C1 and C2 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 6 and advanced modules.

In French Studies, German Studies, Hispanic Studies, and Italian Studies, these criteria will be used to assess writing and oral exams for final-year modules. All students are expected to reach C1 proficiency by the end of their degree, with the strongest students attaining C2 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 accurate and 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 (for 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 taught 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 linguistic performance is unprecedented and virtually flawless in all respects. Expression is fluid, stylish, and perfectly pitched. This level of linguistic sophistication is rarely encountered, even in professional settings. Uses idiomatic expressions naturally and creatively, with a clear sense of their tone, implications, and register. Manipulates linguistic structures with exceptional agility and creativity, expressing ideas, opinions, and/or arguments with a degree of precision and nuance that merits special recognition. For written work: The student has mastered conventions relating to spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate), deploying them with precision and stylistic awareness to support clear, fluent, and persuasive communication throughout. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Virtually no errors in character formation.	An unusually individual, sophisticated, and intellectually challenging response. The response is expertly structured. Complex ideas are introduced, developed, and connected with sensitivity and control. Where relevant: Includes a wide and original range of relevant ideas, perspectives, and evidence, showing considerable independent research. Writes critically, demonstrating an unusually profound and subtle understanding of the issues (including e.g. tensions, limitations, and alternative interpretations).	Virtually no errors of pronunciation or self-correction required. Uses stress and intonation to convey subtle distinctions of meaning and fully engage the conversation partner. Outstanding delivery and ability to engage with the conversation partner. Demonstrates a rare level of spontaneity, responsiveness, and conversational control. Adapts to new lines of discussion with exceptional ease, introducing new perspectives and steering the conversation in productive and insightful 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. It demonstrates all the skills expected of assignments awarded a First, as well as displaying the additional strengths listed below, as applicable. For work awarded an 88, performance is strong across all criteria, leaving only minimal room for refinement. Outstanding skill in some areas may compensate for isolated minor shortcomings elsewhere.

Language	Content	Oral delivery (oral assessments only)
Uses a rich and varied vocabulary, including idiomatic expressions, to express ideas precisely. There may be occasional imprecision when expressing more nuanced ideas or using less familiar topic-specific vocabulary. Employs persuasive and stylistic techniques skilfully and flexibly, demonstrating a strong awareness of audience, purpose, and context. Language use reflects a deep engagement with the target culture. Demonstrates a high degree of grammatical accuracy and flexibility. There may be isolated minor errors and/or imprecisions when using individual words and/or phrases. These typically relate to fine nuances of usage. Manipulates even complex structures with confidence and flair to express nuanced meanings. Register and tone are extremely well judged. For written work: Spelling, accent marks, capitalisation, punctuation, and hyphenation (as appropriate) are used accurately and effectively. There may be isolated slips or inconsistencies. 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. In longer presentations or pieces of writing: The response is meticulously planned with a coherent and persuasive rationale. There are no gaps in reasoning. 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 and persuasively, 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. Uses natural and expressive intonation to support meaning and engage the conversation partner. Expression is fluent and spontaneous. Responds thoughtfully and directly to follow-up or challenging questions. There is limited need for rephrasing or self-correction, even when discussing abstract or demanding topics. Plays a proactive role in the discussion, linking ideas, introducing relevant perspectives, and helping move the conversation forward. If 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 to provide detailed responses. Uses idiomatic expressions appropriately in a range of contexts to communicate naturally and effectively. 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 or less familiar structures. These do not compromise communication. Uses language purposefully to support the communicative aims of the task and engage the audience. Language and grammatical variety may enhance the discussion. 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 and relate to non-essential details or points beyond the core requirements of the task. Skill and insight in other areas may 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: Expresses opinions, arguments, and/or ideas with nuance. Nearly all points are supported with specific evidence, which is well integrated, contextualised, and analysed. Occasionally points could be explained in further detail.	Speaks fluently and clearly, with only occasional minor lapses in pronunciation, stress, and/or intonation. Uses stress and intonation to help express meaning (e.g. emphasis, contrast, or attitude). Sustains and develops discussion effectively, expanding on and justifying viewpoints convincingly when challenged. May occasionally reformulate ideas to self-correct and/or emphasise or clarify a point. 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. Uses language flexibly, varying vocabulary and sentence structure effectively to avoid repetition. Uses persuasive and stylistic techniques to emphasise key points and support the purpose of the response. Appropriately uses a broad range of 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 an effective and relevant response to all aspects of the task. Demonstrates broad and accurate understanding of source materials and/or the topic. Provides a coherent response to the task, which progresses logically to a well-founded conclusion. May use signposting and transitions well to guide the recipient. In longer presentations or pieces of writing: There are defined sections and a clear focus. Where relevant: Develops a clear and broadly convincing argument using supporting evidence and details. Consistently engages analytically with the topic and/or examples. Some points may not be fully developed: the discussion may not explore the implications, significance, or complexity of particular issues. The response may not consider alternative perspectives.	There may be some first-language interference, but pronunciation, and/or intonation, and/or stress are generally accurate. Provides detailed responses to both straightforward and more complex questions. Uses 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. Speech generally flows smoothly, although occasional hesitation may occur when developing more complex ideas. 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. May use simple grammatical structures reliably and attempt complex structures, but 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. Able to manipulate language independently and effectively, varying sentence structure and vocabulary. Reliance on familiar patterns and/or source-text structures may remain evident in places. 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 may occur. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: There may be some minor errors when forming characters, though the intended word is recognisable.	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. In longer presentations or pieces of writing: 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 may be presented without analysis or reflection. Surface-level discussion may predominate, with a tendency to simplify the issues and/or overlook alternative perspectives.	There may be several cases of mispronunciation, but words remain intelligible overall. Responds relatively well but does not consistently expand on answers. This may impact on 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. Uses a combination of simple and complex structures, 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. 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 recognizable.	Understands the main issues. However, there may be some minor and/or occasional major misunderstandings of source materials and/or the topic. Offers mostly relevant responses, although these may not cover all expected information. May not fully conform to the requirements or expectations of the task. May be narrow in focus and/or not move beyond a basic overview or discussion of the topic. Overall, ideas are presented in a logical order. There may be a lack of signposting, awkward transitions, and/or occasional repetition. In longer presentations or pieces of writing: The path through the discussion may shift or jump at times. Where relevant: The argument/purpose/message is mostly clear and well justified. May occasionally take an analytical rather than descriptive approach. However, the discussion may remain limited in depth or breadth. Some points may not be fully developed. May not always justify claims with appropriate evidence. There may be logical inconsistencies, but these do not undermine the overarching discussion.	Pronunciation, intonation, and/or stress may 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 resembles 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 simple 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 not understand some questions and/or key aspects of the source materials. Demonstrates broad awareness of the main issues. However, responses may rely on general observations. They may overlook and/or simplify key aspects of the topic. There is a basic progression of ideas. However, structuring devices are not used consistently to organise ideas and/or guide the recipient. In longer presentations or pieces of writing: The relevance of some sections may be unclear. Where relevant: The argument is not always clear or justified. The response is predominantly descriptive. There is little attempt to reflect on or analyse the issues or evidence. Evidence may be lacking. Alternatively, evidence may not be integrated in a way that makes its relevance clear. The response may rely on repetition, unsupported assertions, or material of limited relevance to the issues under discussion.	Pronunciation, intonation, and/or stress may be inconsistent, occasionally causing 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 examiner 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 contains 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 may 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 may compromise clarity and place strain on the recipient. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: There may be 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. Important points may be misunderstood and/or only minimally addressed. Points may not be arranged coherently or logically. The work does not clearly and consistently articulate the overall argument/purpose/message. Where relevant: Several claims may be contradictory or unconvincing. Many points or examples are 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 may make it difficult to follow some aspects of the discussion. May hesitate at length in response to simple and slowly formulated questions, even when these are repeated. May offer surface-level answers to some simple questions and/or struggle to respond to others. The candidate may rely on notes and/or memorised phrases. Delivery is laboured and hesitant. The conversation partner 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 may be 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. In 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 recipient. For Chinese, Japanese, Korean: Errors in character formation are widespread. Characters are often difficult to recognise, requiring significant interpretation by the recipient.	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. 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, tending 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 conversation partner.

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 may often be unclear, weak, and/or absent, making the overall response difficult to follow. Points are contradictory, repetitive, vague, or contain unnecessary padding.	Systematic errors in pronunciation, stress, and/or intonation 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