Example candidate response 2 - Part 1 Individual Talk
Individual Talk
Moderator comments (Part 1)
Conduct of the test:
The examiner introduces the test appropriately by stating the
information required. (This section has been removed from this recording to protect the identity of the candidate.) The date stated is within the window for the test.
Following the formal introduction the examiner asks the candidate for the name
of the topic. The examiner also asks whether the candidate feels confident
about the topic before prompting her to begin Part 1.
The examiner is passive
throughout the talk and only speaks to begin Part 2 when the candidate
stops talking.
The question regarding the confidence level of the candidate is
unnecessary but the rest of the conduct is good practice.
Candidate performance:
The candidate begins her talk by establishing her contrasting fear
of and fascination with the oceans and how deep-sea diving is a way to explore
the undersea environment. The candidate briefly explains what diving entails,
how it works and then introduces some good locations to try the activity. She
neatly concludes her talk by returning to her first point and wishing one day
she will be brave enough to try diving. There is a clear structure to the
presentation and it lasts for a perfectly acceptable 3 minutes and 33 seconds.
Throughout the talk the candidate demonstrates a clear understanding of what
she wants to say. The content is used soundly and her delivery is very
smoothly executed throughout although it is rather one-paced. The candidate
exhibits a clear sense of audience, for example, through her use of asking a
question then providing an answer. The audience is engaged by both the content
and the fluency of the delivery. A range of language devices are used safely
including emphasis and tone. The candidate uses appropriate vocabulary such as
‘intimidating’, ‘interacting’ and ‘observing the beauty of’ that is mostly
accurate. The repetition of ‘so’ and ‘nice’ and her awkward use of ‘inhibited’
do not diminish the overall effect.
The performance sits comfortably within the higher part of Level 4
so a mark of 15 or 16 is appropriate.
Mark awarded = 16 out of 20
How the examiner
performance could improve:
There is no more the examiner can do in Part 1 other than introducing the test
effectively and passively listening to the talk whilst possibly taking some
notes to use in Part 2. The introduction must always include the date of the
test. The question about how confident the candidate is with
the topic is not an issue here as it does not delay the start of the talk by
very long, and does not impede the candidate’s performance but it is
unnecessary and is best avoided. Attempts to put candidates at ease by
informally chatting before the beginning of the test are meant in good faith
but they can be counter productive.
How the candidate
performance could improve:
The content
is used soundly but there is a sense that the audience is hearing a
dispassionate travelogue that lacks any personal involvement. The candidate
cannot describe the feelings engendered by taking part in this activity because
she has never tried it and freely admits to a sense of fear that is never
developed or expanded upon in the presentation. This talk is safe
and soundly structured but the lack of any sense of analysis, reflection or
emotional attachment is an issue when striving to attain Level 5. The delivery
is engaging but rather one-paced so the range of language devices used is not
wide. Those that are employed are accurately used but there is a sense of
opportunities missed by the candidate. Finding other conjunctions rather than
using ‘so’ with such frequency would also improve the talk.
Common mistakes and
misconceptions:
Examiners
quite rightly want to put candidates at ease when they attempt their tests but
engaging them in irrelevant chat before Part 1 often has the opposite
effect. Most candidates have prepared up to the moment they begin their tests
and just want to present their ideas while they are focused. Any distractions
can be very off-putting.
Topics work
best when there is a personal attachment to the subject underlined by personal
experience. Choosing to deliver a talk on an activity never previously
attempted is difficult, though not impossible. ‘Why I want to overcome my fear
to scuba dive’ may have been a better choice of emphasis for the candidate.
The examiner introduces the test appropriately by stating the information required. (This section has been removed from this recording to protect the identity of the candidate.) The date stated is within the window for the test. Following the formal introduction the examiner asks the candidate for the name of the topic. The examiner also asks whether the candidate feels confident about the topic before prompting her to begin Part 1.
The examiner is passive throughout the talk and only speaks to begin Part 2 when the candidate stops talking.
The question regarding the confidence level of the candidate is unnecessary but the rest of the conduct is good practice.
Candidate performance:
The candidate begins her talk by establishing her contrasting fear of and fascination with the oceans and how deep-sea diving is a way to explore the undersea environment. The candidate briefly explains what diving entails, how it works and then introduces some good locations to try the activity. She neatly concludes her talk by returning to her first point and wishing one day she will be brave enough to try diving. There is a clear structure to the presentation and it lasts for a perfectly acceptable 3 minutes and 33 seconds. Throughout the talk the candidate demonstrates a clear understanding of what she wants to say. The content is used soundly and her delivery is very smoothly executed throughout although it is rather one-paced. The candidate exhibits a clear sense of audience, for example, through her use of asking a question then providing an answer. The audience is engaged by both the content and the fluency of the delivery. A range of language devices are used safely including emphasis and tone. The candidate uses appropriate vocabulary such as ‘intimidating’, ‘interacting’ and ‘observing the beauty of’ that is mostly accurate. The repetition of ‘so’ and ‘nice’ and her awkward use of ‘inhibited’ do not diminish the overall effect.
The performance sits comfortably within the higher part of Level 4 so a mark of 15 or 16 is appropriate.
Mark awarded = 16 out of 20
How the examiner performance could improve:
There is no more the examiner can do in Part 1 other than introducing the test effectively and passively listening to the talk whilst possibly taking some notes to use in Part 2. The introduction must always include the date of the test. The question about how confident the candidate is with the topic is not an issue here as it does not delay the start of the talk by very long, and does not impede the candidate’s performance but it is unnecessary and is best avoided. Attempts to put candidates at ease by informally chatting before the beginning of the test are meant in good faith but they can be counter productive.
How the candidate performance could improve:
The content is used soundly but there is a sense that the audience is hearing a dispassionate travelogue that lacks any personal involvement. The candidate cannot describe the feelings engendered by taking part in this activity because she has never tried it and freely admits to a sense of fear that is never developed or expanded upon in the presentation. This talk is safe and soundly structured but the lack of any sense of analysis, reflection or emotional attachment is an issue when striving to attain Level 5. The delivery is engaging but rather one-paced so the range of language devices used is not wide. Those that are employed are accurately used but there is a sense of opportunities missed by the candidate. Finding other conjunctions rather than using ‘so’ with such frequency would also improve the talk.
Common mistakes and misconceptions:
Examiners quite rightly want to put candidates at ease when they attempt their tests but engaging them in irrelevant chat before Part 1 often has the opposite effect. Most candidates have prepared up to the moment they begin their tests and just want to present their ideas while they are focused. Any distractions can be very off-putting.
Topics work best when there is a personal attachment to the subject underlined by personal experience. Choosing to deliver a talk on an activity never previously attempted is difficult, though not impossible. ‘Why I want to overcome my fear to scuba dive’ may have been a better choice of emphasis for the candidate.