Главная страница Случайная страница
Разделы сайта
АвтомобилиАстрономияБиологияГеографияДом и садДругие языкиДругоеИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураЛогикаМатематикаМедицинаМеталлургияМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПсихологияРелигияРиторикаСоциологияСпортСтроительствоТехнологияТуризмФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияЧерчениеЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника
Критерии оценивания различных видов речевой деятельности
⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 4 из 4
|
|
WRITING:
Academic Essay Assessment Criteria
| Category | Criteria | ||||
| 8-9 | 6-7 | Failed | |||
| Content | Rich in ideas and argumentation, complete understanding of topic and information presented, excellent supporting evidence provided*. Reflects excellent capacity to gather, evaluate and correlate information in a problem-oriented way | Sufficient in ideas and argumentation, in understanding of topic and information presented, good supporting evidence provided. Reflects good capacity to gather, evaluate and correlate information in a problem-oriented way | Satisfactory in ideas and argumentation, in understanding of topic and information presented, sometimes insufficient supporting evidence provided. Basic levelof capacity to gather, evaluate and correlate information in a problem-oriented way | Poor in ideas and argumentation, in understanding of topic and information presented. | Irrelevant content |
| Structure and Organisation | Well-organized and structured, sections and paragraphs are clearly marked | Mostly well-organized and structured | In terms of paragraphing and overall structure further improvements are necessary | Poorly organized and structured | Unsatisfactory structure and organization makes reading difficult, sections and paragraphs are not divided properly |
| Linguistic Complexity** | Highgrammatical complexity and wide range of syntactic structure | Sufficient grammatical complexity and reasonable range of syntactic structure | Adequate range of syntactic structure, grammatical complexity is not sufficient enough | Limited range of syntactic structure, limited grammatical complexity | Unsatisfactory grammatical complexity and range of syntactic structure |
| Linguistic Accuracy*** | Appropriate to the task and genre | Language used mostly appropriate to the task and genre | Some noticeable inappropriacies in the language used | Often inappropriate to the task and genre | Lack of linguistic accuracy makes reading difficult to comprehend |
| Lexical Features**** | Rich lexical features | Sufficiently rich lexical features | Basic lexical features | Insufficient richness of lexical features | Irrelevant lexical features |
| Linkers/ Language Coherence | Linkers used correctly and appropriately | Linkers used correctly and appropriately most of the time | Linkers used not appropriately some of the time | Linkers used inappropriately most of the time | Linkers not used or used inappropriately |
| Mechanics/ Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation, Capitalisation | Almost no mistakes | A few mistakes | A number of mistakes | Many mistakes | Full of mistakes |
*Demonstrates high ability to compare, contrast, classify, describe, distinguish, explain, outline, summarise, differentiate and group the evidence.
**Grammatical complexity and syntactic structure
***Language and register adequacy
****Lexical richness, individuality or originality, lexical density and variation.
Listening, Reading
| Criteria | ||||
| 8-9 Full realization | 6-7 Good realization | Reasonable realization | Inadequate realization | Failed Poor realization |
| 70-100% | 60-70% | 50-60% | 40-50% | 0-30% |
Speaking Assessment Criteria
| Criteria | ||||
| 9-8 LEVEL “EFFECTIVE OPERATIONAL PROFICIENCY “ C1 Good operational command of the spoken language | LEVEL “VANTAGE” B2 Generally effective command of the spoken language | LEVEL THRESHOLD B1 Limited but effective command of the spoken language | LEVEL “WAYSTAGE” A2 Basic command of the spoken language | |
| Able to handle communication in most situations | Able to handle communication in familiar situations | Able to handle communication in most familiar situations | Able to convey basic meaning in very familiar or highly predictable situations | |
| Able to use accurate and appropriate linguistic resources to express ideas and produce discourse that is generally coherent | Able to organize extended discourse but occasionally produces utterances that lack coherence and some inaccuracies and inappropriate usage occur | Able to construct longer utterances but is not able to use complex language except in well-rehearsed utterances | Produces utterances which tend to be very short – words or phrases – with frequent hesitations and pauses | |
| Occasionally produces inaccuracies and inappropriacies | Maintains a flow of language, although hesitation may occur whilst searching for language resources | Has problems searching for language resources to express ideas and concepts resulting in pauses and hesitation | Dependent on rehearsed or formulaic phrases with limited generative capacity | |
| Maintains a flow of language with only natural hesitation resulting from considerations of appropriacy or expression | Although pronunciation is easily understood, L1 features may be intrusive | Pronunciation is generally intelligible, but L1 features may put a strain on the listener | Only able to produce limited extended discourse | |
| L1 accent may be evident but does not affect the clarity of the message | Does not require major assistance or prompting by an interlocutor | Has some ability to compensate for communication difficulties using repair strategies, but may require prompting and assistance by an interlocutor | Pronunciation is heavily influenced by L1 features and may at times be difficult to understand | |
| Requires prompting and assistance by an interlocutor to prevent communication from breaking down |
|
|