candidate

• the weighting of the components both within papers and levels – this has the

Original BusinessEnglish Certificates

National QualificationsFramework Level

Council of Europe(ALTE) Level

Revised BusinessEnglish Certificates

BEC1 Entry 3Entry 2

B1 (ALTE Level 2)A2 (ALTE Level 1)

BEC Preliminary


128

advantage of ensuring that the different elements of the papers and sub-skills within levels are seen as contributing equally to the candidate’scompetence

• a stronger business focus for the Speaking papers – this will be seen moreclearly in the coming chapter in which the changes to the individual papersare exemplified, and where it is clear that the major changes have come inthe BEC Speaking papers

• the naming of the papers – while these name changes are in one way

BEC Preliminary BEC Vantage BEC Higher

LevelDescription

This is a test forcandidates atCambridge/ALTE Level 2 [CEF B1]

This is a test forcandidates atCambridge/ALTE Level 3 [CEF B2]

This is a test forcandidates atCambridge/ALTE Level 4 [CEF C1]

FormalLanguageKnowledge

Learners at this level areexpected to deal with aspecified grammaticalinventory and understandand produce a restrictedvariety of structures.They should demonstrateknowledge of certainvocabulary items.

Learners at this level areexpected to be able tohandle the mainstructures of the languageand demonstrateknowledge of a widerange of vocabulary.

Learners at this level areexpected to be able tohandle complexstructures anddemonstrate knowledgeof a wide range ofvocabulary.

LanguageUse

Learners at this level can:• extract specific

information from shortspoken exchangeswithout necessarilyunderstanding everyword

• give and receivepersonal informationin a conversationalcontext

• take down informationin order to complete aform or memo

• read and understand avariety of business-related texts

• interpret charts anddiagrams

• produce a variety ofwritten texts in orderto convey specificinformation or feeling.

Learners at this level can:• understand the overall

meaning and keypoints of a non-specialist presentationor discussion

• participate in aconversation givingpersonal information,exchanginginformation andexpressing opinions

• take down informationfrom phoneconversations andpublic announcements

• read and understandgeneral businessletters, reports, articlesand leaflets

• produce letters,memos and simplereports.

Learners at this level can:• engage in extended

conversation• contribute effectively

to meetings andseminars

• take accurate notesduring meetings

• write reports and draftinstructions

• understand mostcorrespondence,articles and reportswhere information isovertly stated

• use the telephone formost purposes

• negotiate successfullyin most situations.

Table 3.15 Revised BEC level criteria

Summary

129

superficial, they do have a role to play in the way the different levels are seenboth within the British education system, and in the way they are seen withinthe context of the ALTE/CEF levels

• the level of BEC1/Preliminary – where the original paper was not clearlybenchmarked to any definite level; the revised BEC Preliminary is nowmore obviously representative of the ALTE/CEF B1 level, where theoriginal attempted to straddle the A2 and B1 levels.

130

Changes in the BEC papers

In Chapter 4, I will describe the way in which the revision process has led tochanges in the BEC suite of examination, and since the four skills of Reading,Writing, Listening and Speaking are tested in the suite (in that order) this will bereflected in the organisation of the chapter. Sample copies of the three tests in therevised BEC Suite can be found in Appendices 4.1 to 4.3.

Changes in the Reading papersIn the following section of the BEC revision overview the changes made to theReading papers at the three levels are presented. The changes are described interms of the outline of the Cambridge ESOL approach outlined in the previous

4

Part Items Main Skill Focus Focus Format Marks

1 1–5 Reading andvocabulary

Understandingintended meaning(short texts, e.g. signs)

3 option MCQ 5


Understanding basicvocabulary (frombusiness signs,adverts)

Matching (5 from 8) 5

3 11–15 Reading interpretingvisual information

Interpretinginformation frominput (e.g. charts)


4 16–22 Readingcomprehension

Comprehension ofwritten input (e.g.report)

T/F/not included 7


Comprehension ofwritten input (e.g.information sheet)

3 option MCQ andmatching

4

27–30 Readingcomprehension

Same input Select correctoptions (4 from 7)

4

6 31–40 Grammar Grammar use incontext (rationaldeletion cloze)

3 option MCQ 10

Total marks 40

Table 4.1 BEC1 Reading paper outline

Total time allowed 70 minutes (40 Reading items + 3 Writing tasks)

Changes in the Reading papers

131

chapter. As will be seen throughout the chapter, there are occasions when nomajor changes were made to individual papers; this is particularly true of theReading papers, where the review process suggested that there were no majorchanges needed.

BEC1 and BEC Preliminary

At BEC level 1, the Reading paper was originally designed to test a range ofreading-related skills including both vocabulary and grammar in context,general comprehension and scanning for detail (see Table 4.1).

As can be seen from the outline of the revised paper at this level the constructremains very much the same. The changes that have been made include theaddition of five items in the latter half of the test and the provision of additionaltime. However, as the Reading and Writing papers are presented as a single unitat this level it is not clear exactly how the candidates will use this additionaltime, see the chapter relating to the changes in the Writing paper for someadditional comments on this. The additional items have had the effect of addingto the internal consistency of the paper.

The single most important change in the BEC1/BEC Preliminary Reading



Understandingintended meaning(short texts, e.g. signs)

3 option MCQ 5


Understanding basicvocabulary (fromshort input)


3 11–15 Reading interpretingvisual information

Interpretinginformation frominput (e.g. charts)

Matchingstatements to chartdata

5


Comprehension ofreport

T/F/not included 7


Comprehension ofwritten text

3 option MCQ 6

6 29–40 Grammar (in contextof reading text)

Grammar use incontext (rationaldeletion cloze)

Cloze (3 optionMCQ)

12

7 41–45 Reading andinformation transfer

Reading for speciflcdetail from twowritten inputs

Form completion 5

Total marks 45

Table 4.2 BEC Preliminary Reading paper outline


4 Changes in the BEC papers

132

paper was a tightening up of Part 5, and the introduction of a new formcompletion task as Part 7 – actually, it was originally part of the Writing paperbut was moved here to reflect more accurately the construct being tested in bothpapers. Other important changes to this paper included the addition of alter-native input sources to Part 2 – where the candidate now identifies specificelements within more ‘realistic’ sources.

In the original version of Part 5 (Figure 4.1), we can see that there is a singletext (either divided into four paragraphs or presented as four sub-texts). Based

Figure 4.1 BEC1 Part 5 Reading


133

on this reading input there are four comprehension items (three option, MCQformat) that ask the reader to read for specific details from individual sub-texts,and a further four items focusing on reading for detail, but this time using amatching format. The task seems to have been intended to provide the reader



134

Figure 4.2 BEC Preliminary Task 5 Reading

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Preliminary, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers(2002:28–29)


135

with a dual focus (reading for comprehension and detail), but ultimately appearsto test the same thing within both parts – task developers also reported that it wasvery difficult to find suitable texts, a problem which ultimately led to the failureof the task as the text requirements of the different formats in the two parts weredifferent – comprehension items can quite successfully be based on shortcohesive texts while items that focus on reading for detail require longerrelatively ‘shapeless’ texts.

In the revised version of Part 5, this problem has been addressed through thedecision to create a task with a single focus (see Figure 4.2). Here we can see thatthere is a single reading text of approximately 350 words. This input is accom-panied by a series of six comprehension items, each related to a separateparagraph in the input text.

The effect of this change is to simplify the section, giving a single clear focuson how the text is to be exploited. This is in marked contrast to the originaldesign, in which the task purpose was not really made clear to the candidate orthe test observer/evaluator.

BEC2 and BEC Vantage

At BEC2, the Reading paper was again designed to test a range of reading-related skills. At this level, the reading and writing skills were, as with BEC1,tested using a single paper. The situation was changed with the revision and twoseparate papers were offered. This complicates any comparisons of the Readingpapers, though really only in that it was never clear how candidates used the timeallowed for the Reading and Writing papers at BEC2 while with the BECVantage (the revised title for the examination) the time for each paper is set. Itwas also a concern that candidates could take information from the Reading anduse it in their Writing in an inappropriate manner.

In the same way that Task 5 on BEC1 was found to be problematic, the factthat Task 5 in BEC2 (See Figure 4.3) was based on two sets of items related totwo different texts meant that it too was in need of change – more related tosimplifying the task writing process than to changing the actual content of thetask. The actual change to the overall task is small, as the activity engaged in forboth the original version and the revised version (Figure 4.4) is the same – bothinvolve identifying problematic or non-problematic lines in a short text. InBEC2 the task had two parts, with the first focusing on a possible extra word inany line and Part 2 on a possible incorrect word which had to be corrected (it waspossible in both cases that there was no error in a line).

Another problem with the task was related to the format of the second section.Here the candidate was first meant to identify a possible error and then write thecorrect word in the response boxes in their answer book. The difficulty is that thecandidate might see a problem where none exists and offer a correction, missingthe real problem. Where the correction offered actually matched the expected


136

response the candidate would be seen by the examiner to have answeredcorrectly – this is because the candidate did not have to identify the position ofthe error. This meant that the task was very difficult to write and it was notalways certain that the candidates’ responses matched the expectations of thetask writer.

The BEC Vantage version of the task has a single text of 14 lines (the first twoof which are examples) in which the offending word is said to be ‘either


1 1–7 Reading (scanningand gist)

Understanding intendedmeaning (short texts,e.g. signs)

Matching(7 sentences to4 texts)

7

2 8–12 Reading Understanding textstructure

Matching (sentencelevel gaps)

5

3 13–20 Reading (gist andscanning for detail)

Interpreting overallmeaning and identifyingspecific details

MCQ (4 option) 6

4 21–35 Vocabulary Recognising vocabularyuse in context

MCQ cloze(4 option)

15

5 36–45 Reading andgrammar

Proof-reading task Identify additionalunnecessary words

12

Total marks 45

Table 4.4 BEC Vantage Reading paper outline

Table 4.3 BEC 2 Reading paper outline

Total time allowed 60 minutes (45 Reading items)



1 1–7 Reading (scanningand gist)

Understanding overallmeaning (short texts)

Matching (7sentences to 4 texts)

7

2 8–12 Reading Understanding textstructure

Text completion (5gaps with 9 options)

5



Matching (each part4 from 7)

44


MCQ cloze 15


Proof-reading task Identify and correcterror

5

41–45 Reading andgrammar

Proof-reading task Identify and correcterror

5

Total marks 45


137

grammatically incorrect or does not fit in with the meaning of the text’. Whilethis version may not mimic a genuine proof-reading task, it does offer the testermore control over the output, making for a potentially more reliable set of items,while at the same time offering a somewhat more viable proof-reading taskwhere the candidates are required to access a wider range of linguisticknowledge in order to respond. There is, of course some question as to whethera proof-reading task represents a test of reading ability, or a test of linguisticknowledge set in a reading context.

Figure 4.3 BEC2 Task 5 Reading



138

Figure 4.4 BEC Vantage Task 5 Reading

*Note: some questions have not been included here

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Vantage, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers (2002:28)

It is clear from the two tables (Tables 4.3 and 4.4) and the two figures (Figures4.3 and 4.4) that there are no other major changes to the Reading paper. Both thenumber of items and the general focus of the items remain the same. A review ofthe actual tasks shows that the setting of tasks in a business context remains thesame in the two versions, with the only change being that to Task 5, describedabove. (See Appendix 4.1 for examples of the Reading papers from the threeexaminations on the revised BEC suite.)

Changes in the Writing papers

139

BEC3 and BEC Higher

Tables 4.5 and 4.6 contain the outlines of the Reading papers at the highest of thethree BEC levels (BEC3 and BEC Higher respectively). There are no realchanges here, with the exception of a slight increase in the number of items forthe proof-reading section. Like the change to BEC2, BEC Higher splits theReading and Writing papers.

Table 4.5 BEC3 Reading paper outline

Total time allowed 100 minutes (50 Reading items + Writing tasks)

From this brief review of the Reading papers at the three BEC levels, we can seethat there were very few substantial changes made in the revision process. Thefeedback from the consultation exercise (reported in Chapter 2) suggested thatthe only real area of concern with the BEC papers lay in Part 5 of BEC1. Thisproblem was dealt with by eliminating the double-focus of the part so that therewas a single clear area of interest. In general, the changes, though slight, appearto have made the construct clearer. The papers are more consistent in the waythey approach the testing of reading, with the emphasis on careful reading forgist and for detail, with an additional focus on testing vocabulary and grammarin the context of reading.

Changes in the Writing papersAs we saw in the review of the changes to the Reading papers, there werechanges to the way in which the Reading and Writing papers are presented. In


1 1–8 Reading (gist andmain idea)

Understanding intendedmeaning (short texts,e.g. signs)

Matching(8 sentences to5 texts)

8

2 9–14 Reading (detailsand structure)

Understanding ofspecific details andstructure of ‘authentic’business text

Text completion(6 gaps with8 options)

6



MCQ (4 options) 6


MCQ cloze(4 option)

10


Rational deletion clozecompletion

Cloze 10



10

Total marks 50


140

the original format, the two papers were presented as a single unit, with a totaltime given to the candidates. This may have had an unintended negative effect interms of time management (and a potentially negative washback effect, wherewriting is seen as being of lesser importance than reading) on the way in whichthe Writing paper was seen by candidates, as there was a clear difference in thescores awarded for the two sections (the Writing paper offered half the marks ofthe Reading paper at BEC1, one third at BEC2 and two fifths at BEC3).


Table 4.7 shows that for BEC1 there were three different tasks included in thepaper. One criticism of the paper focused on the first five items, built aroundwhat was essentially a reading and information transfer task. The latter pair offree writing tasks were rated using a relatively simple set of scales. For the firstof these tasks, candidates’ work was rated on a 5-point scale which was focusedon task completion. For the second task, a pair of scores was awarded, one fortask completion and the other for language. The latter pair of tasks were bothscaffolded using a series of bullet pointed suggestions.

In BEC Preliminary, the first task has been altered and the expected output forthe two remaining tasks has been lengthened, each by 10 words. Both of thesetasks are scored using a General Impression Mark Scheme (GIMS). In fact, thetwo tasks use somewhat different versions of the scale, the first containing a setof very basic descriptors, while the second contains a more complex set whichfocuses both on task completion and language. Both versions are 6-level (0–5)

Items Main Skill Focus Focus Format Marks

1–8 Reading (gist andmain idea)

Understanding based on‘authentic’ business text

Matching (8 sentencesto 5 texts)

8

9–14 Reading (detailsand structure)

Understanding of specificdetails and structure of‘authentic’ business text

Text completion(6 gaps with 8 options)

6

15–20 Reading (gist andscanning for detail)

Interpreting overall meaningand identifying specific details

MCQ (4 options) 6

21–30 Vocabulary Recognising vocabulary use incontext

MCQ cloze (4 option) 10


Rational deletion clozecompletion

Cloze 10



10

Total marks 52

Table 4.6 BEC Higher Reading paper outline

Total time allowed 60 minutes (52 Reading items)


141

scales. The scores for the tasks are weighted, with the second task worth twicethe number of marks as the first task. The overall weighting of the Writing paperhas been increased, making it worth 25% of the total score for the test (all fourpapers are now equally weighted at the three BEC levels). This makes therevised paper a clearer reflection of Cambridge ESOL’s stated commitment tothe inclusion of all four skills in their language tests (Saville 2003:62).

In order to ensure that the Writing paper accurately reflects the amendedlevel of the test, both General Impression Mark Schemes are interpreted atCambridge/ALTE level 2.

Table 4.8 BEC Preliminary Writing paper outline


Figure 4.5 shows the original information transfer task from BEC1. As we cansee from this task, the output required of the candidate was simply to retrieve therelevant information from the input (in the form of a very brief memo andreceipt) and complete the simple form. The amount of writing was minimal, infact the task was based on information transfer and all responses could be foundin the reading input. For this reason the task was perceived to be more related toreading and as such it was moved from its original position in the writing section(BEC1 Part 7) to the revised reading section (BEC Preliminary Part 7). Inaddition to the move, the amount of reading input has been increased – one of thevariables that has been hypothesised by Norris et al (1998), O’Sullivan & Weir(2000) and Skehan (1998) to impact on task difficulty as it relates to ‘codecomplexity’ (number and amount of linguistic input). The revised version of thistask can be seen in Figure 4.6.

Table 4.7 BEC1 Writing paper outline



7 41–45 Reading of written input Information transfer Form completion 5

8 46 Memo writing Short written output(some scaffolding)

Free writing 5

9 47 Letter writing Short written output(some scaffolding)

Free writing 10


1 46 Note, message, memoor e-mail writing

Short written output(some scaffolding)

Free writing 10

2 47 Letter writing Short written output inresponse to written input(some scaffolding)

Free writing 20


142

Figure 4.5 BEC1 Part 6 Writing

Source: Cambridge ESOL, BEC Handbook (2000:23)


143

Figure 4.6 BEC Preliminary Task 7 Reading

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Preliminary, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers(2002:32–33)


144


Tables 4.9 and 4.10 show the way in which the Writing paper has been changedat the next level (BEC2 and BEC Vantage).

Table 4.9 BEC 2 Writing paper outline


One of the major changes to the structure of the test (described in Chapter 3) isthe decision to place more emphasis on writing. It is at BEC Vantage that thisdecision is first manifested. At this level, we see that there are now separatepapers for Reading and Writing – and the weighting system (as with BECPreliminary) now means that the Writing paper is similar to the other threepapers, in that all are worth 25% of the total score for the test.

The first of the two tasks is quite similar in terms of input and expectedresponse, though there is a nod in the direction of contemporary businesscommunication with the inclusion in the specifications of written e-mailcommunication to the existing list of response formats used in BEC2; the otheroptions are note, message or memo. The other change to this first task is that theresponse is expected to be slightly longer.

The second writing task is quite different in terms of length of expectedresponse, type of input and output format. The candidate is expected to write asignificantly longer text (120–140 words as opposed to 100–120 words at BEC2), and the input can either be written or presented as tables/graphics/charts.This change in the nature of the input may have an impact on the difficulty of thetask, though any impact is lessened by the inclusion of written notes on thegraphics in order to make interpreting them less of an issue. The potentialproblem here is the nature of the information transfer. In the original task, theletter was based on a very basic transfer of information – the fact that the inputwas read meant that language was provided, for example. The new version asksthe candidate to transform information from a chart (which must be interpreted)to a written format. While the written notes may act to negate any significanteffect on task difficulty, there is no empirical evidence that the different inputtypes result in significantly different responses. The change from a letter to areport may also be a complicating factor with this task.


46 Note, message ormemo writing

Short written output (30–40words – very basic scaffolding)

Free writing 5

47 Letter writing Letter (100–120 words –respond to written inputs)

Free writing 10


145

Table 4.10 BEC Vantage Writing paper outline

Total time allowed 45 minutes (2 Writing tasks)

BEC3 and BEC Higher

The Writing paper at BEC Higher has also been separated from the Reading/Writing structure of BEC3 (see Tables 4.11 and 4.12). It is at this level that themost clearly defined changes have been made to the paper.

The major changes are:

• output for task 1 has been lengthened to 120–140 words (up from100 words)

• a choice has been offered in Task 2.

The impact of increasing the required output for the first task is to make the tasksomewhat more realistic – it being unusual to find a report in the businesscontext that is just 100 words long. While the report might, in an ideal situation,be even longer than the new range, the practical limitations of the test eventmake writing a longer text impossible unless the test is reduced to a single task.In addition to anecdotal evidence in support of using multiple tasks, Bachman,Lynch and Mason (1995) have presented empirical evidence that havingadditional tasks has a greater impact on test reliability than having additionalraters, so it would be unwise to reduce the number from the present two to asingle task.

Table 4.11 BEC3 Writing paper outline


The additional time allowed for the Writing paper means that the amount ofwritten output expected of the candidate is now slightly greater than in the


1 Note, message, e-mailor memo writing

Short written output (40–50words – very basic scaffolding)

Free writing 5

2 Correspondence, reportor proposal writing

Written output (120–140 words– respond to written inputs)

Free writing 10


51 Report writing Short written output (100 words– input from simple graphs)

Free writing 10

52 Report writing Letter (200–250 words – basedon limited written input andsome scaffolding)

Free writing 20


146

original. The other change relates to the fact that by offering a choice of tasks inthe second part of the Writing paper, the developers are also offering a choice ofoutput type. Candidates are asked to write on one of the three options, thesebeing a report, a proposal and a piece of business correspondence. The input forall three options is very similar in terms of length and degree of scaffolding (allprovide four bullet-pointed guiding points), and all three ask for the sameamount of written output. As with any situation where a choice is offered, thereis a danger that the different tasks will result in different levels of performance.However, the fact that the input for each choice is so similar suggests that anygains will be attributable to candidate ability – thus the choice can be seen as‘testing for best’ – in that a candidate will, it is hoped, opt for the output typewhich they perceive as offering the best chance for an acceptable performance.As mentioned above, this aspect of the task should be monitored over time toensure that no unintended bias occurs.

Table 4.12 BEC Higher Writing paper outline

Total time allowed 70 minutes (2 Writing tasks)

Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show the original version of the task and the revisedversion from BEC Higher respectively. From these two examples we can seethat the actual task has not altered, in that the format of the input remains thesame in the two test versions. However, in the revised version of the task candi-dates are offered a choice of writing one of three options, a report (as in theoriginal BEC), a proposal or a letter. The decision to offer candidates a choice isnot without problems, and care must be taken to ensure that candidates are notnegatively affected by their choice of task. Analysis of trial and test data showsthat there has been no negative impact to date – with no significant differences inthe scores achieved for the different options across the test population. Ofcourse, this situation must be monitored at each administration.

Changes to the rating procedureOne change that has had an effect on all of the BEC levels except BEC Higher(where the rating procedure has not changed) is the fact that writingperformance is now rated using a different scale.


1 Report writing –describing, comparing,inferring

Short written output (120–140words – input from simplegraphic)

Free writing 10

2 Report or proposal orcorrespondence writing

Written output (200–250 words– based on limited written inputand some scaffolding)

Free writing(choice from 3)

20


147

For all tasks and levels, two mark schemes are used:

1. General Mark Scheme: this included six criteria, each with detaileddescriptors at five levels or bands: These werei) contentii) vocabulary and structure rangeiii) accuracyiv) organisation of information and textv) appropriacy of register and formatvi) effect on target reader.

2. Task Specific Mark Scheme: this gave guidance to the rater on the features ofan appropriate response at the different levels.

With the revised BEC papers, the situation differs depending on the test level.While all tasks at all levels are rated using two separate scales (General and TaskSpecific), at BEC Preliminary level the first of the two tasks is scored using aversion of the General Mark Scheme in which task achievement only isaddressed.

One of the advantages to using a simplified scale such as this is that thedescriptors are easily kept in mind as they are so short. The fact that this scale isused in conjunction with a task specific scale (i.e. the specific ‘content points’referred to above are outlined in detail) makes the rating of this task very reliable– as it is relatively easy for raters to make consistent estimates of performancelevel.

Figure 4.7 BEC3 Part 2 Writing



148

Figure 4.8 BEC Higher Part 2 Writing

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Higher, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers (2002:35)


149

For the second task at BEC Preliminary and all tasks at BEC Vantage andHigher, a different type of General Impression Mark Scheme is used (seeFigure 4.9, which shows the BEC Preliminary version of the new GIMS).

This scheme is far more detailed and includes reference to the criteria used inthe original BEC suite, e.g. content, range and accuracy of vocabulary and

Band 5 Full realisation of the task set:• all four content points achieved• confident use of language; errors are minor, due to ambition and non-

impeding• good range of structure and vocabulary• effectively organised, with appropriate use of simple linking devices• register and format consistently appropriate.Very positive effect on the reader

Band 4 Good realisation of the task set:• three or four content points achieved• ambitious use of language; some non-impeding errors• more than adequate range of structure and vocabulary• generally well-organised, with attention paid to cohesion• register and format on the whole appropriate.Positive effect on the reader

Band 3 Reasonable achievement of the task set:• three or four content points achieved• a number of errors may be present, but are mostly non-impeding• adequate range of structure and vocabulary• organisation and cohesion is satisfactory, on the whole• register and format reasonable, although not entirely successful.Satisfactory effect on the reader

Band 2 Inadequate attempt at the task set:• two or three content points achieved• numerous errors, which sometimes impede communication• limited range of structure and vocabulary• content is not clearly organised or linked, causing some confusion• inappropriate register and format. Negative effect on the reader

Band 1 Poor attempt at the task set:• one or two content points achieved• serious lack of control; frequent basic errors• little evidence of structure and vocabulary required by task• lack of organisation, causing breakdown in communication• little attempt at appropriate register and forma Very negative effect on the reader

Band 0 Achieves nothing. Either fewer than 25% of the required number of words or totallyillegible or totally irrelevant.

Figure 4.9 BEC Preliminary revised General Impression Mark Scheme


150

grammar, organisation, register, and effect on the reader. The raters award asingle impression score based on the descriptors.

The fact that a separate task specific scheme is used for each task and thatexaminers are familiar with the interpretation levels for the BEC suite, meansthat the system can result in reliable and consistent rating.

The GMS is interpreted at the following levels:

BEC Preliminary Cambridge/ALTE Level 2BEC Vantage Cambridge/ALTE Level 3BEC Higher Cambridge/ALTE Level 4

The great value of this method is that it reinforces the link to the Cambridge/ALTE levels (and therefore to the Common European Framework). While wehave seen that the BEC suite examinations have been developed with theseexternal performance criteria in mind, the fact that the rating of an individual’stest performance is based directly on the criteria reinforces the link to thosecriteria and as such offers evidence of test validity.

As can be seen from this section, there have been a number of quitesignificant changes to the Writing papers, particularly with the choice nowoffered at BEC Higher for the second writing task. The other changes include anincrease in the length of the required output for the initial writing task at alllevels, and for Task 2 at BEC Preliminary and BEC Vantage, the separation ofthe Reading and Writing papers at BEC Vantage and the use of a commonGeneral Impression Mark Scheme, but interpreted at different performancelevels and tied to the Cambridge/ALTE levels. These changes combine to makethe revised Writing papers more reliable and valid – in that they represent aclearer business orientation – in terms of context, output text type and length.

Changes in the Listening papersFrom the following description of the old and revised BEC Listening papers, wecan see that there have been few changes made. This is because there was ageneral satisfaction with the Listening papers on the part of the developers andthose people who were asked to comment on the test during the review stage.


We can see from Tables 4.13 and 4.14 that there have been few substantivechanges to the Listening paper. While the sections remain essentially the same,there has been an attempt made to spread out the items more evenly over the foursub-tests. The revised paper continues to test a variety of sub-skills using a rangeof test formats, again in keeping with the Cambridge ESOL approach outlined inChapter 2.

Changes in the Listening papers

151

It is at the lowest level that the only substantial change has occurred. In BEC1Part 2 (see Figure 4.10) the listener is required to identify a series of fournumbers from a short listening text and then use these to complete a simple form.

Table 4.13 BEC 1 Listening paper outline

Total time allowed 40 minutes (30 items)

Table 4.14 BEC Preliminary Listening paper outline


BEC1 Part 3 (Figure 4.11), then asks the candidates to listen to a conversationfor specific ‘words or a number’. In a second conversation, the listenercompletes a form while listening to non-number based details. Between the twoparts there are a total of 14 items, though there appears to be an overlap in focusbetween Parts 2 and 3. This overlap is both confusing (what are the items tryingto test?) and at best potentially redundant (if the items are testing the samething).


1–8 Listening for detail Information transfer (shortconversations/monologues)

MCQ (3 option) 8


Gap filling (numbers) 4

13–22 Listening andwriting

Form completion Gap filling (words andnumbers)

10

23–30 Listening forspecific information

General comprehension anddetailed listening

MCQ (3 option) 8



MCQ (3 option) 8


Gap filling (words,numbers, letters)

7

16–22 Listening andwriting

Form/note completion Gap filling (1 or 2words)

7



MCQ (3 option) 8


152

Figure 4.10 BEC1 Listening Part 2


Figure 4.11 BEC1 Listening Part 3


153

Source: Cambridge ESOL 2000: BEC Handbook (2000:31)


154

The revised paper deals with this problem by expanding Part 2 to include sevenitems involving listening for specific detail in the form of a ‘word, numbers orletters’ (see Figure 4.12). As with the original version, there was some supportoffered to the listener as some of the details in the form were included.

Figure 4.12 BEC Preliminary Listening Part 2

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Preliminary, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers(2002:41)

BEC Preliminary Part 3 (Figure 4.13) then focuses on completing a set of noteswith seven items which focus on using ‘one or two words’. This task is thereforesomewhat different from Part 2, in that the focus is now clearly on words only.The result of these changes is to maintain the same number of items, whilemaking the two parts more clearly distinct.

Figure 4.13 BEC Preliminary Listening Part 3

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Preliminary, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers(2002:42)


At the next levels (BEC2/BEC Vantage; BEC3/BEC Higher), we can see thatthere have been no changes made to the Listening papers (Tables 4.15 to 4.18).


155

Table 4.15 BEC2 Listening paper outline


Table 4.16 BEC Vantage Listening paper outline


BEC3 and BEC Higher

Table 4.17 BEC3 Listening paper outline



156



Form/note completion 12

13–22 Listening to identifytopic, context,function etc.

Listening for specificinformation from 2 shortmonologues/dialogues

Matching extract tostatement (5 items to 8options)

10



MCQ (3 option) 8



Note completion 12

13–22 Listening to identifytopic, context,function, opinionetc.

Information transfer (shortconversations/monologues)

Matching extract tostatement (reasonsand reactions)

10



MCQ (3 option) 8



Form/note completion 12


Listening for specificinformation from 2 shortmonologues/dialogues

Matching extract tostatement (5 items to 8options)

10



MCQ (3 option) 8

Table 4.18 BEC Higher Listening paper outline


The Listening papers reviewed here represent the least altered papers of the BECsuite. The changes that were made were based on feedback from the consul-tation exercise. The Listening papers of the suite have not been seen, either bythe developers or by the stakeholders, as being problematic over the years. Theyrepresent a practically effective set of papers that offer a view of listening forspecific purposes where the tasks and the language are both set in a businesscontext.

Changes in the Speaking papersIt is in the Speaking papers that the most obvious changes have been made.Criticism of the BEC1 Speaking paper tended to focus on the lack of specificityof the task topics – with half of the test devoted to a personal informationexchange task and the other to an information transfer task, which, although itwas set in a business context, did not really reflect the type of speaking tasktypical of the domain (see Table 4.19 and Figure 4.14). In the revised version,the number of tasks has been increased to three (Table 4.20), with the intro-ductory task greatly reduced in scope – the task still operates as a sort of ‘lowimpact’ introduction to the test event, in terms of cognitive demand andcandidate anxiety.

In terms of the tasks included in the revised version of the test, the second taskmarks the singular most important change. The introduction of the individuallong turn with follow-up questions/comments by another candidate adds animportant dimension to the test event, namely that of broadening the potentialfor the test as a whole to elicit a greater range of language functions. Thispotential has been demonstrated by O’Sullivan, Weir and Saville (2002) in theirreport on the development of a set of ‘Observation Checklists’, used by taskwriters to predict the linguistic outcomes of Speaking test tasks in terms of infor-mational, interactional and discourse management functions, and again byvalidation researchers to establish empirically that the predictions could be

Changes in the Speaking papers

157


1–12 Listening for detail Information transfer (shortmonologues)

Gap fill, note completion(up to three words or anumber)

12


Information transfer (shortconversations/monologues)

Matching extract tostatement (reasons andreactions)

10


General comprehensionand detailed listening

MCQ (3 option) 8

supported. Essentially, the checklists allow the researcher/validator to generatea profile of a test task in use. This profile, based on the elicitation of languagefunctions, can be used to make working descriptions of the tasks through whichmeaningful comparisons can then be made. Figure 4.14 represents a mapping ofthe probable function pattern (or profiles) elicited by the three different tasksused in the revised BEC suite.

The profiles, based on data reported by O’Sullivan, Weir and Saville (2002)and modified to predict the outcome of the tasks in the BEC suite, show how the


158

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

Informational Functions

Provide personal information

Present

Past

Future

Expressing opinions

Elaborating

Justifying opinions

Comparing

Speculating

Staging

Describing a scene

Expressing preferences

Interactional Functions

Agreeing

Disagreeing

Modifying

Asking for opinions

Negotiating of meaning understanding

respond to req. clarification

Managing Interaction

Initiating

Changing

Reciprocating

Figure 4.14 Profile of language elicited by tasks used in the revised BECsuite Speaking paper

Key: Task 1 – one-to-one interviewTask 2 – Individual Long Turn (with follow-up comments etc.)Task 3 – Two-way interaction (candidate-to-candidate)

three different interaction types tend to generate radically different profiles.They also offer some evidence in favour of including as wide a variety of taskstructures as possible in this type of test of speaking as it clearly results in a widerrange of language functions and offers the candidates an opportunity to displaytheir linguistic range to a greater degree.

The final major changes to the Speaking papers are the introduction of aninterlocutor frame and a change in the way in which the scores were awarded (adifferent rating scale was used) and reported. This change will be discussed afterthe papers at the different levels are reviewed.


The first part of the BEC1 Speaking paper (Table 4.19) involved a brief (approx.two minute) informal one-to-one interview between the examiner and each ofthe candidates in turn. This task did not feature input material but was unscriptedand based on personal information exchange. As such, it was problematic fromthe perspective of equivalence (each test was essentially a unique event), lack ofspecificity (there was no obvious ‘business’ context) and an associated absenceof authenticity. In the revised paper, this first part has been shortened to approx-imately one minute per candidate and is seen as an opener, designed to settle thecandidates.

Table 4.19 BEC1 Speaking paper outline

Total time allowed 10 minutes (two tasks/parts)

The second task in the BEC1 Speaking paper involved information exchangebetween the two candidates. Figure 4.15 shows an example of one of the two setsof task cards used by the candidates.

This set of cards shows clearly where the criticism of the BEC1 Speakingpaper originated. The main focus of the criticism was the lack of real interactionin performing the task. Basically, the candidates were simply asked to create aseries of three questions based on the prompts contained on the ‘YourQuestions’ card. From the example shown we can see that it would be quite easyto complete the task by converting the prompts into simple questions and forone’s interlocutor (the other candidate) to respond to these questions with


159

Structure Task Format Input Output Time Marks

1 interlocutor1 assessor2 candidates

(possible3 at end ofsession)

1 One-to-oneinterview

Oralquestions

Personal information

Agreeing, disagreeing,preferences, opinions

4–5minutes

1 – Higher

2 – Minimumsatisfactory

No Grade – lessthan satisfactory

2 Two-waycollaborativetask

Writtenpromptand spokenrubric

Interactional

Eliciting and givinginformation

4minutes

language taken primarily (or even only) from the text of the card, for example:

Question: [What] [is the] title of [the] magazine?Response: [It is called] Commercial Life.

Another worry about this type of item is the unlikelihood of any extendeddiscourse resulting from the questions asked, certainly if the candidates areexpected to stick to the information provided in their prompt cards. This intro-duces the possibility that the task can only be performed well if the individualcandidate is able to create both language and context from the prompt. In other


160

Figure 4.15 BEC1 Speaking Part 2

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Handbook (2000:36–37)

words, successful performance is, to a large extent, dependent on non-languageability such as imagination/creativity or background knowledge.

Table 4.20 BEC Preliminary Speaking paper outline

Total time allowed 12 minutes (three tasks/parts)

In the revised version of the paper (outlined in Table 4.20), we can see that thesecond task is based around an individual long turn (see Figure 4.16). The profileof this task in Figure 4.14 implies that it is quite similar to the first task, though itshould be remembered that the profile only tells part of the story – thesedarkened areas simply show the expected functions in the candidate response;they are not meant to quantify the number of functions. The task involves thecandidate in a single long turn, in which they are first given one minute toprepare and then expected to produce at least one minute of continuous output.Finally, there is an opportunity for the candidate who is not speaking to ask aquestion or make a point related to what has been said and for the speaker to thenrespond. This will obviously involve the use of a broader variety of linguisticand strategic language use. The final advantage to this type of task is that it ismore clearly related to the business context than the information exchange task.Figure 4.16 also indicates that a choice of topic is available to the candidate.

Task 3 in the revised BEC Preliminary (see Figure 4.17) is a two-way (orthree-way where there are three candidates tested during one session) inter-action task, in which the candidates are introduced to the task by the interlocutor(see the interlocutor frame in Figure 4.20) and given an additional bullet-pointedprompt card (see Figure 4.17). In this task, the candidates are asked to speakfor approximately two minutes, with the interlocutor supporting the presen-tation where he or she deems it appropriate. Finally, the interlocutor may askadditional questions (again scripted) that are related to the theme of the presen-tation.

While this task type tends to lead to a broadening of the range of language


161


1 examiner1 observer2 candidates



Oralquestions

Personal information


2 minutes 1 mark awarded by interlocutorusing holistic scale

4 marks awarded byobserver usinganalytic scale(grammar andvocabulary;discoursemanagement;pronunciation;interactivecommunication)

2 Individuallong turn

Writtenpromptwithbulletedsuggestions

Mini presentation 5 minutes(includes1 minutepreparationtime)

3 Two-waycollaborativetask

Writtenprompt andspokenrubric

Interactional


5 minutes

functions elicited (see the discussion above), there is always a danger that theintervention of the interlocutor will reduce the interactive or conversationalnature of the event to that of an interview (with the interlocutor engaging inwhat is essentially a series of individual question-and-answer based interac-tions with each candidate in turn). This presents the developer with somethingof a conundrum; if the interlocutor is instructed not to intervene there may be acomplete breakdown in the interaction, particularly at this level. On the otherhand, this very intervention can alter the nature of the communication! As withalmost any other such decision, there is no perfect answer, and the decision hereto allow for interventions is based on the only really pragmatic solution – if theinteraction breaks down totally there is no language to base a judgement on.


162

Figure 4.16 BEC Preliminary Speaking Part 2

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Preliminary, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers (2002)


Tables 4.21 and 4.22 show that the format has been changed at this level in thesame way.

Table 4.21 BEC 2 Speaking paper outline

Total time allowed 12 minutes (two tasks/parts)


163

Figure 4.17 BEC Preliminary Speaking Part 3

Source: Cambridge ESOL, BEC Preliminary, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers (2002)

Structure Task Format Input Language Time Marks




Oralquestions

Personal Informationexchange


3–4minutes

1 – Higher


No Grade – lessthan satisfactory

2 Paired task Writtenprompt andspokenrubric

Non-personalinformation transfer


7–8minutes

The task shown in Figure 4.18 (Task 2) shows that the candidate is offered achoice from a set of three semi-scaffolded task variations. These are semi-scaffolded in that there are just two bulleted suggestions included in the prompt,with an indication that other points can be added. The prompts are all designedto elicit a single long turn on one of a range of business-related topics. Onepotential problem with offering a choice, such as has been done here, is thatthere may be some options that are more difficult for candidates to achieve highscores on. While this can be addressed to a large extent in the design of the task,and in the writing of the different versions of the task through a checklist typeframework such as that suggested by O’Sullivan and Weir (2000), it is alsonecessary to empirically test for bias in the test data.


164





Oralquestions

Personalinformation

Giving opinions,speculating etc.

3 minutes 1 mark awardedby interlocutorusing holisticscale

4 marks awardedby observerusing analyticscale (grammarand vocabulary;discoursemanagement;pronunciation;interactivecommunication)


Writtenprompt withbulletedsuggestions

Mini presentation

Giving informationand justifyingopinions

5 minutes(includes1 minutepreparationtime)

3 Two-waycollaborativetask + follow-updiscussion

Writtenprompt andspoken rubric

Oral promptfor follow-updiscussion

Interactional

Eliciting andgiving information,justifying opinions,makingcomparisons,agreeing anddisagreeing etc.

5 minutes

Table 4.22 BEC Vantage Speaking paper outline


Figure 4.18 BEC Vantage Speaking Part 2

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Vantage, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers (2002:42)


165

A: WHAT IS IMPORTANT WHEN...?

Entertaining clients

• Types of activities

• Cost

•

•

B: WHAT IS IMPORTANT WHEN...?

Choosing retail premises to rent

• Location

• Length of contract

•

•

C: WHAT IS IMPORTANT WHEN...?

Deciding on packaging for products

• Image

• Production process

•

•

Task Card 17

BEC 3 and BEC Higher

Table 4.23 BEC 3 Speaking paper outline


Table 4.24 BEC Higher Speaking paper outline


Figure 4.19 shows the task cards for Part 3 of the BEC Higher. In this task, whichis designed to elicit a sample of interaction-based language, candidates areallowed thirty seconds to read the task card and are then expected to speak for


166





Oralquestions

PersonalInformationexchangeExpressing opinions

3 minutes 1 mark awardedby interlocutorusing holisticscale

4 marks awardedby observerusing analyticscale (grammarand vocabulary;discoursemanagement;pronunciation;interactivecommunication)


Writtenprompt withbulletedsuggestions

Mini presentation

Giving informationand justifyingopinions

6 minutes(includes1 minutepreparationtime)

3 Two-waycollaborativetask + follow-updiscussion


Oral promptfor follow-updiscussion

Interactional

Eliciting and givinginformation,justifying opinions,makingcomparisons,agreeing anddisagreeing etc.

7 minutes

Structure Task Format Input Language Time Marks




Oralquestions

Personal Informationexchange

Expressing opinions

3–4minutes

1 – Higher


No Grade – lessthan satisfactory2 Paired

taskWrittenprompt andspoken rubric

Non-personalinformation exchange

Explaining, persuading,justifying, etc.

4 minutes



Monologue (based onwritten input)

Describing, explaininggiving and justifyingopinions, etc.

6 minutes

approximately three minutes. The topics are clearly business-focused, and canbe realistically expected to elicit the sort of profile outlined in Figure 4.14 – witha range of language functions across the three types.

In order to deal with the situation where there are three candidates present, thetask has been added to slightly – with an additional element in the expectedoutcome, see Task 26 in Figure 4.19. There is a potential danger here that thelanguage elicited under the two conditions may be different, as the two condi-tions involve both different numbers of candidates and different expectedoutcomes. However, there is no evidence that candidates involved in paired orthree-way interactions are biased either towards or against – the format has beensuccessfully used for almost a decade in the Cambridge ESOL Main Suiteexaminations and has been adopted in other tests around the world. It is certainlyan area in which further research is required in order to ensure that there is nounintentional bias present in the Speaking papers of the revised BEC.

Figure 4.19 BEC Higher Speaking Part 3

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Higher, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers (2002:47–48)


167

There are obvious advantages to the inclusion of the different task types in theBEC suite. These can be summarised as adding to the test in terms of:

• authenticity – since presentations and peer discussion and decision-making are seen as being of particular relevance to thearea of business

• specificity – the inclusion of these tasks has the effect of making thepaper more clearly specific to the language use domain

• generalisability – as the task introduces the potential for a wider varietyof language function use (see O’Sullivan, Weir andSaville 2002).

Other changes to the Speaking paperThe other major changes to the Speaking papers are the use of an ‘interlocutorframe’ and the way in which the performances are scored.

The introduction of an interlocutor frame

In the earlier versions of the BEC examinations, the interlocutor frame as wenow know it was not used. However, work carried out in the early 1990s, partic-


168

Figure 4.20 BEC Higher Speaking Part 3 – interlocutor frame

ularly that of Lazaraton (1992, 1996), suggested that the lack of control over thelanguage input was having a measurable impact on the performance of candi-dates in oral interview type tests.

The introduction of the scripted interlocutor frame allows the test developerto more fully control what is happening in the test event. The frame is a scriptedtext which guides the examiner through the event, limits the examiner in termsof input (ensuring that all candidates receive the same directions) and timing(guaranteeing that all candidates will have an opportunity to perform all of thetasks provided in the test) – see Figure 4.20 for a copy of the frame that goes withthe two candidate version of the task described in Figure 4.19.

We can see from this example that there are times in which clarification maybe offered at the discretion of the examiner. Clearly, it would be unwise not toallow for some flexibility as all test events will be in some way different, andcandidates of different ability will require more or less help from the examiner.The advantage of allowing the examiner a choice in the follow up questions

Other changes to the Speaking paper

169

Figure 4.20 BEC Higher Speaking Part 3 – interlocutor frame (continued)

Source: Cambridge ESOL BEC Vantage, Examination Report and Past Examination Papers(2002:53–54)

means that the questions can be chosen to engage with the candidates’ output,while still allowing for the control over the event vital to reliability.

Of interest here are the findings of a research study undertaken by O’Sullivanand Lu (2003), who investigated the impact on candidates’ linguisticperformance of deviations from the interlocutor frame by examiners in theIELTS Speaking test. By making comparisons between transcribed segments ofthe output of learners taken before and after the deviation, they found that therewas no significant impact on a number of measures (discourse features,linguistic accuracy and complexity or fluency). The indication is that as long asthe interlocutor maintains the integrity of the test through a systematic, thoughnot dogmatic, use of the interlocutor frame, there will be little perceptible impacton the output of the candidates, thus supporting the decision not to make theinterlocutor frame so tight as to eliminate any individual expression on the partof the examiner.

While the Cambridge ESOL move to the paired format has been criticised(Foot 1999) the anecdotal nature of the criticism when coupled with the failureto make a realistic critique of the limitations of the one-to-one interview formatlimit the value of this criticism. The other major limitation of the criticism wasthe lack of awareness of the model of language competence which lay behind themove, a problem possibly caused or certainly exacerbated by the lack ofpublished information on the construct at that time. In their response to thecriticism, Saville and Hargreaves (1999) provided a well argued rationale for theformat, demonstrating the essential weakness in any test design that did notencourage interactive communication – though it should also be pointed out thatthis strength may also be a weakness, as it is now accepted that the nature of anylanguage of the interaction is co-constructed.

The introduction of a new rating and reporting scale

This original rating procedure has been replaced with a scale which is moretypical of the Cambridge ESOL examinations. While the focus is still on thesame criteria as were used in the pre-revision tests (grammar and vocabulary,discourse management, pronunciation and interactive communication), thedescriptors have been revised and rewritten to reflect the descriptors used in theequivalent Main Suite tests. Using the rating scales in the same way as they areused in the Main Suite, also minimises any negative effect that using a verydifferent type of scale might have on the examiners. Where examiners use afamiliar scale, and are making judgements at a level with which they arefamiliar, there is a far greater likelihood that they will be consistent than if theyare asked to use very different scales for each examination they are asked to rate.On the negative side of this is the argument that the rating scales lack anyspecific business domain orientation. This means that the aspects of language


170

which distinguish the business domain (for example appropriacy of lexis,register, format, and rhetorical structure) are not taken into account, thusquestioning the potential of this aspect of the test to tell us about the candidates’ability to perform linguistically in the business domain.

Since the arrangement of the Speaking test now more closely resembles thatof the Main Suite examinations in terms of task type and assessment type, moreaccurate and meaningful comparisons between the Main Suite examinationsand external criteria such as the Common European Framework and the threeBEC levels can be made (see Figure 4.21 – which represents a schematicdiagram of the format of the Main Suite and BEC Speaking tests).

Figure 4.21 Structure of the revised BEC Speaking paper

SummaryIn this chapter I have tried to outline briefly the changes made to the individualpapers in the BEC suite. As you can see from the above, the most significantchanges have come as a response to criticisms of the Speaking paper, while theother papers that were considered to be working well were left relativelyuntouched. This is in line with the ‘continuity and change’ dimensions referredto in Weir and Milanovic (2003).

Before concluding the chapter, it might be useful to review the BEC exami-nations in terms of the criteria used to review the other tests in Chapter 1. Thiswill allow the reader to make comparative judgements on the different tests andwill, I hope, demonstrate how the value or usefulness of the BEC suite has beenincreased with this revision.

As the first two of the criteria (a brief introduction to and description of thetest) have been dealt with in this chapter, I will focus on the remaining criteria inthe brief review contained in Table 4.25. As can be seen from this overview, thechanges to BEC have resulted in some areas of significant improvement, and inother areas of similar performance. Even these areas of relatively little or no

Summary

171

Performance

Performance

INTERLOCUTOR

OBSERVER

CANDIDATE B

CANDIDATE A

Holistic Score

Analytical Scores

Grammar & VocabularyDiscourse ManagementPronunciationInteractive Communication

Table 4.25 Brief overview of the old and revised BEC suite

change are relevant however, as the lack of change is not due to any inertia, butis based on a thorough review of the entire test system. In fact, this suggests afurther criterion for test evaluation, that of systematic self-monitoring. In thecase of the BEC suite (as in other Cambridge ESOL examinations) this constantmonitoring and revising of tests is a feature which seems to ensure that the tests


172

Original BEC Revised BEC

3. An outline ofthe constructupon whichthe testfocuses

Not clearly defined, though appearsto have been based on acommunicative, four skills’definition of the construct.

Now more explicitly designed to reflect themulti-componential approach to competence astypified in Bachman’s (1990) model.

4. The testmethod

A variety of task and item formatsare used throughout the differentpapers.

A variety of task and item formats are usedthroughout the different papers.

5. Skills’coverage

Listening, Speaking, Reading andWriting

Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing

6. Measurementqualities

Not available in the public domain. Reported here in Chapter 2.

7. Degree ofspecificity/Authenticity

Relatively specific, though in thecase of the Speaking paper,criticised for being too general.

In general meets any ‘authenticity’criticism, with the exception of theSpeaking paper.

Retains former degree of specificity, thoughrevised Speaking paper is much more specific.

Tasks across the different papers attempt toengage concepts of both situational andinteractional authenticity.

8. Impact ofnon-languagefactors

Seem to be unproblematic, thoughthe use of a single interlocutor in theSpeaking paper may heighten theimpact of any ‘interlocutor’ effect.

Likelihood that backgroundknowledge of the business languagedomain might impact to somedegree on performance in somepapers.

Seems to be unproblematic – potential problemin Speaking paper rectified through theintroduction of interaction (with peer andexaminer) and monologic discourse.

The additional specificity in the Speaking papersuggests that background knowledge mayimpact on performance.

9. Reportingof testperformance

Candidates received one grade forReading, Writing and Listening (A,B or C at levels BEC2 and 3, and A,B, C or D at BEC1). As theSpeaking paper was considered aseparate entity a separate grade wasawarded (1 or 2).

All candidates receive an overall estimate oftheir ability based on their performance on eachof the four papers (each is worth 25% of the totalavailable marks).

For BEC Preliminary, results are reported as aPass with Merit or a Pass or as one of two failinggrades – Narrow Fail or Fail. At the other levelsthere are three passing grades (A, B or C) andtwo failing grades (D or E).

The certificates for all three levels also include agraphical profile (see Figure 3.1). This profile isof particular diagnostic value to the candidate –indicating areas of strength and/or weakness.

are continuously being brought up-to-date to reflect changing views of whatlanguage ability really consists of, and of how it might best be assessed. It alsoallows for a test to be constantly monitored for appropriacy as the candidate basechanges over time or where the uses of the test evolve.

Summary

173

174

Conclusions and the wayforward

SummaryIn the first chapter of this book, I reviewed the brief history of the testing oflanguage for business purposes (TLBP). This review demonstrated the relative‘newness’ of the area and highlighted the tendency for these tests to be‘industry-driven’ with a more pragmatic than theoretical foundation. The onlytheoretical perspective that has gained recognition is that of Douglas(2000:281), who sees language for specific purpose (LSP) tests as beingpremised on the fact that language performance varies between specific contextsand that the language of these specific contexts is precise, that it is distin-guishable from other language use contexts or domains. Criticism of thisdefinition (Elder 2001) focused on the fact that there were three areas in whichLSP tests were problematic. These were:

• specificity • authenticity • impact of non-language factors.

Before going on to look at current practice in the area of business languagetesting, I offered a somewhat different perspective on LSP tests and the abovecriticism. In this perspective, I suggested that there were four key points thatshould be taken into account when theorising on LSP testing in general. Thesewere

1. As all tests are in some way ‘specific’, it is best to think of language tests asbeing placed somewhere on a continuum of specificity, from the broadgeneral purpose test (such as CPE) to the highly specific test.

2. Very highly specific tests tend to be very poor in terms of generalisability,while the opposite can be said of non-specific (or general proficiency) tests,though this is not a binary choice if we accept that tests can be developedalong a specificity continuum.

3. Where a test is situated closer and closer to the more highly specified end ofthe continuum, the focus on authenticity also changes.

4. The more highly specific a language test is the more it entails a focus on theevent rather than on the language of the event. The degree to which non-

5

Summary

175

language factors impact on a candidate’s test performance will reflect thedegree of specificity of that test. Therefore, in a highly specific language testit may not be possible to separate the language from the specific event.

Following this, a review of currently available small and large scale tests (interms of test-taking population) was undertaken. The tests reviewed werelooked at from a 9-point perspective based on an overview of the theoretical andpractical issues, these were:

1. A brief introduction to the test.2. A brief description of the test.3. An outline of the construct upon which the test is based.4. The test method.5. Skills’ coverage.6. Measurement qualities.7. Degree of specificity/authenticity.8. Impact of non-language factors.9. Reporting of test performance.

From these reviews it became clear that the practical operationalisation of theTLBP concept appears to be quite uneven in some regards, certainly in terms ofthe availability of research and/or support material.

Some interesting points can be taken from these reviews

• Large-scale tests tend to have originally been produced at the behest ofgovernment agencies (though the trend is that international tests are beingproduced more and more to meet either perceived or established marketneeds – in other words the TLBPs are more and more market driven).

• As the markets (and the test-taking population) change there is little signthat the tests have been revised to meet the change, and where change hascome, there has been no information on that change made available in thepublic domain.

• There has not really been a tendency for changes in proficiency languagetesting practice to be reflected in TLBP practice with regards to context-based, theory-based and scoring validity.

• Few TLBPs include papers related to the four skills of speaking, writing,reading and listening.

• There appears to be a relatively low level of support material available,though the UK-based tests tend to offer practice or past papers at no chargeto test takers – these can usually be downloaded from the web (see theReferences section at the end of this book).

• There is a clear tendency against very highly specific tests, for example atest of language for chartered accountants. Instead, the tests on the marketappear to be more general in nature, context-oriented rather than context-focused.

5 Conclusions and the way forward

176

The overview then showed how the review of the Cambridge ESOL BusinessEnglish Certificate (BEC) suite offered an interesting insight into how sucha large scale test system might be revised. The main points highlighted bythese chapters are the complexity of the process, for example in demonstratinghow different stakeholders’ views were taken into account (in different ways),the need for tests to take into account changes in language testing theoriesand the reinforcement of an all-skills approach.

The implications of this work are twofold, theoretical and practical. Theformer, is of interest to LSP testing in general, while the latter will focusprimarily on the BEC suite of tests though will identify areas of LSP in generalthat might benefit.

Theoretical implicationsDouglas essentially sees authenticity as the central issue in his definition of LSPtests:

. . . a specific purpose language test is one in which test content and methodsare derived from an analysis of a specific purpose language use situation, sothat test tasks allow for an interaction between the test taker’s languageability, on the one hand, and the test tasks on the other (2000:90).

In the first chapter of this book I suggested that it may be better to see thisas just one aspect of LSP tests, and instead argue that other central issues werethe potential for distinguishing language use in a specific situation and, fromthe operational perspective, the assessment or evaluation of the performance.Of the points made in Chapter 1, and reiterated above, I would now like to revisitthe notion of degree of specificity, because it appears to me to be at the heartof the issue.

In Figures 1.5 and 1.31, I suggested that all tests lie on a ‘degree of specificity’continuum. Reflecting now on that suggestion, having reviewed both the liter-ature and current practice in business language testing, I see that it seems tooversimplify the situation. In actual fact, there are a number of elements which combine to help us draw inferences as to the degree of specificity of anLSP test. These elements are related to such concepts as authenticity as well asgeneralisability and distinguishability.

In order to explain what I mean by this we need to go back to the criticismmade by Davies (2001) of the lack of a theoretical basis for LSP testing. In hispaper, Davies argues that it is not possible to fully distinguish specific languageuse domains. The point to be made here is that, by its very nature, language is noteasily defined, and the language of a specific use domain is no different. Withinany such situation there will be a specific ‘core’ language, which may refer to aspecific use of language or a specific lexicon – see for example the work of Ball(2002) in using a corpus linguistics approach to producing a series of updated

Theoretical implications

177

wordlists for the BEC suite. As Davies and Elder argue, there is no distinctboundary between this core and what I have labelled here the general languageuse domain. Instead, there is an area of transition, in which language use isshared with other domains. Figure 5.1 attempts to graphically represent thisnotion, though it is limited to two dimensions, while the actual situation shouldbe visualised as being multi-dimensional.

Figure 5.1 The notion of core and general language use domains

Taking this idea a step further, Figure 5.2, we can now see that the notion ofdegree of specificity brings with it the related notions of generalisability andsituational authenticity. Where a test is seen to be positioned towards thespecific end of the continuum, the potential for generalisation from testperformance beyond the specific situation is reduced – it is difficult to imagine atest that could be placed at the extreme end of the continuum as this would befocused only on a very limited ‘core’ language. In the same way, that test wouldbe seen as being more situationally authentic were it manipulated to move it evercloser to the specific end of the continuum. A completely specific language testwould therefore be focused only on language unique to a specific use domainand would be tested in use within that domain. Performance on the test couldthen be related only to that domain. This is clearly neither practical nordesirable.

Figure 5.2 is again limited by my ability to represent the notion of general andcore in anything but a two dimensional diagram. In reality, once we movebeyond the distinguishable core we are in the domain of general language use –the figure implies that only a part of this domain can be represented in the testsample. What is successfully represented in the figure is the idea that when a testis more ‘specific’ in its focus, the greater will be the importance of the core andwhen as the test is more ‘general’ in focus, a less important role will be played bylanguage from a specific core. The question we must again ask is how do weknow that a test is either specific or general in focus?

General Language Use Domain

CORE


178

Figure 5.2 Extension of the ‘specificity continuum’ concept

Locating specificity

The notion of specificity, if it is to be of practical use to the test developer, mustbe tied to an understanding of test validity. One such perception of testvalidation is suggested by the socio-cognitive spoken language frameworkdiscussed by O’Sullivan and Weir (2002) and developed as a series of frame-works for all four skills by Weir (2004). In these frameworks, validity is seenfrom a socio-cognitive perspective – a perspective which appears similar to thatsuggested by Chalhoub-Deville (2003) and Chapelle (1998). In the followingexample, I will refer to the framework developed for validating tests ofspeaking, though any of the other three frameworks would obviously workequally well.

Figure 5.3 gives an idea of what the entire framework looks like. In thisoutline, we can see that there are a number of elements, each of which should beattended to by the test developer. Evidence is required at each level, in order tomake validity claims for a test. I have added to the framework by highlightingthe fact that the test taker can be described in terms of a number of characteristics

MORE

MORE

LESS

LESS

Specific Core

SPECIFIC

SITUATIONALLY AUTHENTIC

GENERALISABLE

. .

..

General LanguageUse Domain


179

(physical/physiological; psychological and experiential) and by the internalprocessing (unique to the individual) which takes place during test performance.The test can be described in terms of its context validity and in terms of thepotential for successful test tasks to result in appropriate processing. It is thisnotion of what Weir (2004) calls theory-based validity that forms the linkbetween the test and the test taker.

Figure 5.3 Format of validation frames

Source: based on Weir (2004)

Since I am hoping to provide a theoretical basis for LSP tests in general andbusiness language tests in particular, I will now demonstrate how I feel theabove framework can be shown to be related to the two aspects of authenticity.

Context validity (see Figure 5.4), is concerned with aspects of the demands ofthe task and text, as well as detailing the test setting. In terms of the view of LSPtests offered here, it should become clear that when we are talking about testspecificity, we are actually referring to test context, and this is expressed in theframework as being comprised of task and text demands.

When we consider the difficulty in defining language proficiency and use (forexample the ‘boundary’ issue raised by Davies 2001 and Elder 2001) we can seethat context validation is always going to be problematic. The operations andconditions suggested in the framework presented here are based on Weir (1993)and have been used with some success in test development projects for a decade,though they remain tentative in that there is no empirical evidence that these are

The Test Taker

The Test

Criterion-Related Validity

ConsequentialValidity

ContextValidity

Responses

Scoring Validity

Theory-BasedValidity

Test TakerCharacteristics

Score/Grade


180

the only operations and conditions applicable to a test of speaking (see Weir2004 for a more detailed and updated version of the frameworks).

Figure 5.4 Aspects of context validity for speaking

Source: Weir (2004)

Test specificity might therefore be expressed as the degree to which the opera-tionalisation of each of these demands can be considered to be uniquely relatedto a specific language use domain. In practice, this entails making value judge-ments of the degree of specificity along a continuum for each aspect of both taskdemands and text demands (see Figure 5.5). This may be seen as being toosubjective a task to be of practical use. However, the real value of the exercise isin the breadth of the exercise. Specificity is now seen as a multi-dimensionalperspective of a test, and judgements are at least being made on a systematicbasis; a criticism of my early reviews of the various tests is that the judgementswere essentially intuitive and, as no systematic approach was taken, thisintuition may not always have been based on similar criteria (the same criticismcan be made of almost all multiple-test reviews).

In order to demonstrate this, I undertook a small experiment in which a groupof language specialists was asked to take two test papers (of Reading) and tomake judgements on the papers based on a simple Likert scales’-basedinstrument. The instructions to the specialists asked that they should try todecide where on the scales (one scale for each of the aspects of context validityshown in Figure 5.6) each of the two papers might hypothetically lie, with


181

1 meaning ‘very specific’ and 7 ‘general’ – where an aspect was considered‘neutral’ it was decided that a rating of 4 should be awarded. The papers weretaken from an LSP test, BEC Vantage, and a general proficiency test, the FCE, asthese two tests are designed to allow for inferences to be made at the same CEFlevel – Level B2. Figure 5.6 shows that there were clear differences seen by thespecialists in terms of the task demands. This clearly different profile can betaken as empirical evidence of the distinguishability of LSP and general tests.

Figure 5.6 Differences in task demands between LSP and generalproficiency test papers

Figure 5.5 A multi-componential view of specificity

100%Gener

100%Gener

100%General

100%General

100%Specific

Task and Text Demands

Points on eachcontiniuum

Purpose

Response FormatResponse Format

Weighting Weighting

Known Criteria Known CriteriaOrder of Items Order of Items

Time Constraints Time Constraints

Intended Operations Intended Operations

Purpose

Task Demands LSP Task Demands General


182

When the participants were asked to repeat the exercise for the same papers butthis time with a focus on text demands, the differences are even more obvious(Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7 Differences in text demands between LSP and generalproficiency test papers

The evidence from this admittedly very small study, suggests that judgementson the degree of specificity of an LSP test can be made in a systematic way. Italso suggests that the notion of test specificity is closely linked to that of situa-tional authenticity. Of course it could be argued that even a supposedly‘specific’ test such as BEC, or even a ‘highly specific’ test, such as the one for airtraffic controllers described by Teasdale (1994), can never reach a positionwhere the shaded area in the figures is minimised – indicating that the test hasachieved a high degree of specificity from all perspectives. The evidence heresupports the view that tests can never hope to do more than simulate authen-ticity, and intuition suggests that this same evidence will be found where othertests are analysed using the methodology suggested here – however highlyspecific the test developer claims it to be.

The second aspect of validity I will look at is that of theory-based validity (seeWeir 2004:Chapter 1), which is concerned with the cognitive processing duringtest task performance. Test validity, from this perspective, is thereforeconcerned with the degree to which the processing in the test situation reflectsthat of the language use domain. While this perspective on test validity isrelatively new (though see both Chapelle 1998 and Douglas 2000 for argumentsthat lend support to this view of validity) there is encouraging evidence fromongoing research in China and Malaysia that evidence can be elicited to supportthe making of comparative judgements between different test task types.

The symbiotic nature of the relationship between content and theory-basedvalidity can be illustrated by showing how decisions taken with regard toelements of context validity have significant effects on the cognitive processingof test takers who must perform the tasks in the test situation. An example of thiscan be found in Porter and O’Sullivan (1999) who demonstrated that by

LinguisticChannel

Discourse Mode

Text Length

Writer/Reader Relationship

Nature of Information

Topic Familiarity

Lexical Range

Structural Range

Functional Range

LinguisticChannel

Discourse Mode

Text Length

Writer/Reader RelationshipNature of Information

Topic Familiarity

Lexical Range

Structural Range

Functional Range

Task Demands GeneralTask Demands LSP


183

changing the description of the addressee of letters written by Japanese EFLlearners, significant changes were observed in terms of both orthography andlanguage use, suggesting that there had been a significant impact on the goal-setting part of the executive processing dimension of written production.

If we show that the cognitive processes involved in an LSP test taskperformance reflect those of the specific language use domain they are designedto reflect, then we can claim with some confidence that our test task demon-strates interactional authenticity. It is quite possible that such processing maywell differ in important respects from general purpose task performance, forexample in the recourse to different areas of executive resources. By demon-strating differences in internal processing between LSP and general purposetasks we are offering an additional argument in favour of the distinguishabilityof language use domains.

This is obviously pertinent to all areas of language testing, supporting, forexample Bachman and Palmer (1996:23) who see authenticity as ‘the degree ofcorrespondence of a given language test to the features of the TLU (targetlanguage use) task’. The argument here is that we need to go beyond the notionof content validity and situational authenticity to include a working perspectiveon the interactional aspect of authenticity. This way of looking at validity offersjust that perspective.

While it is relatively straightforward to establish the situational authenticityof a test task, it is only by an a posteriori empirical exploration of testperformance that evidence of the interactional authenticity of any test can beestablished.

In a way, this brings us back full circle to the definition of LSP tests offered byDouglas, and quoted above. When I quoted Douglas’s definition, I suggestedthat there were limitations to it; however, when these limitations are seen in the

Figure 5.8 Aspects of theory-based validity for speaking

THEORY-BASED VALIDITY

INTERNAL PROCESSES

• Conceptualiser

• Pre verbal message

• Linguistic formulator

• Phonetic plan

• Articulator

• Overt speech

• Audition

• Speech comprehension

MONITORIN

G

EXECUTIVE RESOURCES

• Content knowledge

• Internal

• External

• Language knowledge

• Grammatical

• Discoursal

• Functional

• Sociolinguistic

Source: Weir (2004)


184

light of the twin perspectives of authenticity, we can see that my argumentsactually support the definition – though, I hope, adding to it so that the criticismsvoiced by Davies, Elder and Douglas himself can be, to some considerableextent, rejected.

Practical implicationsBefore concluding, I would like to first suggest a series of practical implicationsfor the BEC tests (and other tests of language for specific purposes). There aresome implications that are relevant to all papers and others that are specific toeach of the four.

Reliability

The issue of reliability is of great importance to all test developers. As we saw inChapter 2 of this book, there are problems associated with the way in whichinternal consistency is estimated for tests with truncated populations (existingprocedures can result in low estimates as there tends to be restricted variationwithin the population), and also with the way in which reliability is estimated fortests based on performance such as writing and speaking. Weir (2003b:475)suggests a number of alternatives to the current practice in estimating reliabilitywhere a truncated population is involved, as does Luoma (2004:183) whoargues that the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) should be routinelyreported ‘as a useful quality check’. SEM may serve as a practical device whenit comes to dichotomously scored test items, and the internal consistencyestimates and SEM reported earlier for the BEC suite are quite satisfactory.However, the fact that SEM is premised on being able to accurately estimateinternal consistency means that there is an even greater difficulty with applyingthe formula to a speaking or writing test. One reason for this is that the mostcommon reported procedure for estimating inter-rater reliability, correlation, isproblematic for a number of reasons:

• There is some concern that the intervals represented in rating scales are notequal. This suggests that the researcher/tester should use the SpearmanRank Order Correlation statistic – a less powerful non-parametric estimateof association than Pearson’s Rho.

• Correlation statistics can only tell us about the association between thepattern of scoring of raters, not between their level of agreement. So thecorrelation between the scores awarded by a very harsh rater and a verylenient rater will still be very high if for example the scores they award placethe test takers in the same order.

• The correlation between two variables may be due to the impact of other,unobserved variables.

Practical implications

185

• Even if there are two raters who agree totally, it is possible that they areboth either very harsh or lenient – or both inconsistent, but in a similarway.

While I agree that alternatives should be sought, I feel, as does Weir, that thoseoffered to date are simply a short term solution. In the longer term we really needto look more closely at the whole area of reliability. Until recently, it wasconsidered acceptable to discuss test validity in somewhat simplistic terms andit was generally considered acceptable that evidence need only be gathered inrelation to a single aspect of validity. Indeed, in the psychology literature it isstill common to find a single numerical estimate of test validity. The same viewof reliability is common today – with the reporting of a single internal consis-tency coefficient considered adequate evidence of the reliability of a test.

The format of the validation frames (Figure 5.3), offers, I believe, the basisfor a more viable alternative to existing practice. Here, we can see that the notionof reliability has been replaced with the more helpful concept of ‘scoringvalidity’.

Bachman (1990:163–166) argues that test scores are affected by a numberof factors: the communicative language ability of the candidate; test methodfacets (systematic aspects of test delivery for example); personal attributesof the candidate (both individual and group characteristics); and finallyrandom factors (unpredictable and unsystematic factors that impact on testperformance). Consideration of the reliability of a test would be greatlyimproved by conceptualising reliability in terms of these different factors. Weir(2004) suggests that, for tests of reading comprehension, for example, theframework should consist of those elements contained in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9 Aspects of scoring validity in tests of reading

Source: Weir (2004)

While this figure is very similar to the suggestions made by Bachman (1990),when we look at the possible aspects of scoring validity for a test of speaking(Figure 5.10) the situation is now quite a lot more complex with the inclusion ofa number of new elements in the equation, in particular the rating scale, therating process and the rater. When we consider the discussion of rating scale


186

development and use in Chapter 1, we can see that this is an area of someinterest. In addition, the whole rating process is still relatively unexplored; wecontinue to know far too little about the effects of rater training (though seeWeigle 1994, and Rethinasamy in progress), or of the value of standardisation(see O’Sullivan and Rignall 2001, 2002) or of what happens in the minds of theraters when they are awarding scores (see Lumley 2000).

As for the other areas referred to in Figure 5.10, there is little or no empiricalevidence of how they impact on rating performance. O’Sullivan (2002b) arguedthat the test taker should be described in terms of a series of characteristics(physical, psychological, experiential) and that research should be carried outinto the effect on performance of the interaction between these variables and thetest event. In the same way that characteristics of the test taker will influence testtask performance, it is clear that similar characteristics of the examiner or raterwill affect their performance in awarding scores for those performances. Thereis evidence of how performances can achieve very different scores dependingon the examiner (see for example Congdon and McQueen 2000, Engelhard1994, Fisher 1994, Lamprianou and Pillas 2003, Longford 1994, Lumley,Lynch and McNamara 1994, Lunz and Stahl 1990, Lunz, Wright and Linacre1990, Myford and Wolfe 2002) but relatively little that I could find on howcharacteristics of the rater might have some impact on rating performance(though see Lumley 2000, Lumley and McNamara 1995, McNamara andLumley 1997, O’Sullivan 1999, 2000a, 2002).

Figure 5.10 Aspects of reliability or measurement validity for speaking

Source: Weir (2004)

Computers

Another area in which there has been a great amount of interest over the pastdecade in particular is in the delivery of tests using computers. There are a


187

number of issues here that remain somewhat unexplored. In a debate on the useof computers in language testing at the IATEFL conference in Brighton (O’Sul-livan 2003) I talked about the fact that computers are used as part of the devel-opmental process, as a delivery mechanism, and as an analysis tool. Thepotential of computers to positively impact on test development has beenreferred to elsewhere (for example Chalhoub-Deville 1999, 2001, Brown 1997),while the growing importance of complex statistical analysis tools (such as G-Theory, Multi-faceted Rasch and other IRT-based procedures) would be incon-ceivable without computers and the programs that make their application apractical consideration.

It is in the area of test delivery that the impact of computers has been mostdisappointing. While tests such as BULATS, described in Chapter 1, are at thecutting edge of computer-delivery of language tests, even here there is atendency to limit the test to items that are reminiscent of the old psychometric–structuralist era, that is the test items tend to focus on discretedecontextualised aspects of language use. In fact, there are very few, if any,examples in the literature of really new or innovative item types. One exampleof how computer delivery of tests of reading comprehension could add to ourunderstanding of the reading construct is the relative ease of designing deliveryplatforms that allow for an element of timing of tasks, thus allowing thedeveloper to introduce the concept of expeditious reading (see the followingsection).

In my conclusion to the IATEFL debate I suggested that as language testerswe should not be overly dazzled by the technology and look beneath the deliverymechanisms to the underlying tests. I also argued, perhaps a little unkindly, thatthe tests delivered using computers represented a step backwards in terms of theapproach to testing they typically represent. While many tests clearly fall intothis category, there are a small number in which efforts have been made to cometo terms with the new technology, though the great leap forward first promisedby the introduction of computers has not happened.

In the case of testing language for business purposes, for example, we haveseen how technology has had a profound impact on the revision of the test –through the impact of the ALTE ‘Can Do’ statements’ projects (in helping todefine the levels of the tests) and in the project undertaken to update thebusiness-related wordlists which help define the language use domain which istested in the BEC suite (Ball 2002).

However, when we consider the notion of theory-based validity it is obviousthat there is a great deal of research needed into the degree to which different testdelivery mechanisms (e.g. pencil and paper and computer) impact on thecognitive and meta-cognitive processing of test candidates. In other words, doesthe platform affect the interactional authenticity of the task? This work has onlyjust begun, with O’Sullivan and Weir (2003) investigating this area in terms ofdelivering a writing test on computer as compared with the more traditionalpencil and paper.


188

Suggestions for future research in specific skills’ testing

In the following section I will outline some of the possible areas for research inthe testing of the different skills in the area of business language. In this sectionI will be referring to the BEC suite. However, I believe that the suggestions willbe equally applicable to other test systems.

ReadingWhile there were relatively few changes made to the Reading papers in thisrevision, this is not to say that there is no additional work needed in the area.Weir (2004) argues for research into the impact of (and need for) expeditiousreading (skimming for gist, search reading or scanning for specifics) oncandidate performance and though he was looking at the situation from theperspective of general proficiency testing in the revision of the CambridgeESOL Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE), the same argument can bemade for LSP tests such as BEC. Before this can begin, it is first necessary tolook again at the kind of reading undertaken in the domain of business languagethrough continued investigation using needs’ analysis techniques such as obser-vation and interviews. The indications from this book are that we shouldadditionally attempt to investigate the cognitive processing associated withthese different activities in order to help us gain evidence of the interactionalauthenticity of future test versions.

WritingAs we saw in Chapter 4, the section related to the changes in the Writing papersindicated that there have been a number of quite significant changes. Thesechanges include the decision to separate the reading and writing skills in BECVantage and Higher, and the choice now offered at BEC Higher for the secondwriting task. There is also an increase in the length of the required output for theinitial writing task at all levels and the use of a common General ImpressionMark Scheme (GIMS). This GIMS is interpreted at different performance levelsand tied to the Cambridge/ALTE levels.

Obviously all of these changes require monitoring and evaluation. Forexample, in offering a choice of task to the candidates at BEC Higher it isnecessary to establish a systematic framework for ensuring that the choices arelikely to be equivalent, to routinely trial these different choices, and to establishmonitoring systems to ensure that candidates are not negatively affected by theirchoice – it is possible, for example, that some choices may be inherently moreproblematic than others. There is also a clear need to ensure that raters see eachtask as being equal (through training, monitoring of performance and research).There is evidence from speaking test research (McNamara and Lumley 1997)that raters compensate candidates for what they see as poor performance byexaminers where they feel that the candidate has been negatively affected; it is


189

also very much worthwhile exploring the impact on scores of raters’ perceptionof the different writing tasks.

The use of the GIMS at the different test levels is also an interesting devel-opment. The difficulty with devising and applying rating scales within a testsuite which tests at different levels was briefly discussed above. The solutionadapted by Cambridge ESOL for the BEC suite marks an effort to standardisethe way in which raters come to decisions at the different levels (a vital elementof internal consistency – intra-rater reliability) and moves the focus away fromthe individual rater to the training and standardisation procedures. There areworries about this approach, however. The argument that a specific purpose testwill, by its very definition, involve elements of both language ability anddomain ability, implies that any rating scale devised for use in this type of testmust include some reference to performance in the domain. The ‘strong’ view ofthis argument calls for the sort of indigenous scale developed by Abdul-Raof(2002), and while the BEC tests reviewed here would not appear to justify sucha scale (as the test is context-oriented rather than context-focused) it may well bethat the existing scale does not capture important elements of the performance incontext (i.e. of the business language domain). It is a matter for future researchto investigate this aspect of scoring validity.

Another effect of using this type of scale (the GIMS) is that the importance ofrater training and standardisation becomes even greater than in the past – as it isvital in this system that raters fully understand the process of applying the samescale at different levels and that they are aware of what constitutes acceptableperformance at each level. Since there is evidence that systematic feedbackduring a rating exercise can have a negative effect on rating performance(O’Sullivan and Rignall 2001, 2002) it might be useful to investigate methods ofself-retraining (see Kenyon 1997), using the web. For example the kit developedby the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) (CAL 2001) offers an opportunityfor raters, working in their own time and place, to gain a detailed understandingof a test and its scoring procedures. Raters can also gain certification from CALon completion of the training programme through an accreditation procedurewhere their ratings of a set of test performances are compared to those of a set of‘expert raters’. Since this whole area of rater training is relatively unexplored(though see Weigle 1994, 1998) a systematic agenda for research is clearlyneeded. This agenda should take into account some or all of the following:

• the rater – Are there identifiable characteristics which typify the(un)successful rater? (physical, psychological, experi-ential, individual)Are there identifiable behaviours or strategies whichtypify the (un)successful rater?

• the scale – Are there substantive differences in how differentscales are applied? (indigenous vs. linguistic forexample)


190

• the tasks – Are there particular task types that are susceptible tobias on the part of raters? If so, how is this manifested?

• rater training – In what ways do raters benefit from training?What kind of training is most beneficial? (this refers tomode, format and content)

• rating conditions – In what ways can manipulation of rating conditionsaffect rating performance?

• standardisation – Does standardisation of raters work?How long should we claim its effects last?Is there a best method – or are different methodssuitable for different types of test?

These are just a few of the many possible questions that could be asked of thewhole rating process – I have not included any questions related to the inter-action of some or all of these variables, though obviously this is relevant to anyresearch design.

ListeningThough the Listening papers in the BEC suite were basically unaltered in therevision process, there are some issues that might be investigated.

Weir (2003b:477) refers to an internal report from Cambridge ESOL (Field2000) in which an argument is made for the use of more explicitly authentic textsin the Cambridge Proficiency in English (CPE). Authenticity appears to be seenby Field as being related to both content and delivery. While authenticity ofcontent is dealt with in the BEC suite in terms of the task types and topics that aredesigned to reflect the business language use domain, the area of delivery hasnot really been explored in any depth. Aspects of authenticity such as accent,speed of delivery, ‘reality’ (the degree to which differences between recorded‘real world’ texts and purposefully recorded texts affect the listening process)are all in need of exploration. Listening comprehension tests typically involveboth aural and read input. Where alternative visual input is included (drawings,charts, still photographs, moving images) listening will be affected. The issue ishow and to what extent. While Coniam (2001) suggests that there is evidencethat visuals may detract listeners, in general, there has been very little researchinto the effect on performance of different types of input or of the effects ofinvolving the listener in dealing with a number of different types of input.

Recent advances in neural science have included the development of brainimaging, a procedure that allow us to see what is actually happening in the brain(in terms of neural activity) when people are engaged in high level cognitivetasks. Just et al (2001) used functional magnetic resonance images of brainactivity to investigate how trying to perform two non-related tasks affectedperformance on the two tasks (sentence comprehension, and the mental rotationof three-dimensional objects). Just et al found that when participants attempted


191

to perform the two tasks simultaneously, they did neither task well. In a similarvein, Rubenstein, Meyer and Evans (2001) found that as the difficulty of tasksincreased so did the related time costs (where time is lost in switching from onetask to another).

The implication here is that the inclusion of additional input to a listening taskessentially adds an element to the task which results in test candidates failing toperform that task to the best of their ability (i.e. where a secondary element is notadded). Where this additional input is visual (i.e. it is quite different in nature tothe original aural input) the difference may well be exaggerated. This wouldappear to add support to Skehan’s (1998) ‘code complexity’ idea – wheremanipulation of input will impact on the difficulty of a task – and also thefindings of Coniam (2001).

Buck (2001) suggests that other areas of interest to the researcher mightinclude collaborative listening and the identification of the sub-skills oflistening. The former presents particular difficulties for the tester, with theproblems of identification of the contribution of individual candidates (alwaysproblematic with collaborative tasks), though in the area of business language,there may be an argument for including such a task because this type of listeningis quite typical of the area. It may well be that such a task could be positionedwithin the context of the Speaking paper. There appears to be a danger that testswhich are made up of a single type of listening task or item may be focusing ontoo limited an aspect of an individual’s listening ability and as such may notallow us to draw broad inferences on candidates’ listening ability. Looking backover the BEC suite Listening papers (Chapter 4) we can see that an attempt hasbeen made to identify different focuses for the different elements of the papers.However, the central focus still appears to be on listening for specific details orfor information in a text.

SpeakingThis was the most changed section of the BEC suite of examinations and stillrepresents a great challenge to language testers, despite some quite majoradvances during the past decade. As far back as 1972, a major needs analysisundertaken by the LCCIEB identified speaking as an area of particular interest inbusiness English. This is reflected in the general profusion of Speaking papers orseparate tests among the examinations reviewed in Chapter 1 – with theexception of the TOEIC tests. However, many of the Speaking papers reviewedsuffer from the same non-business orientation as the original BEC Speakingpapers.

We saw in Chapter 4 (Figure 4.15) that different types of task tend to result inquite unique profiles of language functions (O’Sullivan, Weir and Saville 2002).This lends support to the inclusion in a test of speaking of tasks that require thecandidate to perform under different conditions, in the case of the revised BECpapers these are one-to-one with the examiner, alone in an individual long turn


192

and in interaction with a second (or third) candidate. A score is awarded to eachcandidate immediately following the test by both the examiner/interlocutor andthe examiner/observer. The fact that a single score is awarded by each examinermeans that all tasks are treated as one. This may act to reduce the reliability ofthe scores and at the same time limit the amount of information available to thetest developer. The evidence that there are differences between the tasks couldbe supported by evidence from examiner scores, at present we cannot distin-guish between performance on the different tasks in any post examinationreview. This is certainly an area in which research is required – into the practi-cality of awarding scores for individual tasks in operational conditions, into thedegree to which each task adds to the overall test performance, and into theperception of task importance by the examiners.

It has been argued (McNamara, 1997) that where candidates interact linguis-tically in order to perform a test task, the resulting language is a reflection of theability of all concerned in the interaction, that is, the language is co-constructedby the interacting candidates. The difficulty then is in separating the individualfrom the group or even in identifying unique contributions to the group, sinceeven these apparently unique contributions will have been influenced by theother group members. There is evidence (O’Sullivan 1999, 2000a, 2000b,2002a) that the affective reaction of an individual candidate to characteristicsassociated with their interlocutor can have a systematic and significant impacton subsequent performance. However, the number of potential characteristics,and the interactions between these characteristics, means that the whole area istoo complex to be dealt with without a programme of extensive research inwhich the major characteristics are identified and interactions between thesecharacteristics observed. O’Sullivan (2000a) represents a beginning of thisprocess.

In terms of practicality, we seem to be caught between including tasks whichrequire interaction (and both the candidate-to-candidate discussion and the one-to-one interview are such tasks) or limiting speaking tests to individualmonologues – though even here I would argue that there is still an audience(perceived in an audio or video recorded format, actual in a ‘live’ event) so thepotential for impact on performance is still a factor. Clearly then, it is necessaryto investigate the impact on performance of factors such as interlocutorvariables (e.g. sex or age) and candidate perceptions of the interlocutor/audience (e.g. relative language level, age, personality, status etc.). There is alsoevidence that the effects on candidate performance may be group or culturespecific, for example Porter (1991a) reports that Arabic learners and Europeanlearners demonstrate very different behaviours depending on particular charac-teristics associated with their interviewer. A similar phenomenon was notedalso by O’Sullivan (2000a, 2000b, 2002a). This implies that the culture ofbusiness language may need to be investigated as a separate entity. Ignoring theimpact of audience is simply not an option.

Conclusion

193

Other immediate concerns include monitoring the new interlocutor frames(or scripts) at the different levels and the output language for the different tasks.In terms of the first of these areas, O’Sullivan and Lu (2003) have analyseddeviations from the interlocutor frame in the IELTS and shown that there is littleimpact on the candidate when pre- and post-deviation language is analysed. Thistype of research is clearly relevant to the BEC Speaking papers as is the work ofO’Sullivan, Weir and Saville (2002) in identifying the language functionselicited by speaking test tasks. Brooks (2003) is demonstrating how the check-lists can be adapted for use with a specific test, a process that could quite easilybe employed in monitoring the BEC Speaking papers.

Apart from these concerns, there are still many other questions to beanswered about tests of speaking. O’Sullivan and Weir (2002) have outlined abroad research agenda based on a socio-cultural perspective on language testingbased very much on the type of validation framework outlined in Figure 5.3.

ConclusionI have tried to demonstrate in this book that tests of language for businesspurposes are different, in their theoretical basis, their content and their intendedaudience. I do not believe that I have suggested anything that is completelynew about the subject, but hope that I have offered a perspective on businesslanguage testing (and LSP testing in general) that is supportable from bothpractical and theoretical perspectives. The book has added support to adefinition of LSP tests presented in terms of authenticity (Douglas 2000),though it has suggested that the way we look at authenticity should be with agreater degree of complexity than hitherto conceived.

All tests can be seen as lying on a specificity continuum, between the highlyspecific and the general purpose. This continuum is multi-componential andincludes the twin aspects of authenticity – situational and interactional. Aspecific purpose test will be distinguishable from other tests (both specific andgeneral purpose) in terms of the domain represented by the demands of its tasksand texts, and in terms of the cognitive processing it elicits.

The book has presented a broad outline of current theory and practice in thetesting of language for business purposes. The description of the test devel-opment and revision framework which drives the work of Cambridge ESOL andhow this led to particular changes in the BEC suite of examinations demon-strates the necessity for a set of clear and unambiguous developmental proce-dures. Any LSP, or in this case business language, test development or revisionproject is dependent on having an understanding of the language use domain tobe tested, an awareness of the degree to which authenticity decisions impact onthe specificity of the test and the ability to deliver instruments of a high quality.

Appendices

196

APPENDIX 1.1

JOCT Evaluation Criteria

A+ Superior Japanese communication skills for a wide variety of business situations:In addition to Level A abilities, Level A+ speakers can skilfully summarize their ideas,speak convincingly, pick out essential facts, recognize nuances and generallycommunicate on superior Levels from both technical and cultural perspectives

A Thorough Japanese communication skills for normal business situations:Level A speakers correctly use the special terms and expressions of business. Speech isfluid and any mistake in pronunciation or grammar does not create problems. Their skillsfor handling unfamiliar situations are sufficient, although not complete. Overall, however,they have thorough skills for normal communication using business Japanese.

B+ Require improvement in selected areas to reach Level A:Level B+ speakers can use the special vocabulary and expressions of business, but not aswell as Level A speakers and sometimes with inadequacies. Speech is fluid, but occasionalmistakes with pronunciation, grammar, etc. can cause problems in communication. Theysometimes cannot suitably handle unfamiliar situations.

B Require improvement in many areas to reach Level A:Level B speakers can generally use the special vocabulary and expressions of business, butinadequacies are quite noticeable compared to Level A speakers. Speech is not alwaysfluid and repeated mistakes with pronunciation and grammar cause communicationproblems. They often cannot suitably handle unfamiliar situations.

C Limited communication skills:Level C speakers understand the gist of discussions, but limited knowledge of businessvocabulary and expressions, as well as Japanese business itself, prevents them fromhandling matters suitably. Daily conversations are possible, but their communication lackssmoothness. Mistakes in pronunciation and grammar are frequent.

D Insufficient Japanese communication skills for business:Level D speakers do not have sufficient skills of comprehension and expression, whichprevents them from communicating in Japanese to conduct normal business.

197

APPENDIX 1.2

CEFLS Pilot Test

Appendix 1.2

198

Appendix 1.2

199

Appendix 1.2

200

Appendix 1.2

201

Appendix 1.2

202

Appendix 1.2

203

Appendix 1.2

204

205

APPENDIX 1.3

CEIBT – Test of Reading and Writing –June and November 1992

Appendix 1.3

206

Appendix 1.3

207

Appendix 1.3

208

Appendix 1.3

209

Appendix 1.3

210

Appendix 1.3

211

Appendix 1.3

212

Appendix 1.3

213

Appendix 1.3

214

Appendix 1.3

215

Appendix 1.3

216

Appendix 1.3

217

Appendix

218

Appendix 1.3

Appendix 1.3

219

Appendix

220

Appendix 1.3

221

Appendix 1.3

Appendix

222

Appendix 1.3

223

Appendix 1.3

Appendix

224

Appendix 1.3

225

A Member of the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE)

English Version: EN00

Standard Test

Sample Question Paper

APPENDIX 1.4

BULATS – Standard Test English

Appendix

226

Appendix 1.4

3

Can

dida

te In

form

atio

n

Can

dida

te n

ame:

Fam

ily n

ame:

……

……

……

……

……

……

Firs

t nam

e:…

……

……

……

……

……

…

Can

dida

te N

umbe

r:…

……

……

……

……

……

…

Exam

inat

ion

Cen

tre:

……

……

……

……

……

……

Dat

e:…

……

……

……

……

……

…

Test

Abo

ut 1

10 m

inut

es

Lis

teni

ngA

bout

50

min

utes

.A

s you

list

en, w

rite

your

ans

wer

s in

this

Que

stio

n Pa

per.

Whe

n th

e lis

teni

ng t

est

finis

hes,

you

have

5 m

inut

es t

o co

pyyo

uran

swer

s ont

o yo

ur A

nsw

er S

heet

.

Rea

ding

&Sp

end

60 m

inut

es.

Lan

guag

e K

now

ledg

eW

rite

your

ans

wer

s on

your

Ans

wer

She

et.

2

BLA

NK

PAG

E

227

Appendix 1.4

Appendix

228

Appendix 1.4

7

Wha

t doe

s th

e an

noun

cer s

ay a

bout

the

train

to P

orts

mou

th?

ATh

e tra

in w

ill le

ave

at 1

0.37

.

BTh

e de

partu

re p

latfo

rm h

as b

een

chan

ged.

8

CPa

ssen

gers

will

be u

nabl

eto

get

food

on

the

train

.

Wha

t doe

s th

e w

oman

wan

t her

col

leag

ue to

do?

Atra

in n

ew e

mpl

oyee

s

Bde

mon

stra

te a

mac

hine

9

Cgi

ve a

talk

Who

is th

e m

an o

n th

e ph

one

talk

ing

to?

Ahi

s bo

ss

Ba

cust

omer

10

Chi

s as

sist

ant

6

5 W

hen

will

the

new

pro

duct

be

read

y fo

r tes

ting?

12

34

56

79

1112

13

1415

1617

1819

20

2122

2324

2526

27

2829

3031

810

13

45

6

79

1112

13

1415

1617

1819

20

2122

2324

2526

27

2829

3031

810

12

35

6

79

1112

13

1415

1617

1819

20

2122

2324

2526

27

2829

3031

8

22

10

4

A B

C

Who

is th

e sa

les

assi

stan

t in

the

shop

talk

ing

to?

Ahe

r bos

s

Ban

othe

r ass

ista

nt

6

Ca

cust

omer

Wha

t doe

s M

ike

do a

t the

trai

ning

cen

tre?

AH

e's

a st

uden

t.

BH

e's

a re

cept

ioni

st.

7

CH

e's

a te

ache

r.

229

Appendix 1.4

9

Con

vers

atio

n Th

ree

Que

stio

ns 1

9 –

22

�Lo

ok a

t the

not

es b

elow

.�

You

will

hear

a w

oman

cal

ling

abou

t an

orde

r.

Com

pany

:(19

) ……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.…..

In:

Leon

,(20)

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…. S

pain

.

Theyy

wan

t:30

0 o

f Mod

el X

42 b

y(2

1) …

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

…. a

t th

e la

test

.

Desp

atch

by(

22) …

……

……

……

……

(the

y wi

ll pa

y).

8

PAR

T TW

OQ

uest

ions

11

– 22

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar th

ree

conv

ersa

tions

.�

Fill

in th

e nu

mbe

red

spac

eson

the

form

s, u

sing

the

info

rmat

ion

you

hear

.�

You

will

hear

eac

h co

nver

satio

non

ce o

nly.

Con

vers

atio

n O

neQ

uest

ions

11

– 14

�Lo

ok a

t the

form

belo

w.

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar a

man

cal

ling

topl

ace

an o

rder

.

OR

DE

R F

OR

M

CU

STO

MER

DET

AIL

S

Nam

e: K

en (1

1)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

Com

pany

: G

reen

light

Com

mu

nic

atio

ns

201

Hal

l Roa

d, M

anch

este

rTe

l: 0

161

3139

88Fa

x:(1

2)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

OR

DER

DET

AIL

S

Item

:(13

).....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

M

odel

: X

T519

Qua

ntity

/ Am

ount

: (1

4)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

Con

vers

atio

n Tw

oQ

uest

ions

15

– 18

�Lo

ok a

t the

form

belo

w.

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar a

wom

an m

akin

g a

com

plai

nt.

CO

MPL

AIN

T FO

RM

Nam

e: Mrs Hector

Addr

ess:31,

(15)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

, Rossington.

Tel:

01923 951975

Dat

e:5 April

Dat

e of

Com

plai

nt (i

f diff

eren

t): (1

6)...

......

......

......

...

Bra

nch:

(17)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....

Rea

son

forC

ompl

aint

: Goods damaged due to bad

(18)

......

......

......

......

.....

Actio

n: Issue credit note.

Appendix

230

Appendix 1.4

11

PAR

T FO

UR

Sect

ion

One

Que

stio

ns 3

3 –

38

�Yo

u w

ill he

ar a

con

vers

atio

n be

twee

na

univ

ersi

ty s

tude

nt,

Sally

, an

d a

com

pany

repr

esen

tativ

e,D

an,

at a

rec

ruitm

ent

sem

inar

. S

ally

is in

tere

sted

in w

orki

ng f

or D

an’s

com

pany

, Man

son’

s pl

c.�

For q

uest

ion

33

– 38

, circ

le o

ne le

tterA

, B o

r C fo

r the

cor

rect

answ

er.

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar th

e co

nver

satio

ntw

ice.

33Sa

lly fi

nish

es h

er s

tudi

es

Ain

two

wee

ks.

Bin

a m

onth

.C

in s

ixw

eeks

.

34Sa

llyw

ould

like

to w

ork

in

Am

arke

ting.

Bre

tailin

g.C

finan

ce.

35M

anso

n's

have

div

isio

ns in

AEu

rope

onl

y.B

Euro

pe a

nd H

ong

Kong

.C

Hon

g Ko

ng o

nly.

36M

anso

n's

wan

t em

ploy

ees

who

are

Aac

adem

ical

ly c

leve

r.B

dyna

mic

per

sona

litie

s.C

keen

to le

arn.

37In

an

empl

oyee

's fi

rst y

ear,

Man

son'

s of

fer t

rain

ing

in

Am

anag

emen

t.B

sale

s te

chni

ques

.C

mar

ket d

evel

opm

ent.

38Tr

aine

es a

re a

sses

sed

ever

y

A3

mon

ths.

B6

mon

ths.

C12

mon

ths.

10

PAR

T TH

REE

Sect

ion

One

Que

stio

ns 2

3 –

27

�Yo

u w

ill he

ar fi

ve p

eopl

e an

swer

the

ques

tion

‘Wha

t do

you

like

abou

t you

r wor

k?'

�As

you

list

en to

eac

h on

e, d

ecid

e w

hat t

he p

erso

n lik

es m

ost.

�C

hoos

e yo

uran

swer

from

the

list A

– I

and

writ

e th

e co

rrect

lette

r in

the

spac

e pr

ovid

ed.

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar th

e fiv

epi

eces

once

onl

y.

Exam

ple:

……

…. I

……

….

Am

eetin

g lo

ts o

f peo

ple

Bgo

od s

alar

y

23Pe

rson

1 .

......

......

......

......

......

...C

wor

king

on

my

own

24Pe

rson

2 .

......

......

......

......

......

...D

varie

ty

25Pe

rson

3 .

......

......

......

......

......

...E

com

pany

has

goo

d re

puta

tion

26Pe

rson

4 .

......

......

......

......

......

...F

good

offi

ce c

ante

en

27Pe

rson

5 .

......

......

......

......

......

...G

deve

lopi

ng u

sefu

l ski

lls

Hne

ar h

ome

Ifo

reig

n tra

vel

Sect

ion

Two

Que

stio

ns 2

8 –

32

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar fi

vepe

ople

talk

ing.

�As

you

list

en, d

ecid

e w

hat e

ach

of th

em is

talk

ing

abou

t.�

Cho

ose

your

answ

er fr

om th

e lis

t A–

I, an

d w

rite

the

corre

ct le

tter i

n th

e sp

ace

prov

ided

.�

You

will

hear

the

five

piec

eson

ce o

nly.

Exam

ple:

……

…. I

……

….

Aa

plan

fora

new

offi

ce

Ba

prob

lem

at w

ork

28Pe

rson

1 .

......

......

......

......

......

...C

a bu

sine

ss m

eetin

g

29Pe

rson

2 .

......

......

......

......

......

...D

a st

aff m

eetin

g

30Pe

rson

3 .

......

......

......

......

......

...E

a co

nfer

ence

31Pe

rson

4 .

......

......

......

......

......

...F

a jo

b in

terv

iew

32Pe

rson

5 .

......

......

......

......

......

...G

a ne

w c

olle

ague

Hsa

fety

pre

caut

ions

Ia

pay

rise

231

Appendix 1.4

13

Sect

ion

Thre

eQ

uest

ions

45

– 50

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar a

Pers

onne

l Man

ager

inte

rvie

win

g an

app

lican

t for

a jo

b.�

For q

uest

ions

45

– 50

, circ

le o

ne le

tterA

, B o

r C fo

r the

cor

rect

ans

wer

.�

You

will

hear

the

conv

ersa

tion

twic

e.

45In

his

cur

rent

job,

Dav

id h

as to

Ase

e if

certa

in w

ork

has

been

finis

hed.

Bas

sem

ble

parts

of a

mac

hine

.C

help

peo

ple

prog

ress

in th

eir c

aree

rs.

46M

ost o

fthe

tim

e, D

avid

wor

ks in

Ath

e Sa

les

Dep

artm

ent.

Bth

e m

ain

offic

e bl

ock.

Cth

e pr

oduc

tion

area

.

47W

hat i

mpr

ovem

ent d

oes

Dav

id s

ay c

ompu

ters

hav

e m

ade?

APr

oble

ms

are

deal

t with

imm

edia

tely

.B

Prod

uctio

n st

affh

ave

less

to d

o.C

Mor

e de

taile

d in

form

atio

n is

ava

ilabl

e.

48In

Dav

id's

opi

nion

, the

mos

t com

mon

pro

blem

is

Ahu

man

erro

r.B

mac

hine

bre

akdo

wn.

Cm

issi

ng p

arts

.

49D

avid

feel

s he

is s

uita

ble

for t

he n

ew jo

b be

caus

e it

requ

ires

Aw

orki

ngw

ith s

imila

r pro

duct

s.B

prob

lem

-sol

ving

ski

lls.

Ca

know

ledg

e of

com

pute

rs.

50D

avid

rega

rds

him

self

as

Aa

natu

ral l

eade

r.B

a go

od te

am m

embe

r.C

a se

nsiti

ve p

erso

n .

That

is th

e en

d of

the

List

enin

g Se

ctio

n. Y

ou n

ow h

ave

5 m

inut

es to

cop

yyo

ur a

nsw

ers

onto

you

r Ans

wer

She

et.

12

Sect

ion

Two

Que

stio

ns 3

9 –

44

�Yo

uw

ill he

ar a

con

vers

atio

nbe

twee

n tw

oem

ploy

ees

of a

24-

hour

sup

erm

arke

t dis

cuss

ing

som

e te

nder

s th

ey h

ave

rece

ived

for a

cle

anin

g co

ntra

ct. H

elen

isa

Purc

hasi

ng o

ffice

r, an

dTo

ny is

Hea

d of

Mai

nten

ance

.�

For q

uest

ions

39

– 44

, circ

le o

ne le

tter A

, B o

rC fo

r the

cor

rect

ans

wer

.�

You

will

hear

the

conv

ersa

tion

twic

e.

39W

hat i

s th

e pr

oble

m w

ith th

eir p

rese

nt c

ontra

ctor

s?

ATh

ey’re

not

hon

est.

BTh

ey’re

not

relia

ble.

CTh

ey’re

not

sui

tabl

y sk

illed.

40H

elen

thin

ks th

at B

ento

n’s

and

Qui

ckco

Aof

fer v

ery

diffe

rent

dea

ls.

Bdo

n’t d

iffer

ver

y m

uch.

Cha

ve tw

o m

ain

diffe

renc

es.

41W

hen

do th

ey w

ant t

he n

ew c

lean

ers’

con

tract

to s

tart?

Ain

Aug

ust

Bin

Sep

tem

ber

Cin

Dec

embe

r

42H

elen

thin

ks a

key

fact

or in

dec

idin

g w

ho g

ets

the

cont

ract

is

Ath

e sp

eed

of th

e cl

eane

rs.

Bth

e nu

mbe

r ofc

lean

ers.

Cth

e co

st o

f the

cle

aner

s.

43To

ny is

kee

n fo

r Qui

ckco

to g

et th

e co

ntra

ct b

ecau

se th

ey

Aha

ve a

goo

d re

puta

tion.

Bpr

esen

ted

thei

r ten

der w

ell.

Cof

fere

d a

trial

per

iod.

44H

ow d

o th

eyfe

elab

out t

heir

final

dec

isio

n?

ATh

ey a

re c

onfid

ent a

bout

it.

BTh

ey d

ecid

e th

ey n

eed

som

e re

fere

nces

.C

They

wan

t to

disc

uss

som

e is

sues

furth

er.

Appendix

232

Appendix 1.4

15

53

The F

&B G

rou p

Prof

it An

alysis

prop

erty

leis

ure

cent

res

5% 40%

mai

l ord

er c

atal

ogue

hote

ls

10% 45

%

AF&

B m

akes

mos

t of i

ts p

rofit

out

of l

eisu

re c

entre

s an

d pr

oper

ty.

BF&

B re

lies

on le

isur

e ce

ntre

s an

d ho

tels

for t

he g

reat

er p

art o

f its

pro

fit.

CF&

B's

bigg

est p

rofit

-mak

ers

are

its m

ail o

rder

cat

alog

ue a

nd le

isur

e ce

ntre

s.

54In

ter-

Offi

ce M

emo

From

:Ph

ilip J

ones

To:

Mik

e W

illiam

sSu

bjec

t:Fi

nanc

e m

eetin

g, F

riday

Jun

e 8

I am

free

at 1

0.00

on

Frid

ay, b

ut o

nly

fora

bout

an

hour

. Cou

ld w

e ha

ve th

efin

ance

mee

ting

in th

e af

tern

oon,

if p

ossi

ble?

The

re's

a lo

t to

disc

uss.

I'm

free

from

2 o'

cloc

k. If

we

can

begi

n th

en it

wou

ld g

ive

us th

e w

hole

afte

rnoo

n.

Philip

Jon

es w

ants

to

Aca

ncel

the

finan

ce m

eetin

g on

Frid

ay.

Bre

sche

dule

the

finan

ce m

eetin

g fo

r2 o

'clo

ck.

Cm

ake

the

mee

ting

on F

riday

mor

ning

sho

rter.

55

AIn

tern

atio

nal s

ales

rem

aine

dfa

irly

cons

tant

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar.

BSa

les

with

in E

urop

e in

crea

sed

in th

e fo

urth

qua

rter.

CD

omes

tic s

ales

col

laps

ed in

the

seco

nd q

uarte

roft

he y

ear.

020406080100

1st Q

tr2n

d Q

tr3r

d Q

tr4t

h Q

tr

Dom

estic

Euro

pe

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Sale

s fig

ures

for 2

001

14

REA

DIN

G a

nd L

ANG

UAG

E K

NO

WLE

DG

EPA

RT

ON

E

Sect

ion

One

Que

stio

ns 5

1 –

57

�Lo

ok a

t the

follo

win

g m

essa

ges

and

notic

es.

�Fo

r que

stio

ns 5

1 –

57, m

ark

one

lette

rA, B

or C

on

your

Answ

er S

heet

.

Exam

ple: ST

OR

E C

ON

TE

NT

S IN

A C

OO

L P

LA

CE

OU

T O

F D

IRE

CT

SU

NL

IGH

T

ATh

e co

nten

ts s

houl

d be

kep

t at a

con

stan

t tem

pera

ture

.B

The

cont

ents

are

sen

sitiv

e to

hea

t and

ligh

t.C

The

cont

ents

mus

t be

kept

froze

n.

AB

C0

51

See

encl

osed

bro

chur

e fo

r det

ails

and

leve

lsof

com

pens

atio

n.

AYo

u sh

ould

writ

e to

us

for d

etai

ls a

bout

com

pens

atio

n.B

Det

ails

abo

ut c

ompe

nsat

ion

are

give

n in

a s

epar

ate

docu

men

t.C

You

will

find

mor

e in

form

atio

n on

com

pens

atio

n on

the

next

pag

e.

52

He

re a

re d

et

ails

of

th

em

ark

et

ing

se

min

ar

I t

old

yo

u a

bo

ut

.I

sh

an

'tb

e a

ble

to

go

mys

elf

th

at

da

y.

Le

t m

e k

no

w i

fy

ou

th

ink

it's

wo

rth

wh

iles

en

din

g

so

me

on

e e

lse

fro

m t

his

div

isio

n.

Pa

ul.

APa

ul d

oesn

't w

ant t

o se

nd a

nyon

e to

the

sem

inar

.B

Paul

wan

ts y

ou to

repr

esen

t you

r div

isio

n at

the

sem

inar

.C

Paul

wan

ts y

our o

pini

on a

bout

whe

ther

som

eone

sho

uld

go to

the

sem

inar

.

233

Appendix 1.4

17

PAR

T O

NE

Sect

ion

Two

Que

stio

ns 5

8 –

63

�C

hoos

e th

e w

ord

or p

hras

e w

hich

bes

t com

plet

es e

ach

sent

ence

.�

For q

uest

ions

58

– 63

, mar

kon

e le

tterA

, B, C

orD

on

your

Ans

wer

She

et.

My

job

frequ

ently

invo

lves

hav

ing

to w

ork

……

……

……

.. in

tens

e pr

essu

re.

Abe

low

Bun

der

Cbe

neat

h

58

Dun

dern

eath

This

type

of d

ecis

ion

has

to b

e m

ade

at b

oard

……

……

……

.. .

Ala

yer

Bra

nkC

grad

e

59

Dle

vel

The

Man

agin

g D

irect

or is

now

urg

ently

……

……

……

.. to

app

oint

a H

ead

of O

pera

tions

.

Ase

ekin

gB

purs

uing

Cse

arch

ing

60

Dhu

ntin

g

The

com

pany

has

dec

ided

to …

……

……

…..

a sh

are

optio

n sc

hem

e, s

tarti

ng n

ext y

ear.

Ain

trodu

ceB

inno

vate

Cco

nfer

61

Dem

bark

Lack

of o

rder

s ha

s m

eant

that

a n

umbe

r of e

mpl

oyee

s ha

ve b

een

laid

……

……

……

.. .

Ado

wn

Bon

Cup

62

Dof

f

The

com

pany

has

goo

d in

dust

rial …

……

……

…..

and

disp

utes

are

rare

.

Aw

orki

ngs

Baf

fairs

Cte

rms

63

Dre

latio

ns

16

56

Stor

age

Uni

ts -

from

£10

0 ea

chSA

PELE

or T

EAK

mel

amin

e w

ood

effe

ct fi

nish

.Al

so b

lack

ash

, lig

ht o

ak o

r whi

te -

add

10%

to p

rice.

For g

rey

add

17%

to p

rice.

AYo

u pa

y m

ore

for t

eak

units

than

for w

hite

one

s.B

You

pay

the

sam

e fo

r gre

y or

bla

ck a

sh u

nits

.C

You

pay

less

for w

hite

uni

ts th

an y

ou d

o fo

r gre

y.

57Sy

mte

x C

ompa

ny R

esul

ts

Sale

s Ta

rget

Sale

s Th

is Y

ear

Sale

s La

st Y

ear

7,00

07,

200

6,70

0

ATh

is y

ear's

sal

esfig

ures

wer

e no

t as

good

as

last

yea

r's.

BLa

st y

ear's

sal

esfig

ures

did

not

reac

h th

e sa

les

targ

et.

CTh

is y

ear's

sal

esfa

iled

to re

ach

the

sale

s ta

rget

.

Appendix

234

Appendix 1.4

19

64O

ne-th

ird o

f new

Briti

sh b

usin

esse

s

Aco

nsis

t of c

hain

com

pani

es.

Bar

e ow

ned

or m

anag

ed b

y w

omen

.C

oper

ate

with

in th

e fo

od s

ecto

r.

65W

hat d

oes

the

seco

nd p

arag

raph

tell

us a

bout

the

com

pany

cal

led

Surp

rise?

ATh

e co

mpa

ny d

eliv

ers

its p

rodu

cts

by p

ost.

BTh

e co

mpa

ny h

as m

ade

a pr

ofit

ever

yye

ar.

CTh

e co

mpa

ny o

pera

tes

from

a g

arag

e.

66W

hat d

id N

ina

Tayl

or th

ink

help

ed h

er w

hen

she

star

ted

herb

usin

ess?

Aha

ving

a g

ood

know

ledg

e of

the

law

Bbe

ing

the

owne

r ofa

war

ehou

seC

know

ing

noth

ing

abou

t the

boo

k tra

de

67W

hat s

how

s th

at D

enlo

ws

Rec

ruitm

ent A

genc

y ha

s be

en a

suc

cess

?

AIt

has

been

in b

usin

ess

for m

ore

than

two

year

s.B

It ha

s re

crui

ted

25 n

ew e

mpl

oyee

s.C

It ha

s op

ened

sev

eral

new

offi

ces.

68C

offe

e C

hoic

e C

ompa

ny w

as e

stab

lishe

d

Ato

fill a

gap

in th

em

arke

t.B

desp

ite s

trong

com

petit

ion.

Cw

ith fi

nanc

e fro

m th

e U

S.

69Ac

cord

ing

to th

efin

alpa

ragr

aph

wom

en w

ant t

o ru

n th

eir o

wn

busi

ness

esbe

caus

e th

ey

Aen

joy

lear

ning

new

ski

lls.

Blik

e m

akin

g pl

ans

for t

hefu

ture

.C

pref

er w

orki

ng fo

r sm

all c

ompa

nies

.

18

PAR

T O

NE

Sect

ion

Thre

eQ

uest

ions

64

– 69

�R

ead

the

artic

le b

elow

abo

ut w

omen

who

run

thei

row

n bu

sine

ss a

nd a

nsw

erqu

estio

ns64

– 6

9on

the

oppo

site

pag

e.�

For q

uest

ions

64 –

69,

mar

kon

e le

tterA

, B o

rC o

n yo

ur A

nsw

erSh

eet.

WO

MEN

RU

NN

ING

TH

EIR

OW

N B

USI

NES

S

Acco

rdin

g to

rec

ent

rese

arch

, a

third

of

new

com

pani

es s

et u

p in

Brita

in a

re r

unby

wom

en. T

ypic

al e

xam

ples

are

Lis

a Si

mon

s, w

ho s

tarte

d up

her

own

high

lysu

cces

sful

clot

hing

sho

ps in

Lond

on w

ith a

loan

of £

15,0

00 fr

om h

er b

ank,

and

Kat

eR

oger

s, w

hose

t up

Cel

larC

afés

five

yea

rs a

go a

nd s

old

outt

o a

maj

orre

stau

rant

cha

in th

is m

onth

,at

a pr

ofit

of£3

milli

on.

Ther

e ar

e m

any

othe

r ex

ampl

es. S

urpr

ise,

a m

ail o

rder

com

pany

sel

ling

unus

ual g

ifts,

had

a tu

rnov

er o

f $4

milli

on la

st y

ear.

The

com

pany

was

sta

rted

by C

laire

Ful

ler

five

year

s ag

o in

a g

arag

e, b

ut l

ater

mov

ed i

nto

prem

ises

in

the

cent

reof

Cov

entry

.Si

mila

rly, N

ina

Tayl

or s

tarte

d he

rcom

pany

, NC

Boo

ks, i

n an

old

war

ehou

se in

Bris

tol.

Ala

wye

r by

trai

ning

, she

had

no

prev

ious

exp

erie

nce

of th

e re

tail

trade

but

bel

ieve

s th

atth

is w

orke

d to

her

adv

anta

ge.

‘Hav

ing

no k

now

ledg

e of

the

boo

k tra

de,’

she

says

,‘a

llow

ed m

e to

brin

g fre

sh id

eas

into

the

busi

ness

.’

Youn

g w

omen

are

als

o ru

nnin

g su

cces

sful

busi

ness

es, l

ike

Mar

iaFe

llow

san

d C

hris

tine

Cra

ig,

both

still

in t

heir

early

tw

entie

s. T

oget

her

they

set

up

Den

low

s R

ecru

itmen

tAg

ency

in a

n of

fice

in L

iver

pool

less

than

two

year

s ag

o; th

e fir

mno

w h

as s

ixof

fices

and

a st

affo

f 38.

Ano

ther

you

ng w

oman

, Am

eric

an-b

orn

Amy

Baile

y,co

uld

not f

ind

any

good

cof

fee

shop

s in

Engl

and

so s

he s

et u

pC

offe

e C

hoic

e C

ompa

ny i

n 19

94.

Two

year

s ag

o a

larg

e Am

eric

an g

roup

bou

ght t

he c

ompa

ny, a

lthou

gh A

my

cont

inue

s to

pla

ya

lead

ing

part

in th

e bu

sine

ss.

Ther

e ar

em

any

reas

ons

why

wom

en w

ant t

o ru

n th

eir o

wn

busi

ness

es. O

ne is

that

they

are

incr

easi

ngly

conf

iden

t tha

t the

y ar

e ca

pabl

e of

doi

ng th

is. A

noth

er is

that

man

y no

long

erw

ant

to w

ork

for

com

pani

es w

hich

fai

l to

offe

r sa

tisfy

ing

care

ers.

‘W

omen

’sbu

sine

sses

are

ofte

n m

ore

succ

essf

ul th

at th

ose

run

by m

en,’

says

Den

ise

John

son,

of

the

Nat

iona

lBus

ines

s Ba

nk,

‘bec

ause

wom

en a

re g

ood

at lo

okin

g ah

ead

and

seei

ngw

hat w

ill be

bes

t for

a b

usin

ess

– th

ey fi

nd it

ver

y sa

tisfy

ing.

’

235

Appendix 1.4

21

REA

DIN

G a

nd L

ANG

UAG

E K

NO

WLE

DG

E

Part

Tw

o

20

PAR

T O

NE

Sect

ion

Four

Que

stio

ns 7

0 –

74

�Fo

r que

stio

ns 7

0 –

74, r

ead

the

text

bel

owan

d th

ink

of th

e w

ord

whi

ch b

est f

its e

ach

spac

e.�

Writ

e on

ly o

new

ord

in e

ach

spac

e on

you

rAns

wer

She

et.

Exam

ple:

He

is v

ery

inte

rest

ed …

……

.……

…. c

ompu

ters

.

Answ

er:

Mar

ia's

Bea

uty

Bou

tique

s

Mar

ia W

ilson

is th

e no

w f

amou

s M

anag

ing

Dire

ctor

ofB

eaut

y Bo

utiq

ue I

nter

natio

nal p

lc,

one

of…

……

(70)

…...

.. w

orld

’s

beau

ty

prod

uct

chai

ns.

The

daug

hter

of

Sp

anis

h

imm

igra

nts,

she

...…

(71)

.....

bor

n an

d ed

ucat

ed in

Brita

in.

She

open

ed h

erfir

st B

eaut

y Bo

utiq

ue in

1976

and

it w

as .

....

(72)

....

. po

pula

r th

at s

he

open

ed f

ive

mor

esh

ops

in 3

yea

rs.

......

. (7

3) .

....

then

bus

ines

sha

s de

velo

ped

at a

n

amaz

ing

rate

, and

the

chai

n of

Bea

uty

Bout

ique

s ...

.. (7

4) ..

... n

ow e

xpan

ding

all

over

the

wor

ld.

0in

Appendix

236

Appendix 1.4

23

A

Fina

ncia

l Ana

lyst

£20

-£25

,000

+ b

enef

itsAs

a

youn

g an

d en

thus

iast

icfin

alis

t/new

ly

qual

ified

ac

coun

tant

, yo

u sh

ould

dem

onst

rate

the

pote

ntia

l to

prog

ress

qui

ckly

with

in th

e co

mpa

ny a

nd to

dev

elop

an

exce

llent

und

erst

andi

ng o

f the

com

mer

cial

nee

ds o

fthe

bus

ines

s. W

ithan

anal

ytic

alap

proa

ch a

nd s

trong

com

mun

icat

ion

skills

, you

will

prov

ide

supp

ort o

n pu

rcha

se p

rice

varia

nces

, pre

pare

fina

ncia

l rep

orts

for

the

Euro

pean

Hea

d O

ffice

and

unde

rtake

ad

hoc

proj

ects

.

B

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or

The

Wom

en’s

Env

ironm

ent N

etw

ork

(WEN

) is

look

ing

for a

hig

hly

mot

ivat

ed, i

nspi

ring

wom

an to

lead

one

of B

ritai

n’s

mos

t suc

cess

ful

envi

ronm

enta

l cam

paig

ning

and

info

rmat

ion

orga

nisa

tions

.

Expe

rienc

e re

quire

d in

clud

esm

anag

emen

t and

orga

nisa

tiona

l ski

lls,

med

ia, w

ritin

g an

d ed

iting

expe

rienc

e an

d a

know

ledg

e of

the

envi

ronm

ent a

nd/o

r wom

en’s

mov

emen

t. Yo

u w

ill ne

ed to

run

cam

paig

ns a

nd m

otiv

ate

a te

am o

fabo

ut 3

0 vo

lunt

eers

and

pai

d st

aff.

C

Wan

ted:

EXPE

RIE

NC

ED IN

TER

NAT

ION

ALSA

LESP

ERSO

Nre

pres

entin

g le

adin

g tra

vel c

ompa

ny to

com

pani

es a

nd m

ultin

atio

nals

in th

e U

K.Ap

plic

ants

are

exp

ecte

d to

be

able

to d

ispl

ay w

ord-

proc

essi

ng s

kills

and

fam

iliarit

yw

ith d

atab

ase

softw

are.

Bas

ic s

alar

y, e

xcel

lent

com

mis

sion

and

com

pany

car

.W

eha

ve a

full-

scal

e Lo

ndon

offi

ce.

D

Off

ice

Eq

uip

me

nt

Sa

les

Sta

ff�

Ne

w B

us

ine

ss

�S

ale

s p

eo

ple

Req

uire

d by

su

cces

sful

of

fice

equi

pmen

t su

pplie

r to

deve

lop

busi

ness

in

Euro

pe.

Mus

t ha

vepr

oven

abi

lity

tose

ll at

seni

or l

evel

s in

top

com

pani

es.

The

succ

essf

ulap

plic

ant w

ill b

e flu

ent i

n at

leas

t tw

o fo

reig

n la

ngua

ges.

22

PAR

T TW

O

Sect

ion

One

Que

stio

ns 7

5 –

81

�R

ead

thes

e se

nten

ces

and

the

job

adve

rtise

men

ts o

n th

e op

posi

te p

age.

�W

hich

job

does

eac

h se

nten

ce 7

5 –

81 re

fer t

o?�

For e

ach

sent

ence

, mar

kon

e le

tterA

, B,C

or D

on

your

Ans

wer

Shee

t.

Exam

ple:

0Yo

u ne

ed to

be

able

to s

peak

two

orm

ore

fore

ign

lang

uage

s.

Answ

er:

AB

CD

0

75Yo

u ne

ed to

hav

e ex

perie

nce

of w

orki

ngw

ith n

ewsp

aper

s, T

V or

radi

o.

76Yo

u ha

ve to

be

able

to u

se a

com

pute

r effi

cien

tly.

77Th

e jo

b w

ill in

volv

e pr

ovid

ing

seni

or s

taff

with

dat

a.

78Yo

u sh

ould

hav

e su

cces

sful

sal

es e

xper

ienc

e w

ith le

adin

g co

mpa

nies

.

79Yo

u ne

ed to

be

able

to g

et th

e be

st o

ut o

fpeo

ple

who

wor

k fo

r you

.

80Yo

ur e

arni

ngs

will

depe

nd o

n ho

w m

uch

you

sell.

81Yo

u ne

ed to

sho

w y

ou a

re s

uita

ble

fore

arly

pro

mot

ion.

237

Appendix 1.4

25

PAR

T TW

O

Sect

ion

Thre

eQ

uest

ions

87

– 91

�R

ead

the

artic

le b

elow

abo

ut a

bus

ines

sman

who

mad

e a

fortu

ne fr

om h

is c

ar m

agaz

ines

.�

For e

ach

ques

tion

87 –

91,

writ

e on

ew

ord

in th

e sp

ace

on y

our A

nsw

er S

heet

.

Exam

ple:

He

is v

ery

inte

rest

ed …

……

.……

…. c

ompu

ters

.

Answ

er:

Mill

iona

irew

ho ju

stlo

ves

cars

John

Paj

acko

wsk

i is

a ta

ll, th

in,f

it 54

yea

r old

who

is w

orth

an

estim

ated

£14

5m

illion

than

ks to

his

Car

Tra

der m

agaz

ines

.

Back

in …

……

(87)

……

… 1

960s

, Joh

n w

as w

orki

ng in

Am

eric

a, s

ellin

g Br

itish

spor

ts c

ars.

It w

as h

ard

wor

k bu

t ……

…. (8

8)…

……

.. he

was

ther

e, h

e sa

w a

mag

azin

e w

ith p

ictu

res

of c

ars

for s

ale.

The

mag

azin

e w

as re

gion

al a

ndan

yone

……

…. (8

9)…

……

…. a

dver

tise

thei

r car

in it

for a

rela

tivel

ysm

all f

ee.

Wha

t im

pres

sed

John

mos

t was

that

……

……

(90)

……

…. s

ingl

e ad

verti

sem

ent

had

a pi

ctur

e of

the

car,

unlik

e no

rmal

new

spap

er a

dver

ts, w

hich

just

pro

vide

da

writ

ten

desc

riptio

n.

Ret

urni

ng to

Brit

ain,

Joh

n pu

t all

of h

is s

avin

gs in

to p

rodu

cing

a m

agaz

ine

like

the

one

he …

……

.. (91

)……

……

see

n in

the

Stat

es.

He

star

ted

in th

e Lo

ndon

regi

on b

ut w

as s

oon

prod

ucin

g si

mila

r mag

azin

es fo

r tw

elve

mor

e re

gion

s an

d,by

199

0,fo

r thr

ee o

ther

cou

ntrie

s as

wel

l.

0in

24

PAR

T TW

O

Sect

ion

Two

Que

stio

ns 8

2 –

86

�R

ead

this

lette

r abo

ut b

uyin

g a

com

pute

r.�

Cho

ose

the

best

wor

d to

fill

each

spa

ce fr

om th

e w

ords

bel

ow.

�Fo

r eac

h qu

estio

n 82

– 8

6, m

ark

one

lette

rA, B

, C o

r D o

n yo

ur A

nsw

er S

heet

.

1 A

pril

Dea

r M

rW

hite

head

Re: Su

pply o

f XR6

Wor

ksta

tion

sI

have

ple

asur

e in

con

firm

ing

our

abili

ty t

o m

eet

your

requ

irem

ents

for

the

Sili

con

Grap

hics

wor

ksta

tion

. In

vie

wof

you

rsp

ecia

l nee

ds, I

sug

gest

tha

t yo

u pl

ace

your

orde

r fo

r th

e ag

reed

equ

ipm

ent

as s

oon

as p

ossi

ble.

The

.....(8

2)...

.. ti

me

for

hard

ware

for

exa

mpl

e is

6 w

eeks

fro

m r

ecei

pt o

f or

der

to ..

...(8

3)...

.. .

Thus

, an

orde

r pl

aced

wit

h us

tom

orro

w wi

ll ...

..(84

).....

del

iver

y to

you

r si

te b

y th

e we

ekco

mm

enci

ng M

onda

y, 1

5th

May

. A

ll or

ders

mus

t be

acc

ompa

nied

by

a ...

..(85

).....

of

20%

of

the

tota

l am

ount

sho

wn o

n th

e at

tach

ed ..

...(8

6)...

.. .

Your

s si

ncer

ely

Vinc

ent

Law

Sale

s M

anag

er

82A

delivery

Barriv

alC

trans

port

Dpo

stag

e

83A

institu

tion

Binitiation

Cintro

duction

Dinstallatio

n

84A

compe

lB

ensu

reC

prom

ise

Dmaintain

85A

portion

Bco

stC

depo

sit

Ddisc

ount

86A

cheq

ueB

quotation

Cch

arge

Dde

man

d

Appendix

238

Appendix 1.4

27

Onc

e fu

rther

inve

stm

ent h

as b

een

……

……

……

.. , t

he p

lans

for g

row

th c

an b

eca

rried

out.

Ase

cure

dB

oblig

edC

boun

d

95

Dfo

rced

This

app

roac

h w

ill en

able

us to

get

the

max

imum

ben

efit

from

……

……

……

.. of

sca

le.

Asa

ving

sB

com

pens

atio

nsC

reso

urce

s

96

Dec

onom

ies

My

boss

pro

mis

ed to

……

……

……

.. on

boar

d th

e su

gges

tions

I m

ade

at th

e m

eetin

g.

Ata

keB

let

Cho

ld

97

Dse

t

26

PAR

T TW

O

Sect

ion

Four

Que

stio

ns 9

2 –

97

�C

hoos

e th

e w

ord

or p

hras

e w

hich

bes

t com

plet

es e

ach

sent

ence

.�

For q

uest

ions

92

– 97

, mar

kon

e le

tterA

, B, C

, orD

on

your

ans

wer

she

et.

The

succ

essf

ulap

plic

ant w

ill ha

ve a

pro

ven

track

……

……

……

.. in

pro

ject

man

agem

ent.

Ahi

stor

yB

reco

rdC

curri

culu

m

92

Dpe

rform

ance

Whe

n re

plyi

ng, p

leas

e …

……

……

…..

the

abov

e re

fere

nce

num

ber.

Are

fer

Bre

prod

uce

Cqu

ote

93

Dal

lude

Like

man

y co

mpa

nies

, we

wer

e af

fect

ed b

y th

e …

……

……

…..

in th

e w

orld

eco

nom

y.

Ado

wns

ide

Bdo

wnt

urn

Cdo

wng

rade

94

Ddo

wnf

all

239

Appendix 1.4

29

98W

hat d

oes

the

writ

er s

ay a

bout

car

eers

adv

ice

in th

e fir

st p

arag

raph

?

ATh

ose

rece

ivin

g it

have

som

etim

es d

isag

reed

with

it.

BIt

has

favo

ured

cer

tain

type

s of

peo

ple

over

oth

ers.

CSo

me

of th

e st

anda

rd a

dvic

e gi

ven

has

been

app

ropr

iate

.D

It ha

s ac

quire

d a

mor

e ap

prop

riate

title

than

it u

sed

to h

ave.

99W

hat d

oes

the

writ

er s

ay a

bout

org

anis

atio

ns in

the

seco

nd p

arag

raph

?

ATh

ey c

an tu

rn s

uita

ble

empl

oyee

s in

to u

nsui

tabl

e on

es.

BM

any

ofth

emha

ve a

low

opi

nion

of c

aree

rs a

dvis

ors.

CTh

ey a

re in

sens

itive

to th

e ef

fect

thei

rmet

hods

hav

e on

em

ploy

ees.

DM

any

are

uncl

ear a

bout

wha

t to

expe

ct fr

om e

mpl

oyee

s.

100

The

writ

er s

ays

that

whe

n in

divi

dual

s m

ake

chan

ges

to th

eir j

obs,

Ath

ey m

ay n

ot b

e aw

are

that

they

are

doi

ng th

is.

Bth

ey g

ener

ally

hav

e th

e be

st o

f int

entio

ns.

Cth

ey a

re o

ften

afra

id o

fthe

con

sequ

ence

s.D

they

freq

uent

ly p

rete

nd th

ey a

re n

ot d

oing

this

.

101

The

writ

er’s

mai

n po

int i

n th

e fo

urth

par

agra

ph is

that

Ape

ople

hav

e be

com

e le

ss s

ure

abou

t whi

ch c

aree

r wou

ld s

uitt

hem

.B

peop

le n

o lo

nger

wan

t to

stay

in th

e sa

me

job

fora

long

tim

e.C

the

spee

d of

cha

nge

in th

e w

orld

of w

ork

has

caus

ed c

onfu

sion

.D

care

ers

advi

ce c

an n

o lo

nger

focu

s on

the

natu

re o

f spe

cific

jobs

.

102

The

writ

er c

ontra

sts

cons

cien

tious

peo

ple

with

neu

rotic

peo

ple

with

rega

rd to

Ath

e ki

nd o

f adv

ice

they

can

be

give

n.B

thei

rcha

nces

of f

indi

ngem

ploy

men

t.C

the

impr

essi

on th

ey g

ive

to c

olle

ague

s.D

thei

r willi

ngne

ss to

take

advi

cefro

m o

ther

s.

103

Wha

t is

the

writ

er’s

gen

eral

vie

w o

n ca

reer

s ad

vice

inth

efin

alpa

ragr

aph?

AIt

has

had

to a

llow

for t

he fa

ct th

at p

eopl

e no

w h

ave

high

er a

spira

tions

.B

Whe

ther

it is

usef

ul o

r not

has

bec

ome

hard

er to

ass

ess.

CPr

edic

ting

futu

re d

evel

opm

ents

has

bec

ome

its k

ey in

gred

ient

.D

It ha

s be

com

e m

uch

less

rele

vant

in to

day’

s w

orld

of w

ork.

28

PAR

T TW

O

Sect

ion

Five

Que

stio

ns 9

8 –

103

�R

ead

the

artic

le b

elow

abo

ut c

aree

rs a

dvic

e an

d an

swer

ques

tions

98

– 10

3on

the

oppo

site

pag

e.�

For

ques

tions

98

– 10

3, m

ark

one

lette

rA

, B

, C

or

D f

or t

he c

orre

ct a

nsw

er o

n yo

urAn

swer

She

et.

Key

s to

unl

ock

path

of c

aree

r ful

film

ent

It us

ed to

be

calle

d vo

catio

nal g

uida

nce.

The

n it

beca

me

care

ers

advi

ce a

nd c

ouns

ellin

g. S

ince

the

late

1920

s th

ere

have

bee

n va

rious

test

s to

hel

pgu

ide

bew

ilder

ed a

nd g

uile

less

sch

ool l

eave

rs in

tojo

b ca

tego

ries

suite

d to

thei

r int

eres

ts a

nd a

bilit

ies.

Hen

ce e

xtro

verts

have

bee

n ad

vise

d,w

isel

y,to

go i

nto

sale

s an

d m

arke

ting,

whe

re t

hey

thriv

e on

the

var

iabi

lity,

peop

le-c

onta

ctan

dai

rof

optim

ism

.Int

rove

rts,

on t

he o

ther

han

d, f

ind

the

quie

tw

ork

ofac

coun

ts,

stor

es a

nden

gine

erin

g,w

here

they

can

wor

k al

one

in a

less

peo

ple-

orie

ntat

ed, f

rene

tic a

tmos

pher

e, m

ore

toth

eir t

aste

.

Butg

ood

care

ers

advi

sors

need

to lo

ok a

t oth

erfa

ctor

s w

hen

givi

ng a

dvic

e. F

or e

xam

ple,

car

eer

coun

sellin

gis

flaw

ed if

it fa

ils to

allo

w fo

r the

pos

sibi

lity

of p

eopl

e ad

aptin

gto

, and

cha

ngin

g,th

eir

jobs

onc

e th

eyar

e in

them

. M

ost

orga

nisa

tions

atte

mpt

thr

ough

var

ious

exp

licit

(indu

ctio

n,m

ento

ring,

train

ing,

app

rais

al) a

nd im

plic

it (re

lianc

e on

obs

erva

tion)

tech

niqu

es to

mou

ld b

ehav

iour

into

an a

ccep

tabl

e pa

ttern

.Th

is m

eans

that

attit

udes

and

eve

n ap

titud

es o

f em

ploy

ees

may

be

chan

ged

over

the

first

yea

r of

em

ploy

men

t, so

met

imes

, but

not

alw

ays,

in th

e di

rect

ion

desi

red

byth

e or

gani

satio

n. T

hus

wha

t was

a ‘f

it’ m

ay e

asily

and

qui

ckly

dev

elop

into

a m

isfit

and

vic

e ve

rsa .

Indi

vidu

als

also

cha

nge

thei

r jo

bs w

ithou

t lea

ving

them

.The

yre

arra

nge

furn

iture

, use

spa

cean

dte

chno

logy

diffe

rent

ly a

nd p

erso

nalis

e di

ffere

nt a

spec

ts o

fth

e jo

b.Th

ey c

an n

egot

iate

with

colle

ague

s, e

arn

spec

ial p

rivile

ges

and

use

othe

r m

eans

to im

prov

e th

eir

role

and

out

put.

In th

isse

nse,

ver

y so

on th

ey a

re d

oing

the

job

diffe

rent

lyfro

mth

eirp

rede

cess

ors,

and

poss

ibly

from

the

way

reco

mm

ende

d by

the

com

pany

. How

ever

, bot

h ad

apta

tion

of p

erso

nal w

ork-

styl

e an

d at

tem

pts

to c

hang

e th

e w

ay o

f do

ing

the

job

are

mor

e lik

ely

to le

ad t

oa

high

erle

vel o

f‘fi

t’,be

caus

e th

ech

ange

s ar

e us

ually

all

atte

mpt

s to

incr

ease

‘fit’

.

And

jobs

the

mse

lves

cha

nge.

Org

anis

atio

nal r

estru

ctur

ing,

the

dev

elop

men

t of

new

tech

nolo

gy,

chan

ges

in th

e m

arke

t, an

d so

on,

all

mea

n th

atjo

bs e

volv

efa

irly

fast

. Bec

ause

oft

he s

peed

ofte

chno

logy

, al

l jo

bs a

re i

n a

stat

e of

flux.

Job

ana

lysi

s is

the

refo

re b

ecom

ing

less

rel

evan

t to

care

ers

advi

ce.C

ouns

ello

rs’ a

naly

sis

has

tofo

cus

inst

ead

on p

erso

nal p

oten

tial r

athe

r tha

n cu

rrent

know

ledg

e or

ski

ll. A

nd th

efe

atur

es o

fsuc

h an

alys

is a

re p

oten

tial s

peed

and

thor

ough

ness

in th

eac

quis

ition

of n

ewkn

owle

dge

and

skills

.

The

area

s th

at a

re p

roba

bly

mos

t pre

dict

ive

ofth

ese

are

inte

lligen

ce a

nd p

erso

nalit

y. In

tellig

ence

ispr

obab

ly t

he b

est

pred

icto

r of

spe

ed o

f le

arni

ng.

Ofte

n, i

ntel

ligen

t pe

ople

are

cur

ious

and

self-

conf

iden

t an

d he

nce

happ

y to

tac

kle

new

tas

ks.

Inte

lligen

t pe

ople

are

bet

ter

and

quic

ker

atan

alys

ing

both

lo

gica

l an

d de

duct

ive

and

crea

tive

prob

lem

s.

Prob

ably

the

mos

tim

porta

ntpe

rson

ality

dim

ensi

ons

are

cons

cien

tious

ness

and

neu

rotic

ism

.Con

scie

ntio

us p

eopl

e so

onge

ta

good

repu

tatio

n w

hich

ser

ves

them

in g

ood

stea

d. C

oupl

ed w

ith a

bilit

y, th

is tr

aiti

s a

sure

-fire

car

eer

win

ner.

On

the

othe

r han

d ne

urot

icis

m is

a d

eep

and

abid

ing

hand

icap

.It i

s no

t eas

yto

‘cur

e’ a

ndca

n ha

ve a

last

ing

effe

ct o

n a

care

er.N

euro

tics

are

unha

ppy

and

tend

tobe

dis

satis

fied,

stre

ssed

and

com

plai

ning

in a

ll jo

bs th

ey h

ave.

The

cons

iste

ncy

ofth

eir b

ehav

iour

lead

s th

em to

deve

lop

apo

orre

puta

tion

in th

e w

orkp

lace

whi

ch o

f cou

rse

can

be s

elf-f

ulfil

ling.

Succ

ess

in th

e jo

bin

202

0 ca

n be

ass

esse

d no

w. W

eha

ve li

ttle

idea

wha

tthe

wor

ld o

f wor

k w

ill be

like

but

advi

sors

can

do

a re

ason

able

job

in

asse

ssin

gth

e po

tent

ial

ofth

ein

divi

dual

with

in i

tbe

caus

e th

eykn

ow th

e pr

edic

tors

of s

ucce

ss. A

nd it

is th

ese

pred

icto

rs th

at c

ouns

ello

rsne

edto

atte

nd to

ifth

ey a

re to

give

the

best

adv

ice.

Appendix

240

Appendix 1.4

31

BLA

NK

PAG

E

30

PAR

T TW

O

Sect

ion

Six

Que

stio

ns 1

04–

110

�Yo

ur s

ecre

tary

has

giv

en y

ou th

is le

tter t

o ch

eck.

�In

som

e lin

es th

ere

is o

ne w

rong

wor

d.�

If th

ere

is a

wro

ng w

ord,

writ

e th

e co

rrect

wor

don

you

r ans

wer

she

et.

�If

ther

e is

no

mis

take

, put

a ti

ck (�

) on

your

Ans

wer

She

et.

Exam

ple:

One

oft

he it

ems

you

orde

red

from

our

cata

logu

e0

�

is te

mpo

rary

out

of s

tock

.00

tem

pora

rily

Dea

r Mr R

ose

,

It w

as a

ple

asur

e to

mee

t you

the

othe

rday

. I w

as v

ery

grat

eful

104

that

you

wer

e ab

le to

find

som

e tim

es in

you

r bus

y sc

hedu

le to

vis

it us

.

105

I tho

ught

it s

houl

d be

hel

pful

ifI p

ut o

n pa

per s

ome

of th

e po

ints

we

106

agre

ed o

n at

our

mee

ting

and

indi

cate

d so

me

with

the

actio

n po

ints

.

107

We

agre

ed w

hich

my

com

pany

will

act a

s yo

ur a

gent

in n

orth

ern

108

Euro

pe. A

s yo

ur a

gent

, we

will

oper

ate

on a

com

mis

sion

bas

is. W

e w

ill

109

char

ge y

ou o

nth

e ra

teof

20%

for s

ales

up

to 2

milli

on E

uros

. On

sale

s ab

ove

110

such

figu

rew

ew

ill ch

arge

com

mis

sion

on

asl

idin

g sc

ale

up to

a m

axim

um

rate

of 2

5%.

Your

s si

ncer

ely

John

Sm

ith

English Version: EN40

Speaking Test

Sample Question Paper

A Member of the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE)

APPENDIX 1.5

BULATS – Speaking Test

241

Appendix 1.5

242

In P

art

2 o

f th

e t

est

yo

u w

ill b

e a

ske

d t

o g

ive

a s

ho

rt p

rese

nta

tio

n o

n o

ne

of

thre

eto

pic

s.

Acco

rdin

g t

o y

ou

r w

ork

exp

erie

nce

, th

e t

op

ics m

ay b

e o

n g

en

era

l w

ork

,te

ch

nic

al w

ork

, o

r stu

dy.

Th

is p

art

will

la

st

ap

pro

xim

ate

lyfo

ur

min

ute

s.

PA

RT

2

P

res

en

tati

on

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NS

Ple

ase

re

ad

all

TH

RE

E t

op

ics b

elo

w c

are

fully

.

Ch

oo

se

ON

E w

hic

h y

ou

fe

el yo

u w

ill b

e a

ble

to

ta

lk a

bo

ut

for

on

e m

inu

te.

Yo

u h

ave

on

e m

inu

te t

o r

ea

d a

nd

pre

pa

re y

ou

r ta

lk.

Yo

u m

ay t

ake

no

tes.

To

pic

A

De

scrib

e a

n im

po

rta

nt

bu

sin

ess m

ee

tin

g y

ou

att

en

de

d.

Yo

u s

ho

uld

sa

y:

wh

ere

it

wa

s;

wh

at

it w

as a

bo

ut;

wh

y it

wa

s im

po

rta

nt.

Wh

at

we

re t

he

mo

st

inte

restin

g m

om

en

ts?

To

pic

B

De

scrib

e s

om

eo

ne

yo

u p

art

icu

larly e

njo

y w

ork

ing w

ith

.Y

ou

sh

ou

ld s

ay:

wh

at

this

pe

rso

n d

oe

s;

wh

at

so

rt o

f w

ork

yo

u d

o w

ith

th

is p

ers

on

;w

hy y

ou

lik

e w

ork

ing w

ith

th

is p

ers

on

.

Wo

uld

yo

u c

ha

nge

an

yth

ing a

bo

ut

this

pe

rso

n?

G

ive

re

aso

ns f

or

yo

ur

an

sw

er.

To

pic

C

De

scrib

e t

he

be

st

wo

rkp

lace

yo

u h

ave

eve

r h

ad

.Y

ou

sh

ou

ld s

ay:

wh

ere

th

e w

ork

pla

ce

wa

s;

wh

at

yo

u w

ere

do

ing t

he

re;

wh

y y

ou

lik

ed

to

wo

rk t

he

re.

Wo

uld

yo

u c

ha

nge

an

yth

ing a

bo

ut

it?

G

ive

re

aso

ns f

or

yo

ur

an

sw

er.

BU

LA

TS

Sp

eakin

g T

est

Sam

ple

Mate

rials

Th

ere

are

th

ree

pa

rts t

o t

he

sp

ea

kin

g t

est;

in

Pa

rt 1

, yo

u w

ill h

ave

an

Inte

rvie

w.

Th

is w

ill in

clu

de

qu

estio

ns f

rom

th

e s

ectio

ns b

elo

w:

�a

ll ca

nd

ida

tes w

ill b

e a

ske

d q

ue

stio

ns f

rom

Se

cti

on

1;

�p

eo

ple

in

wo

rk w

ill b

e a

ske

d q

ue

stio

ns f

rom

Se

cti

on

2;

�stu

de

nts

will

be

aske

d q

ue

stio

ns f

rom

Se

cti

on

3;

�a

ll ca

nd

ida

tes w

ill t

he

n b

e a

ske

d q

ue

stio

ns f

rom

on

e o

f th

e S

ec

tio

ns

4 -

7.

Th

is p

art

will

la

st

ap

pro

xim

ate

lyfo

ur

min

ute

s.

PA

RT

1In

terv

iew

Secti

on

1

Intr

od

ucti

on

In t

his

pa

rt y

ou

will

be

aske

d q

ue

stio

ns a

bo

ut

yo

ur

se

lf,

wh

ere

yo

u liv

e a

nd

wh

ere

yo

u s

tud

y o

r w

ork

.

Secti

on

2C

urr

en

t w

ork

In t

his

pa

rt y

ou

will

be

aske

d m

ore

de

tails

ab

ou

t w

ha

t yo

u d

o in

yo

ur

job

.

Secti

on

3C

urr

en

t stu

die

sIn

th

is p

art

yo

u w

ill b

e a

ske

d m

ore

de

tails

ab

ou

t yo

ur

stu

die

s.

Secti

on

4T

ravel

In t

his

pa

rt y

ou

will

be

aske

d a

bo

ut

pla

ce

s y

ou

ha

ve

vis

ite

d.

Secti

on

5L

an

gu

ag

e learn

ing

In t

his

pa

rt y

ou

will

be

aske

d a

bo

ut

yo

ur

exp

eri

en

ce

s o

f stu

dyin

g E

nglis

h.

Secti

on

6F

utu

re c

are

er

pro

sp

ects

In t

his

pa

rt y

ou

will

be

aske

d a

bo

ut

yo

ur

futu

re c

are

er

de

ve

lop

me

nt.

Secti

on

7In

tere

sts

In t

his

pa

rt y

ou

will

be

aske

d a

bo

ut

yo

ur

ho

bb

ies a

nd

in

tere

sts

.

Appendix 1.5

243

In P

art

3 o

f th

e t

est

yo

u w

ill b

e a

ske

d t

o t

ake

pa

rt in

a c

om

mu

nic

ative

activity w

ith

the

exa

min

er

wh

ich

is m

ad

e u

p o

f a

n in

form

atio

n e

xch

an

ge

an

d a

dis

cu

ssio

n.

Acco

rdin

g t

o y

ou

r w

ork

exp

erie

nce

, th

is a

ctivity m

ay b

e o

n a

ge

ne

ral w

ork

,te

ch

nic

al w

ork

, o

r stu

dy t

op

ic.

Th

is p

art

will

la

st

ap

pro

xim

ate

lyfo

ur

min

ute

s.

PA

RT

3C

om

mu

nic

ati

ve A

cti

vit

y

Co

nfe

ren

ce a

rran

gem

en

ts

Yo

u h

ave

on

e m

inu

te t

o r

ea

d t

hro

ugh

th

is t

ask.

Info

rmati

on

Exch

an

ge

Yo

u a

re m

akin

g t

he

arr

an

ge

me

nts

fo

r a

on

e-d

ay c

on

fere

nce

at

a lo

ca

l h

ote

l.

Th

eE

xa

min

er

is t

he

Co

nfe

ren

ce

Org

an

ise

r fo

r th

e h

ote

l a

nd

is v

isitin

g y

ou

to

dis

cu

ss

the

co

nfe

ren

ce

.

Fin

d o

ut

this

in

form

atio

ni)

the

siz

e o

f th

e la

rge

st

co

nfe

ren

ce

ro

om

ii)th

e c

ost

for

tha

t ro

om

iii)

equ

ipm

en

t a

va

ilab

le

Do

yo

u t

hin

k t

he

ho

tel is

off

erin

g y

ou

a g

oo

d s

erv

ice

fo

r th

e p

rice

it

is c

ha

rgin

g?

Dis

cu

ssio

n

No

w d

iscu

ss t

his

to

pic

with

th

e E

xa

min

er:

Wha

t mak

es a

suc

cess

ful c

onfe

renc

e?

244

Deutsch Version: DE00

Standard Test

Modelltest

Mitglied der Vereinigung von Sprachpr�fungsanbietern in Europa (ALTE)

APPENDIX 1.6

BULATS – Standard Test German

245

Appendix 1.6

3

Kan

dida

teninformation

Nam

e de

s Kan

dida

ten:

Fam

ilien

nam

e:…

……

……

……

……

……

…

Vor

nam

e:…

……

……

……

……

……

…

Kan

dida

tenn

umm

er:

……

……

……

……

……

……

Pr�fu

ngsz

entru

m:

……

……

……

……

……

……

Dat

um:

……

……

……

……

……

……

Test

Zeit:

ca.

110

Min

uten

H�rv

erst

ehen

Ca.

50

Min

uten

.Sc

hrei

ben

Sie

w�hr

end

des

H�re

ns Ih

re L�su

ngen

in d

as A

ufga

benb

latt.

Wen

n de

r Tes

t zum

Hör

vers

tehe

n be

ende

t ist

, hab

en S

ie 5

Min

uten

Zei

t,um

Ihre

Lösu

ngen

in d

en A

ntw

ortb

ogen

zu

schr

eibe

n.

Lese

vers

tehe

n&

60 M

inut

en.

Spra

chke

nntn

is

Schr

eibe

n Si

e Ih

re L�su

ngen

in d

en A

ntw

ortb

ogen

.

2

LEER

E SE

ITE

Appendix 1.6

246

5

3W

ann

will

Frau

Wol

f wie

der i

mBü

ro s

ein?

4W

ie s

ieht

Her

r Fel

dman

nau

s?

C

BA

Mon

tag

12.

09M

ittw

och

14.0

9

Don

ners

tag

15.0

9

C

BA

4

HÖ

RVE

RST

EHEN

TEIL

EIN

SAu

fgab

en 1

– 1

0

•Si

e h�

ren

zehn

kur

ze G

espr�

che.

•Kr

euze

n Si

e im

Auf

gabe

nbla

tt be

i den

Auf

gabe

n 1

– 10

die

richt

ige

Lösu

ngA

, B o

der

Can

. Es

gibt

nur

eine

rich

tige

Lösu

ng.

•Si

e h�

ren

jede

s G

espr�

chzw

eim

al.

1W

elch

en S

chre

ibtis

ch m

öcht

e Fr

au D

r. Sc

hmitt

für i

hr B

üro?

2W

elch

eW

ähru

ng b

rauc

ht d

er M

ann?

C

BA

C

BA

£$

€

Appendix 1.6

247

7

Sie

höre

n ei

n G

espr

äch.

Wel

chen

Flu

g so

ll da

s R

eise

büro

buc

hen?

AH

err H

ilper

t will

in N

ewYo

rk u

nd S

an F

ranc

isco

Zw

isch

enst

ops

mac

hen.

BH

err H

ilper

t will

jetz

t am

19.

Apr

il fli

egen

.

8

CH

err H

ilper

t will

non

stop

nac

h Lo

s An

gele

s fli

egen

.

Sie

höre

n ei

n G

espr

äch.

Wie

sol

ldie

neu

e H

omep

age

auss

ehen

?

AD

ie H

omep

age

soll

eine

zus

ätzl

iche

Sei

te b

ekom

men

.

BD

ie S

eite

zw

ei s

oll n

eu g

esta

ltet w

erde

n.

9

CD

er In

halt

soll

gekü

rzt w

erde

n.

Sie

höre

n ei

n G

espr

äch.

Was

sag

en d

ie b

eide

n Ko

llegi

nnen

?

ASi

e fin

den

den

Che

f zu

kriti

sch.

BSi

e gl

aube

n, d

ass

ein

Ges

präc

h Er

folg

hat

.

10

CSi

e w

olle

n m

it de

m C

hef s

prec

hen.

6

5W

as b

ekom

mt d

ie F

rau

des

Che

fs?

Sie

höre

n ei

n Te

lefo

nges

präc

h.W

ann

brau

cht H

err H

offm

ann

eine

Sek

retä

rin?

AH

eute

Nac

hmitt

ag

BM

orge

n N

achm

ittag

6

CSo

fort

Sie

höre

n im

Rad

io e

ine

Nac

hric

ht v

on e

iner

Mes

se.

Was

ist i

n di

esem

Jah

rand

ers?

AD

as W

ette

r

BD

ie A

nzah

l der

Auss

telle

r

7

CD

ie A

nzah

l der

Besu

cher

C

BA

Appendix 1.6

248

9

Ges

pr�ch

Dre

iAu

fgab

en 1

9 –

22

•Se

hen

Sie

sich

das

For

mul

ar u

nten

an.

•Si

e h�

ren

eine

Fra

u, d

ie e

ine

Rek

lam

atio

n m

acht

.

Tele

foni

sche

Rek

lam

atio

n

Nam

e:Fa

. Hau

ser

& Co

.Li

efer

ung

von:

(19)

……

……

……

..

Gru

nd d

erR

ekla

mat

ion:

(20)

……

……

……

..

Lief

erda

tum

: (21

) ……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

Kund

en-N

r.: 10

28

Kund

enw

unsc

h:(2

2) …

……

……

…..

8

TEIL

ZW

EIAu

fgab

en 1

1 –

22

•Si

e h�

ren

drei

kur

ze T

elef

onge

sprä

che.

•Fü

llen

Sie

die

num

mer

ierte

n Lü

cken

in d

en F

orm

ular

en m

it de

n In

form

atio

nen

aus,

die

Sie

höre

n w

erde

n. S

chre

iben

Sie

Ihre

Lös

unge

n in

die

Form

ular

e, w

ähre

nd S

ie d

ieG

espr

äche

hör

en.

•Si

e hö

ren

jede

s G

espr

äch

nure

inmal

.

Ges

pr�ch

Ein

sAu

fgab

en 1

1 –

14

•Se

hen

Sie

sich

das

For

mul

ar u

nten

an.

•Si

e h�

ren

eine

Fra

u, d

ie e

inen

Auf

trag

gibt

.

Auftr

agsf

orm

ular

Nam

e:Li

a S

chrö

der

Gru

nd d

es A

nruf

s:(1

1) …

……

……

…..

Erre

ichb

ar z

wis

chen

:(12

) ……

……

……

..

Adre

sse:

(13)

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

.. Te

l.: 0

89/2

4560

7

Zahl

ungs

wun

sch:

(14)

.....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

Ges

pr�ch

Zw

eiAu

fgab

en 1

5 –

18

•Se

hen

Sie

sich

das

For

mul

ar u

nten

an.

•Si

e h�

ren

eine

n M

ann,

der

ein

e Be

stel

lung

mac

ht.

Bes

tellu

ng

Nam

e:M

anfr

ed H

ausm

ann

Kund

ennu

mm

er:(

15) …

……

……

…..

Artik

el:

(16)

……

……

……

……

……

……

Nr.

L264

Kata

log:

(17)

……

……

……

…

Lief

erze

it:(1

8) …

……

……

…..

Appendix 1.6

249

11

TEIL

VIE

R

Absc

hnitt

Ein

sAu

fgab

en 3

3 –

38

•Si

e h�

ren

eine

n ku

rzen

Vor

trag

über

die

Eig

ensc

hafte

n ei

nes

gute

n Ve

rkäu

fers

.•

Kreu

zen

Sie

beid

en A

ufga

ben

33 –

38im

Auf

gabe

nbla

tt di

e ric

htig

e Lö

sung

A, B

ode

rCan

. Es

gib

t nur

ein

e ric

htig

e Lö

sung

.•

Sie

höre

n da

s G

espr

äch

zwei

mal

.

33Es

han

delt

sich

um

eine

Sch

ulun

gfü

r

AM

arke

ting-

Man

ager

.B

Mita

rbei

ter i

m C

all-C

ente

r.C

Mita

rbei

ter i

m V

ertri

eb.

34D

ie M

itarb

eite

rinne

n un

d M

itarb

eite

r hab

en in

Kris

enze

iten

eine

n si

cher

en J

ob, w

eil

Ada

s U

nter

nehm

en a

uf s

tark

en A

bsat

z an

gew

iese

n is

t.B

die

Firm

a vi

el G

eld

in ih

reSc

hulu

ngen

inve

stie

rtha

t.C

ihre

Geh

älte

r zie

mlic

h ni

edrig

sin

d.

35D

ie M

itarb

eite

rinne

n un

d M

itarb

eite

r sol

len

dara

uf a

chte

n,

Aob

der

Kun

de d

as G

espr

äch

abbr

eche

n m

öcht

e.B

ob d

er K

unde

noc

h un

sich

er is

t.C

wan

n de

r Kun

de b

erei

t ist

, etw

as z

u ka

ufen

.

36D

er R

edne

r sag

t, da

ss

Adi

e pe

rsön

liche

Wirk

ung

wic

htig

er is

t als

das

Pro

dukt

.B

der V

erka

ufse

rfolg

nur

vom

Pro

dukt

abh

ängt

.C

der V

erka

ufse

rfolg

sta

rk v

om A

uftre

ten

abhä

ngt.

37D

er R

edne

r sag

t auc

h, d

ass

AKe

nntn

isse

übe

r den

Ges

präc

hspa

rtner

seh

r nüt

zlic

h si

nd.

Bm

an d

en G

espr

ächs

partn

er n

ach

priv

aten

Din

gen

frage

n so

llte.

Cm

an G

espr

äche

übe

r Hob

bies

ver

mei

den

sollt

e.

38D

er R

edne

r sag

t auß

erde

m, d

ass

man

Abe

stim

mte

Fra

gete

chni

ken

gebr

auch

en s

ollte

.B

die

Frag

en d

em G

espr

ächs

partn

er ü

berla

ssen

sol

lte.

Cve

rsuc

hen

sollt

e, m

öglic

hst k

urze

Fra

gen

zu s

telle

n.

10

TEIL

DR

EI

Absc

hnitt

Ein

sAu

fgab

en 2

3 –

27

•Si

e h�

ren

fünf

kur

ze T

exte

. Hör

en S

ie z

u un

d en

tsch

eide

n Si

e, w

as d

ie L

eute

übe

r den

Geb

rauc

h de

s „d

u“ o

derd

es „S

ie“ s

agen

.•

W�

hlen

Sie

bei

jede

m T

ext I

hre

Antw

ort a

us d

er L

iste

A–I a

us u

nd s

chre

iben

Sie

den

richt

igen

Buc

hsta

ben

in d

ie le

ere

Stel

lehi

nter

der

Num

mer

.•

Sie

h�re

n je

den

Text

nur

einm

al.

Bei

spie

l: …

……

. I …

……

.

AJe

de F

irma

soll

eige

ne R

egel

nm

ache

n.

BD

as„S

ie“ f

ür a

lle s

chaf

ft kl

are

Verh

ältn

isse

.

23Te

xt 1

……

……

……

…..

CD

as „D

u“ is

t bes

serf

ür d

ie Z

usam

men

arbe

it.

24Te

xt 2

……

……

……

…..

DC

hefs

sol

lten

die

Mita

rbei

ter n

icht

duz

en.

25Te

xt 3

……

……

……

…..

ETr

aditi

onel

leBr

anch

en g

ebra

uche

n da

s „S

ie“.

26Te

xt 4

……

……

……

…..

FW

enn

man

sic

h du

zt, g

ibt e

s ke

inen

Res

pekt

.

27Te

xt 5

……

……

……

…..

GEs

spi

elt g

ar k

eine

Rol

lefü

r das

Arb

eits

klim

a.

HM

an k

ann

den

Che

fnic

ht d

uzen

.

IM

an s

oll n

ur s

eine

Fre

unde

duz

en.

Absc

hnitt

Zw

eiAu

fgab

en 2

8 –

32

•Si

e h�

ren

fünf

kur

ze T

exte

. Hör

en S

ie z

u un

d en

tsch

eide

n Si

e, w

as d

ie L

eute

übe

r ein

enAu

slan

dsau

fent

halt

sage

n.•

W�

hlen

Sie

bei

jede

m T

ext I

hre

Antw

ort a

us d

er L

iste

A–I a

us u

nd s

chre

iben

Sie

den

richt

igen

Buc

hsta

ben

in d

ie le

ere

Stel

lehi

nter

der

Num

mer

.•

Sie

h�re

n je

den

Text

nur

einm

al.

•B

eisp

iel:

……

…. I

……

….

AFi

rma

mus

s 1x

pro

Jah

r Flu

g na

ch H

ause

zah

len.

BBe

rufs

tätig

keit

der E

hefra

u sp

ielt

groß

e R

olle

.

28Te

xt 1

……

……

……

…..

CM

an m

uss

über

den

Ort

gena

u Be

sche

id w

isse

n.

29Te

xt 2

……

……

……

…..

DM

an m

uss

das

Klim

a gu

t ver

trage

n kö

nnen

.

30Te

xt 3

……

……

……

…..

EM

an m

uss

im A

usla

nd m

ehr G

eld

verd

iene

n.

31Te

xt 4

……

……

……

…..

FG

ute

Schu

lmög

lichk

eite

n fü

rdie

Kin

der.

32Te

xt 5

……

……

……

…..

GD

er A

ufen

thal

t sol

l max

imal

3 J

ahre

dau

ern.

HM

an m

uss

die

Land

essp

rach

e gu

t spr

eche

n.

ID

er A

ufen

thal

tmus

s gu

t für

die

Kar

riere

sei

n.

Appendix 1.6

250

13

Absc

hnitt

Dre

iAu

fgab

en 4

5 –

50

•Si

e h�

ren

ein

Ges

präc

h m

it Fr

au M

eure

r, di

e in

der

Per

sona

labt

eilu

ng e

iner

gro

ßen

Firm

aar

beite

t. Fr

au M

eure

r spr

icht

übe

r die

Kar

riere

chan

cen

in te

chni

sche

n Be

rufe

n.•

Kreu

zen

Sie

beid

en A

ufga

ben

45 –

50

im A

ufga

benb

latt

die

richt

ige

Lösu

ng A

, B o

derC

an.

Es g

ibt n

ur e

ine

richt

ige

Lösu

ng.

•Si

e hö

ren

das

Ges

präc

hzw

eim

al.

45Es

gib

t wen

ig B

ewer

berin

nen

fürt

echn

isch

e Be

rufe

, wei

l

Adi

e Fi

rmen

kei

ne S

telle

n fü

r Fra

uen

auss

chre

iben

.B

Frau

en d

ie A

rbei

t in

tech

nisc

hen

Beru

fen

zu s

chw

er fi

nden

.C

Frau

engl

aube

n, s

ie s

eien

für t

echn

isch

e Be

rufe

ung

eeig

net.

46Fr

au M

eure

r gla

ubt,

dass

Am

ännl

iche

Mita

rbei

ter d

ie b

esse

ren

Cha

ncen

hab

en.

Bte

chni

sche

Ber

ufe

imm

erei

ne D

omän

e de

r Män

nerb

leib

en.

Cte

chni

sche

Ber

ufe

beso

nder

s zu

kunf

tssi

cher

sin

d.

47In

den

tech

nisc

hen

Beru

fen

hat d

ie F

irma

von

Frau

Meu

rer

Afa

st k

eine

Bew

erbu

ngen

von

Fra

uen.

Bm

ehr F

raue

n al

s M

änne

rein

gest

ellt.

Cre

lativ

vie

le F

raue

n ei

nges

tellt

.

48D

ie F

irma

von

Frau

Meu

rer

Abi

etet

Fra

uen

inte

chni

sche

n Be

rufe

n hö

here

Geh

älte

r.B

hilft

Fra

uen

bei d

er F

inan

zier

ung

eine

r tec

hnis

chen

Aus

bild

ung.

Clä

sst F

raue

n in

tech

nisc

hen

Beru

fen

schn

elle

r auf

stei

gen.

49D

ie M

itarb

eite

rinne

n in

der F

irma

von

Frau

Meu

rer

Akö

nnen

Beru

fund

Fam

ilie s

chw

er m

itein

ande

r ver

einb

aren

.B

könn

en s

ich

ihre

Arb

eits

zeite

n in

divi

duel

l ges

talte

n.C

wün

sche

n si

ch m

ehrM

öglic

hkei

ten

der T

eilz

eita

rbei

t.

50Fr

au M

eure

r ist

der

Mei

nung

, das

s di

e

AFi

rmen

noc

h vi

el m

ehr f

ür ju

nge

Frau

en tu

n kö

nnte

n.B

jung

en F

raue

n ih

re C

hanc

en b

esse

r wah

rneh

men

müs

sten

.C

Lebe

nspa

rtner

die

jung

en F

raue

n ni

cht g

enüg

end

unte

rstü

tzen

.

Das

ist d

as E

nde

des T

ests

zum

Hör

vers

tehe

n. Ü

bert

rage

n Si

e nu

n Ih

re L

ösun

gen

auf

den

Ant

wor

tbog

en. S

ie h

aben

daz

u 5

Min

uten

Zei

t.

12

Absc

hnitt

Zw

eiAu

fgab

en 3

9 –

44

•Si

e h�

ren

ein

Ges

präc

h zw

isch

en z

wei

Mita

rbei

tern

übe

r ein

Pro

blem

in ih

rer F

irma.

•Kr

euze

n Si

e be

iden

Auf

gabe

n39

–44

im A

ufga

benb

latt

die

richt

ige

Lösu

ng A

, B o

derC

an.

Es g

ibt n

ur e

ine

richt

ige

Lösu

ng.

•Si

e hö

ren

das

Ges

präc

hzw

eim

al.

39Fr

au S

cher

er u

nd H

err H

uber

Abe

klag

en s

ich

über

ihre

vie

len

Term

ine.

Bsp

rech

en ü

ber d

ie E

inha

ltung

von

Lie

ferte

rmin

en.

Cüb

erle

gen,

wie

sie

Kun

den

gew

inne

n kö

nnen

.

40Es

gab

Pro

blem

e be

i der

Verp

acku

ng d

erW

aren

, wei

l

Adi

e G

läse

r nic

ht in

die

Kar

tons

pas

sten

.B

dort

viel

e Au

shilf

en a

rbei

tete

n.C

eine

Mas

chin

e ni

cht f

unkt

ioni

erte

.

41Im

Aus

liefe

rung

slag

er g

ab e

s Sc

hwie

rigke

iten,

wei

l

Ade

r Lag

erm

eist

erer

kran

kte.

Bdo

rt Pe

rson

alm

ange

l her

rsch

t.C

fals

che

Lief

ersc

hein

e au

sges

tellt

wur

den.

42H

err H

uber

krit

isie

rt an

dem

Tra

nspo

rtunt

erne

hmen

, das

s

Ade

r neu

e C

hef k

eine

Erfa

hrun

g ha

t.B

es G

ewin

ne m

ache

n w

ill.C

es z

u vi

ele

Auftr

äge

anni

mm

t.

43H

err H

uber

sch

lägt

vor

,

Afir

men

eige

ne L

KWs

anzu

scha

ffen.

Bm

it de

m n

euen

Firm

ench

ef d

as P

robl

em z

u be

spre

chen

.C

mit

eine

m a

nder

enTr

ansp

ortu

nter

nehm

en z

usam

men

zuar

beite

n.

44Fr

au S

cher

er b

ittet

Her

rn H

uber

,

Aei

ne K

alku

latio

n de

rTra

nspo

rtkos

ten

zu e

rste

llen.

Bm

it m

ehre

ren

Tran

spor

tfirm

enKo

ntak

tauf

zune

hmen

.C

sich

für e

in n

eues

Tra

nspo

rtunt

erne

hmen

zu

ents

chei

den.

Appendix 1.6

251

15

53

Lieb

e K

olle

ginn

en u

nd K

olle

gen,

Uns

ere

für l

etzt

en M

ittw

och

gepl

ante

Abt

eilu

ngsb

espr

echu

ng, d

ie w

egen

Kra

nkhe

itau

sfal

len

mus

ste,

kan

n nu

n au

ch d

iese

Woc

he n

icht

stat

tfind

en, d

a ic

h am

Mitt

woc

hei

nen

wic

htig

en a

nder

en T

erm

in h

abe.

Best

e G

rüße

H. K

unstm

ann

Die

Abt

eilu

ngsb

espr

echu

ngfin

det d

iese

Woc

he n

icht

sta

tt, w

eil H

err K

unst

man

n

Aei

nen

ande

ren

Term

in v

orsc

hläg

t.B

kein

e Ze

it ha

t.C

kran

k is

t.

54

Lieb

e M

itarb

eite

r und

Mita

rbei

terin

nen,

Die

Per

sona

labt

eilu

ng w

eist

noc

h ei

nmal

dar

auf

hin,

das

s al

le R

estu

rlaub

e bi

s En

deA

pril

des

Folg

ejah

res

geno

mm

en s

ein

müs

sen.

Nur

in

Aus

nahm

efäl

len,

wen

n au

sbe

trieb

liche

n G

ründ

en d

ringe

nd e

rfor

derli

ch,

kann

ein

Urla

ubsa

nspr

uch

auf

eine

nsp

äter

en Z

eitp

unkt

, sp

ätes

tens

jed

och

bis

Ende

Aug

ust

des

Folg

ejah

res,

über

trage

nw

erde

n.

Die

Mita

rbei

terin

nen

und

Mita

rbei

ter

Akö

nnen

ein

enTe

il de

s U

rlaub

s im

näc

hste

n Fr

ühja

hr n

ehm

en.

Bkö

nnen

ihre

n ga

nzen

Urla

ub a

uf d

as n

ächs

te J

ahr v

ersc

hieb

en.

Cm

üsse

n ih

ren

Urla

ub im

lauf

ende

n Ka

lend

erja

hrne

hmen

.

55

Lieb

e K

olle

ginn

en,

Frau

Mar

tin h

at si

ch w

iede

rhol

t bes

chw

ert ü

ber s

chm

utzi

ges G

esch

irr, d

as in

der

Küc

he h

erum

steh

t. Ic

h de

nke,

sie

hat R

echt

und

wir

sollt

en d

iese

s Pro

blem

irge

ndw

iere

geln

. Ich

schl

age

vor,

wir

setz

en u

ns m

orge

n 11

Uhr

kur

z zu

sam

men

und

übe

rlege

nge

mei

nsam

, wie

wir

dies

es u

nlie

bsam

e Th

ema

aus d

er W

elt s

chaf

fen

könn

en.

Wilm

a Fr

itz

Frau

Frit

z sc

hläg

t vor

,

Ada

s G

esch

irr g

emei

nsam

zu

spül

en.

Bsi

ch ü

ber F

rau

Mar

tin z

u be

schw

eren

.C

sich

zu

treffe

n un

d da

s Pr

oble

m z

u di

skut

iere

n.

14

LESE

VER

STEH

EN u

nd S

PRAC

HK

ENN

TNIS

TEIL

EIN

S

Absc

hnitt

Ein

sAu

fgab

en 5

1 –

57

•Le

sen

Sie

die

folg

ende

n N

otiz

en u

nd N

achr

icht

en.

•M

arki

eren

Sie

bei

den

Auf

gabe

n 51

– 5

7im

Ant

wor

tbog

en d

ie ri

chtig

e Lö

sung

A, B

oder

C. E

s gi

bt n

urei

ne ri

chtig

e Lö

sung

.

Bei

spie

l: DE

N IN

HA

LT

K�

HL

LA

GE

RN

UN

D V

OR

SO

NN

EN

LIC

HT

SC

H�

TZE

N

AD

er In

halt

mus

s be

i gle

ichb

leib

ende

r Tem

pera

tur l

ager

n.B

Der

Inha

lt is

t em

pfin

dlic

h ge

gen

Hitz

e un

d Li

cht.

CD

er In

halt

mus

s ge

frore

n la

gern

.

AB

C0

51O

ffizi

elle

Brie

fesc

hrei

ben

leic

ht g

emac

htD

er

Rat

gebe

rm

it Be

ispi

elen

, An

regu

ngen

un

d M

uste

rtext

en

für

Anfra

gen,

Rek

lam

atio

nen,

R

echn

unge

n.

Best

elle

n Si

e no

ch

heut

eun

sere

ko

sten

lose

Bros

chür

e.

Die

sen

Rat

gebe

r bek

omm

en S

ie

Abe

i Rek

lam

atio

nen.

Bge

gen

Rec

hnun

g.C

umso

nst.

52 Die

Deu

tsch

en k

aufe

n im

Inte

rnet

Am

ehr K

leid

er a

ls C

Ds.

Bvo

r alle

m R

eise

n.C

wen

iger

Büc

her a

ls C

ompu

ter.

Eink

äufe

imIn

tern

et

Reise

n34

%

Kleid

ung

15%

Com

pute

r15

%

CDs

21%

Büch

er15

%

Reise

n

Kleid

ung

Comp

uter

CDs

Büch

er

Lösu

ng:

Appendix 1.6

252

17

TEIL

EIN

S

Absc

hnitt

Zw

eiAu

fgab

en 5

8 –

63

•W�

hlen

Sie

das

Wor

t, da

s am

bes

ten

in d

ie L�

cke

im S

atz

pass

t.•

Mar

kier

en S

ie b

ei d

en A

ufga

ben

58 –

63

im A

ntw

ortb

ogen

die

ric

htig

eLö

sung

A, B

, Cod

er D

. Es

gib

t nur

ein

e ric

htig

e Lö

sung

.

Dur

ch…

……

……

…..

Prei

se g

ewin

nen

wir

wah

rsch

einl

ich

neue

Kun

den.

Ani

edrig

enB

nied

riger

Cni

edrig

ere

58

Dni

edrig

eren

Das

Sem

inar

war

lang

wei

lig. I

ch h

abe

……

……

……

.. N

eues

erfa

hren

.

Afa

stB

kein

Cni

cht

59

Dni

chts

Wei

l der

Fah

rer e

inen

Unf

allh

atte

, kam

die

War

e zu

……

……

……

.. .

Aal

tB

kapu

ttC

lang

sam

60

Dsp

ät

Näc

hste

Woc

he b

ekom

men

wir

eine

……

……

……

.. Ko

llegi

n.

Ane

uB

neue

Cne

uere

61

Dne

uere

s

Der

Brie

f mus

s er

st m

orge

n ra

us. S

ie k

önne

n si

ch a

lso

ruhi

g et

was

……

……

…..

lass

en.

AM

omen

tB

Paus

eC

Ruh

e

62

DZe

it

Ich

halte

die

se F

irma

……

……

……

.. se

hr g

ut. S

ie k

önne

n ih

r den

Auf

trag

gebe

n.

Aal

sB

best

imm

tC

f�r

63

Dw

ie

16

56

051015202530

1. Q

rtl.

2. Q

rtl.

3. Q

rtl.

4. Q

rtl.

Um

satz

u. G

ewin

n

Um

satz

Gew

inn

Der

Um

satz

Ais

t im

2. Q

uarta

l ges

tiege

n.B

ist i

m 3

. Qua

rtal s

o ho

ch w

ie im

4. Q

uarta

l.C

ist i

m 4

. Qua

rtal h

öher

als

im1.

Qua

rtal.

57

Sehr

gee

hrte

Fra

u Sc

hmid

t,

es tu

t uns

sehr

Lei

d, d

ass u

nser

e Li

efer

ung

nich

t zu

Ihre

r Zuf

riede

nhei

t aus

gefa

llen

ist.

Selb

stve

rstä

ndlic

h ne

hmen

wir

die

Send

ung

zurü

ck u

nd sc

hrei

ben

Ihne

n de

nR

echn

ungs

betra

ggu

t. Fa

lls S

ie m

it ei

nem

and

eren

Arti

kel e

inve

rsta

nden

sind

, geb

ensi

e un

s bitt

e so

schn

ell w

ie m

öglic

h N

achr

icht

. Wir

wer

den

ihn

so sc

hnel

l wie

mög

lich

schi

cken

.

Mit

freu

ndlic

hen

Grü

ßen

Tita

n H

ande

lsco

ntor

Tita

n H

ande

lsco

ntor

Aka

nn d

en R

echn

ungs

betra

g ni

cht g

utsc

hrei

ben.

Bka

nn e

inen

and

eren

Arti

kel l

iefe

rn.

Cm

öcht

e G

ründ

e fü

rdie

Rüc

ksen

dung

wis

sen.

Appendix 1.6

253

19

64D

ie a

usge

schr

iebe

ne S

telle

ver

lang

t

Aei

ne a

bges

chlo

ssen

eBe

rufs

ausb

ildun

g.B

gute

Spr

achk

ennt

niss

e in

zw

ei F

rem

dspr

ache

n.C

kein

e frü

here

n be

rufli

chen

Erfa

hrun

gen.

65D

ie B

ewer

berin

gla

ubt,

dass

Adi

e An

ford

erun

gen

hoch

sin

d.B

sie

den

Anfo

rder

unge

n ge

nügt

.C

sie

die

Anfo

rder

unge

n ni

cht g

enau

ken

nt.

66D

ie F

rem

dspr

ache

nken

ntni

sse

der B

ewer

berin

sin

d

Ain

Eng

lisch

bes

ser a

ls in

Fra

nzös

isch

.B

in F

ranz

ösis

ch b

esse

r als

in It

alie

nisc

h.C

in F

ranz

ösis

ch n

icht

aus

reic

hend

.

67D

ie B

ewer

berin

hat

frühe

r

AD

iens

treis

en fü

r Firm

en o

rgan

isie

rt.B

indi

vidu

elle

Rei

sen

für F

irmen

mita

rbei

ter o

rgan

isie

rt.C

Rei

sen

fürG

rupp

en o

rgan

isie

rt.

68D

ie B

ewer

berin

Ais

t mit

ihre

m A

rbei

tspl

atz

nich

t zuf

riede

n.B

möc

hte

aus

pers

önlic

hen

Grü

nden

nac

h O

snab

rück

.C

woh

nt je

tzt i

n O

snab

rück

und

möc

hte

weg

zieh

en.

69D

ie F

irma,

die

die

Ste

lle a

usge

schr

iebe

n ha

t, is

t

Adi

e D

euts

che

Bund

esba

hn.

Bei

n To

uris

tikun

tern

ehm

en.

Cei

ne F

lugg

esel

lsch

aft.

18

TEIL

EIN

S

Absc

hnitt

Dre

iAu

fgab

en 6

4 –

69

•Le

sen

Sie

den

folg

ende

Tex

t auf

mer

ksam

dur

ch u

nd b

eant

wor

ten

Sie

die

Aufg

aben

64

– 69

auf d

er g

egen

�be

rlieg

ende

n Se

ite.

•M

arki

eren

Sie

bei

den

Auf

gabe

n 64

– 6

9im

Ant

wor

tbog

en d

ie ri

chtig

e lö

sung

A, B

ode

rC

. Es

gib

t nur

ein

e ric

htig

e lö

sung

.

Sehr

gee

hrte

Dam

en, s

ehr g

eehr

te H

erre

n,

Ihre

inde

r Süd

deut

sche

n Ze

itung

ers

chie

nene

Ste

llena

nzei

ge h

at m

ich

sehr

ang

espr

oche

n.Si

e su

chen

ein

e zu

verlä

ssig

e M

itarb

eite

rin, d

ie s

ich

durc

h Fl

exib

ilität

aus

zeic

hnet

, übe

r gut

eita

lieni

sche

Spr

ache

nken

ntni

sse

und

auße

rdem

übe

r Erfa

hrun

gin

der P

lanu

ngvo

nG

rupp

enre

isen

ver

fügt

.

Wei

terh

in w

ünsc

hen

Sie

Erfa

hrun

g im

Um

gang

mit

dem

PC

-Pro

gram

m S

TAR

Tun

d na

türli

chei

ne a

bges

chlo

ssen

e Be

rufs

ausb

ildun

g al

s R

eise

kauf

frau.

Ich

glau

be, d

ass

ich

alle

die

se g

esch

ilder

ten

Anfo

rder

unge

n er

fülle

.

Ich

bin

eins

atzf

reud

ig u

nd e

ngag

iert,

hab

e m

eine

Ital

ieni

sch-

Kenn

tnis

se a

n de

rD

olm

etsc

hers

chul

e in

Hei

delb

erg

erw

orbe

n un

d ve

rfüge

auc

h üb

er s

ehr g

ute

Engl

isch

-Ke

nntn

isse

inW

ort u

nd S

chrif

t sow

ie ü

ber b

rauc

hbar

e Fr

anzö

sisc

h-Ke

nntn

isse

.

Wäh

rend

mei

ner 3

-jähr

igen

Ber

ufst

ätig

keit

war

ich

vor a

llem

mit

der O

rgan

isat

ion

von

Gru

ppen

reis

en b

etra

ut. I

ch h

abe

beso

nder

en S

paß

am U

mga

ngm

it M

ensc

hen,

auf

der

enW

ünsc

he u

nd B

edür

fnis

se ic

h m

ich

gut e

inst

elle

n ka

nn. F

ür a

lle v

on m

ir or

gani

sier

ten

Rei

sen

gab

es b

eson

ders

gut

e R

ückm

eldu

ngen

.

Aus

fam

iliäre

n G

ründ

en p

lane

ich,

nac

h O

snab

rück

um

zuzi

ehen

und

hab

e de

shal

b m

eine

nje

tzig

en A

rbei

tspl

atz

gekü

ndig

t.

An Ih

rem

Unt

erne

hmen

gef

ällt

mir

beso

nder

s, d

ass

es e

in m

ittle

res

Unt

erne

hmen

mit

eine

rüb

ersc

haub

aren

Mita

rbei

terz

ahl i

st. I

ch g

laub

e, m

eine

Fäh

igke

iten

so b

esse

r ent

falte

n zu

könn

en a

ls in

ein

em s

ehr g

roße

n U

nter

nehm

en.

Ger

ne w

ürde

ich

mei

nen

Beru

fsw

eg b

ei Ih

nen

forts

etze

n. F

alls

Sie

mei

ne B

ewer

bung

ansp

richt

, tei

len

Sie

mir

bitte

ein

en T

erm

infü

r ein

per

sönl

iche

s G

espr

äch

mit.

Mit

freun

dlic

hen

Grü

ßen

Ilona

Sch

reib

er

Appendix 1.6

254

21

LESE

VER

STEH

EN u

nd S

PRAC

HK

ENN

TNIS

Teil

Zwei

20

TEIL

EIN

S

Absc

hnitt

Vie

rAu

fgab

en 7

0 –

74

•Le

sen

Sie

den

folg

ende

n Te

xt u

nd�

berle

gen

Sie

sich

f�r j

ede

der L

�ck

en e

in p

asse

ndes

Wor

t.•

Schr

eibe

n Si

e f�

r die

L�

cken

70

– 74

jew

eils

nur

ein

Wor

t in

den

Antw

ortb

ogen

.

Bei

spie

l:

Er i

st s

ehr…

……

.……

…. C

ompu

tern

inte

ress

iert.

Lösu

ng:

Ihre

Anz

eige

in d

er F

rank

furt

er A

llgem

eine

n Ze

itung

Aus

Ihre

r Anz

eige

ent

nehm

e ic

h, (

70) …

……

……

…..

Ihr U

nter

nehm

en ta

lent

ierte

F�hr

ungs

kräf

te s

ucht

. Ic

h ha

be m

ein

Stud

ium

der

Betri

ebsw

irtsc

hafts

lehr

e vo

r kur

zem

abge

schl

osse

n un

d su

che

jetz

t ein

e ve

rant

wor

tung

svol

le T

ätig

keit

(71)

……

……

……

..fr�

hest

mög

liche

n Ze

itpun

kt.

Ich

glau

be, d

ass

ich

den

besc

hrie

bene

n Au

fgab

en a

ufgr

und

(72)

……

……

……

..Q

ualif

ikat

ione

n en

tspr

eche

. W

ähre

nd m

eine

s St

udiu

ms

habe

ich

ein

drei

mon

atig

esPr

aktik

um(7

3) …

……

……

…..

eine

r Firm

a in

den

USA

ver

brac

ht.

Des

halb

ver

f�ge

ich

�be

r seh

r gut

e En

glis

chke

nntn

isse

inW

ort u

nd S

chrif

t.

Neb

en K

reat

ivitä

t geh

ören

Bel

astb

arke

it, V

eran

twor

tung

sbew

usst

sein

und

Team

fähi

gkei

t (7

4) …

……

……

…..

mei

nen

Eige

nsch

afte

n.

0an

Appendix 1.6

255

23

A

Schr

eibe

n Si

e Ih

ren

Bus

ines

spla

n on

line.

Das

ler

nen

Sie

in u

nser

emac

htw

öchi

gen

Wor

ksho

p. W

ir er

läut

ern

Ihne

n, w

elch

e In

halte

das

Pap

ier

habe

n m

uss

und

helfe

n Ih

nen,

Ihre

n in

divi

duel

len

Plan

ein

satz

ferti

g zu

ers

telle

n. N

ach

acht

Woc

hen

verf

ügen

Sie

übe

rIh

ren

Pla

n un

d ha

ben

glei

chze

itig

das

Kno

w h

ow e

rwor

ben,

um

in d

er Z

ukun

ft Ih

re P

läne

selb

stst

ändi

g er

stel

len

zukö

nnen

. Das

alle

s via

Inte

rnet

ohn

e pe

rsön

liche

Zusa

mm

enku

nft.

B

Könn

en S

ie Ih

re e

igen

en F

ähig

keite

n be

im V

orst

ellu

ngsg

espr

äch

richt

igve

rmitt

eln?

Wis

sen

Sie,

nac

h w

elch

en K

riter

ien

Pers

onal

entw

ickl

er B

ewer

ber

ausw

ähle

n? B

eide

s is

t ein

wic

htig

er S

chrit

t zum

Wun

schj

ob. D

iese

Ken

ntni

sse

verm

ittel

t Ihn

en u

nser

dre

itägi

ges

Sem

inar

in M

ünch

en „S

ehen

und

ges

ehen

wer

den“

für S

tude

nten

vor

der

Job

-Suc

he. S

ie k

önne

n w

ähle

n zw

isch

en z

wei

Term

inen

jähr

lich.

Für

wei

tere

Info

rmat

ione

n st

ehen

wir

gern

e zu

r Ver

fügu

ng.

C

Im „Wissensforum“ der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung setzen

wir unsere Veranstaltungsreihe fort. An zwölf Abenden

referieren Prominente Persönlichkeiten über verschiedene

Aspekte der Themen „Erfolg“ und „lebenslanges Lernen“. Unsere

Veranstaltungen können en bloc oder auch einzeln gebucht

werden. Reservierungen unter 069/ 25 36 08 bei Frau Schröder.

D

Möc

hten

Sie

in e

inem

uns

erer

eur

opäi

sche

n N

achb

arlä

nder

lebe

n un

d do

rtau

ch Ih

ren

Lebe

nsun

terh

alt v

erdi

enen

? D

ann

besu

chen

Sie

uns

er e

inw

öchi

ges S

emin

ar „

fitfü

r Eur

opa“

, das

Ihne

n fu

ndie

rte E

inbl

icke

in u

nser

e N

achb

arlä

nder

ver

mitt

elt.

Von

Woh

nung

ssuc

he ü

ber A

rbei

tsre

cht b

is z

ur P

erso

nalfü

hrun

g,w

erde

n in

uns

erem

Sem

inar

alle

wic

htig

en A

spek

te a

nges

proc

hen.

Wir

wür

den

Sie

gern

e al

s Tei

lneh

mer

beg

rüße

n.

22

TEIL

ZW

EI

Absc

hnitt

Ein

sAu

fgab

en 7

5 –

81

•Le

sen

Sie

die

folg

ende

n Äu

ßeru

ngen

und

die

vie

r Anz

eige

n au

f der

geg

enüb

erlie

gend

enSe

ite a

ufm

erks

amdu

rch.

•W

elch

e An

zeig

e pa

sst z

u w

elch

er d

er Ä

ußer

unge

n 75

– 8

1?•

Mar

kier

en S

ie im

Ant

wor

tbog

en je

wei

lsei

nen

Buch

stab

en A

, B, C

ode

rD fü

r die

rich

tige

Anze

ige.

Bei

spie

l:

0Si

e be

kom

men

im S

emin

ar e

in fe

rtige

s Ko

nzep

t.

Lösu

ng:

0A

B

C

D

75D

iese

s Se

min

arfin

det i

n M

ünch

en s

tatt.

76Si

e w

olle

n im

Aus

land

arb

eite

n un

d su

chen

ein

Sem

inar

zur

Vor

bere

itung

.

77Si

e ha

ben

wen

ig Z

eit u

nd s

uche

n de

shal

bei

n vi

rtuel

les

Sem

inar

.

78D

as S

emin

arfin

det a

n ei

nzel

nen

Aben

den

stat

t.

79D

as S

emin

arfin

det z

wei

mal

im J

ahr s

tatt.

80Si

e su

chen

ein

Sem

inar

, bei

dem

man

nic

ht a

lle T

erm

ine

buch

en m

uss.

81Si

e m

öcht

en le

rnen

, wie

man

sic

h am

best

en p

räse

ntie

rt.

Appendix 1.6

256

25

TEIL

ZW

EI

Absc

hnitt

Dre

iAu

fgab

en 8

7 –

91

•Le

sen

Sie

den

folg

ende

n Te

xt u

nd�

berle

gen

Sie

sich

f�r j

ede

der L

�ck

en e

in p

asse

ndes

Wor

t.•

Schr

eibe

n Si

e f�

r die

L�

cken

87 –

91

jew

eils

nure

in W

ort i

n de

n An

twor

tbog

en.

Bei

spie

l:

Er i

st s

ehr…

……

.……

…. C

ompu

tern

inte

ress

iert.

Lösu

ng:

Ein

Sem

inar

zu

Zeit-

und

Sel

bstm

anag

emen

t

Der

Le

itspr

uch,

de

r si

ch

durc

h da

s ga

nze

Sem

inar

zo

g,w

ar:

Sich

ni

cht

verz

ette

ln,

(87)

……

……

……

.. kl

are

Prio

rität

en

setz

en!

Anha

nd

(88)

……

……

……

.. m

ehrs

eitig

enAr

beits

blat

tes

fand

en

die

Sem

inar

teiln

ehm

er

hera

us,

in

wel

chen

dr

ei

Bere

iche

n ih

res

Zeitm

anag

emen

ts fü

rsie

der

grö

ßte

Han

dlun

gsbe

darf

(89)

……

……

……

.. .

Die

wic

htig

ste

Erke

nntn

is f

ür a

lle T

eiln

ehm

er d

es S

emin

ars:

Nur

(90)

……

……

……

.. si

chda

rübe

r im

Kla

ren

ist,

woh

in e

r in

sein

em B

eruf

und

inse

inem

Priv

atle

ben

lang

frist

ig w

ill,de

rist

auch

in d

er(9

1) …

……

……

…..

, bei

den

tägl

iche

n Ve

rrich

tung

en P

riorit

äten

zu

setz

en.

0an

24

TEIL

ZW

EI

Absc

hnitt

Zw

eiAu

fgab

en 8

2 –

86

•Le

sen

Sie

den

folg

ende

nTe

xt a

ufm

erks

am d

urch

und

wäh

len

Sie

für

jede

Lüc

ke d

aspa

ssen

de W

orta

usde

r Lis

te u

nten

aus

.•

Mar

kier

en S

ie fü

r di

e Lü

cken

82

– 86

im A

ntw

ortb

ogen

die

ric

htig

e Lö

sung

A, B

, C o

der

D. E

s gi

bt n

urei

ne ri

chtig

e Lö

sung

.

Bei

spie

l:

Er m

�ch

te, d

ass

Sie

ihm

den

Gru

nd (0

) ……

……

……

...

0A

ansa

gen

Bsa

gen

Cau

ssag

enD

vers

agen

Lösu

ng:

0A

B

C

D

Die

erf

olgr

eich

eB

espr

echu

ng

Wen

n Si

e zu

ei

ner

Besp

rech

ung

eing

elad

en

wer

den,

so

llten

Si

e(8

2) …

……

……

…..

best

ehen

,da

ss s

ie p

ünkt

lich

begi

nnt

und

sich

mel

den,

wen

n Si

e (8

3) …

……

……

…..

, da

ss d

ie D

isku

ssio

n zu

wei

t vo

m T

hem

aab

schw

eift.

(84

) ……

……

……

.. d

erje

nige

, de

rein

gela

den

hat,

die

Kont

rolle

über

die

Bes

prec

hung

ver

liert,

sol

lten

Sie

ihn

dara

n er

inne

rn,

dass

die

Zei

tw

eglä

uft u

nd S

ie n

och

viel

vor

sic

h ha

ben

oder

nac

h de

r(8

5) …

……

……

…..

Besp

rech

ung

noch

wic

htig

e Au

fgab

en z

u er

ledi

gen

habe

n. M

ache

n Si

e al

soim

mer

kla

r, da

ss S

ie (

86) …

……

……

…..,

si

ch a

n di

eTa

geso

rdnu

ngzu

halte

n.

82A

dage

gen

Bda

mit

Cda

rauf

Dda

rübe

r

83A

beda

uern

Bbe

mer

ken

Cbe

schl

ieße

nD

beto

nen

84A

Nac

hdem

BO

bwoh

lC

Wäh

rend

DW

enn

85A

folg

ende

nB

kom

men

den

Cla

ufen

den

Dnä

chst

en

86A

vorg

eben

Bvo

rgeh

enC

vorh

aben

Dvo

rneh

men

Appendix 1.6

257

27

Her

r Mai

er is

t noc

h in

ein

er B

espr

echu

ng.

……

……

……

..er

Sie

in e

iner

Stu

nde

zurü

ckru

fen?

AKa

nnB

Möc

hte

CM

uss

95

DW�rd

e

Beid

eine

nÜ

berle

gung

en s

ollte

st d

u di

e W

echs

elku

rse

nich

t auß

er A

cht …

……

……

…..

.

Aha

ben

Bla

ssen

Cne

hmen

96

Dse

tzen

Ohn

e se

ine

Hilf

e …

……

……

…..

wir

nie

so s

chne

llfe

rtig

gew

orde

n.

Ahä

tten

Bsi

ndC

wär

en

97

Dw

ürde

n

26

TEIL

ZW

EI

Absc

hnitt

Vie

rAu

fgab

en 9

2 –

97

•W

ähle

n Si

e da

s W

ort,

das

am b

este

n in

die

Lüc

ke im

Sat

z pa

sst.

•M

arki

eren

Sie

bei

den

Auf

gabe

n 92

– 9

7im

Ant

wor

tbog

en d

ie r

icht

ige

Lösu

ng A

, B, C

oder

D.

Es g

ibt n

ur e

ine

richt

ige

Lösu

ng.

Das

im le

tzte

n Ja

hrei

ngef

ührte

Pro

dukt

erfr

eut s

ich

zune

hmen

der

……

……

……

.. .

ABe

deut

ung

BBe

fried

igun

gC

Begr

üßun

g

92

DBe

liebt

heit

Sie

fühl

t sic

h …

……

……

…..

ihre

rneu

en F

irma

sehr

woh

l.

Aau

fB

inC

mit

93

D�

ber

Uns

er C

hef w

eiß

mit

sein

en M

itarb

eite

rn g

ut …

……

……

…..

.

Aum

gehe

nB

umge

hen

soll

Cum

zuge

hen

94

Dw

ie u

mge

hen

Appendix 1.6

258

29

98In

der

Stu

die

wur

de e

rfors

cht,

ob d

ie E

ntse

ndun

g vo

n M

itarb

eite

rn in

s Au

slan

d

Ade

n M

itarb

eite

rn s

chad

et.

Bfü

r die

Firm

a nü

tzlic

h is

t.C

richt

ig g

epla

nt w

ird.

Dzu

vie

l Gel

d ko

stet

.

99Be

i der

Stud

ie h

ande

lt es

sic

h um

eine

Afir

men

inte

rne

Stud

ie.

BU

mfra

ge b

eiBa

nken

und

Pha

rmau

nter

nehm

en.

Cw

isse

nsch

aftli

che

Stud

ie.

DZe

itung

sum

frage

.

100

Die

unt

ersu

chte

n U

nter

nehm

en s

chic

ken

Mita

rbei

ter i

ns A

usla

nd, d

amit

sie

AFr

emds

prac

hen

lern

en.

Bim

Aus

land

Filia

len

aufb

auen

.C

inte

rnat

iona

le E

rfahr

unge

n sa

mm

eln.

Dne

ue K

unde

n w

erbe

n.

101

Die

Mita

rbei

ter h

aben

im A

usla

nd E

rken

ntni

sse

gew

onne

n üb

er

Ada

s D

euts

chla

ndbi

ld d

erau

slän

disc

hen

Partn

er.

Bdi

e Kr

editw

ürdi

gkei

t aus

länd

isch

er P

artn

er.

Cdi

e w

irtsc

haftl

iche

Uns

iche

rhei

t aus

länd

isch

er P

artn

er.

Dpo

tent

ielle

neue

Ges

chäf

tsbe

reic

he fü

r die

Firm

a.

102

Die

zur

ückg

ekeh

rten

Mita

rbei

ter w

aren

frus

trier

t, w

eil s

ie

Ake

ine

Befö

rder

ung

auf e

ine

bess

ere

Stel

le b

ekam

en.

Bm

ehrI

nter

esse

an

ihre

n Er

fahr

unge

n er

war

tet h

atte

n.C

sich

an

meh

r Int

erna

tiona

lität

gew

öhnt

hat

ten.

Dsi

ch in

ihre

r jet

zige

n St

elle

eing

eeng

t füh

lten.

103

Die

Firm

enle

itung

en

Apl

anen

Maß

nahm

en, u

mdi

e Si

tuat

ion

zu v

erbe

sser

n.B

reag

ierte

n ni

cht a

uf d

ie E

rgeb

niss

e de

rStu

die.

Cw

isse

n ni

cht,

wie

sie

die

Situ

atio

n ve

rbes

sern

sol

len.

Dw

olle

n ke

ine

Mita

rbei

ter m

ehr i

ns A

usla

nd s

chic

ken.

28

TEIL

ZW

EI

Absc

hnitt

F�

nfAu

fgab

en 9

8 –

103

•Le

sen

Sie

den

folg

ende

n Te

xt a

ufm

erks

am d

urch

und

löse

n Si

e di

e Au

fgab

en a

uf d

erge

genü

berli

egen

den

Seite

.•

Mar

kier

en S

ie b

ei d

en A

ufga

ben

98 –

103

im A

ntw

ortb

ogen

die

ric

htig

e Lö

sung

A, B

, Cod

erD

. Es

gib

t nur

ein

e ric

htig

e Lö

sung

.

Das

ver

schw

ende

te K

apita

l

Deu

tsch

e Fi

rmen

sch

icke

n zw

arvi

ele

Mita

rbei

terf

ür te

ures

Gel

d in

s Au

slan

d, d

eren

Wis

sen

nutz

en s

ie a

bern

icht

und

ver

schw

ende

n da

mit

wer

tvol

le R

esso

urce

n. D

as is

t das

Erg

ebni

sei

ner S

tudi

e de

s W

isse

nsch

afts

zent

rum

s Be

rlin,

übe

r die

in d

erhe

utig

en A

usga

be v

onW

irtsc

haft

Heu

te b

eric

htet

wird

.

Für d

ie S

tudi

e w

urde

n zw

eigr

oße

deut

sche

Firm

en u

nter

such

t: ei

ne P

harm

a-Fi

rma

mit

20.0

00 M

itarb

eite

rn u

nd e

ine

Bank

mit

30.0

00 A

nges

tellt

en. B

eide

Firm

en h

aben

ein

ige

hund

ert M

itarb

eite

r in

alle

n Te

ilen

derW

elt u

nd d

ie F

irmen

leitu

ngen

sin

d üb

erze

ugt,

dass

inte

rnat

iona

le E

rfahr

ung

wic

htig

ist u

nd d

ie M

itarb

eite

r nac

h ih

rer R

ückk

ehr i

hr W

isse

n in

die

Firm

a ei

nbrin

gen.

Tats

ache

ist a

ber,

dass

die

Firm

en n

ach

der R

ückk

ehr d

erex

patri

ats

dies

e ka

um n

ach

ihre

mW

isse

n un

d ih

ren

Erfa

hrun

gen

frage

n.D

abei

hab

en d

ie M

itarb

eite

r im

Ausl

and

viel

übe

rau

slän

disc

he K

ultu

rund

Ges

chäf

tsge

woh

nhei

ten

gele

rnt.

Sie

kenn

en z

.B. a

uch

die

Kred

itris

iken

, uns

iche

re K

unde

n od

erne

ue G

esch

äfts

bere

iche

und

ver

steh

en v

iel b

esse

r, w

ieAu

slän

der i

hre

deut

sche

n G

esch

äfts

partn

erbe

urte

ilen.

Abe

r in

kein

er d

erbe

iden

Firm

enbe

müh

te m

an s

ich

aktiv

dar

um, d

asW

isse

n de

r Hei

mke

hrer

zu

nutz

en. K

aum

ein

er w

urde

nach

sei

nen

Erfa

hrun

gen

befra

gt u

nd n

ur e

inem

Vier

tel w

urde

ans

chlie

ßend

ein

e St

elle

ange

bote

n, d

ie e

inen

Bez

ug z

u de

m L

and

hatte

, in

dem

sie

gew

esen

war

en. N

ur w

enig

ebe

richt

eten

von

Pro

jekt

en, i

n de

nen

sie

ihrn

eues

Wis

sen

konk

ret u

mse

tzen

kon

nten

.

Es h

ilft a

bern

icht

s, In

tern

atio

nalis

ieru

ng a

nzus

trebe

n, u

nd d

ann

vorh

ande

ne M

öglic

hkei

ten

nich

t zu

nutz

en. D

iese

Ver

schw

endu

ng k

ann

sich

heu

te k

ein

Unt

erne

hmen

meh

r lei

sten

.G

ründ

efü

rdie

se V

ersä

umni

sse

der d

euts

chen

Firm

enle

itung

en z

ufin

den,

ist s

ehr s

chw

er.

Lieg

t es

an z

u st

arre

r Org

anis

atio

n, a

llgem

eine

rIgn

oran

z od

er s

ogar

an

der A

ngst

, das

san

dere

meh

r wis

sen

könn

ten

als

man

sel

ber?

Bei

den

bet

roffe

nen

Mita

rbei

tern

führ

te d

ieH

altu

ng d

er F

irmen

leitu

ngen

mei

sten

s zu

Fru

st u

nd R

esig

natio

n. V

on d

en F

irmen

leitu

ngen

gab

es k

eine

Ste

llung

nahm

e zu

den

Erg

ebni

ssen

der

Bef

ragu

ng.

Appendix 1.6

259

31

LEER

E SE

ITE

30

TEIL

ZW

EI

Absc

hnitt

Sec

hsAu

fgab

en 1

04 –

110

•D

er n

achf

olge

nde

Text

ent

hält

eini

ge F

ehle

r.•

Ist e

in S

atz

ohne

Feh

ler,

mac

hen

Sie

im A

ntw

ortb

ogen

ein

Häk

chen

( √ )

hint

erde

rN

umm

er.

•Is

t ein

Wor

t fal

sch,

sch

reib

en S

ie d

ie k

orre

kte

Form

hin

ter d

ie e

ntsp

rech

ende

Num

mer

inde

n An

twor

tbog

en.

Bei

spie

l:

Es k

onnt

e ke

ine

Übe

rein

kunf

t erz

ielt

wer

den.

0�

Bet�

tigen

Sie

bitt

e de

n Er

halt

derW

are.

00Bes

t�tig

en

Lieb

er H

err V

ollm

er,

104

Dan

ke fü

r Ihr

e An

frage

bez

üglic

h de

r von

uns

ang

ebot

ene

Dru

cker

. Da

105

Sie

die

Dru

cker

für I

hr G

roßr

aum

büro

ben

ötig

en u

nd s

omit

auch

der

106

Ger

äusc

hbel

astu

ng e

ine

Rol

le s

piel

t, m

öcht

e ic

h Si

e di

e An

scha

ffung

107

des

kom

pakt

en D

IN A

3-D

ruck

ers

BJ-2

30 e

mpf

ehle

n. E

r geh

ört z

u de

n

108

leis

este

n Ti

nten

stra

hldr

ucke

rnde

rWel

t und

sin

d de

shal

b fü

r ein

Gro

ßrau

mbü

ro b

este

ns g

eeig

net.

109

Bitte

lass

e Si

e un

s Ih

reEn

tsch

eidu

ng m

öglic

hst b

ald

wis

sen

und

sage

n

110

Sie

uns

auch

, wie

vie

len

Dru

cker

Sie

ben

ötig

en. B

ei e

iner

Bes

tellu

ng

von

min

dest

ens

5 D

ruck

ern

könn

en w

ir Ih

nen

eine

n R

abat

t anb

iete

n.

Mit

freun

dlic

hen

Grü

ßen

H. U

nter

berg

260

LEVELS Listening/Speaking Reading Writing

C2Level 5

CAN advise on/handlecomplex delicate orcontentious issues, suchas legal or financialmatters, to the extentthat he/she has thenecessary specialistknowledge.

CAN understand reportsand articles likely to beencountered duringhis/her work, includingcomplex ideasexpressed in complexlanguage.

CAN make full andaccurate notes andcontinue to participatein a meeting or seminar.

C1Level 4

CAN contributeeffectively to meetingsand seminars withinown area of work andargue for or against acase.

CAN understandcorrespondenceexpressed in non-standard language.

CAN handle a widerange of routine andnon-routine situations inwhich professionalservices are requestedfrom colleague orexternal contacts.

B2Level 3

CAN take and pass onmost messages that arelikely to requireattention during anormal working day.

CAN understand mostcorrespondence, reportsand factual productliterature he/she is likelyto come across.

CAN deal with allroutine requests forgoods or services.

B1Level 2

CAN offer advice toclients within own jobarea on simple matters.

CAN understand thegeneral meaning of non-routine letters andtheoretical articleswithin own work area.

CAN make reasonablyaccurate notes at ameeting or seminarwhere the subject matteris familiar andpredictable.

A2Level 1

CAN state simplerequirements withinown job area, such as ‘Iwant to order 25 of...’.

CAN understand mostshort reports or manualsof a predictable naturewithin his/her own areaof expertise, providedenough time is given.

CAN write a short,comprehensive note ofrequest to a colleague ora known contact inanother company.

A1ALTEbreakthroughlevel

CAN take and pass onsimple messages of aroutine kind, such as‘Friday meeting 10 am’.

CAN understand shortreports or productdescriptions on familiarmatters, if these areexpressed in simplelanguage and thecontents are predictable.

CAN write a simpleroutine request to acolleague, such as ‘CanI have 20X please?’.

APPENDIX 2.1

ALTE Work Typical Abilities

261

APPENDIX 3.1

BEC 1 Sample Paper

Appendic 3.1

262

Appendic 3.1

263

Appendic 3.1

264

Appendic 3.1

265

Appendic 3.1

266

Appendic 3.1

267

Appendic 3.1

268

Appendic 3.1

269

Appendic 3.1

270

Appendic 3.1

271

Appendic 3.1

272

Appendic 3.1

273

Appendic 3.1

274

Appendic 3.1

275

Appendic 3.1

276

277

APPENDIX 3.2

BEC 2 Sample Paper

Appendix 3.2

278

Appendix 3.2

279

Appendix 3.2

280

Appendix 3.2

281

Appendix 3.2

282

Appendix 3.2

283

Appendix 3.2

284

Appendix 3.2

285

Appendix 3.2

286

Appendix 3.2

287

Appendix 3.2

288

Appendix 3.2

289

Appendix 3.2

290

291

APPENDIX 3.3

BEC 3 Sample Paper

Appendix 3.3

292

Appendix 3.3

293

Appendix 3.3

294

Appendix 3.3

295

Appendix 3.3

296

Appendix 3.3

297

Appendix 3.3

298

Appendix 3.3

299

Appendix 3.3

300

Appendix 3.3

301

APPENDIX 4.1

BEC Preliminary Sample Paper

TIME 1 hour 30 minutes

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

Do not open this paper until you are told to do so.

Write your name, Centre number and candidate number in the spaces at the top of this page. Write these

details in pencil on your Answer Sheets if these are not already printed.

Write all your answers in pencil on your Answer Sheets – no extra time is allowed for this.

Read carefully the instructions for each part, and the instructions for completing your Answer Sheets.

Try to answer all the questions.

At the end of the examination hand in both this question paper and your Answer Sheets.

INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES

There are forty-seven questions on this question paper:

Reading Questions 1 – 45

Writing Questions 46 – 47

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE LOCAL EXAMINATIONS SYNDICATE

Examinations in English as a Foreign Language

BUSINESS ENGLISH CERTIFICATE 0351/1,2Preliminary

Test of Reading and Writing Test 023

Wednesday 5 JUNE 2002 Morning 1 hour 30 minutes

Additional materials:Answer Sheets

Candidate

Centre Number Number

Candidate Name

This question paper consists of 17 printed pages.

SP (AT/SLC) S25800/4

302

Appendix 4.1

303

2

AA

ll cu

stom

ers

are

guar

ante

ed n

ext-

day

deliv

ery.

BG

oods

are

del

iver

ed n

ext

day,

dep

endi

ng o

n av

aila

bilit

y.

CA

ny g

oods

out

of

stoc

k ar

e de

liver

ed w

ith y

our

next

ord

er.

3

Acc

ount

s w

ill

Ane

ed t

o ha

ve d

etai

ls o

f ex

pens

es b

efor

e ne

xt m

onth

.

Bse

ttle

all e

xpen

ses

at t

he e

nd o

f th

is m

onth

.

Cre

turn

you

r re

ceip

ts b

y th

e en

d of

the

mon

th.

4

AA

ny p

hoto

copi

es f

rom

Shr

oder

s w

ill c

ost

3p e

ach.

BE

ach

copy

cos

ts 3

p le

ss a

fter

the

first

300

0 co

pies

.

CF

or t

he f

irst

3000

cop

ies,

Shr

oder

s m

ake

no c

harg

e.

5

Sta

ff m

ust

Ain

form

the

ir m

anag

er if

the

y ar

e ab

sent

.

Bge

t pe

rmis

sion

to

take

tim

e of

f.

Cre

min

d th

eir

man

ager

of

whe

n th

ey a

re o

n le

ave.

Sta

ff a

re r

emin

ded

th

at a

ll ar

ran

gem

ents

fo

r le

ave

mu

st b

e ap

pro

ved

in a

dva

nce

by

line

man

ager

s.

SCH

RO

DER

SS

pec

ial

Off

er o

n p

ho

toco

pie

r re

nta

ls.

Fir

st 3

000

cop

ies

free

. A

fter

th

at e

ach

co

py

cost

s ju

st 3

p.

We

gu

aran

tee

del

iver

y to

yo

ur

do

or

wit

hin

24

ho

urs

, if

th

e g

oo

ds

are

in s

tock

.

Acc

ount

s

Sale

s D

epar

tmen

t

Exp

ense

s

Send

in a

ll re

ceip

ts f

or e

xpen

ses

by t

he la

st d

ay o

f th

is m

onth

.

RE

AD

ING

QU

ES

TIO

NS

1 –

45

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

s 1

– 5

•L

oo

k a

t q

ue

stio

ns 1

– 5

.

•In

ea

ch

qu

estio

n,

wh

ich

se

nte

nce

is c

orr

ect?

•F

or

ea

ch

qu

estio

n,

ma

rk o

ne

lett

er

(A,

Bor

C)

on

yo

ur

An

sw

er

Sh

ee

t.

1

Ph

on

e 0

84

5 1

23

4 f

or

Aa

lis

t o

f cu

rre

nt

job

va

ca

ncie

s.

Ba

re

fere

nce

nu

mb

er

for

on

e o

f th

ese

va

ca

ncie

s.

Cd

eta

ils a

bo

ut

job

s o

n t

he

lis

t.

FO

R M

OR

E I

NF

OR

MA

TIO

N A

BO

UT

AN

YO

F T

HE

JO

B V

AC

AN

CIE

S O

N T

HIS

LIS

T,P

HO

NE

0845

123

4, Q

UO

TIN

G T

HE

RE

FE

RE

NC

E N

UM

BE

R

Exa

mp

le:

0

The p

lane a

rriv

es a

t

Aquart

er

to s

even in t

he m

orn

ing.

Bquart

er

past

six

in t

he e

venin

g.

Cquart

er

to s

even in t

he e

venin

g.

The c

orr

ect

answ

er

is C

, so m

ark

your

Answ

er

Sheet

like t

his

:

Do

n’t

fo

rge

t –

flig

ht

BA

69

26

.45

pm

0A

BC

��

��

6A

publis

hin

g c

om

pany w

ants

to s

ele

ct

a c

om

pute

r cours

e f

or

new

sta

ff.

7A

mark

eting d

irecto

r re

quires f

ive h

undre

d leaflets

to p

rom

ote

a n

ew

pro

duct.

8T

he

sa

les m

an

ag

er

of

a s

oft

wa

re c

om

pa

ny h

as t

o a

rra

ng

e s

eve

ral tr

ips a

bro

ad

fo

r h

er

sta

ff.

9T

he m

anager

of

a s

mall

printing c

om

pany r

equires a

dvic

e o

n e

nte

ring f

ore

ign m

ark

ets

.

10A

hu

ma

n r

eso

urc

es m

an

ag

er

ha

s t

o a

pp

oin

t a

n e

xe

cu

tive

se

cre

tary

urg

en

tly f

or

the

Ma

na

gin

g

Directo

r.

PA

RT

TW

O

Qu

es

tio

ns

6 –

10

•Lo

ok a

t th

e bu

sine

ss a

dver

tisem

ents

bel

ow.

•F

or q

uest

ions

6 –

10

on

the

oppo

site

pag

e, c

hoos

e w

hich

com

pany

(A

– H

) ea

ch p

erso

n ne

eds

to c

onsu

lt.

•F

or e

ach

ques

tion,

mar

k on

ele

tter

(A– H

) on

you

r A

nsw

er S

heet

.

•D

o no

t us

e an

y le

tter

mor

e th

an o

nce.

Sellin

g a

bro

ad

?C

all

EX

PO

RT

EX

PE

RT

S!

HE

AD

LIN

E R

EC

RU

ITM

EN

T A

GE

NC

Y

We f

ind

th

e s

taff

yo

u n

eed

.A

E

WE

BM

AS

TE

RS

Bu

sin

ess W

eb

sit

e d

esig

ners

IT TRAINERS

Lead

ers

in

th

e t

rain

ing

fie

ldB

F

PR

ON

TO

SE

CR

ETA

RIA

LS

ER

VIC

ES

Off

ice t

asks q

uic

kly

co

mp

lete

d.

TH

OR

N’S

TR

AV

EL

AG

EN

CY

Exp

erts

in f

orei

gn b

usin

ess

trav

elC

G

- -

- -

RA

PID

PR

INT -

- -

-Fo

r al

l yo

ur p

rint

ing

C LL

AR

KK ’’

S

Tech

nic

al

Pu

blish

ers

DH

Appendix 4.1

304

Appendix 4.1

305

11T

he

re w

as a

co

ntin

ue

d r

ed

uctio

n in

exce

ss s

pe

nd

ing

on

ma

teria

ls a

nd

a d

eclin

e in

th

e

ove

rhe

ad

s f

igu

res.

12E

xce

ss s

pe

nd

ing

on

ma

teria

ls a

nd

la

bo

ur

we

re b

oth

a little

be

low

re

co

rd le

ve

ls,

bu

t sp

en

din

g o

n

ove

rhe

ad

s w

as a

t its lo

we

st.

13T

he

am

ou

nt

for

lab

ou

r d

rop

pe

d,

wh

ile t

he

fig

ure

s f

or

ma

teria

ls a

nd

ove

rhe

ad

s w

ere

un

ch

an

ge

d

on

th

e p

revio

us m

on

th.

14E

xce

ss s

pe

nd

ing

on

ma

teria

ls d

rop

pe

d s

ligh

tly in

th

is m

on

th w

hile

ove

rhe

ad

s s

ho

we

d a

slig

ht

incre

ase,

to a

fig

ure

whic

h w

as e

qualle

d in t

he f

ollo

win

g m

onth

.

15In

this

month

the a

mount

for

mate

rials

was u

nchanged,

while

for

both

labour

and o

verh

eads

the

re w

as a

n im

pro

ve

me

nt

in t

he

fig

ure

s.

PA

RT

TH

RE

E

Qu

esti

on

s 11

– 1

5

•Lo

ok a

t th

e ch

art

belo

w.

It sh

ows

the

amou

nts

by w

hich

a c

ompa

ny’s

exp

endi

ture

on

mat

eria

ls,

labo

ur a

nd o

verh

eads

wer

e ab

ove

budg

et.

•W

hich

mon

th d

oes

each

sen

tenc

e (1

1 –

15)

on t

he o

ppos

ite p

age

desc

ribe?

•F

or e

ach

sent

ence

, m

ark

one

lette

r (A

– H

)on

you

r A

nsw

er S

heet

.

•D

o no

t us

e an

y le

tter

mor

e th

an o

nce.

AB

CD

EF

GH

Month

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000£

Exce

ss S

pendin

gM

ate

rials

Labour

Overh

eads

16G

len

mo

re m

ake

s a

ll th

e je

we

llery

th

at

it s

ells

.

AR

igh

tB

Wro

ng

CD

oe

sn

’t sa

y

17G

len

mo

re is t

he

be

st-

kn

ow

n b

ran

d o

f tr

ad

itio

na

l S

co

ttis

h je

we

llery

de

sig

n.

AR

igh

tB

Wro

ng

CD

oe

sn

’t sa

y

18N

evis

ha

s a

la

rge

sto

ck o

f u

nso

ld c

op

ies o

f G

len

mo

re je

we

llery

.

AR

igh

tB

Wro

ng

CD

oe

sn

’t sa

y

19G

ram

pia

n G

ifts

has t

o p

ay a

ll its p

rofits

for

the last

four

years

to H

ighla

nd D

esig

n.

AR

igh

tB

Wro

ng

CD

oe

sn

’t sa

y

20T

he

nu

mb

er

of

me

mb

ers

wh

o c

on

tact

PA

C h

as in

cre

ase

d.

AR

igh

tB

Wro

ng

CD

oe

sn

’t sa

y

21D

esig

ne

rs s

ho

uld

re

po

rt a

ny c

op

ies o

f th

eir w

ork

wh

ich

th

ey s

ee

at

exh

ibitio

ns.

AR

igh

tB

Wro

ng

CD

oe

sn

’t sa

y

22P

AC

ha

s w

on

th

e m

ajo

rity

of

ca

se

s o

f le

ga

l a

ctio

n it

ha

s t

ake

n f

or

its m

em

be

rs.

AR

igh

tB

Wro

ng

CD

oe

sn

’t sa

y

PA

RT

FO

UR

Qu

esti

on

s 16

– 2

2

•R

ead

the

new

spap

er a

rtic

le b

elow

abo

ut a

n or

gani

satio

n w

hich

pro

tect

s its

mem

bers

’orig

inal

desi

gns.

•A

re s

ente

nces

16

– 22

on

the

oppo

site

pag

e ‘R

ight

’or

‘Wro

ng’?

If

ther

e is

not

eno

ugh

info

rmat

ion

to a

nsw

er ‘R

ight

’or

‘Wro

ng’,

choo

se ‘D

oesn

’t sa

y’.

•F

or e

ach

sent

ence

16

– 22

, m

ark

one

lette

r (A

,B

orC

) on

you

r A

nsw

er S

heet

.

Las

t ye

ar,

Sco

tlan

d-ba

sed

Gle

nmor

e Je

wel

lery

be

cam

e th

efo

rtie

th m

embe

r of

the

orga

nisa

tion

PAC

(P

rote

ctio

n A

gain

st C

opyi

ng)

to t

ake

succ

essf

ul l

egal

act

ion

topr

otec

t it

s pr

oduc

ts.

Gle

nmor

e,w

hich

se

lls

hand

-mad

e je

wel

lery

desi

gned

an

d pr

oduc

ed

by

loca

lar

tist

s,

was

an

gry

to

disc

over

a

com

peti

tor,

Nev

is, s

elli

ng c

opie

s of

thes

e de

sign

s.

Nev

is

has

now

agre

ed t

o st

op s

elli

ng t

he p

rodu

cts,

as w

ell

as t

o pa

y G

lenm

ore’

s le

gal

cost

s.A

noth

er

Sco

ttis

h co

mpa

ny,

Hig

hlan

d D

esig

n,

also

as

ked

for

PAC

’s h

elp

last

yea

r; a

s a

resu

lt,

Gra

mpi

an G

ifts

has

agr

eed

to s

top

sell

ing

glas

s de

sign

s si

mil

ar

topr

oduc

ts

mad

e by

H

ighl

and

Des

ign.

G

ram

pian

w

ill

also

pa

y

Hig

hlan

d D

esig

n 50

% o

f th

e pr

ofit

it h

as m

ade

on t

hese

ran

ges

over

the

last

fou

r ye

ars.

‘Rec

entl

y th

ere’

s be

en a

sha

rpri

se

in

the

num

ber

of

repo

rts

rece

ived

fr

om

mem

bers

,’sa

ysJa

mes

E

llis

, PA

C’s

C

hief

Exe

cuti

ve.

‘Thi

s de

mon

stra

tes

that

desi

gner

s cl

earl

y fe

el w

e ca

n he

lpth

em.

If

they

di

scov

er

copi

es

ofth

eir

desi

gns

at

exhi

biti

ons,

fo

rex

ampl

e,

they

ar

e ad

vise

d to

cont

act

us i

mm

edia

tely

.’PA

C,

wit

h ov

er

700

mem

bers

wor

ld-w

ide,

has

an

alm

ost

100%

succ

ess

rate

in le

gal a

ctio

n ta

ken

tode

fend

th

e in

tere

sts

of

the

indi

vidu

als

and

com

pani

es

itre

pres

ents

.

PAC

Win

s A

gain

Appendix 4.1

306

Appendix 4.1

307

23In

Pe

ter

Ma

urice’s

op

inio

n,

wh

at

pre

ve

nts

ma

ny c

usto

me

rs f

rom

ma

kin

g p

urc

ha

se

s?

AT

he

sh

op

ha

sn’t

go

t w

ha

t th

ey w

an

t.

BN

ob

od

y is a

va

ilab

le t

o s

erv

e t

he

m.

CT

he

re is t

oo

mu

ch

to

ch

oo

se

fro

m.

24M

au

rice’s

sta

ff s

ay t

ha

t h

e

Aso

me

tim

es a

nn

oys t

he

m.

Bis

try

ing

to

do

to

o m

uch

to

o q

uic

kly

.

Cn

ee

ds t

o b

e m

ore

se

lf-a

wa

re.

25W

hat

does M

aurice s

ay h

e learn

t fr

om

his

experience in H

ong K

ong?

Ah

ow

to

ru

n a

su

cce

ssfu

l im

po

rt-e

xp

ort

bu

sin

ess

Bth

e im

port

ance o

f bein

g c

onfident

and h

avin

g a

positiv

e a

ttitude

Cth

at

he

ne

ed

ed

to

go

ba

ck t

o b

usin

ess s

ch

oo

l

26W

ha

t is

Ma

urice’s

exh

ibitio

ns c

om

pa

ny,

Big

Eve

nts

, p

lan

nin

g t

o d

o in

20

04

?

Ata

ke

co

ntr

ol o

f th

e C

ap

ita

l B

oa

t S

ho

w

Bm

ove

th

e C

ap

ita

l B

oa

t S

ho

w t

o a

la

rge

r ve

nu

e

Ch

old

an

eve

nt

to c

om

pe

te w

ith

th

e C

ap

ita

l B

oa

t S

ho

w

27W

hic

h o

f th

ese

de

pa

rtm

en

ts h

as a

dire

cto

r w

ho

re

po

rts t

o P

ete

r M

au

rice

?

AF

ina

nce

BM

ark

etin

g

CH

um

an

Re

so

urc

es

28M

au

rice’s

lo

ng

-te

rm a

mb

itio

n f

or

the

ce

ntr

e is t

o

Are

tra

in a

ll th

e s

taff a

t th

e c

en

tre

.

Bm

od

ern

ise

th

e c

en

tre

.

Cb

rin

g e

nte

rta

inm

en

t to

th

e c

en

tre

.

PA

RT

FIV

E

Qu

esti

on

s 23

– 2

8

•R

ead

the

artic

le b

elow

abo

ut a

bus

ines

sman

’s p

lans

for

dev

elop

ing

a sh

oppi

ng c

entr

e.

•F

or e

ach

ques

tion

23 –

28,

on

the

oppo

site

pag

e, c

hoos

e th

e co

rrec

t an

swer

.

•M

ark

one

lette

r (A

,B

orC

) on

you

r A

nsw

er S

heet

.

Sh

akin

g U

p t

he

Bu

sin

ess

Sin

ce b

eco

min

g C

hie

f E

xecu

tive

of

the S

tar

Cit

y s

ho

pp

ing

cen

tre

an

d

ex

hib

itio

n

ha

lls,

Pe

ter

Mau

rice f

eels

he h

as d

on

e a

lo

t.

No

w,

tho

ug

h,

he

w

an

ts

to

ch

an

ge t

he w

ho

le f

eelin

g o

f th

e

bu

sin

ess.

‘Vis

ito

rs

sh

ou

ld

feel

we are

lo

okin

g aft

er

them

,’ h

e

says.

‘Very

o

ften

th

e p

ub

lic g

o

into

a sh

op

an

d fi

nd

so

m

uch

there

th

at

they c

an

’t d

ecid

e w

hat

to

bu

y,

so

th

ey

d

on

’t

bu

y

an

yth

ing

. K

eep

it

sim

ple

, th

at’s

the k

ey t

o r

eta

ilin

g.’

At

Sta

r C

ity,

sta

ff

are

en

co

ura

ge

d

to

tell

m

an

ag

ers

,

inclu

din

g M

au

rice h

imself

, w

hat

they t

hin

k o

f th

em

. ‘T

he t

hin

gs

they say ab

ou

t m

e are

w

hat

I

exp

ect,

b

ecau

se I’m

fa

irly

self

-

aw

are

– I k

no

w w

hat

I’m

lik

e a

nd

that

I can

m

ake p

eo

ple

a litt

le

an

gry

. B

ut

I’m

v

ery

m

uch

in

favo

ur

of

ch

an

ge,

an

d e

very

on

e

kn

ow

s

that

a

lot

need

s

to

be

do

ne.’

He

le

arn

t h

is

ma

na

ge

me

nt

tech

niq

ues t

he h

ard

way.

‘At

23

I w

en

t in

to

bu

sin

ess

an

d

lost

mo

ne

y.

I h

ad

to

le

arn

fa

st.

Th

en

,

at

32,

I w

on

an

exp

ort

co

ntr

act

to

Ho

ng

K

on

g.

I a

dm

ire

th

e

str

en

gth

o

f ch

ara

cte

r an

d

the

am

bit

ion

o

f th

e

peo

ple

th

ere

,

an

d

bro

ug

ht

ba

ck

two

v

ery

sig

nif

ica

nt

wo

rds:

“N

o

pro

ble

m”.

Th

en

I t

oo

k a

co

urs

e

at

Harv

ard

B

usin

ess S

ch

oo

l. It

was v

ery

hard

wo

rk,

bu

t w

ort

h

it.’

As

well

as

run

nin

g

Sta

r C

ity,

Pe

ter

Ma

uri

ce

co

ntr

ols

B

ig

Ev

en

ts,

wh

ich

o

rga

nis

es

exh

ibit

ion

s.

At

the m

om

en

t, B

ig

Even

ts i

s w

ork

ing

on

pla

ns f

or

a

bo

at

sh

ow

to

ri

val

the

Cap

ital

Bo

at

Sh

ow

, w

hic

h

in

2004

is

mo

vin

g f

rom

its

tra

dit

ion

al

sit

e

at

Sta

r C

ity t

o a

new

ven

ue.

Mau

rice h

as c

reate

d a

n u

nu

su

al

co

mp

an

y

str

uctu

re.

‘Th

e

fin

an

cia

l d

ire

cto

r a

nd

co

mm

erc

ial

dir

ecto

r a

re

resp

on

sib

le to

m

e d

irectl

y,

bu

t

in m

y f

irst

week h

ere

, th

e h

ead

of

Mark

eti

ng

resig

ned

. T

hen

th

e

sa

me

h

ap

pe

ne

d

wit

h

Hu

ma

n

Reso

urc

es.

I said

to

bo

th t

eam

s:

“D

o y

ou

wan

t to

self

-man

ag

e?”

Th

at’s w

hat

they d

ecid

ed

to

do

–

it c

an

wo

rk i

f yo

u h

ave p

eo

ple

wh

o w

ork

well t

og

eth

er

an

d c

an

rep

ort

to

yo

u

as

a

team

,’

he

exp

lain

s.

Fo

r th

e

imm

ed

iate

fu

ture

,

Mau

rice w

ill

co

nti

nu

e w

ith

th

e

essen

tial

wo

rk o

f u

pd

ati

ng

th

e

cen

tre.

Aft

er

that,

h

e

pla

ns

to

loo

k a

t w

ays o

f exp

an

din

g S

tar

Cit

y

be

yo

nd

th

e

pre

se

nt

co

nfe

ren

ces a

nd

exh

ibit

ion

s,

to

inclu

de

m

ajo

r sh

ow

s

an

d

co

ncert

s.

‘I w

an

t a l

ively

cen

tre

full o

f excit

ing

even

ts, w

here

my

we

ll-t

rain

ed

sta

ff

are

am

bassad

ors

fo

r th

e c

om

pan

y.’

29A

on

Bin

Cat

30A

will

Bsh

all

Cw

ou

ld

31A

run

Bru

ns

Cru

nn

ing

32A

Th

isB

There

CIt

33A

wh

ich

Bth

at

Ch

ow

34A

ma

ny

Bso

me

Ca

ny

35A

attra

ct

Battra

cting

Cattra

cts

36A

wh

ose

Bw

ho

Cw

ha

t

37A

toB

with

Ca

bo

ut

38A

ou

rsB

our

Cu

s

39A

are

Bh

ave

Cw

ere

40A

pa

ss

Bfa

ilC

mis

s

PA

RT

SIX

Qu

esti

on

s 29

– 4

0

•R

ead

the

adve

rtis

emen

t be

low

abo

ut a

n ex

hibi

tion.

•C

hoos

e th

e co

rrec

t w

ord

to f

ill e

ach

gap,

fro

m A

,B

orC

on t

he o

ppos

ite p

age.

•F

or e

ach

ques

tion

29 –

40,

mar

k on

ele

tter

(A,

Bor

C)

on y

our

Ans

wer

She

et.

Bus

ines

s S

how

of

the

Year

14–1

8 S

epte

mbe

r 20

02Lo

ndon

Bu

sin

ess

2002

is a

key

eve

nt

aim

ed a

t people

inte

ndin

g to

set

up (

29)

......

busi

ness

.

This

year

’s e

xhib

itio

n (

30)

......

pro

vide v

isitors

with v

aluab

le info

rmat

ion o

n p

roduct

s

and s

erv

ices

ess

ential

for

(31)

....

..a

smal

l busi

ness

.(32

) ...

...is

als

o fre

e a

dvi

ce o

n

(33)

....

...to

obta

in fin

ance

,gett

ing

the b

est

out

of In

form

atio

n T

ech

nolo

gy a

nd

deal

ing

with t

he (

34)

......

pro

ble

ms

of heal

th a

nd s

afety

in t

he w

ork

pla

ce.E

ntr

ance

to t

he e

xhib

itio

n is

free a

nd B

usi

nes

s 20

02 h

opes

to (

35)

......

at leas

t 5,0

00 v

isitors

a day

.Com

pan

ies

(36)

....

..to

ok p

art

last

year

sai

d it

was

well

wort

h t

he c

ost

.

If y

ou w

ould

lik

e furt

her

info

rmat

ion (

37)

......

hav

ing

a st

and a

t th

e B

usi

nes

s 20

02exhib

itio

n,c

onta

ct (

38)

......

.on 0

20 5

493 7

721 for

an e

xhib

itors

’ pac

k.

We (

39)

......

.arr

ange

d s

peci

al r

educe

d t

rave

l an

d h

ote

l ra

tes

for

stan

dhold

ers

.So

don’t (

40)

......

the o

pport

unity,

book a

sta

nd n

ow

.

Appendix 4.1

308

Appendix 4.1

309

Tra

velg

o L

tdR

efu

nd

No

: 0055 7

8A

Bookin

g r

efe

rence:

(41)

.......................................

Tic

ket

deta

ils:

Date

of

depart

ure

:22/0

6/0

2

Flig

ht

num

ber:

UA

453 (

UA

TA

IR)

Depart

ure

fro

m:

Heath

row

Destination:

(42)

.......................................

Tic

ket

cla

ss:

(43)

.......................................

Refu

nd d

ue:

£525.0

0

Meth

od o

f R

efu

nd:

(44)

.......................................

Reason f

or

cancella

tion:

clie

nt’s

(45)

.......................................

PA

RT

SE

VE

N

Qu

esti

on

s 41

– 4

5

•R

ea

d t

he

pa

rt o

f th

e le

tte

r a

nd

th

e m

em

o b

elo

w.

•C

om

ple

te t

he

fo

rm o

n t

he

op

po

site

pa

ge

.

•W

rite

a w

ord

or

ph

rase

(in

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S)

or

a n

um

be

ro

n lin

es 4

1 –

45 o

n y

ou

r A

nsw

er

Sh

ee

t. Tra

velg

o L

td

Mem

ora

nd

um

To:

Julia

Fro

m:

Lu

ke

Dat

e:6

Jun

e 20

02

Su

bje

ct:

Ref

un

d

Could

you p

leas

e fill

in a

refu

nd form

for

this

clie

nt?

Note

that

the b

ookin

g re

fere

nce

num

ber

is

actu

ally

01/3

434/A

.It

was

a c

om

pan

y bookin

g fo

r a

Busi

ness

Cla

ss (

not

Fir

st C

lass

)U

ATA

IRflig

ht

from

Heat

hro

w.T

hey

pai

d b

y cr

edit c

ard b

ut

it’s

eas

ier

if w

e s

end t

hem

a c

heque for

£525.0

0.

Wit

h r

egar

d t

o o

ur

con

vers

atio

n o

n t

he

ph

on

e ye

ster

day

, I

can

co

nfi

rm t

hat

, d

ue

to s

erio

us

illn

ess,

Joh

n B

roo

kes

has

to c

ance

l his

flig

ht t

o M

adri

d o

n S

atu

rday

22

Jun

e an

d I

ther

efo

re r

equ

est a

ref

un

d.

I en

clo

se t

he

tick

et:F

irst

Cla

ss, f

ligh

t n

um

ber

UA

453

, bo

oki

ng

refe

ren

ce 3

434/

4.

PA

RT

TW

O

Qu

esti

on

47

•R

ead

this

par

t of

a f

ax f

rom

Mr

Dav

id C

rave

n, o

ne o

f yo

ur c

ompa

ny’s

cus

tom

ers.

•W

rite

a le

tter

to M

r C

rave

n:

•ap

olog

isin

g fo

r w

hat

has

happ

ened

•ex

plai

ning

the

del

ay

•sa

ying

whe

n yo

u w

ill s

end

the

mot

ors

•of

ferin

g a

redu

ctio

n on

the

bill

.

•W

rite

60

– 80

wo

rds.

•W

rite

on

yo

ur

An

swer

Sh

eet.

Do

no

t in

clu

de

any

po

stal

ad

dre

sses

.

We

ord

ered

eig

ht

LP4

elec

tric

mo

tors

fro

m y

ou

las

t m

on

th.

It i

sn

ow

3 J

un

e an

d w

e st

ill h

ave

rece

ived

no

thin

g, e

ven

th

ou

gh

yo

u in

form

ed u

s th

at w

e w

ou

ld h

ave

the

mo

tors

by

30 M

ay. W

en

eed

to k

no

w w

hen

we

will

rec

eive

th

ese

mo

tors

as

ou

r o

wn

wo

rk w

ill b

e h

eld

up

if

they

do

no

t ar

rive

wit

hin

th

e n

ext

few

day

s.

WR

ITIN

G

QU

ES

TIO

NS

46

– 47

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

46

•Y

ou h

ave

notic

ed t

hat

staf

f us

ing

com

pany

car

s ar

e fo

rget

ting

to f

ill t

hem

with

pet

rol o

n th

eir

retu

rn.

•Y

ou a

lso

wan

t to

rem

ind

staf

f of

pro

cedu

res

for

park

ing

com

pany

car

s an

d de

posi

ting

keys

.

•W

rite

a m

emo

to a

ll st

aff:

•ex

plai

ning

wha

t to

do

abou

t pe

trol

afte

r us

ing

a co

mpa

ny c

ar

•sa

ying

whe

re t

o le

ave

the

car

•te

lling

sta

ff w

hat

to d

o w

ith t

he k

eys.

•W

rite

30

– 40

wo

rds.

•W

rite

on

yo

ur

An

swer

Sh

eet.

Mem

ora

nd

um

To:

All

staf

f

Fro

m:

Off

ice

Man

ager

Dat

e:6

Jun

e 20

02

Su

bje

ct:

Co

mp

any

Car

s

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....

Appendix 4.1

310

Appendix 4.1

311

TIME Approx. 40 minutes (including 10 minutes’ transfer time)




details in pencil on your Answer Sheet if these are not already printed.

Listen to the instructions for each part carefully.


Write your answers on this question paper.

At the end of the test you will have 10 minutes to copy your answers onto your Answer Sheet.

Read the instructions for completing your Answer Sheet carefully.

Write all your answers in pencil.

At the end of the examination hand in both this question paper and your Answer Sheet.


Instructions are given on the tape.

You will hear everything twice.

There are thirty questions on this paper.



BUSINESS ENGLISH CERTIFICATE 0351/3Preliminary

Test of Listening Test 023

Wednesday 5 JUNE 2002 Morning Approx. 40 minutes(including 10 minutes’

transfer time)

Additional materials:Answer Sheet

Candidate


Candidate Name


SP (SC/KN) S25767/2

3W

ha

t d

o b

oth

sp

ea

ke

rs t

hin

k t

he

co

mp

an

y n

ee

ds t

o r

evie

w?

Aprices

Bqualit

y

Cd

eliv

ery

tim

es

4W

hic

h g

rap

h is t

he

sp

ea

ke

r re

ferr

ing

to

?

5W

ha

t is

th

e s

ub

ject

of

the

se

min

ar?

AC

om

mu

nic

atio

n s

kill

s

BT

ime

ma

na

ge

me

nt

CR

ecru

itm

en

t str

ate

gie

s

6W

hic

h n

um

be

r sh

ou

ld y

ou

pre

ss t

o d

iscu

ss p

aym

en

t?

AB

C

12

3

050100

150

200

250

AM

J

A

050100

150

200

250

AM

J

B

050100

150

200

250

AM

J

C

Com

pany

sha

re p

rice

s in

pen

ceC

ompa

ny s

hare

pri

ces

in p

ence

Com

pany

sha

re p

rice

s in

pen

ce

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

s 1

– 8

•F

or

qu

estio

ns 1

– 8

yo

u w

ill h

ea

r e

igh

t sh

ort

re

co

rdin

gs.

•F

or

ea

ch

qu

estio

n,

ma

rk o

ne

letter

(A,

Bor

C)

for

the

co

rre

ct

an

sw

er.

Exa

mp

le:

Wh

en

we

re t

he

ma

ch

ine

pa

rts s

en

t?

Mon

day

31Tu

esda

y 1

Thur

sday

3

AB

C

Th

e a

nsw

er

is A

.

•Y

ou

will

he

ar

the

eig

ht

reco

rdin

gs t

wic

e.

1W

he

n s

ho

uld

th

e w

om

an

ph

on

e M

r H

ash

imo

to?

AB

C

2W

hic

h c

ha

rt s

ho

ws g

rad

ua

te r

ecru

itm

en

t fo

r th

is y

ea

r?

RS

E A

R

S E

B

R

SE

C

R=

Researc

hS

= S

ale

sE

= E

ngin

eering

3:00

2:00

11:0

0

Appendix 4.1

312

Appendix 4.1

313

PA

RT

TW

O

Qu

esti

on

s 9

– 15

•Lo

ok a

t th

e no

tes

belo

w.

•S

ome

info

rmat

ion

is m

issi

ng.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

am

an le

avin

g an

ans

wer

phon

e m

essa

ge a

bout

ele

ctric

al g

oods

.

•F

or e

ach

ques

tion

9 –

15,

fill i

n th

e m

issi

ng in

form

atio

n in

the

num

bere

d sp

ace

usin

g a

wo

rd,

nu

mb

ers

orle

tter

s.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

the

mes

sage

tw

ice.

Ph

on

e M

essa

ge

CO

MPA

NY

NA

ME

:(9

)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.Dep

artm

ent

Stor

e

CO

NT

AC

T N

AM

E:

(10)

Rog

er .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

PH

ON

E N

UM

BE

R:

(11)

0187

3 ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....

UR

GE

NT

– S

EN

D:

(12)

...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

frid

ge/fr

eeze

r br

ochu

res

AL

SO

IN

CL

UD

E:

(13)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

pric

e lis

ts

CH

EC

K A

VA

ILA

BIL

ITY

OF

DIS

HW

AS

HE

R M

OD

EL

NO

:(1

4)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

CU

ST

OM

ER

NE

ED

S D

ISH

WA

SH

ER

:(1

5)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.mm

wid

e

7W

hat

does

the

wom

an w

ant

info

rmat

ion

abou

t?

8W

hat

does

the

man

ord

er?

AB

C

Tu

rner

'sL

td

A

AIR

LIN

ET

ICK

ET

SC

AR

HIR

E

BC

HO

TE

L

PA

RT

FO

UR

Qu

esti

on

s 23

– 3

0

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

an in

terv

iew

with

Mic

hael

Wrig

ht,

a m

anag

ing

dire

ctor

, ta

lkin

g ab

out

his

com

pany

,

ALC

.

•F

or e

ach

ques

tion

23 –

30,

mar

k o

ne

lette

r (A

,B

orC

) fo

r th

e co

rrec

t an

swer

.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

the

inte

rvie

w t

wic

e.

23M

icha

el’s

com

pany

firs

t st

arte

d in

bus

ines

s

Apr

oduc

ing

part

s fo

r lo

rrie

s.

Bdo

ing

lorr

y re

pairs

.

Cbu

ildin

g sp

ecia

l lor

ries

for

clie

nts.

24M

icha

el jo

ined

ALC

bec

ause

he

wan

ted

to

Aco

ntin

ue a

s an

eng

inee

r.

Bru

n th

e pr

oduc

tion

depa

rtm

ent.

Cbe

a d

irect

or.

25A

t th

e tim

e M

icha

el b

ecam

e a

dire

ctor

, ALC

was

Ado

ing

good

bus

ines

s.

Bbu

ying

new

equ

ipm

ent.

Cne

gotia

ting

a co

ntra

ct.

26M

icha

el s

ugge

sted

tha

t th

e co

mpa

ny s

houl

d

Ach

ange

its

prod

uctio

n m

etho

ds.

Bai

m t

o ta

ke o

ver

its b

igge

st r

ival

s.

Cin

crea

se it

s pr

oduc

tion

rate

.

27O

ne o

f th

e re

ason

s A

LC s

tart

ed p

rodu

cing

am

bula

nces

was

bec

ause

Aa

cust

omer

had

ask

ed it

to.

Bth

e co

mpa

ny a

lread

y ha

d a

good

des

ign.

Cth

e m

arke

t fo

r am

bula

nces

was

fai

rly s

tabl

e.

PA

RT

TH

RE

E

Qu

esti

on

s 16

– 2

2

•Lo

ok a

t th

e no

tes

from

a s

taff

mee

ting

in a

dep

artm

ent

stor

e.

•S

ome

info

rmat

ion

is m

issi

ng.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

a ta

lk b

y th

e st

ore

man

ager

.

•F

or e

ach

ques

tion

16 –

22,

fill

in t

he m

issi

ng in

form

atio

n in

the

num

bere

d sp

ace

usin

g o

ne

or

two

wor

ds.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

the

talk

tw

ice.

Staf

f mee

ting

held

on

8 Ju

ne

Nam

e of n

ew A

ssistan

t M

anag

er(1

6)Am

anda

........................................................................

Sportswe

ar D

epar

tmen

tPr

omot

ion

oppo

rtun

ities op

en t

o(1

7)..............................................................................

staf

f

Stoc

kroom New

(18)

........................................

will

impr

ove

stoc

k ha

ndlin

g

Desig

n Te

amSt

aff

trai

ning

– sub

ject:

(19)

........................................................................................

Visit

From

:(2

0)........................................................................................

Date

:(2

1)13

th......................................................................

2002

Subjec

t of t

alk:

(22)

..............................................................................

polic

y

Appendix 4.1

314

Appendix 4.1

315

28W

hen

it st

arte

d pr

oduc

ing

ambu

lanc

es, A

LC’s

mai

n pr

oble

m w

as

Aco

mpe

ting

with

ano

ther

com

pany

.

Bha

ving

to

cut

its p

rices

.

Clo

sing

a c

ontr

act.

29M

icha

el f

eels

ALC

is u

nusu

al b

ecau

se t

he d

irect

ors

Aar

e re

spon

sibl

e fo

r m

arke

ting

the

prod

ucts

.

Bha

ve li

ttle

cont

act

with

man

ager

s.

Cw

ork

on t

he p

rodu

ctio

n lin

e.

30N

ow A

LC is

now

aim

ing

to

Aim

prov

e its

cas

h flo

w.

Bre

crui

t m

ore

staf

f.

Cdo

mor

e tr

aini

ng.

Yo

u n

ow

hav

e 10

min

ute

s to

tra

nsf

er y

ou

r an

swer

s to

yo

ur

An

swer

Sh

eet.

CO

NT

ENT

S

Intr

oduc

tion,

BEC

Can

dida

ture

, Aw

ards

, Not

ifica

tion

of R

esul

ts, U

sefu

l Doc

umen

tatio

n . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

3

Exam

inat

ion

Rep

ort,

Rea

ding

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

5

Mar

king

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

5

Com

men

ts o

n ca

ndid

ate

perf

orm

ance

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

5

Rec

omm

enda

tions

for

cand

idat

e pr

epar

atio

n . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

6

Prep

arin

g fo

r B

EC P

relim

inar

y R

eadi

ng (a

sum

mar

y) .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. 7

Wri

ting

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

8

Mar

king

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

8

Com

men

ts o

n ca

ndid

ate

perf

orm

ance

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

8

Rec

omm

enda

tions

for

cand

idat

e pr

epar

atio

n . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

8

Prep

arin

g fo

r B

EC P

relim

inar

y W

ritin

g (a

sum

mar

y) .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

11

List

enin

g . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

12

Mar

king

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

12

Com

men

ts o

n ca

ndid

ate

perf

orm

ance

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

12

Rec

omm

enda

tions

for

cand

idat

e pr

epar

atio

n . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

13

Prep

arin

g fo

r B

EC P

relim

inar

y Li

sten

ing

(a s

umm

ary)

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. 14

BEC

Pre

limin

ary

June

200

2

Cop

yrig

ht.

The

cont

ents

of

this

pub

licat

ion

are

cove

red

byin

tern

atio

nal c

opyr

ight

law

. All

righ

ts r

eser

ved;

no

part

of t

his

docu

men

t may

be

repr

oduc

ed, s

tore

d in

a r

etri

eval

sys

tem

, or

tran

smitt

ed

in

any

form

or

by

an

y m

eans

, el

ectr

onic

,m

echa

nica

l, ph

otoc

opyi

ng,

reco

rdin

g or

oth

erw

ise,

with

out

the

prio

r w

ritte

n co

nsen

t of t

he U

nive

rsity

of C

ambr

idge

ESO

LEx

amin

atio

ns.

Indi

vidu

als

and

inst

itut

ions

w

ho

do

not

obse

rve

thes

e co

pyri

ght

rest

rict

ions

w

ill

be

liabl

e to

pros

ecut

ion.

In u

sing

the

key

s an

d m

arki

ng n

otes

in

prac

tice

test

ing,

it

shou

ld b

e re

mem

bere

d th

at s

core

s in

ind

ivid

ual

pape

rs o

rqu

estio

ns

are

subj

ect

to

wei

ghtin

g du

ring

th

e ac

tual

exam

inat

ion

proc

essi

ng.

Appendix 4.1

316

Appendix 4.1

317

Appendix 4.1

318

PA

RT

2:

Min

i-p

resen

tati

on

s f

or

2can

did

ate

s(a

bo

ut

5m

inu

tes)

[Inte

rlocuto

rhands e

ach

candid

ate

a d

iffe

rent

topic

card

,and

som

epaper

and

apencil

for

note

s.]

[Allo

w1

min

ute

'spre

para

tion tim

e.

Both

candid

ate

spre

pare

their

talk

s a

tth

esam

etim

e,

separa

tely

.]

[Allo

w45

seconds

to1

min

ute

.O

nly

use b

ack-u

pquestions if

the

candid

ate

is u

nable

to

speak

without

pro

mpting.]

[Allo

w10

seconds.

Do n

ot

use

back-u

p q

uestions.]

[Allo

w45

seconds

to1

min

ute

.O

nly

use b

ack-u

pquestions if

the

candid

ate

is u

nable

to

speak

without

pro

mpting.]

[Allo

w10

seconds.

Do n

ot

use

back-u

p q

uestions.]

[Retr

ieve

mate

rials

.]

*US

EC

AN

DID

AT

ES

’ N

AM

ES

TH

RO

UG

HO

UT

TH

ET

ES

T

BL

AN

K P

AG

E

I'm

goin

gto

giv

e e

ach

of

you a

card

with 2

topic

s.

I'd

like

you t

ochoose

on

eto

pic

and

talk

about

itfo

rabout

a m

inute

.Y

ou h

ave o

ne m

inute

topre

pare

for

this

.Y

ou a

re a

llow

ed t

om

ake n

ote

s.

All

rig

ht?

Here

are

your

topic

s.

Choose o

ne

ofth

e topic

s a

nd

pre

pare

to

talk

about

it.

Rem

em

ber

you c

an

make n

ote

s if

you w

ish.

All

rig

ht.

Now

,*B

, w

hic

h t

opic

have y

ou c

hosen,

A o

rB

?[c

andid

ate

answ

ers

]W

ould

you lik

eto

talk

about

what

you t

hin

kis

import

ant

when (

inte

rlocuto

rsta

tes c

andid

ate

’s c

hosen t

opic

)?

Thank y

ou.

Now

,*A

,w

hic

h d

o y

ou t

hin

k is m

ost

import

ant

(bulle

t1,

2or

3)?

Thank y

ou.

All

rig

ht.

Now

,*A

,w

hic

h t

opic

have y

ou c

hosen,

Aor

B? [

candid

ate

answ

ers

]W

ould

you lik

e to

talk

about

what

you thin

k is im

port

ant

when (

inte

rlocuto

rsta

tes c

andid

ate

’schosen t

opic

)?

Thank y

ou.

Now

,*B

,w

hic

h d

o y

ou t

hin

k is m

ostim

port

ant

(bulle

t1,

2or

3)?

Thank y

ou.

That's

the e

nd

ofth

e f

irst

part

of

the t

est.

In t

he

next

part

you

are

each

goin

gto

talk

on

your

ow

n.

Thank y

ou.

Appendix 4.1

319

Task C

ard

11 –

Exam

iner’

sC

op

y

Are

care

er

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

the m

ost

import

antth

ing a

bout

anew

job? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)Is

th

elo

cati

on

ofth

ejo

b im

port

ant?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is t

he

opport

unity

tom

ake b

usin

ess t

rip

s? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct

from

the

follo

win

g a

dditio

nal pro

mpts

(if

the a

bove h

ave

alr

eady

been

covere

d):

Is s

ala

ryth

e m

ost

import

ant th

ing a

bout

a job?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)A

re t

rain

ing

op

po

rtu

nit

ies im

port

ant?

(Why/W

hy n

ot?

)Is

afr

ien

dly

wo

rkin

g e

nvir

on

men

tim

port

ant

in a

new

job? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Are

fli

gh

td

ep

art

ure

tim

es

im

port

ant?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is t

he

serv

ice o

na

flig

ht?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)Is

it

essentialto

have

good

tran

sp

ort

toan

dfr

om

th

eair

po

rts

? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct

from

the

follo

win

g a

dditio

nal pro

mpts

(if

the a

bove h

ave

alr

eady

been

covere

d):

How

import

ant

is t

he

foo

don

a p

lane? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is t

he

am

ou

nt

of

lug

gag

epassengers

can

take o

na

busin

ess

flig

ht?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)W

hic

hair

po

rtfa

cil

itie

sare

usefu

lfo

rbusin

ess

travelle

rs? (

Why?)

B:

WH

AT

IS I

MP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

TR

AV

EL

LIN

GB

Y A

IR F

OR

BU

SIN

ES

S

FL

IGH

TD

EP

AR

TU

RE

TIM

ES

IN-F

LIG

HT

SE

RV

ICE

TR

AN

SP

OR

TT

OA

ND

FR

OM

AIR

PO

RT

S

A:

WH

AT

IS I

MP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

LO

OK

ING

FO

R A

NE

W J

OB

CA

RE

ER

OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S

LO

CA

TIO

N O

FJO

B

PO

SS

IBIL

ITY

OF

MA

KIN

G B

US

INE

SS

TR

IPS

Appendix 4.1

320

Task C

ard

14 –

Exam

iner’

sC

op

y

Are

co

urs

em

ate

ria

lsth

em

ost

import

ant

thin

gto

consid

er?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)Is

it

import

ant

who

the

train

er

is? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is t

he

nu

mb

er

of

part

icip

an

tsin

the

gro

up?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct

from

the

follo

win

g a

dditio

nal pro

mpts

(if

the a

bove h

ave

alr

eady

been

covere

d):

Are

opport

unitie

s to

get

qu

ali

ficati

on

sessential?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is c

ost?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)W

hy

isit

import

ant

toconsid

er

the

tim

ean

d len

gth

ofeach

lesson?

Is s

peed

of

serv

ice

the m

ost

import

ant

thin

gto

consid

er?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is c

ost?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)Is

it im

port

antto

ask

oth

er

people

for

their

rec

om

me

nd

ati

on

s? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct

from

the

follo

win

g a

dditio

nal pro

mpts

(if

the a

bove h

ave

alr

eady

been

covere

d):

Isit e

ssential fo

rth

e d

eliv

ery

com

pany

toin

clu

de i

ns

ura

nce? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is t

he

siz

e o

fth

e d

eliv

ery

com

pany? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

are

dis

co

un

tsfr

om

the c

om

pany? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

A:

WH

AT

IS I

MP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

JO

ININ

G A

CO

MP

UT

ER

SK

ILL

S C

OU

RS

E

CO

UR

SE

MA

TE

RIA

LS

TR

AIN

ER

NU

MB

ER

OF

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

IN

GR

OU

P

B:

WH

AT

IS I

MP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

CH

OO

SIN

G A

DE

LIV

ER

YC

OM

PA

NY

SP

EE

D O

FS

ER

VIC

E

CO

ST

PE

RS

ON

AL

RE

CO

MM

EN

DA

TIO

N

Task C

ard

13 –

Exam

iner’

sC

op

y

Is th

ety

pe o

ftr

an

sp

ort

import

ant?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is t

he

acco

mm

od

ati

on

availa

ble

? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)Is

itim

port

antto

have a

co

nta

ct

pers

on

abro

ad? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct

from

the

follo

win

g a

dditio

nal pro

mpts

(if

all

the a

bove a

re c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is t

he

co

st

ofth

e tri

p? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)Is

itim

port

antto

have c

oll

eag

ues

wit

h y

ou

on a

busin

ess tri

p?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)Is

it e

ssential to

sp

eak t

he lan

gu

ag

e?(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)

Is lo

cati

on

the m

ost

import

ant

thin

gto

consid

er?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)W

hatkin

ds o

f fa

cil

itie

sin

the o

ffic

es

are

essential?

(W

hy?)

How

import

ant

is c

ost?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct

from

the

follo

win

g a

dditio

nal pro

mpts

(if

the a

bove h

ave

alr

eady

been

covere

d):

Why

isit

import

ant

toconsid

er

the

siz

eofth

e p

rem

ises?

How

import

ant

is t

he

co

nd

itio

nofth

e b

uild

ing

?(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)A

repark

ing

spaces

for

sta

ffessen

tial?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)

A:

WH

AT

IS I

MP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

AR

RA

NG

ING

AB

US

INE

SS

TR

IP A

BR

OA

D

TY

PE

OF

TR

AN

SP

OR

T

AC

CO

MM

OD

AT

ION

CO

NT

AC

TP

ER

SO

N

B:

WH

AT

IS I

MP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

CH

OO

SIN

G O

FF

ICE

ST

O R

EN

T

LO

CA

TIO

N

FA

CIL

ITIE

S

CO

ST

Appendix 4.1

321

Appendix 4.1

322

Wri

tin

g S

am

ple

Sc

rip

ts

Part

1

Scri

pt

A

Dea

r co

lleag

ues,

Aft

erus

ing

the

com

pany

car

s, p

leas

e fi

ll th

em u

p w

ith

petr

olan

d lea

ve t

he

cars

in f

ront

of

our

bui

ldin

g on

our

com

pany

car

par

king

pla

ces.

Then

give

the

car

key

to o

ur t

eam

sec

reta

ry.

Man

y th

anks

.

Scri

pt

A

All

conte

nt

po

ints

ach

ieved

within

th

e s

pecifie

d w

ord

lim

it w

ith n

o a

mbig

uity

and m

inim

al eff

ort

fro

mth

ere

ader.

Som

e s

imple

lin

kin

g d

evic

es

are

use

d. T

he s

tyle

is f

rie

ndly

but

not

info

rmal.

Ba

nd

5

Scri

pt

B

I’ll r

em

ind y

outh

at y

ou m

ust

fill t

he c

ompa

ny c

ar w

ith p

etr

olon

their

retu

rn.

Aft

erth

at y

oufo

llow

the p

roce

dur

es

for

park

ing

as y

ou k

now

and

depo

sit

the

keys

in

the

blu

bas

ket.

Scri

pt

B

The f

irst and thir

dconte

nt

poin

ts a

reachie

ved b

ut th

e r

eader

wou

ld n

ot kno

w‘w

here

to lea

ve

the c

ar’

as s

pecifie

d in t

he q

uestion.

Oth

erw

ise th

e q

ua

lity

of

the

lang

uag

e a

nd s

tyle

is a

deq

uate

for

this

level

and n

o m

isunders

tan

din

gs a

re c

rea

ted.

It w

ould

be a

ccepte

d t

hat

peo

ple

work

ing w

ith

in t

he c

om

pan

yw

ould

know

wha

t ‘the b

lue b

asket’ w

as a

nd

wh

ere

it

was

locate

d.

Ba

nd

3

Scri

pt

C

Pleas

e f

ill th

e c

ompa

ny c

ars

hav

e b

een

dri

ved in

case

the n

ext

one c

ould

n’t

dri

ve

it a

gain

.

And

als

o fo

llow

ing

the

inst

ruct

ions

of

the

park

ing

order

. Ple

ase

leav

e th

e dep

osit

ofth

eke

yis

wel

l.T

han

k yo

u

Scri

pt

C

Althou

gh t

he c

andid

ate

has tri

ed

to a

ddre

ss

the c

onte

nt

po

ints

, n

on

e o

f th

em

has b

ee

n a

ch

ieved

,eith

er

beca

use o

fin

suff

icie

nt

langu

age

contr

ol (p

oin

t 1)

or

because t

he instr

uctions a

reto

o v

agu

e(p

oin

ts2 a

nd 3

).B

and 1

is a

ward

ed r

ath

er

than B

an

d 0

as the

cand

idate

has

wri

tten 3

8 w

ord

s a

nd

th

ere

sponse is n

ot to

tally

irre

leva

nt.

An

sw

er

Ke

ys

Read

ing

Part

1

1C

2B

3A

4C

5F

Part

4

16

B17

C18

C19

B20

A21

A22

A

Part

6

29

B30

A31

C32

B33

C34

A35

A36

BP

art

2

6F

7D

8G

9A

10

E

Part

5

23

C24

A25

B26

C27

A28

C

37

C38

C39

B40

C

Part

3

11

F12

D13

C14

B15

H

Part

7

41 0

1/3

434/A

42 M

adri

d43

Busin

ess (

Cla

ss)

44 (

a)/

(by)

cheq

ue

45 illn

ess/ sic

kness/ sic

k/ unw

ell/

not

well

Lis

ten

ing

Part

1

1B

2C

3A

4A

5A

6B

7C

8

A

Part

3

16 H

ill17 jun

ior

sale

s18 (

ne

w)

soft

ware

(pro

gra

mm

e(s

))19 w

ind

ow

/sho

p d

ispla

y20 (

the

/our)

Chair

man/(

Com

pan

y)

Ch

air

man

21 (

13

th o

f) J

uly

22 e

xp

ort

(s)/

export

ing (

po

licy)

Part

2

9 N

augh

ton

10 W

oodes

11 4

533

39

12 2

50

13 8

14 J

Q165

15 5

90 (

mm

)

Part

4

23

B24

B25

C26

A27

C28

A29

A30

B

Appendix 4.1

323

Scri

pt

F

Dea

r M

rC

rave

n:M

y ap

olog

is f

or t

he

del

ay, I

’m r

ealy

sor

ry b

ut t

he

del

ay w

as b

ecau

se t

he

mot

ors

arri

ved lat

er in

my

com

pany

, I’

m g

oing

to

send

the

mot

orto

mor

ro a

t 9

.00

am

, I

like

to g

ive

to y

ou a

dis

coun

t in

the

tota

l pr

ice

the

dis

coun

t is

20

% o

ff in

the

tota

l.S

orry

for

allt

he

unco

nven

ence

.Y

our

fait

hfu

ly

Igna

cio

Daz

ziM

anag

er

Scri

pt

F

The letter

isw

ell

laid

out

with

an a

ppro

pri

ate

sa

luta

tion a

nd c

lose.

All

4 c

onte

nt p

oin

tsha

ve b

ee

nachie

ve

d b

ut th

ere

are

a n

um

ber

of

err

ors

in s

pelli

ng, pu

nctu

ation a

nd s

ente

nce s

tructu

re. T

he t

ext is

quite s

hort

. T

here

is a

bare

ly a

de

qua

te r

ange o

f str

uctu

re a

nd

vocabu

lary

dis

pla

ye

d f

or

this

leve

l.

Ba

nd

3

Part

2

Scri

pt

D

Dea

r M

rC

rave

n,T

han

k yo

u fo

ryo

urfa

x o

n th

e 3

Jun

e.I

apol

ogis

e ab

out

the

del

ay o

f ou

rpr

oduc

t. I

reg

ret

to inf

orm

you

that

the

mot

ors

are

out

of s

tock

righ

t no

w. W

ew

ill o

bta

in in

2 d

ays.

In

addit

ion,

we

will

send

the

mot

ors

to y

ou t

his

frid

ay o

n th

e 7

Jun

e. I

wou

ld lik

eto

giv

e yo

u 5

%dis

coun

t.If

you

req

uire

mor

e in

form

atio

n, p

leas

don

’t b

e so

hes

itat

e to

cont

act

us. T

han

kyo

u fo

ryo

ur c

o-op

erat

ion.

You

rsi

ncer

ely

J S

char

renb

erg

Scri

pt

D

All

conte

nt

po

ints

have b

een a

chie

ved. D

espite s

om

e inaccura

cie

s,

the m

essage is

well

org

anis

ed a

nd

is a

lwa

ys

cle

ar.

Som

e g

ood f

unction

al la

ngu

age

is

use

d a

nd t

he t

one o

f th

e lett

er

isa

polo

ge

tic a

nd

respectf

ul to

the c

usto

mer.

Ba

nd

5

Scri

pt

E

Dear

Mr

Cra

ven,

We

hav

e j

ust

rece

ived y

our

fax d

ated 3

Jun

e a

nd w

e a

polo

gise

for

what

has

hap

pene

d.

We

mus

t cl

ose o

urof

fice

for

one w

eek

beca

use w

e h

ave b

een

stol

len.

You

willre

ceiv

e th

ese

mot

ors

by

15 J

une a

nd w

e h

ave

reduc

ed a

t 10

% o

n th

e b

ill.

If

you

need

mor

e inf

orm

atio

n don

’t h

esi

tade t

o co

ntac

t ou

r dri

ver

on 7

77

.39

.77

.

You

rssi

ncere

ly,

Han

na V

isco

nti

Scri

pt

E

There

is a

go

od r

ange

of

tenses, a

n a

ppro

pri

ate

sty

le a

nd s

om

every

good

functiona

l la

ngu

age

. T

he

info

rmation is

we

ll org

anis

ed

bu

t th

e c

and

idate

co

uld

ha

ve

made m

ore

eff

ort

to lin

k the s

ente

nces

and

para

gra

phs to

geth

er.

The s

econd

conte

nt p

oin

t re

quir

es

co

nsid

era

ble

inte

rpre

tation o

n t

he p

art

of

the

reader.

Ba

nd

4

Appendix 4.1

324

Superv

isor:

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

BE

C P

relim

inary

Read

ing

An

sw

er

Sh

eet

00

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Can

did

ate

Nam

eIf

no

t a

lre

ad

y p

rin

ted

, w

rite

na

me

in C

AP

ITA

LS

an

d c

om

ple

te t

he

Can

did

ate

No

. g

rid

(in

pen

cil).

Can

did

ate

’s S

ign

atu

re

Exam

inati

on

Tit

le

Cen

tre

If t

he

ca

nd

ida

te is A

BS

EN

To

r h

asW

ITH

DR

AW

Nsh

ad

e h

ere

Can

did

ate

No

.

Ce

ntr

e N

o.

Exam

inati

on

Deta

ils

21 43

6

5

87 109

Part

1

Instr

ucti

on

sU

se

a P

EN

CIL

(B

or

HB

).

Ru

b o

ut

an

y a

nsw

er

yo

u w

ish

to

ch

an

ge

with

an

era

se

r.

Fo

r P

art

s 1

to

6:

Ma

rk o

ne

bo

x f

or

ea

ch

an

sw

er.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

If y

ou

th

ink C

is t

he

rig

ht

an

sw

er

to t

he

qu

estio

n,

ma

rk y

ou

r a

nsw

er

sh

ee

t lik

e t

his

:

Part

2

�

Tu

rn o

ver

for

Part

s 3

- 7

Fo

r P

art

7:

Write

yo

ur

an

sw

er

cle

arly in

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S.

Write

on

e le

tte

r o

r n

um

be

r in

ea

ch

bo

x.

If t

he

an

sw

er

ha

s m

ore

th

an

on

e w

ord

, le

ave

on

e b

ox e

mp

ty b

etw

ee

n w

ord

s.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

AB

C0

0

A

BE

C P

- R

DP

45

3/3

53

BC

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Appendix 4.1

325

Superv

isor:

This

section for

use b

y E

xam

iner

only

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

BE

C P

relim

inary

Wri

tin

g A

nsw

er

Sh

eet

00

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Can

did

ate

Nam

eIf

no

t a

lre

ad

y p

rin

ted

, w

rite

na

me

in C

AP

ITA

LS

an

d c

om

ple

te t

he

Can

did

ate

No

. g

rid

(in

pen

cil).

Can

did

ate

’s S

ign

atu

re

Exam

inati

on

Tit

le

Cen

tre

If t

he

ca

nd

ida

te is A

BS

EN

To

r h

asW

ITH

DR

AW

Nsh

ad

e h

ere

Can

did

ate

No

.

Ce

ntr

e N

o.

Exam

inati

on

Deta

ils

Part

1:

Wri

te y

ou

r an

sw

er

in t

he b

ox b

elo

w.

�

Wri

te y

ou

r an

sw

er

to P

art

2 o

n t

he o

ther

sid

e o

f th

is s

heet

Part

10

12

34

5

BE

C P

- W

DP

45

4/3

54

Part

7

14

13

15

41

01

41

29

31

30

32P

art

6 AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

33

35

34

36

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

37

39

38

40

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

Part

3

16

AB

C2

3A

BC

12

11

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

4P

art

5

18

17

19

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

20

21

AB

C

AB

C

22

AB

C

25

24

26

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

27

28

AB

C

AB

C

42

01

42

43

01

43

44

01

44

45

01

45

Appendix 4.1

326

Superv

isor:

0

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

BE

C P

relim

inary

Lis

ten

ing

An

sw

er

Sh

eet

00

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Can

did

ate

Nam

eIf

no

t a

lre

ad

y p

rin

ted

, w

rite

na

me

in C

AP

ITA

LS

an

d c

om

ple

te t

he

Can

did

ate

No

. g

rid

(in

pen

cil).

Can

did

ate

’s S

ign

atu

re

Exam

inati

on

Tit

le

Cen

tre

If t

he

ca

nd

ida

te is A

BS

EN

To

r h

asW

ITH

DR

AW

Nsh

ad

e h

ere

Can

did

ate

No

.

Ce

ntr

e N

o.

Exam

inati

on

Deta

ils

21 43 5Part

1

Instr

ucti

on

sU

se

a P

EN

CIL

(B

or

HB

).

Ru

b o

ut

an

y a

nsw

er

yo

u w

ish

to

ch

an

ge

with

an

era

se

r.

Fo

r P

art

s 1

an

d 4

:

Ma

rk o

ne

bo

x f

or

ea

ch

an

sw

er.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

If y

ou

th

ink C

is t

he

rig

ht

an

sw

er

to t

he

qu

estio

n,

ma

rk y

ou

r a

nsw

er

sh

ee

t lik

e t

his

:

Part

2

�

Tu

rn o

ver

for

Part

s 3

an

d 4

Fo

r P

art

s 2

an

d 3

:

Write

yo

ur

an

sw

er

cle

arly in

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S.

Write

on

e le

tte

r in

ea

ch

bo

x.

If t

he

an

sw

er

ha

s m

ore

th

an

on

e w

ord

, le

ave

on

e b

ox e

mp

ty b

etw

ee

n w

ord

s.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

AB

C0

6 7 8

109

01

01

12

11

01

01

13

01

9 10

11

12

13

14

01

15

01

14

15

A

BE

C P

- L

DP

45

6/3

56

BC

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

This

section for

use b

y E

xam

iner

only

Part

2:

Wri

te y

ou

r an

sw

er

in t

he b

ox b

elo

w.

Part

20

1.1

1.2

Exam

iner

Num

ber

Exam

iner’

s S

ignatu

re

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

5.1

5.2

87

65

43

21

09

87

65

43

21

09

87

65

43

21

09

87

65

43

21

09

Appendix 4.1

327

Fe

ed

ba

ck

Fo

rm

BE

C P

reli

min

ary

Exam

inati

on

Rep

ort

Ju

ne 2

002

We a

re inte

reste

d in h

eari

ng y

our

vie

ws o

n h

ow

usefu

l th

is r

eport

has b

een.

We w

ou

ld b

e m

ost gra

tefu

l if

yo

u c

ould

bri

efly a

nsw

er

the f

ollo

win

g q

uestions

and r

etu

rn a

ph

oto

co

py

of

this

pa

ge t

o th

e f

ollo

win

g a

ddre

ss:

BE

CR

ep

ort

s C

o-o

rdin

ato

rC

am

bri

dge E

SO

L1 H

ills R

oad

Cam

bri

dge

CB

1 2

EU

UK

Fax: 44 1

223

46

027

8

1.

Ple

ase d

escri

be y

our

situa

tio

n: (e

.g.

EF

L t

eacher,

Dir

ecto

rof

Stu

die

s,

Exam

inatio

ns O

ffic

er,

Local

Secre

tary

, etc

)

2.

Have y

ou p

repare

d c

an

did

ate

s f

or

BE

C P

relim

inary

?

3.

Do y

ou p

lan to

pre

pare

cand

idate

s f

or

BE

C P

relim

inary

in t

he f

utu

re?

4.

Ho

wh

ave

yo

uused t

his

rep

ort

? (

e.g

. to

pro

vid

e f

eed

back

to o

ther

teach

ers

, fo

rexam

ination

pra

ctice, e

tc.)

5.

Whic

h p

art

s o

fth

is r

eport

did

you f

ind m

ost usefu

l?

6.

Whic

h p

art

s w

ere

not so u

sefu

l?

7.

What extr

a info

rmation w

ould

yo

u lik

e to s

ee inclu

de

d in

th

is r

ep

ort

?

8.

Your

nam

e: (O

ption

al)

Centr

e/S

cho

ol:

Tha

nk y

ou

.

Part

3

16

01

16

23

AB

C

Part

4

25

24

26

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

27

28

AB

C

AB

C

29

AB

C

17

01

17

18

01

18

19

01

19

20

01

20

21

01

21

22

01

22

30

AB

C

328

TIME 1 hour





Write all your answers in pencil on your Answer Sheet – no extra time is allowed for this.

Read carefully the instructions for each part and the instructions for completing your Answer Sheet.




There are forty-five questions on this question paper.



BUSINESS ENGLISH CERTIFICATE 0352/1Vantage

Test of Reading Test 023

Thursday 6 JUNE 2002 Morning 1 hour


Candidate


Candidate Name


SP (SLC) S26502/3

APPENDIX 4.2

BEC Vantage Sample Paper

Appendix 4.2

329

Ch

ang

es i

n P

erfo

rman

ce F

eed

bac

k

A B C D

So

, h

ow

is t

he

ne

w f

ee

db

ack c

ultu

re l

ike

ly t

o a

ffe

ct

yo

u?

It

co

uld

fo

rm t

he

ba

sis

of

yo

ur

pe

rso

na

l d

eve

lop

me

nt

pro

gra

mm

e,

pro

vid

ing

po

inte

rs t

o y

ou

r str

en

gth

s a

nd

als

o t

o t

ho

se

are

as y

ou

ne

ed

to

de

ve

lop

mo

re.

Or

fee

db

ack c

ou

ld b

e u

se

d f

or

‘su

cce

ssio

n p

lan

nin

g’,

where

co

mp

an

ies u

se

th

e i

nfo

rma

tio

n t

o s

pe

cu

late

on

wh

o h

as t

he

rig

ht

skill

s t

o m

ove

in

to m

ore

se

nio

r p

ositio

ns. A

s y

et,

fe

w o

rga

nis

atio

ns h

ave

str

etc

he

d th

e r

ole

of fe

ed

ba

ck s

o fa

r a

s to

lin

k

it to s

ala

ries. B

ut one thin

g is

cle

ar:

the futu

re w

ill b

ring e

ven w

ider

part

icip

ation b

y a

ll m

em

bers

Sa

rah

Ra

ins,

fro

m t

he

ph

arm

ace

utica

l co

mp

an

y O

pte

c,

sa

id,

‘No

w f

ee

db

ack i

s a

va

ilab

le o

n

ou

r n

etw

ork

, w

e e

nco

ura

ge

ma

na

ge

rs to

ch

oo

se

ho

w th

ey u

se

it.

It is

a fle

xib

le to

ol a

nd

we

te

ll

them

that

waitin

g f

or

the a

nnual event

of

a f

orm

al appra

isal needn’t

apply

.’A

t th

e e

ng

ine

erin

g

co

mp

an

y N

T, 2

50

te

ch

nic

al m

an

ag

ers

ha

ve

be

en

th

rou

gh

th

e fe

ed

ba

ck p

roce

ss. Ja

ck P

alm

er,

a

se

nio

r m

an

ag

er

the

re,

sa

id,

‘We

n

ee

de

d

to

de

ve

lop

th

e

inte

rpe

rso

na

l skill

s

of

the

se

technic

ally

-min

ded

people

. In

part

icula

r,

we

wante

d

to

build

on

their

team

-work

ing

and

coachin

g s

kill

s.’

PC

s lin

ke

d t

o t

he

co

mp

an

y I

Tn

etw

ork

are

se

t to

be

co

me

th

e f

ee

db

ack m

ach

ine

s.

Ma

ny f

irm

s

intr

od

ucin

g

36

0-d

eg

ree

fe

ed

ba

ck

are

u

sin

g

Pe

rso

na

l D

eve

lop

me

nt

Pla

nn

er

so

ftw

are

.

Feedback o

n a

n indiv

idual, w

hic

h is b

ased o

n a

questionnaire r

ela

ting to a

ttribute

s n

eeded for

tha

t p

ers

on’s

role

in t

he c

om

pany,

is c

olle

cte

d u

sin

g t

his

ele

ctr

onic

syste

m. A

ll th

e info

rmation

ga

the

red

is a

na

lyse

d a

nd

th

e e

nd

re

su

lt is a

su

gg

este

d d

eve

lop

me

nt

pla

n.

Th

e a

dva

nta

ge

is

tha

t in

div

idu

als

ma

ke

re

qu

ests

fo

r th

e f

ee

db

ack t

he

mse

lve

s a

nd

re

ce

ive

th

e r

esu

lts d

ire

ctly.

In t

he

pa

st,

fe

ed

ba

ck a

bo

ut

yo

ur

pe

rfo

rma

nce

use

d t

o m

ea

n a

qu

iet

ch

at

with

th

e b

oss.

Bu

t

no

w 3

60

-de

gre

e fe

ed

ba

ck –

th

e s

yste

m w

he

re e

mp

loye

es a

re a

lso

giv

en

fe

ed

ba

ck fro

m p

ee

rs

an

d fr

om

th

e p

eo

ple

th

ey m

an

ag

e –

is ta

kin

g ro

ot

in co

rpo

rate

cu

ltu

re.

Th

e syste

m is

chara

cte

rised b

y g

reate

r part

icip

ation a

nd h

as g

row

n o

ut

of

the d

esire o

f com

panie

s t

o c

reate

mo

re o

pe

n w

ork

ing

en

viro

nm

en

ts w

he

re p

eo

ple

wo

rk b

ett

er

tog

eth

er

an

d id

ea

s a

nd

op

inio

ns

are

exch

an

ge

d b

etw

ee

n t

ea

ms a

nd

acro

ss le

ve

ls o

f se

nio

rity

.

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

s 1

– 7

•Lo

ok a

t th

e st

atem

ents

bel

ow a

nd t

he in

form

atio

n on

the

opp

osite

pag

e ab

out

feed

back

on

staf

f

perf

orm

ance

.

•W

hich

sec

tion

(A,

B,

Cor

D)

does

eac

h st

atem

ent

1 –

7re

fer

to?

•F

or e

ach

stat

emen

t 1

– 7,

mar

k on

e le

tter

(A,

B,

Cor

D)

on y

our

Ans

wer

She

et.

•Y

ou w

ill n

eed

to u

se s

ome

of t

hese

lette

rs m

ore

than

onc

e.

Exa

mp

le:

0th

e re

luct

ance

of

com

pani

es t

o ba

se p

ay o

n st

aff

feed

back

1st

aff

bein

g re

min

ded

that

it is

not

ess

entia

l to

rest

rict

feed

back

to

once

a y

ear

2th

e w

ay in

whi

ch f

eedb

ack

coul

d id

entif

y pe

ople

sui

tabl

e fo

r pr

omot

ion

3th

e ai

m o

f im

prov

ing

staf

f co

mm

unic

atio

n th

roug

hout

an

orga

nisa

tion

4th

e fe

edba

ck o

btai

ned

on a

n em

ploy

ee b

eing

link

ed t

o re

quire

men

ts f

or a

par

ticul

ar jo

b

5as

pect

s of

a g

roup

of

empl

oyee

s’w

ork

that

wer

e id

entif

ied

as r

equi

ring

impr

ovem

ent

6fe

edba

ck in

dica

ting

both

pos

itive

and

neg

ativ

e as

pect

s of

an

indi

vidu

al’s

wor

k

7th

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of le

ss s

enio

r pe

rson

nel i

n a

mem

ber

of s

taff’

s fe

edba

ck

0A

BC

D

Appendix 4.2

330

Exa

mp

le:

AIf

an

org

an

isa

tio

n is ju

st

be

gin

nin

g t

o w

ork

glo

ba

lly a

nd

ha

s o

nly

re

ce

ntly c

rea

ted

inte

rnational te

am

s,

it o

ften

un

de

restim

ate

s t

he

le

ve

l o

f su

pp

ort

ne

ed

ed

by t

ea

ms.

BIt

is n

ow

we

ll-e

sta

blis

he

d t

ha

t a

ny t

ea

m

will

ha

ve

a g

rea

ter

ch

an

ce

of

su

cce

ss if

it

ha

s c

lea

r g

oa

ls,

a s

tro

ng

se

nse

of

co

mm

itm

en

t, a

pp

rop

ria

te le

ad

ers

hip

an

d

go

od

in

terp

ers

on

al re

latio

nsh

ips.

CT

he

re

co

gn

itio

n o

f th

is h

as c

rea

ted

ma

ny

mo

re k

no

wle

dg

e w

ork

ers

, th

at

is,

pe

op

le

wh

o c

rea

te,

exch

an

ge

an

d b

roa

dca

st

info

rma

tio

n a

s k

no

wle

dg

e.

DO

rga

nis

atio

ns m

ust

un

de

rsta

nd

th

at

op

era

tin

g g

lob

ally

affe

cts

eve

ry a

sp

ect

of

bu

sin

ess,

an

d t

he

y c

an

no

t sim

ply

se

t u

p

inte

rna

tio

na

l te

am

s a

nd

assu

me

th

at

eve

ryth

ing

els

e c

an

re

ma

in u

nch

an

ge

d.

ET

he f

irst

majo

r im

pact

of

this

is t

hat

sa

telli

te t

ech

no

log

y is in

cre

asin

gly

allo

win

g

tea

m m

em

be

rs t

o p

art

icip

ate

in

dis

cu

ssio

ns w

he

reve

r th

ey a

re,

at

an

y t

ime

the

y c

ho

ose

.

FU

nfo

rtu

na

tely

, h

ow

eve

r, f

ew

org

an

isa

tio

ns

un

til n

ow

ha

ve

be

en

pre

pa

red

to

ma

ke

th

e

ne

ce

ssa

ry in

ve

stm

en

t to

ga

in t

he

po

ten

tia

l

be

ne

fits

th

at

inte

rna

tio

na

l te

am

s o

ffe

r.

GU

nlik

e m

ost

na

tio

na

l te

am

s,

inte

rna

tio

na

l

tea

ms o

fte

n w

ork

ap

art

an

d a

cro

ss

cu

ltu

res a

nd

tim

e z

on

es,

for

exte

nd

ed

pe

rio

ds o

f tim

e.

AB

CD

EF

G0

PA

RT

TW

O

Qu

esti

on

s 8

– 12

•R

ea

d t

he

art

icle

be

low

ab

ou

t w

ork

ing

in

in

tern

atio

na

l te

am

s.

•C

ho

ose

th

e b

est

se

nte

nce

fro

m t

he

op

po

site

pa

ge

to

fill

ea

ch

of

the

ga

ps.

•F

or

ea

ch

ga

p 8

– 1

2, m

ark

one letter

(A–

G)

on

yo

ur

An

sw

er

Sh

ee

t.

•D

o n

ot

use

an

y le

tte

r m

ore

th

an

on

ce

.

•T

he

re is a

n e

xa

mp

le a

t th

e b

eg

inn

ing

, (0

).

An

in

tern

atio

na

l te

am

ca

n b

e d

efin

ed

as a

gro

up

of

pe

op

le w

ho

co

me

fro

m d

iffe

ren

t n

atio

na

litie

s

an

d

wo

rk

tog

eth

er

tow

ard

s

a

co

mm

on

g

oa

l.

(0).

.......G ...

..

Th

e fa

ct

tha

t th

ey a

re sp

rea

d o

ut

pre

se

nts

a r

an

ge

of o

pp

ort

un

itie

s a

nd

ch

alle

ng

es

tha

t te

am

s w

ork

ing

in

th

e sa

me

p

lace

d

o n

ot

exp

erie

nce

.

On

e tre

nd

in p

art

icu

lar

wh

ich

is c

rea

tin

g th

e n

ee

d

for

mo

re in

tern

atio

na

l te

am

s is t

ha

t w

e a

re in

th

e

mid

dle

o

f a

d

ram

atic

info

rma

tio

n

revo

lutio

n.

(8).

....

....

...

. T

hu

s,

the

se

te

am

s c

an

no

w s

pe

nd

as m

uch

tim

e w

ork

ing

ap

art

as t

og

eth

er.

Th

ey

ca

n

acce

ss

an

d

sh

are

in

form

atio

n

as

ne

ve

r

be

fore

. B

usin

ess w

ill i

ncre

asin

gly

be

do

ne

in

an

‘info

rma

tio

n s

pa

ce’,

with

in

form

atio

n b

eco

min

g a

pro

du

ct

in i

ts o

wn

rig

ht.

(9)

............ .

Doin

g t

his

thro

ug

h th

e in

tern

et

an

d e

-ma

il is

in

exp

en

siv

e

an

d

rela

tive

ly

ea

sy,

in

b

oth

te

ch

no

log

ica

lly

de

ve

lop

ed

an

d d

eve

lop

ing

co

un

trie

s.

Aq

ue

stio

n

co

mm

on

ly

aske

d

by

ma

na

ge

rs

is

wh

eth

er

the

se

te

am

s a

ctu

ally

w

ork

. C

an

th

ey

de

live

r im

pro

ve

d p

erf

orm

an

ce

? A

fte

r a

de

ca

de

of

wo

rk e

xp

erie

nce

an

d r

ese

arc

h w

ith

in

tern

atio

na

l

tea

ms,

I b

elie

ve

th

e

an

sw

er

is

po

sitiv

e.

(10)

....

....

....

.

Wh

at’s

m

ore

, m

an

y

of

tho

se

co

mp

an

ies

wh

ich

h

ave

a

ctu

ally

intr

od

uce

d

inte

rna

tio

na

l te

am

s h

ave

fo

cu

se

d o

nly

o

n th

e

pe

rfo

rma

nce

o

f th

e te

am

s,

with

ou

t ta

kin

g in

to

acco

un

t th

e c

on

text in

wh

ich

th

ey a

re in

tro

du

ce

d.

Co

nte

xt

pla

ys a

ke

y r

ole

in

th

e lik

elih

oo

d o

f th

eir

su

cce

ss.

Cre

atin

g t

he

rig

ht

co

nte

xt

for

inte

rna

tio

na

l te

am

s

ne

ed

s m

ore

th

an

a q

uic

k fix

, th

ou

gh

. It

re

qu

ire

s a

long-t

erm

com

mitm

ent.

(11)

............

. O

n

the

co

ntr

ary

, co

mp

an

ies n

ee

d t

o f

ocu

s o

n t

he

wa

y

the

y o

pe

rate

, a

nd

p

ossib

ly in

itia

te a

co

mp

lete

revie

w o

f th

eir p

ractice

s b

efo

re in

tro

du

cin

g a

n

inte

rna

tio

na

l te

am

.

Giv

en

th

ese

ch

alle

ng

es,

wh

at

sh

ou

ld

org

an

isa

tio

ns

do

to

m

ake

su

re

tha

t th

eir

inte

rna

tio

na

l te

am

s a

re su

cce

ssfu

l? M

uch

h

as

be

en

writt

en

ab

ou

t e

ffe

ctive

te

am

pro

ce

sse

s i

n

ge

ne

ral, a

nd

th

e f

irst

thin

g t

o s

ay is t

ha

t m

ost

of

the

se

g

uid

elin

es a

pp

ly e

qu

ally

to

in

tern

atio

na

l

tea

ms.

Exp

erie

nce

ha

s s

ho

wn

th

at

inte

rna

tio

na

l

tea

ms

are

sim

ply

m

ore

co

mp

lex

ve

rsio

ns

of

na

tio

na

l te

am

s.

(12)

....

....

....

.

Wh

ile

th

ese

ele

ments

may h

ave a

variety

of in

terp

reta

tions in

diffe

ren

t cu

ltu

res,

the

y

are

a

s

imp

ort

an

t to

inte

rna

tio

na

l te

am

s

as

the

y

are

to

n

atio

na

l

tea

ms.

Inte

rn

ati

on

al

Te

am

s

Appendix 4.2

331

13In

th

e f

irst

pa

rag

rap

h,

the

write

r sa

ys t

ha

t p

oo

r le

ad

ers

Ad

o n

ot

wa

nt

to lis

ten

to

criticis

m.

Bd

o n

ot

de

se

rve

to

be

ta

ke

n s

erio

usly

.

Ca

re e

asie

r to

id

en

tify

th

an

go

od

on

es.

Da

re m

ore

wid

esp

rea

d t

ha

n p

eo

ple

th

ink.

14W

hy d

oe

s t

he

write

r b

elie

ve

th

ere

is d

isa

gre

em

en

t a

bo

ut

wh

at

effe

ctive

le

ad

ers

hip

is?

AD

efinitio

ns o

f successfu

l le

aders

hip

vary

accord

ing t

o t

he s

ituation.

BT

here

are

few

exam

ple

s o

f outs

tandin

g leaders

availa

ble

to s

tudy.

CLeaders

are

unable

to g

ive c

lear

descriptions o

f th

eir q

ualit

ies.

DT

he

re

su

lts o

f re

se

arc

h o

n t

he

su

bje

ct

ha

ve

co

nclu

de

d little

.

15T

he

pu

blis

hin

g e

xe

cu

tive’s

prio

ritie

s f

or

lea

de

rsh

ip f

ocu

se

d o

n

Asig

nific

an

t a

nd

lo

ng

-te

rm a

ims.

Bin

tern

al o

rga

nis

atio

na

l a

sp

ects

.

Cpro

fessio

nal skill

s a

nd a

bili

ties.

Do

ve

rall

bu

sin

ess c

on

texts

.

16A

cco

rdin

g t

o t

he

write

r, t

he

fin

an

ce

dire

cto

r w

as u

nsu

cce

ssfu

l b

eca

use

Asta

ff w

ere

un

co

mfo

rta

ble

with

his

sty

le.

Be

xis

tin

g c

lien

ts w

ere

su

sp

icio

us o

f ch

an

ge

.

Cco

mp

etito

rs h

ad

a m

ore

dyn

am

ic a

pp

roa

ch

.

Dco

llea

gu

es g

ave

little

su

pp

ort

to

his

id

ea

s.

17S

taff a

t th

e a

ccounta

ncy f

irm

who w

ere

pro

mote

d w

ere

required t

o

Aco

rre

ct

mis

take

s.

Bh

ave

a h

igh

le

ve

l o

f kn

ow

led

ge

.

Cm

ain

tain

dis

cip

line

with

in t

he

org

an

isa

tio

n.

Da

dvis

e c

lien

ts o

n r

esp

on

din

g t

o u

nce

rta

inty

.

18T

he

exa

mp

le o

f th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rin

g m

an

ag

er

is g

ive

n t

o e

mp

ha

sis

e t

ha

t

Am

an

ag

ers

ne

ed

su

pp

ort

fro

m t

he

ir e

mp

loye

rs.

Ble

ad

ers

sh

ou

ld n

ot

be

afr

aid

of

be

ing

un

po

pu

lar.

Ce

ffe

ctive

le

ad

ers

mu

st

be

se

nsitiv

e t

o s

taff n

ee

ds.

Dm

an

ag

ers

do

no

t a

lwa

ys u

nd

ers

tan

d t

he

att

itu

de

s o

f sta

ff.

PA

RT

TH

RE

E

Qu

esti

on

s 13

– 1

8

•R

ea

d t

he

art

icle

be

low

ab

ou

t le

ad

ers

hip

in

bu

sin

ess a

nd

th

e q

ue

stio

ns o

n t

he

op

po

site

pa

ge

.

•F

or

ea

ch

qu

estio

n 1

3 –

18,

mark

one letter

(A,

B,

Cor

D)

on

yo

ur

An

sw

er

Sh

ee

t fo

r th

e a

nsw

er

yo

u c

ho

ose

.

Th

e E

ffe

cti

ve

L

ea

de

r

Fro

m w

orkp

lace

sur

veys

I h

ave

foun

d th

at m

ost

peop

le w

ant

to b

e –

and

feel

the

y co

uld

be –

mor

eef

fect

ive

lead

ers.

Cer

tain

ly t

hey

wan

t th

eir

lead

ers

tobe

mor

e ef

fect

ive.

But

wha

t do

we

mea

n by

eff

ecti

vele

ader

ship

in

busi

ness

? It

wou

ld a

ppea

r a

sim

ple

ques

tion

. U

nfor

tuna

tely

, ef

fect

iven

ess

is m

ore

easi

lyre

cogn

isab

le w

hen

it i

s ab

sent

. L

eade

rs w

ho a

ttem

ptto

use

bus

ines

s ja

rgon

and

try

out

the

lat

est

idea

s ar

eto

o of

ten

seen

as

fi

gure

s of

fu

n.

Whi

lst

peop

lefr

eque

ntly

agr

ee o

n w

hat

inef

fect

ive

lead

ersh

ip i

s,cl

earl

y kn

owin

g w

hat

not

to d

o is

har

dly

help

ful

inpr

acti

ce.

Hug

e am

ount

s of

res

earc

h ha

ve b

een

done

on

this

very

wid

e su

bjec

t. W

hen

you

look

at

lead

ersh

ip i

ndi

ffer

ent

way

s,

you

see

diff

eren

t th

ings

. W

hile

desc

ript

ions

of

lead

ersh

ip a

re a

ll d

iffe

rent

, the

y ar

e al

ltr

ue

– an

d th

is

is

whe

re

disa

gree

men

t ar

ises

.H

owev

er,

lead

ersh

ip i

s sp

ecif

ic t

o a

give

n co

ntex

t.T

he

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

yo

ur

acti

ons

is

asse

ssed

in

rela

tion

to

the

cont

ext

and

to t

he c

ondi

tion

s un

der

whi

ch y

ou t

ook

them

.F

or

a m

agaz

ine

arti

cle

I w

rote

re

cent

ly,

Iin

terv

iew

ed a

pub

lish

ing

exec

utiv

e, a

utho

r of

sev

eral

wel

l-kn

own

publ

icat

ions

, ab

out

wha

t ef

fect

ive

lead

ersh

ip is

. It w

as s

igni

fica

nt th

at, a

t fir

st, h

e di

d no

tm

enti

on h

is o

wn

com

pany

. He

talk

ed a

t le

ngth

abo

utw

hat

was

hap

peni

ng i

n th

e in

dust

ry –

the

mer

gers

,ta

keov

ers

and

glob

al n

atur

e of

the

busi

ness

. Bef

ore

hew

as a

ble

to d

escr

ibe

his

own

obje

ctiv

es f

or t

he n

ewpu

blis

hing

org

anis

atio

n he

was

set

ting

up,

he

had

tose

e a

clea

r fi

t be

twee

n th

ese

prop

osal

s an

d th

e la

rger

situ

atio

n ou

tsid

e. O

bvio

us?

Of

cour

se. B

ut I

hav

e lo

stco

unt

of t

he n

umbe

r of

lea

ders

I h

ave

coac

hed

who

beli

eved

tha

t th

eir

idea

s w

ere

vali

d w

hate

ver

the

situ

atio

n.A

t th

is

poin

t I

shou

ld

also

m

enti

on

anot

her

exam

ple,

tha

t of

a f

inan

ce d

irec

tor

who

se p

lan

ofac

tion

was

not

wel

l re

ceiv

ed.

The

com

pany

he

had

join

ed h

ad g

row

n st

eadi

ly f

or t

wen

ty y

ears

, se

rvin

g

clie

nts

who

w

ere

in

the

mai

n di

stru

stfu

l of

an

ypr

oduc

t th

at

was

to

o re

volu

tion

ary.

T

he

fina

nce

dire

ctor

saw

pot

enti

al c

hall

enge

s fr

om c

ompe

tito

rsan

d w

ante

d hi

s or

gani

sati

on t

o m

ove

wit

h th

e ti

mes

.U

nfor

tuna

tely

, m

ost

staf

f be

low

him

wer

e un

wil

ling

to

chan

ge.

I co

nclu

ded

that

al

thou

gh

ther

e w

ere

cert

ainl

y so

me

pers

onal

ski

lls

he c

ould

impr

ove

upon

,w

hat

he m

ost

need

ed t

o do

was

to

com

mun

icat

eef

fect

ivel

y w

ith

his

subo

rdin

ates

, so

tha

t th

ey a

ll f

elt

at e

ase

wit

h hi

s di

ffer

ent

appr

oach

.S

ome

effe

ctiv

e le

ader

s be

liev

e th

ey c

an c

ontr

olun

cert

aint

y be

caus

e th

ey k

now

wha

t th

e or

gani

sati

onsh

ould

be

do

ing

and

how

to

do

it

. W

ithi

n th

eor

gani

sati

on it

self

, exp

erti

se is

usu

ally

gre

atly

val

ued,

and

exec

utiv

es a

re e

xpec

ted,

as

they

ris

e w

ithi

n th

esy

stem

, to

kno

w m

ore

than

tho

se b

enea

th t

hem

and

,th

eref

ore,

to

man

age

the

oper

atio

n. A

good

exa

mpl

eof

this

wou

ld b

e a

firm

of

acco

unta

nts

I vi

site

d. T

heir

busi

ness

was

bui

lt o

n se

llin

g re

liab

le e

xper

tise

to

the

clie

nt,

who

na

tura

lly

wan

ts

unce

rtai

nty

to

beso

met

hing

onl

y ot

her

com

pani

es h

ave

to f

ace.

Wit

hin

this

fir

m, g

ivin

g th

e ri

ght

answ

er w

as g

reat

ly v

alue

d,an

d m

ista

kes

wer

e cl

earl

y to

be

avoi

ded.

I am

par

ticu

larl

y in

tere

sted

in

wha

t ai

ms

lead

ers

have

and

wha

t th

eir

role

sho

uld

be i

n he

lpin

g th

eor

gani

sati

on

to

achi

eve

its

stra

tegi

c ai

ms.

S

ome

lead

ers

are

high

ly in

effe

ctiv

e w

hen

the

aim

doe

sn’t

fit

wit

h th

e ne

ed,

such

as

the

man

ufac

turi

ng m

anag

erw

ho

was

en

cour

aged

by

he

r bo

sses

to

m

ake

revo

luti

onar

y ch

ange

s.

She

di

d,

and

was

ve

rysu

cces

sful

. H

owev

er,

whe

n sh

e m

oved

to

a di

ffer

ent

part

of

the

busi

ness

, she

car

ried

on

her

prog

ram

me

ofch

ange

. U

nfor

tuna

tely

, th

is p

art

of t

he b

usin

ess

had

alre

ady

suff

ered

ba

dly

from

tw

o m

ism

anag

edat

tem

pts

at c

hang

e. M

y po

int

is t

hat

wha

t he

r pe

ople

need

ed a

t tha

t mom

ent w

as a

ste

ady

hand

, not

fur

ther

chan

ges

– sh

e sh

ould

ha

ve

reco

gnis

ed

that

. T

heou

tcom

e w

as th

at w

ithi

n si

x m

onth

s st

aff

wer

e ca

llin

gfo

r he

r re

sign

atio

n.

Appendix 4.2

332

Exa

mp

le: A

exte

nsio

nB

expa

nsio

nC

accu

mul

atio

nD

infla

tion

19A

outp

utB

yiel

dC

tota

lD

mas

s

20A

budg

etB

inco

me

Cac

coun

tD

fund

21A

forw

ard

Btr

ansf

erC

adva

nce

Dde

liver

22A

repl

acem

ent

Bre

arra

ngin

gC

relo

catio

nD

redi

strib

utio

n

23A

aim

edB

imag

ined

Cac

cept

edD

expe

cted

24A

gues

sB

judg

emen

tC

estim

ate

Dco

nvic

tion

25A

focu

sB

obje

ctC

inte

ntio

nD

purp

ose

26A

conc

entr

atin

gB

plan

ning

Cat

tend

ing

Ddi

rect

ing

27A

runn

ing

Bim

plem

entin

gC

exec

utin

gD

orga

nisi

ng

28A

appo

int

Bre

sult

Cem

ploy

Dcr

eate

29A

scho

lars

hips

Bgr

ants

Cal

loca

tions

Dgi

fts

30A

finis

hB

clos

ure

Cen

ding

Dco

nclu

sion

31A

disp

atch

edB

prom

pted

Cla

unch

edD

effe

cted

32A

attit

ude

Bap

proa

chC

outlo

okD

feed

back

33A

prac

tice

Bpr

ogre

ssC

proc

ess

Dpr

oced

ure

AB

CD

0

PA

RT

FO

UR

Qu

esti

on

s 19

– 3

3

•R

ea

d t

he

extr

act

be

low

fro

m t

he

an

nu

al re

po

rt o

f a

co

mp

an

y w

ith

ma

nu

factu

rin

g in

tere

sts

aro

un

d

the

wo

rld

.

•C

ho

ose

th

e b

est

wo

rd t

o f

ill e

ach

ga

p f

rom

A,

B,

Cor

Do

n t

he

op

po

site

pa

ge

.

•F

or

ea

ch

qu

estio

n 1

9 –

33,

mark

one letter

(A,

B,

Cor

D)

on

yo

ur

An

sw

er

Sh

ee

t.

•T

he

re is a

n e

xa

mp

le a

t th

e b

eg

inn

ing

, (0

).

Manufa

ctu

ring

Str

ate

gy

During t

he last

year, w

e a

nnounced t

he s

ignific

ant (0

)…..B …

....

of

our

pla

stic s

heeting p

lant

in M

ala

ysia

, w

hic

h,

togeth

er

with t

he a

cquis

itio

n

of

the

Ja

va

ne

se

fa

cto

ry,

will

a

pp

roxim

ate

ly

do

ub

le

the

G

rou

p’s

manufa

ctu

ring

(19)

……

……

. T

he c

ost

of

this

develo

pm

ent

is w

ithin

(20)

……

……

and w

ill b

e a

ppro

xim

ate

ly $

5.6

m,

of

whic

h $

2.7

m w

as

incurr

ed d

uring t

he p

revio

us y

ear. I

t is

on s

chedule

to (

21)…

……

…in

cre

asin

g v

olu

mes f

rom

Octo

ber

2002.

Fo

llow

ing

th

e

(22)

……

……

of

pla

stic

tub

ing

m

an

ufa

ctu

re

fro

m

Germ

any t

o T

haila

nd,

we h

ave e

ffectively

double

d t

he c

apacity o

f th

is

facili

ty a

t an (2

3)…

……

…cost of $12m

. T

he p

roje

ct is

set to

cost le

ss

tha

n

the

o

rig

ina

l (2

4)…

……

…a

nd

is

o

n

targ

et

for

incre

ase

d

pro

duction b

y J

une 2

003.

In F

ebru

ary

, w

e a

nnounced o

ur

(25)

……

……

to s

ell

our

facto

ry i

n

Ire

lan

d.

Th

is

de

cis

ion

is

in

lin

e

with

th

e

Gro

up

’s

str

ate

gy

of

(26)

……

……

on o

ur

core

cate

gories o

f bra

nded p

roducts

.

In

June,

we

announced

investm

ent

in

a

new

sta

te-o

f-th

e-a

rt

UK

manufa

ctu

ring facili

ty for

specia

list pla

stic c

om

ponents

. T

his

facili

ty w

ill

be

(27)

……

……

by m

id-2

003 a

nd w

ill incre

ase t

he G

roup’s

capacity

to m

anufa

ctu

re p

roducts

effic

iently i

n-h

ouse.

At

the s

am

e t

ime i

t w

ill

(28)

……

……

about

200 n

ew

jobs i

n a

n a

rea o

f hig

h u

nem

plo

ym

ent.

The f

acto

ry is t

o c

ost

appro

xim

ate

ly $

24m

, to

ward

s w

hic

h g

overn

ment

(29)

……

……

of up to $

4m

are

already a

vaila

ble

. S

adly

, as p

art

of th

is

move,

we

announced

the (3

0)…

……

…of

our

Bla

ckburn

fa

cili

ty,

whic

h is d

ue t

o t

ake p

lace in t

he e

arly p

art

of

2003.

As p

art

of our

com

mitm

ent to

effective e

xte

rnal c

om

munic

ations w

ith a

ll

our

sta

kehold

ers

, in

Octo

ber

we (

31)…

……

…th

e c

orp

ora

te w

ebsite,

whic

h i

s n

ow

pro

vid

ing u

p-t

o-d

ate

info

rmation o

n t

he G

roup,

and w

e

look forw

ard

to r

eceiv

ing (3

2)…

……

…fr

om

users

of th

e s

ite. E

xis

ting

pro

duct w

ebsites a

re n

ow

in the (3

3)…

……

…of bein

g r

edesig

ned a

s

part

of

the g

lobal re

bra

ndin

g s

trate

gy.

Appendix 4.2

333

PA

RT

FIV

E

Qu

esti

on

s 34

– 4

5

•R

ea

d t

he

art

icle

be

low

ab

ou

t m

ark

et

rese

arc

h.

•In

mo

st

of

the

lin

es 3

4 –

45th

ere

is o

ne e

xtr

a w

ord

. It is e

ither

gra

mm

atically

incorr

ect

or

does

not

fit

in w

ith t

he m

eanin

g o

f th

e t

ext. S

om

e lin

es,

how

ever, a

re c

orr

ect.

•If a

lin

e is c

orr

ect, w

rite

CO

RR

EC

To

n y

ou

r A

nsw

er

Sh

ee

t.

•If

th

ere

is a

n e

xtr

a w

ord

in

th

e lin

e,

write

th

e ex

tra

wo

rdin

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S o

n y

ou

r A

nsw

er

Sh

ee

t.

•T

he

exe

rcis

e b

eg

ins w

ith

tw

o e

xa

mp

les,

(0)

and (

00).

Exa

mp

les:

0M

ark

et re

se

arc

h in

vo

lve

s in

co

llectin

g a

nd

so

rtin

g fa

cts

an

d o

pin

ion

s fro

m s

pe

cific

gro

up

s

00o

f p

eo

ple

. T

he

pu

rpo

se

of re

se

arc

h c

an

va

ry fro

m d

isco

ve

rin

g th

e p

op

ula

rity

of a

po

litic

al

34p

art

y t

o a

sse

ssin

g w

he

the

r is

a p

rod

uct

ne

ed

s c

ha

ng

ing

or

rep

lacin

g.

Mo

st

wo

rk i

n

35co

nsu

me

r re

se

arc

h i

nvo

lve

s i

nte

rvie

we

rs e

mp

loye

d b

y m

ark

et

rese

arc

h a

ge

ncie

s,

bu

t

36ce

rta

in in

du

str

ial a

nd

so

cia

l re

se

arc

h is

ca

rrie

d o

ut b

y a

ny s

pe

cia

list a

ge

ncie

s. In

terv

iew

s

37m

ay

be w

ith in

div

iduals

or

gro

ups

and c

an la

st a

nyt

hin

g a

s fr

om

a few

min

ute

s to

an h

our

or

38m

ore

. In

som

e i

nte

rvie

ws,

people

may b

e a

sked t

o e

xam

ine o

r tr

y o

ut

pro

ducts

befo

re

39giv

ing u

p their o

pin

ion. S

uccessfu

l inte

rvie

wers

tend to li

ke m

eeting p

eople

and s

hould

not

40o

nly

b

e

sh

y

of

ad

dre

ssin

g

str

an

ge

rs.

Inte

rvie

we

rs

are

u

su

ally

e

xp

ecte

d

to

wo

rk

41u

nsu

pe

rvis

ed

, o

rga

nis

ing

th

eir o

wn

wo

rklo

ad

. S

elf-d

iscip

line

is a

bso

lute

ly e

sse

ntia

l, a

nd

42a

s a

re m

otiva

tio

n a

nd

en

erg

y. T

he

re a

re n

o s

pe

cific

ag

e l

imits f

or

su

ch

a w

ork

, th

ou

gh

43m

an

y a

ge

ncie

s p

refe

r to

em

plo

y o

lde

r a

pp

lica

nts

with

exp

erie

nce

of

me

etin

g p

eo

ple

.

44M

ark

et re

searc

h a

gencie

s w

hic

h fre

quently o

rganis

e tra

inin

g, w

here

tra

inees le

arn

how

to

45re

cognis

e s

ocio

-econom

ic g

roups a

nd p

ractise a

ppro

achin

g to the p

ublic

. F

or

info

rmation

on

ma

rke

t re

se

arc

h tra

inin

g a

nd

qu

alif

ica

tio

ns, co

nta

ct th

e M

ark

et R

ese

arc

h A

sso

cia

tio

n.

0I

N

00C

OR

RE

CT

Ma

rke

t R

ese

arc

h

Appendix 4.2

334

TIME 45 minutes



Write your name, Centre number and candidate number in the spaces at the top of this page and on each

sheet of answer paper used.

Read the instructions carefully.

Answer both questions.

Write your answers on the separate answer paper provided.

Write clearly in pen, not pencil. You may make alterations but make sure that your work is easy to read.

If you use more than one sheet of paper, fasten the sheets together.

At the end of the examination hand in both this question paper and your answer paper.


Part 2 carries twice as many marks as Part 1.




Test of Writing Test 023

Thursday 6 JUNE 2002 Morning 45 minutes

Additional materials:Answer Paper

Candidate


Candidate Name


SP (SLC/KS) S26977/2

Appendix 4.2

335

PA

RT

TW

O

•Y

ou a

re t

he M

ark

eting M

anager

for

a r

eta

il gro

up.

You h

ave b

een a

sked t

o w

rite

a s

hort

report

for

the

Bo

ard

of

Dire

cto

rs o

n t

he

co

mp

an

y’s

pe

rfo

rma

nce

be

twe

en

19

98

an

d 2

00

1.

•L

oo

k a

t th

e c

ha

rts b

elo

w,

on

wh

ich

yo

u h

ave

alre

ad

y m

ad

e s

om

e h

an

dw

ritt

en

no

tes.

•T

he

n,

usin

g a

llyo

ur

ha

nd

writt

en

no

tes,

write

yo

ur

rep

ort

.

•W

rite

12

0 –

14

0 w

ord

s.

•W

rite

on

th

e s

ep

ara

te a

nsw

er

pa

pe

r p

rovid

ed

.

–2–10123456

ele

ctr

ical

sto

res

book

sto

res

clo

thin

gsto

res

pharm

acie

s

Sale

s g

row

th (

2001)

4.2

5%

–1.2

5%

2.5

%

5.5

%

05

10

15

20

25

’01

’00

’99

’98

Ad

vert

isin

g

9%

% of total expenditure

17%

10%

23%

Pre

-tax p

rofi

ts (

£m

)

’98

’99

’00

’01

520

520

726

554

result

of h

igh a

dvert

ising

budg

et in

1999

and

low

inter

est ra

tes

hope t

o see

positi

veres

ults o

f this

in20

02

bigge

st gr

owth

!–

say w

hy

all to

be s

old

in 2

002

–say

why

but w

e stil

l hav

ebig

gest

share

ofma

rket

PA

RT

ON

E

•Y

ou a

re t

he m

anag

er o

f th

e C

usto

mer

Ser

vice

s D

epar

tmen

t. Y

ou a

re p

lann

ing

to in

trod

uce

a

new

com

pute

r sy

stem

in y

our

depa

rtm

ent.

•W

rite

an e

-mai

lto

all s

taff

in y

our

depa

rtm

ent:

•te

lling

the

m w

hen

the

new

sys

tem

will

be

intr

oduc

ed

•ex

plai

ning

wha

t th

e ad

vant

ages

of

the

new

sys

tem

will

be

•ad

visi

ng t

hem

who

to

cont

act

if th

ey h

ave

any

ques

tions

.

•W

rite

40

– 50

wo

rds.

•W

rite

on t

he s

epar

ate

answ

er p

aper

pro

vide

d.

Com

pute

r S

yste

m

All

Sta

ff

Appendix 4.2

336




















Test of Listening Test 023

Thursday 6 JUNE 2002 Morning Approx. 40 minutes(including 10 minutes’

transfer time)


Candidate


Candidate Name


SP (CW) S22995/2

Appendix 4.2

337

Co

nve

rsat

ion

Tw

o

(Qu

esti

on

s 5

– 8)

•Lo

ok a

t th

e no

te b

elow

.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

a w

oman

cal

ling

abou

t a

job

appl

icat

ion.

MES

SAG

E

For:

Jill

Sara

(5)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

calle

d th

is m

orni

ng a

bout

the

post of

(6)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. .

They

’d li

ke y

ou t

o at

tend

a (

7)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. on

the

28th

; th

ey’ll c

onfi

rm t

his by

lett

er.

In t

he m

eant

ime,

can

you

send

her

deta

ils of

your

(8)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. .

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

s 1

– 12

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

thre

e te

leph

one

conv

ersa

tions

or

mes

sage

s.

•W

rite

on

e o

r tw

o w

ord

s o

r a

nu

mb

erin

the

num

bere

d sp

aces

on

the

note

s or

for

ms

belo

w.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

each

rec

ordi

ng t

wic

e.

Co

nve

rsat

ion

On

e

(Qu

esti

on

s 1

– 4)

•Lo

ok a

t th

e no

te b

elow

.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

a m

an c

allin

g hi

s of

fice.

Tele

ph

on

e m

essa

ge

Mar

tin

Hay

es ph

oned

from

the

(1)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

.

Ther

e’s a

problem

: th

e (2

)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. ha

ven’

tar

rive

d! (

They

wer

e sen

t by

air la

st w

eek.)

Ano

ther

thi

ng: he

nee

ds m

ore

(3)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. .

He’s

att

endi

ng a

(4)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

this

morni

ng, so

call

him

bac

k ar

ound

lunc

htim

e.

Appendix 4.2

338

PA

RT

TW

O

Qu

esti

on

s 13

– 2

2

Sec

tio

n O

ne

(Qu

esti

on

s 13

– 1

7)

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

five

shor

t re

cord

ings

.

•F

or e

ach

reco

rdin

g, d

ecid

e w

hich

asp

ect

of w

orki

ng c

ondi

tions

the

spe

aker

is t

alki

ng a

bout

.

•W

rite

one

lette

r (A

– H

) ne

xt t

o th

e nu

mbe

r of

the

rec

ordi

ng.

•D

o no

t us

e an

y le

tter

mor

e th

an o

nce.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

the

five

reco

rdin

gs t

wic

e.

13...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

14...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

15...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

16...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

17...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

Sec

tio

n T

wo

(Qu

esti

on

s 18

– 2

2)

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

anot

her

five

reco

rdin

gs.

•F

or e

ach

reco

rdin

g, d

ecid

e w

hat

each

spe

aker

is t

ryin

g to

do.

•W

rite

one

lette

r (A

– H

) ne

xt t

o th

e nu

mbe

r of

the

rec

ordi

ng.

•D

o no

t us

e an

y le

tter

mor

e th

an o

nce.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

the

five

reco

rdin

gs t

wic

e.

18...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

19...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

20...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

21...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

22...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

Aca

reer

pro

spec

ts

Bhe

alth

and

saf

ety

Cw

orki

ng h

ours

Dho

liday

allo

wan

ce

Etr

aini

ng c

ours

es

Fdi

scip

linar

y pr

oced

ures

Gjo

b se

curit

y

Hpa

y in

crea

ses

Ano

min

ate

a su

pplie

r

Bpr

esen

t sa

les

figur

es

Csu

ppor

t a

prop

osal

Dre

fuse

an

incr

emen

t

Eag

ree

to e

xpen

ditu

re

Fcl

aim

dam

ages

Gne

gotia

te a

con

trac

t

Hre

ques

t a

post

pone

men

t

Co

nve

rsat

ion

Th

ree

(Qu

esti

on

s 9

– 12

)

•Lo

ok a

t th

e no

te b

elow

.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

a m

an p

honi

ng a

bout

som

e ar

rang

emen

ts f

or a

mee

ting.

WH

ILE

YO

U W

ER

E O

UT

Mes

sag

e fo

r:La

uren

O’N

eil

Fro

m:

Chris Da

rcy

Mes

sag

e

Chris (H

R) p

hone

d ab

out

mee

ting

of

(9)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..

next

wee

k. T

here

’s go

ing

to b

e an

noun

cem

ent

abou

t

(10)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

. MD

want

s yo

u to

mak

e

prese

ntat

ion

on (

11)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. of t

he n

ew c

ompa

ny.

Coul

d yo

u al

so co

ver

(12)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

in y

our

prese

ntat

ion?

Appendix 4.2

339

28H

e th

inks

he

was

app

oint

ed c

hairm

an o

f LB

I be

caus

e th

e co

mpa

ny

Akn

ew o

f hi

s su

cces

ses

with

fai

ling

com

pani

es.

Bfe

lt he

had

a p

ositi

ve im

age

with

the

pub

lic.

Clik

ed h

is f

earle

ss a

ppro

ach

to p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng.

29A

ccor

ding

to

Phi

lip S

penc

er,

succ

essf

ul m

anag

ers

are

dist

ingu

ishe

d by

the

ir

Aco

ncer

n fo

r de

tail.

Bde

sire

to

mak

e m

oney

.

Cst

rong

lead

ersh

ip.

30H

is f

inal

adv

ice

to p

eopl

e st

artin

g in

bus

ines

s is

to

Am

ake

ever

y ef

fort

to

prev

ent

mis

take

s.

Bfin

d th

e be

st s

ourc

es o

f in

form

atio

n.

Cm

aint

ain

a po

sitiv

e at

titud

e at

all

times

.

Yo

u n

ow

hav

e 10

min

ute

s to

tra

nsf

er y

ou

r an

swer

s to

yo

ur

An

swer

Sh

eet.

PA

RT

TH

RE

E

Qu

esti

on

s 23

– 3

0

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

a ra

dio

inte

rvie

w w

ith a

lead

ing

indu

stria

list

and

busi

ness

con

sulta

nt,

Phi

lip

Spe

ncer

.

•F

or e

ach

ques

tion

23 –

30,

mar

k on

ele

tter

(A,

Bor

C)

for

the

corr

ect

answ

er.

•Y

ou w

ill h

ear

the

reco

rdin

g tw

ice.

23W

hen

visi

ting

com

pani

es,

Phi

lip S

penc

er’s

obj

ectiv

e is

to

Aim

prov

e st

aff

prod

uctiv

ity.

Bid

entif

y pr

oble

m a

reas

.

Cre

trai

n w

eak

man

agem

ent.

24P

robl

ems

at M

anso

n’s

had

cont

inue

d af

ter

Spe

ncer

’s f

irst

visi

t be

caus

e of

Apo

or d

istr

ibut

ion

syst

ems.

Bin

adeq

uate

mar

ket

rese

arch

.

Cou

tdat

ed p

rodu

ctio

n m

etho

ds.

25D

iffic

ultie

s at

Crit

erio

n G

lass

ste

mm

ed f

rom

lack

of

atte

ntio

n to

Aco

mpe

titor

s’de

sign

s.

Bqu

ality

of

mer

chan

dise

.

Cco

nsum

er d

eman

d.

26P

hilip

Spe

ncer

bla

mes

his

ear

ly b

usin

ess

diffi

culti

es o

n

Ain

expe

rienc

e w

ith n

ew c

ompa

nies

.

Bla

ck o

f kn

owle

dge

of t

he f

inan

cial

sec

tor.

Cba

d ad

vice

fro

m e

stab

lishe

d or

gani

satio

ns.

27H

e de

fend

s hi

s un

usua

l per

sona

l sty

le b

y sa

ying

tha

t

Ait

is im

port

ant

in b

usin

ess

to m

ake

a st

rong

impr

essi

on.

Bhi

s bu

sine

ss id

eas

are

mor

e im

port

ant

than

his

app

eara

nce.

Cm

ost

busi

ness

peo

ple

are

too

serio

us a

nd t

radi

tiona

l.

Appendix 4.2

340

Appendix 4.2

341

Appendix 4.2

342

Appendix 4.2

343

PA

RT

2 :

Min

i-p

res

en

tati

on

s f

or

2 c

an

did

ate

s (

ab

ou

t 6

min

ute

s)

[Inte

rlocuto

rhands e

ach c

andid

ate

a d

iffe

rent

topic

card

,and s

om

e p

aper

and a

pencil

for

note

s.]

[Allo

w1

min

ute

's p

repara

tion t

ime.

Both

candid

ate

s p

repare

their

talk

s a

tth

e s

am

e t

ime,

separa

tely

.]

[Allo

w45 s

econds t

o1

min

ute

. O

nly

use b

ack-u

p q

uestions if

the c

andid

ate

is u

nable

to

speak w

ithout

pro

mpting.]

[Allo

w10 s

econds.

Do n

ot

use b

ack-u

p q

uestions.]

[Allo

w45 s

econds t

o1

min

ute

. O

nly

use b

ack-u

p q

uestions if

the c

andid

ate

is u

nable

to

speak w

ithout

pro

mpting.]

[Allo

w10 s

econds.

Do n

ot

use b

ack-u

p q

uestions.]

[Re

trie

ve

ma

teri

als

.]

*US

E C

AN

DID

AT

ES

’N

AM

ES

TH

RO

UG

HO

UT

TH

E T

ES

T

I'm

goin

gto

giv

e e

ach o

fyou a

choic

e o

f3

topic

s.

I'd

like

you t

ochoose o

ne

of

the t

opic

s a

nd g

ive

a s

hort

pre

senta

tion o

n it

for

about

am

inute

.Y

ou w

ill h

ave a

bout

am

inute

to

pre

pare

for

this

and

you c

an m

ake

note

s if

you w

ish w

hile

you p

repare

. A

fter

you

have

finis

hed y

our

talk

,your

part

ner

will

ask

you a

question.

All

rig

ht?

H

ere

are

your

topic

s.

Choose o

ne

of

the t

opic

s t

ota

lkabout.

Y

ou c

an m

ake

note

s.

All

rig

ht.

N

ow

, *B

,w

hic

h t

opic

have y

ou c

hosen,

A,

Bor

C? [

candid

ate

answ

ers

]W

ould

you lik

eto

talk

about

what

you t

hin

kis

im

port

ant

when (

inte

rlocuto

rsta

tes c

andid

ate

’s c

hosen t

opic

).

Thank

you.

Now

, *A

,ple

ase a

sk

*Byour

question a

bout

his

/her

talk

.

Thank

you.

All

rig

ht.

N

ow

, *A

,w

hic

h t

opic

have y

ou c

hosen,

A,

Bor

C? [

candid

ate

answ

ers

]W

ould

you lik

e t

ota

lkabout

what

you t

hin

kis

im

port

ant

when (

inte

rlocuto

rsta

tes c

andid

ate

’schosen t

opic

).

Thank

you.

Now

, *B

,ple

ase a

sk

*Ayour

question a

bout

his

/her

talk

.

Thank

you.

That's t

he

end o

fth

e f

irst

part

of

the t

est.

In

the

next

part

you

are

each g

oin

gto

giv

e a

short

pre

senta

tion.

Thank

you.

Appendix 4.2

344

Task C

ard

17 –

Ex

am

ine

r’s C

op

y

Whatty

pes

of

acti

vit

ies

are

import

antto

consid

er?

(W

hy?)

Is it e

sse

ntialto

co

nsid

er

co

st?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is t

he

ven

ue? (W

hy/W

hy

not?

)Is

it

import

ant

whic

hco

mp

an

yp

ers

on

nel

are

involv

ed in e

nte

rtain

ing c

lients

?(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)

Is lo

cati

on

the m

ost

import

ant

thin

gto

consid

er?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)W

hy

is t

he

len

gth

of

the

co

ntr

ac

tim

port

ant?

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is c

ost?

(W

hy/W

hy n

ot?

)H

ow

import

ant

is it

toconsid

er

the

co

nd

itio

nof

the

pre

mis

es?(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)

Why

isim

ag

e im

port

ant

?H

ow

import

ant

is it

toconsid

er

the

pro

du

cti

on

pro

cess? (

Why?)

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is t

he

co

st

ofth

e p

ackag

ing

? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)Is

it e

sse

ntialto

ca

rry o

ut

mark

et

researc

hbefo

re d

ecid

ing

on the

packag

ing

? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

A:

WH

AT

IS

IMP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

EN

TE

RT

AIN

ING

CL

IEN

TS

TY

PE

S O

FA

CT

IVIT

IES

CO

ST

B:

WH

AT

IS

IMP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

CH

OO

SIN

G R

ET

AIL

PR

EM

ISE

ST

O R

EN

T

LO

CA

TIO

N

LE

NG

TH

OF

CO

NT

RA

CT

C:

WH

AT

IS IM

PO

RT

AN

T W

HE

N…

?

DE

CID

ING

ON

PA

CK

AG

ING

FO

R P

RO

DU

CT

S

IMA

GE

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N P

RO

CE

SS

Appendix 4.2

345

Task C

ard

20 –

Ex

am

ine

r’s C

op

y

Is o

fferi

ng

an

ap

olo

gy t

he

most

import

ant

thin

g? (W

hy/W

hy n

ot?

)Is

it e

ssential to

su

gg

est

aso

luti

on

to the

pro

ble

m? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant is

it t

o o

ffer

co

mp

en

sati

on

? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)W

hy

is it

import

ant

to investig

ate

the

cau

se

of

the

pro

ble

m?

Are

pro

du

cti

on

co

sts

the

most

import

antth

ing t

oconsid

er?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)W

hy

isit

essential to

consid

er

co

mp

eti

tors

’p

rices?

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is it

toconsid

er

avera

ge s

pen

din

g levels

of

the

targ

etm

ark

ets

? (W

hy?)

Why

isit

import

ant

toconsid

er

pro

du

ct

imag

e?

Are

fin

an

cia

lin

cen

tives

the

most

import

ant th

ing

toconsid

er?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is it

tohave a

care

er

str

uctu

re f

or

em

plo

yees?

(Why?)

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is o

rganis

ing

so

cia

l even

tsfo

r sta

ff? (W

hy/W

hy n

ot?

)Is

it im

port

antto

invo

lve s

taff

in d

ecis

ion m

akin

gin

the

com

pany? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

B:

WH

AT

IS

IMP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

SE

TT

ING

PR

ICE

S F

OR

NE

WP

RO

DU

CT

S

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N C

OS

TS

CO

MP

ET

ITO

RS

’ P

RIC

ES

C:

WH

AT

IS IM

PO

RT

AN

T W

HE

N…

?

AIM

ING

TO

RE

DU

CE

ST

AF

F T

UR

NO

VE

R

FIN

AN

CIA

L I

NC

EN

TIV

ES

CA

RE

ER

ST

RU

CT

UR

E

A:

WH

AT

IS

IMP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

DE

AL

ING

WIT

H C

OM

PL

AIN

TS

FR

OM

CL

IEN

TS

OF

FE

RIN

G A

NA

PO

LO

GY

SU

GG

ES

TIN

GA

SO

LU

TIO

N T

OT

HE

PR

OB

LE

M

Task C

ard

18 –

Ex

am

ine

r’s C

op

y

Isth

e e

mplo

yee’s

att

itu

de

tow

ork

the m

ost

import

ant

thin

gto

consid

er?

(W

hy/W

hy

not?

)Is

it e

ssential to

consid

er

an e

mplo

yee’s

cu

rren

t p

erf

orm

an

ce? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is it

toconsid

er

the

em

plo

yee’s

am

bit

ion

? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

is it fo

rth

e c

andid

ate

to h

ave a

pp

rop

riate

skills

for

the

new

post?

(W

hy?)

Why

isit

import

ant

toconsid

er

furt

her

stu

dy

or

train

ing

?Is

it im

port

antto

consid

er

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

furt

her

pro

mo

tio

n? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

Is it e

sse

ntialto

co

nsid

er

fin

an

cia

lre

ward

s? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)H

ow

import

ant

are

flexib

le w

ork

ing

arr

an

gem

en

tsw

hen c

onsid

eri

ng a

care

er

chang

e?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)

How

import

ant

is it

tocarr

yout

mark

et

researc

h? (W

hy/W

hy

not?

)Is

sele

cti

ng

the a

pp

rop

riate

med

iath

e m

ost

import

ant

thin

g? (

Why/W

hy

not?

)

Sele

ct fr

om

the

fo

llow

ing a

dd

itio

na

l pro

mpts

(if th

e a

bove h

ave a

lrea

dy b

ee

n c

overe

d):

How

import

ant

is it

tob

ud

get

eff

ecti

vely

? (

Why?)

Isit

essentialfo

rth

eadvert

isin

gcam

paig

nto

su

pp

ort

the

imag

eofth

epro

duct?

(Why/W

hy

not?

)

B:

WH

AT

IS

IMP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

CO

NS

IDE

RIN

G A

CA

RE

ER

CH

AN

GE

FU

RT

HE

R S

TU

DY

OR

TR

AIN

ING

OP

PO

RT

UN

ITIE

S F

OR

FU

TU

RE

PR

OM

OT

ION

A:

WH

AT

IS

IMP

OR

TA

NT

WH

EN

…?

SE

LE

CT

ING

ST

AF

FF

OR

PR

OM

OT

ION

AT

TIT

UD

E T

OW

OR

K

CU

RR

EN

T P

ER

FO

RM

AN

CE

C:

WH

AT

IS IM

PO

RT

AN

T W

HE

N…

?

PL

AN

NIN

G A

NA

DV

ER

TIS

ING

CA

MP

AIG

N

MA

RK

ET

RE

SE

AR

CH

SE

LE

CT

ING

AP

PR

OP

RIA

TE

ME

DIA

Appendix 4.2

346

PA

RT

3 :

Co

lla

bo

rati

ve

ta

sk

an

d d

isc

us

sio

n f

or

2 c

an

did

ate

s (

ab

ou

t 5

min

ute

s)

[Poin

t to

the

card

show

ing t

he t

ask w

hile

giv

ing t

he instr

uctions b

elo

w.]

[Pla

ce t

he c

ard

in f

ront

of

the c

andid

ate

s s

o t

hat

they c

an b

oth

see it.

]

[If

ne

ce

ssa

ry,

giv

e c

larifica

tio

n.

Th

en

allo

w 3

0 s

eco

nd

s f

or

ca

nd

ida

tes t

o a

bso

rb t

he

in

form

atio

n a

nd

to

thin

k h

ow

tobegin

.]

[Aft

er

the c

andid

ate

s h

ave f

inis

hed s

peakin

g,

the inte

rlocuto

r asks q

uestions a

nd f

inis

hes t

he s

peakin

gte

st

as d

irecte

d o

n t

he e

xam

iner’s

copy o

fth

e t

ask c

ard

.]

Now

, in

this

part

of

the

test

you

are

goin

g t

o d

iscuss s

om

eth

ing

tog

eth

er.

You h

ave a

bout

30 s

econds t

ore

ad t

his

task

care

fully

,and t

hen

about

3m

inute

s t

odis

cuss a

nd

decid

e a

bout

it t

og

eth

er.

Y

ou s

hould

giv

ere

asons f

or

your

decis

ions a

nd o

pin

ions.

You d

on't

need

to w

rite

anyth

ing

. I

s t

hat

cle

ar?

I'm

just

goin

gto

liste

n a

nd t

hen a

sk

you t

osto

p a

fter

about

3m

inute

s.

Ple

ase s

peak

so t

hat

we c

an

hear

you.

Appendix 4.2

347

Task 3

3 –

Exam

iner’

sC

op

y

Fo

r th

ree

ca

nd

ida

tes

[Ret

riev

e m

ate

rials

.]

Work

Exp

erie

nce P

rogra

mm

e

The

man

ufa

cturi

ng

com

pan

yyou w

ork

for

has

dec

ided

to o

ffer

a tw

o-

wee

k w

ork

ex

per

ience

pro

gra

mm

e fo

r a

smal

l gro

up o

f st

uden

ts f

rom

a

loca

l busi

nes

s co

lleg

e.

You h

ave

been

ask

ed t

o h

elp w

ith t

he

pre

par

atio

ns

for

this

pro

gra

mm

e.

Dis

cuss

the

situ

atio

n t

oget

her

, an

d d

eci

de:

what

kin

ds

of

work

ex

per

ien

ce t

he

com

pan

yco

uld

off

er

how

the

par

tici

pan

ts s

hould

be

sele

cted

what

fee

db

ack a

nd e

val

uat

ion s

hould

tak

e pla

ce a

fter

the

pro

gra

mm

e has

fin

ished

Than

k y

ou. T

hat

is

the

end o

f th

e sp

eakin

gte

st.

Inte

rlo

cuto

r: [

Sel

ect

one

or

more

of

the

foll

ow

ing q

ues

tions

as

appro

pri

ate

, to

red

ress

any

imbala

nce

or

to b

roaden

the

dis

cuss

ion.]

Wh

atoth

er p

rep

arati

on

s w

ould

the

com

pan

y n

eed

to m

ake

bef

ore

rece

ivin

g w

ork

ex

per

ience

stu

den

ts? (W

hy?)

What

are

the

ad

va

nta

ges

to a

com

pan

y o

f off

erin

ga

wo

rk e

xper

ience

pro

gra

mm

e to

busi

nes

s st

uden

ts?

What

do y

ou t

hin

k i

s th

e m

ost

use

ful

kin

d o

f w

ork

ex

per

ience

fo

rbusi

nes

s st

uden

ts? (W

hy?)

Wh

ath

elp

would

you g

ive

a st

uden

t on t

hei

r fi

rst

day

of

work

exper

ience

?(W

hy?)

Whic

h a

reas

of

busi

nes

s w

ould

you

lik

e to

hav

e m

ore

ex

per

ien

ce o

f?(W

hy?)

Inw

hat

ways

can b

usi

nes

ses

dev

elop c

lose

lin

ks

wit

h t

he

co

mm

un

ity

?

Appendix 4.2

348

Wri

tin

g S

am

ple

Sc

rip

ts

Part

1

Scri

pt

A

To:

All

Sta

ff

c.c.

Sub

ject

:C

ompu

ter

Sys

tem

I w

ould

lik

e t

oin

form

you

abou

t ne

w c

ompu

ter

syst

em

whic

h is

schedul

ed t

o

prov

ide

in t

he

begi

nnin

g of

next

mon

th.

This

new

syst

em

is

inst

alle

d a

fle

xib

le p

rogr

amm

ew

hic

h is

able

to

obta

in

info

rmat

ion

abou

t va

riou

s cu

stom

ers’

need

s.

Ifyo

uhav

ean

y qu

est

ions

, pl

eas

eco

ntac

t to

Mr.

Sm

ith,IT

Sys

tem

sM

anag

er.

Scri

pt

A

All

conte

nt

po

ints

are

achie

ved t

hou

gh p

oin

t 2

(expla

natio

n o

fth

e a

dva

nta

ges o

fth

e n

ew

syste

m)

isslig

htly

uncle

ar.

There

is a

n a

dequ

ate

ra

ng

e o

f la

ngu

age t

ho

ugh s

om

e a

wkw

ard

ness.

Ba

nd

3

Scri

pt

B

Dea

rS

taff

To

all st

aff

in C

usto

mer

Ser

vice

s D

epar

tmen

t w

e w

ill int

roduc

ing

new

com

pute

rsy

stem

in

our

dep

artm

ent

on 2

Jul

y 2

00

2.

The

new

syst

em.e

xel

ii w

ill h

elp

usto

calc

olat

eal

l th

efi

gars

by

givi

ng t

he

very

lett

le inf

orm

atio

n an

d b

y th

is n

ewsy

stem

we

cons

umin

g ou

rti

me.

Plea

se d

on’t

has

itat

e if

you

hav

e qu

acti

on o

r in

form

atio

n an

d a

dvi

ce c

all M

ary

Bla

ck o

n 0

20

78

85

92

07

/

All

the

bes

t

Scri

pt

B

This

answ

er

attem

pts

to a

ddre

ss

all

the c

on

tent

po

ints

but

is s

eriously

aff

ecte

d b

ya lack

ofcontr

ol

over

gra

mm

ar

and v

ocab

ula

ryexhib

itin

g f

requ

ent

basic

err

ors

. T

hese e

rrors

obscure

the m

eanin

g a

nd

have a

very

nega

tive e

ffect on the t

arg

et re

ader.

This

answ

er

isover

the

pre

scri

be

d leng

th f

or

this

part

of

the test b

ut

was n

ot

pe

nalis

ed d

irectly

for

this

.B

an

d 1

An

sw

er

Ke

ys

Read

ing

Part

1

1C

2D

3A

4B

5C

6D

7A

Part

2

8E

9C

10

F11

D12

B

Part

3

13

C14

A15

D16

A17

B18

C

Part

4

19

A20

A21

D22

C23

D24

C25

C26

A27

A28

D29

B30

B31

C32

D33

C

Part

5

34

is35 C

OR

RE

CT

36

an

y37 as

38 C

OR

RE

CT

39 u

p40 o

nly

41 a

nd

42 a

43 C

OR

RE

CT

44

whic

h45 to

Lis

ten

ing

Part

1

1(r

eta

il)exh

ibitio

n2 s

tands

3price

(-)

lists

4 (

pre

ss)

confe

rence

5 M

idd

lem

iss

/Mid

dle

Mis

s6 S

ale

sE

xec(u

tive)

7 (

com

pan

y)

pre

senta

tion

8 r

efe

rees

9 (

the)

share

ho

lders

10 (

pla

nned)

merg

er

11 (

com

bin

ed)

sale

s12 e

xp

ecte

d s

avin

gs

Part

2

13

E14

B15

H16

F17

C

18

D19

H20

C21

A22

F

Part

3

23

B24

C25

C26

B27

B28

C29

A30

C

Appendix 4.2

349

Scri

pt

D

All

conte

nt

po

ints

are

ad

dre

ssed a

nd t

here

is g

ood o

rgan

isa

tion t

hou

gh c

ohesio

n a

nd lin

kin

g is

som

etim

es p

oor.

The r

egis

ter

and f

orm

at is

reasonab

le a

nd

there

is

evid

ence o

f ade

qu

ate

ra

nge

.T

here

are

som

e e

rrors

and a

wkw

ard

ness

of

phra

sin

g, e.g

. ‘g

oin

g to s

end w

ith th

is g

rou

p’, ‘is

be

ing

specia

lised in t

his

kin

d o

f sto

res’. O

vera

ll th

e targ

et re

ader

wou

ldbe info

rmed.

Ba

nd

3

Scri

pt

E

Repo

rt o

n: “

FCB” pe

rfor

manc

e b

etw

een

1998 a

nd 2

001

IN

TR

OD

UC

TIO

N

This

repo

rt a

ims

to s

how

the s

itua

tion

of

our

com

pany

abou

t pr

e-t

ax p

rofi

ts,

adve

rtis

ing

and s

ales

grow

th b

etw

een

199

8 a

nd 2

00

1.

FINDINGS

In 1

99

8 a

nd 1

99

9 p

re-t

ax p

rofi

ts r

emai

ned s

table

at

£m

52

0, th

en

they

shar

ply

rose

in

20

00

than

ks t

o hig

h a

dve

rtis

ing

and low

int

ere

st r

ates

in 1

99

9.

Unf

ortu

nate

ly p

rofi

ts f

ell a

t £

m5

54

las

t ye

ar.

Adve

rtis

ing

situ

atio

n has

flu

ctua

ted d

urin

g th

e f

our

year

s an

d I

hop

e t

he

com

pany

will hav

e p

osit

ive r

esu

lts

in 2

00

2.

Sal

es

of c

loth

ing

stor

es h

ad a

lit

tle d

ecr

eas

e las

t ye

ar, but

F.C

.B s

till h

as t

he

big

gest

shar

e o

f m

arke

t. P

har

mac

ies

perf

orm

ance

was

goo

d a

nd e

lect

rica

l st

ores

regi

ster

ed a

big

gro

wth

in

sale

s due

to

aneff

icie

nt a

dve

rtis

ement

.

I hav

e d

eci

ded t

o se

ll a

ll t

he b

ook

stor

esin

20

02

to

sell a

ll t

he b

ook

stor

es

in

20

02

to

conc

ent

rate

the c

ompa

ny e

ffor

ts o

n th

e c

loth

ing

ones.

CO

NC

LU

SIO

N

It is

conc

luded t

hat

the s

itua

tion

of

our

com

pany

is

not

bad

, an

d F

CB

will be a

ble

to a

chie

ve p

osit

ive r

esu

lts

in 2

00

2.

RE

CO

MM

EN

DA

TIO

N

It is

reco

mm

end

ed t

hat

this

year

FC

B s

hou

ld inc

reas

e pr

e-ta

x p

rofi

t an

d

clot

hin

g st

ores

sale

s an

d t

ry t

o re

duc

e a

dve

rtis

ing

cost

s.

Scri

pt

E

The a

nsw

er

iseff

ective

lyorg

anis

ed

with g

oo

d u

se o

f cohesiv

e d

evic

es a

nd h

ead

ings a

nd

on

lym

inor

err

ors

. U

nfo

rtunate

ly p

oin

t 2, re

gard

ing

the

expecte

d p

ositiv

eim

pact of

the e

xtr

a s

pe

nd

ing o

nadvert

isin

g in 2

00

1, is

not

ade

qua

tely

addre

ssed

, an

d s

o t

he t

arg

et re

ad

er

wou

ldnot

be f

ully

info

rmed.

This

keeps this

answ

er

in b

and 2

.

Ba

nd

2

Scri

pt

C

I am

wri

ting

to

info

rm y

ou t

hat

a n

ewco

mpu

ter

syst

emw

ill b

e in

trod

uced

as

from

Jun

e 13

th. I

tw

ill e

nable

all

staf

f to

acc

ess

on-l

ine

cour

ses

avai

lable

on

our

intr

anet

.F

oran

y qu

esti

ons,

plea

seco

ntac

t M

rsB

row

n,E

DP

Dep

artm

ent.

Bes

t re

gard

s.

Scri

pt

C

A c

oncis

e a

nd v

ery

eff

ective a

nsw

er

wh

ich c

overs

all

con

tent p

oin

ts c

learl

y a

nd e

ffectively

. It

has a

very

positiv

e e

ffect on the targ

et re

ad

er.

Ba

nd

5

Part

2

Scri

pt

D

As

mar

keti

ng m

anag

erI

hav

eto

info

rmab

out

our

com

pany

’spe

rfor

man

cesi

nce

198

8 t

o 2

00

1, a

nd b

ecau

se o

f th

isI

hav

e to

dea

l w

ith t

he

pre-

tax p

rofi

ts,

adve

rtis

ing

and s

ales

gro

wth

.*1

. Pr

e-ta

x p

rofi

ts (

£m

)In

19

98

, ou

rpr

ofit

s w

ere

£5

20

m, i

n 19

99

£5

20

m, in

20

00

£7

26

m a

nd in

20

01

£5

59

m. W

e ca

n ap

prec

iate

that

the

year

wit

h t

he

big

gest

pro

fit

was

in

20

00

;th

is is

the

resu

lt o

f ah

igh a

dve

rtis

ing

bud

get

in 1

99

9 a

nd low

inte

rest

rat

es. T

he

rest

of

the

year

s hav

e bee

n lo

w,s

o I

thin

kw

e hav

e to

do

the

sam

e as

in

199

9n

next

year

.*2

.A

dve

rtis

ing

In 1

99

8 w

as a

9%

of

tota

l ex

pend

itur

e, in

199

9 a

17

%, 2

00

0 1

0%

and

in

20

01

a2

3%

. This

las

t on

e has

bee

n th

e hig

hes

t pe

r ce

nt o

f to

tal ex

pend

itur

e an

d I

hop

e to

see

ther

e po

siti

ve r

esul

ts in

20

02

and

the

follo

win

g ye

ars.

* 3

We

hav

e to

dea

l w

ith d

iffe

rent

iss

ues,

as

wag

es, th

eir

grow

th w

as a

bou

t4

.25

%;

our

clot

hin

g st

ores

was

in

1.2

5%

, but

this

is n

ot a

big

pro

ble

m b

ecau

se w

est

ill h

ave

big

gest

shar

e of

mar

ket.

A 2

.5%

in

boo

kst

ores

, but

all

hav

e to

be

sold

in 2

00

2 b

ecau

se w

e ar

e go

ing

to e

nd w

ith t

his

gro

up.

The

big

gest

gro

wth

was

the

elec

tric

al s

tore

s w

ith

a 5

.5%

; th

is is

bec

ause

our

reta

il gr

oup

is b

eing

spe

cial

ised

in

this

kin

d o

f st

ores

and

we

hav

e to

car

ry o

nw

ith t

his

gro

wth

..T

han

k yo

uve

ry m

uch f

oryo

ur a

tten

tion

and

Iam

sur

e th

at t

he

follo

win

g ye

ars

will

be

bet

ter

than

thes

e ar

e.

Appendix 4.2

350

Superv

isor:

VA

NT

AG

E

BE

C V

an

tag

e R

ead

ing

An

sw

er

Sh

eet

00

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ca

nd

ida

te N

am

eIf

no

t a

lre

ad

y p

rin

ted

, w

rite

na

me

in C

AP

ITA

LS

an

d c

om

ple

te t

he

Can

did

ate

No

. g

rid

(in

pen

cil).

Can

did

ate

’s S

ign

atu

re

Exam

inati

on

Tit

le

Cen

tre

If t

he

ca

nd

ida

te is A

BS

EN

To

r h

asW

ITH

DR

AW

Nsh

ad

e h

ere

Can

did

ate

No

.

Ce

ntr

e N

o.

Exam

inati

on

Deta

ils

21 43

8

5

109 12

11

Part

1

Ins

tru

cti

on

sU

se a

PE

NC

IL (B

or

HB

).

Rub o

ut any a

nsw

er

you w

ish to c

hange w

ith a

n e

raser.

Fo

r P

art

s 1

to

4:

Mark

one b

ox for

each a

nsw

er.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

If y

ou thin

k C

is the r

ight answ

er

to the q

uestion, m

ark

your

answ

er

sheet lik

e this

:

Pa

rt 2

�

Tu

rn o

ve

r fo

r P

art

s 3

- 5

Fo

r P

art

5:

Write

your

answ

er

cle

arly in C

AP

ITA

L L

ET

TE

RS

.

Write

one lett

er

in e

ach b

ox.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

AB

C0

6 7

0 A

BE

C V

- R

DP

45

8/3

58

BC

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

AB

CD

EF

G

AB

CD

EF

G

AB

CD

EF

G

AB

CD

EF

G

AB

CD

EF

G

AB

C

AB

C

D D D D D D D

Scri

pt

F

COM

PANY’S

PERFORM

ANCE B

ETW

EEN 1

998 –

2001

Pre-t

ax p

rofi

ts:

In 1

99

8 a

nd 1

99

9, ou

rpr

e-t

ax b

ene

fits

wer

eov

er

£5

20

million

,

how

ever

in

20

00

, ou

r pr

e-ta

x p

rofi

ts inc

reas

ed a

roun

d £

20

6 m

illion

whic

h w

as

the r

esu

lt o

f hig

h a

dve

rtis

ing

bud

get

in t

he p

revi

ous

year

and

low

int

ere

st r

ates.

On

the o

ther

han

d, in

20

01,

the p

re-t

ax b

ene

fits

decr

eas

ed o

ver

£17

2 m

illion

wit

h r

ega

rd t

o 2

00

0.

Adve

rtis

ing

Com

pare

d w

ith

199

8, in

19

99

the e

xpe

ndit

ure

was

8%

hig

her

, th

at is

to s

ay, 17

% w

hilst

in

20

00

the e

xpe

ndit

ure w

asju

st 1

0%

.

It m

ust

be a

dded

, how

eve

rth

at in

20

01

the e

xpe

ndit

ure w

as 2

3%

but

we h

ope

to s

ee p

osit

ive r

esu

lts

of t

his

in

20

02

.

Sal

es

grow

th in

20

01

We h

ave h

ad a

4.2

5%

in

phar

mac

ies

but

, on

the o

ther

han

d,

we h

ave s

uffe

red los

ses

of 1

.25

% in

the c

loth

ing

stor

es a

lthou

gh w

e s

till

hav

e

big

gest

shar

e o

f m

arke

t.W

ith r

ega

rd t

o boo

k s

tore

s an

d e

lect

rica

l st

ores,

our

grow

th h

as b

een

arou

nd 2

.5 a

nd 5

.5%

resp

ect

ively

.

In a

ny c

ase, al

l ou

r boo

kst

ores

will be s

old in

20

02

beca

use o

f ou

r gr

eat

cam

paig

n on

radio

and

tele

visi

on. M

oreo

ver,

the b

igge

st g

row

th h

as b

een

in

ele

ctri

cal st

ores

beca

use o

urgr

oup

has

im

prov

ed o

urse

rvic

es

and

cost

s

com

pare

d w

ith o

ut c

ompe

tito

rs.

In

conc

lusi

on, I s

ugge

st w

e k

eep

the s

ame leve

lof

expe

ndit

ure

on a

dve

rtis

ing

beca

use a

s yo

u ca

n no

tice

, it

giv

es

us g

reat

res

ults

and

bene

fits

and

as

far

as

impr

ovem

ent

is

conc

ern

ed w

e a

re is

good

way

to

catc

h n

ew

cus

tom

ers

and c

lient

s

alth

ough

we m

ust

impr

ove

our

boo

k d

epa

rtm

ent

.

Scri

pt

F

All

conte

nt

po

ints

are

de

alt w

ith. T

he o

rga

nis

atio

n o

f th

e a

nsw

er

isvery

goo

d. T

here

is a

wid

e r

ange

of

lan

gua

ge a

nd e

ffective u

se o

flin

kin

g d

evic

es. T

he c

an

did

ate

has

bee

n a

mbitio

us in t

he

ir u

se

of

lan

gua

ge a

nd t

his

had le

d to s

om

e e

rrors

and s

om

e a

wkw

ard

ness

in t

he c

onclu

sio

n. O

vera

lla p

ositiv

eeff

ect on the r

ea

der.

Ba

nd

4

Appendix 4.2

351

VA

NT

AG

E

BE

C V

an

tag

e L

iste

nin

g A

nsw

er

Sh

eet

00

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Can

did

ate

Nam

eIf

no

t a

lre

ad

y p

rin

ted

, w

rite

na

me

in C

AP

ITA

LS

an

d c

om

ple

te t

he

Can

did

ate

No

. g

rid

(in

pen

cil).

Can

did

ate

’s S

ign

atu

re

Exam

inati

on

Tit

le

Cen

tre

If t

he

ca

nd

ida

te is A

BS

EN

To

r h

asW

ITH

DR

AW

Nsh

ad

e h

ere

Can

did

ate

No

.

Ce

ntr

e N

o.

Exam

inati

on

Deta

ils

Instr

ucti

on

sU

se

a P

EN

CIL

(B

or

HB

).

Ru

b o

ut

an

y a

nsw

er

yo

u w

ish

to

ch

an

ge

with

an

era

se

r.

Continue o

n the o

ther

sid

e o

f th

is s

heet

�

Fo

r P

art

s 2

an

d 3

:

Ma

rk o

ne

bo

x f

or

ea

ch

an

sw

er.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

If y

ou

th

ink C

is t

he

rig

ht

an

sw

er

to t

he

qu

estio

n,

ma

rk y

ou

r a

nsw

er

sh

ee

t lik

e t

his

:

AB

C0

For

Pa

rt 1

:

Write

yo

ur

an

sw

er

cle

arly in

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S.

Write

on

e le

tte

r o

r n

um

be

r in

ea

ch

bo

x.

If t

he

an

sw

er

ha

s m

ore

th

an

on

e w

ord

, le

ave

on

e b

ox e

mp

ty b

etw

ee

n w

ord

s.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

Part

1 -

Co

nvers

ati

on

On

e

1

01

1

2

01

2

3

01

3

4

01

4

0

Su

pe

rvis

or:

BE

C V

- L

DP

46

0/3

60

Part

3

Part

5

14

13

16

15

17

35

34

01

01

37

36

01

01

38

01

34

35

36

37

38

AB

CD

AB

CD

19

21

20

23

22P

art

4

25

24

27

26

28

29

30

18

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

31

32

33

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

39

01

40

01

39

40

41

01

42

01

41

42

43

01

44

01

43

44

45

01

45

Appendix 4.2

352

Part

1 -

Co

nvers

ati

on

Tw

o

Part

1 -

Co

nvers

ati

on

Th

ree

16

15

175

01

5

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

2 -

Secti

on

On

e

23

AB

C

14

13

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

3

25

24

26

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

27

28

AB

C

AB

C

29

AB

C

6

01

6

7

01

7

8

01

8

9

01

9

10

01

10

11

01

11

12

01

12

Part

2 -

Secti

on

Tw

o

21

20

22

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

19

18

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

30

AB

C

Part

1 -

Co

nvers

ati

on

Tw

o

Part

1 -

Co

nvers

ati

on

Th

ree

16

15

175

01

5

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

2 -

Secti

on

On

e

23

AB

C

14

13

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

3

25

24

26

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

27

28

AB

C

AB

C

29

AB

C

6

01

6

7

01

7

8

01

8

9

01

9

10

01

10

11

01

11

12

01

12

Part

2 -

Secti

on

Tw

o

21

20

22

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

19

18

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

30

AB

C

353

Time 1 hour





Write all your answers in pencil on your Answer Sheet – no extra time is allowed for this.

Read carefully the instructions for each part and the instructions for completing your Answer Sheet.




There are fifty-two questions on this question paper.


SP (NF) S31428© UCLES 2002



BUSINESS ENGLISH CERTIFICATE 0353/1HigherTest of Reading Test 023

Wednesday 5 JUNE 2002 Morning 1 hour


CandidateCentre Number Number

Candidate Name

APPENDIX 4.3

BEC Higher Sample Paper

Appendix 4.3

354

A B C D E

We

are

an i

nter

nati

onal

pac

kagi

ng a

nd p

rint

ing

grou

p an

d ha

ve

ambi

tiou

s pl

ans

for

futu

reex

pans

ion

both

thr

ough

org

anic

gro

wth

and

by

acqu

isit

ion.

We

are

now

see

king

a s

ucce

ssor

to o

urpr

esen

t M

anag

ing

Dir

ecto

r w

ho i

s du

e to

ret

ire

inth

ree

mon

ths’

tim

e.T

hesu

cces

sful

cand

idat

e w

ill

have

to

di

spla

y te

chni

cal

com

pete

nce

in

the

indu

stry

and

wil

l hav

e a

dem

onst

rabl

e tr

ack

reco

rdof

man

agin

g a

high

tech

nolo

gy b

usin

ess.

The

new

MD

wil

l be

exp

ecte

d to

bui

ld o

n ou

r en

viab

lebl

ue-c

hip

cust

omer

ba

se

thro

ugh

secu

re

and

prof

itab

le b

usin

ess

deve

lopm

ent

acti

viti

es.

We

are

se

eki

ng

to

ap

po

int

a P

roje

ct M

an

ag

er

to w

ork

on

a t

wo

-ye

ar

con

tra

ct w

ith th

e fi

sh p

roce

ssin

g in

du

stry

. Ap

plic

an

ts m

ust

ha

ve a

de

gre

e in

foo

d

scie

nce

o

r b

usi

ne

ss

dis

cip

line

w

ith

a

min

imu

m

of

thre

e

yea

rs’

exp

erie

nce

, p

refe

rab

ly

in

the

se

afo

od

in

du

stry

, a

nd

m

ust

b

e

ab

le

tod

em

on

stra

te

an

u

nd

ers

tan

din

g

of

the

cu

rre

nt

issu

es

faci

ng

th

e

fish

pro

cess

ing

in

du

stry

. D

utie

s w

ill

incl

ud

e

lea

din

g

a

sma

ll te

am

o

fre

sea

rch

ers

, a

sse

ssin

g t

he

ne

ed

s o

f cl

ien

t co

mp

an

ies

an

d p

rovi

din

g t

he

mw

ith s

up

po

rt,

prim

arily

th

rou

gh

th

e o

rga

nis

atio

n o

f te

chn

ica

l wo

rksh

op

s.

OP

ER

AT

ION

S M

AN

AG

ER

We

are

a m

ajo

r st

atio

ne

ry c

om

pa

ny.

Afte

r ye

ars

of

imp

ress

ive

su

cce

ss in

gro

un

d-b

rea

kin

g n

ew

pro

du

cts

an

d c

ust

om

er

rela

tion

ship

de

velo

pm

en

t, o

ur

pre

sen

t ob

ject

ive

is to

drive

ma

nu

fact

urin

gp

roce

sse

s h

igh

er

up

th

e a

ge

nd

a a

nd

we

are

no

w c

om

mitt

ed

to

ma

nu

fact

urin

g i

nn

ova

tion

. W

ew

ish

, th

ere

fore

, to

a

pp

oin

t a

S

en

ior

Op

era

tion

s M

an

ag

er

to

imp

art

th

e

very

la

test

in

ma

nu

fact

urin

g d

eve

lop

me

nt. D

rive

, e

nth

usi

asm

an

d a

pa

ssio

n f

or

exc

elle

nce

are

re

qu

ire

d,

as

isth

e a

bili

ty t

o w

in a

sim

ilar

resp

on

se f

rom

co

llea

gu

es

at

all

leve

ls.

Suc

cess

for

this

£40

mil

lion

foo

d pr

oduc

tion

pla

nt h

as c

ome

as a

res

ult o

f cl

ear

nati

onal

mar

ket

focu

s, c

oupl

ed w

ith

qual

ity

prod

ucts

com

man

ding

pre

miu

m p

rice

s. D

eman

d co

ntin

ues

toou

tstr

ip th

e ab

ilit

y to

pro

duce

and

new

pro

duct

line

s ha

ve b

een

enth

usia

stic

ally

rec

eive

d by

the

mar

ket p

lace

. To

ensu

re th

at th

e bu

sine

ss m

eets

its

dem

andi

ng c

usto

mer

req

uire

men

ts in

a w

ell-

cont

roll

ed a

nd p

rofe

ssio

nal

fash

ion,

a H

ead

of P

rodu

ctio

n is

now

nee

ded

to i

nsta

ll g

ood

man

ufac

turi

ng p

ract

ices

and

to e

nsur

e th

at th

e pr

oduc

tion

sta

ff a

re m

ould

ed m

ore

posi

tive

ly in

toa

cohe

sive

and

res

pons

ive

unit

.HEA

D O

F PR

OD

UC

TIO

N

Pro

ject

Man

ager

Man

agin

g D

irec

tor

We

are

look

ing

for

som

eone

with

tea

m m

anag

emen

t, da

taba

se a

nd p

roce

ss d

evel

opm

ent

skill

s to

hea

dou

r cu

stom

er s

ervi

ce d

epar

tmen

t. Th

e pe

rson

app

oint

ed w

ill b

e re

spon

sibl

e fo

r m

anag

ing

oper

atio

nal

deliv

ery

and

perf

orm

ance

. H

e or

she

will

hav

e to

dem

onst

rate

exp

erie

nce

in t

he m

anag

emen

t of

fluct

uatin

g su

pply

and

dem

and

situ

atio

ns.

The

com

pany

, a

lead

er i

n th

e pr

ovis

ion

of s

ervi

ces

tobu

sine

sses

in

the

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

sec

tor,

has

a st

rong

rep

utat

ion

for

qual

ity a

nd s

peed

of

solu

tion

deliv

ery.

We

are

pois

ed t

o im

plem

ent

an e

xplo

sive

gro

wth

pla

n an

d ar

e ta

rget

ed t

o tr

eble

in

size

by

2004

.

HEA

D O

F C

UST

OM

ER S

ERV

ICE

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

s 1

– 8

•L

oo

k a

t th

e s

tate

me

nts

be

low

an

d a

t th

e e

xtra

cts

fro

m f

ive

job

ad

vert

ise

me

nts

on

th

e o

pp

osi

te

pa

ge

.

•W

hic

h a

dve

rtis

em

en

t(A

,B

,C

,D

or

E)

do

es

ea

ch s

tate

me

nt

1 –

8re

fer

to?

•F

or

ea

ch s

tate

me

nt

1 –

8, m

ark

one le

tter

(A,

B,

C,

Dor

E)

on

yo

ur

An

swe

r S

he

et.

•Y

ou

will

ne

ed

to

use

so

me

of

the

se le

tte

rs m

ore

th

an

on

ce.

•T

he

re is

an

exa

mp

le a

t th

e b

eg

inn

ing

, (0

).

Exa

mp

le:

0T

his

co

mp

an

y is

offe

rin

g a

job

on

ly o

n a

te

mp

ora

ry b

asi

s.

0

1T

his

co

mp

an

y is

kn

ow

n f

or

de

alin

g w

ith p

rob

lem

s q

uic

kly.

2T

his

co

mp

an

y p

lan

s to

ta

ke o

ver

oth

er

com

pa

nie

s.

3T

his

co

mp

an

y h

as

as

its c

lien

ts s

om

e o

f th

e c

ou

ntr

y’s

lea

din

g c

om

pa

nie

s.

4T

his

co

mp

an

y is

no

t tu

rnin

g o

ut

as

ma

ny

go

od

s a

s it

cou

ld s

ell.

5T

he

pe

rso

n a

pp

oin

ted

to

th

is p

ost

will

de

live

r a

ssis

tan

ce t

o o

the

r co

mp

an

ies.

6T

his

co

mp

an

y w

an

ts t

o c

ha

ng

e t

he

ma

in f

ocu

s o

f its

att

en

tion

.

7T

his

co

mp

an

y’s

go

od

s a

re e

xpe

nsi

ve.

8T

he

pe

rso

n a

pp

oin

ted

to

th

is jo

b w

ill h

ave

to

sh

ow

an

ab

ility

to

de

al w

ith e

ver-

cha

ng

ing

ma

rke

t

con

diti

on

s.

AB

CB

E

Appendix 4.3

355

AA

t th

e s

am

e t

ime

, th

e e

con

om

ic c

lima

te s

ug

ge

sts

tha

t th

ere

is a

ve

ry r

ea

l pro

spe

ct o

f le

an

er

bu

dg

ets

in f

utu

re.

BW

e a

re in

stin

ctiv

ely

incl

ine

d t

o f

ee

l mo

re p

osi

tive

to

pe

op

le w

ho

are

sim

ilar

to u

s.

CH

ow

eve

r, s

om

e e

xpe

rts

fee

l th

at

the

ma

in a

dva

nta

ge

of

on

-scr

ee

n in

terv

iew

ing

is t

ha

t it

ad

dre

sse

s fla

ws

in t

he

co

nve

ntio

na

l in

terv

iew

.

DF

or

this

re

aso

n t

he

re w

ill a

lwa

ys b

e a

pla

ce f

or

it.

EF

or

som

e p

ost

s, a

pp

lica

nts

ma

y b

e a

ble

to

ch

oo

se b

etw

ee

n a

fa

ce-t

o-f

ace

inte

rvie

w a

nd

an

on

-scr

ee

n in

terv

iew

.

FS

om

e p

eo

ple

in in

du

stry

co

nsi

de

r th

is t

o b

e a

fa

r m

ore

re

liab

le a

pp

roa

ch t

o s

ele

ctio

n t

ha

n a

hig

h-t

ech

inte

rvie

w.

GB

ut

for

it to

be

co

mp

lete

ly f

air,

th

e o

n-s

cre

en

me

tho

d w

ou

ld h

ave

to

be

use

d w

ith a

ll

can

did

ate

s.

HE

mp

loye

rs n

ow

ha

ve a

t th

eir d

isp

osa

l a r

an

ge

of

com

mu

nic

atio

n t

oo

ls.

AB

CD

EF

GH

Exa

mp

le:

0

PA

RT

TW

O

Qu

esti

on

s 9

– 14

•R

ea

d t

his

te

xt f

rom

an

art

icle

ab

ou

t jo

b in

terv

iew

s.

•C

ho

ose

th

e b

est

se

nte

nce

fro

m t

he

op

po

site

pa

ge

to

fill

ea

ch o

f th

e g

ap

s.

•F

or

ea

ch g

ap

9–

14,

mark

one le

tter

(A–

H)

on

yo

ur

An

swe

r S

he

et.

•D

o n

ot

use

an

y le

tte

r m

ore

th

an

on

ce.

•T

he

re is

an

exa

mp

le a

t th

e b

eg

inn

ing

, (0

).

The

pr

oble

ms

of

glob

al

recr

uitm

ent

are

disa

ppea

ring

rap

idly

. The

rea

son

for

this

lies

in th

ete

chno

logy

tha

t co

uld

rede

fine

the

tra

diti

onal

job

inte

rvie

w.

The

se g

ive

them

acc

ess

to th

egl

obal

re

crui

tmen

t m

arke

t, en

abli

ng

them

to

inte

rvie

w a

nd a

sses

s th

eir

choi

ce o

f ca

ndid

ates

on

scre

en,

for

exam

ple

via

vide

o-co

nfer

ence

li

nk,

CD

-Rom

dis

play

or

elec

tron

ic f

ile

tran

sfer

.T

he d

evel

opm

ent

of t

he u

se o

f te

chno

logy

as

am

etho

d of

rec

ruit

men

t ha

s br

ough

t co

nsid

erab

lebe

nefi

ts t

o re

crui

tmen

t pr

acti

ces.

For

exa

mpl

e, i

tm

eans

gre

at s

avin

gs i

n te

rms

of b

oth

tim

e an

dth

e tr

avel

bu

dget

.O

ne

prob

lem

w

ith

face

-to-

face

int

ervi

ews

is t

hat

body

lan

guag

e is

boun

d to

play

an

im

port

ant

part

in

th

em.

Thi

s ne

cess

aril

y le

ads

to

an

inhe

rent

unfa

irne

ss

in

such

in

terv

iew

s.

Put

ting

di

stan

cebe

twee

n ca

ndid

ate

and

inte

rvie

wer

wit

h th

e us

e of

a vi

deo

cam

era

can

help

to o

verc

ome

this

pro

blem

as b

ody

lang

uage

wil

l be

less

obv

ious

.It

coul

d pr

ove

an

unfa

ir

adva

ntag

e,

or

poss

ibly

disa

dvan

tage

, if

use

d on

ly w

ith

thos

e un

able

to

atte

nd a

fac

e-to

-fac

e in

terv

iew

.A

grea

t de

al h

as b

een

mad

e in

rec

ent

year

s of

NL

P(n

euro

-lin

guis

tic

prog

ram

min

g),

whi

ch

incl

udes

the

sci

ence

of

body

lan

guag

e, a

nd i

tsva

lue

in

job

inte

rvie

ws.

Oth

ers,

how

ever

, re

ject

th

e ne

w

tech

nolo

gy

sim

ply

beca

use

they

ar

e af

raid

of

it

. T

he

bene

fits

of

tech

nolo

gy,

thou

gh,

are

too

grea

t to

ign

ore,

whe

non

e co

nsid

ers

that

the

bes

t pe

rson

for

a p

arti

cula

rjo

b m

ay d

ecid

e no

t to

att

end

for

inte

rvie

w i

f he

or

she

has

to t

rave

l a

cons

ider

able

dis

tanc

e.A

ppoi

ntin

g se

nior

ex

ecut

ives

is

in

crea

sing

lyse

en a

s a

glob

al b

usin

ess.

Com

pani

es w

hich

inte

ndto

sel

ect

cand

idat

es f

or j

obs

from

a w

ider

poo

l w

ill

have

lit

tle

choi

ce b

ut t

o be

ar t

he c

ost

ofov

erse

as t

rave

l to

con

vent

iona

l in

terv

iew

s, o

r to

embr

ace

the

new

tech

nolo

gy.

Inev

itab

ly,

com

pani

es

wil

l be

se

ekin

g m

ore

cost

-eff

ecti

vew

ays

of r

ecru

itin

g qu

alit

y ca

ndid

ates

, and

for

this

,vi

rtua

l in

terv

iew

ing

may

off

er a

sol

utio

n.T

he g

reat

est v

alue

of

face

-to-

face

inte

rvie

ws

is a

tth

e st

age

of f

inal

sel

ecti

on.

N

ever

thel

ess,

ther

e ar

e m

any

posi

tive

as

pect

s of

us

ing

tech

nolo

gy

as

a re

crui

tmen

t to

ol.

Tim

es

are

chan

ging

, an

d un

less

the

die

-har

ds w

ho i

gnor

ene

w t

echn

olog

y ch

ange

wit

h th

em,

they

may

fin

dth

emse

lves

lef

t be

hind

.

9

11

12

13

10

14

Inte

rvie

win

g o

n s

cre

en

0H

Appendix 4.3

356

15C

aro

l Nic

ho

ls p

refe

rre

d t

o u

se s

ma

ller

con

sulta

nci

es

be

cau

se

Ash

e h

ad

pre

vio

us

exp

erie

nce

of

the

m.

Bth

ey

cou

ld d

eve

lop

alo

ng

sid

e h

er

com

pa

ny.

Csh

e w

ou

ld b

e a

ble

to

ha

ve c

on

tro

l ove

r th

em

.

Dth

ey

wo

uld

imp

rove

he

r d

ep

art

me

nt’s

re

pu

tatio

n.

16P

au

l Ed

en

sa

ys o

ne

ad

van

tag

e o

f sm

alle

r co

nsu

ltan

cie

s is

th

at

Acl

ien

ts b

en

efit

fro

m c

on

tinu

ou

s in

div

idu

al c

on

tact

.

Bth

ey

ha

ve a

cle

are

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f cl

ien

ts’b

ran

ds.

Ccl

ien

ts f

ee

l th

ey

ge

t a

be

tte

r re

turn

on

th

eir in

vest

me

nt.

Dth

ey

are

ab

le t

o s

ell

the

ir id

ea

s to

clie

nts

mo

re e

ffect

ive

ly.

17P

en

ny

Wh

ite p

oin

ts o

ut

tha

t sm

alle

r co

nsu

ltan

cie

s ca

n

Ab

e f

lexi

ble

ab

ou

t co

-op

era

ting

with

oth

er

firm

s.

Bsp

en

d t

ime

re

sea

rch

ing

a w

ide

ra

ng

e o

f is

sue

s.

Cp

rovi

de

use

ful i

ntr

od

uct

ion

s to

oth

er

firm

s.

Da

dvi

se f

irm

s o

n w

ays

to

re

du

ce o

verh

ea

ds.

18P

en

ny

Wh

ite s

ays

th

at

larg

er

con

sulta

nci

es

do

no

t

Atr

ain

th

eir c

on

sulta

nts

to

wo

rk w

ith s

ma

ller

com

pa

nie

s.

Ba

pp

reci

ate

th

e f

un

ctio

n o

f p

sych

olo

gy

in b

usi

ne

ss.

Cd

eliv

er

the

re

sults

th

at

pro

ject

s a

re s

et

up

to

ach

ieve

.

Dtr

ansf

er

their e

xpert

ise f

ully

to t

heir c

lients

.

19A

cco

rdin

g t

o B

ill D

aw

kin

s, la

rge

r co

nsu

ltan

ts

Aa

re a

ble

to

pa

ss o

n e

con

om

ies

of

sca

le t

o c

lien

ts.

Bh

ave

a d

ee

pe

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f in

du

stria

l iss

ue

s.

Cre

pre

sen

t a

mo

re s

ecu

re in

vest

me

nt

for

som

e c

lien

ts.

Dd

iffe

ren

tiate

th

eir a

dvi

ce a

cco

rdin

g t

o c

ou

ntr

y.

20T

he

write

r co

ncl

ud

es

by

reco

mm

en

din

g u

sin

g s

ma

ller

con

sulta

nci

es

Ain

situ

atio

ns

requirin

g q

uic

k re

sults

.

Bfo

r m

on

itorin

g p

roje

cts’

pro

gre

ss.

Cin

co

nju

nct

ion

with

ea

ch o

the

r.

Dfo

r th

e f

iner

deta

ils o

f pro

ject

s.

PA

RT

TH

RE

E

Qu

esti

on

s 15

– 2

0

•R

ea

d t

he

fo

llow

ing

art

icle

ab

ou

t d

iffe

ren

t-si

zed

ma

na

ge

me

nt

con

sulta

nci

es

an

d t

he

qu

est

ion

s o

n

the

op

po

site

pa

ge

.

•F

or

ea

ch q

ue

stio

n 1

5 –

20,

mark

one le

tter

(A,

B,

Cor

D)

on

yo

ur

An

swe

r S

he

et

for

the

an

swe

r

you

ch

oo

se.

Afe

w

years

ago,

when

Caro

lN

ichols

arr

ived

as

head

of

hum

an r

eso

urc

es

with

NV

CT,

the

fast

-exp

andin

g

tele

com

s and

softw

are

se

rvic

es

com

pany,

she

knew

th

at

from

day

one

work

ing

with

m

anagem

ent

consu

ltancy

fir

ms

would

be

an

inte

gra

l part

of

her

role

. ‘I

had

already

deci

ded

on

the

kind

of

consu

ltanci

es

I w

ante

d

toem

plo

y,’

she

says

. ‘W

hen

I st

art

ed,

I w

as

pre

tty

much

a

one-w

om

an

depart

ment.

So

itw

as

import

ant

for

me

to

form

part

ners

hip

s to

help

me s

upport

the g

row

th o

f the d

epart

ment a

nd

the c

om

pany.

What I

wante

d w

as

smalle

r co

nsu

ltanci

es

with

whom

I co

uld

est

ablis

h

pers

onal

rela

tionsh

ips

– fi

rms

whic

h w

ould

gro

w

with

us,

and

be

flexi

ble

enough

to

resp

ond

to

our

changin

g n

eeds.

’

Paul E

den,

Managin

g D

irect

or

of

NV

CT,

co

nfir

ms

the

desi

rabili

tyof

smalle

r co

nsu

ltanci

es.

‘Larg

er

firm

s have

a te

ndency

to u

se o

ne

pers

on

to

sell,

and

anoth

er

todeliv

er, w

ith th

e r

esu

lt th

at c

lients

may

not

really

know

who o

r w

hat

they

are

buyi

ng.

With

a s

malle

rfir

m,

you

are

buyi

ng

the

consu

ltant

as

much

as

the

pro

duct

- t

he p

ers

on r

ath

er

than

the b

rand.’

Penny

White

, fin

anci

al

serv

ices

gro

up Inte

rco’s

Head o

f S

trate

gic

Managem

ent,

hig

hlig

hts

oth

er

adva

nta

ges

of

the

smalle

rco

nsul

tanc

y.

‘Asm

alle

rco

nsul

tanc

yre

cognis

es

that

itca

nnot

do

eve

ryth

ing,

and

ism

uch

more

will

ing t

o w

ork

with

oth

er

pre

ferr

ed

consu

ltants

fo

rth

e g

ood o

f th

e c

lient,’s

he s

ays

.‘A

nd

on

fees,

sm

alle

rco

nsu

ltanci

es

can b

e l

ess

rig

idand m

ore

co

st-e

ffect

ive,

sim

ply

beca

use

th

eir

ove

rheads

are

low

er. T

hat is

not to

say

that th

ey

need

to

underc

ut

to

win

busi

ness

, but

part

of

a

small

consu

ltancy

’s

stra

tegy

must

be

to t

horo

ughly

inve

stig

ate

how

to

add v

alu

e t

o e

very

thin

g i

t does.

Larg

er

consu

ltanci

es

are

gain

ing

exp

ert

ise in

busi

ness

psy

cholo

gy

and a

pply

ing it

to r

unnin

g c

hange

pro

gra

mm

es,

but

they

still

tend

to

bring

in

their

ow

n

team

to

imple

ment

pro

ject

s,

whic

hm

eans

that

when t

hey

move

on,

the

know

-how

goes

with

th

em

,le

avi

ng

the

clie

nt

with

a

know

ledge

vacu

um

, not

the

inte

gra

ted

train

ing

that

small

firm

s, in

part

icula

r, r

eally

need.’

But

the l

arg

er

consu

ltanci

es

do

have

th

eir

advo

cate

s.

Bill

Daw

kins,

edito

r of

Con

sulta

ncy

Toda

y:

‘One

are

a

where

th

e

indust

ry g

iants

have

an e

dge i

sw

here

m

ajo

r glo

bal

com

panie

sre

quire

a

standard

ised

serv

ice

acr

oss

a

num

ber

of

diff

ere

nt

countr

ies.

S

uch

cl

ients

are

frequently

sp

endin

g

subst

antia

lsu

ms

of

money

in

consu

lting

engagem

ents

, and,

not

surp

risi

ngly

, th

ey

are

seeki

ng t

he

reass

ura

nce

of

a r

eco

gnis

ed a

nd

resp

ect

ed

bra

nd

whic

h

they

know

they

can t

rust

to d

eliv

er.’

When

it co

mes

to

choosi

ng

whic

h k

ind o

f consu

ltancy

to u

se,

there

is

no r

ight

or

wro

ng i

n a

ny

abso

lute

se

nse

. B

y th

eir

very

natu

re,

smalle

r entr

ants

are

able

to

move

m

ore

sw

iftly

th

an

the

larg

er

firm

s. B

ut

the q

uest

ion i

sw

heth

er

they

have

the n

ece

ssary

subst

ance

and

track

re

cord

behin

d t

hem

to s

ee l

arg

er-

scale

pro

gra

mm

es

thro

ugh.

Choose

asm

alle

r co

nsu

ltancy

fo

r pilo

tim

ple

menta

tions

where

you w

ant

‘look

and s

ee’s

olu

tions

in a

short

space

of

time.

Then

turn

to

a

larg

er

firm

for

full

imple

menta

tion

and t

ransf

orm

atio

n p

rogra

mm

es.

Incr

easi

ngly

, th

e c

hoic

e b

etw

een

big

and

small

is

not

mutu

ally

excl

usiv

e, b

ut c

ompl

emen

tary

. The

two

ofte

n fin

d th

emse

lves

wor

king

togeth

er

on t

he s

am

e p

roje

ct -

creatin

g a

com

bin

atio

n n

eith

er

of

them

can a

chie

ve o

n it

s ow

n.

Appendix 4.3

357

Exa

mp

le: A

avai

labl

eB

conv

enie

ntC

appo

inte

dD

obta

inab

le

21A

deci

sion

sB

cons

ider

atio

nsC

conc

lusi

ons

Dre

solu

tions

22A

rela

ting

Bob

serv

ing

Cre

gard

ing

Dac

coun

ting

23A

appe

alB

wel

com

eC

requ

est

Din

vite

24A

impl

icat

edB

conc

erne

dC

incl

uded

Dre

ferr

ed

25A

At

BTo

CB

yD

With

26A

expr

esse

sB

mar

ksC

exhi

bits

Din

dica

tes

27A

prem

ium

Bbo

nus

Cco

mm

issi

onD

rew

ard

28A

mas

sB

volu

me

Cbu

lkD

capa

city

29A

prac

tice

Bco

urse

Cpr

oced

ure

Dha

bit

30A

indu

cem

ent

Bm

otiv

eC

influ

ence

Dpr

ovoc

atio

n

AB

CD

0

PA

RT

FO

UR

Qu

esti

on

s 21

– 3

0

•R

ea

d t

he

art

icle

be

low

ab

ou

t p

rici

ng

po

licie

s.

•C

ho

ose

th

e c

orr

ect

wo

rd t

o f

ill e

ach

ga

p f

rom

A,

B,

Cor

Do

n t

he

op

po

site

pa

ge

.

•F

or

ea

ch q

ue

stio

n21

– 3

0, m

ark

one le

tter

(A,

B,

Cor

D)

on

yo

ur

An

swe

r S

he

et.

•T

he

re is

an

exa

mp

le a

t th

e b

eg

inn

ing

, (0

).

Whe

neve

r a

prod

uct

or s

ervi

ce i

s m

ade

......

(0)..

....

for

sale

, on

e of

the

mos

t im

port

ant

......

(21)

......

to b

e m

ade

isth

e on

e re

late

d to

the

pri

ce t

o be

cha

rged

. To

hav

e no

cohe

rent

pol

icy

......

(22)

......

pric

e –

mer

ely

to ‘

thin

k of

anu

mbe

r’–

is t

o ...

...(2

3)...

...tr

oubl

e.T

he b

asic

poi

nt a

s fa

r as

pri

cing

is

......

(24)

......

is t

oan

swer

the

que

stio

n, ‘

......

(25)

......

wha

t le

vel

shou

ld w

epi

tch

our

pric

es?’

Are

lati

vely

hig

h pr

ice

(in

com

pari

son

toth

e co

mpe

titi

on)

......

(26)

......

that

th

e pr

oduc

t ha

sso

met

hing

spe

cial

abo

ut it

not

fou

nd in

the

othe

r pr

oduc

ts.

In

othe

r w

ords

, th

e cu

stom

er

is

expe

cted

to

pa

y a

......

(27)

......

for

the

extr

a-sp

ecia

l qu

alit

ies

to b

e fo

und

inth

e pr

oduc

t. T

his

also

app

lies

to

serv

ices

lik

e an

y fo

rm o

fm

aint

enan

ce o

r re

pair

wor

k. U

nfor

tuna

tely

, it

is

a w

ell-

esta

blis

hed

econ

omic

law

tha

t th

e hi

gher

the

pri

ce,

the

low

er t

he .

.....(

28)..

....

sold

. N

onet

hele

ss,

both

end

s of

the

mar

ket

can

be e

qual

ly p

rofi

tabl

e.T

he

ques

tion

of

di

scou

nts

is

impo

rtan

t to

o.

Som

eor

gani

sati

ons

offe

r di

scou

nts

out

of .

.....(

29)..

....

, w

hile

othe

rs

neve

r gi

ve

any

kind

of

di

scou

nt.

A‘q

uant

ity

disc

ount

’ca

n at

trac

t cu

stom

ers:

the

mor

e th

ey b

uy,

the

low

er

the

unit

pr

ice.

‘P

rom

pt-p

aym

ent

disc

ount

s’ar

ean

othe

r...

...(3

0)...

...to

the

cus

tom

er (

usua

lly

reta

iler

s),

whe

reby

if p

aym

ent i

s m

ade

quic

kly

(say

, with

in te

n da

ys),

the

amou

nt p

ayab

le i

s le

ss t

han

it w

ould

nor

mal

ly b

e.

Prici

ng p

olic

ies

Appendix 4.3

358

PA

RT

SIX

Qu

esti

on

s 41

– 5

2

•R

ea

d t

he

te

xt b

elo

w a

bo

ut

the

ho

tel i

nd

ust

ry.

•In

mo

st o

f th

e li

ne

s 41

– 5

2th

ere

is o

ne

ext

ra w

ord

. It

is e

ithe

r g

ram

ma

tica

lly in

corr

ect

or

do

es

no

t fit

in w

ith t

he

se

nse

of

the

te

xt.

So

me

lin

es,

ho

we

ver,

are

co

rre

ct.

•If a

line is

corr

ect

, w

rite

CO

RR

EC

To

n y

ou

r A

nsw

er

Sh

ee

t.

•If

th

ere

is a

n e

xtra

wo

rd in

th

e li

ne

, w

rite

th

e ex

tra

wo

rdin

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S o

n y

ou

r a

nsw

er

she

et.

•T

he

exe

rcis

e b

eg

ins

with

tw

o e

xam

ple

s, (

0) a

nd (

00).

Exa

mp

les:

0W

IL

L

00C

OR

RE

CT

0Is

th

ere

an

yon

e in

th

e h

ote

l in

du

stry

wh

o w

ill,

inst

ea

d o

f ju

st c

om

pla

inin

g t

ha

t th

ey

00ca

n’t

find

re

liab

le q

ua

lifie

d s

taff,

no

t to

me

ntio

n r

eta

in t

he

m,

is a

ctu

ally

pre

pa

red

41to

he

lp s

tud

en

ts w

ith c

on

tinu

ed

pro

fess

ion

al d

eve

lop

me

nt?

At

pre

sen

t tim

e I

’m a

n

42a

sso

cia

te m

em

be

r o

f a

pro

fess

ion

al b

od

y in

th

e h

ote

l ma

na

ge

me

nt.

In

ord

er

to

43u

pg

rad

e t

o f

ull

me

mb

ers

hip

, I

de

cid

ed

ho

w t

o u

nd

ert

ake

th

e P

rofe

ssio

na

l Ce

rtifi

cate

.

44A

s p

art

of

the

co

urs

e,

I h

ad

re

qu

ire

me

nt

to c

om

ple

te a

n a

ssig

nm

en

t o

n f

ron

t-o

ffice

45o

pe

ratio

ns.

Th

is s

ee

me

d s

tra

igh

tfo

rwa

rd,

bu

t I

cou

ldn

’t ye

t fin

d o

ne

est

ab

lish

me

nt

46th

at

wa

s p

rep

are

d t

o a

llow

me

to

vis

it a

nd

ga

the

r th

e in

form

atio

n I

re

qu

ire

d.

So

me

of

47th

e 1

2 h

ote

ls I

co

nta

cte

d,

on

ly t

wo

act

ua

lly h

ad

th

e d

ece

ncy

to

exp

lain

th

at

‘no

rma

lly

48it

wo

uld

be

OK

’, b

ut

at

the

mo

me

nt

the

y co

uld

n’t

spa

re t

he

tim

e o

r st

aff.

Ju

st a

s fo

r

49th

e r

est

, it

wa

s si

mp

ly ‘N

o’.

Wo

uld

so

me

on

e p

lea

se t

ell

to m

e,

an

d a

ll th

e o

the

r

50d

ed

ica

ted

ho

spita

lity

pro

fess

ion

als

ou

t th

ere

wh

o a

re t

ryin

g t

o f

urt

he

r o

n t

he

ir c

are

er

51p

rosp

ect

s vi

a c

on

tinu

ed

pro

fess

ion

al d

eve

lop

me

nt,

exa

ctly

ho

w w

e a

tta

in t

he

52q

ua

lific

atio

ns

tha

t th

e in

du

stry

re

qu

ire

s u

s, w

he

n t

he

ind

ust

ry s

ee

ms

un

will

ing

to

he

lp?

PO

OR

SU

PP

OR

T FO

R H

OTE

L ST

UD

ENTS

PA

RT

FIV

E

Qu

esti

on

s 31

– 4

0

•R

ea

d t

he

art

icle

be

low

ab

ou

t th

e im

po

rta

nce

of

the

offi

ce e

nvi

ron

me

nt.

•F

or

ea

ch q

ue

stio

n 3

1 –

40,

write

on

e w

ord

in C

AP

ITA

LL

ET

TE

RS

on

yo

ur

An

swe

r S

he

et.

•T

he

re is

an

exa

mp

le a

t th

e b

eg

inn

ing

, (0

).

Exa

mp

le:

0A

N

Is y

our

offi

ce ..

....(0

).....

.attra

ctiv

e a

nd c

om

fort

able

pla

ce?

Is

it sp

eci

fically

desi

gned

to

ensu

re

that

whate

ver

stre

sses

you e

nco

unte

r in

the c

ours

e o

f yo

ur

work

, yo

ur

surr

oundin

gs

make

lif

e

just

th

at

little

bit

......

(31)

......

beara

ble

?...

...(3

2)...

...yo

u g

reete

d e

very

morn

ing b

y cu

tflo

wers

, th

e s

mell

of

fresh

ly b

rew

ed c

offe

e a

nd a

colo

ur

schem

e th

at .

.....(

33)..

....e

asy

on th

e e

ye? O

r do y

ou h

ave

to

settle

fo

r a

desk

co

vere

d

with

th

e

pen

mark

s of

num

ero

us

form

er

em

plo

yees

and a

sta

tionery

cupboard

that

can b

e o

pened o

nly

with

a p

icka

xe?

If t

he s

eco

nd s

cenario s

ounds

more

fam

iliar,

you a

re b

y...

...(3

4)...

...m

eans

alo

ne. A

rece

nt

surv

ey

found t

hat

38%

of

em

plo

yees

feel

the i

nte

rior

desi

gn o

f th

e o

ffice

they

work

in p

reve

nts

them

fro

m p

erf

orm

ing .

.....(

35)..

....

the

best

of

their a

bili

ties.

Many

em

plo

yers

re

fuse

to

ente

rtain

th

e

thought

of

impro

ving a

nd u

pdatin

g t

heir o

ffice

s ...

...(3

6)...

...of

the

cost

s in

volv

ed.

In

the

long

run,

how

eve

r,

it m

ight

be

unw

ise

to

be

too

tight-

fiste

d

......

(37)

......

it co

mes

toem

plo

yees’

com

fort

. T

he

work

ing

envi

ronm

ent

......

(38)

......

a d

irect

effe

ct o

n p

roduct

ivity

, and 7

8%

of

boss

es

......

(39)

......

resp

onded to

the s

urv

ey

agre

ed th

at a

ple

asa

nt

offi

ce

is

a

majo

r in

fluence

in

attra

ctin

g

and

reta

inin

g

good-q

ualit

y w

ork

ers

. E

mplo

yee

under-

perf

orm

ance

can n

ot

only

spell

financi

al l

oss

; ...

...(4

0)...

...als

o f

uels

pers

onal

frust

ratio

n w

hen t

he e

mplo

yee f

eels

unfu

lfille

d.

And

it’s

hig

hly

lik

ely

th

at

the

dis

satis

fied

secr

eta

ry

will

lo

ok

to

gre

ener

past

ure

s –

or

cleaner

offi

ces.

Bea

utif

ul i

s b

est

Appendix 4.3

359

TIME 1 hour 10 minutes



Write your name, Centre number and candidate number in the spaces at the top of this page and on each

sheet of answer paper used.

Read the instructions carefully.

This paper requires you to complete two tasks.

Answer the Part 1 task and one task from Part 2.

Write your answers on the separate answer paper provided.

Write clearly in pen, not pencil. You may make alterations but make sure that your work is easy to read.

If you use more than one sheet of paper, fasten the sheets together.

At the end of the examination hand in both this question paper and your answer paper.


Part 2 carries twice as many marks as Part 1.



BUSINESS ENGLISH CERTIFICATE 0353/2HigherTest of Writing Test 023

Wednesday 5 JUNE 2002 Morning 1 hour 10 minutes

Additional materials:Answer Paper


Candidate Name


SP (SM/JB) S30782© UCLES 2002

Appendix 4.3

360

PA

RT

TW

O

Answ

er

on

eof

the q

uest

ions

2,3

or

4belo

w.

Qu

esti

on

2

•A

min

or

acc

ide

nt

ha

s re

cen

tly t

ake

n p

lace

in y

ou

r o

rga

nis

atio

n.

Yo

ur

ma

na

ge

r h

as

ask

ed

yo

u t

o

find

ou

t a

bo

ut

the

acc

ide

nt

an

d w

rite

a r

ep

ort

su

mm

arisi

ng

th

e in

form

atio

n y

ou

ha

ve g

ath

ere

d.

•W

rite

your

rep

ort

, in

clu

din

g t

he

fo

llow

ing

info

rma

tion

:

•a

brie

f d

esc

rip

tion

of

the

acc

ide

nt

•w

ha

t yo

u t

hin

k ca

use

d t

he

acc

ide

nt

•w

he

the

r a

ny

me

asu

res

ne

ed

to

be

ta

ken

to

pre

ven

t si

mila

r a

ccid

en

ts h

ap

pe

nin

g.

•W

rite

200

– 2

50w

ord

s o

n t

he

se

pa

rate

an

swe

r p

ap

er

pro

vid

ed

.

Qu

esti

on

3

•Y

ou

r d

ep

art

me

nt

ha

s re

cen

tly t

ake

n o

n a

nu

mb

er

of

ne

w s

taff.

T

he

Hu

ma

n R

eso

urc

es

ma

na

ge

r

of

you

r co

mp

an

y h

as

ag

ree

d t

o a

re

qu

est

fo

r a

se

rie

s o

f tr

ain

ing

se

ssio

ns

tha

t w

ou

ld e

na

ble

th

e

ne

w e

mp

loye

es

to w

ork

mo

re e

ffici

en

tly.

Sh

e h

as

ask

ed

yo

u t

o w

rite

a p

rop

osa

l fo

r th

e t

rain

ing

.

•W

rite

the p

rop

osa

l, o

utli

nin

g t

he

tra

inin

g r

eq

uire

d,

an

d in

clu

de

th

e f

ollo

win

g p

oin

ts:

•a

brie

f d

esc

rip

tion

of

the

ro

les

of

the

ne

w s

taff

•th

e t

ype

of

tra

inin

g t

he

y n

ee

d a

nd

wh

y

•a

ny

follo

w-u

p t

rain

ing

or

ass

ess

me

nt

tha

t m

igh

t b

e r

eq

uire

d.

•W

rite

200

– 2

50w

ord

s o

n t

he

se

pa

rate

an

swe

r p

ap

er

pro

vid

ed

.

Qu

esti

on

4

•Y

ou

are

he

lpin

g t

o a

rra

ng

e a

n e

ven

t fo

r a

ll yo

ur

com

pa

ny’

s cu

sto

me

rs,

at

wh

ich

yo

ur

ne

w r

an

ge

of

pro

du

cts

will

be

de

mo

nst

rate

d.

•W

rite

a l

ette

rto

yo

ur

cust

om

ers

, in

clu

din

g t

he

fo

llow

ing

info

rma

tion

:

•th

e n

atu

re a

nd

pu

rpo

se o

f th

e e

ven

t

•d

eta

ils o

f th

e e

ven

t

•w

hy

the

eve

nt

will

be

wo

rth

att

en

din

g

•h

ow

yo

ur

cust

om

ers

sh

ou

ld r

esp

on

d t

o y

ou

r le

tte

r.

•W

rite

200

– 2

50w

ord

s o

n t

he

se

pa

rate

an

swe

r p

ap

er

pro

vid

ed

.

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

1

•T

he

gra

ph

be

low

co

mp

are

s th

e e

xpo

rt s

ale

s o

f a

co

mp

an

y ca

lled

LT

G w

ith it

s d

om

est

ic s

ale

s

fro

m 1

99

7 t

o 2

00

1.

•U

sin

g t

he

info

rma

tion

fro

m t

he

gra

ph

, w

rite

a s

ho

rt r

epo

rtco

mp

arin

g t

he

tw

o s

ets

of

sale

s

figu

res

du

rin

g t

his

pe

rio

d.

•W

rite

ab

ou

t 12

0 –

140

wo

rds

on

th

e s

ep

ara

te a

nsw

er

pa

pe

r p

rovi

de

d.

£10

£8

£6

£4

£2

Sal

es f

igu

res

(mill

ion

s)

Begin

nin

g o

f 1997

2000

2001

1999

1998

LTG

SA

LE

S

Dom

est

ic s

ale

s

Exp

ort

sale

s

Yea

r

Appendix 4.3

361



















BUSINESS ENGLISH CERTIFICATE 0353/3HigherTest of Listening Test 023

Wednesday 5 JUNE 2002 Morning Approx. 40 minutes(including 10 minutes’ transfer time)



Candidate Name


SP (SM) S30783© UCLES 2002

Appendix 4.3

362

PA

RT

TW

O

Qu

esti

on

s 13

– 2

2

•Y

ou

will

he

ar

five

diff

ere

nt

pe

op

le t

alk

ing

ab

ou

t ru

nn

ing

th

eir o

wn

bu

sin

ess

.

•F

or

ea

ch e

xtra

ct t

he

re a

re t

wo

ta

sks.

Fo

r Ta

sk O

ne

, d

eci

de

th

e r

ea

son

th

ey

de

cid

ed

to

se

t u

p

the

ir o

wn

bu

sin

ess

fro

m t

he

list

A–

H.

Fo

r Ta

sk T

wo

, d

eci

de

wh

at

pro

ble

m t

he

y e

nco

un

tere

d

wh

ile r

un

nin

g t

he

ir b

usi

ne

ss f

rom

th

e li

st A

– H

.

•Y

ou

will

he

ar

the

re

cord

ing

tw

ice

.

TAS

K O

NE

– T

HE

RE

AS

ON

•F

or

qu

est

ion

s 13

– 1

7, m

atc

h t

he

ext

ract

s w

ith t

he

re

aso

ns,

list

ed

A–

H.

•F

or

ea

ch e

xtra

ct,

de

cid

e w

hy

the

sp

ea

ker

set

up

his

or

he

r o

wn

bu

sin

ess

.

•W

rite

on

ele

tter

(A–

H)

ne

xt t

o t

he

nu

mb

er

of

the

ext

ract

.

13..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

14..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

15..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

16..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

17..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

TAS

K T

WO

– T

HE

PR

OB

LE

M

•F

or

qu

est

ion

s 18

– 2

2, m

atc

h t

he

ext

ract

s w

ith t

he

pro

ble

ms,

list

ed

A–

H.

•F

or

ea

ch e

xtra

ct,

de

cid

e w

ha

t p

rob

lem

ea

ch s

pe

ake

r e

nco

un

tere

d w

hile

ru

nn

ing

th

eir b

usi

ne

ss.

•W

rite

on

ele

tter

(A–

H)

ne

xt t

o t

he

nu

mb

er

of

the

ext

ract

.

18..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

19..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

20..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

21..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

22..

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

AI

wa

nte

d m

ore

fre

e t

ime

.

BI

ha

d b

ee

n m

ad

e r

ed

un

da

nt.

CI

felt

that

I la

cked jo

b s

ecu

rity

.

DI

fou

nd

a p

art

icu

lar

pro

du

ct a

pp

ea

ling

.

EI

wa

nte

d m

ore

re

wa

rds

for

my

wo

rk.

FI

fou

nd

th

at

the

ne

cess

ary

ca

pita

l wa

s a

vaila

ble

to m

e.

GI

wa

nte

d t

o d

eve

lop

a p

art

-tim

e h

ob

by.

HI

wa

nte

d t

o w

ork

fro

m h

om

e.

AI

ne

arly

ran

ou

t o

f fu

nd

ing

.

BI

ha

d p

rob

lem

s w

ith s

up

plie

rs.

CI

had d

iffic

ulty

recr

uiti

ng s

taff.

DI

un

de

rest

ima

ted

th

e s

et-

up

co

sts.

EI

ha

d t

o w

ork

to

o m

an

y h

ou

rs.

FI

sud

de

nly

ha

d t

o c

ha

ng

e lo

catio

n.

GI

ha

d p

rod

uct

ion

pro

ble

ms.

HI

ne

ed

ed

mo

re m

ark

et

rese

arc

h.

PA

RT

ON

E

Qu

esti

on

s 1

– 12

•Y

ou

will

he

ar

the

Ch

airm

an

of

Ma

son

s, a

n in

tern

atio

na

l re

taile

r, r

ep

ort

ing

to

a m

ee

ting

of

sha

reh

old

ers

.

•A

s yo

u li

ste

n,

for

qu

est

ion

s 1

– 12

, co

mp

lete

th

e n

ote

s u

sin

g u

p t

o t

hre

ew

ord

s o

r a

nu

mb

er.

•Y

ou

will

he

ar

the

re

cord

ing

tw

ice

.

MA

SON

S

An

nu

al r

epo

rt t

o s

har

eho

lder

s

Rev

iew

1A

nnua

l pro

fits

rose

by

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

....

2£8

9.4m

pro

fit in

the

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.

356

0,00

0 sq

uare

met

res

of n

ew....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.....

4R

etai

l tur

nove

r up

by

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

Dev

elo

pm

ents

5N

ew....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.......

issue

d at

end

of t

he y

ear.

6Yo

rk s

tore

has

dev

elop

ed n

ew....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

7In

tens

e co

mpe

titio

n ne

cess

itate

d m

any

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

.

8....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.mak

e up

a q

uart

er o

f foo

d pr

oduc

ts.

9C

ompe

titor

s ha

ve s

low

er....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

.

10Ea

ch M

ason

s st

ore

has

a di

ffere

nt....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

......

.

The

fut

ure

11Pr

ofits

will

be

affe

cted

ove

r th

e ne

xt e

ight

een

mon

ths

by....

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

...

12O

ur p

rese

nt p

lan

for

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

........

will

gua

rant

ee lo

ng-t

erm

pro

fits.

Appendix 4.3

363

28

Acc

ord

ing

to

Me

lan

ie,

ho

w d

o s

om

e m

an

ag

ers

re

act

wh

en

th

eir s

taff

sho

w in

itia

tive

as

a r

esu

lt o

f

tra

inin

g?

AT

hey

fail

to n

otic

e it

.

BT

he

y a

pp

reci

ate

th

e c

ha

ng

e.

CT

he

y fe

el t

hre

ate

ne

d b

y it.

29

Ho

w d

oe

s M

ela

nie

be

lieve

th

at

ma

na

ge

rs s

ho

uld

co

ntr

ibu

te t

o t

he

tra

inin

g p

roce

ss?

Ab

y te

ach

ing

so

me

se

ssio

ns

of

the

tra

inin

g p

rog

ram

me

s th

em

selv

es

Bb

y e

xam

inin

g t

he

co

nte

nt

of

em

plo

yee

tra

inin

g p

rog

ram

me

s

Cb

y re

po

rtin

g o

n t

he

ove

rall

succ

ess

of

tra

inin

g p

rog

ram

me

s

30

In in

tro

du

cin

g s

taff

tra

inin

g,

Me

lan

ie s

ays

th

at

it is

imp

ort

an

t th

at

em

plo

yee

s

Aa

re c

on

sulte

d a

bo

ut

the

co

nte

nt

of

cou

rse

s.

Ba

re n

ot

ma

de

to

fe

el t

he

y m

ust

pa

rtic

ipa

te.

Cd

o n

ot

mis

un

de

rsta

nd

its

pu

rpo

se.

Th

at

is t

he

en

d o

f th

e L

iste

nin

g T

es

t. Y

ou

no

w h

av

e t

en

min

ute

s t

o t

ran

sfe

r y

ou

r a

ns

we

rs t

oy

ou

r A

ns

we

r S

he

et.

PA

RT

TH

RE

E

Qu

esti

on

s 23

– 3

0

•Y

ou

will

he

ar

a r

ad

io in

terv

iew

with

aco

mp

an

y tr

ain

er.

•F

or

ea

ch q

ue

stio

n 2

3 –

30,

ma

rk o

ne

lett

er

(A,

Bor

C)

for

the

co

rre

ct a

nsw

er.

•Y

ou

will

he

ar

the

re

cord

ing

tw

ice

.

23A

cco

rdin

g t

o M

ela

nie

Ch

am

be

rs,

ma

ny

tra

inin

g p

rog

ram

me

s fa

il to

Ae

nco

ura

ge

wo

rke

rs t

o s

tud

y a

lon

e.

Bd

ea

l with

wh

at

wo

rke

rs la

ck.

Co

ffer

wo

rke

rs t

he

ski

lls t

he

y a

sk f

or.

24T

he

inte

rvie

we

r su

gg

est

s th

at

Hu

ma

n R

eso

urc

e m

an

ag

ers

ha

ve

Ap

rob

lem

s h

irin

g t

he

rig

ht

kin

d o

f st

aff.

Bin

suffi

cie

nt

inte

rest

in c

ert

ain

asp

ect

s o

f th

eir w

ork

.

Cd

iffic

ulty

ta

kin

g a

n in

-de

pth

vie

w o

f p

erf

orm

an

ce.

25M

ela

nie

cite

s th

e e

xam

ple

of

Gly

mo

Ele

ctric

sto

sh

ow

th

at

ma

na

ge

rs m

ay

Ah

ave

se

lfish

re

aso

ns

for

no

t tr

ain

ing

sta

ff.

Bb

e h

eld

re

spo

nsi

ble

fo

r p

oo

r tr

ain

ing

pro

gra

mm

es.

Cb

e ju

stifi

ed

in ig

no

rin

g in

ad

eq

ua

cie

s in

sta

ff p

erf

orm

an

ce.

26M

ela

nie

sa

ys t

ha

t th

e m

ost

imp

ort

an

t th

ing

ab

ou

t b

asi

c sk

ills

tra

inin

g is

th

at

Ait

mu

st f

ocu

s o

n in

div

idu

al s

kills

an

d n

ot

inte

gra

te t

he

m.

Bit

sho

uld

be

sp

eci

fica

lly t

ailo

red

to

em

plo

yee

s’jo

bs.

Cit

sho

uld

be

ta

ug

ht

in t

he

wo

rk e

nvi

ron

me

nt.

27M

ela

nie

an

d t

he

inte

rvie

we

r a

gre

e t

ha

t th

e r

esu

lts o

f a

tra

inin

g p

rog

ram

me

Aca

n t

ake

ma

na

ge

rs b

y su

rprise

.

Bo

fte

n e

xce

ed

em

plo

yee

s’e

xpe

cta

tion

s.

Cm

ay

no

t b

e im

me

dia

tely

ob

vio

us.

Appendix 4.3

364

Appendix 4.3

365

Appendix 4.3

366

Appendix 4.3

367

Fo

r 2

ca

nd

ida

tes

Inte

rlo

cu

tor

Now

, in

this

part

of

the t

est,

I’m

goin

g t

o g

ive e

ach o

f you a

choic

e o

f th

ree d

iffe

rent

topic

s.

I’d lik

e y

ou t

o s

ele

ct

one o

fyour

topic

s a

nd t

alk

about

it f

or

about

ON

E m

inute

. Y

ou’ll

have

aro

und a

min

ute

to p

repare

this

. Y

ou’r

e a

llow

ed t

o m

ake

note

s,

if y

ou w

ant

to.

All

rig

ht?

Here

are

your

topic

s.

You c

an m

ake n

ote

s o

n t

he

spare

paper

while

you a

re p

repari

ng

to t

alk

. P

lease d

on’t w

rite

anyth

ing

on y

our

topic

card

.

[Hand e

ach c

andid

ate

a d

iffe

rent

topic

card

, e.g

. S

ets

1 a

nd 5

,and s

om

e s

pare

paper

and a

pencil

for

note

s.

Allo

w 1

min

ute

’s p

repara

tion t

ime.

Both

candid

ate

s p

repare

their

talk

sat

the s

am

e t

ime,

separa

tely

.]

All

rig

ht.

Now

,*B

, w

ould

you b

eg

in b

y t

elli

ng

us w

hic

h t

opic

you’v

e c

hosen?

When y

ou’v

e f

inis

hed t

alk

ing

,*A

will

ask y

ou a

question a

bout

your

talk

. *A

, you’r

e a

llow

ed t

o t

ake n

ote

s w

hile

*B

is t

alk

ing

.

*B,

would

you lik

e t

o b

eg

in?

[Candid

ate

B s

peaks f

or

1 m

inute

. O

nly

inte

rrupt

if h

e/s

he is

unable

to s

peak w

ithout

pro

mpting.]

Thank y

ou.

*A,

is t

here

anyth

ing

you’d

lik

e t

o a

sk

*B?

[If

candid

ate

B’s

talk

does n

ot

genera

te a

question f

rom

candid

ate

A,

the I

nte

rlocuto

r m

ay f

eel it a

ppro

pri

ate

to a

sk a

question inste

ad,

if t

ime a

llo

ws.]

* U

SE

CA

ND

IDA

TE

S' N

AM

ES

TH

RO

UG

HO

UT

TH

E T

ES

T

PA

RT

2:

Min

i-p

res

en

tati

on

s (

ab

ou

t 6

min

ute

s)

Appendix 4.3

368

Thank y

ou,

*B.

Now

,*A

, it’s

your

turn

. W

hen y

ou’v

e f

inis

hed

talk

ing

,*B

will

ask y

ou a

question a

bout

your

talk

.*B

, you’r

eallo

wed t

o t

ake n

ote

s w

hile

*A

is t

alk

ing

.

All

rig

ht?

*A,

do y

ou n

eed a

few

seconds t

o t

hin

k a

bout

your

topic

ag

ain

?

[Allo

w c

andid

ate

A t

en s

econds if

necessary

.]

Can y

ou t

ell

us w

hic

h t

opic

you’v

e c

hosen t

o t

alk

about,

*A?

Would

you l

ike t

o b

eg

in? [

Use o

nly

if

candid

ate

does n

ot

sta

rtth

e t

alk

im

media

tely

.]

[Candid

ate

A

speaks fo

r 1 m

inute

. O

nly

in

terr

upt

if he/s

he is

unable

to s

peak w

ithout

pro

mpting.]

Thank y

ou.

*B,

is t

here

anyth

ing

you’d

lik

e t

o a

sk

*A?

[If

candid

ate

A

’s

talk

does

not

genera

te

a

question

from

candid

ate

B

, th

e In

terlocuto

r m

ay fe

el

itappro

pri

ate

to

ask a

question inste

ad,

if t

ime a

llo

ws.]

Thank y

ou.

[R

etr

ieve m

ate

rials

.]

* U

SE

CA

ND

IDA

TE

S' N

AM

ES

TH

RO

UG

HO

UT

TH

E T

ES

T

Appendix 4.3

369

Fo

r 2 c

an

did

ate

s

Inte

rlo

cu

tor

[Hold

the c

ard

show

ing t

he t

ask w

hile

giv

ing t

he instr

uctions

belo

w.]

[Pla

ce t

he c

ard

in f

ront

of

the c

andid

ate

s.]

[If

ne

ce

ssa

ry,

giv

e c

larifica

tio

n.

Th

en

allo

w 3

0 s

eco

nd

s f

or

candid

ate

s t

o a

bsorb

the info

rmation a

nd t

o t

hin

k h

ow

to b

egin

.A

fter

about

30 s

econds,

encoura

ge c

andid

ate

s t

o b

egin

the

task,

if t

hey h

ave n

ot

alr

eady d

one s

o.]

[Do n

ot

join

in t

his

sta

ge o

f th

e d

iscussio

n u

nle

ss it

isnecessary

to p

rom

pt

the c

andid

ate

s t

o t

alk

.]

[Aft

er

the c

andid

ate

s h

ave f

inis

hed s

peakin

g t

he inte

rlocuto

rasks q

uestions a

nd f

inis

hes t

he s

peakin

g t

est,

as d

irecte

d o

nth

e e

xam

iner’s c

opy o

f th

e t

ask c

ard

.]

PA

RT

3:

Tw

o-w

ay c

oll

ab

ora

tive

ta

sk

an

d d

isc

us

sio

n (

ab

ou

t 7

min

ute

s)

You h

ave a

bout

30 s

econds

to r

ead t

his

task c

are

fully

, and

then a

bout

3 m

inute

s t

o d

iscuss a

nd d

ecid

e a

bout

it t

og

eth

er.

You’r

e e

xpecte

d t

o g

ive r

easons f

or

your

decis

ions a

nd

opin

ions.

You d

on’t n

eed t

o w

rite

anyth

ing

. I

s t

hat

cle

ar?

Are

you r

eady t

o b

eg

in?

I'll ju

st

liste

n a

nd t

hen a

sk y

ou t

osto

p a

fter

about

3 m

inute

s.

Ple

ase s

peak s

o t

hat

we c

an

hear

you.

Now

, th

is p

art

of

the t

est

is a

dis

cussio

n a

ctivity.

Appendix 4.3

370

Ta

sk

22

– E

xa

min

er’

s C

op

y

[Ret

riev

e m

ater

ials

.]

Than

k y

ou. T

hat

is

the

end o

f th

e sp

eakin

g t

est.

Inte

rlo

cuto

r: [

Sel

ect

on

e o

r m

ore

of

the

foll

ow

ing

qu

esti

on

s a

s a

pp

rop

ria

te,

to

redre

ss a

ny

imbala

nce

in P

art

3, or

to b

roaden

the

dis

cuss

ion.]

•W

hic

h i

nce

nti

ves

do y

ou t

hin

k a

re m

ost

eff

ecti

ve

for

enco

ura

gin

g p

eople

to w

ork

har

d? (

Wh

y?)

•W

hat

dis

ad

van

tag

es

could

ther

e be

in i

ncen

tive

schem

es? (

Wh

y?)

•Is

it

esse

nti

al f

or

com

pan

ies

to r

ewar

d e

xtr

a e

ffo

rt?

(W

hy/W

hy n

ot?

)

•H

ow

do y

ou t

hin

k a

com

pan

y c

an i

nsp

ire l

oy

alt

y i

n e

mp

loyees

?

•H

ow

do

yo

u t

hin

k t

he

trad

itio

nal

em

plo

yer/e

mp

loy

ee r

ela

tio

nsh

ip m

igh

t

chan

ge

in t

he

futu

re? (

Wh

y?)

Incen

tive S

ch

em

e f

or S

taff

Your

com

pan

y i

s co

nsi

der

ing

sett

ing

up a

n i

nce

nti

ve

sch

eme

to i

mpro

ve

staf

f per

form

ance

. Y

ou h

ave

been

ask

ed t

o m

ake

reco

mm

endat

ions

for

the

schem

e.

Dis

cuss

, an

d d

ecid

e to

get

her

:

•w

hat

ben

efit

s an

in

centi

ve

sch

eme

would

bri

ng t

o t

he

com

pan

y

•w

hat

typ

es o

f in

centi

ves

could

be

off

ered

Appendix 4.3

371

An

sw

er

Ke

ys

Read

ing

Part

1

1E

2D

3D

4A

5C

6B

7A

8E

Part

2

9C

10

B11

G12

F13

A14

D

Part

315

B16

A17

A18

D19

C20

A

Part

4

21

A22

C23

D24

B25

A26

D27

A28

B29

D30

A

Part

5

31

more

32

are

33

is34

no

35

to36

because

37

when

38

has

39

who/t

hat

40

it

Part

6

41

tim

e42

the

43

ho

w44

requir

em

ent

45

yet

46

som

e4

7C

OR

RE

CT

48

just

49

to50

on

51

CO

RR

EC

T52

us

Lis

ten

ing

Part

1

1 1

1%

2 F

inancia

l S

erv

ices D

ivis

ion

3 s

elli

ng s

pace

4 5

.5%

5 m

ail

ord

er

cata

logu

e6 d

isp

lay

form

at

7 p

rice r

eductions

8 n

ew

(pro

duct)

lines

9 in

no

vation

rate

/ra

te o

f in

no

va

tio

n10 la

yout

11 (

ne

w/m

ajo

r) investm

ents

12 e

xp

ansio

n

Part

2

13

D14

A15

F16

C17

H18

H19

G20

C21

A22

E

Part

3

23

B24

C25

A26

B27

A28

C29

B30

C

Ta

sk

26

– E

xa

min

er’

s C

op

y

Fo

r th

ree c

an

did

ate

s

[Ret

riev

e m

ate

rials

.]

Than

k y

ou. T

hat

is

the

end o

f th

e sp

eakin

g t

est.

Inte

rlo

cuto

r: [

Sel

ect

on

e o

r m

ore

of

the

foll

ow

ing

qu

esti

on

s a

s a

pp

rop

ria

te,

to

redre

ss a

ny

imbala

nce

in P

art

3, or

to b

roaden

the

dis

cuss

ion.]

•W

hic

h i

nce

nti

ves

do y

ou t

hin

k a

re m

ost

eff

ecti

ve f

or

enco

ura

gin

gp

eople

to w

ork

har

d? (

Wh

y?)

•W

hat

dis

ad

van

tag

es

could

ther

e be

in i

ncen

tive

schem

es? (

Wh

y?)

•Is

it

esse

nti

al f

or

com

pan

ies

to r

ewar

d e

xtr

a e

ffo

rt?

(W

hy/W

hy n

ot?

)

•H

ow

do y

ou t

hin

k a

com

pan

y c

an i

nsp

ire l

oy

alt

y i

n e

mp

loyees

?

•H

ow

do

yo

u t

hin

k t

he

trad

itio

nal

em

plo

yer/e

mp

loy

ee r

ela

tio

nsh

ip m

igh

tch

ange

in t

he

futu

re? (

Wh

y/W

hy n

ot?

)

Incen

tive S

ch

em

e f

or S

taff

Your

com

pan

y i

s co

nsi

der

ing

sett

ing

up a

n i

nce

nti

ve

sch

eme

to i

mpro

ve

staf

f per

form

ance

. Y

ou h

ave

been

ask

ed t

o m

ake

reco

mm

endat

ions

for

the

schem

e.

Dis

cuss

, an

d d

ecid

e to

get

her

:

•w

hat

ben

efit

s an

in

centi

ve

sch

eme

would

bri

ng t

o t

he

com

pan

y

•w

hat

typ

es o

f in

centi

ves

could

be

off

ered

•w

hic

h e

mplo

yees

in t

he

com

pan

y s

hould

be

targ

eted

Appendix 4.3

372

£2

mill

ions

to

near

ly £

9 m

illio

ns.

On

the

other

han

d,

we

can

noti

ce t

hat

dom

esti

c sa

les

hav

e bee

n ne

glec

ted,

as

its

amou

nt

firs

t re

mai

ned

cons

tant

in

19

97

, th

en

fluc

tuat

ed

slig

htl

ybet

wee

n 19

98

and

20

00

, to

fin

ally

fal

l st

eadily

to

£6

mill

ions

.

Perh

aps,

th

e st

rate

gy

of

LTG

is

to

im

prov

e cu

rren

tly

its

expo

rtat

ions

wit

hou

t qu

ite

givi

ng a

way

its

dom

esti

c m

arke

t.

Scri

pt

B

All

majo

r conte

nt

poin

ts a

re i

nclu

ded

an

d t

he a

nsw

er

is w

ell

org

anis

ed

with

cle

ar

para

gra

phin

g,

an i

ntr

od

uctio

n a

nd a

conclu

sio

n.

The l

ang

uag

e,

ho

wever,

is a

dequ

ate

ra

ther

than g

ood f

or

this

leve

l.

Ba

nd

3

Scri

pt

C

This

rep

ort

com

pare

s th

e dom

esti

c an

d e

xpo

rt s

ales

mad

e by

LTG

fro

m 1

99

7to

20

01

by

usin

g a

grap

h a

s a

refe

renc

e.

The

firs

t th

ing

that

im

med

iate

ly c

atch

es t

he

eye

when

loo

king

at

the

grap

his

that

while

expo

rts

hav

e don

e ve

ryw

ell

grow

ing

dra

mat

ical

ly b

etw

een

199

7an

d 2

00

1, d

omes

tic

sale

s ar

e dec

reas

ing.

In 1

99

7 d

omes

tic

sale

s st

ood a

t £

8,0

00

,00

0.

Bet

wee

n 19

98

and

19

99

they

dro

pped

to

£7

,50

0,0

00

. T

his

los

s w

as f

ollo

wed

by

a ti

mid

gro

wth

in

20

00

,w

ith s

ales

ris

ing

to £

8,0

00

,00

0 a

gain

. H

owev

er,

this

ten

den

cy s

oon

stop

ped

and in

20

01

sale

s fe

ll to

£6

,00

0,0

00

.

Expo

rts

onth

e co

ntra

ry,

hav

e bee

n co

nsta

ntly

gro

win

g.

The

yra

pidly

ros

efr

om £

5,0

00

,00

0 in

199

8-1

99

9 t

o ne

arly

£10

,00

0,0

00

in

20

01.

Ther

efor

eI

wou

ld r

ecom

men

d L

TG

to

conc

entr

ate

excl

usiv

ely

on f

orei

gncu

stom

ers.

Scri

pt

C

There

is o

ne m

inor

conte

nt

om

issio

n -

no s

tart

ing f

igure

for

export

s.

Ap

art

fro

m t

hat

the a

nsw

er

isw

ell-

org

an

ised

with

cle

ar

para

gra

phin

g,

intr

oduction a

nd c

onclu

sio

n.

There

are

fe

w e

rrors

an

d a

reasona

bly

good r

ang

e o

f la

ngu

age.

Ba

nd

4

Wri

tin

g S

am

ple

Sc

rip

ts

Pa

rt 1

Scri

pt

A

LTG S

ALES

1.T

erm

s of

Ref

eren

ces

As

an s

tuden

t in

Par

k La

ne C

olle

ge,

I hav

e bee

n as

ked t

ow

rite

are

port

com

pari

ng t

he

two

sets

of

sale

s (d

omes

tic

and e

xpo

rt s

ales

)fr

om 1

99

7 t

o 2

00

1.

2.

Proc

eedin

gsI

hav

e us

ed a

grap

h co

mpa

ring

th

e ex

port

sa

les

of

LTG

wit

h

its

dom

esti

c sa

les

from

19

97

to

20

01.

3.

Fin

din

gsD

omes

tic

Sal

es:

Fro

m

199

7

till

199

8

sale

s ke

pt

stea

dly

in

£

8,

dec

reas

ing

in 1

99

9 t

o £

7,

then

inc

reas

e st

eadly

to

£8

in

20

00

and

then

aga

in d

ecre

ase

to £

6 in

20

01.

Expo

rt S

ales

: I

n 19

98

inc

reas

e sh

arpl

y fr

om £

2 t

o £

5,

stea

dly

till

199

9 a

nd t

hen

inc

reas

e dra

mat

ical

ly t

o £

9 in

20

01.

4.

Con

clus

ion

Dom

esti

c S

ales

has

kep

t st

eadly

in

£8

, al

teri

ng i

ts s

ales

£1

up a

nddow

n, a

lthou

gh f

rom

20

00

-20

01

dec

reas

ed t

o £

6.

Expo

rt

Sal

es

has

in

crea

sed

shar

ply

thro

ugh

all

that

ye

ars

(19

97

-2

00

1).

Scri

pt

A

This

task

fails

to r

each a

n a

deq

uate

sta

ndard

on b

oth

task a

chie

vem

ent

and l

angu

age

. I

t la

cks

range a

nd

the

ap

pro

pri

ate

la

ngu

age f

or

a d

escri

ption

of

a g

rap

h.

Ba

nd

2

Scri

pt

B

Gen

eral

ly s

peak

ing,

bet

wee

n 19

97

and

20

01,

the

amou

nt o

f LT

G s

ales

hav

ele

velle

d o

ff, pa

ssin

g fr

om £

10 m

illio

ns t

o ne

arly

£15

mill

ions

. B

ut d

omes

tic

and E

xpo

rt s

ales

hav

e ev

olve

d d

iffe

rent

ly.

As

the

com

pany

hav

e dev

elop

ped i

ts E

xpo

rt s

ales

, th

e am

ount

of

this

sal

ehav

e in

crea

sed d

ram

atic

ally

, ex

cept

in

199

8 w

hen

it

rem

aine

d c

onst

ant,

fro

m

Appendix 4.3

373

Scri

pt

EQ

uesti

on

3

A P

ropo

sal fo

r Tra

ining

New E

mploy

ees

This

pro

posa

l ou

tlin

es r

elev

ant

trai

ning

for

our

rece

ntly

hir

ed n

ew p

roje

ctm

anag

ers.

T

hei

rdut

ies

cons

ist

of t

akin

g th

e ov

eral

l re

spon

sibili

ty o

f th

epr

ojec

ts, m

eeti

ng t

he

tim

etab

les,

org

anis

ing

the

proj

ect

wor

k an

d m

otiv

atin

gth

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts.

Tra

inin

g at

th

e ve

ry

beg

inni

ng

is

need

ed

to

mak

e su

re

that

th

e ne

wem

ploy

ees

can

focu

s th

eir

effo

rts

effi

cien

tly.

T

he

prop

osed

tra

inin

g w

ould

incl

ude

less

ons

in m

anag

emen

t an

dpr

ojec

t w

ork.

La

ngua

ge l

esso

ns w

ould

impr

ove

our

new

pr

ojec

t m

anag

ers’

ab

ility

to

co

mm

unic

ate

wit

h

fore

ign

proj

ect

part

icip

ants

. Le

sson

s in

man

agem

ent

and p

roje

ct w

ork

are

need

ed t

oun

der

stan

d t

he

dyn

amic

s of

bus

ines

s lif

e an

d c

o-op

erat

ion.

Our

cu

stom

ers

follo

w

very

ca

refu

lly

how

w

e pe

rfor

m

thin

gs

we

hav

epr

omis

ed.

As

a la

st

item

in

th

e pr

opos

ed

trai

ning

w

ould

be

less

ons

inte

amw

ork.

It i

s im

port

ant

to e

mph

asiz

e th

e m

eani

ng o

f go

od t

eam

wor

k fo

rth

e ne

w e

mpl

oyee

s.

A g

ood c

o-op

erat

ion

wit

h c

olle

ague

s an

d s

har

ing

of w

ork

and inf

orm

atio

n bri

ngs

usua

lly t

he

bes

t re

sult

s, t

oo.

Aft

erth

ebas

ic t

rain

ing

prop

osed

in

this

pap

er,

it w

ould

be

good

if

we

coul

dfo

llow

, ho

wth

e ne

wem

ploy

ees

are

able

to

us

e in

th

eir

wor

k th

e ne

wkn

owle

dge

ga

ined

in

th

e tr

aini

ng.

F

or

this

pu

rpos

e w

e co

uld

arra

nge

afe

edbac

k m

eeti

ng a

bou

t tw

o m

onth

s af

ter

the

bas

ic t

rain

ing.

Sum

mary

– T

raining

needed

-m

anag

emen

t &

pro

ject

wor

k-

lang

uage

s-

team

wor

king

ski

lls.

Scri

pt

E

There

is a

reaso

nab

le a

chie

vem

ent

of

the t

ask,

assum

ing t

ha

t H

R k

no

ws

wh

ich d

epart

ment

has

‘recently

hir

ed n

ew

pro

ject m

anagers

’. L

ang

uag

e a

nd v

ocab

ula

ryare

adeq

uate

.

Ba

nd

3

Pa

rt 2

Scri

pt

DQ

uesti

on

2

Intro

duc

tion

The

aim

of t

his

repo

rt i

s to

des

crib

e th

e ac

ciden

t th

at h

as r

ecen

tly

take

npl

ace

in o

uror

gani

sato

n an

d t

ose

e if

any

mea

sure

s ca

n be

take

n to

pre

vent

sim

ilar

acci

den

ts h

appe

ning

.

Findings

The

key

find

ings

are

out

lined

bel

ow.

It w

as f

ound

that

rec

ent

dat

es r

elat

ed t

o ap

poin

tmen

ts w

ith c

lient

s, f

inal

cont

ract

s th

at h

ad t

o be

sign

ed a

nd s

ever

al inv

oice

sth

at h

ad t

o be

sent

, had

bee

n m

isse

d.

This

was

due

to

the

fact

that

our

com

pute

r ag

enda

stop

ped

wor

king

for

sev

eral

day

s la

stw

eek.

This

was

pro

bab

ly a

s a

resu

lt o

f ei

ther

a t

echni

cal

prob

lem

of

the

com

pute

rsy

stem

its

elf

orju

st a

n el

ectr

icit

y bla

ck o

ut.

Ther

efor

e, t

he

dep

artm

ent

has

alr

eady

calle

d s

ome

tech

nici

ans

to h

ave

ever

ythin

g ch

ecke

d.

Con

clus

ion

It is

clea

r th

at o

uror

gani

sati

on c

an n

ot m

iss

impo

rtan

t dat

es j

ust

bec

ause

it

keep

s al

l th

e in

form

atio

n in

a c

ompu

ter

syst

em.

It i

s ob

viou

s th

at s

ome

mea

sure

s ne

ed t

o be

take

n to

avo

id t

hat

sim

ilar

acci

den

ts w

ill h

appe

n ag

ain

in t

he

futu

re.

Reco

mmend

ation

It is

ther

efor

e su

gges

ted t

hat

our

em

ploy

ee r

egis

ter

all th

e in

form

atio

n an

dth

e dat

es n

ot o

nly

in t

he

com

pute

r ag

enda

but

in

a pa

pery

one

too

.

In t

his

way

, if

som

ethin

g hap

pens

to

the

com

pute

r sy

stem

, ou

ror

gani

sati

onw

ill b

e ab

le a

nyw

ay t

o ga

ther

the

info

rmat

ion

it n

eeds

and n

ot t

o lo

ose

the

dat

es!

Scri

pt

D

This

answ

er

does

not

ade

qua

tely

dea

l w

ith t

he t

ask s

et, d

escri

bin

g a

n i

ncid

ent

rath

er

than a

naccid

ent.

Ba

nd

2

Appendix 4.3

374

Scri

pt

F

This

answ

er

sho

ws a

goo

d r

ea

lisa

tio

n o

f th

e t

ask s

et

with

all

majo

rconte

nt

poin

tsin

clu

de

d.

There

are

few

err

ors

, but

the r

ange

of

langu

age c

ould

be i

mpro

ved

up

on,

part

icu

larl

y th

e o

ver-

relia

nce

on ‘w

ill’.

Ba

nd

4

Scri

pt

FQ

uesti

on

4

Mr.

Bla

ckS

t. J

ohn’

s H

ospi

tal

‘Addre

ss’

4 J

une

02

Dea

r M

r. B

lack

,

Osl

o Ph

arm

aceu

tica

l T

rade

Fai

r

I am

wri

ting

to

invi

te y

ou t

o a

trad

e fa

ir t

akin

g pl

ace

in O

slo

in J

uly

this

year

.

The

Osl

o Ph

arm

aceu

tica

l T

rade

Fai

r is

arr

ange

d e

very

fif

th y

ear

and i

s on

eof

th

e gr

eate

st

trad

e fa

irs

run

in

Sca

ndin

avia

. T

he

mos

t im

port

ant

phar

mac

euti

cal

com

pani

es

in

Nor

ther

n E

urop

e w

ill

atte

nd

this

fa

ir,

and

Am

ersh

am

Hea

lth

will

hav

e a

stan

d

ther

e.

T

he

dif

fere

nt

com

pani

esat

tend

ing

will

pre

sent

thei

r pr

oduc

ts.

The

fair

will

be

arra

nged

fro

m 5

-7 J

uly

20

02

, st

arti

ng a

t 10

am

. T

he

even

tw

ill t

ake

plac

e at

‘Sj

lyst

con

fere

nce

cent

re’ j

ust

outs

ide

Osl

o.

Am

ersh

am H

ealt

h A

S w

ill p

rese

nt a

nd d

emon

stra

te t

he n

ew p

har

mac

euti

cal

prod

ucts

of t

he

com

pany

. W

ew

ill f

ocus

on

our

ultr

asou

nd c

ontr

ast

med

ia.

In a

ddit

ion,

lec

ture

rsre

late

d t

ore

sear

ch p

roduc

ts w

ill b

e hel

d.

We

will

aim

to g

ive

det

aile

d i

nfor

mat

ion

abou

t ou

r pr

oduc

ts.

It

shou

ld b

e of

par

ticu

lar

inte

rest

for

radio

logi

sts

and m

edic

al d

octo

rs t

ose

e how

ou

r ul

tras

ound

cont

rast

med

ia,

Opt

ison

®,

can

faci

litat

e in

vest

igat

ions

of

hea

rt p

erfu

sion

.T

his

alo

ne s

hou

ld m

ake

the

fair

wor

th v

isit

ing.

We

wou

ld a

ppre

ciat

e if

you

or

any

of y

our

colle

ague

s w

ould

lik

e to

att

end

this

eve

nt.

We

wou

ld b

e gr

atef

ul if

you

coul

d r

espo

nd b

y fa

x o

r e-

mai

l by

25

Jun

e 0

2.

Plea

se s

ee t

he

lett

er h

eadin

g fo

r det

ails

.

I lo

ok v

ery

muc

h f

orw

ard t

o hea

ring

fro

m y

ou.

You

rs s

ince

rely

Mar

iann

e W

.Wul

ffA

mer

sham

Hea

lth A

S.

Appendix 4.3

375

Superv

isor:

HI

GH

ER

BE

C H

igh

er

Read

ing

An

sw

er

Sh

eet

00

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ca

nd

ida

te N

am

eIf

no

t a

lre

ad

y p

rin

ted

, w

rite

na

me

in C

AP

ITA

LS

an

d c

om

ple

te t

he

Can

did

ate

No

. g

rid

(in

pen

cil).

Can

did

ate

’s S

ign

atu

re

Exam

inati

on

Tit

le

Cen

tre

If t

he

ca

nd

ida

te is A

BS

EN

To

r h

asW

ITH

DR

AW

Nsh

ad

e h

ere

Can

did

ate

No

.

Cen

tre N

o.

Exam

inati

on

Deta

ils

9Part

2

�

Tu

rn o

ver

for

Part

s 5

an

d 6

Ins

tru

cti

on

sU

se

a P

EN

CIL

(B

or

HB

).

Ru

b o

ut

an

y a

nsw

er

yo

u w

ish

to

ch

an

ge

with

an

era

se

r.

Fo

r P

art

s 1

to

4:

Ma

rk o

ne

bo

x f

or

ea

ch

an

sw

er.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

If y

ou

th

ink C

is t

he

rig

ht

an

sw

er

to t

he

qu

estio

n,

ma

rk y

ou

r a

nsw

er

sh

ee

t like

th

is:

Fo

r P

art

s 5

an

d 6

:

Write

yo

ur

an

sw

er

cle

arly in

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S.

Write

on

e le

tte

r in

ea

ch

bo

x.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

AB

C0

0

10

11

12

13

14

15P

art

3

16

17

18

19

20

21P

art

4

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1Part

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BE

C H

- R

DP

46

2/3

62

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

AB

CD

E

AB

CD

E

AB

CD

E

AB

CD

E

AB

CD

E

AB

CD

E

AB

CD

E

AB

CD

E

Appendix 4.3

376

Superv

isor:

HI

GH

ER

BE

C H

igh

er

Lis

ten

ing

An

sw

er

Sh

eet

00

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Can

did

ate

Nam

eIf

no

t a

lre

ad

y p

rin

ted

, w

rite

na

me

in C

AP

ITA

LS

an

d c

om

ple

te t

he

Can

did

ate

No

. g

rid

(in

pen

cil).

Can

did

ate

’s S

ign

atu

re

Exam

inati

on

Tit

le

Cen

tre

If t

he

ca

nd

ida

te is A

BS

EN

To

r h

asW

ITH

DR

AW

Nsh

ad

e h

ere

Can

did

ate

No

.

Cen

tre N

o.

Exam

inati

on

Deta

ils

Instr

ucti

on

sU

se

a P

EN

CIL

(B

or

HB

).

Ru

b o

ut

an

y a

nsw

er

yo

u w

ish

to

ch

an

ge

with

an

era

se

r.

Continue o

n the o

ther

sid

e o

f th

is s

heet

�

Fo

r P

art

s 2

an

d 3

:

Ma

rk o

ne

bo

x f

or

ea

ch

an

sw

er.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

If y

ou

th

ink C

is t

he

rig

ht

an

sw

er

to t

he

qu

estio

n,

ma

rk y

ou

r a

nsw

er

sh

ee

t lik

e t

his

:

AB

C0

Fo

r P

art

1:

Write

yo

ur

an

sw

er

cle

arly in

CA

PIT

AL

LE

TT

ER

S.

Write

on

e le

tte

r o

r n

um

be

r in

ea

ch

bo

x.

If t

he

an

sw

er

ha

s m

ore

th

an

on

e w

ord

, le

ave

on

e b

ox e

mp

ty b

etw

ee

n w

ord

s.

Fo

r e

xa

mp

le:

Part

1

1

01

1

2

01

2

3

01

3

4

01

4

0

BE

C H

- L

DP

46

4/3

64

Part

5

32

31

01

01

34

01

01

35

01

31

32

33

34

35

36

01

37

01

36

37

38

01

39

01

38

39

40

01

40

33 P

art

6

42

41

01

01

44

01

01

45

01

41

42

43

44

45

46

01

47

01

46

47

48

01

49

01

48

49

50

01

50

43

51

01

51

52

01

52

Appendix 4.3

377

Fe

ed

ba

ck

Fo

rm

BE

C H

igh

er

Exam

inati

on

Rep

ort

Ju

ne 2

002

We a

re inte

reste

d in h

eari

ng y

our

vie

ws o

n h

ow

usefu

l th

is r

eport

has b

een.

We w

ou

ld b

e m

ost gra

tefu

l if

you c

ould

bri

efly

answ

er

the f

ollo

win

g q

uestions

and r

etu

rn a

ph

oto

co

py

of

this

pa

ge t

o th

e f

ollo

win

g a

ddre

ss:

BE

C C

o-o

rdin

ato

rC

am

bri

dge E

SO

L1 H

ills R

oad

Cam

bri

dge

CB

1 2

EU

UK

Fax: 44 1

223

46

027

8

1.

Ple

ase d

escri

be y

our

situa

tio

n: (e

.g.

EF

L t

eacher,

Dir

ecto

rof

Stu

die

s,

Exam

inatio

ns O

ffic

er,

Local

Secre

tary

, etc

)

2.

Have y

ou p

repare

d c

an

did

ate

s f

or

BE

C H

igher?

3.

Do y

ou p

lan to

pre

pare

ca

nd

idate

s f

or

BE

C H

igher

in the

futu

re?

4.

Ho

w h

ave

you u

sed t

his

rep

ort

? (

e.g

. to

pro

vid

e f

eed

back to o

ther

teach

ers

, fo

r exam

ination

pra

ctice, e

tc.)

5.

Whic

h p

art

s o

f th

is r

eport

did

you f

ind m

ost usefu

l?

6.

Whic

h p

art

s w

ere

no

t so u

sefu

l?

7.

What extr

a info

rmation w

ould

yo

u lik

e to s

ee inclu

de

d in

th

is r

ep

ort

?

8.

Your

nam

e: (O

ption

al)

Centr

e/S

cho

ol:

Thank y

ou.

Part

1 c

on

tin

ue

d

16

15

175

01

5

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

2 -

Task O

ne

23

AB

C

14

13

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

3

25

24

26

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

27

28

AB

C

AB

C

29

AB

C

6

01

6

7

01

7

8

01

8

9

01

9

10

01

10

11

01

11

12

01

12

Part

2 -

Task T

wo

21

20

22

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

19

18

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

30

AB

C

Part

1 -

Co

nvers

ati

on

Tw

o

Part

1 -

Co

nvers

ati

on

Th

ree

16

15

175

01

5

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

2 -

Secti

on

On

e

23

AB

C

14

13

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

Part

3

25

24

26

AB

C

AB

C

AB

C

27

28

AB

C

AB

C

29

AB

C

6

01

6

7

01

7

8

01

8

9

01

9

10

01

10

11

01

11

12

01

12

Part

2 -

Secti

on

Tw

o

21

20

22

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

19

18

AB

CD

EF

GH

AB

CD

EF

GH

30

AB

C

Fe

ed

ba

ck

Fo

rm

BE

C V

an

tag

e E

xam

inati

on

Rep

ort

Ju

ne 2

002

We a

re inte

reste

d in h

eari

ng y

our

vie

ws o

n h

ow

usefu

l th

is r

eport

has b

een.

We w

ou

ld b

e m

ost gra

tefu

l if

yo

u c

ould

bri

efly a

nsw

er

the f

ollo

win

g q

uestions

and r

etu

rn a

ph

oto

co

py

of

this

pa

ge t

o th

e f

ollo

win

g a

ddre

ss:

BE

CR

ep

ort

s C

o-o

rdin

ato

rC

am

bri

dge E

SO

L1 H

ills R

oad

Cam

bri

dge

CB

1 2

EU

UK

Fax: 44 1

223

46

027

8

1.

Ple

ase d

escri

be y

our

situa

tio

n: (e

.g.

EF

L t

eacher,

Dir

ecto

rof

Stu

die

s,

Exam

inatio

ns O

ffic

er,

Local

Secre

tary

, etc

)

2.

Have y

ou p

repare

d c

an

did

ate

s f

or

BE

CV

an

tag

e?

3.

Do y

ou p

lan to

pre

pare

cand

idate

s f

or

BE

CV

an

tag

e in th

e f

utu

re?

4.

Ho

wh

ave

yo

uused t

his

rep

ort

? (

e.g

. to

pro

vid

e f

eed

back

to o

ther

teach

ers

, fo

rexam

ination

pra

ctice, e

tc.)

5.

Whic

h p

art

s o

fth

is r

eport

did

you f

ind m

ost usefu

l?

6.

Whic

h p

art

s w

ere

not so u

sefu

l?

7.

What extr

a info

rmation w

ould

yo

u lik

e to s

ee inclu

de

d in

th

is r

ep

ort

?

8.

Your

nam

e: (O

ption

al)

Centr

e/S

cho

ol:

Tha

nk y

ou

.

378

Additional information on testsof language for businesspurposes

Tests of European language for business purposes: ALTE members

* BULATS is currently available in English, French, German and Spanish

CEFLevels

Italian English French German Spanish

C2 DSEC(DiplômeSupérieurd’EtudesCommerciales)

DEN (Diplomade Espanol de losNegocios)

C1 CIC(Certificato diItalianoCommerciale)advanced

BEC(BusinessEnglishCertificate)Advanced

PWD(PrüfungWirtschaftsdeutschInternational)

B2 BEC(BusinessEnglishCertificate)Intermediate

ZDf B(ZertifikatDeutsch fürden Beruf)

CEN(Certificado deEspanol de losNegocios)

B1 CIC(Certificato diItalianoCommerciale)Intermediate

BEC(BusinessEnglishCertificate)Preliminary

A2

A1

Contact information for business language test developers

Additional information on tests of language for business purposes

379

Organisation Address Website

Pitmanqualifications

City and Guilds PitmanQualifications1 Giltspur StreetLondon EC1A 9DD United Kingdom

Fax: +44 (0) 20 7294 3502

www.pitmanqualifications.com

LCCIEB LCCIEB Corporate Headquarters112 Station RoadSidcup KentDA15 7BJUnited Kingdom

Phone: +44 (0) 20 8309 3000Fax: +44 (0) 20 8302 4169

www.lccieb.com/Lcci/Home/Index.asp

TOEIC TOEIC Service International TOEIC Testing Program Educational Testing Service Rosedale Road Princeton, NJ 08541, USA

Phone: +1 (609) 734-1540 Fax: +1 (609) 734 1560

www.toeic.com/index.htm

Cambridge ESOL University of CambridgeESOL Examinations1 Hills RoadCambridgeCB1 2EUUnited Kingdom

Phone: +44 (0) 1223 553355Fax: +44 (0) 1223 460278

www.cambridge-efl.org/index.html

JETRO 2-5, Toranomon 2-chome, Minato-ku,Tokyo 105-8466

Tel: 03-3582-5511Fax: 03-3587-0219

www.jetro.go.jp/it/e/bj/index.html

AllianceFrançaiseCentreinternationald’étudespédagogiques

Alliance Française101, Bd Raspail75270 Paris Cedex 06France

Tel.: +33-1-45 44 38 28Fax: +33-1-45 49 15 82E-mail:[email protected]

www.alliancefr.org/

380

Additional information on tests of language for business purposes

Organisation Address Website

The Goethe-Institut

Goethe-Institut Inter NationesHelene-Weber-Allee 1München80637Germany

Tel +49 89 15921 382Fax +49 89 15921 608E-mail [email protected]

www.goethe.de/dll/prf/pba/pwd/deindex.htm

Università perStranieri, Perugia

University for Foreigners –Perugia Palazzo Gallenga Piazza Fortebraccio, 4 06122 Perugia – Italy

Tel +39/075/5746467 Fax +39/075/5746456 E-mail: [email protected]

www.unistrapg.it

InstitutoCervantes andUniversidad deSalamanca

Instituto CervantesColegio del ReyC/ Libreros, 23Madrid 28801 Alcalá de HenaresSpain

Tel +34-91-745 3334Fax +34-91-745 0058E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

www.cervantes.es

381

References

Abdul-Raof, A H (2002) The production of a performance rating scale: An alternativemethodology, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Reading.

APA (1999) The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, WashingtonDC: American Psychological Association.

Alderson, J C (1998) DIALANG, paper presented at the Language Testing Forum,Swansea, November 1998.

Alderson, J C and Urquhart, A H (1984) ESP Tests: The problem of student backgrounddiscipline, in Culhane, T, Klein-Braley, C and Stevenson, D K (Eds) Practice andProblems in Language Testing, Essex: University of Essex, 1–13.

Alderson, J C and Urquhart, A H (1985) The effect of students’ academic discipline ontheir performance in ESP reading tests, Language Testing 2 (2), 192–204.

Alderson, J C and Urquhart, A H (1988) This test is unfair: I’m not an economist, inCarrell, P, Devine, J and Eskey, D (Eds) Interactive Approaches to SecondLanguage Reading, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 168–182.

Alwright, J and Alwright, R (1977) An approach to the teaching of medical English, inHolden, S (Ed.) English for Specific Purposes, Modern English Publications, 58–62.

Anastasi, A (1988) Psychological Testing, New York: Macmillan.

Ashton, M (2003) The change process at the paper level. Paper 1, Reading in Weir, C Jand Milanovic, M (2002) (Eds) Continuity and Innovation: Revising the CambridgeProficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge: University ofCambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press,121–174.

Bachman, L (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bachman, L and Palmer, A (1996) Language testing in practice, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bachman, L F, Lynch, B and Mason, M (1995) Investigating Variability in Tasks andRater Judgements in a Performance Test of Foreign Language Speaking, LanguageTesting 12 (2), 238–257.

Bachman, L F, Davidson, F, Ryan, K and Choi, I–C (1995) An investigation into thecomparability of two tests of English as a Foreign Language: The Cambridge–TOEFL comparability study, Cambridge: University of Cambridge LocalExaminations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.

Ball, F (2002) Developing wordlists for BEC, Research Notes 8, 10–13.

Barber, C L (1962) Some Measurable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose,reprinted in Swales, J (Ed.) 1988 Episodes in ESP, New York: Prentice Hall, 1–16.

References

382

Barratt, N (2003) The change process at the paper level. Paper 3, Use of English, inWeir, C J and Milanovic, M (2002) (Eds) Continuity and Innovation: Revising theCambridge Proficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge: Universityof Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press,237–314.

Beeching, K (1997) French for specific purposes: the case for spoken corpora, AppliedLinguistics 18 (3), 374–394.

Berry, V (1996) Ethical considerations when assessing oral proficiency in pairs, paperpresented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tampere, Finland.

Berry, V (1997) Gender and personality as factors of interlocutor variability in oralperformance tests, paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium,Orlando, Florida, USA.

Biber, D, Conrad, S and Reppen, R (1998) Corpus linguistics: investigating languagestructure and use, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bordeaux, D (2002) Communicating for Results, Motor Age, 121 (1), 40–42.

Boroughs, R (2003) The change process at the paper level. Paper 4, Listening, in Weir,C J and Milanovic, M (2002) (Eds) Continuity and Innovation: Revising theCambridge Proficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge: Universityof Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press,315–364.

Brindley, G (1984) The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme Design, inJohnson, R K (Ed.) The Second Language Curriculum, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 63–79.

Brooks, L (2003) Converting an Observation Checklist for use with the IELTS speakingpaper, Research Notes 11, 20–21, Cambridge ESOL.

Brown, A (1995) The Effect of Rater Variables in the Development of an OccupationSpecific Language Performance Test, Language Testing, 12 (1), 1–15.

Brown, A (1998) Interviewer style and candidate performance in the IELTS oralinterview, paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, MontereyCA.

Brown, A and Lumley, T (1997) Interviewer Variability in Specific-Purpose LanguagePerformance Tests, in Huhta, A Kohonen, V, Kurki-Suonio, L and Luoma, S (Eds)Current Developments and Alternatives in Language Assessment, Jyväskylä:University of Jyväskylä and University of Tampere, 137–150.

Brown, J D (1996) Testing in Language Programs, Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall Regents.

Brown, J D (1997) Computers In Language Testing: Present Research And SomeFuture Directions, Language Learning & Technology, 1 (1), 44–59.

Brown, W M, Palmeta, B and Moore, B (2003) Are there nonverbal cues tocommitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentationparadigm, Evolutionary Psychology 1, 42–69.

Buck, G (2001) Assessing Listening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BULATS (Undated/a) BULATS Standard Test, EN00, Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL.

BULATS (Undated/b) BULATS Speaking Test, EN40, Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL.

References

383

BULATS (Undated/c) BULATS Writing Test, EN60, Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL.

Bygate, M (1987) Speaking, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cambridge ESOL (2002a) Business English Certificates: BEC PreliminaryExamination Report and Past Examination Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge ESOLExaminations.

Cambridge ESOL (2002b) Business English Certificates: BEC Vantage ExaminationReport and Past Examination Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL Examinations.

Cambridge ESOL (2002c) Business English Certificates: BEC Higher ExaminationReport and Past Examination Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL Examinations.

Canale, M and Swain, M (1980) Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches toSecond Language Teaching and Testing, Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47.

Carver, D (1983) Some propositions about ESP, ESP Journal 2, 131–137.

Center for Applied Linguistics (2001) Self-instructional Rater Training Kits forSimulated Oral Proficiency Interviews, Washington DC: Center for AppliedLinguistics.

Chalhoub-Deville, M (Ed.) (1999) Issues in computer adaptive testing of readingproficiency, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chalhoub-Deville, M (2001) Language Testing and Technology: Past And Future,Language Learning and Technology 5 (2), 95–98.

Chalhoub-Deville, M (2003) Second language interaction: current perspectives andfuture trends, Language Testing 20 (4), 369–383.

Chapelle, C (1998) Construct definition and validity enquiry in SLA Research, inBachman, L and Cohen, A (Eds) Interfaces between second language acquisitionand language testing research, New York: Cambridge University Press, 32–70.

Chia, R C, Allred, L T, Grossnickle, W F and Lee, G W (1998) Effects of attractivenessand gender on the perception of achievement-related variables, Journal of SocialPsychology 138 (4), 471–477.

CIC (2003a) Certificazione della conoscenza dell’italiano commerciale: Handbook,Perugia: Universiti per Stranreiri.

CIC (2003b) Certificazione della conoscenza dell’italiano commerciale:http://www.cvcl.it/canale.asp?id=34 (website accessed September 2005).

Clapham, C M (1996) The Development of IELTS: A Study of the Effect of BackgroundKnowledge on Reading Comprehension, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Congdon, P J and McQueen, J (2000) The stability of rater severity in large-scaleassessment programs, Journal of Educational Measurement 37, 163–178.

Coniam, D (2001) The use of audio or video comprehension as an assessmentinstrument in the certification of English language teachers: A case study, System 29,1–14.

Cumming, A (2001) ESL/EFL instructors’ practices for writing assessment: specificpurposes or general purposes? Language Testing 18 (2), 207–224.

Davies, A (2001) The logic of testing languages for specific purposes, LanguageTesting 18 (2), 133–147.

Dickerson, L (1975) The learner’s interlanguage as a system of variable Rules, TESOLQuarterly 9 (4), 401–407.

References

384

Douglas, D (2000) Assessing languages for specific purposes, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Douglas, D (2001) Language for specific purposes assessment criteria: where do theycome from? Language Testing 18 (2), 171–185.

Dudley-Evans, R and St John, M J (1996) Report on Business English: A review ofresearch and published teaching materials, TOEIC Research Report #2, PrincetonNJ: Educational Testing Services.

Educational Testing Services (1986) TOEIC Users Guide, Princeton NJ: EducationalTesting Services.

Educational Testing Services (1998) TOEIC Technical Manual, Princeton NJ:Educational Testing Services.

Educational Testing Services (1999) TOEIC Users Guide, Princeton NJ: EducationalTesting Services.

Educational Testing Services (2002) TOEIC: Examinees Handbook, Princeton: TheChauncey Group International.

Educational Testing Services (2003a) Test de français international: TOEIC:www.toeic.-europe.com/pages/eng/tfi.htm

Educational Testing Services (2003b) Test de français international: TOEIC–Europe:www.toeic-europe.com/pages/eng/tfi.htm#description

Educational Testing Services (2001) TSE & SPEAK Score Users Guide: 2001–2002Edition, Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Services.

Elder, C (2001) Assessing the language proficiency of teachers: are there any bordercontrols? Language Testing 18 (2), 149–170.

Ellis, R (1989) Sources of Intra-Learner Variability in Language, in Gass, S, Madden,C, Preston, D and Selinker, L (Eds) Variation in Second Language Acquisition, vol.2: Psycholinguistic Issues, Clevedon PA: Multilingual Matters, 22–45.

Engelhard, G Jr. (1994) Examining rater error in the assessment of written compositionwith a many-faceted Rasch model, Journal of Educational Measurement 31, 93–112.

Feldt, L S and Brennan, R L (1989) Reliability, in Linn, R L (Ed.) EducationalMeasurement, New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan, 105–146.

ffrench, A (2003) The change process at the paper level, Paper 5, Speaking, in Weir, C Jand Milanovic, M (Eds) Continuity and Innovation: Revising the CambridgeProficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge: University ofCambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press,367–472.

Field, J (2000) CPE Revision Paper 4: Listening, Unpublished internal UCLES report.

Fisher, A G (1994) Development of a functional assessment that adjusts abilitymeasures for task simplicity and rater leniency, in Wilson, M (Ed.) Objectivemeasurement: Theory into practice, Vol II. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex PublishingCorporation, 145–175.

Foot, M C (1999) Relaxing in Pairs, ELT Journal 53 (1), 36–41.

Fulcher, G (1996) Testing tasks: issues in task design and the group oral, LanguageTesting 13 (1), 23–51.

References

385

Gledhill, C (2000) The Discourse Function of Collocation in Research ArticleIntroductions, English for Specific Purposes 19, 115–135.

Gutteridge, M (2003) Assistive technologies for students with special needs, ResearchNotes 12, 15.

Hawkey, R (1978) English for Special Purposes, London: British Council EnglishTeaching Centre.

Hawkey, R (1982) An investigation of inter-relationships between cognitive/affectiveand social factors and language learning, A longitudinal study of 27 overseasstudents using English in connection with their training in the United Kingdom,Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of English for Speakers of OtherLanguages, Institute of Education, London.

Hawkey, R (2001) Towards a common scale to describe L2 writing performance,Research Notes 5, 9–13.

Hawkey, R (2004) The development of CELS: A modular approach to testing EnglishLanguage Skills, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local ExaminationsSyndicate and Cambridge University Press.

Hawkey, R and Barker, F (2004) Developing a common scale for the assessment ofwriting, Assessing Writing 9 (2), 121–159.

Holden, S (Ed.) (1977) English for Specific Purposes, Modern English Publications.

Hughes, A (1989) Language Testing for Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hüllen, W (1981a) Movements on Earth and in the Air: a study of certain verbsoccurring in the language of international pilots, ESP Journal 1 (2), 141–153.

Hüllen, W (1981b) The teaching of English for special purposes: a linguistic view, inFreudenstein, R et al (Eds) Language Incorporated: Teaching foreign languages inindustry, Pergamon and Max Hueber Verlag, 57–71.

Hutchinson, T and Walters, A (1987) English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centredapproach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D H (1972) On Communicative Competence, in Pride, J B and Holmes, J (Eds)Sociolinguistics: selected readings, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 269–293.

Jacoby, S and McNamara, T F (1999) Locating competence, English for SpecificPurposes 18 (3), 213–241.

JETRO (2003a) The JETRO JRLT, Introduction, Tokyo: JETRO:www.jetro.go.jp/it/e/bj/guide/index.html

JETRO (2003b) Sample Questions from the Listening and Reading ComprehensionTest, Tokyo: JETRO: www.jetro.go.jp/it/e/bj/guide/test-sample.html

JETRO (2003c) The JETRO JOCT, Introduction, Tokyo: JETRO:www.jetro.go.jp/it/e/bj/guide/joct.html

Johns, A (1980) Cohesion in written business discourse: some contrasts, ESP Journal 1(1), 35–44.

Jones, N (2000) Background to the revised ALTE ‘Can Do’ project and the revisedCommon European Framework, Research Notes 2, 11–14.

Jones, N (2001a) The Can Do Project, paper presented at the IATEFL Conference,Brighton, April 2001.

References

386

Jones, N (2001b) The ALTE ‘Can Do’ Project and the role of measurement inconstructing a proficiency framework, Research Notes 5, 5–8.

Just, M A, Carpenter, P A, Keller, T A, Emery, L, Zajac, H and Thulborn K R (2001)Interdependence of Nonoverlapping Cortical Systems in Dual Cognitive Tasks,NeuroImage 14 (2), 417–426.

Kennedy, C and Bolitho, R (1984) English for Specific Purposes, London: MacmillanPress Ltd.

Kenyon, D (1997) Further research on the efficacy of rater self-training, in Huhta, A,Kohonen, V, Kurki-Suonio, L and Luoma, S (Eds) Current developments andalternatives in language assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 96, Jyvaskyla, Finland:University of Jyvaskyla, 257–273.

Labov, W (1963) The social motivation of sound change, Word 19, 273–307.

Lackstrom, J, Selinker, L and Trimble, L (1973) Technical rhetorical principles andgrammatical choice, TESOL Quarterly 7, 127–136.

Lado, R (1961) Language Testing, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lamprianou, I and Pillas, K (2003) The Effect of Markers and Optional Questions onthe Results of High-Stakes Exams, paper presented at the AERA Conference,Chicago, April 2003.

Lazaraton, A (1992) The structural organisation of a language interview: aconversational analytic perspective, System 20 (3), 373–386.

Lazaraton, A (1996) Interlocutor support in Oral Proficiency Interviews: the case ofCASE, Language Testing 13 (2), 151–172.

Loevinger, J (1954) The attenuation paradox in test theory, Psychological Bulletin 51,493–504.

LCCIEB (1972) The non-specialist use of foreign languages in industry and commerce,Sidcup: London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board.

LCCIEB (2001a) English for Business, Level 3: Extended Syllabus, London: LondonChamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board.

LCCIEB (2001b) German for Business, Level 3: Extended Syllabus, London: LondonChamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board.

LCCIEB (2001c) Spanish for Business, Level 3: Extended Syllabus, London: LondonChamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board.

LCCIEB (2001d) French for Business, Level 3: Extended Syllabus, London: LondonChamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board.

LCCIEB (Undated) English for Business, Preliminary Level: Sample Paper, London:London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Examinations Board, available atwww.lccieb.org.uk/lcciebweb/downloads/EFBPrelimSamplePaper.pdf

Longford, N T (1994) Reliability of essay rating and score adjustment, Journal ofEducational and Behavioral Statistics 19, 171–200.

Lumley, T (1998) Perceptions of language-trained raters and occupational experts in atest of occupational English language proficiency, English for Specific Purposes 17(4), 347–367.

Lumley, T (2000) The process of the assessment of writing performance: the rater’sperspective, Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

References

387

Lumley, T and McNamara, T F (1995) Rater characteristics and rater bias: implicationsfor training, Language Testing 12 (1), 54–71.

Lumley, T and O’Sullivan, B (2001) The Effect of Test-Taker Sex, Audience and Topicon Task Performance in Tape-Mediated Assessment of Speaking, Melbourne Papersin Language Testing 9 (1), 34–55.

Lumley, T, Lynch, B K and McNamara, T F (1994) A new approach to standard-settingin language assessment, Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 3, 19–40.

Lunz, M E and Stahl, J A (1990) Judge consistency and severity across grading periods,Evaluation and the Health Professions 13, 425–444.

Lunz, M E, Wright, B D and Linacre, J M (1990) Measuring the impact of judgeseverity on examination scores, Applied Measurement in Education 3, 331–345.

Luoma, S (2004) Assessing Speaking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McNamara T F (1997) ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment:whose performance, Applied linguistics 18, 446–466.

McNamara, T F (1996) Measuring Second Language Performance, London: Longman.

McNamara, T F and Lumley, T (1997) The effect of interlocutor and assessment modevariables in offshore assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings,Language Testing 14 (2), 140–156.

McNeil, L and Valenzuela, A (2000) The Harmful Impact of the TAAS System ofTesting in Texas: Beneath the Accountability Rhetoric, in Orfield, G and Kornhaber,M L (Eds) Raising Standards or Raising Barriers? New York: The Century PressFoundation.

Milanovic, M and Saville, S (Eds) (1996) Performance Testing, Cognition andAssessment: selected papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium,Cambridge and Arnhem, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local ExaminationsSyndicate and Cambridge University Press.

Munby, J (1978) Communicative Syllabus Design, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Myford, C M and Wolfe, E W (2000) Strengthening the Ties that Bind: Improving theLinking Network in Sparsely Connected Rating Designs, TOEFL Technical Report15, Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Services.

Myford, C M and Wolfe, E W (2002) When raters disagree, then what: examining athird-rating discrepancy resolution procedure and its utility for identifying unusualpatterns of ratings, Journal of Applied Measurement 3, 300–324.

Norris, J, Brown, J D, Hudson, T and Yoshioka, J (1998) Designing Second LanguagePerformance Assessments, Technical Report #18, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’iPress.

North, B and Schneider, G (1998) Scaling Descriptors for Language Proficiency Scales,Language Testing 15, 217–262.

North, B (1996) The development of a common framework scale of descriptors oflanguage proficiency based on a theory of measurement, Unpublished PhDdissertation, Thames Valley University.

O’Sullivan, B (1995) Oral Language Testing: Does the Age of the Interlocutor make aDifference? Unpublished MA Dissertation. UK: University of Reading.

References

388

O’Sullivan, B (1999) Revision of the Test of English for Educational Purposes, projectfunded by the Centre for Applied Language Studies, UK: University of Reading.

O’Sullivan, B (2000a) Towards a Model of Performance in Oral Language Testing,Unpublished PhD Thesis, UK: University of Reading.

O’Sullivan, B (2000b) Exploring Gender and Oral Proficiency Interview Performance,System, 28 (3) 2000:373–386.

O’Sullivan, B (2002a) Learner Acquaintanceship and Oral Proficiency Test Pair-TaskPerformance, Language Testing, 19 (3):277–295.

O’Sullivan, B (2002b) Defining the Test Taker: Theoretical and Practical Implications,plenary address at the CTELT 2002, Dubai.

O’Sullivan, B (2003) Computers in Language Testing: A Negative Perspective, Pre-conference Event – Debate: Computers in Language Testing, IATEFL Conference,Brighton, April 2003.

O’Sullivan, B and Lu, Y (2003) An empirical study on examiner deviation from the setinterlocutor frame in the IELTS speaking paper, Research project funded byIELTS/British Council.

O’Sullivan, B and Rignall, M (2001) A longitudinal analysis of the effect of feedback onrater performance on the IELTS General Training writing module, Research projectfunded by IELTS/British Council.

O’Sullivan, B and Rignall, M (2002) Assessing the value of multi-faceted Rasch biasanalysis based feedback to raters for the IELTS writing module, Research projectfunded by IELTS/British Council.

O’Sullivan, B and Weir, C (2002) Research Issues in Speaking Assessment, Cambridge:UCLES internal report.

O’Sullivan, B and Weir, C (2000) Issues in Task Difficulty, Paper presented at theLanguage Testing Forum, University of Bristol, November 2000.

O’Sullivan, B and Weir, C (2003) Does the computer make a difference? Reactions ofcandidates to a computer delivered versus traditional hand written academic formsof the IELTS writing component, Research project funded by IELTS/British Council.

O’Sullivan, B, Weir, C and Saville, N (2002) Using observation checklists to validatespeaking-test tasks, Language Testing, 19 (1), 33–56

Oller, J (1979) Language Tests at School, New York: Longman.

Pitman Qualifications (2000) Examinations Report, London: City & Guilds.

Pitman Qualifications (2002) Examinations Report, London: City & Guilds.

Pitman Qualifications (2003) Centre Handbook, London: City & Guilds.

Pitman Qualifications (Undated) English for Business Communications, Level 1: PastPaper, London: City & Guilds.



References

389

Pollitt, A and Ahmed, A (1999) A New Model of the Question Answering Process, Paperpresented to the International Association for Educational Assessment in Bled,Slovenia, May 1999. Available at: www.ucles-red.cam.ac.uk/conferencepapers/IAEA1999APAA.pdf

Porter, D (1991a) Affective Factors in Language Testing, in Alderson, J C and North, B(Eds) Language Testing in the 1990s, London: Macmillan (Modern EnglishPublications in association with The British Council), 32–40.

Porter, D (1991b) Affective Factors in the Assessment of Oral Interaction: Gender andStatus, in Sarinee Arnivan (Ed.) Current Developments in Language Testing,Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Anthology Series 25, 92–102.

Porter, D and O’Sullivan, B (1999) The Effect of Audience Age on Measured WrittenPerformance, System 27 (1), 65–77.

Porter, D and Shen Shu Hung (1991) Gender, Status and Style in the Interview, TheDolphin 21, Aarhus University Press, 117–128.

Rethinasamey, S (in progress) The effects on rating performance of different traininginterventions, PhD research project, Roehampton, UK: Roehampton University.

Robinson, P C (1980) English for Specific Purposes, Oxford: Pergamon.

Robinson, P C (1985) Needs Analysis: From Product to Process, paper presented at the5th Annual ESP Symposium, Leuven, Belgium, August 1985.

Royal Society of Arts (1987) Report of the pilot scheme for the Certificate in EFL forSecretaries, London: RSA.

Rubinstein, J S, Meyer, D E and Evans, J E (2001) Executive Control of CognitiveProcesses in Task Switching, Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance 27 (4), 763–797.

Saville, N (2003) The process of test development and revision within UCLES EFL, inWeir, C J and Milanovic, M (2002) (Eds) Continuity and Innovation: Revising theCambridge Proficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge: Universityof Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press,57–120.

Saville, N and Hargreaves P (1999) Assessing speaking in the revised FCE, ELTJournal 53 (1), 42–51.

Schmidt, M (1980) Coordinate structures and language universals in Interlanguage,Language Learning 30, 397.

Schröder, K (1981) Methods of exploring language needs in industry, in Freudenstein,R et al (Eds) Language Incorporated: Teaching foreign languages in industry,Pergamon & Max Hueber Verlag, 43–54.

Selinker, L and Douglas, D (1985) Wrestling with ‘Context’ in Interlanguage Theory,Applied Linguistics 6 (2), 190–204.

Skehan, P (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Smith, J (1989) Topic and Variation in ITA Oral Proficiency, English for SpecificPurposes 8, 155–168.

Spolsky, B (1995) Measured Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

390

Sprouse, J L and Webb, J E (1994) The Pygmalion Effect and Its Influence on theGrading and Gender Assignment on Spelling and Essay Assessments, UnpublishedMaster’s Thesis, University of Virginia. ERIC_NO: ED374096.

Steffensen, M S and Joag-Dev, C (1984) Cultural knowledge and reading in Alderson, JC and Urquhart, A H (Eds) Reading in a Foreign Language, London: Longman.

Straus, G S, Miles, A J, Levesque, L L (2001) The effects of videoconference,telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and judgments in employmentinterviews, Journal of Management 27 (3), 363–381.

Swales, J (1971) Writing Scientific English, London: Thomas Nelson.

Swales, J (1984) ESP comes of age? – 21 years after ‘Some Measurable Characteristicsof Modern Scientific Prose’, UNESCO Alsed – LSP Newsletter 7, 2 (19), 9–20.

Sweedler-Brown, C O (1992) The Effect of Training on the Appearance Bias of HolisticEssay Graders, Journal of Research and Development in Education 26 (1), 24–29.

Tarone, E (1985) Variability in Interlanguage use: A study of style shifting inmorphology and syntax, Language Learning 35 (3), 373–404.

Tarone, E (1988) Variation in Interlanguage, London: Edward Arnold.

Taylor, L (2000) Investigating the paired speaking format, Research Notes 2, 14–15.

Taylor, L and Gutteridge, M (2003) Responding to diversity: providing tests forlanguage learners with disabilities, Research Notes 11, 2–4.

Teasdale, A (1994) Authenticity, validity, and task design for tests of well defined LSPdomains, in Khoo, R (Ed.) LSP Problems & Prospects, Singapore: SEAMEO RELC,230–242.

Thurstun, J and Candlin, C (1998) Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary ofAcademic English, English for Specific Purposes 17 (3), 267–280.

University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (1994) CEIBT Review:March–May 1994, Unpublished internal document.

University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (1999) Minimum ProfessionalRequirements, Unpublished internal document.

University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (2000a) EFL Research atUCLES, Research Notes 1, 2–4.

University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (2000b) BEC Handbook,Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.

University of Oxford Delegacy of Local Examinations (1990) Oxford InternationalBusiness English Certificate, Oxford: UODLE.

Vargo, S (1994) Attention to Nonverbal Cues: A View Through the Perceptual Lens ofGender Schema, Unpublished PhD, Indiana University.

Weighill, B and Shaw, S (2003) The change process at the paper level, Paper 2, Writing,in Weir, C J and Milanovic, M (2002) (Eds) Continuity and Innovation: Revising theCambridge Proficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge: Universityof Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press,175–236.

Weigle, S C (1994) Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions, Language Testing11 (2), 197–223.

Weigle, S C (1998) Using FACETS to model rater training effects, Language Testing15 (2), 264–288.

Weir, C J (1983) Identifying the language needs of overseas students in tertiaryeducation in the United Kingdom, Unpublished PhD dissertation, UK: University ofLondon.

Weir, C J (1993) Understanding and Developing Language Tests, London: Longman.

Weir, C J (2002) The History of the CPE, 1913–2013, paper presented at the IATEFLConference, York April 2002.

Weir, C J (2003a) A Survey of the history of the Certificate of English (CPE) in thetwentieth century, in Weir and Milanovic (Eds) Continuity and Innovation: Revisingthe Cambridge Proficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge:University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge UniversityPress, 1–56.

Weir, C J (2003b) Conclusions and Recommendations, in Weir and Milanovic (Eds)Continuity and Innovation: Revising the Cambridge Proficiency in EnglishExamination 1913–2002, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local ExaminationsSyndicate and Cambridge University Press, 473–478.

Weir, C J (2004) Language Testing and Validity Evidence, Oxford: Palgrave.

Weir, C J and Milanovic, M (Eds) (2003) Continuity and Innovation: Revising theCambridge Proficiency in English Examination 1913–2002, Cambridge: Universityof Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.

West, R (1994) Needs analysis in language teaching, Language Teaching 27 (1), 1–16.

Wilds, C P (1975) The oral interview test, in Jones, R L and Spolsky, B (Eds) TestingLanguage Proficiency, Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 29–44.

Wilson, K M (1989) Enhancing the interpretation of a norm-referenced second-language test through criterion referencing: A research assessment of experience inthe TOEIC testing context, TOEIC Research Reports #1, Princeton NJ: EducationalTesting Services.

Woodford, P E (1982) An introduction to TOEIC: The initial validity study, TOEICResearch Summary – Introduction, Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Services.

References

391

393

AAccommodations 91Administration 20–21, 23, 35, 52, 53, 57–58,

73, 78, 81, 85, 98–112, 115, 127, 146ALTE Can Do 26, 43, 84, 86-91, 187ALTE Levels 45, 48, 63, 78, 84, 97,

107–108, 126–127, 129, 141, 150, 188ALTE, members 47, 104 (Table 2.5) Assessment 43, 48, 83–85, 106, 109, 115,

117, 127, 176Assessment, educational 22Assessment, performance 4, 73, 75Assessment, scales 4, 12–14, 15, 52, 56Attenuation paradox 97Authenticity 1, 3–5, 7–8, 16, 21–23, 28–29,

32–35, 38–39, 45–46, 50–51, 53–54,56–57, 58, 77, 80-81, 96, 159, 168, 173(Table 4.25), 174, 175, 176, 190, 193

Authenticity interactional 7, 15, 22, 29, 35,39, 42, 45, 51, 53, 57, 60, 62, 74, 79, 80–81,98, 183, 187, 188

Authenticity situational 7, 14–15, 21, 29, 35,42, 45, 50, 53, 57, 60, 61–62, 74, 76, 79, 80,93, 98, 177, 182–183

B Background, academic 4Background, cultural 6Background, in business 52, Background knowledge 4-7, 13, 17, 23, 24,

29, 45, 54, 61, 161, 173 (Table 4.25) Background, language 37, 83 Background, variables 92BEC 182, 184, 188–193BEC, original 2, 8, 60, 77–79BEC, revision process 82–118 BEC, major changes 119–129 BEC, wordlists 176–177BEC, detailed changes 130–173Bias 19, 23, 74, 91, 97, 101BULATS 2–3, 37, 63–77, 187

C CEF 11, 25, 43, 45, 48, 54, 63, 87, 89 (Figure

2.4), 90, 93, 107, 126–127, 129, 181 CEFLS 2, 55–57, 61, 62CEIBT 2, 57–60, 61, 63, 78

CIC 2, 42–47Computer 67, 70–71, 108, 186–187Consequential validity 103Consistency, internal 8, 20–21, 59, 94, 97,

111, 131, 184–185, 189Consistency, grading 107–111Construct, definition 10, 13, 15, 17–19, 26,

29, 31, 36–38, 41, 43, 46, 48–49, 51, 52–53,80, 90–94, 131, 132, 139, 170, 173 (Table4.25)

Construct, validity 95–97, 108 Consultation 113, 118Context 3, 71, 78, 79 Context, validity 7, 34–35, 92–93, 175,

179–180, 182 Context, focused 32, 85, 175,189Context, specific 4, 7, 9, 13-15, 21, 29, 42,

45, 50, 53, 69, 76, 79, 82, 125, 138, 145,157, 159, 161

Context, oriented 32, 85, 175, 189Corpus/corpora 3, 82, 93, 176–177

D DIALANG 37Difficulty, level 25, 59, 108, 110–111Difficulty, item 108, 111Difficulty, task 56, 144, 191Dictation 32

E ESP 1–2Examiner 4Examiner effect 32, 53, 73, 186, 188–189Examiner frame (see also Interlocutor frame)

125 (Figure 3.2)Examiner role 31, 52, 53, 58, 100, 109, 125,

150, 159, 170, 192Examiner training 4, 11Examiner, RICTME 106–107

F Facets 100, 185Fairness 85, 117, Function, language 9, 37, 39, 53, 72, 83,

157–159, 161, 167, 168, 191–192Function, rhetorical 6

Index

Index

394

G Generalisability 14, 41, 63, 80, 174, 176–177Grading 106, 109–111, 112Graphical Profiling 119-120

I Impact, of non linguistic factors 4, 15, 23,

29–30, 35, 39–40, 42, 46, 51, 57, 77, 79, 81,173 (Table 4.25), 174, 175

Impact, of test 83, 95, 103–104, 115Indigenous scale 10, 13, 15, 189Instructions 28, 30, 70–71, 74, 108, 180 Item, bank 45, 58, 105, 108–109interlocutor 51, 100, 123, 159–160, 161, 192Interlocutor frame (see also Examiner frame)

168–170, 193Internal consistency 20–21, 97–99, 102, 111,

131, 184–185, 189IRT

J JETRO 2, 52JOCT 52–54

L LCCIEB 1, 2, 5, 6, 24, 35–40, 63, 85, 98, 191LSP 5–8, 10, 13, 17–18, 57, 80, 174, 176,

188, 193

M Marking, double 77, 109–110, MCQ 16, 19, 22, 38, 41, 45, 98, 133

O Observation checklists 84, 85, 157–159OIBEC 60, 61-63

P Paired Format 61, 167, 170Performance conditions 3, 93, 102 Performance test 2, 11, 13, 73, 75, 79, 101,

106Pitman 2, 24–35, 98PLAB 5, 11Practicality 104–107, 192Pronunciation 9, 71, 94 (Figure 2.8), 170Proof-reading 31, 32Psychometrics 19, 75 Psychometric–structuralism 2, 19, 41, 187

R Rasch, multi-faceted 100–102, 108, 187Rater agreement 185Rater reliability 100, 184Rater consistency 189Rater training 4, 11, 186, 189, 190Reliability 97–103, 184–186Royal Society of Arts 2, 55–56,

S Scoring validity 90, 92, 94, 175, 185Senior team leader 106–107, 115, 119Socio-cognitive 92, 178Specifications 26, 37, 59, 64, 92–93, 103,

113, 114, 144Specificity 5, 6, 7, 14–15, 18, 21–23, 28–29,

32–35, 38–39, 42, 45–46, 50–51, 53–54,60, 63, 76, 79, 80, 81, 125, 157, 159, 168,173 (Table 4.25), 174–175, 176–182, 193

Stakeholder 61–62, 78, 84, 113, 115, 126,127, 157, 176

Standardisation 109, 186, 189, 190

T Task format 57–58TEEP 11–12Test development 3, 8–9, 77–78, 82–90, 103,

114, 179, 187, 193Test revision 58, 60, 79, 82–118, 188, 190,

193TFI 2–3, 40–42Theory-based validity 4, 22, 92, 179,

182–183, 187 TOEIC 2, 16–23, 40–42, 52, 55, 60, 86, 191

U UCLES 2, 57, 77, 108 Usefulness 15, 90, 95, 104, 106, 115, 172

V VRIP 95–106, 117

W Washback 121, 123, 140Weighting 46, 117, 120–124, 127–128, 141,

144

issues in testing business english - cambridgeenglish.org · an empirical investigation of the...

Documents