Marking criteria (oral) for levels 6 and 7, Business 3
Candidates who demonstrate most or all of the qualities required at a given level, and whose work successfully shows additional sophistication, ambition and/or willingness to take risks, may be awarded a mark in the higher category.
For example: A slight increase in avoidable errors expected at a given level may be offset by the successful demonstration of sophistication and ambition.
For example: A slight increase in avoidable errors expected at a given level may be offset by the successful demonstration of sophistication and ambition.
| Scale | Language: - accuracy, range and sophistication (40) |
Mark | Communication and interaction: - scope, clarity and coherence of ideas presented - comprehension and response (40) |
Delivery: - pronunciation & intonation - flow, pace, spontaneity - may include some or all of the following: body language, audibility… (20) |
Mark |
| Excellent 1st | An exceptional performance Native/near-native command of the languageA flawless performance in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy. An exceptional range of pertinent vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. |
100 (40) 94 (38) | An exceptional performance Exceptional fulfilment of all aspects of the task(s). An exceptional ability to present, analyse and develop ideas with clarity. Register entirely appropriate to the context and task. An exceptional ability to understand and respond to nuanced and detailed questions. |
Exceptionally confident delivery Exceptional ability to engage the interlocutor. The candidate expresses themselves effortlessly and effectively. Highly spontaneous delivery/responses. No errors of pronunciation. Exceptionally accurate intonation. |
100 (20) 94 (19) |
| High 1st High Mid1st | An outstanding performance Near-native command of the language. A virtually flawless performance in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy. An outstanding range of pertinent vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. Virtually no grammatical and/or lexical slips. |
88 (35) 82 (33) | An outstanding performance Outstanding fulfilment of all aspects of the task(s). An outstanding ability to present, analyse and develop ideas with clarity. Register entirely appropriate to the context and task. An outstanding ability to understand and respond to nuanced and detailed questions. |
Outstanding delivery Outstanding ability to engage the interlocutor. The candidate expresses themselves effortlessly and effectively. Highly spontaneous delivery/responses. Virtually no errors of pronunciation. Extremely accurate intonation |
88 (18) 82 (17) |
| Low Mid 1st Low 1st | An excellent performance Excellent command of the language. Highly accurate and fluent with few minor errors and/or isolated major errors. Wide-ranging and varied topic-specific vocabulary. |
78 (31) 74 (30) | An excellent performance Excellent fulfilment of all aspects of the task(s). An excellent ability to present, analyse and develop ideas with clarity. Register entirely appropriate to the context and task. An excellent ability to understand and respond to nuanced and detailed questions. |
Excellent delivery Excellent ability to engage the interlocutor. The candidate expresses themselves very confidently and effectively. Spontaneous delivery/responses. Excellent pronunciation and intonation displayed overall, though there may be occasional minor errors |
78 (16) 74 (15) |
| High 2:1 | A very good performance Very good command of the language. Very good range of vocabulary and idioms. Generally accurate and fluent with a few minor and occasional major grammatical and/or lexical errors. |
68 (27) | A very good performance Very good fulfilment of all aspects of the task(s). Very good ability to present, analyse and develop ideas with clarity. Register fully appropriate to the context and task. Very good ability to understand and respond to detailed questions. |
Very good delivery Very good ability to engage the interlocutor. The candidate expresses themselves confidently and effectively. Very good pronunciation and intonation displayed overall, though there are occasional minor errors. |
68 (14) |
| Mid 2:1 | A good performance Good command of the language. Good range of vocabulary and idioms. Generally accurate and fluent with some minor and occasional major grammatical and/or lexical errors. |
65 (26) | A good performance Good fulfilment of the task(s). Good ability to present, analyse and develop ideas with clarity. Register appropriate to the context and task. Good ability to understand and respond to detailed questions. |
Good delivery Good ability to engage the interlocutor. The candidate generally expresses themselves confidently and effectively. Good pronunciation and intonation displayed overall but there are some minor errors. |
65 (13) |
| Low 2:1 | A mostly good performance Mostly good command of the language. Mostly good range of vocabulary and idioms, but some imprecision may occur. Mostly accurate and fluent but with several grammatical and/or lexical errors. The candidate shows some ability to self-correct. |
62 (25) | A mostly good performance Mostly good fulfilment of the task(s). Mostly good ability to present, analyse and develop ideas with clarity. Register mostly appropriate to the context and task. Mostly good ability to understand and respond to detailed questions, though the candidate may occasionally need to ask for clarification. |
Mostly good delivery Mostly good ability to engage the interlocutor. The candidate generally expresses themselves confidently and effectively, but may be hesitant in places. Mostly good pronunciation and intonation displayed overall but errors may be more frequent. |
62 (12) |
| High 2:2 | A reasonable performance Reasonable command of the language. Reasonable range of vocabulary and idioms, but some imprecision occurs. Some mother tongue interference may occur. Reasonably accurate but with several major and more regular minor grammatical and/or lexical errors. The candidate occasionally shows some ability to self-correct. |
58 (23) | A reasonable performance Reasonable fulfilment of the task(s). Reasonable ability to present, analyse and develop ideas, but these may be lacking in scope. Register generally appropriate to the context and task. Reasonable ability to understand and respond to a range of detailed questions but the candidate may need to ask for clarification and may not sufficiently develop their response. |
Reasonable delivery Reasonable ability to engage the interlocutor (some of the following may apply: over-reliance on notes; pre-prepared verbatim delivery). The candidate expresses themselves reasonably well, but is hesitant in places. Reasonable pronunciation and intonation displayed overall but errors are more frequent. |
58 (11. 5) |
| Mid 2:2 | An inconsistent performance Inconsistent command of the language. Reasonable range of vocabulary and idioms, but imprecisions frequently occur. Some mother tongue interference may occur. A number of major grammatical and/or lexical errors are present. Frequent minor errors. |
55 (22) | An inconsistent performance Task(s) fulfilled but pedestrian approach. Inconsistent ability to present, analyse and develop ideas. Ideas are lacking in scope. Register not always appropriate to the context and task. Some or all of the following will apply:- The candidate aptly answers simple questions but starts to struggle with more detailed/complex questions. - The candidate may need to ask for clarification. - The candidate maintains the flow of discussion and communication to some degree, but with frequent hesitation. - The candidate does not sufficiently develop their response; the discussion may falter in places. |
Inconsistent delivery Engagement with the interlocutor is inconsistent (some of the following are likely to apply: over-reliance on notes; pre-prepared verbatim delivery). The candidate has some difficulty in expressing themselves (e.g. frequent hesitation). Frequent errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal gaps in knowledge of the rules. |
55 (11) |
| Low 2:2 | An insecure performance Insecure command of the language. Limited range of vocabulary and idioms. Some mother tongue interference occurs. Persistent minor and regular major grammatical and/or lexical errors. |
52 (21) | An insecure performance Fairly unconvincing approach to the task(s). The candidate tends to struggle to present and analyse ideas in a coherent way. Ideas are generally underdeveloped. Register not always appropriate to the context and task. In places, the candidate has difficulty in understanding questions, even when they have been rephrased/simplified. As a result, they may be unable to respond. The candidate struggles to maintain the flow of discussion and communication is stilted with numerous hesitations. The interlocutor may occasionally struggle to understand the candidate’s arguments/answers. |
Insecure delivery Engagement with the interlocutor is insecure (e.g. over-reliance on notes; pre-prepared verbatim delivery). The candidate has difficulty in expressing themselves (e.g. frequent hesitation). Frequent errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal gaps in knowledge of the rules. |
52 (10. 5) |
| High 3rd | A poor performance Poor command of the language. Limited range of vocabulary. Mother tongue often interferes with performance. Persistent minor and major grammatical and/or lexical errors. |
48 (19) | A poor performance Unconvincing approach to the task(s). The candidate struggles to present, analyse and develop ideas in a coherent way. Ideas are underdeveloped. Register often inappropriate to the context and task. The candidate regularly has difficulty in understanding questions, even when they have been rephrased/simplified. As a result, they may be unable to respond. The candidate struggles to maintain the flow of discussion and communication is laborious. The interlocutor struggles to understand the candidate’s arguments/answers. |
Poor delivery Engagement with the interlocutor is poor (e.g. over-reliance on notes; pre-prepared verbatim delivery). The candidate has a lot of difficulty in expressing themselves (e.g. persistent hesitation). Persistent errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal gaps in knowledge of the rules and may impede comprehension. |
48 (10) |
| Mid 3rd | A very poor performance Very poor command of the language. Very poor in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy. Very limited range of vocabulary. Mother tongue regularly interferes with performance. Persistent minor and major grammatical and/or lexical errors, which may result in incoherent syntax and may obscure meaning. |
45 (18) | A very poor performance Very unconvincing approach to the task(s). The candidate is more often than not unable to present and analyse ideas in a coherent way. Ideas are not developed and are simplistic. Register often inappropriate to the context and task. The candidate persistently has difficulty in understanding questions, even when they have been rephrased/simplified. The candidate really struggles to maintain the flow of discussion and communication is particularly laborious. The interlocutor struggles to understand the candidate’s arguments/answers |
Very poor delivery Engagement with the interlocutor is very poor (e.g. over-reliance on notes; pre-prepared verbatim delivery). The candidate has considerable difficulty in expressing themselves (e.g. persistent hesitation). Persistent errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal very poor knowledge of the rules and may impede comprehension. |
45 (9) |
| Low 3rd | An extremely poor performance Extremely poor command of the language. Extremely poor in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy. Severely limited range of vocabulary. Candidate may have no choice but to use their mother tongue on occasion to maintain communication. Frequent minor and major grammatical and/or lexical errors, which result in incoherent syntax and often obscure meaning. |
42 (17) | An extremely poor performance Task(s) largely unfulfilled and unconvincing. The candidate displays a clear inability to present and analyse ideas in a coherent way. Ideas are not developed and are simplistic and even irrelevant. Register often inappropriate to the context and task. The candidate often fails to understand questions, even when they have been rephrased/simplified. As a result, they may be unable to respond. The candidate is unable to maintain the flow of discussion and communication is pared down to simple laborious utterances. The interlocutor struggles to understand the candidate’s arguments/answers. |
Extremely poor delivery Engagement with the interlocutor is extremely poor (e.g. over-reliance on notes; pre-prepared verbatim delivery). The candidate has extreme difficulty in expressing themselves (e.g. persistent hesitation). Persistent errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal very poor knowledge of the rules and impede comprehension. |
42 (8) |
| High Fail (sub honours) | An unsatisfactory performance Unsatisfactory command of the language. Severely limited range of vocabulary, which frequently obscures meaning and prevents communication. Candidate may have no choice but to use their mother tongue to maintain communication. Preponderance of minor and major grammatical and/or lexical errors, which result in incoherent syntax and obscure meaning. |
38 (15) | An unsatisfactory performance Task(s) unfulfilled and unconvincing. The candidate struggles to present simple ideas and completely fails to analyse and develop them. A lot of irrelevant material. Register inappropriate to the context and task. The candidate generally fails to understand questions, even when they have been rephrased/simplified. As a result, they may be unable to respond. The candidate is unable to take part in the discussion and communication is pared down to simple |
Unsatisfactory delivery Engagement with the interlocutor is unsatisfactory (e.g. the candidate is unable to detach themselves from their notes, pre-prepared verbatim delivery)Endemic errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal extremely poor knowledge of the rules and impede comprehension. |
38 (7) |
| Fail | A very unsatisfactory performance Very unsatisfactory command of the language. Severely limited range of vocabulary, which obscures meaning and prevents communication. Candidate may have no choice but to use their mother tongue to maintain communication. Grammatical and lexical errors are omnipresent, which results in incoherence and obscured meaning. |
32 (13) | A very unsatisfactory performance Task(s) is unfulfilled and unconvincing. The candidate is barely able to present simple ideas and completely fails to analyse and develop them. An excess of irrelevant material. Register inappropriate to the context and task. The candidate fails to understand questions, even when they have been rephrased/simplified. As a result, they are frequently unable to respond. The candidate is unable to take part in the discussion and communication is pared down to simple laborious/irrelevant utterances. The interlocutor really struggles to understand the candidate’s arguments/answers. |
A very unsatisfactory delivery Engagement with the interlocutor is very unsatisfactory (e.g. the candidate is unable to detach themselves from their notes, pre-prepared verbatim delivery)Endemic errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal extremely poor knowledge of the rules and impede comprehension. |
32 (6) |
| A wholly inadequate performance Wholly inadequate command of the language Little evidence of grammatical / lexical competence. Comprehension is near impossible. Or, not enough language to assess. |
25 (10) | An wholly inadequate performance Wholly inadequate grasp of the subject matter. A total inability to adhere to the conventions of the task set. The examiner cannot understand the candidate’s arguments/answers |
Wholly inadequate delivery The candidate is wholly unable to engage with the interlocutor. Endemic errors in pronunciation and intonation occur that reveal inadequate knowledge of the rules and impede comprehension. |
25 (5) | |
| Low Fail | 12 (5) | 12 (2) | |||
| Zero | 0 | Work of no merit OR Absent OR Work not submitted OR Penalty in some misconduct cases | 0 |