Section outline

  • Collapse Expand

    Collapse all Expand all
    Cambridge International AS Level Spanish Language 8022 (for examination from 2024)
    Example Candidate Responses (Component 04 - Speaking)
  • Collapse Expand


    • Introduction

      The main aim of this resource is to exemplify standards of Cambridge International AS Level Spanish Language, Paper 4 Speaking Test, and show how different levels of candidates' performance (high, high-middle and middle) relate to the subject's curriculum and assessment objectives. 

      Candidate responses have been selected from the November 2024 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 comments on 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. 

      The moderator comments in full, for all three levels of candidates' performance, can also be found below for you to download and print. 

      Please note: Information about the candidate and centre has been removed from the recording to protect the identity of the candidate. The 5 minute preparation time has also been removed from the audios for the purpose of this resource. Teacher/examiners must not stop the recording for the preparation time and must limit this to 5 minutes exactly. 

    • Moderator comments - Printable PDF File
      197.8 KB
  • Collapse Expand

    • Mark schemes

    • Presentation and follow-up discussion (30 marks) File
      55.2 KB
    • Conversation task card (30 marks) and Pronunciation and intonation (5 marks) File
      58.8 KB


    • Now that you have read the mark schemes, 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 examiner comments and marks below.

  • Collapse Expand

    • High level response


    • Transcript (high) File
      645.1 KB
    • Presentation and follow-up discussion

      Presentation, interaction/responsiveness: 

      The candidate’s topic presentation on a rock band was detailed and her knowledge and enthusiasm for the topic came through very clearly. The candidate was able to discuss the band’s career giving detailed information with clearly stated ideas and opinions and she went on to explain the circumstances that led her to start following the band in question. Furthermore, she was able to discuss other musical topics in the follow-up discussion, justifying her points of view. She responded fully to all question types and expanded her answers naturally taking the lead in the conversation.

      Mark awarded = 10 out of 10 

      Language range

      The candidate used a wide range of vocabulary and cohesive devices, some of which were of an idiomatic nature, to connect her viewpoints. The use of vocabulary was varied, sophisticated and specific to the topic of music. The candidate used a very good range of tenses and syntactical structures. The language range was sustained throughout the presentation and follow-up discussion. 

      Mark awarded = 9 out of 10

      Language accuracy

      The language accuracy was consistently outstanding and virtually error-free.     

      Mark awarded = 10 out of 10


      Total mark awarded for Presentation and follow-up discussion = 29 out of 30

    • Conversation task card (Card 2)

      Task completion and communication

      The candidate completed all tasks fully and confidently, engaging in the conversation without hesitation. All tasks were completed, and the teacher/examiner used the suggested questions provided in the Instructions for Teachers/Examiners booklet. She also went on to ask further questions to seek clarification on the term comida chatarra used by the candidate. The interaction between the teacher/examiner and the candidate was excellent and fluent.   

      Mark awarded = 10 out of 10 

      Language range

      As in the previous section, the candidate used a wide range of sophisticated vocabulary that was fully relevant to the topic of food. Expressions such as se tientan a comer or llamarían la atención are examples of less common vocabulary which the candidate managed to use convincingly and in the correct register. The candidate uses a wide range of linking and cohesive devices, although more complex grammatical structures could have been included.

      Mark awarded = 9 out of 10

      Language accuracy

      The language accuracy was, once again, consistently outstanding and virtually error-free.      

      Mark awarded = 10 out of 10 

      Total mark awarded for Conversation task card = 29 out of 30

       

      Pronunciation and intonation for the whole speaking test

      Both the candidate’s pronunciation and intonation are outstanding throughout the test. All sounds are articulated clearly, and her intonation flows well throughout the conversation.   

      Mark awarded = 5 out of 5

        

      Total mark awarded for Speaking test = 63 out of 65 

    • Moderator comments (Whole test)

      Conduct of the test:
      The Teacher/Examiner introduces the test clearly and reminds the candidate of the structure of the test. The teacher/examiner checks that the candidate has understood procedures and asks the candidate to state the topic of their presentation. The candidate’s presentation is a few seconds short of the 2-minute-long prescribed length, which is best avoided. The follow-up discussion is 4 minutes and 20 seconds long which falls into the length prescribed (4 to 5 minutes). Similarly, the timings for the Conversation Task Card were appropriate.    

      How the teacher/examiner performance could improve:

      It seems that the Teacher/Examiner was very aware of the candidate’s linguistic competence and so some of the questions asked in the follow-up discussion after the presentation could have been less factual. The candidate, however, took the initiative and expanded her answers confidently and so the candidate’s performance remained unaffected. The teacher/examiner must ask questions which enable the candidate to provide opinions in relation to the topic of their presentation.  

      How the candidate performance could improve:

      The candidate’s performance was very strong throughout, although she could have used a wider range of complex structures in both sections of the test, including subordinate clauses with subjunctives.

  • Collapse Expand

    • High-middle level response

    • Transcript (high-middle) File
      663.2 KB
    • Presentation and follow-up discussion

      Presentation, interaction/responsiveness

      The presentation was thoroughly prepared and the candidate’s interest in the chosen topic comes through very clearly. The candidate makes several references to the social and political context, setting the background for his presentation on Spanish film whilst communicating detailed information and referring to various filmmakers. The candidate is able to justify, develop and explain his answers during the follow-up discussion showing a strong knowledge of his topic of choice. The candidate makes an anecdotal error mentioning Carlos Buñuel when he meant Luis Buñuel. The candidate’s interaction was very strong, and he was fully engaged in the conversation throughout. He responded fully and confidently to all question types.

      Mark awarded = 10 out of 10

      Language range

      The language range was very strong in the presentation section including complex language patterns. However, this standard was not sustained in the follow-up section. Overall, the candidate used a range of vocabulary appropriate to the task including a range of linking devices like para mí or the more common porque. Some of the structures used had first language influence like son de pobre calidad. The top of the Level 4 descriptor was the best match for this performance.  

      Mark awarded = 8 out of 10

      Language accuracy

      Similarly to the language range, the language accuracy was very strong in the presentation section of this test including some successful uses of subordinate clauses with the subjunctive mood. However, the accuracy in the follow-up discussion contained inconsistencies with gender agreement and incorrect verbal conjugations. Overall, the use of simple grammar was accurate, and some complex grammar was present with occasional slips which makes the lower end of Level 4 the best fit for this performance.

      Mark awarded = 7 out of 10


      Total mark awarded for Presentation and follow-up discussion = 25 out of 30

    • Conversation task card (Card 4)

      Task completion and communication

      The candidate answered all questions fully and confidently, adding options and justifying his answers convincingly. The interaction with the teacher/examiner is consistently very good. Throughout this section of the test, the candidate developed a justified argument which at times he linked to the world of film or to his personal experiences in the past and present.  

      Mark awarded = 10 out of 10 

      Language range

      The candidate uses a range of language appropriate to the task and he attempts to vary formulation with some success. At times, he uses some vocabulary and expressions like nefariosa and no es una cosa que queremos volver a that are influenced by English. The lower end of the Level 4 box is the best fit for this performance.  

      Mark awarded = 7 out of 10

      Language accuracy

      As in the presentation and follow-up discussion, the candidate’s performance shows the ability to use simple grammar accurately despite some occasional slips when attempting to use more complex or idiomatic language. Grammatical gender agreements are, at times, inconsistent, but errors never impede successful communication. Therefore, the lower end of the Level 4 box is the best fit for this performance.

      Mark awarded = 7 out of 10

      Total mark awarded for Conversation task card = 24 out of 30


      Pronunciation and intonation for the whole speaking test

      The pronunciation is intelligible despite some words like dictadura being mispronounced. These are exceptions in an otherwise good performance. Individual sounds are always pronounced correctly. The intonation is appropriate throughout the test and therefore it matches the requirements for Level 3.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5

       

      Total mark awarded for Speaking test = 53 out of 65

    • Moderator comments (Whole test)

      Conduct of the test:
      The teacher/examiner introduces the different sections of the test clearly and checks that the candidate has understood the format. The teacher/examiner asks the candidate to state the topic of the presentation. The timings are kept perfectly well in both sections. The Teacher/Examiner asks pertinent questions which enable the candidate to provide opinions in relation to the topic of the presentation. All questions are clearly worded and as succinct as they can be. In the Conversation Task Card section, the teacher/examiner used the suggested questions available in the Instructions for Teachers/Examiners booklet and added other relevant questions that were appropriate in the context of the topic.

      How the teacher/examiner performance could improve:

      The teacher/examiner’s performance was excellent throughout the test. She pitched the standard of questions at the right level, enabling the candidate to provide opinions and thereby facilitating a fluid discussion.

      How the candidate performance could improve:
      This candidate had clearly prepared thoroughly for the test as evidenced by the delivery of a strong presentation. The overall performance would have improved had he used a wider range of vocabulary and grammatical structures in an accurate fashion.

  • Collapse Expand

    • Middle level response

    • Transcript (middle) File
      644.2 KB
    • Presentation and follow-up discussion

      Presentation, interaction/responsiveness

      The presentation is delivered at remarkable speed which at times impedes a clear understanding of the content. The candidate communicates detailed information on the impact of tourism in South America and her opinions are mostly clear and supported with relevant examples. The candidate responds to the questions promptly and has good interaction with the teacher/examiner. The performance fits the top of Level 4 in the marking grid.

      Mark awarded = 8 out of 10

      Language range

      The candidate uses a good range of linking devices to connect well developed points on the issue of the conservation of monuments in South America. The vocabulary used is specific and appropriate to the task. Nouns like artefacto, patrimonio or verbs such as conllevar or decimar stand out as being less common vocabulary. The language range appears to be consistent in both the presentation and the follow-up sections of the test. The use of more complex sentence patterns with relative clauses and the subjunctive mood would have increased the language range mark.

      Mark awarded = 8 out of 10

      Language accuracy

      The candidate uses basic grammar accurately. Some of the attempts at using more complex grammar are successful. Some inaccuracies with gender agreements are also present but at no point do they impede communication. The candidate’s performance corresponds to the descriptors at the top of the Level 4 box.

      Mark awarded = 8 out of 10

       

      Total mark awarded for Presentation and follow-up discussion = 24 out of 30

    • Conversation task card (Card 1)

      Task completion and communication

      The candidate completes some tasks successfully in this section. The information communicated is sometimes relevant, but sometimes the candidate has difficulty providing a meaningful answer to the question. In the last question of the section the candidate is asked whether or not there will be more voluntary workers in the future, but the candidate seems to misunderstand the question and comments on planting trees in the neighbourhood.

      Mark awarded = 6 out of 10

      Language range

      The candidate uses vocabulary appropriate to the task and also uses some linking devices to connect points, but answers are not always fully developed. There is some repetition and hesitation particularly towards the end of this section requiring the Teacher/Examiner to ask a further question to maintain the pace of the conversation. This performance matches the top of the Level 3 box. 

      Mark awarded = 6 out of 10

      Language accuracy

      The candidate largely makes use of simple Spanish grammar. There is an unsuccessful attempt at producing a present subjunctive following Ojalá. Otherwise, the accuracy is inconsistent with a few incorrect gender agreements which very rarely impede communication. The use of verbs is decent and there are some slips in the use of prepositions. This performance fits the top of the Level 3 box in the mark scheme.

      Mark awarded = 6 out of 10


      Total mark awarded for Conversation task card = 18 out of 30


      Pronunciation and intonation for the whole speaking test

      The candidate’s pronunciation is intelligible overall and individual sounds are articulated clearly most of the time with few slips. The intonation is good throughout the test. The lower end of the Level 3 box is an appropriate match here.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5

       

      Total mark awarded for Speaking test = 46 out of 65

    • Moderator comments (Whole test)

      Conduct of the test:

      The teacher/examiner follows the Instructions for Teachers/Examiners booklet methodically and reads the instructions in a calm manner in order to reassure the candidate. The teacher/examiner checks the candidate has understood the introduction before proceeding to the test itself. Timings are kept well in both sections. The teacher/examiner’s follow-up questions after the presentation facilitate extended answers and, although some are challenging, the candidate answers them without much hesitation. In the Conversation Task Card section, the teacher/examiner follows the suggested questions provided in the Instructions to Teachers/Examiners booklet but also supports the candidate with further questions whenever she hesitates.

      How the teacher/examiner performance could improve:

      The teacher/examiner’s performance was very strong throughout the test. There were moments when the candidate started to hesitate, and the teacher/examiner supported the candidate well with extra questions to help her build back her confidence and continue the conversation
      How the candidate performance could improve:

      The candidate could have delivered the presentation, in particular, at a slower pace which would have helped to improve grammatical accuracy and pronunciation. At times, it felt that the candidate was trying to produce overly complex language whilst losing sight of some of the more basic language.
  • Collapse Expand

    • Common mistakes and guidance

      • The choice of Presentation topic is an essential one. The most engaging topics are inevitably the ones in which candidates have their own interest. The best presentations are well researched and structured to include a wide range of vocabulary and expressions as well as complex grammatical structures.

      • In the Follow-up discussion, candidates are expected to give extended answers, offer opinions and justify their answers. Offering contrasting ideas is a good way for candidates to showcase linguistic ability and makes the conversation more dynamic.

      • In the Conversation task card section candidates are advised to write down key words to help them with the conversation and this could include short expressions with more advanced language. By doing so, they may be less likely to improvise. Candidates must not write a monologue that they then read aloud.


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

      For further guidance for Teacher/examiners on conducting the Speaking tests please refer to 8022 Speaking Test Video Paper 4 (for examination from 2024) and 8022 Specimen Speaking Tests Paper 4 (for examination from 2024) on the School Support Hub. 
  • Collapse Expand