The exam sessions in 2020, the first year of the assessment system introduced by the 2018 Subject Guide, were severely affected by the Covid pandemic. However, this disruption actually increased the importance of the Oral Interview, since Internal Assessment in Language B was the only component which could be taken by the students. In addition, in the May session, the IB decided to mark all of the interviews, rather than just samples from each school.

Stressful as this was, not just for students and teachers but particularly for the examiners, it meant that by the end of 2020, the newly-introduced Marking Criteria had been very fully tested, explored and understood.

Here are some suggestions about which are the key terms in the wording of the Criteria, how these may be interpreted, and what indicators may be useful in applying them.

Criterion A Language

‘command’ =  overall, how clear and effective is the language – how well does it communicate?

‘vocabulary’ … this basic term does not need definition, but the following adjectives are applied:

“varied” = i.e. is the range wide or limited?

“idiomatic” = should not be seen just as ‘idioms’ in the standard meaning … also authentic / colloquial use, including skilful, ‘natural’, phrasing

“nuanced” = does not just mean ‘sophisticated /uncommon’ words … also - more common words, precisely used … also - put together in phrasing which may be skilful and ‘expressive’

Note: the 9/10 mark boundary ... the amount of 'varied' vocabulary is a helpful indicator for deciding whether the performance merits the 10-12 mark band or merely the 7-9 mark band. If there is noticeable evidence of varied range, this may squeeze the mark of a 'debateable' performance into the 10-12 band. But - all the indicators have to be taken into account, of course.

Grammar range = evidence of use of complex structures? … which may mean…

> most commonly, complex sentence structure, control of compound sentences, etc

> and/or complex verb structures (conditional, etc), complex reference back and forward…

‘accurate’ = assess how correctly the language is handled. This comes down not just to assessing the number of errors … but also how significant these errors are in the text. In order to judge ‘significance’ –

> use the distinctions ‘Slips / Flaws / Gaps’  (see Criterion A in Marking Notes)

> consider how much errors “interfere with communication” – they may well be ‘untidy’, but do not actually ‘interfere significantly’

Note: the 6/7 mark boundary ... this concept of 'interfere with communication' is usually helpful in deciding whether a performance falls into the 4-6 mark band or the 7-9 mark band. If the 'interference' is relatively minor or occasional, then the 7-9 band may be acceptable; if the 'interference' is more persistent, the 4-6 band may be required. Of course, all of the indicators have to be taken into consideration in the judgement.

‘pronunciation and intonation’ = useful to concentrate on ‘overall impression’, to start with – i.e. how easy is it to follow the thread of ideas, without giving too much weight to slips in grammar (unless these significantly affect following the thread of the candidate’s speech, e.g. pronouns wrongly used, that could cause confusion).

> pronunciation blurs – more likely to affect mark at lower end

> intonation expressive - more likely to affect mark at upper end of the range

NB ‘fluency’ … not mentioned in the criterion, but an obvious indicator. 'Command' in the bold statement for each markband can be interpreted as referring to the level of general fluency and ease of production.

One type of indicator which may measure relative fluency is ‘hesitations’. Consider the following four types, which may be linked, roughly, to levels of marks:

> considered ... breaks in the flow caused by 'pause for thought' - should not be penalized: the top mark band would be acceptable.

> hesitant ... breaks in the flow, at regular intervals, and for no clear reasons. The impression is of a lack of confidence, either in command of the language, or of the ideas, or both - and this will tend to make the highest mark band unlikely (always remembering that all factors in the Criterion have to be taken into consideration).

> labored ... breaks in the flow of language are a dominant factor, and occur regularly, suggesting lack of full command - tend to indicate the lower middle of the mark range.

> fractured ... simply, there are more breaks than flow - the candidate is clearly struggling to find words, and when they emerge they are very often incorrect. This will tend to indicate the lower end of the mark range.

Criterion B1: How relevant are the ideas to the literary extract / selected stimulus?

“relevant” = how often the candidate refers directly to the extract –

> good relevance = use of quotes or very close and clear paraphrases of sections of the extract that provide sound support for the candidates’ observations and opinions.

> poor relevance = mainly general comments about the literary work OR only vague references to the extract (without specific quotes or clear detailed indications)  =  3-4 markband (if competently organized), or the 1-2 band (if rambling or disorganized).

“make use” = basically, whether the student has a methodical approach to the reading of the extract. The most common ‘good’ approaches are :-

> ‘read-through’ – the student works through the extract step by step, explain the meaning in more or less depth … ideas may be simple and obvious (middling marks), or sophisticated and insightful (top marks)

> ‘thesis’ – the student focuses on key or central meanings of the extract, and explains these in detail, often with sensible (but controlled) reference outside the extract … likely to be top mark band

“developed” = indications that the student has thought the ideas through in detail –

> logical sequences of argument = evidence of a chain of ideas are linked together

> overall plan or ‘map’ = the ideas have been organized into an overview or coherent pattern

> acute observations and opinions = indications that the student has thought about the extract in some depth, and with some analytical skill

NB ‘correct / expected’ answers? … mark the way in which the student’s ideas are presented rather than the strict factual accuracy of the information presented, or the validity of the opinions expressed. Of course, a silly idea is likely to be lacking in logic and support... and so will be 'poorly developed'... and so will be 'poorly presented'.

Criterion B2: How relevant are the ideas in the conversation?

‘relevant’ = how directly and clearly the student responds to the meaning of the questions … NB, overlaps with the term ‘appropriate’, which can be interpreted as meaning ‘suitable for the thread of the conversation’

“developed” = indications that the student is capable of thinking ideas through in detail, and then explaining them in sensible / clear / methodical ways –

> logical sequences of argument = evidence of ideas linked together with reasoned connections

> sequence markers / cohesive devices = such as ‘therefore’, ‘secondly’, ‘on the other hand’, etc

> ‘full’ = is the response fully explained, at length – or is it short and minimal?

“limited / broad” = qualifiers describing the intellectual quality of the student’s ideas – the extent to which they are informed, thoughtful, critically assessed, debated…

> focus & coherence = the degree of close relevance to the subject, as opposed to digression and disorganisation

> different angles = ideas which consider the question from different points of view, different values, etc

Criterion C: To what extent does the candidate understand and react?

“demonstrates comprehension” = understand the questions

> ‘prompt responses’ = how quickly / immediately does the student start speaking after the question?

> ‘asks for question be repeated’ = may mean that the student doesn’t understand the language …or… perhaps the teacher’s question wasn’t very clear …or… even the brightest may suddenly blank out and lose concentration. In short, failing to understand one question is not necessarily significant – failing two or more may point to weak comprehension

“participation…sustained” = how well does the student keep hold of the thread of the conversation? The degree of success can be judged by the extent to which the following top-level qualities can be detected -

> ‘consistent relevance’ = e.g. all of the student’s ideas are sensibly linked to the general subject

> ‘engagement’ = e.g. the student’s lively responses indicate interest in the subject, involvement… and this is likely to include personal responses, anecdotes, new ideas etc (see below)

“independent contributions” = whether the student offers new, related ideas and arguments, which may take the conversation in new directions