The Oral Presentation That Grew Overnight
A student has prepared a 6-minute oral presentation in Italian on Italian migration to Australia, to be delivered to the class and assessed against the school's criteria for spoken interaction and production. The night before, the teacher emails to say the time limit has been reduced to 4 minutes because three extra students were added to the schedule, and that the presentation will now be followed by two spontaneous questions from classmates. The student's script is 780 words, timed at a deliberate, clear pace of about 130 words per minute. She has memorised it almost verbatim and has one slide with statistics she intends to read aloud. Her teacher has emphasised fluency, range of vocabulary, and ability to respond to questions.
1. Using the numbers given, what is the main practical problem with the student's preparation, and what does it reveal about the mismatch between her method and the assessment criteria?
Read the worked answer
At roughly 130 words per minute, 780 words would take about 6 minutes, which matched the original limit. Cutting to 4 minutes allows about 520 words at the same pace, so roughly 260 words must go. The deeper issue is method: verbatim memorisation plus reading a statistics slide develops neither the fluency nor the interactive response the criteria reward. A better plan is to identify three or four key ideas, cut supporting detail rather than whole ideas, and rehearse speaking from cue cards so the language is generated rather than recited. She should also practise two or three likely follow-up questions aloud, since spontaneous response is now explicitly assessed.
2. She asks whether she can simply speak faster to fit everything in. Give a reasoned recommendation.
Read the worked answer
Speaking faster is a poor solution. Pushing well above her natural clear pace risks reduced comprehensibility and more hesitation, both of which damage the fluency impression the criteria target. It also does nothing for the question segment. The stronger recommendation is to reduce content: keep the core narrative (why people left, where they settled, what they contributed) and drop peripheral examples. Cutting content protects clarity and leaves mental capacity for the follow-up questions. Speed should stay close to her comfortable pace; only minor tightening is advisable.