Oral marking criteria German 5 

Language (40)		Content (40)		Communication and interaction (20)
Near native fluency. Style and register entirely appropriate to the context and task. Wide range of idioms and structures. Command of specialist vocab. Virtually error free	96% (48)	A well structured presentation that mobilises a series of relevant points in support of a clear position. Focus is retained throughout. The student has moved beyond a received argument to develop and support a personal position and can identify and present data in support of it. A range of secondary sources have been understood and are mobilised productively with evidence of broad understanding, detailed knowledge, and of critical distance.	96% (29)	Strong confident delivery. Engages audience attention through interaction or use of technology (PowerPoint). Invites questions to which responds confidently and comprehensively.	96% (19)
The language is clear and fluent. Style and register appropriate to the context and task. Mostly accurate use of structures and vocabulary. Relatively few foreignisms. No or hardly any major or repetitive errors. Student demonstrates clear ability to think in the target language.	89% (45) 81% (41) 74% (37)	Generates a coherent, nuanced and clearly structured argument leading to a fully supported conclusion. Shows clear evidence of both independent thought and the ability to ground that thought in supported argument. Fully able to relate analysis to a broader context and shows evidence of capacity to independently research a topic.	89% (27) 81% (24) 74% (22)	Positive delivery - eye contact, body language, voice projection. Demonstrates ability to engage audience attention. Responds confidently and comprehensively to questions. Support material e.g. slides and OHTs appropriate to the task. Assured use of technical equipment.	89% (17) 81% (16) 74% (15)
Generally fluent delivery. Style appropriate to the task Uses a range of vocabulary and structures with confidence. May however, lapse into occasional register and grammar errors. Only some major or repetitive errors.	68% (34) 65% (33) 62% (31)	Generates a coherent and structured argument leading to broadly supported conclusions but without the analytical rigour and supported independent thought that one associates with a first.	68% (21) 65% (20) 62% (19)	Delivery is generally confident. Pronunciation and voice projection clear. Rare examples of loss of eye contact and hesitancy. Presentation stimulates audience interest. Student is able to deal competently with questions. Support material is well selected and appropriate to the task. There may however, be minor errors in materials management	68% (13) 65% (12) 62% (12)
The language produced is generally fluent. There may however, be examples of occasional structural or lexical errors. Lapses in style and register may also detract from the overall quality of the presentation. Increasing frequency of major and minor errors.	58% (29) 55% (28) 52% (26)	Presentation clearly addresses the question. Argument may be unsubtle, predictable and/or unoriginal but nonetheless leads coherently to a conclusion. Tends to state broad opinions rather than showing sensitivity to the subtleties of an argument. Shows some relevant contextual knowledge relating to the theme but tends to be vague general or cliched.	58% (18) 55% (17) 52% (16)	Dependence on notes will lead to occasional loss of eye contact. Support material generally in evidence although it may lack visual impact particularly if hand-written. Delivery generally clear. There may however be examples of occasional hesitation. Levels of interaction between student and audience generally low. Member of staff will originate most of questioning. Student is able to respond reasonably adequately to questions	58% (11) 55% (10) 52% (10)

All ideas are communicated. The student, in the main, handles simple sentences largely correctly, though he/she employs a limited range of tense, lexis and syntactic structures and a very limited stylistic range. Some relevant vocabulary is used, but in general student exhibits an over-reliance on common verbs and foreignisms. Student will demonstrate some sensitivity to register. Notable incidence of repetitive major and minor errors.	48% (24) 45% (23) 42% (21)	Is able to state a position and produce points in support of it but does not produce a clearly structured argument. Shows little evidence of analysis of his/her own opinion or of that of others. Contextual knowledge is very thin and comment relating to relevant countries is at the level of cliché or stereotype or is perhaps ill informed or inaccurate	48% (15) 45% (14) 42% (13)	Unconfident delivery. Mispronunciation may lead to occasional ambiguity. Heavy dependence on notes leads to insufficient eye contact. Support material is evident, but likely to lack visual impact. Interaction low. Quality of language likely to deteriorate when responding to questions.	48% (9) 45% (8) 42% (8)
The language is almost incomprehensible and neither fluent nor idiomatic. Sentences tend to be peppered with both repetitive and major errors. Register inappropriate.	38% (19) 25% (13) 12% (6) 0	Fails to answer questions. Individual points may be made but these fail to cohere and are not grounded in reasoned argument. Shows no significant contextual knowledge.	38% (11) 25% (8) 12% (4) 0	Weak delivery characterised by pronunciation problems and/or tendency to read. Support material is either absent or sub standard. Student fails to motivate audience interest. He/she is unable to respond appropriately to questions	38% (8) 25% (4) 12% (2)