Benchmarked Performances - Speaking BHS

All aspects of the task are addressed and clearly expanded (hydrogen; solar power) but some of them are not fully developed (geothermal energy). The candidate provides several concrete examples (kill the lakes, fishes, ice bears; no fossil fuels) in a clear and detailed way. She also sustains opinions well by providing good support although not all of the arguments seem relevant.

The candidate produces a spontaneous performance with remarkable fluency. She uses some discourse makers (yeah; ehm) without causing strain on the listener. She always reacts appropriately (I‘m not familiar with this; When I‘m honest...; I want to say...) but does not really intervene actively in the discussion. The conversation appears more like a sequence of mini-monologues than a turn-taking dialogue. The performance shows some ease of expression which gradually decreases in longer stretches. Nevertheless, longer stretches of speech are produced without non-productive pauses.

The candidate expresses herself clearly but shows some restrictions (fossil fuels + kill lakes; make a pollution; bei; no word for that). She uses a good range of vocabulary for the task (endless water; solar power plant; global warming; hydrogen power; solar panels: reduce the use of energy; influence on nature; charge the mobile phones; glaciers; pollution; government; effects). Nevertheless, there is little variation in order toavoid repetition (we also/ we can also; they use/ using; lakes). The candidate demonstrates correct use of circumlocution (This has to...; The government has to do it...) and paraphrase (costs are very high). Furthermore, a range of complex structures is used (due to the fact that; without looking; instead of watching; we do not use any fossil fuels; the disadvantage is that the costs are high; when we use them less we can… ; modals: it would be… ; you can use this; adverbs/ adjectives: environmentally-friendly; passive: when they are built; conditionals; relative clauses; phrasal verbs: turn off; present progressive: Now I‘m trying to; future tense: I will move).

The candidate demonstrates generally high lexical accuracy with some mistakes (the sea is melting; when we sitting the whole day; an individuum can say; which make pollution; the government has to make this; want/would) which do not hinder communication. Although the candidate shows relatively high degree of grammatical control, some systematic errors (prepositions: young people are too much ... by their mobile phones; I see this by my little cousin; by the plane; the advantage from this) and slips in grammar (move in another country; this influence_ our nature; a pollution; the global warming; in the autumn; what _ use of energy offers to our environment), and word order (when we don‘t watch TV so often) still occur. However, they do not hinder communication and the candidate can correct them if she becomes conscious of them. The pronunciation is generally clear and natural with some slight mispronunciations (individual, i-bed/i-pad, ice-beer/ice-bear, wery/very, legs/lakes).

The candidate addresses all aspects of the task but not all are sufficiently and systematically expanded (BP3 is missing; English books). Even though there is hardly any highlighting, she develops detailed descriptions and presentations by providing relevant support.

The performance shows fluency and spontaneity without causing strain on the listener. The candidate hardly pauses and produces complex stretches with a fairly even tempo (It is important to buy books and; While they are on holiday; All in all - I think it’s important; It’s a good way to improve your English). However, a few productive pauses are noticeable (I think; hm).

The candidate expresses herself clearly without much restriction („and“-linkers: and about e-readers). Furthermore, the performance demonstrates a good range of vocabulary for the task (improve; possibility; fluently; every desire; every request; a big benefit of it is; e-readers; to switch off; it’s relaxing; every type of person; a huge range of books; to calm down; elderly people; to mark something; it depends on) but shows some repetition (books; read; elderly people; huge range). Nevertheless, she can paraphrase to vary formulation (holiday/vacation; range/type of books) and shows a range of complex structures (modals: would; could; passives: can be read; adverbs: read easily books; auxiliary verbs; if-clauses; gerunds).

Lexical accuracy and grammatical control are relatively high and mistakes do not hinder communication (require/requirement; different/difficult; read easily books; speak fluently English; English is one of the most speaking languages; speak English that good; don’t speak English good; such many books; there can be a book read; different type of books). Generally, the performance shows clear and natural intonation. Although there are some mispronunciations, they do not impede communication (e-reader/ e-rider; read/ rid; calm/come; novel; hotel; biography; foreign).

All aspects of the task are addressed and some of them are convincingly expanded but others are not fully described (BP3). The performance shows descriptions which have been developed very systematically. The structuring, however, is not always entirely clear. The candidate sustains opinions well by providing relevant support but is not entirely convincing throughout (food is important...).

The candidate shows remarkable spontaneity and a high degree of fluency. He moves meaningfully from point to point. The candidate presents a good introduction and demonstrates ease of expression throughout, even in longer stretches (use of rhetorical questions: How could this ever…? Why would someone waste food?).

The candidate expresses himself clearly without much restriction (spend on). He shows a wide range of complex structures (modals: we might think; must not be thrown away; How could this ever...?; don‘t have the need to; past tense: gave us; decreased; comparison: much more rare; more cheap; phrasal verbs: spend an amount on; the same thing goes for; conditional-clauses: ...if we think world wide; adverb/adjective: financially bad; perfectly fine; completely;) and vocabulary (rare resource; oversaturated; fixed in their mind-sets; value decreases constantly; the same amount of pressure; human sense; addressing the issue; therefore; seems like a luxury problem) for the task.

The lexical accuracy of the performance is high and there are hardly any incorrect word choices (food becomes more cheap). Although the candidate has some problems with comparisons (more cheap; more rare) he shows good control of grammar. He uses intonation appropriately to highlight a number of significant points(what food really means...).