Oral Commentary HL/SL Language and Literature Class of 2021

Criterion A: Knowledge, understanding and interpretation

How well does the candidate demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the extracts, and of the works/texts from which they were taken? To what extent does the candidate make use of knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts to draw conclusions in relation to the global issue? How well are ideas supported by references to the extracts, and to the works/texts?

0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 There is little knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation

to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are infrequent or are rarely appropriate.

3–4 There is some knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation

to the global issue

References to the extracts and to the works/texts are at times appropriate.

5–6 There is satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts and

an interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue.

References to the extracts and to the works/texts are generally relevant and mostly support

the candidate’s ideas.

7–8 There is good knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts and a

sustained interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue.

Marks Level descriptor

References to the extracts and to the works/texts are relevant and support the candidate’s

ideas.

9–10 There is excellent knowledge and understanding of the extracts and of the works/texts and a

persuasive interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue.

References to the extracts and to the works/texts are well-chosen and effectively support the

candidate’s ideas.

Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation

How well does the candidate use his or her knowledge and understanding of each of the extracts an their associated works/texts to analyse and evaluate the ways in which authorial choices present the global issue?

0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 The oral is descriptive or contains no relevant analysis. Authorial choices are seldom identified and, if so, are poorly understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.

3–4 The oral contains some relevant analysis, but it is reliant on description.

Authorial choices are identified, but are vaguely treated and/or only partially understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.

5–6 The oral is analytical in nature, and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts is mostly relevant. Authorial choices are identified and reasonably understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.

7–8 Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and at times insightful There is a good understanding of how authorial choices are used to present the global issue.

9–10 Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and insightful. There is a thorough and nuanced understanding of how authorial choices are used to

present the global issue.

Criterion C: Focus and organization

How well does the candidate deliver a structured, well-balanced and focused oral? How well does the candidate connect ideas in a cohesive manner?

0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 The oral rarely focuses on the task. There are few connections between ideas.

3–4 The oral only sometimes focuses on the task, and treatment of the extracts, and of the

works/texts may be unbalanced. There are some connections between ideas, but these are not always coherent.

5–6 The oral maintains a focus on the task, despite some lapses; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is mostly balanced.

7–8 The oral maintains a mostly clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is balanced. The development of ideas is logical; ideas are cohesively connected in an effective manner.

9–10 The oral maintains a clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is well-balanced. The development of ideas is logical and convincing; ideas are connected in a cogent manner.

Criterion D: Language How clear, accurate and effective is the language?

0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 The language is rarely clear or accurate; errors often hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are imprecise and frequently inaccurate. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.

3–4 The language is generally clear; errors sometimes hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are often imprecise with inaccuracies. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are often inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.

5–6 The language is clear; errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate to the task but simple and repetitive. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and neither enhance nor detract from the oral.

7–8 The language is clear and accurate; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate and varied. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and somewhat enhance the oral.

9–10 The language is clear, accurate and varied; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are varied and create effect. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and enhance the oral.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 

Mark range:

0 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

%

0   42 44 46 48

52 54 56 57 58

62  64 66 68

72 74 76   78

83  85  87

91 92 93  94

95 96 97 98 99 100