# data[].attributes.body
1)      In the case of the audio (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ahu8PHny2T5fzILW0t39m281AqLVR5B/view), I’d say that the student does have a pretty good vocabulary, it is in fact appropriate and has some idiomatic expressions in the sentences he says.  I could understand his ideas with no struggle, so it’s a good work for this. The pronunciation was good, obviously not perfect, but good for the average. (Criterion A: 10 points)

When he had to appeal to the book, he did a good job in general. He does a good relation with the book events, making a useful and effective use of them. His opinions about them have also a good correlation with the literary extract. (Criterion B1: 5 points)

While he answered the questions that the supervisor was making to him, he had a straight and well supported answer. (Criterion B2: 5 points)

The candidate does a considerably good work when providing answers in the target language, which gave me the impression that he really understood everything, the book and the questions given by the supervisor. (Criterion C: 5 points)

Total points: 25

2)      In the case of the audio (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dddb68NI5OxU8MxBcT5ylZ1Xl8s8tX11/view) the candidate’s vocabulary is not that good. He has a simple way to express himself, but it is not bad either, it could be better. He had some kind of lack, in terms of idiomatic sentences, he does everything short and sounds a bit dry sometimes. But he could let me understand his ideas with no struggle, so in this part it’s fine. (Criterion A: 6 points)

Most of the presentation goes along with the literary extract. It was maybe the lack of idiomatic sentences, but I did not feel the strongest relation with the extract. He has a good support with the literary extract though, so he did not do that bad. (Criterion B1: 4 points)

While he answered the questions that the supervisor was making to him, he had a straight but not so extended answer. (Criterion B2: 4 points)

As I said before, he is able to provide answers, but them are not so sentence, most of them are considerably short, which may cause some lack of interest in people to hear the candidate. He did not leave a feeling of not understanding the extract, so on that part, he did not make a bad job. (Criterion C: 4 points)

Total points: 18

# data[].attributes.body
Social Organization
Criterion A: (11 marks)
The candidate shows a clear understanding of the english language because of their extensive range of vocabulary and pronunciation.
Criterion B1:
The
Criterion B2:
Criterion C:

# data[].attributes.body
Experiences:
Criteria A:  9
Criteria B1: 4
Criteria B2: 5
Criteria C: 4
Final score: 22/30

# data[].attributes.body
Identities sample:
Criteria A: The candidate has a very strong vocabulary and also he express his ideas with a good grammar for me to comprehend. I could give him 10 marks
Criteria B1: He seems to really knows about the topics in the book because he answers every question of the following extract without any difficulty and also he explains the important things that were in the extract so I could give him a 5.
Criteria B2: The candidate has a facility for communication but he needs to improve his pronunciation. Also he speaks very fluid, defending his position of the topic every time answering what the examiner asks so I could give him a 5.
Criteria C: The candidate communicates very well expressing his ideas correctly and also he always gives his own perspective and that gives him points, I would give him 6.
Final score: 26/30

# data[].attributes.body
Social Organization
Criteria A: Lovely vocabulary of the candidate. He has made a good introduction about the context of the literary extract using the correct words with an extent  vocabulary to comprehend. Here i give him a 10
Criteria B1: He explained well describing the context and talked with useful phrases. He seems that he really know a lot about the extract and the book in general. He has strong answers among the general conversation. I give him a 6
Criteria B2: The candidate's
responses were consistently relevant to the questions that the examiner has made. He uses an outstanding vocabulary that makes the answers be fluent and consistent. I could give him here a 6
Criterion C: Here he doubted a little bit, but he  interacts with the examiner in a good way. He uses strongly arguments and his comprehension of the questions were brilliant. I give him a 5.

27/30
He made an excellent exam, with great security in his words.

# data[].attributes.body
3  audio (Human Ingenuity (24/30)
Criteria A: The language is appropiate, he uses a good range of vocabulary and grammar structure. His pronunciation is very good. (10/12)
Criteria B1 (5/6): The presenntation of candidate is very complete.  He explains the setting, characters, problem, the reason why it happens. He also comment about his personal opinion of the extract. Could identify better the authors intentions.
Criteria B2 (4/6): In the conversation, the cantidate shows knowledge and confidence, therefore his answers are complete and also he adds new ideas and opinions.
Criteria C: (5/6) He demostrate comprenhension and maintain the conversation through all the task.
Final score (24/30)
Good candidate demostrate  a good use of the language, express well his ideas and maintain the conversation.
Audio 2 (Sharing the planet)
Criteria A: The candidate shows a good vocabulary, and the pronunciation and intonation is very good. (10/12)
Criteria B1: It shows a good understanding of the extract, but could have been more in depth.(describe the intentions of the author, explain more the problem)(4/6)
Criteria B2:
The candidate responded well and gives new ideas until some extend. She agrees and disagree with arguments. Gives experiences according to the question. But in one question her answer is limited.  (4/6)
Criteria C: The interaction is very good, tries to engage with the teacher .Her answers demostrade a good comprehension. (5/6)
Final score: 23/30

# data[].attributes.body
The candidate was able to describe, using the context from the novel which makes her short analysis very valuable and on point. On the other hand, she showed little to no analysis because of the fact that she wasn't able to give clear and precise answers to the questions regarding the literaty extract. Ultimately, her answers lacked information and a clear analysis, which is very clear when hearing her generalized answers.

# data[].attributes.body
er the authors intentions. 
Criteria B2 (4/6): In the 

# data[].attributes.body
Social Organization
Regarding Criteria A:  11 points
The candidate had a good pronunciation ad intonation that makes it easy to comprehend.
Regarding Criteria B1: 6 points
The candidate had a good structure to present the ideas, and also the candidate knew the story and analyzed the fragment given with a good focus on the book itself
Regarding Criteria B2: 5 points
The candidate demostrated a good conversation and responded everything.
Regarding Criteria C:

# data[].attributes.body
Fourth audio: Sharing the planet
Criteria A: the candidate has identified the extract correctly. Unfortunately, she has a poor content of the context´s presentation. She talked just 2 minutes. I could give her a 3 here.
Criteria B1: The candidates extract  presentation is consistently relevant to the literary extract and is convincing. I give her a 5 here.
CriteriaB2:  The candidate’s responses are mostly relevant to the questions.  Unfortunately she repeated the same answers for  2 questions she was asked for. I hive her a 4.
Lastly in the Criterion C, she has a pretty good  Comprehension of the question she was asked for.   Her  interaction is consistently sustained with the examinor.  She understands the questions and explained well her ideas in the last part of the General Discussion. I give her a 5
I would recommend using a more extended vocabulary in order to answer the questions in a better way

Final mark: 17/30

# data[].attributes.body
Social organization
Criteria A: The candidate definitely had a good development during the recording, as well as a good vocabulary. in the same way, he presents a good pronunciation and clarity of his sentences.

Criteria B1:  The candidate presents strong and well-armed arguments, their ideas and opinions are related to the subject and shows great understanding of the fragment.

Criteria B2: He responded appropriately to the questions, showing his understanding and respect to the examiner

Criteria C:The communication was correct, without doubts and with great security

Final Mark: 28/30

# data[].attributes.body
Sample C:

Criterion A:

The vocabulary is varied and provides a good expression of the ideas, the pronuntation and intonation are good and enhance the comunication with the

# data[].attributes.body
Social organization:
Criteria A: The candidate had a very clear pronunciation and the grammar was also very good. The language was mostly accurate and it contributed to an effective communication. 11
Criteria B1:  The candidate engaged good with the literary extract. Opinions and observation were supported with quotes from the literary extract. 5
Criteria B2: Answers were well developed and connected to his theme. 5
Criteria C: The candidate demonstrated a good comprehension while providing the answers. 6
Final score: 27/30

# data[].attributes.body
Experiences sample:
Criteria A: The candidate`s language was very fluid but she made many pauses saying things like: one second, a moment, etc. So I that part I would give her 9 marks.
Criteria B1: when she start to describe about the message that the extract gives she is very conscious about her ideas and she put examples with her own ideas to interpret better, in this part I can give her 4 marks because in some parts she keep quite and I don’t comprehend well.
Criteria B2: when the examiner and her were talking in one of the questions she doesn’t know how to answer so this was a disadvantage but she continues answering the rest of the questions with fluently and also make important points about the extract. So I could give her a 5 in conversation.
Criteria C: she can express her ideas very well and with a good pronunciation. The final score in this part is 5.
Final score: 23/30

# data[].attributes.body
Social organization audio: The candidate has an effective command of the language and mostly accurate. he has a great variety of vocabulary and in the vast majority of audio he uses grammar well. What you are trying to communicate if you can understand.
Criteria A: 10
Criteria B1: 5
Criteria B2: 5
Criteria C: 5
Final mark: 25/30= 6

In general, the candidate did very well. He was answering all the time to what was asked of him and there were very few errors. His English was very fluent and he was able to maintain a conversation and give his opinions with good understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Experiences:
Criteria A: 7-9
The candidate demostrates a wide range of vocabulary, making easy for her to answer the questions. She also uses a lot of idiomatic expressions and has a right pronunciation of the words.
Criteria B1: 3-4
Critera B2: 3-4
She can relate a topic to another, generating conversation with the examinator. But in some questions she couldn´t show a clearly position, staying just on one topic.
Criteria C: 5-6
The fluency on the language make the interactions with the teacher easier and faster.

# data[].attributes.body
Identities
Criteria A: 9
Presented a varied vocabulary and the way he talked was understandable.
Criteria B1: 5
He describes the context of the extract and gives a good explanation of the connection between the topic (Identities) and the scene that is presented.
Criteria B2: 4
He answered well the questions that the exterminator asked and gave some structured arguments.
Criteria C: 4
The first minutes he struggled a little bit preventing a more fluid presentation.
Total score: 22≈5

# data[].attributes.body
Human Ingenuity - Sample C
MY POINT OF VIEW
The Candidate who spoke in the third audio. Introduce into the topic with energy and I could notice that he was very confident with his summary. Apart of that the interaction with the teacher was quite good, because he made a lot of emphasis in how the action were taken.

Regarding criteria A: ( 7-9)
I noticed the guy tried to improve his structure and also the way of how he use some gramatical structure was good. However, he made some mistakes, but It seems to me that the fact of using connectors were very clear.

Regarding criteria B 1: ( 3 -4)
His summary was almost perfect, but in some part of the oral test, he used the same words or also forgot the relation between characters and that is way he did not get the best grade.

Regarding criteria B 2: (5 - 6)
He could manage his answers very good. Dispite this, he did not use as the connectors as need it to get the best grade.

Regarding cirteria C:
He established a good relation with the judge, because in one part of the audio I could notice that they had the same point of view in a topic, that he was speaking about.

23/30

# data[].attributes.body
Second audio: Experiences
Criterion A: Her vocabulary was very varied and it enhanced her answers. She had good grammatical structures and she spoke very clear. 11/12
Criterion B1: She related most of her speaking to the text  5/6
Criterion B2: She maintained a good conversation with appropriate answers 5/6
Criterion C: She definitely  understood the question and was able to answer them and contributing with her own ideas and comments 6/6

Overall a really good, well prepared and fluent speaking candidate 27/30

# data[].attributes.body
Human Ingenuity:
Criteria A (8):The candidate used a limited vocabulary, which may have made difficult the understanding of some of his ideas. However, he had a clear and coherent intonation which may have helped in this criteria, althought he wasn't that fluent.
Criteria B1 (5):There is a good knowledge of the book, the extract is well described and interpreted effectively. However, in some parts he doesn't remember the scenes from the book, and that took him down a point.
Criteria B2(4): The answers given were sometimes optimal, however, he deviated from the question and tried to talk about a topic that was not asked.
Criteria C(4): There is sometimes a dialogue between the candidate and the examiner. Although he/she tries to use phrases in order to substitute other phrases, he/she gets very confused and does not manage to establish a fluent conversation. However, it is considered that phrases and idioms were used.

Final Score: 21/30

# data[].attributes.body
SHARING THE PLANET
Criteria A: The candidate uses a appropiate vocabulary, that is related to the story. She develops some grammatical structures, but her intonation makes some parts confusing.
Mark: 10/12
Criteria B1:  The candidate gives a short explanaition about  what is happening in the extract. She sets the story in context, and demonstrates how she understands the main character, so she uses some important ideas from the extract to support her own ideas.  Mark: 4/6
Criteria B2:  All the answers that the candidate gives are relevant to the question, but she answers some questions without using the extract ideas.Her personal interpretations are minimal, but still present and have a big impact. She makes a small eforce to engage the interlocutor.
Mark: 5/6
Criteria C: She demonstrates comprehesion of the extract and the main character. She compares the situation with the present days, which enriches her interpretation.
6/6
Total: 25/30. Well done. Good comprehension and vocabulary.

# data[].attributes.body
Audio 2: Experiences
Criterion A: (7 marks)
The candidate from the second audio certainly has a wide range of vocabulary, which is proven to be extremely fundamental throughout the entirety of the evaluation because it makes it easier for her to express her opinions and she is able to answer each question easily, although her answers are very general. It's important to note that she sometimes lowers her voice while answering which makes it difficult to understand some things.
Criterion B1: (5 marks)
The candidate was able to describe, using the context from the novel which makes her short description very valuable and on point but it lacks certain aspects such as a more thorough description of the literary extract's message.
Criterion B2: (3 marks)
She showed little to no analysis because of the fact that she wasn't able to give clear and precise answers to the questions regarding the literaty extract. Ultimately, her answers lacked information and a clear analysis, which is very clear when hearing her generalized answers.
Criterion C: (4 marks)
The candidate showed a clear comprehension of the literary extract but ultimately lacked a thorough analysis when answering the questions.

Total marks: 19/30

# data[].attributes.body
Second audio:  Experiences
Regarding criteria A: 10 points
The vocabulary used was excellent appropiate to describe and explain. She used an appropiate communication but, she also used a lot of MMM, nonetheless, the entonation and communication
✔️
Regarding criteria B1: 5 points
The content she had was good and relevant. She also gave her opinion which was good.  Needs to response a little more quickly
Regarding Criteria B2: 6 points
The candidate answered the questions deeply, but needs a little more explanation in some aspects.
Regarding Criteria C:  5 points
She interated almost constanly. And had independent contribution

26/30 points:
Good comprehension and pronunciation almost perfect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things Juan Pablo Febres Luna has made

# data[].attributes.body
Remember to comment a sample and contrast your comment with another pupil´s one.

# data[].attributes.body
Third audio (Human Ingenuity) 21/30
Criteria A: 9/12
The candidate uses acuarate language, though in some points it is repetitive. The candidate has an excellent pronunciation and his voice shows confidence. He uses some good grammatical structures.
Criteria B1:  4/6
The candidate makes a good use of the extract, he quotes the extract to sustain his opinion. However sometimes he loses time describing the quote.
Criteria B2: 4/6
The questions are deep answered, but the candidate does not link the extract with prescribid theme until the examiner tells him.
Criteria C: 4/6
The candidate can mantain the conversation sometimes, but sometimes he locks and repeats what he has said.

In the fouth audio (Experiences),  17/30
Criteria A: 6/12
The candidate speaks very low, she does not show confidence when she talks. It does not interfere with the message and the expresions used are apropiate. Sometimes the way she expresses herself confuses the examiner.
Criteria B1:  4/6
She has good understanding of the literary extract. Makes good interpreations and arguments. But some of them does not have a good sustain.
Criteria B2: 3/6
She can not mantain the conversation, the examiner has to make questions very often to continue with the conversation. Also she locks a lot.
Criteria C: 4/6
She does not connect well the extract to the prescribed theme, but she answeres good the question.