The memorised monologue in a lost-property role play
Oral exam simulation, 12 minutes: prepared topic (3 min), role play (4 min), general conversation (5 min). Jonathan has strong vocabulary - he uses Werkstatt, Verspätung and unbedingt correctly and unaided. He has learned a 90-second monologue, “Meine Ferien in Berlin”, and launches into it during the role play. The card reads: “Sie sind im Fundbüro in München. Ihre Tasche ist im Bus liegen geblieben. Beschreiben Sie die Tasche, und fragen Sie, was Sie jetzt tun müssen.” The examiner plays the clerk and consistently uses Sie. Jonathan opens with “Hallo, wie geht's dir?”, recycles the Berlin monologue for about 40 seconds, asks “How do you say Quittung?” in English without paraphrasing afterwards, and with 20 seconds left asks “Muss ich etwas bezahlen?” He never describes the bag and never asks about the claim procedure. Pronunciation is clear; delivery is fast, with “also, äh, und so” filling most gaps. The department must agree a mark out of 25 and produce written feedback he can act on.
1. Map each behaviour onto the oral criteria (task fulfilment and interaction, range, accuracy, pronunciation and fluency). State which behaviours should be penalised, under which criterion, and which should not be penalised twice.
Read the worked answer
- Recycled Berlin monologue - a task-fulfilment problem, not a language problem. The language in it is good; it simply is not the answer to the card. Penalise under task fulfilment/interaction only. Do not also cut range: his range is genuinely above the group.
- “Hallo, wie geht's dir?” to a clerk - register failure. One slip could be a lapse; sustained du across four minutes is a pattern. In a public office the examiner's Sie sets the frame, so this is a communicative failure. Penalise once, under interaction/appropriateness. Penalise again under accuracy only if the department's scheme explicitly separates address forms - most do not, and counting it twice is double jeopardy.
- English question, no paraphrase - using L1 is a legitimate strategy; failing to follow it with a German paraphrase is not. He could have said ein Papier, das ich bekomme. Penalise lightly under interaction (repair), not under range for one missing noun.
- Missing bag description and missing claim procedure - the two core functions of the card, both absent. This is the largest single loss and it belongs entirely to task fulfilment.
- Speed with heavy fillers - fluency is not speed. Where fillers replace content, treat it as coherence, not as fluent delivery to be rewarded.
2. Should the examiner have intervened during the role play? What must be written in the examiner's notes, and how does that change the task-fulfilment score?
Read the worked answer
Yes, once, and only in German, and only after Jonathan has clearly finished a turn - not mid-monologue. A scripted prompt such as “Und was ist in der Tasche?” is normal examiner behaviour: a role play that dies in silence tests nothing. But every prompt is evidence, so it must be logged.
Notes should be behavioural, not evaluative. Quote, do not summarise:
- “S: 'Hallo, wie geht's dir?' - du with clerk, repeated 3×”
- “40 s Berlin monologue after card issued; no bag described”
- “Prompt given: 'Und was ist in der Tasche?' - S: 'Eine Tasche, schwarz.' One noun, no detail.”
- “L1: 'How do you say Quittung?' - no paraphrase.”
Scoring consequence: task fulfilment is judged on functions achieved independently, not on time filled. Zero of two core functions achieved, one of them only after a prompt, belongs at the bottom of that criterion - even with a 5/5 for range. A final mark that shows range 5 and task 2 is internally consistent; a mark that averages everything into “quite good” is not defensible if challenged.
3. Give three drills that target the actual weaknesses, with the German phrases you would automatise.
Read the worked answer
1. Register-switch drill (5 min, recurring). Six situation cards - Fundbüro, Arztpraxis, Gastfamilie, Jugendherberge, Lehrerin, Freund. He produces only the first two sentences, switching address form correctly, 60 seconds per card. The point is speed of first move, not length.
2. Repair-phrase automatisation. He needs these to be reflex, not translation:
- Wie sagt man das? Ich meine …
- Entschuldigung, könnten Sie das bitte wiederholen?
- Ich kenne das Wort nicht - es ist so etwas wie …
- Darf ich kurz auf Deutsch weitermachen?
3. Card discipline (30 seconds preparation). He writes three keywords, never sentences, one per bullet on the card, then speaks 90 seconds hitting each keyword before he is allowed to say anything else. This attacks the monologue-recycling habit at its root - the monologue exists because he has nothing prepared for the actual card.
Audit: record 60 seconds, transcribe it, and count content words against fillers. He will see the ratio himself, which is more persuasive than being told.