Topic 3

The candidate begins Part 1 with three short pertinent quotes about the chosen topic. The candidate then asks: ‘What is fear?’ She answers her own question with a developed definition using vivid imagery to convey meaning – ‘constricting shackles’ and  ‘a knife in your gut being excruciatingly slowly twisted’. The candidate then moves on to her next point as to whether fear is evil, by asking a question that she then answers in detail. She puts forward the theory that fear is an important and necessary human emotion. She then connects this idea to whether humans are good at reading their own fears and how they can become better at recognising the signs. She suggests that humans should concentrate less on irrational fears such as plane crashes but more on those fears that are practical warnings to change behaviour patterns. She concludes her talk by reciting a poem about fear.

The talk has a definite structure that interconnects smoothly from one section to the next. The recitation of relevant quotations to begin and a poem to end framework the talk impressively. The delivery is lively and engaging if a little frenetic at times. It is very fluent overall despite moments where the desire to recall information leads to an unwelcome increase in pace that then creates some hesitation and a loss of audience engagement. The candidate quickly adjusts, recovers her composure and continues with her points. It is a memorised talk but a sense of audience is present throughout. The candidate uses a wide range of language devices to good effect and sustains an appropriately high level and accurate use of language throughout. Her early mispronunciation of ‘philosopher’ is an outlier and can be ignored as the body of work is impressive – ‘mother’s warm comfortable womb’, ‘woven intricately around the hearts of all’ and ‘is fear inherently or necessarily evil'. There is an eloquence to her use of imagery and description.

The timing of Part 1 is within acceptable boundaries and the structure is strong so ‘full and well-organised use of content’ in Level 5 can be applied even though the talk overruns the maximum time allowed by 25 seconds.

Mark awarded = 18  out of 20

The candidate responds to the first question regarding fear and anxiety by pausing to collect her thoughts before giving an answer. The response is rather undeveloped and includes some awkward phrasing – ‘fear stems out’ and ‘put to the bloodstream’. 

The second response to the follow-up question is much more developed and sophisticated as the candidate relaxes into the conversation. In her response to the question about anticipating fear she shows confidence by using an effective analogy between controlled levels of fear being good for you and a ‘low rate of inflation’ being good for the economy. This is another detailed and developed response. When the examiner hints at interrupting, the candidate calmly asserts her point of view and continues to develop her point. In doing so she shows she is confident in speaking on equal terms with the listener. Throughout the remainder of the conversation the candidate responds fully to the questions with a natural enthusiasm and, in doing so, exhibits a detailed knowledge of her chosen topic. She uses a good range of language devices and her natural and eloquent choice of sophisticated vocabulary is a strength – ‘… lower the intensity … renders it more manageable’, ‘forces you to consolidate losses and tighten relationships’ and ‘but if you have a debilitating fear of public speaking’ are some examples. 

Mark awarded = 9 (Speaking) and 10 (Listening) = 19 out of 20 

How the examiner performance could improve: 

The timing is the only real issue in this Part 2. The conversation lasts for considerably longer than the maximum time allowed. This is not as significant as a Part 2 that is short because the candidate has completed a full test and there is sufficient evidence available to make a definitive judgement as to the marks that should be awarded. Otherwise, the examiner exhibits good practice in her line of open sophisticated questioning, use of productive prompts and the level at which she pitches the conversation throughout. 

How the candidate performance could improve: 

This candidate is operating comfortably within Level 5 in her Part 2 so the following comments are the reason for a mark of 9 and not 10 for Speaking. The first response is the weakest of the conversation and a moment’s more reflection before attempting an answer could have been helpful. There is some slippage of language use caused by awkward phrasing. Once settled into the conversation, the candidate responds with intensity. Her delivery is fast-paced and perhaps missing a range of tone. She would have been better advised to slow down a little to clearly emphasise what she is saying. On occasion the listener has to concentrate deeply to understand what she says because the words are spoken so rapidly. 

Common mistakes and misconceptions: 

A candidate’s performance does not have to be perfect to gain top marks in Level 5. Once it has been decided that a candidate is operating within Level 5 the question is whether all the descriptors have been satisfied fully by the performance or is there some doubt. In this instance there is some doubt as whether the second descriptor for Language has been fulfilled so the mark is 9 not 10. Both descriptors for Listening have been fulfilled so it is difficult to argue against 10 being awarded.