📄 A2 German Exam – Final Analytics Report

1. Batch Analytics Overview

 Total Students: 15
 Overall Class Average: 68.63%
 Highest Scorer: Prabin Guragain (80.5%)
 Lowest Scorer: Ranju Sunar (51.5%)

Module Overall Average (%)

Schreiben (Writing) 75.73%
Lesen (Reading) 65.00%
Hören (Listening) 58.33%
Sprechen (Speaking) 75.47%
Total Overall Average 68.63%

2. Global, Nepal, and Our Batch Comparison

Score Range Global Typical % Nepal Estimated % Our Batch %
90–100% (Outstanding) 1–2% ~0% 0%
80–89% (Very Good) 5–10% 1–3% 6%
70–79% (Good) 20–25% 10–15% 47%
60–69% (Satisfactory) 15–20% 10–20% 27%
Below 60% (Failed) 45–60% 65–75% 20%

✅ Interpretation:
  Global passing rate is about 40–55%.
 Nepal’s realistic passing rate is 20–35%.
 Our batch passing rate is ~80%, highly impressive.

📄 Additional Statement on Test Paper Difficulty and Evaluation Standards

The exam administered to the students was deliberately designed to challenge

them at a maximum difficulty level.
This decision was taken to simulate worst-case examination conditions and
assess true student competence under heightened pressure.
Key points regarding the test paper and evaluation process:
 Lesen (Reading Comprehension):
The reading section was set well above the average difficulty typically
observed in Goethe-Institut A2 examinations.
Longer texts, more complex vocabulary, and more subtle comprehension
tasks were intentionally included.
 Hören (Listening Comprehension):
Although the listening tasks themselves were of normal Goethe A2-level
difficulty, their effectiveness was compromised by environmental
disruptions caused by an electricity blackout.
The resulting lack of cooling systems led to indoor temperatures of
approximately 35°C, significantly affecting students' focus and
concentration.
 Schreiben (Writing)
The first part of the writing section featured the most difficult possible
question for the A2 level, based on Goethe's official model sets.
This was deliberately chosen to test students' ability to construct coherent,
grammatically accurate, and content-appropriate texts under pressure.
 Sprechen (Speaking):
The speaking examination was conducted at a normal expected A2 level of
 difficulty.
Tasks were consistent with Goethe model speaking tasks in structure and
content.
 Evaluation Process:
Both the Schreiben and Sprechen sections were evaluated by an external
teacher selected specifically for their reputation for rigorous,
uncompromising assessment standards.
It must be noted that this external evaluator was described as “ruthless” in
grading — a decision taken deliberately by me, Instructor Aayush Niraula,
to ensure that scoring reflected true competence without inflation.

3. Full Students' Result Sheet

Name Schreiben Lesen Hören Sprechen Total %
Prabin Guragain 23 15 15 20 80.5%
Karuna Adhikari 21 16 15 20 79.75%
Sudharshan Poudel 18 17 16 20 79.25%
Niraj KC 20 17 15 18 78.0%
Niraj Acharya 19 16 13 21 76.25%
Bidhisha Gurung 20 13 12 21 72.25%
RN Pokhrel 20 17 11 16 71.0%
Sandesh Subedi 17 16 13 17 70.25%
Shashi Bagale 21 13 9 20 68.5%
Sunil Poudel 21 11 11 20 68.5%
Swostika Budhathoki 17 13 11 21 68.0%
Sudha Gaudel 19 8 9 20 60.25%
Pratikshya Poudel 16 10 10 12 53.0%
Rupal Raj Kharel 17 7 7 18 52.5%
Ranju Sunar 15 6 8 19 51.5%

Note: Schreiben and Sprechen are evaluated out of 25 and Lesen and hören out
of 20 as per Goethe Standards.

4. Teacher’s Remarks
Technical Difficulties
  Listening Section:
The Hören module was disrupted by an unexpected electricity blackout,
causing indoor temperatures to reach approximately 35°C, which
negatively impacted concentration.
 Instructor Apology:
I, Mr. Aayush Niraula, take full responsibility for the technical shortcomings
and have initiated immediate corrective action.

Student Feedback
 Niraj KC:
Reported that his speaking (Sprechen) performance was not accurately
reflected in his final score.
Independent observations confirm his confident and structured delivery.

Examination Conduct Observations

 Karuna Adhikari:
Willfully disobeyed invigilator instructions and engaged in answer sharing
during the examination.
Formal admonishment issued for breaching exam ethics.
 Rupal Raj Kharel and Swostika Budhathoki:
Were observed attempting to communicate with one another during the
examination.
This constitutes a violation of examination rules.
Formal admonishment issued for attempting to undermine examination
integrity.
 RN Pokhrel:
Displayed lack of decorum during the examination and is strongly
suspected of attempting communication with Karuna Adhikari (even
though no visual confirmation was captured).
A formal admonishment is issued based on strong circumstantial evidence
📄 Additional Statement on Student Attendance and Exam Preparation Behavior

During the course of exam preparation, it is important to note the following

points regarding student attendance and use of provided resources:
 Mr. Rupal Raj Kharel, Mr. Sudharshan Poudel, and Mr. Ranju Sunar were
frequently absent from lectures, practice sessions, and critical preparation
phases.
Their results — whether favorable or unfavorable — cannot be considered
a reflection of the instructor’s efforts or teaching methodology, given their
limited participation and engagement.
 Ms. Pratikshya Poudel and Ms. Sudha Gaudel also demonstrated non-
critical but significant irregularity in attendance.
Especially concerning is the fact that their absences were concentrated
during the final tail-end preparation phase leading up to the exam.
This lapse severely impacted their ability to consolidate concepts,
contributing to their weaker performances. Adding to their below class
average capacity to understand and master German concepts and skills in
general.
 Additionally, the instructor (Mr. Aayush Niraula) had granted a full one-
week preparation leave prior to the examination.
Students were explicitly encouraged to use this time for focused self-study,
revision, and practice.
However, it must be highlighted that the majority of students did not utilize
this preparation week productively, resulting in avoidable last-minute
weaknesses in several skill areas.
 Positive Exceptions:
Despite the overall lack of serious preparation among the batch, certain
students demonstrated commendable discipline and use of the preparation
time.
Chief among them were Mr. Prabin Guragain and Mr. Niraj KC, who
remained consistent, diligent, and focused on structured revision.
5. Final Summary
✅ Despite external disruptions and conduct issues, the batch achieved results that
exceed both Nepalese norms and match international realistic standards.
✅ Immediate measures are already being taken to address:
 Stronger emphasis on Listening practice,
 Reinforcement of exam discipline culture.