Candidate performance:

The candidate covers a range of material in her talk beginning with a comment on citizens’ legal responsibility to care for animals, touching on the problems street animals cause, using an example of a state that has introduced culling, tenuously linking street animals to garbage in the streets and concluding with a comment that maybe the issue of street animals is not as important as other social issues facing her country. 

The concluding point seems to contradict what was said before and this lack of a cohesive argument running through the talk is why the content is only deemed adequately used in Level 3.

In trying to deliver a memorised piece the candidate seems to be concentrating more on what to say next than how she is delivering her information. A good example of this is when she says: ‘… they may die slash they may also cause accidents.’ The candidate does not recognise the difference between her written preparation and the need to use a verbal conjunction. This impacts her delivery to the degree that ‘occasionally stilted’ in Level 4 cannot be applied. There are points in the talk where her delivery borders on ‘not secure’ in Level 2 but overall this would be a harsh judgement to make. The candidate tries to engage the audience through the use of appropriately used language devices such as tone and emphasis although this is counter-balanced by her frequent hesitancy and occasional inaccuracy of phrasing. Her misuse of ‘infamous’, her mispronunciation of ‘excrement’ and her phrasing of ‘one edge of PCA … act’, are examples. However, the candidate is attempting to use a level of language in her talk that is more developed so she should be credited for the effort, if not always the execution. Applying the Level 3 criteria that overall there is an ‘appropriate and accurate use of language demonstrated’ but with some inaccuracy also present, would seem the fairest judgement.

The performance sits most comfortably in Level 3. None of the Level 4 criteria are met but there are points in the talk where the examiner may be looking to those criteria in Level 2 before making an overall judgement that Level 3 is more appropriate. The performance is more secure than being just into Level 3 but not secure enough to completely satisfy all the criteria for this level so a mark of 10 or 11 should be considered. Given the issues with delivery and the inaccuracies highlighted, a mark of 10 should be awarded.

Mark awarded = 10 out of 20

How the examiner performance could improve:

In Part 1 there is little in the performance that the examiner could improve upon. The introduction is exemplary and the decision not to interrupt the candidate during Part 1 is how the test should be conducted. The candidate speaks for 3 minutes and 39 seconds so there is no need for the examiner either to intervene during the talk, because the candidate has faltered, or to bring it to a conclusion because the candidate has over-run the time allowed. The choice of topic may be questioned but the mark is dictated by the adequacy of the content and the quality of delivery; neither of which the examiner could be expected to influence during the test.

How the candidate performance could improve:

The choice of topic is not in itself an issue but, to a certain extent, how the candidate has approached it is. The content covers a range of ideas that are linked but rarely developed beyond the superficial. The closing comment seems to contradict all that has gone before in terms of why helping street animals is important. The central idea that animals – mostly undefined other than ‘maybe stray dogs’ - are ‘voiceless’ victims needing help is repeated throughout in different guises but rarely developed beyond the general statement. There is no real sense of what animals are being discussed, how they are suffering or what solutions should be employed. This limitation of not really understanding the topic in sufficient depth is even more exposed in Part 2. Putting together 3-4 minutes of material is not enough to satisfy the Level 4 descriptor for ‘sound use of content’. In this example the candidate would have been better served by using less range and more development of fewer points. For example, what kind of animals are being discussed and what specific issues do these street animals cause? The candidate could have included some pertinent data about how big the problem of street animals really is.

The often hesitant delivery is an issue in this talk. The candidate has attempted to memorise her presentation then deliver it verbatim. Much of the hesitancy and inaccuracy stems from her effort to remember what she should be saying next. The candidate begins quite strongly making good use of language devices such as a rhetorical question and emphasis but soon lapses into memory mode. In doing so she loses the sense of audience that is important to a successful Part 1. More judicious use of a cue card with a selection of topic prompts would have been a more productive and better strategy. Fluency is often more important than remembering exactly what has been planned to say.

Using a higher level of vocabulary is to be commended but the candidate does struggle with some hesitancy and mispronunciation. Ensuring correct pronunciation of more difficult vocabulary is important to the overall fluency of the talk. The candidate could have been more aware of certain words she wanted to use but may have difficulty with and practised them beforehand.

Common mistakes and misconceptions:

In Part 1, the content descriptor is really about structure. This performance lasts for well over 3 minutes so there is sufficient content used for it not to be deemed ‘thin’ in Level 2 but there is little structure to the argument being made. There are links between the different sets of comments, albeit some tenuous, but no real feeling that a cohesive point is being made. Most presentations and talks begin in written form so the format of a powerful beginning, developed main body of evidence and conclusive ending still applies to well-organised use of content.

Delivery is an important factor in any presentation. Memorising a talk is helpful but only to the extent that the candidate is confident in the content and structure of what is going to be said. Once remembering word for word becomes more important than fluent and effective delivery the candidate will lose sight of an essential element in the talk, the presence of an (imaginary?) audience.

Whilst using a more challenging choice of vocabulary is recommended, it is important that any candidate is confident both that the words chosen are used accurately and that they are pronounced appropriately.

Using the correct words to make a precise point is more important than candidates merely trying to impress the examiner with their range of vocabulary.

Candidate performance:

The candidate’s lack of in-depth knowledge of the chosen topic is exposed in Part 2. For a large part, the examiner is in full control of the conversation as the candidate waits passively for a question before answering and then waiting for the next one. 

There is a sense that the candidate is engaging with the question and answer process but is hindered by her lack of anything detailed to say. Her use of language devices is more ‘appropriate’ in Level 3 than ‘limited’ in Level 2 but is not securely so. There are examples of appropriate use of language – ‘start developing a sense of responsibility’, ‘advocating and promoting such sponsorship programmes’ – but also instances of inaccuracy – ‘can comfort …’, non-killing centre’, ‘has usually been originated’ and ‘has a life in them’. 

Some of the responses are vague and unsubstantiated – ‘littering etc.’, ‘70% of time’ – so the precise use of language is sometimes missing. Overall the response fulfils some of the criteria in Level 3 best but is not secure within this band so a mark of 5 can be awarded.

There is little evidence to suggest the candidate has previously considered what questions may be asked and how to respond to them appropriately or in any consistent detail. The response to the first question sets the tone. It is muddled and does not focus directly on the question. Generally, throughout Part 2, the responses are clipped, lack cohesive thought and do not provide appropriate answers to what is being asked. The examiner asks: ‘Can culling ever be justified?’ The question is delivered together with an appropriate analogous prompt regarding culling in the UK but the candidate responds with a comment that does not relate to the culling of animals in any detail. When the examiner asks what can be done to make people care more for animals the candidate responds with a comment about literacy but does not relate it directly to the plight of animals. 

The answer to the question about garbage is better because the thought process is clearer. 

Overall, the candidate maintains the conversation by attempting to answer all the questions but does not respond effectively to most of the prompts. The responses are not detailed and at times limited or peter out. 

A mark of 5 or 6 in Level 3 can be considered with 6 being preferable because the candidate does engage with all the questions.

Mark awarded = 5 (Speaking) + 6 (Listening) = 11 out of 20

How the examiner performance could improve:

The examiner maintains the conversation for the required 7 minutes by having sufficient relevant questions to ask. Most are open questions and offer the candidate the opportunity to respond in detail. Perhaps the examiner could have realised early into Part 2 that the candidate was not responding effectively to the line of questioning and opted to make some of the questions more grounded and straightforward. ‘Why do you care so much for street animals?’ or ‘What problems do street animals cause in your neighbourhood?’ may have allowed the candidate to relax more into the conversation. 

The examiner could have challenged some of the vaguer responses by asking the candidate to focus more on specific issues but this is a judgement call that the examiner must make in situ. The candidate appeared nervous and easily may have become flustered by a more aggressive approach to questioning.

Stopping the Part 2 after 7 minutes and not allowing the candidate the additionally allowed minute to respond to more questions is also a judgement call. Will the mark be improved by offering more opportunities to respond? Often the answer will be no.

How the candidate performance could improve:

The candidate could have prepared more thoroughly for Part 2 by imagining what questions may be asked and having some new material to introduce in response that had not been mentioned already in Part 1. Instead, she seems limited by her knowledge of the topic to generalised answers that are occasionally relevant to the questions asked.

The candidate seems content to wait for the examiner to ask a question. Being more aware that Part 2 is a conversation that should evolve and flow naturally could have benefitted the candidate but for some it is a daunting prospect to be proactive in a one-to-one situation with a figure of authority. Nevertheless, this is a useful skill to acquire for future situations such as interviews and debates so it is worth attempting to be a little more forthright during Part 2. The Level 4 descriptor is ‘attempts to speak on equal terms’ rather than being totally successful.

The candidate’s responses are often muddled, perhaps the result of an eagerness to answer immediately without first thinking about the question carefully. It is perfectly okay to take a moment of reflection to organise one’s thoughts before responding. 

Common mistakes and misconceptions:

The careful choice of a topic that lends itself to not only 3-4 minutes of presentation but also 7-8 minutes of in-depth discussion is the basis of a successful test. Some candidates choose a topic based on a personal interest – in this instance the candidate does seem passionate about the plight of street animals – but without the depth of knowledge to really speak about the subject. 7-8 minutes is a long time to converse on a topic a candidate has not researched in sufficient depth. Often this is an issue with topic choices such as ‘Football’, ‘Computer Games’ or ‘Social Media’ that are so generalised and lacking in focus that they do not lend themselves to stimulating conversation and so limit the mark achievable in Part 2. 

Topics that are more focused and where the candidate has a real detailed understanding of the potential issues involved will always be better choices.

 The conversation should be exactly that, a fluid evolving dialogue between the examiner and candidate that ebbs and flows naturally. When Part 2 becomes an examiner asking a question and the candidate answering before waiting to repeat the process then the conversation becomes artificial. This is to the detriment of the candidate’s final marks for Part 2, especially when the questions are independent of each other with no direct link to the last response.