Topic outline

  • Collapse all Expand all
    Cambridge International AS & A Level French 8682, 9716
    Example Candidate Responses (Component 1 Speaking Test)


    • Introduction

      The main aim of this resource is to exemplify standards of Cambridge International AS & A Level French, Component 1 Speaking Test, and show how different levels of candidates' performance (high, middle and low) relate to the subject's curriculum and assessment objectives. 

      Candidate responses have been selected from June 2021 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. 

    • Mark schemes

      • Section 1: Presentation (20 marks)

      • Section 1 mark scheme





      • Section 2: Topic Conversation (40 marks) and Section 3: General Conversation (40 marks)

        • Section 2 and 3 mark scheme


  • 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.

    Please note: Information about the candidate and centre has been removed from the recording to protect the identity of the candidate.


    • High level response

      • Whole test - click to listen

    • Section 1: Presentation

      • Presentation - click to listen

    • Content and Presentation: The candidate choses to talk about Le vin en France. The candidate has prepared and organised the topic thoroughly, but the presentation is almost exclusively factual, lacking ideas and opinions.

      The presentation is slightly stilted in spite of the enthusiasm of the candidate for the subject. This topic, though seems ideal, presents some difficulties for many candidates who choose to tackle it as they find it very difficult to raise what they say above the factual.

      The candidate concludes the presentation by asking the teacher/examiner a question. However, questions should arise within the conversation sections and therefore this question could not be considered in the assessment of Seeking Information and Opinions.

      As there are no ideas or opinions, the presentation will not be placed in the ‘Very good’ mark band but categorised as 'Good'. 

      Mark awarded = 8 out of 10 [Good]


      Pronunciation and Intonation: There are minor errors of pronunciation:  youtilisé for utilisé,  hectares  pronounced in the English way, ils ont pronounced  ils sont . Intonation does not sound authentically French.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5 [Good]


      Language: The candidate speaks fluently and includes some unusual vocabulary (une lapalissade ). There is a reasonable range of structures used, but the wider range typical of the 'Very good' mark band is not present.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5 [Good]

      Total mark awarded for the Presentation = 16 out of 20 

    • Section 2: Topic Conversation

      • Topic Conversation - click to listen

    • Comprehension & Responsiveness: The discussion rarely rises above the factual, although the candidate understands the teacher/examiner’s questions and is able to give an informed reply immediately. However, the teacher/examiner’s questions do not require the candidate to present or defend a point of view.

      This puts the candidate in the 'Good' (7–8 marks) mark band rather than the 'Very good' (9–10 marks) mark band.

      Mark awarded = 7 out of 10 [Good]


      Accuracy: There are errors of tense and agreement: quand le vin ne sont pas tellement du sucre comme le vigneron le souhaitait , c’est ajoute l’amertume, les jeunes peut savoir, on utilisait for  on utilise.

      On balance, the candidate just gets into the 'Good' (7–8 marks) mark band.

      Mark awarded = 7 out of 10 [Good]


      Feel for the Language: Although there is some influence from the mother tongue, particularly in the way sentences are constructed, it is not significant and does not impede communication.

      Mark awarded = 7 out of 10


      Providing Information and Opinions: The candidate’s responses are not compromised by limitations of vocabulary or structures, and she shows that she is familiar with the specialised vocabulary of wine production.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5 [Good]


      Seeking Information and Opinions: The candidate asks two questions relevant to the conversation.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5 [Good]

      Total mark awarded for the Topic Conversation = 30 out of 40


    • Section 3: General Conversation

      • General Conversation - click to listen

    • Comprehension & Responsiveness: The candidate is able to understand the teacher/examiner’s questions and responds readily and fully, although the discussion rarely rises above the factual.

      Mark awarded = 8 out of 10 [Good]


      Accuracy: Accuracy is weaker here than in the Topic Conversation.

      There are many errors : plus bon for mieux, je suis vivre for j’habite, aller à la l’universitaire for aller à l’université, différents types for de différents types, mon frère l’aîné, le japonnaise for le japonnais (whereas the candidate’s use of chinois is correct).

      In general, the candidate’s language is more basic than in the Presentation.

      Mark awarded = 6 out of 10 [Satisfactory]


      Feel for the Language: There is greater influence from the mother tongue here than in the Topic Conversation.

      Mark awarded = 6 out of 10 [Satisfactory]


      Providing Information and Opinions: The candidate’s responses are not compromised by limitations of vocabulary or structures.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5 [Good]


      Seeking Information and Opinions: The candidate asks three questions, but there is not enough variety in the question forms for the 'Very good' mark band.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5 [Good]

      Total mark awarded for General Conversation = 28 out of 40
    • Moderator comments (Whole test)

      Conduct of the test:
      The teacher/examiner introduces each section clearly. The test falls slightly short of the recommended timing.  It is recommended that these timings are observed so candidates have ample time and opportunity to access the higher marks. The examiner creates a friendly atmosphere, establishes a sense of pace and keeps his answers to the candidate’s questions brief. The examiner opens the General Conversation by continuing the Topic Conversation, but then covers a wide range of topics, although none in great depth.

      How the teacher/examiner performance could improve:
      • Observe the prescribed time-frame of the examination.
      • Do not ask questions about the Presentation in the General Conversation, even as a bridge.
      • Explore fewer topics at greater depth in the General Conversation.
      How the candidate performance could improve:
      • Choose a topic which is more suitable for in-depth discussion. 
      • To be awarded 'Very good', there has to be a discussion of ideas and opinions. 
      • Vary question forms in the conversation sections.
       
      Common mistakes and misconceptions:
      • Candidates should not ask questions at the end of the presentation before any further discussion has taken place. Such questions do not count towards the assessment of 'Seeking Information and Opinions'. The intention is that questions should arise naturally out of the conversation. 

    • Middle level response

      • Whole test - click to listen

    • Section 1: Presentation

      • Presentation - click to listen

    • Content and Presentation: The candidate chooses Ma matière préférée – l’histoire française, which fully fulfils the requirement to relate the presentation clearly to a francophone country.

      The candidate focuses on La Révolution française.

      The candidate has prepared the topic thoroughly and speaks with knowledge and enthusiasm but is not able to maintain fluency; there are some long hesitations which make sentences and thought structure hard to follow. However, there are also some instances of fluent, accurate French. Ideas and opinions are evident, though not as many as in candidates in the ‘Good’ mark band.

      Mark awarded = 6 out of 10 [Satisfactory]

      Pronunciation and Intonation: From the beginning there are many errors of pronunciation; ma métier préfère for ma matière préférée.  Final “s” are often pronounced: les révolutionnaires , l’idées de lumières .  “Un” i s not always nasalised: un(n) changement. The candidate has difficulty in pronouncing a French “r”.

      On the whole, the candidate’s intonation sounds convincingly French.

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

       

      Language: There is little or no ambiguity of meaning, though there is some hesitation. A degree of accuracy and a reasonable range of structures and vocabulary are present.     

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

      Total mark awarded for the Presentation = 12 out of 20


    • Section 2: Topic Conversation

      • Topic Conversation - click to listen

    • Comprehension & Responsiveness: The candidate generally understands the examiner’s in-depth questions. 

      The candidate answers thoughtfully and has prepared the topic thoroughly, but there is often a delay in response and the candidate is not always able to maintain fluency.

      Mark awarded = 5 out of 10 [Satisfactory]

       

      Accuracy: There are many grammatical errors, particularly in the candidate’s use of tenses, verb conjugation, and definite article and adjectival agreements: de le roi, de la roi; le peuple français e, but these are offset by instances of accurate and idiomatic French.

      There is some ambiguity: il ne l’aimont pas pendant ils mourraient de femme . However, the language is not generally inaccurate.

      Mark awarded = 5 out of 10 [Satisfactory]

       

      Feel for the Language: The candidate shows some feel for the language but is also influenced by his mother tongue.    

      Mark awarded = 5 out of 10 [Satisfactory]

       

      Providing Information and Opinions: While the candidate is able to handle a reasonably mature subject, ideas are limited and there is occasional ambiguity.     

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

       

      Seeking Information and Opinions: The candidate asks two clear (unprompted) relevant questions:

      1. Aimez-vous le Napoléan ?

      2. Avez-vous déjà étudié la révolution française ?

      However, the candidate does have some difficulty formulating them correctly.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

      Total mark awarded for the Topic Conversation= 22 out of 40

    • Section 3: General Conversation

      • General Conversation - click to listen

    • Comprehension & Responsiveness: The candidate generally understands what is being said, although the examiner does have to repeat a number of questions, when the candidate requests this.

      There is quite a lot of hesitation.

      This places the candidate firmly in the lower band of the 'Satisfactory' profile.

      Mark awarded = 5 out of 10 [Satisfactory]

       

      Accuracy: This is very similar to the Topic Conversation, with a lot of inaccurate French (use of tenses, verb conjugation, and definite article and adjectival agreements) but also with parts which show a measure of competence.

      Mark awarded = 5 out of 10 [Satisfactory]

       

      Feel for the Language: The candidate shows some feel for the language but he is also influenced by his mother tongue. The candidate displays more than just “scant feeling for the idiom”.

      Mark awarded = 5 out of 10 [Satisfactory]

       

      Providing Information and Opinions: Although discussion is on a more factual level than in the Topic Conversation, it is definitely above the very basic level.     

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

       

      Seeking Information and Opinions: The candidate asks a number of questions, mostly relevant to the topic under discussion, but with no variety of question form: pouvez-vous, avez-vous, aimez-vous ?   

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

      Total mark awarded for the General Conversation = 21 out of 40

    • Moderator comments (Whole test)

      Conduct of the test:

      The recording of both examiner and candidate is clear. The examiner makes each section of the test clear to the candidate. The timing of each section is accurate. 

      The examiner asks clear, searching questions and creates a sympathetic atmosphere in which the candidate can give his best, while maintaining a sense of pace. 

      The examiner repeats and/or rephrases some questions when it is clear that the candidate does not understand them. 

      The examiner does not need to prompt the candidate to ask questions, as he is aware that he needs to ask them in the Conversation sections in order to qualify for marks under Seeking Information and Opinions.

      The examiner responds to the candidate’s own interests in the General Conversation. In general, this is excellent examining.

      How the examiner performance could improve:
      • Cover more topics in the General Conversation.
      • Le temps libre is a good opening question and it did develop into a discussion about sport, but it would have been better to have a complete change of tack, perhaps into a more mature subject area.
      How the candidate performance could improve:
      • The candidate's command of French did not match his passion, thoughtfulness and preparation. More speaking practice would develop his fluency and accuracy.

      Common mistakes and misconceptions:
      • Candidates should not choose       a topic that is too factual and/or does not relate to a francophone country. 

    • Low level response

      • Whole test - click to listen

    • Section 1: Presentation

      • Presentation - click to listen

    • Content and Presentation: The candidate choses Ma routine quotidienne.

      The candidate does briefly mention France, but essentially, as the topic title suggests, this is not a presentation about a French-speaking country but about the candidate in her own (non-francophone) country. According to the mark scheme ‘candidates who make no specific reference to the contemporary society or cultural heritage of a country where the language is spoken, will have their mark for Content and Presentation halved'. Therefore the original mark for Content/Presentation has to be divided by two (halved) - from 4 marks to 2 marks out of 10.

      The presentation consists of very simple factual statements which are not appropriate at this level.

      The material is thin, with hardly any ideas of opinions and hardly sustains the listener’s interest. This puts the mark firmly in the 3–4 mark band (achieving 4 marks which are then halved to 2 marks).

      Mark awarded = 4:2 = 2 out of 10 [Poor]

      Pronunciation and Intonation: There are many errors of pronunciation: ‘pew’ for puis, ‘maisson’ for maison, ‘loondi’ for lundi , ‘famile’ for famille, ‘alorse’ for alors.

      Intonation is influenced by the mother tongue. Nevertheless the candidate is more often intelligible than not.

      Mark awarded = 2 out of 5 [Weak]

       

      Language: This is borderline between the mark bands of 3 and 2: there is a lot of hesitation and a fairly limited range of structures and vocabulary used, but the meaning is generally clear.    

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

      Total mark awarded for the Presentation = 7 out of 20

    • Section 2: Topic Conversation

      • Topic Conversation - click to listen

    • Comprehension & Responsiveness: The candidate misunderstands a number of the examiner’s questions, although she is also able to respond, albeit simply, to some questions, perhaps relying on pre-prepared responses.

      This section is not so much a conversation, but rather a series of basic questions requiring factual answers. A candidate at this level will be expected to answer such basic questions with ease.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 10 [Weak]


      Accuracy: The candidate’s use of language is generally inaccurate: je ne vas à l’école pas, je suis bonne note, mon préfère matière.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 10 [Weak]

       

      Feel for the Language: This is on the borderline of Weak and Satisfactory. There is evidence of some feel for the language, but the candidate tends to translate literally from the mother tongue.   

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 10 [Weak]

       

      Providing Information and Opinions: Severe limitations of vocabulary and structures restrict the candidate’s responses to a very basic level.   

      Mark awarded = 2 out of 5 [Weak]

       

      Seeking Information and Opinions: The candidate asks three questions, two of which are not really relevant to the line of the examiner’s questioning.       

      Mark awarded = 2 out of 5 [Weak]

      Total mark awarded for the Topic Conversation = 16 out of 40

    • Section 3: General Conversation

      • General Conversation - click to listen

    • Comprehension & Responsiveness: The examiner covers three topics: Le sport, Le travail, La famille.

      The examiner asks a series of questions and there is no real conversation or discussion of ideas/opinions.

      The candidate has greater difficulty with understanding in this section than in the Topic conversation, but is able to respond – mostly relying on pre-prepared responses.

      There is some confusion over the difference between le foot and le footing. This could have been explored further and clarified.

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 10 [Weak]

       

      Accuracy: This is borderline Satisfactory/Weak: generally inaccurate but with some indication of competence.

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 10 [Weak]

       

      Feel for the Language: Like in the previous section, there is evidence of some feel for the language, but the candidate tends to translate literally from the mother tongue.  

      Mark awarded = 4 out of 10 [Weak]

       

      Providing Information and Opinions: This is very similar to the Topic conversation. Severe limitations of vocabulary and structures restrict the candidate’s responses to a very basic level.     

      Mark awarded = 2 out of 5 [Weak]

       

      Seeking Information and Opinions: The candidate asks a number of questions, but has difficulty in formulating anything other than very basic ones.   

      Mark awarded = 3 out of 5 [Satisfactory]

      Total mark awarded for the General Conversation = 16 out of 40

    • Moderator comments (Whole test)

      Conduct of the test:

      The teacher/examiner observes the time-frame of the Speaking Test and indicates each section clearly.

      The recording is clear, although the microphone favours the examiner. Ideally the microphone should be positioned in a way that it records both teacher/examiner and candidate equally well.

      The teacher/examiner asks clear questions, but it sounds as though they are being read from a list of pre-prepared questions, which is not in the spirit of the examination.

      Questions are very basic and do not allow the development of ideas and opinions. Teachers/examiners should ask more complex questions (as well) so candidates have the opportunity to show their knowledge and offer opinions.

      How the examiner performance could improve:
      • Do not rely on a list of pre-prepared questions requiring very basic factual answers.   
      • Create conversations.
      • Use open-ended questions like "Parle(z)-moi de…” (there was only one of these) and “Pourquoi?”.

      • Make sure that candidates relate their topics to a francophone country.
      How the candidate performance could improve:
      • Have a much stronger grasp of vocabulary, structures and grammar.
      • Choose a topic which is related to a francophone country and which contains ideas and opinions.
      • Listen to native French speakers.

      Common mistakes and misconceptions:
      • Candidates do not relate the Presentation topic to a francophone country.
      • The teacher/examiner does not halve the mark for Content/Presentation when the candidate does not relate the Presentation topic to a francophone country.
      • Candidates ask questions which are irrelevant to the subject under discussion.