Holistic or analytic?
| Type | How | Use when | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holistic | One band for the whole performance | Quick placement, large numbers, low stakes | Fast, but no diagnostic information; raters weight features differently |
| Analytic | A band per criterion, combined | Progress and achievement tests, feedback, training | Diagnostic and more reliable; slower; halo effect between criteria |
| Checklist (can-do) | Yes/no for task features | Classroom, young learners, formative | Very clear; not for proficiency |
Core criteria (used in most major speaking tests, wording paraphrased)
| Criterion | Looks at | Band features (low -> high) |
|---|---|---|
| Fluency and coherence | Speed, hesitation, length of turns, linking, organisation | Long pauses, isolated words -> some hesitation, simple linkers -> extended speech, range of cohesive devices, hesitation only to plan content |
| Lexical resource | Range, precision, collocation, paraphrase | Basic words, frequent gaps -> enough vocabulary for familiar topics, some paraphrase -> wide range, idiomatic, precise, effective paraphrase |
| Grammatical range and accuracy | Range of structures, complex sentences, error frequency and impact | Memorised phrases, frequent basic errors -> simple forms mostly correct, some complex forms with errors -> wide range, errors rare and minor |
| Pronunciation | Intelligibility, individual sounds, word and sentence stress, intonation, connected speech | Often unintelligible -> generally intelligible, L1 features cause some strain -> easy to understand throughout, features used to convey meaning |
| Interactive communication | Initiating, responding, turn-taking, developing the conversation, repair | Relies on partner, minimal responses -> maintains simple exchanges -> initiates, links contributions, negotiates towards an outcome |
| Task achievement / content | Did the speaker do what the task asked? | Task partly addressed -> all parts addressed -> fully developed, relevant, well supported |
Choose 3-5 criteria that match the construct of the test (an interview for a job course may need task achievement; a pronunciation course weights pronunciation).
Writing band descriptors
- Start with the middle band (the expected standard), then the top and bottom, then the bands in between.
- Describe observable features: what the speaker does, how often, with what effect on the listener.
- Change one or two features between adjacent bands; keep the same features across bands so raters can compare ("errors in complex structures" -> "occasional errors in complex structures").
- Use frequency words consistently: rarely < occasionally < sometimes < often < frequently.
- Avoid native-speaker benchmarks; use intelligibility and effect on the listener.
- Avoid purely evaluative words (good, adequate, poor) without features.
- Make the lowest band describe what is present, not only what is missing.
- Pilot with recordings; revise descriptors raters disagree on.
Example: 4-band analytic rubric for a B1 speaking task
| Criterion | 4 (above B1) | 3 (B1 standard) | 2 (approaching B1) | 1 (below) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fluency and coherence | Speaks at length with little hesitation; links ideas with a range of connectors | Keeps going with some pauses to plan; links ideas with simple connectors (and, but, because, so) | Frequent pauses; short turns; few connectors | Mostly single words or memorised phrases; long pauses |
| Vocabulary | Enough range to vary expression on the topic; some less common words | Enough vocabulary for the familiar topic; occasional gaps managed by paraphrase | Limited vocabulary; gaps cause breakdown | Very basic words; cannot express most ideas |
| Grammar | Simple forms accurate; attempts complex forms with some success | Simple forms mostly accurate; errors do not stop communication | Frequent errors in simple forms; meaning sometimes unclear | Errors in basic forms make meaning hard to follow |
| Pronunciation | Easy to understand; uses stress and intonation to show meaning | Generally intelligible; L1 features cause occasional strain | Some words unclear; listener effort often needed | Often unintelligible |
Task design matters as much as the rubric
| Task | Elicits | Level |
|---|---|---|
| Interview (personal questions) | Familiar topics, simple description | A1-B1 |
| Picture description / comparison | Description, speculation | A2-C1 |
| Long turn (1-2 minutes on a prompt) | Extended discourse, organisation | B1-C2 |
| Paired discussion / decision task | Interaction, negotiation | A2-C2 |
| Role play with a problem | Functional language, repair | A2-B2 |
| Presentation + questions | Prepared and spontaneous speech | B1-C2 |
Use at least two task types for decisions that matter; one task gives too little evidence.
academic-english-eap-course-planner
Plan English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses: pre-sessional, in-sessional, foundation, IELTS preparation and discipline-specific EAP, with syllabus strands (academic reading, lecture listening and note-taking, essay and report writing, paraphrase, summary and synthesis, referencing and plagiarism, seminars and presentations, academic vocabulary, critical thinking), a 10-week pre-sessional outline, exit assessment, IELTS-CEFR alignment and academic style (formality, hedging, cohesion, reporting verbs). Estimates study hours and weeks to close an IELTS gap from overall or per-skill scores (IELTS rounding, minimum per skill, priority skills, feasibility before a deadline), and checks learner texts for contractions, informal words with academic alternatives, unhedged claims, 'you', And/But/So starts, rhetorical questions and missing citations.
actfl-proficiency-curriculum-mapper
Map world language curricula to the ACTFL framework: proficiency levels (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior, Distinguished with sublevels), functions, contexts, text types and accuracy, proficiency vs performance, the three modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, presentational), the 5 Cs World-Readiness Standards, backward-designed thematic units with Integrated Performance Assessments, typical programme targets and FSI time estimates. Looks up approximate ACTFL-CEFR-ILR equivalences with what each level can do, and checks a unit map for missing modes, rehearsed skits mislabelled as interpersonal, translation or word lists as interpretive tasks, and units without an integrated performance assessment.
adult-literacy-esl-lesson-builder
Build lessons for adult ESL learners who are developing literacy (LESLLA learners: pre-literate, non-literate, semi-literate, literate in a non-Roman script): learner profiles and sensitive initial assessment, principles (oral language first, known to new, systematic phonics with adult-relevant text, repetition, classroom skills, respect for experience), a lesson routine (oral warm-up, review, new grapheme, blending, segmenting, decodable text, writing, functional literacy, Language Experience Approach), a phonics sequence for adults, sight words, functional literacy targets (forms, signs, medicine labels) and portfolio assessment. Checks whether a reading text is decodable with the letter-sound patterns and sight words taught so far, catching untaught digraphs, listing non-decodable words with the untaught part, and suggesting the most useful next patterns.
authentic-material-lesson-adapter
Turn authentic material (news articles, podcasts, videos, songs, menus, timetables, adverts, social media posts, forms, infographics) into language lessons by grading the task rather than the text. Selects texts for interest, relevance, exploitability, coverage, cultural load and rights; finds the 4-6 words to pre-teach, words to gloss on the page and words learners can ignore, plus names and cultural references to explain, with reading time by level; and builds a lesson shape (lead-in, pre-teach, gist or scanning, graded detail task, language focus on chunks and register, response) with task ideas per material type and level from A1 to C1. Covers copyright, fair dealing and fair use, Creative Commons and attribution.
can-do-statement-writer
Write and review can-do statements for language courses, units, lessons and learner self-assessment, CEFR or NCSSFL-ACTFL style: action (observable verb) + text or situation + level-specific conditions, learner ('I can') and descriptor ('Can') versions, progressions of one activity from A1 to C1, and coverage of reception, production, interaction and mediation. Includes a verb bank by mode and level and condition and text-type banks. Lints statements for teacher-centred phrasing, knowledge instead of use (learn, know, understand the passive), missing context, two skills in one statement, vague quality words, grammar items as outcomes, overlong statements and missing modes in a set.
cefr-aligned-syllabus-builder
Build language course syllabuses aligned to the CEFR (A1-C2, plus levels, Companion Volume 2020): entry and exit levels, guided learning hours and course length (with an L1-distance adjustment), syllabus type (topic, functional-notional, task-based, skills-based, multi-strand), unit-by-unit can-do outcomes, grammar from a core inventory by level, vocabulary, functions, pronunciation, balance of reception, production, interaction and mediation, recycling and assessment points. Checks a syllabus for units without can-do statements, core grammar for the level not covered, items above the course level, skills missing from most units and units with no vocabulary or functions.