OTAK (C1) Proficiency exam
OTAK proficiency exam
An overview of the language proficiency exam
The information below refers to the exam in general. To find practical information concerning the dates of the upcoming exam, please go to Neptun.
This exam is designed to test candidates´ command of English at C1 level, as defined in the Council of Europe´s "Common European Framework of Reference" (CEF) standards. The exam consists of two parts: a written Use of English paper, and an Oral part in which candidates are tested in groups of three. The Use of English paper focuses mainly on grammatical, lexical and discoursal accuracy, and contains 75 questions based on continuous texts (several questions in each text) or single sentences (one or two questions in each sentence). The oral test requires candidates to speak fluently and accurately, first on their own and then in conversation with other candidates (see below for sample tasks).
In terms of the ELTE Hallgatói Követelményrendszer, this exam is a "nyelvi alapvizsga", which means that the two parts are marked separately; in order to pass the whole exam, candidates need to reach the pass-mark in both parts, and a final grade is calculated for those who pass.
The pass-mark for the written part is 54, whereas for the oral it is 65. These are judgemental pass-marks, arrived at in an extensive judgement exercise and through measurement. Given the always present measurement error, candidates just below the pass-mark are given the benefit of doubt and the scores with which they are allowed to pass are 53 and 63, respectively. Therefore, a score of 62 is still a fail, being lower than 63, but 64 is already a pass, since it is within the measurement error range.
It also means that the exam is only offered once in each exam period. At the moment passing the exam is an essential prerequisite for starting courses which belong to the second part of the MA programme. For further information about scoring, standards and standard setting refer to the “Who to turn to" page.
The procedures (rules and regulations) for the exam are available here. (In Hungarian)
The Use of English Component of the MA Language Exam
This test is designed to assess candidates' practical command of English lexical, syntactic and discoursal structures. While the main focus is on structural accuracy as such, many items involve a semantic dimension, in the sense that correct answers depend on context. Candidates are expected to demonstrate their ability to recognise contextually accurate and appropriate language, to recognise and correct contextually inaccurate or inappropriate language, and to produce contextually accurate and appropriate language of their own. The test is targeted at a range of abilities typically at CEF C1 level. To prepare for this part of the exam, you can turn to any practice material which is roughly between Advanced and Proficiency level. (You will find a list of reference books at the bottom of this page.)
The maximum raw score is 100. This is higher than the number of items (75), since some constructed response items (task types 4 and 5, below) require the production of short chunks of language and carry a possible score of 2 each. The candidate's Use of English raw score is halved, to give it the same weighting as his or her score on the Oral component of the exam.
Each test includes 6 or 7 subtests and example items are provided at the beginning of each subtest.
Overall time for completing the Use of English test: 90 minutes
You can download some sample task with a key from here.
The Oral Component of the MA Language Exam
This is a group exam with three students and two assessors and will last approximately 25'. The exam comprises two main phases in which candidates will be prompted to relate personally relevant experiences to each other share and negotiate their opinions on a more complex or controversial issue. The actual tasks in these phases are meant to elicit experiences and issues of a broadly professional nature, i.e. those related to the concerns of English language teachers, learners and education in general.
| Task | Task text and procedure |
Task features Skills/strategies tested |
Approx time | Scoring or rating method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Exam candidates receive a scripted task from one of the assessors |
Candidates read and think about what they will be saying. No output (speaking) expected. In fact, candidates should not speak to each other or agree on various test-taking strategies (who should speak first, who is going to take a leading role, who should sit where). |
5 minutes | Not rated |
| Phase 1 (to test the skill of speaking in the context of small group) |
Scripted task comprising a brief exposure of the task with questions that help the candidate get into (or frame) the task. Questions focus on a possible set of personal experiences that candidates can use as a starting point. The candidates’ chairs form a semicircle, facing the assessors. Candidates may take notes on the task slip but cannot use them during the interaction. |
Designed to elicit extended (long) turns: a planned kind of discourse. Candidates can, where necessary and appropriate, ask a speaker helpful questions, invite them to say more about the topic or an aspect of it. Candidates keep eye contact with each other, not the assessors. |
7-9 minutes | Independent rating by two assessors, on the basis of 5 assessment points of view (criteria), each covering a five point scale with score points 0-5. The accuracy score is doubled in the first phase. |
|
Phase 2 (To test conversational skills in the context of a small group) |
Scripted task, to be found only in the assessors’ copy of the task sheet, which the candidates have not seen. The task is typically an agreement getting or consensus seeking task, to ensure that communication does take place and to prevent it from “going flat”. No thinking time provided. Assessor mediates task, by using their own words or reading it out from the task sheet. |
Designed to elicit conversational language, with typically shorter turns, i.e. to elicit an unplanned kind of discourse. Candidates demonstrate their ability to respond to a task for which they do not plan in advance. Candidates are expected to demonstrate an ability manage the conversation (to turn-take appropriately, step in and sensitively allow/ invite the third speaker to contribute) | 5-8 minutes |
Independent rating by two assessors, on the basis of 5 assessment points of view (criteria), each covering a six point scale with score points 0-5.
|
|
Asking a rescue questions (optional, used only as a last resort if one or more of the candidates do not provide enough evidence for rating. |
A scripted question labelled as “rescue question” on the assessor's task sheet.
One-to one (assessor to candidate) interaction. |
In this phase candidate keeps eye-contact with the assessor. Concluded as soon as assessors are satisfied |
1 minute | |
| Two assessors mark |
Candidates leave the room when interaction is over and assessors are satisfied that the speech sample is rateable. Assessors use the criteria with descriptors in a tabled format to award scores. |
Assessors negotiate only if the scores differ greatly (a limit is to be specified later). |
Max. 5 minutes |
Sample oral item
Phase 1:
Think back to a teacher who took a personal interest in your life other than in their role as a teacher.
Who was this teacher? Describe him/her briefly.
What was their role? What did he/she do in this role?
When the test begins, tell your partners about this teacher and listen to their accounts, too.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
↓ only seen by assessors! ↓
Phase 2 by the interlocutor:
Agree on three situations that a caring and reflective teacher should definitely not get involved in.
Rescue question:
The oral exam is graded on the basis of carefully developed criteria. You can download the scales used for marking from here.
Practice Materials
Among others the following books may help students prepare for the exam:
Brook-Hart,G.,and Haines,S. (2009). Cambridge Complete CAE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge Certificate in Advanced English 1-3 (Practice tests) (2009). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in English (Practice tests) (2005). Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in English.
Hewings, M. (2009). Cambridge Grammar for CAE and Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rónay, Á. (2019). Emelt szintű angol nyelvtani gyakorlókönyv II. - Vizsgafeladatokkal. Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Rónay, Á. & Sárdi, Cs. (2021). Angol szókincsfejlesztés felsőfokon 1. Szóképzés. Tinta Könyvkiadó.
Side, R., and Wellman, G. (1999). Grammar and Vocabulary for Cambridge Advanced and Proficiency. Harlow: Longman.
Stanson, A. and Morris, S. (1994, 1999). CAE Practice Tests. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Ltd.
Swan, M. and Walter, C. (2011). Oxford English Grammar Course - Advanced. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (not actually a course, but explanations+examples)
Vince, M. (2004, 2009). Advanced Language Practice. London: Macmillan.
You can also check this website for online fill-in-the-gaps tests.
Standard Appeals Procedure:
a. Please note that our language exams are only offered once in each exam period which might mean that if you fail, you may have to extend your studies and have to pay extra depending on your programme.
b. Students have an opportunity to inspect their papers during the period advertised by the department when they can compare their answers with the key.
c. Relatives/friends/outside experts are allowed to accompany students to the inspection, but they cannot be present when the direct communication between the student concerned and faculty staff takes place.
d. If the candidate does not agree with the key, the student may decide to write an appeal to the head of the department, in which s/he describes the contested items.
e. Within three working days the head of the department sets up a committee consisting of himself/herself, the head of the testing team and one native speaker. This committee either rejects or accepts the appeal with a simple majority vote. This decision is final as far as the department is concerned. (Of course, the student can always decide to appeal to the Faculty Studies Committee / Kari Tanulmányi Bizottság.)