Ryan Simpson is an English language teacher, examiner and teacher trainer, working both in the UK and abroad. His research interests include teacher cognition and praxis, language teaching methodology, and autonomy and self-direction in learning. Email: ryanjamessimpson@gmail.com

 

 

Background

 

Cambridge Assessment CPE is a C2 level examination and successful candidates can be judged as having an extremely high level of English for use in academic or professional settings (C2 Proficiency Teachers Handbook). The speaking test is examined by an interlocutor and examiner and is taken by two candidates. It lasts in total around sixteen minutes. Part 1 is introductory and sets candidates at ease. Part 2 is a decision-making task, using pictures and a scenario for candidates to discuss.  The final part comprises two sections, a 2-minute long turn for each candidate followed by a wider discussion focused on the themes found in the long turn.

Candidate performance is marked by assessment scales across five criteria. These are Grammatical resource, Lexical resource, Discourse management, Pronunciation and Interactive communication. A candidate will receive a band from zero to five. For a pass at C2, a candidate should achieve band 3 or above.

 

The features of a pass at Band three are:

Grammatical Resource	Maintains control of a wide range of grammatical forms
Lexical Resource	Uses a range of appropriate vocabulary with flexibility to give and exchange views on unfamiliar and abstract topics
Discourse management	Produces extended stretches of language with ease and with very little hesitation Contributions are relevant, coherent and varied Uses a wide range of cohesive devices and discourse markers
Pronunciation	Is intelligible Intonation is appropriate Sentence and word stress is accurately placed Individual sounds are articulated clearly
Interactive communication	Interacts with ease, linking contributions to those of other speakers Widens the scope of the interaction and negotiates towards an outcome.

 

 

 

*For those not familiar with the CPE examination, please find a link to a sample speaking test C2 Proficiency Speaking test - Rodrigo and Ollin | Cambridge English

 

 

 

Introduction

This article shares the findings of a small research project undertaken by the writer and two learners on a CPE course. As the tutor on the course, the writer embarked on a process to enhance learner readiness for the Speaking component of the test. The aim of the project was to enhance learners’ confidence by following a process – a number of steps - whilst being informed by the notion of cognitive autonomy (discussed below). Teaching and learning on a platform such as Zoom allows for the recording of speaking sessions and thus provides excellent input for analysis by tutor and learner. The result of this process was that the learners were able to be more self-regulated (Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick, 2006) by being given the opportunity to self and peer-analyse their performance, react to tutor feedback, and try out strategies. Nevertheless, the role of the tutor remained indispensable in the process since learners look to the tutor for guidance, especially in a high stakes’ examination context.

 

Literature review - cognitive autonomy support

Though much has been written on the role of the autonomous learner in the field of education, I find inspiration from an article by Stefanou et al. (2004) which offers theoretical support for this study. In a study of supporting autonomy in the classroom, the researchers collected classroom data on Maths teachers’ autonomy supporting behaviour in the United States. The writers stated that ‘autonomy support’ had been more associated with allowing students to make organizational and procedural choices about classroom learning, such as deciding on tasks to do or with whom to work, yet their contention was that cognitive choices would lead to a deeper and more productive level engagement with learning. The features of cognitive autonomy support in the learning process are provided below:

Students are given opportunities to:

 

Discuss multiple approaches and strategies

Find multiple solutions to problems

Justify solutions

Have ample time for decision making

Be independent problem solvers with scaffolding

Receive informational feedback

Formulate personal goals or realign task

Debate ideas freely

Have less teacher talking time and more teacher listening time

Ask questions

(from Stefanou et al. (2004: 101)

The researchers watched and analysed over eighty Mathematics lessons in 5^th and 6^th grades. They stated that:

Identification of instances of cognitive autonomy support required a careful analysis of teacher statements that created conditions for learners to become initiators of their own academic pursuits. Instances of instruction that required students to justify strategies, understand their own thinking or solution path, use multiple approaches to tasks, or teacher declaration of appreciation for unanticipated solutions were seen as evidence of such support.

The role of scaffolding - defined by Ellis and Ellis (2012) as ‘the process by which one speaker (an expert or a novice) assists another speaker (a novice) to perform a skill that they are unable to perform independently’- should not be overlooked. As Little (2007:20) emphasizes, our learners do not construct knowledge ‘out of nothing’.  Neither are they fully aware of how to carry out purposeful learning conversations that align them with their discipline. ‘Teachers remain indispensable, both as pedagogues and discipline experts.’ As teachers we ought to adopt procedures that are exploratory, interpretive and participatory, and thus our learners can begin to control aspects of their own development. They may then be drawn into reflection on their learning and advance towards being autonomous members of their discipline’s community (2007:20).

In addition, Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick (2006) state that formative assessment should be used to empower students to be self-regulated - the degree to which they might be able to regulate thinking and behaviour during learning. A self-directed learner will be able to set and orient towards goals, use strategies to achieve goals, manage resources and effort, and react to external feedback.

 

 

The research process

 

Two learners (their names are pseudonyms) agreed to take part in the project and to the recording of meetings. The learners, both in their twenties, were from Italy, Chiara, and Russia, Irina. They had been taking the online preparation course since October 2024.

The steps are presented below.

Step 1- Meet to brainstorm ideas from a sample test (from the coursebook Objective CPE). This comprised working in a group of five learners and involved sharing ideas for parts 2 and 3.

Step 2 – Undertake a mock test in a pair using the sample paper, recorded on Zoom.

Step 3- Learners receive the recording of the test.

Step 4 - Meet to share reflections on the performance. Learners are encouraged to reflect on what went well and what could be improved. The marking scales document is also referred to.

Step 5 – Learners receive a video created by the tutor with his feedback on performance.

Step 6 – Meet to discuss the tutor’s feedback and compare with their own personal feedback from step 4. Learners undertake a new mock test of parts 2 and 3 with a different sample test example.

Step 7 – Learners receive the recording and are asked to decide on two elements which went well and two which could be improved. Refer to the mark scheme, if possible.

Step 8 – Meet to discuss learners’ self-analysis and then receive tutor feedback.

 

Findings

 

The table below offers some of the learners’ opinions on their performance in the first mock test. This is followed by the writer’s opinion.  Hesitations and false starts are not indicated in the statements below, but they are presented in a more coherent manner to ease comprehension.

This step is important since it reveals learner’s initial evaluation of their readiness for the exam.

Irina	*In parts 2 and 3, I struggled with advanced vocabulary and didn’t use that much. I don’t think the collocations that I used were right. I need to work hard on this. I didn’t like listening back to the video because I know I could have done better if I had prepared better and learned both language for agreement or for contrasting ideas.   *In part 3, I didn’t cover everything that I intended to and I spoke too much on the point of ‘transport’ and then I got stuck. But I managed to continue, which was good.
Chiara	*The first part of Part 3, the long turn, is my least favourite and I should have done this a lot better. In part 2, the time was sufficient but in part 3, it wasn’t. I didn’t know how to fill the gaps that I had. I found myself getting stuck a lot and I repeated myself a lot. It was very clunky at times. When I got to the third point and I talked about education and the past, well, I think I took that point nowhere.
Tutor	*In the first section of part 2 (one minute lead-in), candidates compare and contrast two of the pictures, but the learners just talked about one. Tip 1 – use the one minute well and include two pictures in the discussion.   *In the longer section of part 2, I advise candidates to discuss the other pictures, and not the ones talked about in the opening one-minute discussion. The learners discussed the pictures from the one-minute discussion again, and did not develop very well their own ideas about what could be included in the exhibitions. Tip 2- discuss the other pictures and then suggest your own idea. Allow your partner to comment on your idea. *Irina performed well in the long turn with a high degree of accuracy, even if she lost her train of thought at one point- she recovered well from the lapse, though. Chiara did not perform as well, and Discourse Management could be improved. As she got a little flustered, accuracy dropped somewhat. Tip 3 – Have strategies ready for moving on if you happen to lose your thread of thought. On a positive note, Interactive Communication was quite strong. In addition, there was evidence of control of complex sentences, appropriate selection of lexis for the topics (lexis which could be considered to be C1 plus), and, regarding phonology, delivery rarely put a strain on the listener.

After watching the video of their performances in the second mock test, a meeting was convened with the goal of discussing two things which went well and two which could still be improved, and finally a short discussion of moving forward from the process.

The Part 2 task for the mock test was on the topic of the food industry. For Part 3, the long turn statement for Candidate A was on the topic of motivating employees and the statement for Candidate B was on motivating school students.

The table below provides the learner reflections and a link to the assessment scales.

Learner	Things that can be improved	Link to assessment scales
Chiara	I still feel that I make mistakes in lexis and grammar. Maybe it’s talking too fast and not bridging the ideas together. I can improve a lot more on that; I mean, to construct a sentence all the way through without awkward pauses. I think this area is in the middle between Lexical Resource and Discourse Management. Some grammar could also be improved. Maybe, I start a sentence and I don’t fully know if I can complete it with my resources or understanding how to finish it. Overall, it’s what I need to polish again.   The other thing is pronunciation. I didn’t like it all the way through the test. I was thinking is it too unclear? Or I just don’t think I sound like a CPE student - something that I was thinking all the way through.	Lexical and Grammatical Resource   Discourse Management                   Pronunciation
Irina	I noticed that I didn’t get the instructions so well. In part 2, I began speaking about the two pictures which we had already talked about; and elsewhere I didn’t follow instructions perfectly.   In part 3, I could have done the task much better if I had structured everything well in my head first and then had given a decent response. It was too chaotic and not as well delivered as I expected.	Discourse Management           Discourse Management
	Things that went well
Irina	I liked the fact that some words and phrases popped up. In part 2 for example, some words came up and I did like that. I also liked that I was able to fix some grammar errors on the spot. I changed it and said it the correct way.	Lexical and Grammatical Resource
Chiara	I felt it was an overall improvement from the last time we did the mock, and I felt, even from what I said before about it, that my pronunciation was better. I’ve been trying to make a conscious pronunciation of the words. I think it is beginning to show now. You can make a more conscious decision to speak a certain way and after some time you do it without realizing. I’m prouder of this than other areas.   Also, I did better in time management as I could move on quicker from topic to topic without getting stuck.	Pronunciation                     Discourse Management

 

Discussion

 

Cognitive autonomy and self-directed learning were evidenced during the process. Using the features suggested by Stefanou et al. (2004), I consider the outcomes of the process.

*Discuss multiple approaches and strategies

Both learners were keen to improve discourse management in part 2, and after two mock tests had learned better time management, better active listening and how to develop the discussion with their own ideas.

 

*Find multiple solutions to problems

Solutions to problems encountered in the test were discussed in two meetings in which solutions were put forward; the tutor/writer scaffolded the interaction and added his own tips.

 

*Have ample time for decision making

Time between different stages of the process allowed learners to reflect and put new strategies into operation on the second mock test.

 

*Be independent problem solvers with scaffolding

Both learners demonstrated that they could analyse the two performances and learn where they might improve. Scaffolding came less from each other and more from the tutor, though. Scaffolding was also explicit with the feedback video they received.

 

*Formulate personal goals or realign task

Irina formulated personal goals; firstly, to improve lexis by making more advanced collocations, including idiomatic language. She also wished to improve the doing of the tasks to align herself more with the instructions. However, Irina did not state how she would arrive at the goal of improving on her lexis. Nonetheless, her lexical range was certainly sufficient to be considered a Band 3, if not higher, and she was, it seems, overly critical of herself. She did not, however, use the marking scales in her evaluation, hence this learner might be further self-directed with goal setting.

Chiara was more forthcoming on her goals and how she would realign her strategies. She wished to keep paying conscious attention to her pronunciation of words and phrases, focus better on the three points in the long turn and develop her ideas as support, and be more accurate, as she had felt that focusing more on fluency led to a drop in her sentence construction accuracy. In addition, she attempted to evaluate herself and her partner with reference to the scales. I feel what Chiara had noticed was correct and evidenced insights into her readiness for the exam.

 

*Have less teacher talking time and more teacher listening time

On reflection, my teacher talking time might have been lower; in the feedback meetings, I talked and directed a little more than I intended. Hence, by analysing such talk via recordings, teachers can develop their capacity to stand back and allow our learners to lead discussions more.

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, this was a worthwhile process which allowed learners to explore their performances, become more assessment-literate by reference to the marking scales, set short- and longer-term goals, receive feedback from a tutor, and enhance confidence. For the tutor, the process provided evidence of learner preparedness and an opportunity to discover how scaffolding via feedback and dialogue can support learners going forward. Though it would be time-consuming with a larger group of learners, for a small group it is very productive.

 

References

 

Ellis, R., & Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Little, D. (2007). Language Learner Autonomy: Some Fundamental Considerations Revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1(1):14-29.

Nicol J. and MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education (31:2) Stefanou C. et al. (2004). Supporting Autonomy in the Classroom: Ways Teachers Encourage Student Decision Making and Ownership. Educational Psychologist39(2):97-110.

 

For more details on the CPE examination, please visit Cambridge Assessment- C2 Proficiency Handbook for Teachers

 

Coming soon! Please check the Pilgrims in Segovia Teacher Training courses 2026 at Pilgrims website