Thank you.
The tools consist of two tests, the oral comprehension test and the oral communication test in a legal context. Each test is marked based on the proficiency scale I'll tell you about shortly. The oral comprehension test is taken online using a computer or tablet. The oral communication test is taken in person or online in real time using secure software, in the form of a guided discussion with a lawyer facilitator and a language proficiency evaluation expert.
The proficiency scale was created by a committee of judges and second language evaluation experts. It served as a guide for the development of the tests. The scale is based on tasks that a judge must normally accomplish. The judges who developed the grid with me ranked the various tasks based on their complexity and the language proficiency level needed to accomplish them. We created four levels of language proficiency, which were refined throughout the training and evaluation process. I could explain what these levels represent during the question period.
Regarding the structure of the test, the oral comprehension test uses several authentic recordings from courtrooms. The candidates must answer multiple choice questions, single answer questions or open questions based on the recordings. The oral communication test in the form of a discussion includes four segments that gradually progress from level 1 to level 4 on the proficiency scale.
The candidate first reads a decision written in his or her mother tongue, then discusses the decision with a judge or lawyer evaluator in the language of the test. For the certification, after the test, the evaluators immediately agree on an assessment using the evaluation grid created for that purpose. They then recommend that KortoJura's chief evaluator certify the candidate at one of the levels of legal French. They also establish the shortcomings the candidate must address to reach the next level.
We're currently developing the Legal English Listening Test for francophone judges. The test will be validated shortly with the judges who took the training in Saint Andrews.
In closing, I would say that our tests are unique, since they were designed and developed in cooperation with judges. They cover real situations experienced by judges, and they have been validated by judges. The tests are corrected by judges, and those same judges help prepare the final evaluation of the language proficiency of the person taking the test. To our knowledge, no other evaluation tool in Canada or around the world meets these criteria.
The KortoJura evaluation service, a product of the language education program for judges, wants to take a broader approach and create tests for specialists in different legal fields based on the same model. We think the service will play a significant role in improving access to justice in both official languages for Canadian individuals subject to trials.
Thank you for inviting us to share our work with you.