B1 and B2 Marking Criteria

When are these marking criteria applied?

These marking criteria are used for both written and oral assessments in your language modules. The ultimate aim of these assessments is to evaluate how effectively you can use the taught language to communicate , including your ability to express ideas clearly, accurately, and appropriately for different contexts and audiences.

In the Language Centre, these criteria will be used to assess reading/writing exams and oral exams for level 3, level 4, and level 5 modules.

In French Studies, German Studies, Hispanic Studies, and Italian Studies, these criteria will be used to assess writing and oral exams for:

Post-Beginner students in year one and/or year two of their studies.
Post-A-Level students in the first year of their degree. By the end of their second year of study, post-A-Level students are expected to be working towards C1 proficiency.

How will my work be marked?

For some shorter assessments (e.g. multiple-choice tests, gap-fill exercises, or short-answer tasks), each question is marked individually. This type of marking is used for tasks that focus on specific language points (such as vocabulary or grammar), where answers can be assessed individually rather than as part of a longer piece of communication.

Longer or more complex assessments are marked using the university’s 20-point marking scale. This allows teachers to judge your work as a whole. Advanced language performance is differentiated: a strong response may show excellent grammar but need more development and clarity. Alternatively, it might communicate ideas well even if vocabulary slips occur. A numerical “tick‑box” system would treat every feature as equally weighted, but real language use is more nuanced. The 20‑point scale gives space for teachers to recognise patterns of strength, balance these against areas for improvement, and judge overall proficiency rather than isolated errors. For some language assessments, you will receive just one mark on the 20-point scale. For others, you may receive an average mark based on multiple tasks or learning outcomes.

The criteria reflect the full range of skills involved in language learning. Lower‑order skills (e.g., recall of vocabulary, accurate use of taught forms, and comprehension of familiar material) remain important throughout your degree. By intermediate and final year, however, we place increasing emphasis on higher‑order skills. These include depth of knowledge, independent language manipulation, nuanced expression, coherence of argument, and the ability to respond spontaneously and appropriately in oral work.

The assessed skills are divided into “language” and “content”. The precise weighting of these skills varies depending on assignment. Your teachers will explain how each side of the marking criteria is weighted as they prepare you for your exams.

Language skills:

Vocabulary (for written and oral assessments): Do you possess sufficient vocabulary to engage with and respond to the task? Is your word choice precise, varied, and well suited to the context, topic, and tone? Can I paraphrase or work around gaps without losing meaning? Do you use language in a way that sounds natural? Is the register appropriate (i.e. is your language suited to the context and audience, for example formal or informal), and does the tone fit the purpose (e.g. neutral, descriptive, or persuasive)?
Grammar (for written and oral assessments): Do you use and understand the grammatical structures taught at this level and previously accurately? Do errors, if present, affect clarity or meaning? Are grammatical forms used consistently, or do similar errors occur repeatedly? Do you use a range of grammatical forms, including more complex ones?
Orthography (written assessments only): Are spelling and conventions such as accent marks, capitalisation, and hyphenation accurate and appropriate? Do they support clear understanding? For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Are your characters formed accurately and clearly? Is your writing consistent in style and precision? Are there any characters that are unclear, incorrect, or inconsistent?

Content:

Task fulfilment (written and oral assessments): Have you fully addressed all parts of the task or question? Does your response show accurateand specific understanding of any source materials and/or the topic? Is the content of your response relevant, and does it meet the purpose of the task (e.g. to inform, argue, describe, or respond)? Have you followed any specific instructions (e.g. length, format, audience)? Have you engaged with the issues critically—e.g., by making connections, offering explanations, or considering different angles—not just listing information?
Clarity and coherence (written and oral assessments): Are your ideas clearly expressed and easy to follow? Is your work well organised, with logical connections between points? Do you use linking words or structures appropriately to guide the reader or listener?

Oral delivery (oral assessments only):

Do you speak fluently and spontaneously without relying on memorised language? Is your pronunciation clear and accurate enough to be easily understood? Do you use appropriate intonation, pace, and emphasis to support meaning?

Your grade reflects your overall ability to communicate effectively in the target language, rather than counting the number of errors.

Different tasks may place more emphasis on certain criteria, but all are considered as part of your overall performance. Your language teacher will be able to explain how the criteria are applied to the specific assignments in your subject.

When should I use these marking criteria?

Before submitting work or an exam

Use the criteria to understand what your teachers will be looking for and which skills the assessment is testing. When preparing for your next assignment or exam, think about what you already do well and how you can move up to the next level.

After feedback

Use the criteria to help interpret your mark and understand how your strengths and areas for improvement relate to expectations for your level of study. They can guide you in identifying what you already do well and what to focus on next. Your teacher can discuss your feedback in more detail during Advice and Feedback Hours.

A note on considerate marking:

If you have met with a Disability Advisor at Warwick and have a specific learning difference (SpLD) you may have been given a Considerate Marking cover sheet. You can download your PDF cover sheet from the Wellbeing Portal. Please attach or present it every time you submit assessed work.

SMLC staff follow the guidance on considerate marking issued by Disability Services. This means that your work is evaluated as a whole. Our modules do assess your ability to communicate accurately and effectively in the taught language. As a result, structure, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and spelling are part of the marking criteria. However, linguistic accuracy and structure are just two dimensions of the marking criteria for most work.

Written language assessments give students the opportunity to show that they understand and use a variety of grammatical structures, vocabulary, and/or characters correctly. For advanced language work, students’ ability to present a clear and logical argument is also important. However, we recognise that your SpLD may lead to patterns such as untidy structure or missing punctuation. Markers will consider carefully whether patterns of errors are relevant to the learning outcomes for that assignment or exam.

For oral assessments, examiners will focus on pace and fluency but not penalise reduced eye contact or different use of body language when this is linked to an SpLD. They also recognise that it may be necessary to rephrase certain questions and allow longer for responses.

94 / 100: High First: Virtually Flawless

Marks in this range are reserved for exceptional performances that go substantially beyond what would normally be expected at this level, meriting special recognition. Such work shows all the qualities expected of a Mid First, as well as additional strengths that stand well above typical First-Class performances at this level of study. There is virtually no scope for meaningful improvement given the confines of the assessment.

Language	Content	Oral Delivery (oral assessments only)
The flexibility and fluency of the response is unprecedented for this level. Expression demonstrates a strong feel for how the language is typically used. Uses idiomatic language flexibly and creatively, adapting it skilfully to context, audience, and communicative intent. Demonstrates a level of linguistic sensitivity rarely encountered at this stage of language learning. Maintains accuracy throughout, even when attempting complex or less familiar grammatical structures. Vocabulary and grammatical structures are selected with exceptional precision, allowing the candidate to express complex, nuanced, and sophisticated ideas beyond expectations for this level. Register and tone are sensitively adapted to the context, producing an unusually persuasive and stylish response. For written work: Shows a secure command of spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate), which support clear, fluent, and stylistically assured communication throughout. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Virtually no errors in character formation.	Produces an individual and sophisticated response that merits special recognition. The assignment is exceptionally well developed and organised, with a smooth and persuasive line of reasoning. Where relevant: Combines and evaluates evidence, perspectives, and ideas in an extraordinarily independent, thoughtful, and insightful manner. Writes exceptionally critically, demonstrating an unusually profound understanding of the issues (including e.g. tensions, limitations, and alternative interpretations).	Virtually no pronunciation errors or self-correction required. Uses stress, and/or intonation naturally and expressively to convey emphasis and attitude, fully engaging the conversation partner. Speaks fluently and spontaneously throughout, showing agility that is unprecedented for the level. Demonstrates an extraordinary ability to develop the discussion in response to new ideas and perspectives. Helps to steer the conversation in productive directions. Where relevant: Visual aids are of the highest professional standard.

82 / 88: Mid First: Highly Precise

Work in this category goes beyond typical First-Class performances at this level, showing mastery of the module learning outcomes. Outstanding skill in some areas may compensate for isolated minor shortcomings elsewhere. For work awarded an 88, performance is strong across all criteria, leaving only minimal room for refinement.

Work in this category demonstrates all the skills expected of assignments awarded a First, as well as displaying the additional strengths listed below, as applicable.

Language	Content	Oral delivery (oral assessments only)
Uses a broad and rich vocabulary. Integrates idiomatic language naturally, with a clear awareness of context and purpose. There may be occasional imprecision when expressing more nuanced ideas or using less familiar topic-specific vocabulary. Reformulates and varies wording to support clarity and coherence, producing a persuasive response. Demonstrates a high degree of grammatical accuracy and flexibility. There may be isolated imprecisions when using complex and/or less familiar structures. Tone and register are extremely well judged. For written work: Spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate) are used accurately and effectively. Slips or inconsistencies are isolated. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Produces characters with consistent accuracy and clarity. There are only isolated slips or inconsistencies.	Demonstrates full and accurate understanding of the task, relevant source materials, and/or the topic. The work is meticulously planned with a coherent and persuasive rationale. There may be minor areas where transitions could be tighter. Where relevant: Responses show nuance and originality (e.g. through thoughtful selection and combination of examples; e.g. integrating perspectives or examples that go beyond material discussed in class). Develops arguments, opinions, and/or ideas thoroughly, with only minor areas where ideas could be taken even further. Brings together different perspectives on the topic, or different aspects of the problem, in a coherent way, without glossing over counterarguments, limitations, and/or tensions.	Pronunciation is clear and accurate overall. Uses intonation and stress confidently and effectively to support communication and listener engagement. Expresses themselves confidently and spontaneously. There is limited need for rephrasing or self-correction, even when discussing abstract or demanding topics. Responds thoughtfully and directly to follow-up or challenging questions. Where relevant: Visual aids enhance the communicative performance, helping to guide the recipient, break down complicated ideas, and/or emphasise key points.

74 / 78: Lower First: Skilled

Work in this category fully addresses the task. It convincingly meets the learning outcomes of the module and expectations for language learning at this level of study. Work awarded a 78 is highly proficient, even though there is still scope for refinement or development.

Work in this category demonstrates the skills expected of assignments awarded an Upper Second (2.1). It also displays the additional strengths listed below, as applicable.

Language	Content	Oral Delivery (oral assessments only)
Uses a wide range of general and topic-specific vocabulary accurately, appropriately, and flexibly. Generally makes effective use of idiomatic expressions to enhance communication and move beyond predictable or literal language. There may be occasional minor errors when using specialist or uncommon vocabulary. Word choice may not fully convey complex ideas. Skilfully applies varied grammatical structures. There may be occasional imprecisions or minor errors when using complex and less familiar structures. These do not compromise communication. Register and tone are appropriate for the context and maintained consistently. For written work: Spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate) are used effectively to support communication. Errors are rare and minor. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Characters are generally written correctly. There may be occasional imprecisions or minor errors.	Provides a detailed and (as relevant, analytical) response to all aspects of the task.  Omissions or inaccuracies are isolated, relating mainly to non-essential details or points beyond the core requirements of the task. Skill and insight in other areas compensate for any such imprecisions. Ideas are consistently presented in a clear, well-organised sequence. Signposting and connectors are used consistently to enhance the discussion’s clarity and logic. In longer presentations or pieces of writing, each section makes a clear contribution and is thoughtfully arranged to reinforce the argument/purpose/message. Where relevant: The argumentation is coherent and effective. Nearly all points are supported with specific evidence, which is well integrated, contextualised, and explained. Occasionally points could be explained in further detail.	Speaks clearly, with mostly appropriate pronunciation, intonation, and stress. Uses stress and intonation to help express meaning (e.g. emphasis, contrast, or attitude). Can speak comfortably on both familiar and more challenging topics, without noticeably searching for words. Responds well if asked to explain further or when their viewpoint is questioned. May occasionally reformulate ideas to self-correct and/or clarify a point. Participates actively and independently in conversation, using turn-taking effectively. If required, visual aids are professionally presented and support the discussion.

62 / 65 / 68: Upper Second: Competent to Proficient

Work in this category addresses all aspects of the task and broadly meets the expectations for language learning at this level, showing proficiency in relation to the module learning outcomes. However, there is scope for refinement in some areas.

Work may fall into this category if it is skilful but contains some minor inaccuracies, omissions, and/or isolated major errors. Work at the lower end of this category may require refinement in most categories listed below.

Language	Content	Oral Delivery (oral assessments only)
Accurately understands and uses a range of general and some task-specific vocabulary, including idiomatic expressions. Vocabulary choices are mostly appropriate for the task and context. Occasional inaccuracies—especially when using less common or specialist vocabulary—may weaken precision but do not generally affect clarity. Shows an ability to vary vocabulary to avoid repetition and /or smooth over vocabulary gaps using paraphrasing. Appropriately uses varied grammatical structures, including more complex ones. There may be several minor errors, imprecisions, and/or inconsistencies. Major errors tend to be limited to complex structures and do not generally obscure meaning. Register is effective and largely consistent. For written work: Spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate) are mostly accurate and appropriate. Any errors are occasional and minor. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Formation of characters is functional but sometimes imprecise.	Provides full and relevant responses to all aspects of the task. Demonstrates broad and accurate understanding. Provides a coherent response to the task, with defined sections and a clear focus. May use signposting and transitions well to guide the recipient. In longer presentations or pieces of writing, the discussion generally progresses logically toward a well-founded conclusion. Where relevant: Develops a clear and broadly convincing argument. Consistently backs up claims with appropriate evidence, which is treated analytically. Some points may not be fully developed. This means that the discussion may not explore the implications, significance, or complexity of particular issues. Alternatively, the response may not consider alternative perspectives.	There may be some first-language interference, and/or occasional lapses in pronunciation, intonation, and/or stress. These do not affect communication. Responds effectively to different perspectives on a range of familiar topics. May use common phrases to structure responses (e.g. to start answers, take a turn, or gain time to think). May need time for rephrasing to adjust to sudden or complex changes of tone or topic. The conversational flow is generally maintained, despite occasional hesitation. May occasionally need to ask the conversation partner for clarification. If required, visuals are generally well selected, accurate, and legible.
At the lower end of this category:
Less precise or repetitive vocabulary may occasionally be used to compensate for gaps in topic-specific knowledge. Uses simple grammatical structures reliably and attempts complex structures with varying success. There may be noticeable patterns of minor errors, as well as occasional major errors. The overall sense of the response is nonetheless maintained. There may be occasional interference from other languages, creating awkwardness. There may be minor lapses in register. For written work: Spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate) are mostly correct, although a small number of errors occur. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: There may be some minor errors when forming characters, though the intended word is recognisable.	Demonstrates broad-based understanding. There may be omissions, minor inaccuracies, and/or minor misunderstandings. There may be occasional ambiguity or repetition. The response is well structured overall, although more explicit signposting could sometimes help to connect ideas and smooth the transition between points. Responses may occasionally drift from the prompt. Where relevant: The overall argument is clear. Some claims may not be justified with appropriate evidence, while other examples are presented without analysis or reflection. Surface-level discussion may predominate, with a tendency to generalise, simplify the issues, and/or overlook alternative perspectives.	There may be several cases of mispronunciation (especially on more challenging sounds), but words remain intelligible overall. Responses are generally appropriate and relevant, although answers are not always developed fully. This can affect the conversational flow. May need to ask for more complex questions to be repeated or clarified. Some false starts or hesitation may affect the smoothness of the delivery.

52 / 55 / 58: Lower Second: Developing

Work that provides a mostly relevant response to the task. It demonstrates developing knowledge and skills in relation to the module learning outcomes and expectations for language learning at this level. However, there are inconsistencies and room for improvement in most areas.

Work may fall into this category if it displays competence in some areas but contains several major errors and/or omissions that limit the overall quality of the response. Work at the lower end of this category demonstrates room for improvement in most areas.

Language	Content	Oral Delivery (oral assessments only)
Employs sufficient vocabulary to convey simple ideas. Begins to use less-common expressions and task‑specific vocabulary successfully. Word choice may sometimes be repetitive, inappropriate, and/or imprecise, occasionally compromising communication. Simple grammatical structures are often used correctly. Begins to use complex structures more consistently, albeit with several minor and some major errors. Errors may lead to awkward phrasing or prevent ideas from being expressed as clearly or precisely as intended. May show a developing ability to manipulate language present in prompts and source materials. Interference from other languages (e.g. use of cognates, unusual word pairings, or false friends) sometimes results in awkward syntax and/or expression. Shows an understanding of the appropriate register for the context but there are occasional lapses. For written work: Demonstrates a developing understanding of spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation conventions (as appropriate). Errors are noticeable but do not usually prevent communication. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Although there are some errors forming characters, they are still recognisable.	May not fully conform to the requirements or expectations of the task. Offers mostly relevant responses, although these may not cover all expected information. Understands the main issues. However, there may be some minor and/or occasional major misunderstandings of source materials and/or the topic. May be narrow in focus and/or not move beyond a basic overview or discussion of the topic. Presents ideas in a logical order, though the path through the discussion may shift or jump at times. There may be a lack of signposting, awkward transitions, and/or occasional repetition. In longer presentations or pieces of writing, most sections are relevant, although links between individual points (and/or between individual points and the task) may not always be explicit. Where relevant: The argument/purpose/message is mostly clear and well justified. There may be logical inconsistencies, but these do not undermine the overarching discussion. May not always justify claims with appropriate evidence. May tend to report ideas and evidence rather than analyse them and/or use them to develop a reasoned response to the issues.	There may be errors in pronunciation (especially on more challenging sounds). Intonation or stress may contain errors and/or show first-language interference, but communication is generally maintained. Understands and responds effectively to most straightforward questions and statements. May struggle to respond to more complex or detailed questions. Use of notes or pre-learned responses may impact the spontaneity of the discussion. The conversational flow may sometimes be impacted by hesitations, false starts, or inappropriate pacing. The interaction begins to resemble a genuine conversation, although support and prompting may still be required. If required, visual aids are provided but may not always aid communication (e.g. issues with legibility/formatting).
At the lower end of this category:
There may be vocabulary gaps in relation to specific topics. Tends to rely on basic grammatical structures, which are mostly used correctly. There are regular minor and major grammatical errors. These affect clarity of meaning in places, especially if more complex sentences are attempted. Expression is often awkward or vague, with noticeable interference from other languages. The register may not always be consistent or appropriate. For written work: There are several errors relating to spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate). Some of these suggest that the student is not fully familiar with the rules and conventions of the target language. Clarity may occasionally be affected. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Some errors forming characters may cause misunderstanding.	May misunderstand some questions and/or key aspects of source materials. Demonstrates broad awareness of the main issues. However, responses may rely on general observations, overlooking and/or simplifying key aspects of the topic. There is a basic progression of ideas. However, ideas may not always be arranged coherently or logically. The relevance of some sections may be unclear. Where relevant: The argument is not always clear or justified. The response is predominantly descriptive, with little discussion, explanation, or engagement with the issues. The response may rely on repetition or material of limited relevance. Evidence may be lacking. Alternatively, evidence may not be integrated in a way that makes its relevance clear.	Communication is usually possible, although inconsistent pronunciation, intonation, or stress may occasionally cause uncertainty or confusion for the conversation partner. May occasionally misunderstand questions and/or offer vague or irrelevant responses. Answers may be overly brief. May rely on notes and/or memorised expressions in parts. Delivery may be fragmented, with pauses that interrupt communication. It may not always be possible for the listener to follow the candidate’s line of thought during the discussion. If required, the presentation of visual aids is acceptable but lacks polish. Typographical or formatting issues may distract on occasion.

42 / 45 / 48: Third: Foundational

Work that makes some effort to respond to the task and shows that the student has met some of the module learning outcomes and expectations for language learning at this level. However, there are significant omissions and major errors.

At the top end of this category, work will show rudimentary knowledge and understanding. Work at the lower end of this category contain weaknesses in all areas and/or may fall short of the required length.

Language	Content	Oral delivery (oral assessments only)
Accurately uses a narrow range of common vocabulary. Knowledge gaps remain evident and widespread. Errors may occur even when reproducing vocabulary used in questions, prompts, and source texts. There is some ability to employ simple grammatical structures. Attempts to use complex structures are rare and largely unsuccessful. There are persistent minor and major errors when using individual words, combinations of words, and within sentences. Sentences are often awkwardly constructed. Errors obscure meaning and hinder communication in some sections. Some interference from other languages may affect clarity of meaning. The register may be inconsistent. For written work: There is a basic grasp of conventions relating to spelling, accent marks, and hyphenation(as appropriate). However, recurring errors compromise clarity and place strain on the reader. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: There are persistent errors in character formation, making reading difficult in parts.	Demonstrates partial understanding of the task and responds accurately to some basic questions or aspects. However, key information is often omitted, inaccurate,and/or only minimally addressed. In longer presentations or pieces of writing, there is a basic progression of ideas. Structuring devices are not consistently used to organise ideas and/or guide the recipient. Does not clearly and consistently articulate the overall argument/purpose/message. Where relevant: Several claims may be contradictory or unconvincing. Many points and/or examples may be irrelevant, vague, and/or only loosely connected to each other and the task. Tends to make claims without explaining them or providing evidence.	Pacing issues, pronunciation, volume, and/or hesitancy make it difficult to follow some aspects of the discussion. May hesitate in response to simple and slowly formulated questions, even when these are repeated. May offer surface-level answers to some simple questions and struggles to respond to others. The candidate may rely on notes and/or memorised phrases. Delivery is laboured and hesitant. The listener may repeatedly need to ask for clarification. If required, visual aids may be inappropriate, unclear, and/or contain errors.
At the lower end of this category:
Vocabulary gaps repeatedly limit the candidate’s ability to communicate clearly. May rely on memorised phrases and/or cognates that are not fully appropriate for the context. There are persistent grammatical errors when using individual words, groups of words, and within sentences. Sentences may often be constructed awkwardly. Major grammatical errors obscure meaning in large sections. Regular interference from other languages may affect clarity of meaning. Register may be inconsistent and/or often inappropriate for the context. For written work: Meaning is often unclear or lost due to errors with basic writing conventions (e.g. spelling, accents, punctuation), which obscure meaning and place a substantial burden on the reader. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Errors in character formation are widespread. Characters are often difficult to recognise, requiring significant interpretation by the reader.	Large parts of the task are overlooked and/or misunderstood. Shows a basic awareness of the main issues. However, there may be major lapses in comprehension and/or omissions. Shows limited awareness of how to structure communication, with noticeable repetition. In longer presentations or pieces of writing, a lack of signposting and connectors may make it difficult to understand the relevance of the individual points. Where relevant: The response draws on a limited range of ideas and/or tends to rely on repetition or general statements. Many claims are irrelevant and/or not backed up with evidence. Alternatively, evidence may be offered in place of argument. May struggle to convey an intelligible argument/message.	Systematic errors in pronunciation, intonation, and/or stress hinder communication. May persistently struggle to understand questions, even when they have been rephrased or simplified. Tends to communicate through short and simple responses, which often require considerable effort to formulate. Shows an overreliance on memorised phrases, which may sometimes be inappropriate for the context. Lengthy pauses disrupt the conversation. Communication requires significant effort on the part of the listener.

32 / 38: Fail: Below Required Standards

Work that responds in part to the task but is largely irrelevant and/or falls short of the required length. It contains systematic errors and omissions and does not achieve the minimum learning outcomes for the module, falling below the standard required for the level.

A grade of 38 may be awarded if the work demonstrates some ability to respond appropriately to basic aspects of the task.

Language	Content	Oral Delivery (oral assessment only)
Even simple sentences are error prone. Errors relating to grammar, vocabulary, and character formation (for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) significantly impede comprehension throughout. Significant interference from other languages impacts on clarity and coherence.	Questions, prompts, and/or source materials are misunderstood. There is little or no awareness of the main issues. There is limited evidence that the candidate can present simple ideas and/or construct a coherent argument using appropriate evidence. Connections between ideas are often unclear, weak, and/or absent, making the overall response difficult to follow. Points are contradictory, repetitive, vague, or contain unnecessary padding.	Systematic errors render spoken language largely unintelligible. It is not possible for a conversation to develop due to the brevity, incoherence, or irrelevance of the contributions. Struggles to communicate without notes or beyond memorised phrases, which tend to be inappropriate for the context. The candidate may have no choice but to use their mother tongue to maintain communication. There may be a breakdown in communication. If required, visual aids may be absent, inappropriate, unclear, and/or contain errors.

12 / 25: Low Fail: Inadequate or Incomplete

Incomplete work: it does not fulfil the requirements of the task or the learning outcomes for the module. Communication is extremely limited. As a result, work falls well below the standard required for the appropriate level.

A grade of 25 may be awarded if the work attempts to engage with the task but displays extremely limited knowledge.

Insufficient language to assess and/or insufficient reference to the task.
Insufficient evidence that level-appropriate vocabulary, grammatical structures, and characters (for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) have been understood.
Isolated words or sentences may be recognisable. However, these are generally inappropriate for the context and/or unrelated to the task.

0 / Zero