Correct answers, nothing to assess
Mei is ten and has studied English for four years. She reads well, writes accurate sentences and follows classroom instructions without difficulty. In a mock Flyers Speaking test she answered every question correctly, but almost always in one or two words:
'Do you like swimming?' - 'Yes.' 'What did you do at the weekend?' - 'Park.' 'Tell me about your family.' - 'Mother, father, brother.'
The examiner's lines are fixed by the script; the teacher cannot add prompts or help during the test itself. Mei's teacher proposes drilling the exact Flyers Speaking questions until Mei can produce a memorised three-sentence reply to each one.
1. Is this a language problem or a test-behaviour problem? Justify from the evidence given.
Read the worked answer
It is a behaviour problem, and the evidence is the accuracy of what she says.
'Yes', 'Park' and 'Mother, father, brother' are all correct answers to the questions asked. Nothing she produced was wrong; it was short. Her classroom writing shows she can build full sentences, so the language is available.
What she has not learned is that the speaking test rewards extending an answer with a reason, a detail or a follow-up of her own - and that a one-word answer, however accurate, hands the examiner almost nothing to assess. A child cannot be credited for language she does not produce.
The distinction matters because it decides the remedy: a language problem is fixed by teaching English, this one by changing what she does with the English she has.
2. Why is memorising three-sentence replies to the scripted questions a poor plan? Give two distinct reasons.
Read the worked answer
First, the questions do not fit the replies. Part 1 questions are short and personal - 'How old are you?', 'Where do you live?', 'How do you come to school?'. A rehearsed three-sentence answer to 'How old are you?' is bizarre, and one of the things being assessed is whether the exchange sounds like a conversation.
Second, it trains delivery, not listening. If she is retrieving a block of text, she is not processing the question in front of her. The moment the examiner rephrases, follows up, or asks something in Part 2 that is not on her list, the block no longer fits and she is back to one-word answers with no strategy.
There is a milder version of the plan that is defensible - practising with unfamiliar questions - but once the content is memorised the skill has been swapped for a script.
3. Describe one routine you would run instead, including the conditions under which it must be practised.
Read the worked answer
Answer-plus-one.
Every answer in class earns one extra piece of information: 'Yes, I do - I go swimming on Saturdays.' Run it as a points game: answer alone is one point, answer plus a relevant detail is two. The detail must be relevant, not extra sentences for their own sake, so the class votes on whether the added information actually answered something.
Conditions that matter:
- Practise with an adult Mei does not know well. Half the problem is that she is fluent with her own teacher and reverts with a stranger.
- Practise with questions she has not seen. The target is 'add a detail to whatever I am asked', not 'recall my answer to question 7'.
- Keep it short - ten minutes, twice a week, for three weeks.
Success looks like: in a fresh mock, with a different adult, she adds a detail to at least half her Part 1 answers without being prompted - and the details are about the question asked.