Several questions were repeated multiple times, which may have caused confusion for the candidate. The teacher/examiner should have used more Alternative questions and allowed sufficient wait time to give the candidate an opportunity to respond. There were also noticeable signs of impatience, as responses were not given adequate time before moving on. In addition, there were mistakes in delivering some questions, including altering the wording, skipping certain questions, and not following the script as printed. These issues affected the flow of the assessment and may have impacted the candidate’s overall performance.

The candidate:

• demonstrated very limited communication, with frequent non-responses.
• experienced significant difficulty answering questions; responses, when provided, often reflected limited understanding.
• showed minimal interaction and engagement throughout the assessment.
• provided very limited information, even when prompted.
• required frequent repetition of instructions and prompts to attempt a response.
• was unable to develop ideas or provide relevant context in responses.

Quality of Language

The candidate:

• demonstrated a very limited vocabulary and relied almost entirely on basic language structures.
• frequently hesitated and struggled to form complete, meaningful responses.
• used pronunciation that was generally adequate, but overall verbal output remained restricted and limited.
• showed a narrow range of vocabulary, limiting the ability to convey meaning.
• was unable to construct coherent or meaningful sentences consistently.
• displayed no evidence of grammatical complexity, relying on very simple structures.
• possessed minimal linguistic resources to support effective communication.
• experienced frequent communication breakdowns due to limited language proficiency.