The Speaking Task That Was Recorded Twice
A Year 12 background-speakers student, Haruka, records her Japanese oral interaction at home because she was absent on the scheduled day. She submits two audio files: a 4-minute conversation with her grandmother, and a 3-minute version she re-recorded alone after deciding the first was 'too casual'. The teacher notes that the assessment outline requires an interaction with a proficient speaker, a maximum of 5 minutes, and evidence of both formal and informal register. Haruka's first file contains keigo when addressing her grandmother's friend who joins briefly, plus casual speech with her grandmother. The second file is fluent but is a monologue with scripted questions she reads aloud. Haruka argues the second file shows her 'best Japanese'. The teacher must decide which evidence counts and how to record the judgement.
1. Which recording should the teacher accept as assessment evidence, and why?
Read the worked answer
The teacher should accept the first recording. Three conditions from the outline are met only by that file: it is an interaction with a proficient speaker (her grandmother, plus the friend), it falls within the 5-minute limit, and it demonstrates both registers - casual speech with the grandmother and keigo with the friend.
The second file fails two conditions. It is a monologue, so it provides no evidence of interactive competence such as turn-taking, responding to unscripted questions, or repairing misunderstanding. It is also self-recorded without a proficient interlocutor, so the 'interaction' requirement is unmet regardless of fluency. Reading scripted questions aloud is not evidence of spontaneous speaking.
A useful principle: fluency is not the same as communicative range. The teacher should assess against the stated conditions, not against which file sounds more polished.
2. How should the teacher handle the fact that the recording was made at home rather than in class?
Read the worked answer
Absence does not automatically invalidate the evidence, but the teacher must confirm the recording is authentic and comparable to what other students did. Practical steps:
- Verify authenticity - confirm the file date, that the grandmother is a real interlocutor, and that no script was used. A brief follow-up conversation with Haruka in Japanese about the content of the recording (e.g. asking her to summarise what her grandmother said) tests whether she can sustain the interaction.
- Check comparability - the task conditions (length, interlocutor proficiency, register range) should match what the class was given. If the class task required a set prompt or topic, the home recording must address the same topic.
- Document the adjustment - record in the moderation notes why an alternative setting was used, so an external moderator can see the judgement was deliberate and consistent.
- Do not penalise the format - the student should not lose marks merely for being absent, provided the evidence meets the conditions.
If authenticity cannot be established, the teacher should arrange a supervised re-recording rather than accept unverified evidence.
3. Haruka asks whether she can combine the best moments from both files into one submission. What should the teacher say?
Read the worked answer
The teacher should decline. Combining excerpts would produce a constructed artefact rather than a record of a single sustained interaction, which undermines the validity of the evidence. Key reasons:
- Interaction cannot be spliced. Turn-taking, response to unscripted input, and register shifting are assessed as a continuous performance. Cutting between files removes the coherence the criteria reward.
- Fairness to other students. Others submitted one continuous recording under the same conditions; allowing editing gives Haruka an advantage not available to them.
- Moderation risk. An edited file is harder for an external moderator to verify, and unexplained edits can lead to the whole judgement being questioned.
The teacher can, however, offer a supervised re-recording under the original conditions if Haruka believes she can perform better. That preserves both fairness and the integrity of the evidence.