Two minutes of monologue in an eight-minute group discussion
In Paper 4, Tsz-wing is in a group of four. The prompt is: "Should smartphones be banned in secondary schools during school hours?" At 0:00 Tsz-wing begins and speaks for two minutes without pausing. By 4:00 the examiner has said nothing, Hugo has still not spoken at all, Priya has said only "Yes, I agree with you" twice, and the fourth candidate, Faisal, has made two points and been talked over both times. Six minutes of the eight-minute discussion remain. Each candidate then has one minute alone with the examiner. Tsz-wing's individual response prompt is: "Which of the points raised in your group is the most important, and why?" His plan is to spend the first 45 seconds summarising the group's three main points and the last 15 seconds adding a brief personal opinion.
1. What should Tsz-wing do in the remaining six minutes, and why does more speaking not equal a higher score?
Read the worked answer
Why the opening two minutes was a mistake
Paper 4 assesses interaction, not airtime. A two-minute uninterrupted turn is a short speech: it demonstrates fluency, but it gives the examiner no evidence of turn-taking, responding, or building on another candidate's idea. Those are the behaviours the descriptors name, and none of them can be observed while one candidate holds the floor.
What to do from 4:00
- Finish the current point in one sentence and hand over explicitly: "That's where I've got to - Hugo, you were going to say something about phone lockers?"
- Let Hugo speak for 30–40 seconds without interrupting, even if he hesitates. The silence is his thinking time, not a gap to fill.
- Respond to what he actually said, not to the topic: "So you'd say the problem is enforcement rather than the phones themselves?" Then add a qualification.
- Disagree once, with Faisal, politely and by name: "Faisal, I'd push back on the emergencies point, because...". A reasoned disagreement is one of the clearest interaction signals available.
- Convert Priya's agreement into a contribution: "Priya, you agree with the ban - is there any case where you'd make an exception?"
Target
Three or four contributions in the remaining minutes, each short, each attached to something another candidate said. Roughly equal turns is the goal; dominating and then going silent are both failures of the same skill.
2. Give the exact language Tsz-wing could use to bring Hugo and Priya in, and explain why the obvious phrasing usually fails.
Read the worked answer
Why "What do you think, Hugo?" fails
It offers no content and no role. A candidate who has prepared nothing and has been silent for four minutes now has to invent a position in front of four people, and the most likely outcome is a mumbled agreement that ends the exchange. The invitation has produced a turn but no interaction.
Better invitations, in ascending order of help
- Refer back to something he said: "Hugo, you mentioned lockers earlier - did you mean the school should pay for them?"
- Offer a choice rather than an open space: "Hugo, do you think a full ban is too strict, or is the problem just enforcement?"
- Echo and check: "So if I've got you right, you're saying phones are a distraction but a ban punishes everyone for a few students' behaviour - is that fair?"
For Priya
Agreement is not a contribution until it has a reason attached. "Priya, you agree - what convinced you?" or "Priya, what would have to change for you to oppose the ban?" turns a two-word turn into a position.
The principle
An invitation should lower the cost of speaking and give the other candidate something concrete to respond to. Naming a person, referring to their earlier words, or offering a choice all do that; a bare "what do you think" does not.
3. Diagnose Tsz-wing's plan for the one-minute individual response and rewrite it.
Read the worked answer
What is wrong with the plan
Forty-five seconds of summary is 45 seconds of recounting what the examiner has already heard, and it is not what the prompt asks for. The prompt asks him to judge, and the individual response is assessed separately from the group discussion - he is not required to refer to the group at all. A summary therefore wastes the only minute he has, and it risks the weakest outcome: repeating the group's points in different words and never committing to a view.
A workable structure for 60 seconds
- 0–8s: name the point and the criterion. "The most important issue is enforcement, not the ban itself."
- 8–35s: two reasons with a concrete example. "A rule that cannot be enforced damages respect for all school rules; my school already restricts phones in class and teachers rarely check, so..."
- 35–50s: one limitation or counterpoint, briefly. "The obvious objection is that enforcement is expensive, but the cost is smaller than..."
- 50–60s: close on the criterion. "That is why I would rank enforcement above the question of whether phones should be allowed at all."
Why this is stronger
It gives the examiner a clear position (judgement), support (reasoning), and a sense that the candidate can hold a view against an objection - the three things a one-minute response can realistically show. The group can be mentioned in a single clause if it helps, for example "Faisal's point about emergencies was useful, but...", which links the response without turning it into a summary.