Role play candidate card three

Conduct of the test: 

The role play was conducted well by the teacher/examiner. The teacher/examiner read the scenario for the role play as instructed in Chinese. This is important to set the scene for candidates.

The teacher/examiner asked the questions clearly, at a good pace and gave the candidate sufficient time to respond.

Candidate response:

Mark awarded for task 1 = 2 out of 2

Mark awarded for task 3 = 2 out of 2

Mark awarded for task 4 = 1 out of 2

Conduct of the test

The teacher/examiner was well prepared for the Speaking test, and this was further evidenced in the topic conversations.

The teacher/examiner clearly indicated the transition from the role play to the topic conversations and indicated the name of the topic conversation at the start to give the candidate some context.

The teacher/examiner asked each question exactly as it was printed, repeating questions where necessary or using the alternative questions. She made effective use of an extension question in topic conversation 1, Question 3. Additionally, in topic conversation 1, she made use of a further question in accordance with the advice in the Instructions for Teachers/Examiners which states that if the topic conversation lasts 3.5 minutes or less, teacher/examiners must ask up to two further questions on the same topic so that the conversation lasts approximately 4 minutes.

Candidate response

In topic conversation 2, the candidate had difficulty understanding many of the questions but attempted an answer (with creditable responses in Questions 2 and 5).

As a result, his overall performance was felt to adequately meet the Weak descriptor level for Communication, so he was placed in the middle of the level, especially as he expressed two simple opinions in topic conversation 1.

The candidate showed the occasional basic correct sentences but with a limited use of structures and vocabulary in many questions.

The candidate’s fluency was affected by the use of English, long pauses, and noticeable hesitations although when he did speak his pronunciation was generally clear.

The candidate’s Quality of Language adequately met the Weak descriptor level requirements.

Mark awarded for Communication = 5 out of 15

Mark awarded for Quality of Language = 5 out of 15

Total mark awarded = 19 out of 40

• The teacher/examiner tried her best to elicit as much response as she could from the candidate through repetition of questions and the use of the alternative question. It can be challenging when faced with a weak candidate who finds it difficult to understand and answer questions.
• The teacher/examiner asked the alternative questions twice however, Instructions for Teachers/Examiners indicates that the alternative question should only be asked once.

How the candidate performance could improve

This candidate would have benefited from being much better prepared for the assessment through more conscientious revision of the vocabulary and structures in the syllabus. The candidate would have benefited from learning how to use the phrase 请再说一遍 (please repeat) rather than stating it in English.

Question 4 was generally answered well but weaker candidates did not pick up on the question asking a past time frame.

Question 5 Weaker candidates did not always understand the phrase 睡觉睡得够不够enough sleep and needed the alternative question.

Topic conversation 2, Topic 7 Education:

Question 3 Weaker candidates did not understand the word经历 experience and needed the alternative question.

Question 4 Weaker candidates found it hard to understand the key word 家长会 parents’ meeting or 好处／坏处advantage/disadvantage.

Question 5 The phrase 夏令营summer camp proved challenging to some candidates who needed the alternative question.

For further details about how candidates performed in this particular examination series please refer to the Principal Examiner Report for Teachers.