Interaction, Accuracy and Intercultural Awareness in the Oral Component
In the oral component of a mock exam, two candidates discuss 'local festivals and tourism' for four minutes, followed by a one-minute monologue each. Candidate A speaks fluently with accurate complex structures but interrupts, answers only the examiner's questions, and says: 'In Spain we all eat paella at fiestas; that is our culture.' Candidate B makes several tense errors, but asks A questions, paraphrases when stuck, and says: 'I'm not sure that's true for everyone - in my town we...' The department's oral scale gives 40% to interaction and only 15% to sociocultural awareness, but the regional framework lists intercultural competence as a criterion. The examiner must score interaction, accuracy, range and sociocultural awareness, and explain the result to both candidates.
1. Compare the two candidates under the weightings and justify the outcome.
Read the worked answer
Apply the weights rather than impression. Candidate A: interaction 10/40 (fluent but monopolises, does not initiate or respond to the partner), accuracy 15/15, range 15/15, sociocultural awareness 5/15 - total 45/85. Candidate B: interaction 32/40 (initiates, asks questions, repairs), accuracy 8/15, range 8/15, sociocultural awareness 12/15 - total 60/85. B leads because the scale rewards interaction most heavily, and B's repair strategies are exactly what the interaction criterion describes. A's accuracy cannot compensate, because accuracy is only 15% of the mark. The justification should name the behaviours, not the personalities: 'A did not ask B a single question in four minutes; B asked three and paraphrased twice.' This also shows candidates that the oral is not a grammar test with a conversation attached.
2. How should Candidate A's statement about paella be handled in scoring and feedback?
Read the worked answer
Do not score it as a factual error - paella is eaten at festivals, and the examiner is not running a fact-check. Score it under sociocultural awareness as an overgeneralisation: 'we all' and 'that is our culture' present one practice as universal and homogeneous. The descriptor rewards recognising diversity and avoiding stereotyping, so this is a partial, not a zero, performance. Feedback should be concrete and non-accusatory: ask A to hedge ('many people', 'in some regions', 'it depends on the town') and to ask B what happens locally. Model the move: 'That's common in Valencia, but what about where you're from?' This turns a risky remark into an interaction opportunity. The examiner should also note that B's reply was well pitched: it disagreed without confrontation and opened a comparison.
3. Candidate B says: 'I have visited London in 2019.' How should this be scored, and what feedback follows?
Read the worked answer
It is an accuracy error, not a range error: the present perfect is used with a finished-time adverbial ('in 2019'), where the past simple is required. Score it under accuracy and do not let it affect the interaction mark, since it did not impede communication and B did not need to repair it. In feedback, contrast 'I have visited London' (experience, no date) with 'I visited London in 2019' (finished time). If B had self-corrected ('I have visited - sorry, I visited London in 2019'), the repair itself would be evidence for interaction and should not be penalised twice. This distinction matters for consistency: oral scales often blur accuracy and range, and examiners need to decide which criterion a specific error belongs to before they start counting.