The Overlong Speaking Response
A Year 12 student sits the WACE Indonesian Second Language oral examination. The examiner asks a question about the student's family's move to Perth. The student has prepared an anecdote and speaks for 1 minute 50 seconds without pause. The examiner's marking sheet allocates roughly 2 minutes in total for this discussion section, and the examiner must also ask follow-up questions. During the monologue the student uses accurate past-tense forms and some good vocabulary, but does not develop a conversation and only answers the one prompt. The student then has 40 seconds left before the section ends, and the examiner asks two short follow-up questions that the student answers in single sentences.
1. Identify the main communicative weakness in this performance and explain how it would likely affect the student's score in each relevant criterion.
Read the worked answer
The central weakness is interaction and exchange of meaning, not grammar. The student delivered a rehearsed monologue rather than managing a conversation.
- Communication/interaction criterion: The student did not respond to the examiner's cues, did not ask or extend, and gave only one-sentence replies to follow-ups. This shows limited ability to sustain a two-way exchange, which is a core requirement of an oral discussion. The score here would be capped well below the top band even though the student produced a lot of language.
- Range and accuracy: The past-tense accuracy and vocabulary are genuine strengths and should be credited. But because the student only used structures rehearsed for one topic, the examiner has limited evidence of range across functions (describing, comparing, giving opinion).
- Fluency: Long uninterrupted speech can look fluent, but fluency in an oral exam includes turn-taking and responding spontaneously. The single-sentence follow-ups exposed weaker spontaneous fluency.
The judgement: a student who talks a lot is not automatically scoring highly. The examiner marks what the student demonstrates against each criterion, and a monologue provides narrow evidence. The student should have used the two minutes to invite exchange and answer follow-ups with developed responses.
2. What should the student have done differently in the first 60 seconds, and why would that improve the outcome?
Read the worked answer
In the first 60 seconds the student should have given a shorter, well-shaped answer of roughly 30–40 seconds, then left space for the examiner to probe. A better structure:
- A direct answer to the question (e.g., when the family moved and one concrete detail).
- One or two supporting details, not the whole prepared story.
- A signal that invites follow-up, such as ending on a point the examiner can question.
Why this improves the outcome:
- It preserves time for the follow-up questions, which are where interaction is demonstrated.
- It gives the examiner evidence across multiple sub-topics, so range is shown.
- It reduces the risk of running out of time mid-anecdote, which forces rushed, thin answers at the end.
- It lets the student respond to unexpected questions, which is exactly what the interaction criterion rewards.
The student's preparation was not wasted; the error was treating the oral as a speech rather than a conversation.