Критерії оцінювання знань студентів за шкалою рівня “Advanced” університету Кембрідж (Велика Британія)
Критерії оцінювання знань студентів
за шкалою рівня “Advanced”
університету КЕМБРИДЖА (Велика Британія)
Note on marking: Each of the five papers in CAE contributes equally to the final grade. Raw scores for each paper are weighted to 40, giving a total weighted score of 200. The assessment criteria below and on page 146 are correct at time of publication, but may be subject to revision. See page 149 for the assessment criteria for Question 6, Paper 3.
Writing - Assessment criteria
The same assessment criteria are applied to both sections of the paper.
TASK-SPECIFIC assessment guidelines for each question will be added to the general criteria in order to define the type of organization, the register and the content required for each of the five questions.
NB: Discrepancies between USE OF LANGUAGE and TASK ACHIEVEMENT
|
require adjustment up or down on the impression scale. |
|
|
5 |
Very positive effect on target reader. Minimal errors: resourceful, controlled and natural use of language showing good range of vocabulary and structure. Completion of task: well-organized, good use of cohesive devices, appropriate register, not relevant omissions. N.B. not necessarily a flawless performance!
|
|
4 |
Sufficiently natural, errors only when more complex language attempted. Some evidence of range of the vocabulary and structure. Good attempt at task, only minor omissions. Attention paid to organization and cohesion; register not always natural but positive effect on target reader achieved.
|
|
3 |
Either a) task reasonably attempted, accuracy of language satisfactory but no notable variety, or b) an original attempt at the task, bringing in a range of vocabulary and structures which, however, cause a number of non-impeding errors, or c) a rather pedestrian approach to the task, possibly with some lifting (Section A) or rather limited range of structures/vocabulary but a good control of the fairly limited language used. No significant irrelevancies or omissions.
|
|
2 |
Errors sometimes obscure communication and/or language too elementary. Some attempt at task but notable omissions and/or lack of organization and cohesion would have negative effect on reader.
|
|
1 |
Serious lack of control and/or frequent basic errors. Narrow range of language. Inadequate attempt at task.
|
|
0 |
Either a) fewer that 50 words per question, b) totally illegible work, or c) total irrelevance.
|
Spelling: American spelling acceptable but there should be consistency. Poor spelling penalized by alone-band reduction if it interferes with communication.
Handwriting: Work which is difficult to read is penalized by a one or possibly two
band reduction depending on degree of illegibility. Totally illegible work receives 0.
Length: Specific number of words used is not taken into account. Length is an integral part of task achievement.
Significantly fewer words are likely to mean that the task has not been completed. Over-long pieces of writing may involve irrelevance or have a negative effect on the target reader and, only if this is the case, will be penalized.
Layout: Following the conventions of writing letters, reports and instructions is part of task achiever ant. Any acceptable modern layout for a formal letter may be used Paragraphs should be indented although a space between each paragraph without indenting is a reasonable alternative.
Level 3 performance would indicate a pass at CAE level but the writer would probably need to make extensive checks on work, consult dictionaries and correct drafts.
Speaking - Assessment criteria
|
|
Fluency |
Accuracy |
Pronunciation |
Task achievement |
Interactive communication |
|
7-8 |
Coherent spoken interaction with good speed and rhythm. Few intensive hesitations. |
Evidence of a wide range of structures and vocabulary. Errors minimal in number and gravity. |
Little L1 accent/L1 accent not obtrusive. Good mastery of English pronunciation features.
|
The tasks are dealt with fully and effectively. The language is appropriate to each task. |
Contributes fully and effectively throughout the interaction. |
|
5-6 |
Occasional but Noticeable hesitations, but not such as to strain the listener or impede communication. |
Evidence of a good range of structures and vocabulary Errors few in number and minor in gravity. These errors do not impede communication. |
Noticeable L1 accent having minor difficulties with some pronunciation features. These do not strain the listener or impede communication.
|
The tasks are mostly dealt with effectively but with minor inadequacies of execution of language. |
Contributes with ease for most of the interaction, with only occasional and minor difficulties. |
|
3-4 |
Fairly frequent and noticeable hesitations. Communication is achieved but strains the listener at times. |
Fairly frequent errors and evidence of restricted range of structures and/or vocabulary. These do not prevent communication of the essential message.
|
Obvious L1 pronunciation features with major defects. These may strain the listener and/or make comprehension of detail difficult. |
One or more of the tasks are dealt with in a limited manner. The language is often inappropriate. Redirection may have been required at times. |
Contributes effectively for some of the interaction, but fairly frequent difficulties. |
|
1-2 |
Disconnected Speech and/or frequent hesitations impede communication and strain the listener. |
Frequent basic errors and limited range of structures and/or vocabulary impede communication and strain the listener. |
Heavy L1 pronunciation and widespread difficulties with English features impede communication of the message and strain the listener. |
Inadequate attempts at the tasks using little appropriate language. Requires major redirection or assistance. |
Difficulty in maintaining contributions throughout. May respond to simple or structured interaction but obvious limitations in freer situations. |
|
0 |
Sample of language inadequate for assessment (even after prompting by the interlocutor)
|
||||