The Michigan ECPE Speaking Test

The Michigan ECPE speaking test involves two candidates and two examiners with a structured
conversation that is divided up into five stages. It can look nasty at first and far too complicated.
Fullspate thinks it is too complicated, but with a little practice it turns out to be not too difficult.
Here's a description of what is involved in each stage, with some advice about how to excel.

Stage 1: Introductions (3-5 minutes)

The first stage is a familiar conversation about the students' lives, but with the added demand that
candidates don't just sit passively waiting to be asked questions. Here is the key sentence from the
official description of the new ECPE speaking test: "Candidates are expected to actively participate
in the conversation by providing expanded responses and also by asking each other and [the]
examiner questions." Here's an example of the beginning of a conversation that would tick the
right boxes.

Examiner: So, Angelos, what do you like doing in your spare time?
Angelos: I'm really into extreme sports. In fact, most weekends I'm off bungee jumping.
Nafsica: Bungee jumping! Wow! I've always wanted to go bungee jumping but my uptight Dad
won't let me. He says it's too dangerous. What would you say? Is it really as dangerous as it looks?
Angelos: Well, as long as you do all the safety checks and you're really careful to get the right
match between the height of the jump, the weight of the person and the elasticity of the rope, it's
really no more risky than crossing the road.
Nafsica: If it's as safe as that, I should definitely be allowed to have a go. (Turns to the examiner)
What do you think, Mr Examiner? If you had a daughter ... Do you have a daughter?
Examiner: No.
Nafsica: But if you had a daughter, would you let her go bungee jumping?
Examiner: Well,...

Few students, I imagine, would feel comfortable being as direct as Nafsika, but most should be
able to become comfortable asking a simple question about whether the examiner has ever done
any extreme sports or would be interested in trying them. More importantly, though, Students
need to practise commenting on what their partner has said in response to the examiner's
question.

The candidates can help each other have the right kind of three-way conversation by turning their
chairs so that they face slightly towards each other. Then when one candidate answers the
examiner's question it is easy to look across to the other candidate as well as looking back at the
examiner. The eye contact will help the partner feel included in that part of the conversation and
make it easier to chip in with his or her comment.

Remember that by helping your partner and helping to keep the contributions to the conversation
fairly equal, you will be scoring more points yourself. And of course, it isn't a competition.
Candidates that ignore and exclude their partner are likely to score less than candidates that
involve their partner more in the conversation.

Stage 2: Summarizing and Recommending (5-7 minutes)

This is where the long, four-stage task begins. One of the official examples of this task involves
choosing between four candidates for the post of high school science teacher. Each student is
given a sheet of paper with the briefest of notes about two of the four candidates.

Here we reprint one of the sample sheets from the Michigan website.

Candidate 1 Information Sheet

Hiring A High School Science Teacher

Jessica Peters
The following is a list of some of Ms. Peters' personal characteristics and comments made by her
coworkers.
4 years experience as laboratory technician
Recently graduated with science teaching certification
Recent "Employee of the Year" Award
Good presentation skills

Experience with newest technology

No experience with high school students
Robert Barton
The following is a list of some of Mr. Barton's personal characteristics and comments made by
students and teachers at your school.
20 years teaching English at your school
Conducts training courses for teachers
Also qualified to teach science
Interesting classroom lessons
Organizes many field trips
Doesn't stay after school to help students
Candidates have time to quietly read their information sheets. The Fullspate advice here is to sort
out the points into three categories: facts that simply describe the options; points in favor; points
against. Why not write a little plus next to the benefits and a little minus next to the drawbacks?
Only if you sort the points out into these categories, will you know how to introduce them with
the most appropriate linking phrases (on the other hand, by contrast, in addition, etc).

After reading the points through quietly, the students take it in turns to describe their two options,
and at the end of their description they ask their partner to express an initial opinion about which
of the two options is better.

When candidates are listening to their partners' descriptions, they can take notes if they wish. This
might or might not be helpful. You need to practise doing it both ways to see which is better for
you. Note: If your partner is taking notes, you need to look at him/her and make sure he or she
can keep up with you. It would also be perfectly natural (and I presume acceptable) for the
candidate taking notes to briefly interrupt if there is a point that they didn't manage to get down.

Do you have to remember everything that is said in your partner's description? No, you don't. It is
more important to evaluate what is being said so that you will have an opinion about which of the
two options is better.

Some advice about what to say in your presentation:

1) Include comments about what you are going to say. E.g. "Well, Helen, let me present my two
candidates for the post of science teacher at our school. The first candidate whose details I have is
called..." Similarly, when you move onto the second option, "Now let me turn to the second
candidate, whose name is..."

2) Although the official instructions ask you to paraphrase or summarise, really you need to
elaborate. Usually, this involves saying why an advantage is indeed advantageous (or the
opposite). For instance, you are presenting options for a charity and one note says that this option
is cheaper. You can elaborate by saying, "This will mean we have more money left to devote to the
rest of our charity's work."

3) Avoid very informal English in your presentation (things like: "Hey, this is awesome/absolutely
wicked/crazy/gross, etc").

4) When you finish, ask your partner to comment: "Well, those are my two options, Helen. Which
do you think is better?"

5) When you give your opinion about your partner's options, briefly give a reason. You could just
highlight the biggest advantage of the preferred option.

6) Take the initiative to move the conversation on, saying something like, "Let me present my two
options now. The first is..."

At the end of this section the examiner will probably ask you to state which of your two options
you prefer. You shouldn't give any reasons for your choice at this stage.

Unfortunately, the preferences expressed at this stage are completely ignored in what follows.

Stage 3: Consensus Reaching (5-7 minutes)

The candidates begin this stage by saying which of their own options they prefer, and then they
must discuss those two preferences in order to come to an agreement about which one they will
finally recommend.

If you made notes in stage 2, you can refer to them in stage 3. However, if you didn't make notes,
it shouldn't matter because you will have enough time in stage 3 to ask your partner about any
points that you can't remember, and because questions are such big point scorers in the interview
it might actually be beneficial to have a few gaps in your memory. Note that candidates are not
allowed to look at each other's information sheets at this stage.

Some advice about how to conduct the discussion:

1) Don't assume that your task here is to fight for your option and pressurize your partner into
agreeing that yours is best.

2) Don't begin with a long speech in defense of your chosen option. Begin with a question.
Questions are good - they help to keep the conversation bouncing back and forth, and that will
help both of you get a higher score. You might begin like this: "So, Helen, why do you think your
preferred option is the one we should finally recommend?"

3) If there is an important point that you can't remember, ask your partner like this: "What did you
say about the location of the school? Where is it exactly?"

4) Keep your discussion focused on the task in hand. You have to make a decision in an imaginary
situation. Refer back to it from time to time. For instance, if you have to choose a summer school
for a group of kids, ask: "Which of these two schools would be best for our kids?"

5) You might want to explore or highlight the criteria that ought to be important. For instance: "I
think we need a school that is..." Or: "A good place for a camp like this ought to have..."

6) Keep your eye on your watch (which you might want to put flat on the table in front of you).
Within five minutes you need to have come to a consensus about one of the options. Avoid taking
too long, but also avoid coming to a consensus too quickly. Even if you think your partner's option
is the best, spend some time talking about the strengths of your chosen option.

Stage 4: Presenting and Convincing (5-7 minutes)

For the first 2-3 minutes of this stage the students must prepare a formal and well-organised
presentation which will be made to the examiner, who will be playing a role (perhaps the principal
of a school, for instance). Before making the presentation, candidates have to clarify, between
themselves, which are the four strongest reasons for their chosen option (reasons chosen from
those that have already been discussed in some depth). Having clarified the four, they must
quickly decide how to allocate them so that they present two reasons each.

This is the stage where we do think you should jot down four very, very brief notes - notes of the
topics of the four points you are going to make to persuade the examiner that your jointly chosen
option really is the best. You will also note which points you will present and which your partner
will present. This will help avoid the nightmare scenario in which your partner accidentally covers
one of your points and leaves you with little to say.

It is worth noting that it is only in stage four that the two candidates can look at each other's
information sheets (although there is probably no need now since they have their notes and they
are likely to know all the important points off by heart).

Having decided who will say what and in which order, the students must turn to the examiner and
present their allocated points as persuasively as possible - driving home the arguments that they
have already discussed between themselves and ignoring the fact that the examiner has already
heard everything. (This is made only slightly less artificial by the fact that at the beginning of this
stage the two examiners swap places so that the one that was off to the side quietly marking now
comes to sit opposite the students.)

Within two or three minutes of the beginning of stage four, the candidates should turn to the
examiner and say something like: "We are ready now to present our chosen option."

Again, don't skip the introductory comment: "Well, we are convinced that X is the best option.
There are four main reasons why we believe this. The first, although not the most important, is
that ..."

If you speak first, pass the presentation over to Helen. Don't just stop speaking and expect Helen
to jump in. Say something like: "Those are two of our justifications. Helen has another two, don't
you Helen?"

Remember that the presentation is supposed to be rather formal, so avoid any obviously informal
language.

Stage 5: Justifying and Defending (5-7 minutes)

Phew! The last stage.

Having heard the arguments (again) the examiner is to "question the candidates about the
decision they have made and about the reasons for that decision." I am glad I am at not going to
be an examiner for the Michigan ECPE speaking test. During the 20 minutes or so prior to stage
five reasonably proficient students will have mentioned or discussed the pertinent points four
times already (twice in stage four and once in stages two and three). How much more can be said
about a candidate for a science teaching post, for instance, who may have been described in only
24 words?

Some advice about this stage (which will probably be the easiest):

1) Remember that there are no right answers (you can't lose a single point because of the
particular option that you chose to defend or because of the particular arguments that you used
to defend it). The examiner's questions in stage 5 might convey the impression that he or she
thinks your choice was the wrong one, but remember that he/she is obliged to say something
along those lines just to keep the conversation going.

2) As in Stage 1 the examiner will want this to be a three-way conversation, instead of

interrogating you individually. Bear this in mind, and help by passing a few things over to your

partner. You might say, for instance: "I think Helen's point about the unpopularity of that option
was a good one. What was it you said again, Helen?" Or you might say: "In my experience,
teachers who try to be very friendly with students don't always get the best out of their students.
What do you think, Helen? Have you observed that as well?"

3) Be prepared for a question about the possible drawbacks of the option you recommended. In
your presentation you will have highlighted four advantages. Now the examiner will probably want
to find out about a weakness or failing you didn't mention. You need to be able to say why that
drawback is not so serious.

The End

Hey, that's it! Is it really so painful? We don't think so.

If you have any questions or comments about the new ECPE speaking test, do send us an email.
We'd love to hear from you.

Footnotes
1. Elaboration: a grey area
One problem with this multi-stage task is that candidates end up having to say the same few
things over and over again. Talented candidates might be tempted to elaborate. For instance, in
the discussion of the four applicants for the science teaching post nothing may have been said
about race, for instance, and the imaginative student might suddenly say that Jessica Peters (the
recommended applicant), despite her rather WASPish name, is the only black candidate, which is a
huge advantage because all the other teachers at the school are white and the racial mix of the
teachers ought to reflect that of the pupils, which happen to be predominantly coloured.

That might sound ridiculous, but the information sheets come close to inviting students to start
improvising in this way. Have another look at the first point about Robert Barton in the example
sheet above: "20 years teaching English at your school". If I (as an interviewee) am supposed to
say this guy is a teacher at my school, am I not supposed to know more about him? Am I not
supposed to know how good a teacher he is - how funny, how poetic he is and yet how stern with
miscreants? And if I don't volunteer any extra information, would it not be perfectly natural for

the other interviewee (perhaps also the interviewer?) later on to ask me to provide a few more
details, given that I know the guy?

If imaginative students respond to these cues or even begin elaborating without them (and
elaborate in a way that keeps the story intact and does not make the whole game unplayable),
should the examiner in the interview just go with the flow and accept these unexpected
revelations, or is she supposed to nip this in the bud and insist that the students stick to the facts
explicitly stated in the 24 or so words that are printed on the sheet? To be honest, I don't know
what the answer is here.

2. What has been lost

Once upon a time we assumed that at the very heart of a proficiency-level interview there would
be a discussion about a controversial topic like hunting, juvenile crime, or the imbecility of the
media, or the degradation of the environment. No point assuming that now, though. Topics like
those are unlikely to come up in the "multi-stage, semistructured task", which will almost certainly
stick to safe and simple situations like the one with the vacancy for a science teacher. Now that
traditional topic discussions have been dropped from the ECPE speaking test my worry is that
teachers who were already inclined to keep speaking to an absolute minimum will reduce it even
further in the belief that this "multi-stage, semi-structured task" is just the sort of thing that can
be practised and honed in an intensive fashion over a two- or three-week period towards the end
of the course. I hope not.