Section outline

  • Collapse Expand

    Collapse all Expand all
    Cambridge IGCSE™ Malay 0546 (for examination from 2025)
    Example Candidate Responses (Paper 3 Speaking)
  • Collapse Expand


    • Introduction


      The main aim of this resource is to exemplify standards and show how different levels of candidate performance (high, middle and low) relate to the subject's curriculum and assessment objectives. 

      This resource includes:

        • speaking test criteria grids
        • recordings of three speaking tests
        • transcripts and moderator comments on where and why marks are awarded
        • moderator comments to indicate how the teacher/examiner and candidate perform during the test
        • common mistakes, misconceptions and guidance for candidates about how candidates performed in this particular examination series.


      Candidate responses have been chosen from June 2025 Component 3 to exemplify a range of answers to a selection of Speaking Assessment topics. More information about this examination series can be found in the Principal Examiner Report for Teachers available on the School Support Hub.

      After reading the speaking assessment criteria below, 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.

      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.

  • Collapse Expand

    • Speaking assessment criteria grids

    • speaking assessment criteria grids

      Speaking assessment criteria grids
  • Collapse Expand

    • High level response 

      • Whole test - click to listen

    • Transcript and moderator comments - high File
      736.9 KB
    • Moderator comments


      Conduct of the test

      The test was conducted with a clear structure and smooth transitions between each section. The teacher/examiner provided positive reinforcement, such as saying ‘Baiklah,’ and ensured the pacing of the test was appropriate. Although there were some unnecessary repetitions of questions, the overall delivery was professional.

      The teacher/examiner effectively encouraged the candidate to provide rich and in-depth responses. Each section of the test was kept within the appropriate time frame.

      The entire test was conducted in Malay, fully adhering to the specified requirements.

      Roleplay

      Mark for task 1 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 2 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 3 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 4 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 5 =  2 out of 2

      Total mark for Roleplay = 10 out of 10


      Topic conversations

      Communication

      The candidate:

      • demonstrated fluency and natural conversation flow.
      • gave responses that were detailed, relevant and showed personal engagement.
      • showed the ability to elaborate spontaneously and expressed complex ideas clearly.
      • responded confidently to all questions.
      • communicated information consistently relevant to questions.
      • frequently developed ideas and opinions with detailed explanations.


      Quality of Language

      The candidate:

      • demonstrated accurate use of a wide range of structures with only occasional minor errors.
      • showed a wide range of vocabulary with accurate usage.
      • used complex sentence structures with appropriate use of conjunctions and cohesive devices.
      • demonstrated very good pronunciation, fluency and natural intonation.
      • delivered responses confidently and with minimal hesitation.

      Mark for Quality of language = 15 out of 15

      Mark for Content = 15 out of 15


      Total mark awarded = 40 out of 40

  • Collapse Expand

    • Middle level response 

      • Whole test - click to listen

    • Transcript and moderator comments - middle File
      912.6 KB
    • Moderator comments


      image of candidate card 8

      Conduct of the test

      The test was managed effectively, with the teacher/examiner providing clear instructions and using alternative questions appropriately when needed. The pacing was good, and the teacher/examiner maintained a supportive approach throughout.

      Some questions were repeated appropriately when the candidate appeared confused.

      However, the teacher/examiner could have used more varied extension prompts to better encourage the candidate to elaborate on their responses.


      Roleplay

      Mark for task 1 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 2 =  0 out of 2

      Mark for task 3 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 4 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 5 =  2 out of 2

      Total mark for Roleplay = 8 out of 10


      Topic conversations 1 and 2

      Candidate response

      Communication

      The candidate:

      • faced challenges with some questions but consistently attempts to provide answers.
      • conveyed some simple and relevant information related to the questions.
      • demonstrated understanding of most questions but had limited ability to develop ideas or provide detailed answers.
      • frequently required repetition and the use of alternative questions for support.
      • showed occasional comprehension difficulties, particularly with more complex questions.

      Quality of Language

      The candidate:

      • used a limited range of vocabulary and sentence structures.
      • made frequent errors that sometimes affected the clarity of communication.
      • demonstrated basic pronunciation that was generally understandable, though it required some effort.
      • exhibited noticeable hesitation and a fragmented delivery style.
      • relied on simple sentence patterns and made frequent grammatical errors.

      Mark for Quality of Language = 6 out of 15

      Mark for Content = 6 out of 15


      Total mark awarded = 20 out of 40

  • Collapse Expand

    • Low level response

      • Whole test - click to listen

    • Transcript and moderator comments - low File
      917.2 KB
    • Moderator comments


      image of candidate card 2

      Conduct of the test

      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.


      Roleplay

      Mark for task 1 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 2 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 3 =  2 out of 2

      Mark for task 4 =  0 out of 2

      Mark for task 5 =  0 out of 2

      Total mark for Roleplay = 6 out of 10


      Topic conversations 1 and 2

      Candidate response

      Communication

      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.

      Mark for Quality of Language = 1 out of 15

      Mark for Content = 1 out of 15


      Total mark awarded = 8 out of 40
  • Collapse Expand

    • Common mistakes and guidance

      How the teacher/examiner could improve

      • Avoiding the use of vague prompts that do not effectively support candidate elaboration. 
      • Avoiding unnatural sounding interactions by ensuring smooth conversational flow in role-play scenarios.
      • Avoiding the overuse of repetitions or omission of certain question parts. 
      • Self-correcting after asking a question incorrectly can confuse candidates and should be avoided.
      • Pausing adequately between question parts. 
      • Simplifying or rephrasing role-play questions should be avoided when this is not permitted.
      • Teacher/examiners should follow the official question scripts exactly, without altering any wording. 
      • Using Extension and Alternative Questions correctly, consistently and strategically to encourage more developed responses.
      • Allowing sufficient wait time for candidate responses before moving on, particularly for candidates who require additional processing time.
      • Maintaining a natural and supportive conversational flow during role-plays. 
      • Use no more than two Further questions per topic. 
      • Create an encouraging environment by maintaining a positive and supportive tone throughout. 


      How the candidate could improve

      Communication 

      • Candidates need to demonstrate the ability to produce extended responses. 
      • Some candidates tend to show over-reliance on single-word or very brief answers. 
      • Some candidates struggle to provide justification and explanation when responding to questions. 
      • Some candidates have difficulty elaborating on personal experiences and providing supporting details. 


      Quality of Language

      • Some candidates demonstrate a restricted vocabulary range, limiting expression and fluency. 
      • Candidates should reduce frequent grammar errors, particularly with negation and tense. 
      • Some candidates show hesitation and a lack of confidence when responding to abstract or complex questions. 
      • Due to the misunderstanding of questions, some candidates produce incomplete or inappropriate responses.

  • Collapse Expand