Individual Oral Sample D Purple Hibiscus

• Engels
• Middelbare school
• havo
• Leerjaar 5

Individual Oral

Sample D:

Purple Hibiscus by

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie 

What do you know about the Individual Oral?

Individual Oral

three parts:

part 1: presentation

part 2: conversation about extract/novel

part 3: conversation about a different IB theme

Preparation + Part One

Supervised preparation time - 20 minutes 

The student is presented with two extracts (one from each of two literary works studied during the course) ... chooses one of them ... and then prepares a presentation (i.e. makes a plan in brief working notes)

Part 1: Presentation - 3–4 minutes

The student gives the presentation - which must be mainly focused on the "events, ideas and messages in the extract itself".

Part two

Part 2: Follow-up discussion - 4–5 minutes

The teacher leads a discussion with the student, centred primarily on what the student has said during the presentation (but may, supportively, widen out the discussion to linked and relevant topics)

Part three

Part 3: General discussion - 5–6 minutes

The teacher and student have a general discussion using one or more of the five themes of the syllabus as a starting point.

Sample IO

Read the sample extract from Purple Hibiscus by 

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie 

(to be handed out)

Now listen to the sample extract and decide how many points you would give this candidate. 

Criterion A: How successfully does the candidate command spoken language?

1-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

examiner's comments

Crit.A Language - 12/12

Command of the language is excellent. Production is fluent and easy, with many complex elements. The range of vocabulary is sophisticated, including technical terms which are entirely appropriate to the critical analysis of the extract. A wide range of complex grammar and syntax is used. Use of language is almost entirely accurate: there are hardly any errors at all, and these do not affect meaning. Pronunciation and intonation is very clear and even authentic. Overall, the student uses the language clearly, elegantly, and pretty much flawlessly – what more can one ask?

Criterion B1: How relevant are the ideas to the literary extract?

1-2

3-4

5-6

examiner's comments

Crit.B1 (presentation) - 6/6

The presentation begins with a concise summary of the extract, and of its place in the book. There is much detailed attention to the precise effects of words and phrases, as quoted – it is evident that the student responds imaginatively to the text in complex ways. Quite quickly, a thesis is suggested: that the text “…centres on power…” (c. 1’47”), which gives overall shape and direction to the analysis. Perceptive ideas are handled concisely and skillfully – for instance, the use of pidgin English is noted (3’15”), that this is rare in the book as a whole (3’18”), and “I have two theories about this…” (3’22”). This is relevant commentary, in depth, and ‘makes use’ of the text very effectively indeed. (And the student finishes at 4’00” on the dot!)

Criterion B2: How relevant are the ideas in the conversation?

1-2

3-4

5-6

examiner's comments

Crit.B2 (ideas) - 6/6

Responses are prompt, often quite succinct but to the point, and more full when there is something useful to discuss. The overall effect is of incisive comment, directly relevant to the issues raised by each question. There is clearly no problem about understanding questions – indeed, she queries a slightly vague question (“Going?” 7’10”) so as to be able to answer properly. The student obviously knows the novel in depth and in detail, and knows how to handle what she knows. The change of subject from 7’45” (to ‘Language’) starts with continuing reference to the book, which she handles well… but as the discussion becomes more generalized, the student’s contributions become a little more superficial, and she seems a little less in command of the subject. Might this lead to a mark of just 5? No – we are not expecting perfect command, and certainly not of factual content… and anyway, she handles her slight confusion very well (see Crit.C below). So a full 6 is perfectly acceptable.

Criterion C: To what extent does the candidate understand and interact?

1-2

3-4

5-6

examiner's comments

Crit.C (interaction) - 6/6

The student interacts in the conversation very well indeed. She responds promptly, clearly follows the thread of the discussion accurately, and is engaged. She helps to develop the conversation with individual contributions such as personal anecdotes (for example, the friend who prefers Spanish insults c. 10’17”; and her Latin teacher 12’10 onwards). She fumbles with ideas slightly towards the end, but has the humour and presence to say “I don’t really know either” (c. 11’17”) – while at the same time she demonstrates that she has the wit and intelligence to think on her feet (and the language resources to do that with grace!)

Overall comments

** Timing is controlled very appropriately. The student finishes the Part 1 presentation almost exactly at 4'00" ... the teacher develops detailed follow-up questions for nearly four minutes, then widens out partially, at around 7'45", to talk about language both with reference to the book, but also more generally ... and the interview finishes at 12'51", within the expected time-frame.

** The teacher's question technique is very effective - concise, clear and leading the conversation supportively. Interesting that with this obviously very able student, the questioning begins with 'what you haven't talked about' - thus challenging the student to produce her best. Regularly, especially in the Part 3 wider discussion, questions are appropriately challenging and interesting.

** Is it a well-chosen extract? It would appear so, given that the student finds a great deal to talk about. Note that there is some quite sophisticated language to discuss, and that the episode described is a relatively important point in the plot. So, even a less able student should have much to draw on. That it is a rich passage is emphasised by the following document - the notes pepared by the teacher, with highlighting to show significant elements of the text which could be used in discussion. This is obviously good professional practice - have your own version of the extract, with annotations to support the questions and discussion...

advice for presentation

> find an 'angle' .... discuss an issue / take a position - don't just describe what is perfectly obvious. Remember that, from the examiner's point of view, argued opinions and analysis are 'complex' ideas.

> think out and PLAN ... where are you going to start (and why?) ... where are you going to finish (and why?) ... how are you going to link your ideas together, moving clearly and sensibly from one idea to the next ... ?

> INTRO & CONCL ... have an Introduction (including a Map - a quick summary of what you are going to say, to help the examiner grasp the structure), and a Conclusion (you shouldn't just stop!).