OrAl d'AnGlAiS : CoMmEnT çA c'EsT pAsSé ... ?

[sev12]

Les Oraux en Anglais on commencé à partir d'aujourd'hui...

Vos impressions pour ceux qui l'ont passé ? Sujets difficiles, incompréhensibles ?

Merci pour vos témoignages...

A mon tour de vous raconte ce fabuleux oral d'anglais!!!!!!

je l'ai passé à saint germain en laye. le thème y a t-il une différence d'appentissage entre les garçons et les filles selon que l'enseignantsoit un homme ou une femme? super à première vue . mais le jury est resté sur le texte( explication de mot du texte, de phrase) malgré mais nombreuses ouvertures sur les méthodes d'enseignement , la différence ds le monde du travail....ils m'ont aussi demandé si les filles étaient plus sérieuses que les garcons et si oui pourquoi. et pourquoi y a t il plus de femmes que d hommes ds le primaire. En français j'aurai pu répondre mais en anglais gros manque de vocabulaire: ce fut vraiment galère. Malgré le jury est vraiment sympa et très souriant , mais je ne pense pas que ca va m'aider dans ma note.

bon courage à vous

je suis tombée sur le même sujet. je n'ai pas trouvé le texte aussi simple que ceux mis en ligne précédemment et j'ai mis du temps à le déchiffrer. mon exposé n'

[sev12]

désolée, erreur de manip

donc je disais que mon exposé n'avais pas été super car je cherchais beaucoup mes mots à cause du stress.

je pense par contre que les questions vont m'aider à limiter la catastrophe. j'ai également eu la question sur le fait qu'il y ai plus de femmes que d'hommes en primaire. j'ai également eu des questions sur:

- le fait que des filles et des garçons arrêtent l'école avant d'avoir un diplôme ==> mon avis

- le travail des femmes

- la différence entre les hommes et les femmes dans l'enseignement

voilà, je crois que c'est tout

maintenant, place à la musique et surtout l'op!

[benedicte95]

salut,

pensez-vous que le fait de ne pas tenir 5 min en présentation soit très pénalisant? Parce que franchement expliquer une vingtaine de ligne, et même si on donne son pt de vue, je trouve que c'est long!

[PetiteWendy]

Non je ne pense pas! Surtout que si cela peut te rassurer je ne regarde jamais ma montre pour mes présentations de textes en langue!

Par contre l'entretien ensuite détermine sûrement bien plus ta note! On vérifie déjà ton accent mais aussi ton aisance et ton effort de prise de position et de déterminisme!

L'an dernier je pensais avoir complètement raté l'oral d'italien...Pourtant au final j'ai eu 12!

Bon courage

[charlyne]

Les Oraux en Anglais on commencé à partir d'aujourd'hui...

Vos impressions pour ceux qui l'ont passé ? Sujets difficiles, incompréhensibles ?

Merci pour vos témoignages...

A mon tour de vous raconte ce fabuleux oral d'anglais!!!!!!

je l'ai passé à saint germain en laye. le thème y a t-il une différence d'appentissage entre les garçons et les filles selon que l'enseignantsoit un homme ou une femme? super à première vue . mais le jury est resté sur le texte( explication de mot du texte, de phrase) malgré mais nombreuses ouvertures sur les méthodes d'enseignement , la différence ds le monde du travail....ils m'ont aussi demandé si les filles étaient plus sérieuses que les garcons et si oui pourquoi. et pourquoi y a t il plus de femmes que d hommes ds le primaire. En français j'aurai pu répondre mais en anglais gros manque de vocabulaire: ce fut vraiment galère. Malgré le jury est vraiment sympa et très souriant , mais je ne pense pas que ca va m'aider dans ma note.

bon courage à vous

Bonjour Mistick, juste une petite question histoire de me rassurer : quel jury avais-tu. Je passe l'anglais mercredi a st germain aussi et je suis très inquiète car l'année dernière j'avais très bien réussi l'épreuve (félicitations du jury et compagnie - on a passé un très bon moment) et j'ai eu au final 8,5!!! Donc je suis un peu perdue...

Bon courage à tous les réviseurs!!!

Charlyne

[oupstita]

j'ai trouvé mon texte qui etait extrait d'un journal. il n'etait pas si long au concour mais ca vous donnera tout de meme une idée. [/color]

It is sheer snobbery to make teenagers study languages

Forcing secondary school students to learn a foreign tongue will only backfire. But primaries are another matter entirely

Peter Wilby

Thursday December 14, 2006

The Guardian

Estelle Morris's spell as education secretary may have been, in many ways, undistinguished. But one thing she got absolutely right: a decision to release secondary school teachers and their teenage pupils from the torture of compulsory foreign language lessons.

To say that is to go against the consensus of elite opinion. Like any other attempt to make the curriculum more appealing to bored adolescents - linking science lessons to contemporary issues such as global warming, for example - the decision was greeted with round-robin letters to the press from the heavily titled, and outrage from the snootier elements among the newspaper commentariat. For example, the Independent's Philip Hensher, after damning Morris for incorrect grammar on the Today programme, explained that languages "contribute in a fundamental way to analytical powers of thought ... and intellectual development". Try telling that to a class of 15-year-olds on a wet Friday afternoon in Barnsley.

Today the issue will be reopened with the publication of an interim report from Lord Dearing on the teaching of languages in schools. Fortunately, it is unlikely to call for a return to compulsion. But this government has a record of ignoring the views of its own committees on education (remember the one that recommended scrapping A-levels) - and Alan Johnson, the education secretary, has been heard to "wonder" whether Morris's decision was right. Moreover, David Cameron said this month, in one of his few firm policy pronouncements, that a Conservative government would bring back compulsory languages. Fifty university language professors have already written to the Observer demanding a reversal of Morris's policy.

What is being demanded, not for the first time, is that schools correct the faults of society and, in this case, the global culture. Britain is indeed peculiarly insular about other people's languages, and so are the US and Australia. In those countries, English is the national tongue, and English is also the dominant world language, the language of diplomacy, of the internet, of science, of academic scholarship, of pop music, of film. "Little England expects everyone to speak English," said a recent newspaper headline. Little England is right: almost everyone does.

For that reason, young Britons get almost no exposure to other languages. If anyone on a British TV news or documentary programme speaks in a foreign tongue, they are immediately drowned out by a voiceover. Foreign language movies hardly ever go on general release, and account for a handful of the several hundred films shown every week on TV channels. Books by foreign authors are almost impossible to find in this country, even in translation.

All this may be deplorable. The world is culturally impoverished, people's horizons are narrowed, and talented artists who don't use English are excluded from a wider audience. But schools alone cannot put it right. Teenagers learn things when they see some point to putting in the effort. Without any regular practical application beyond school, the skill of understanding or speaking a foreign language will wither, as earlier generations who had laboured through French to 16 all too often found. It is not as though the English reputation for linguistic incompetence is a recent one, or that the elite groups who had undergone the traditional grammar and public school curriculum were ever noted for their fluency in foreign tongues.

This has never been a problem for the Swedes, Danes and Dutch. They live in small countries, and nobody else speaks their languages. Their young people want to learn English (or at least American English) so they can tune in to international popular culture and perhaps eventually fulfil ambitions in the arts, business or politics. In poor countries across the world, people eagerly learn English because it is a passport to jobs, to building a new life in Britain or America, or to studying at Harvard or Oxford. Even the French - of whom 45% speak a foreign language against 30% of the British - now recognise the merits of learning English.

In some countries - Canada, for example - bilingualism is a requirement for a wide range of jobs, particularly in the civil service. That is something teenagers understand: fail to learn this, they can be told, and several thousand well-paid jobs will be unavailable to you. The best you can say to a young Briton is that a foreign language is a useful ancillary skill, which may in any case be acquired when you need it through a crash course. It is not in itself a job qualification.

We must bring back compulsion, we are told, because the numbers studying foreign languages at A-level are falling steeply. But that has been the case, with a few blips, for 30 years. The record of language teaching is one of failure. It became fashionable to teach what was known as "survival French", so that children could buy a bus ticket or book a hotel room, without having to master French irregular verbs. That too failed to engage teenagers, who thought buying a bus ticket was boring whatever language you did it in.

Estelle Morris tried to think laterally and long-term. She did not ban teenagers from studying languages to GCSE, or schools from making them compulsory. She merely removed languages from the compulsory national curriculum for 14- to 16-year-olds and decided, if you like, to deregulate and leave the matter to consumer preferences, a move that would be applauded in any other area of policy. Instead of trying to convince impatient and rebellious teenagers to learn about la plume de ma tante, she argued, it was better to concentrate on primary school children. They are far more receptive to doing as they are told and, to them, the very idea that people go around talking to each other in a different language is sufficiently exotic to make it interesting. Morris launched plans for all primary schools to offer at least one foreign language to children aged 7 to 11 by 2010. A pilot project involving 1,400 schools has been judged a success.

With luck, a generation of children will arrive in secondary schools around 2014 enthusiastic about foreign languages and keen to continue developing their skills at least until 16. It may not work, but it cannot work less well than what we have tried hitherto. Until we have seen the results, the academic snobs and reactionaries who think all schools ought to teach exactly what Eton, Rugby or Westminster did 50 years ago should keep quiet.

· Peter Wilby is a former editor of the New Statesman

[titeminouche]

Le texte était long comme ça ?

Au moins y'avait des choses à dire !

[oupstita]

non pas si long que ca comme je l'ai precisé au debut..... je le remet j'ai enlever ce qu'il n'y avait pas.. du moins je crois. dc voila a peu pres le texte que j'ai eu a cergy avec peut etre quelque mots de moins encore

It is sheer snobbery to make teenagers study languages

Forcing secondary school students to learn a foreign tongue will only backfire. But primaries are another matter entirely

Peter Wilby

Thursday December 14, 2006

The Guardian

Estelle Morris's spell as education secretary may have been, in many ways, undistinguished. But one thing she got absolutely right: a decision to release secondary school teachers and their teenage pupils from the torture of compulsory foreign language lessons.

What is being demanded, not for the first time, is that schools correct the faults of society and, in this case, the global culture. Britain is indeed peculiarly insular about other people's languages, and so are the US and Australia. In those countries, English is the national tongue, and English is also the dominant world language, the language of diplomacy, of the internet, of science, of academic scholarship, of pop music, of film. "Little England expects everyone to speak English," said a recent newspaper headline. Little England is right: almost everyone does.

For that reason, young Britons get almost no exposure to other languages. If anyone on a British TV news or documentary programme speaks in a foreign tongue, they are immediately drowned out by a voiceover. Foreign language movies hardly ever go on general release, and account for a handful of the several hundred films shown every week on TV channels. Books by foreign authors are almost impossible to find in this country, even in translation.

. Their young people want to learn English (or at least American English) so they can tune in to international popular culture and perhaps eventually fulfil ambitions in the arts, business or politics.

Estelle Morris tried to think laterally and long-term. She did not ban teenagers from studying languages to GCSE, or schools from making them compulsory. She merely removed languages from the compulsory national curriculum for 14- to 16-year-olds and decided, if you like, to deregulate and leave the matter to consumer preferences, a move that would be applauded in any other area of policy. Instead of trying to convince impatient and rebellious teenagers to learn about la plume de ma tante, she argued, it was better to concentrate on primary school children. They are far more receptive to doing as they are told and, to them, the very idea that people go around talking to each other in a different language is sufficiently exotic to make it interesting. Morris launched plans for all primary schools to offer at least one foreign language to children aged 7 to 11 by 2010. A pilot project involving 1,400 schools has been judged a success.

With luck, a generation of children will arrive in secondary schools around 2014 enthusiastic about foreign languages and keen to continue developing their skills at least until 16. It may not work, but it cannot work less well than what we have tried hitherto. Until we have seen the results, the academic snobs and reactionaries who think all schools ought to teach exactly what Eton, Rugby or Westminster did 50 years ago should keep quiet.

• Peter Wilby is a former editor of the New Statesman

[billibrown]

Est-ce qu'on a 20 ou 30 minutes de préparation sur le texte?

[Spoofy]

On a 30 minutes pour préparer le texte. Et ça passe très très très vite.

[Courjus1051]

On a 30 minutes pour préparer le texte. Et ça passe très très très vite.

Et un de moins!!

Je suis passée ce matin à Antony (8h55) avec la COM03. Sujet : l'alcool et ses consequences sur les neurones...

J'ai cherché le texte sur le net mais je ne l'ai pas trouvé... Dsl...

En gros, cela parlait d'une étude faite par une équipe européenne sur 15 alcooliques. Durant deux mois, ils ont montré que l'abstinence permettait de regagner des neurones.

J'ai l'impression que ca s'est bien passé dans l'ensemble, même si j'ai fait je pense qqes erreurs grammaticales... On a parlé de l'alcool chez les jeunes, vers quel âge ils boivent leur premier verre d'alcool, qu'est ce que je pourrais faire avec ma classe si je deviens instit (dailleurs, là g dit que j'espérais ne pas avoir ce genre de pb avec des élèves 6 ou 10 ans et du coup, j'ai peut etre paru un peu naïve...), quels problèmes peuvent causer des personnes alcooliques (violence et accidents de voiture), est ce un des rôles de la société de s'occuper de personnes alcooliques, on a fait un lien avec le hashish aussi.

Voilà à peu près.

Le jury était composé de 2 femmes, l'une blonde d'une 40N d'années et l'autre brune maghrébine ayant une petite trentaine. Toutes deux profs d'anglais et assez sympa.

Bonne chance aux suivants!

[tyssie78]

coucou!!!

Ca y est !!!épreuve d 'anglais passée a saint germain en laye!!! J arrive pas encore à y croire!

Ca s est super bien passée (enfin j ai l impression ) alors je suis super rassuree , mais il faut dire que j avais pris une prof d anglais qui venait chez moi toutes les semaines et cette semaine elle est venue tous les jours(j en pouvais plus !!) en plus c est un vrai budget!!

Enfin parlons de ce qui vous interesse, j ai donc passee l epreuve ce matin et j ai eu un texte pas facile sur les reparations du cerveau qui se font naturellement apres que les alcholiques arretent de boire!!!Vous imaginez l inspiration mais j ai resumé le texte en quelques lignes puis j ai essayé de les amener la ou je voulais!!! Et j ai reussis du coup a les arracher du texte pour parler de l education....

Voila, maintenant plus qu une epreuve, mais vraiment ne vous decouragez pas , surtout restez naturel et ne vous bloquez pas, soyez enthousiastes!!!

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!

Milie