The Silent Partner in a Paired Speaking Task
In a mock A2 Access Speaking test, two candidates, Ana and Piotr, complete a paired task: plan a class party with a budget of £50. The interaction lasts four minutes. Ana speaks for about 80% of the time, suggesting food, music, and times. Piotr says 'Yes', 'No', and 'OK', and once offers 'I like pizza' after Ana asks him directly. When Piotr does speak, his pronunciation is clear. The teacher observing worries that Ana will be penalized for dominating and Piotr for not contributing. The examiner must score each candidate separately on interactive communication. The centre has one more mock before the exam, and both candidates need clear next steps.
1. How should the examiner separate the evidence for Ana and Piotr during scoring?
Read the worked answer
The examiner must score each candidate independently and look for that candidate's own contributions, not the pair's overall balance. For Ana, the evidence is her initiating, suggesting, and maintaining the task; the question is whether she invites Piotr and responds to his contributions. For Piotr, the evidence is his short answers and one content offer. The examiner should not give Piotr credit for Ana's language, and should not lower Ana's score simply because Piotr is quiet. At the same time, Ana's score can be affected if she never creates space for a partner, because interactive communication includes simple turn-taking. The key is to record concrete examples for each candidate.
2. Which A2 interactive-communication behaviours would you look for, and what is missing in this pair?
Read the worked answer
Look for simple turn-taking, responding to questions, asking for repetition or clarification, and making a suggestion. Ana shows initiating and suggesting but limited inviting: she does not ask 'What do you think?' or wait. Piotr shows minimal responding but little initiating. The pair lacks a genuine exchange: no negotiation, no follow-up question, no building on the other's idea. For A2, a simple exchange is enough, but both candidates need some evidence of two-way interaction. Piotr's 'I like pizza' is a useful contribution, but one example is thin evidence. The examiner should note the quantity and quality of each candidate's turns.
3. What classroom practice would you give each candidate before the next mock?
Read the worked answer
For Ana: practise inviting and pausing. Give her sentence frames such as 'What do you think?', 'Do you agree?' and 'Your turn.' In a timed pair task, she should aim to speak no more than about 60% and ask Piotr at least three open questions. For Piotr: practise turn-openers and one-line opinions, e.g. 'I think we should...', 'Shall we...?', 'That's a good idea, but...'. Use information-gap tasks where he must ask for details. Both should rehearse a four-minute party plan with a visible checklist: food, music, time, budget. The goal is not equal talking time but visible two-way interaction.