The corrected platform: when the announcement changes its mind
Year 12 mock for the IM German listening paper. Eight short items, each recording played twice with a 30-second pause; no transcript, and candidates write in an answer booklet. Maria scores 3/8. Item 3 is a station announcement: “Der Zug nach Salzburg fährt heute wegen Bauarbeiten von Gleis 9 ab - Entschuldigung, ich wiederhole: von Gleis 9. Gleis 7 ist gesperrt.” In her booklet the number 7 is written, crossed out, replaced with 9, then followed by “7?”. Item 5: “Der Regionalzug nach Villach fällt heute aus; Reisende nehmen bitte den Bus.” She writes “20 Minuten später” - she has carried over the word Bauarbeiten from Item 3. Item 7 is a shop announcement giving an opening time that is corrected mid-sentence; she leaves it blank. Afterwards she says: “I understood every word but I still got it wrong.” Twenty minutes of listening per week are available before the exam, plus one full mock.
1. Identify the distinct listening sub-skills Maria is missing. Give the evidence for each from her answers, and say which kind of intervention would be wasted effort.
Read the worked answer
Three separate failures, not one:
- Monitoring self-repair. In Item 3 the speaker revises the platform. Maria heard both versions and wrote both, so decoding is intact - she has no procedure for deciding which version is operative. The repair signals are lexical and predictable: Entschuldigung, ich wiederhole, ich korrigiere mich, genauer gesagt. She is not listening for them.
- Item separation / inhibition. Item 5 has nothing to do with Bauarbeiten; “20 Minuten später” is a plausible-sounding answer manufactured from Item 3's context. This is an attention and guessing habit: she produces something rather than leaving a blank, and she does not re-anchor at the start of each new item.
- Transactional disruption vocabulary. Item 7 is blank, which suggests fällt aus / entfällt / Ersatzverkehr / verkehrt are not yet fast enough to free working memory for the corrected time.
What would be wasted: a vocabulary-building programme. Her self-report (“I understood every word”) matches the profile - comprehension is fine, selection is not. The 20 minutes should go on deciding, not on decoding.
2. How should the Item 3 answer (“7 / 9 / 7?”) be marked, and what must happen before the next set of scripts is marked?
Read the worked answer
Award nothing for the item, and say why out loud to the class.
- A listening answer must be a single determinate piece of information. “7 / 9 / 7?” is a transcript of indecision. Accepting it would reward writing down everything heard and would fail to distinguish Maria from a candidate who confidently wrote 9. The item exists to discriminate.
- The convention must exist before the marking, not after. If the department's policy is “accept any alternative mentioned in the passage”, that must be printed on the mark scheme for this item and applied to every script. Choosing generosity at the desk for a sympathetic candidate is how mark schemes stop being comparable.
- Check the item design. Is the item testing the correction, or station vocabulary? If the correction is the point, only 9 can score. If the correction is accidental, the item is badly built and the candidate is being punished for a schema conflict the item created - flag it for revision rather than for the candidate.
- Feed back with the transcript. Let Maria annotate where the speaker changed their mind. The diagnostic value is worth more than the mark.
3. Design the weekly 20-minute routine. Specify activities, timings and one rule you will not break.
Read the worked answer
- 4 min - final-value dictation. Read eight short announcements; four contain a correction. Students write only the final value, nothing else. Immediate pair check. This trains inhibition directly.
- 5 min - shadowing then gapped transcript. Play a 45-second announcement; students shadow it. Then hand out the same text with the repair markers blanked out and let them fill them from memory of the sound.
- 6 min - exam-format burst. Four items, real timings, played twice, no extended pause. The format must match the exam or the training teaches the wrong pacing.
- 5 min - error log. Each student writes the word that made them change their answer; the class builds a wall list of repair phrases (ich wiederhole, entschuldigen Sie, genauer gesagt, ich korrigiere mich).
- The rule not to break: no third listening and no transcript before the second playing. The exam gives two, and every extra listening quietly teaches candidates to wait rather than to decide.