0500 FLE ECR Speaking (2020) | Online Learning area

Topic outline

Select topic

Collapse all Expand all
Cambridge IGCSE™ / IGCSE (9-1) First Language English 0500 / 0990 (for examination from 2020)

Example Candidate Responses (Component 04 - Speaking and Listening Test)
- Select activity // Hide menu bar - class = navbar navbar-inverse d...
- Select activity Introduction Marking: Level descriptions Example c...
  Introduction
  
  Marking: Level descriptions
  
  Example candidate response 1
  
  Example candidate response 2
  
  Example candidate response 3
Select topic
- Select activity Introduction The main aim of this resource is to e...
  Introduction
  
  The main aim of this resource is to exemplify standards of Cambridge IGCSE First Language English, Component 04 - Speaking and Listening Test, and show how different levels of candidates' performance relate to the subject's curriculum and assessment objectives.
  
  Candidate responses have been selected from the March 2020 series to exemplify a range of answers.
  
  The recording of each speaking test is followed by moderator comments on where and why marks were awarded or omitted, followed by how the answer could have been improved. In this way, it is possible for you to understand what candidates have done to gain their marks and what they could do to improve their answers. Common mistakes and misconceptions are also commented on for the whole test.
  
  For further details about how candidates performed in this particular examination series please refer to the Principal Examiner Report for Teachers available on the School Support Hub at:
  
  0500 First Language English March 2020 Examiner Report
- Select activity Text and media area
Select topic
- Select activity Marking: Level descriptions Table A: Level descrip...
  
  Marking: Level descriptions
- Table A: Level descriptions for Component 4, Part 1 Individual Talk (20 marks)
- Table B: Level descriptions for Component 4, Part 2 Conversation (20 marks)

Select activity Now that you have read the level descriptions, you...

Now that you have read the level descriptions, you may want to practise marking a speaking test. Listen to the candidate responses below, make a note of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate and give a mark, before you read the moderator comments and marks below.

Please note: Information about the candidate and centre has been removed from the start of the recording to protect the identity of the candidate, however it is very important to include this information when submitting audios for moderation.
Select activity Example candidate response 1 - Part 1 Individual T...

Example candidate response 1 - Part 1 Individual Talk
Select activity Individual Talk
Individual Talk
Select activity Moderator comments (Part 1) Conduct of the test: T...

Moderator comments (Part 1)

Conduct of the test:

The examiner introduces the test appropriately. The date stated is within the allotted window. (The centre and candidate information has been removed from this recording to protect the identity of the candidate, but it is important to include this information when submitting tests.) At 32 seconds into the recording the examiner asks the candidate to say something about herself. This section takes a further 44 seconds before the actual Part 1 begins. The examiner remains passive throughout the presentation and does not interrupt at any point. The talk is 4 minutes and 25 seconds in length and concludes naturally so there is no need for the examiner to intercede.

Candidate performance:

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
How the examiner performance could improve:
In the original recording submitted, the introduction is succinct and includes all the necessary information. The examiner correctly allows the talk to proceed to a natural conclusion without interruption. The space where the test is being conducted is secure and free from any external influences. All the above indicate good practice.
Asking the candidate to talk about herself before beginning Part 1 is not good practice. It may be used to put the candidate at ease but it is unnecessary and may disturb focus rather than alleviate any nervousness a candidate may feel. If an examiner feels a candidate is nervous on entering the test room it is best to address these nerves prior to beginning the recording.
How the candidate performance could improve:
The candidate is operating within Level 5 so any improvement is marginal. The structure, through the use of content, is very good, as is the use of appropriate language and language devices. Any improvement that could be made is in the delivery of the talk. In her eagerness to remember her talk, the candidate sometimes rushes her words as her pace increases. This leads to some hesitation as she tries to collect her thoughts and unscramble some sentences. When she introduces the concept of whether we are good readers of fear or not is an example of this. To her credit, the candidate recognises this issue and pauses momentarily to reorganise her thoughts and slow the pace of delivery before continuing.
Common mistakes and misconceptions:
Putting a candidate at ease with some informal conversation before beginning the test can be harmful and is strongly advised against. Generally, candidates want to start Part 1 as soon as they can.
Candidates do not have to deliver a perfect presentation to be considered for Level 5. but they do have to be operating at a high level. In a test environment even the most assiduously practised talk can deviate from the prepared timing. If a talk is slightly under the 3 minutes minimum or above the 4 minutes maximum it can still be considered to have fulfilled the descriptor for content at Level 5 as long as the structure of the talk is strong and defined, as it is in this example.
There is no hierarchy to the descriptors in each level so use of content is not more important than accurate use of language. Nor is there a points system in operation within the levels where one descriptor equals one mark. For this candidate it is fair to say she satisfies three of the four descriptors but the delivery is not as strong and does impact the overall impression of the talk so a mark of 18 in the middle of the level is more satisfactory than a mark of 19. Therefore, a more holistic view is needed when awarding a mark within a level, or indeed when deciding on a best-fit principle between levels, as is often the case.
Select activity Example candidate response 1 - Part 2 Conversation

Example candidate response 1 - Part 2 Conversation
Select activity Conversation
Conversation
Select activity Moderator comments (Part 2) Conduct of the test: T...

Moderator comments (Part 2)

Conduct of the test:

The examiner moves immediately into Part 2 after the candidate ends her talk. The first question is challenging: ‘Is fear a product of anxiety or anxiety a product of fear?’ This sets the tone for the rest of the conversation. The ‘futuristic anticipation’ question exemplifies the level of sophisticated vocabulary the examiner uses and displays her confidence that the candidate is capable of responding in a similar vein. Another open question follows – ‘How do you connect fear and phobia?’ – and the resultant response leads to a question about whether a fear of failure can make you perform better. The examiner listens closely to the candidate’s response and phrases the next question to explore one of the points raised. This linking of ideas creates a natural flow to the conversation and is a recurring theme throughout this Part 2. The examiner does not seem to have a prepared set of questions and is comfortable in her ability to let the conversation evolve naturally.
The examiner is not afraid to challenge the candidate – ‘embracing not facing’ – but it is done in a supportive and non-aggressive way that allows the candidate to confidently display her debating skills. Alterations in the direction of the conversation are managed subtly, as they should be for a candidate operating at this level. The conversation lasts for 9 minutes and 24 seconds. This is considerably longer than the maximum time allowed of 8 minutes.

Candidate performance:

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.

Select activity Example candidate response 2 - Part 1 Individual T...

Example candidate response 2 - Part 1 Individual Talk
Select activity Individual Talk
Individual Talk
Select activity Moderator comments (Part 1)Conduct of the test:The...

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.

Select activity Example candidate response 2 - Part 2 Conversation

Example candidate response 2 - Part 2 Conversation
Select activity Conversation
Conversation
Select activity Moderator comments (Part 2)Conduct of the test:The...

Moderator comments (Part 2)

Conduct of the test:
The examiner links the conclusion of Part 1 with the beginning of Part 2 by commenting that the talk was ‘quite interesting’. There is no break between the two parts of the test and the recording is continuous.
The comment is underwhelming but the conduct in bridging the two parts of the test is appropriate.
Part 2 lasts for only 5 minutes and 17 seconds so is much shorter than the minimum of 7 minutes required in the syllabus. The examiner controls the timing of Part 2 so it should last for at least the minimum time allowed.

The examiner manages the actual conversation mainly using open questions. The examiner begins with a closed question – ‘Do you know how to swim?’ but includes a more helpful prompt asking the candidate to share her thoughts. Her next question is an open one concerning the special skills and training needed in scuba diving.
The general line of questioning encourages the candidate to share her thoughts in detail although the next question, ‘Is deep-sea diving safe or dangerous?’ has the potential to be a closed question. The examiner chooses not to interrupt and allows the candidate to complete each response in full before moving on to the next question. All the questions focus on the chosen topic although they are not always linked closely to the previous answer.

Candidate performance:

The candidate is enthusiastic and wants to engage in Part 2. She seizes on the opening prompt with relish and responds with a detailed answer regarding her experiences of swimming. There is some slippage of language use – ‘I thought like sharks would get me’ and ‘yeah, you know, it was stupid’. Her next response is also very developed covering a number of skills needed to be successful when scuba diving. She organises her thoughts into a fluent, well-constructed response. The candidate continues to dominate the conversation with detailed answers throughout the rest of Part 2. As in Part 1, those language devices employed are used soundly. She injects some humour into her response to how she learnt to swim and her voice has a natural ‘sing-song’ quality that adds emphasis and nuances of tone that engage the audience. She is mainly consistent in her use of accurate language – ‘your equipment could also malfunction’ and ‘in their habitat … you must remember not to provoke them or disturb them in anyway’. Her use of technical terms is good – ‘ascend’, ‘descend’, pressure chamber’ - and her explanations of how scuba diving can be dangerous are detailed.

The candidate’s performance sits comfortably within Level 4. The subject matter is organised and mostly, but not always, expressed competently. There is some slippage in the use of language also so 7 is more appropriate than 8 for Speaking. The candidate consistently responds fully and confidently so there are elements of Level 5 present but there is little evidence of the candidate shaping the conversation and it is significantly short of the minimum 7 minutes required for a full Part 2. A best fit is a mark of 7 for Listening.

Mark awarded = 7 (Speaking) + 7 (Listening) = 14 out of 20

How the examiner performance could improve:

The examiner could ensure that a full test is completed by making Part 2 last at least 7 minutes. The candidate has plenty to say and only needs the minimal amount of prompting so there is no reason as to why a full Part 2 has not been completed. The examiner asks some relevant questions but does not necessarily listen closely to the candidate’s answers by linking the next question to the preceding response. This inhibits the candidate’s ability to satisfy certain descriptors in the mark scheme. For example, the candidate cannot satisfy the second half of the first descriptor in Level 4 for Listening as a conversation ‘sometimes shaped by the candidate’ suggests the examiner sometimes responds directly to what has just been said by the candidate.

The examiner should avoid asking any closed questions. In this Part 2 the candidate is more than willing to respond in detail to each question, whether open or closed, but this may not be the case for other candidates. Open questions and prompts encourage detailed responses or at least give every opportunity for a candidate to respond in extended detail.

How the candidate performance could improve:

The candidate is mostly very fluent and has plenty of relevant ideas to share. At times though her eagerness to reply leads her to stumble and her control of language slips as a result – ‘very close, like around them’ and ‘yeah you could drown, yeah’. There is also some evidence of awkward expression – ‘roam around’ and ‘so I can get less intimidated’. Briefly pausing to reflect before responding may help to eradicate these deficiencies.

Although the candidate is enthusiastic and clearly has much to say on her chosen topic, she is content for the examiner to lead the conversation and answer only the questions she is asked. It is difficult to do but more able candidates, who are aware of the descriptors they are trying to satisfy, will choose to shape the conversation by asking their own questions or prompting their examiners to reply directly to their comments, thus ensuring a natural conversation develops.

Common mistakes and misconceptions:

The timings in both parts of the test are important. The level criteria are based on a full test being completed and some, particularly in Level 4 and Level 5, cannot be applied to tests that are short of the minimum time requirement. For example, the Level 4 criteria for Listening ‘consistently responds appropriately and in extended detail …’ cannot be fully applied to a conversation that is significantly shorter than the minimum 7 minutes. Conversations that extend beyond the maximum 8 minutes are not as problematical as the examiner may choose to dismiss anything said after the cut-off point as it is unlikely that there will be any new evidence to suggest a change in mark in this section of the conversation. It is the responsibility of the examiner leading the test to guarantee a candidate is given every opportunity to achieve the best mark possible by having enough material to ensure Part 2 of the test lasts for at least 7 minutes.

Two common mistakes for some examiners is talking too much in Part 2 and often interrupting the candidates when they have more to say. The examiner should not dominate the conversation but create opportunities for the candidate to speak at length and in detail through open questioning and prompts. The examiner should listen carefully to the candidate’s response and link the next question so a natural flow is created. The descriptor referring to ‘changes in the direction of the conversation’ does not mean the examiner must move away from the central topic with tangential questioning. In its most successful form, changing direction is a subtle process just as it may be in any conversation that has a single focus.

Select activity Example candidate response 3 - Part 1 Individual T...

Example candidate response 3 - Part 1 Individual Talk
Select activity Individual Talk
Individual Talk
Select activity Moderator comments (Part 1)Conduct of the test:The...

Moderator comments (Part 1)

Conduct of the test:
The examiner introduces the test appropriately. The date when the test is being conducted is clearly stated and is within the specified window. All the other information required is also stated clearly and succinctly. (This information has been removed to protect the identity of the candidate.)
Once the examiner completes delivering the introduction the candidate is allowed to begin the talk. The examiner remains passive throughout the Part 1 talk and does not interrupt at any point. Once it is clear the candidate has finished Part 1, the examiner begins Part 2 immediately.
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.
Select activity Example candidate response 3 - Part 2 Conversation

Example candidate response 3 - Part 2 Conversation
Select activity Conversation
Conversation
Select activity Moderator comments (Part 2)Conduct of the test:The...

Moderator comments (Part 2)

Conduct of the test:
The examiner has a relaxed style that is positive throughout Part 2. He immediately establishes the foundation for a productive conversation in which the candidate is given opportunities to delve deeper into the topic. The examiner immediately begins Part 2 after the candidate concludes her talk. His open question is focused on content from the talk and invites the candidate to expand on the information she has already raised. This is good practice.
Throughout the conversation the examiner asks open questions and provides inviting prompts for the candidate to respond to. An example is: ‘What can be done to make people care more for animals?’
Several times during Part 2 the examiner tries to bring the candidate back to the immediate topic but each time the candidate’s response is generalised and unfocused.
Overall, Part 2 becomes more of a straightforward question and answer session than a genuine conversation but this is because the candidate does not engage effectively, despite the examiner’s best efforts.
The conversation ends rather abruptly at 7 minutes and 1 second but is just within the timescale allowed. The ‘end of recording’ comment is appropriate and clearly signals the completion of the test.
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.