The Oral Presentation That Outgrew Its Evidence
At a SACE Stage 2 Romanian school assessment, students must give a 6-minute oral presentation in Romanian, followed by 4 minutes of questions, on a topic linked to a Romanian-speaking community. Ioana has chosen the 1989 Revolution in Timișoara. Her draft runs 9 minutes: 5 minutes narrating events chronologically, 2 minutes on her grandmother's account, and 2 minutes on why memory matters. Her teacher notes that the task sheet rewards analysis of a community issue and use of at least three sources, and that the interview with her grandmother is currently the only cited source. Ioana insists the chronology is essential context and that cutting it would be 'disrespectful to history'. Her rehearsal audio shows she reads from notes and rarely looks up. The presentation is in 10 days.
1. Explain what Ioana should cut, keep, and restructure, and justify each decision against the assessment criteria rather than against her personal attachment to the material.
Read the worked answer
Ioana should treat the 6-minute limit as a design constraint, not an obstacle. The chronological narration is context, not analysis; it earns little credit under a criterion that rewards analysis of a community issue. She should compress the narrative to roughly 60–90 seconds of framing, keeping only the events needed to make her analytical claim intelligible. The grandmother's testimony (2 minutes) is her strongest asset but currently functions as anecdote; she should convert it into evidence - for example, by using it to test or complicate a claim drawn from a written source. The final 'why memory matters' section is the closest thing to analysis and should be expanded into the spine of the talk, with the narrative and the interview both serving it. She also needs two more cited sources to meet the three-source requirement; a published oral-history collection and a newspaper archive would let her triangulate her grandmother's account. On delivery, reading from notes undermines the interaction criterion that the 4-minute question phase tests, so she should reduce notes to keywords and rehearse answering unscripted questions. The respectful response to history is analysis, not accumulation.
2. Her teacher suggests she reframe the topic from 'the Revolution' to 'how one family's memory of 1989 differs from the public narrative'. Ioana worries this narrows her topic too much. Assess this reframing.
Read the worked answer
The reframing is not a narrowing but a sharpening, and it solves several problems at once. 'The Revolution' is a historical topic; 'how one family's memory differs from the public narrative' is an analytical question about a community and its memory, which is what the criteria reward. It gives her grandmother's interview a structural role rather than a decorative one: the testimony becomes the object of analysis, and she can compare it with public commemorations, school textbooks, or media coverage. It also makes the three-source requirement meaningful, because sources now speak to each other rather than merely supplying facts. The risk is over-claiming from a single family, so she should present the interview as a case that raises questions, not as representative of all Timișoara families, and say so explicitly. She should also check that the reframed topic still allows enough Romanian-language vocabulary and complexity to demonstrate her linguistic range; a memory-studies framing actually helps here, since it invites evaluative and hypothetical language. The reframing is advisable provided she states the limits of her evidence.