MUET SESSION 1 (2021)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE
For Session 1 2021, 25 989 candidates sat the test.

The percentage of the candidates for each paper, 800/1 Listening, 800/2 Speaking, 800/3 Reading, 800/4
Writing, and the subject, 800 MUET, according to bands is as follows:

800/1 800/2 800/3 800/4 800

CEFR
Band
Level Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
% % % % %
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

5+ C1+ 14.52 14.52 0.77 0.77 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

5.0 C1 34.43 48.95 4.52 5.29 7.13 7.44 0.13 0.14 0.95 0.97

4.5 26.84 75.79 9.94 15.23 26.23 33.67 1.07 1.20 12.02 12.98
B2
4.0 17.68 93.47 27.64 42.87 45.72 79.38 6.93 8.13 49.19 62.18

3.5 5.27 98.74 41.15 84.02 16.21 95.59 25.56 33.69 31.12 93.30
B1
3.0 1.15 99.89 14.45 98.47 3.65 99.24 43.49 77.18 5.86 99.16

2.5 0.10 99.99 1.04 99.51 0.73 99.97 19.01 96.19 0.83 99.99

2.0 A2 0.01 100.00 0.49 100.00 0.03 100.00 3.71 99.91 0.01 100.00

1.0 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.09 100.00 0.00 100.00

CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES

PAPER 800/1 (Listening)

Answer Key

Question Question Question

Key Key Key
Number Number Number

1 C 11 B 21 C
2 B 12 B 22 C

3 B 13 B 23 A
4 C 14 B 24 A
5 A 15 E 25 A

6 B 16 C 26 C
7 A 17 A 27 C
8 C 18 B 28 A

9 B 19 B 29 A
10 B 20 A 30 C

1
PAPER 800/2 (Speaking)

General Comments

This session was a historic session as it marked the rollout of the first Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR)-aligned MUET. The questions were relevant to the scope of the candidates’
daily life, and/or general knowledge around the area. Aligned with the CEFR standards, the topics were pitched
at A2-B1 for Part 1 and B1-B2 for Part 2. The general consensus was that the difficulty of the booklets was
uniform across the board. Moreover, the test did the job of discriminating the levels of candidate proficiency,
especially with regard to the difference in requirement of task between Part 1 and Part 2.

Specific Comments

Proficient candidates demonstrated the following abilities:

 able to develop the points well, providing an in-depth discussion that was sustained and displayed maturity
of thought.
 able to make connections between the task and their personal experiences, as well as current issues and
general knowledge (for candidates who were better read).
 able to use the preparation time to write notes in point form rather than creating full sentences, and used
the presentation time to elaborate on the notes.
 able to display the ability to use complex structures accurately, as well as a high command of vocabulary,
to not only convey their own views but to justify, convince, and persuade.
 able to show a high level of confidence and fluency in their presentation and discussion.
 able to connect their points to the points raised by their peers in a way that made the discussion logical
and cohesive.
 able to show good interaction skills such as responding to viewpoints raised, initiating new topics for
discussion, drawing conclusions from differing perspectives, negotiating to arrive at a consensus and
easily intelligible.

The less proficient candidates’ weaknesses are summarised as follows:

 prone to writing out full sentences for both Part 1 and Part 2.
 unable to sustain communication once they had read aloud their last written sentence. More capable
limited users may try to restate the main ideas, or to list some new ones, but would normally be unable to
develop the points well.
 lacked of vocabulary and complexity in language structures. Many of these candidates were unable to
string together a group of words to create simple accurate sentences.
 speech was frequently marked by unsuccessful groping for words hesitations and lack of confidence.
 could not respond immediately to the viewpoints raised by the others and the group discussion was
marked by mere taking of turns (as opposed to turn-taking).
 the offerings of these less proficient candidates were also often not connected properly to the offerings
made by other candidates, or even to the development of the task. This was usually because these less
proficient candidates were more concerned with transmitting their points, rather than developing their
points with the other points as raised by their peers.

The most common recurring problem that many candidates faced, regardless of their linguistic ability, was the
lack of ability to connect the responses to the required task. Candidates were also reported to repeat their
ideas, especially when they lacked the proficiency to elaborate. There was also the issue of the lack of general
knowledge in some of the candidates, and this could also be seen in some of the candidates who were more
proficient. It can be surmised that the less read or informed candidates are on current issues, the less the
quality of their task fulfilment. Nevertheless, this problem is a strategic one, and can be remedied with better
understanding of question requirements, and logical, organised thinking.

2
PAPER 800/3 (Reading)

Answer Key

Question Question Question Question

Key Key Key Key
Number Number Number Number

1 C 11 B 21 F 31 D

2 A 12 B 22 C 32 B

3 B 13 B 23 G 33 C

4 A 14 A 24 B 34 A

5 C 15 A 25 A 35 C

6 A 16 C 26 E 36 C

7 B 17 B 27 D 37 A

8 A 18 B 28 C 38 B

9 B 19 B 29 A 39 D

10 C 20 C 30 D 40 D

PAPER 800/4 (Writing)

General Comments

The kind and standard of writing expected in the performance of the two tasks are of form six and pre-university
levels as candidates are assessed on their mastery of not only grammatical and rhetorical devices, but also
of conceptual and judgmental elements for writing. The ability to understand and apply information (Task 1),
and the ability to discuss, explain, and justify viewpoints as well as to link ideas to the topic convincingly (Task
2) are skills at post-intermediate to advanced levels of writing. As such, the paper is appropriate for the level
expected of the candidates.

Specific Comments

Task 1

The task requires candidates to understand, apply, and organise required information given into a clear and
coherent response in the form of an email. The writer (teacher  Miss Maryam) is organising a school
programme to encourage students to have a healthy lifestyle. Candidates are to use all the notes given to
write a reply of at least 100 words in an appropriate style, and with clarity, to Miss Maryam. The task demands
the ability of candidates to understand the notes given in the email, apply them, and write a response of at
least 100 words. It also requires the candidates’ ability to provide accurate information using all the notes
given, applying the correct format and adopting appropriate style and register to achieve clarity. This task is
candidate friendly in a sense that the information given was clear and the notes given in the email was short
and straightforward. The content of the email is of relatable to many students. Candidates could have easily
understood the email and recognised what is required of them through the notes provided.

3
Task 2

The question requires candidates to discuss whether traditional face-to-face classroom promotes better
learning environment. For this question, candidates are given the liberty to agree, disagree, or partially agree
with the statement and substantiate their viewpoints with explanations and suitable examples. In disagreeing,
they are allowed to offer reasons why or how face-to-face classroom does not promote learning environment.
The question was straightforward, and candidates should be able to respond correctly using at least 250
words.

EXPECTED ANSWERS

Task 1

Task 1 is pitched at B1 but candidates at A2 level were able to respond to it, however simple their responses
might be. The level of difficulty of the task is by stages: Note 1 (Wonderful!...) being the easiest and Note 4
being more challenging, requiring candidates’ own suggestions, explanations, and elaboration. The task
required the candidates to analyse and interpret required information of the notes given related to the Stay
Healthy Programme. A response to an email is sought with a stipulated word count of at least 100 words are
required from the candidates. The response has to be accurate, concise yet compact, addressing all the four
notes provided with some development while retaining the meaning given in the notes. A correct opening
remark followed by several body paragraphs addressing the different notes and an appropriate closure are
expected.

Candidates are expected to give logical connection to their responses by making use of appropriate linkers.
Candidates are also expected to use the correct register in replying to the email. Irrelevancies and
inaccuracies of information should not be present in the response to the email.

The correct subject which is ‘Stay Healthy Programme’, is required for the correct point of reference. In cases
where there was no subject clearly and correctly stated in the response, the response is deemed as vague
and that the candidate has failed to understand the message in the email. All the ensuing response will then
be considered as irrelevant to the task. Or, in cases where there was no link to information found between the
notes and expansion, it is taken to mean that the candidate has failed to understand the task fully. Candidates
are also expected to use the phrases or words provided in the notes or some other words which carry the
same ideas/contexts to the notes.

Task 2

The task required the candidates to write an essay in response to the following statement ‘traditional
face-to-face classroom promotes better learning environment’. A discursive or an argumentative essay is
expected from the candidates in which a stance is taken and viewpoints are presented as well as justified in
relation to the context given. The discussion must be mature, in-depth, and supported with relevant examples
in order to convince the reader. Candidates need to be clear on the requirement of the task. A minimum of
three points with relevant examples in support of the opinion is expected, and the essay has to be written in
not fewer than 250 words. Candidates are expected to:
 define the key words in the given statement (preferably).
 make a clear stand on the issue (to agree, disagree, or agree to a certain extent)
 write a clear thesis statement to indicate the direction taken
 write an argumentative or discursive essay why and how ‘traditional face-to-face classroom promotes
better learning environment’ if the candidate agrees with the statement. In disagreeing, he has to prove
otherwise
 provide three points (or at least two) and develop them with reasonable depth
 explain or justify viewpoints with appropriate examples
 treat the subject with a certain level of maturity: no unsubstantiated claims or sweeping statements should
be made

4
 organise ideas in paragraphs, showing evidence of planning and knowledge of the conventions of
academic writing
 use a variety of sentence structures
 use varied and appropriate vocabulary
 use the appropriate cohesive devices or connectors to link sentences
 write in no fewer than 250 words

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN CANDIDATES’ ANSWERS

Task 1

The candidates are expected to write a reply to their teacher, Miss Maryam’s email in which information relating
to a school programme (stay healthy programme in conjunction with International Youth Day) and some
instructions are given. The candidates are required to read the email as well as the corresponding notes given
for each paragraph carefully and respond with the appropriate forms. They are required to organise their
writing coherently and cohesively with clear references to the programme as mentioned in the email. As such
merely stating “the programme” or “this programme” from start to finish will not be appropriate and lack clarity.
The email should be at least 100 words in length and written concisely and clearly with appropriate register
(i.e. semi-formal).

In terms of presentation, majority of candidates responded to the email using appropriate writing structure and
email style. Conventions of email writing like title, greeting as opening remarks, responded to all the notes
given in the stimulus and lastly a close for the email can be seen in candidates’ response. Most candidates
were able to write a clear opening remark. However, some did write the subject given in the email and copy
them, wrote in a single paragraph, and mixed everything in one paragraph, simply wrote their answers as to
how they like it without even understanding the appropriate style of responding to an email. We can also see
the wrong subject reference being used by the candidates without even stating the proper name of the
programme or simply giving and changed the name of the programme such as ‘healthy programme’ instead
of ‘stay healthy programme’. Some candidates also did not state the teams that they were supposed to choose
and in fact simply saying will accept on anything that is given to them. Few candidates only suggested one
activity instead of two as requested in the rubrics given. The length of the report was generally at least 100
words, and most candidates wrote exceeded the word limit permitted but was acceptable as they were able
to expand on the reasons.

STRENGTHS
In terms of strengths, the candidates who were on point had responded appropriately and adequately.
The following elements were identifiable.
 Appropriate format which included
 subject line that stated clearly Stay Healthy Programme.
 salutation (opening) e.g. Hi, Miss Maryam! ; Hi, Miss! ; Dear Miss Maryam, or Miss Maryam,
 acknowledgement of having read and understood the content with clear reference to the significant
information in the teacher’s email, in this case the information was in the first paragraph i.e. the stay
healthy programme in conjunction with International Youth Day in which all students will be involved.
 message (addressing all the four notes with elaboration)
 closing appropriately such as Regards! Thanks! Write soon! I can’t wait to take part in this exciting
programme!
 signature block (basically a name)
 Polite and respectful tone that is appropriate as a reply to a class teacher.
 Responses that addressed all the given notes with correct forms and functions.
 Appropriate register: Communicative intent was seen whereby the overall presentation of the emails was
communicative in nature with the use of a mixture of formal and informal language and contractions.

5
 Clear reference made to
 the teacher’s announcement of the ‘stay healthy programme’
 the teacher’s invitation for students’ participation
 the teacher’s invitation for suggestions (fun and beneficial activities for the upcoming programme) and
questions
 Evidence of planning (several short paragraphs between the salutation and closing).
 Coherent responses whereby transition markers were sparingly, not mechanically used and points were
presented in the same order as the notes.
 Cohesive sentences (with appropriate cohesive devices).

WEAKNESSES
In terms of weaknesses, it was noted that many candidates who had not addressed the task appropriately and
adequately in their responses substantiated the following elements:
 Inappropriate format
 The subject line was either left empty or written with the wrong subject. Most candidates had rewritten
Stay Healthy, the same as that of the teacher’s but for clear referencing, Stay Healthy Programme
would have been a better alternative.
Note: Although the subject is optional, it is part of the format of an email and provides a clear reference
to the reader if a candidate does not mention the name of the programme when responding to the
notes.
 The salutation (e.g. Hi!) did not address the recipient, the teacher, making her ‘invisible’ to a reader.
 The message was inadequately presented by
not addressing all the notes;
addressing the notes haphazardly.
 responding with random comments which do not match the notes especially Note 2 “Agree,
because…”. Candidates did not know what they were supposed to agree with / to and what reasons
to offer.
 using vague pronoun references, or no references at all in the whole email e.g. Hi! Wonderful! I’m so
happy about it! I also want to join this programme. …for the programme, I want to suggest a few
activities…
 responding inaccurately i.e. referring to the wrong programme.
Instead of the stay healthy programme, candidates wrote International Youth Day Event; Health
Programme; Healthy Programme; and Stay Health Programme.
Example: It’s great to know that our school is implementing and organising such a big event.
International Youth Day!
 Responding as Miss Maryam, the teacher!
 Providing vague statements
Example: The next activity is a something all the students will enjoy very much as it involves a lot of
movement and everybody knows this activity. (with no further explanation!).
 Including superfluous or irrelevant information
Examples:
Suggesting activities that are not related to health or unsuitable for the programme such as the ‘rock,
paper & scissors’ game; a talk on how to achieve excellent results or a singing competition.
Describing how the suggested activities can be carried out without any indication whether they are fun or
beneficial.
Giving three or four suggested activities instead of the expected two.
Providing totally irrelevant information such as Other schools are also planning to carry out activities that
involve youths.

6
 Referring to the addressee’s name instead of using the pronoun ‘you’. This is possibly due to cultural
influence. In certain cultures, like that of the Malays and Chinese, it is disrespectful to address your teacher
with the pronoun ‘you’.
Examples:
I want to tell Miss that I am glad to help Miss…
I want to tell teacher that I am glad to help teacher…
 Closing with less appropriate words such as Don’t worry miss!
 Ending the email without a signature block (here, a name)
 Using inappropriate tone: Instructing the teacher to do things.
Example:
Miss, if you have any questions, just ask me.
 Not addressing all the given notes.
 Not providing any development for the notes given.
Example:
It is very important to be healthy. The students are always reminded about how important for them to be
healthy.

Task 2

Candidates generally showed a fair planning in their answers. Most gave an introduction, three points and a
conclusion. Conventions of writing was seen in most scripts including the weaker ones. Candidates made a
stand and gave thesis statement. Points were developed with details and examples, although most of the
discussion were modest in nature.

Most of the candidates had difficulty in presenting their viewpoints and ideas presented lacked maturity and
planning. Often, there were simplistic ideas, superficial discussion or repetitive statement/ phrases, and
general examples. The ideas are not developed and the link is not made clear. Therefore, the discussion
lacked depth and was not interesting at all. It was very challenging for the average and weak candidates
because many of the candidates did not have the language proficiency, examples, and justifications to
effectively discuss the issue.

Most candidates’ language proficiency was of modest ability and were not able to structure their sentences
well and many of them had problems with word order causing intended meaning to be distorted. A few had 1 st
language interferences as literal translation from the mother tongue to English could be seen. There was also
a lack of concrete logical details in the discussion. Discussion of ideas were superficial, at time lacking in focus
due to scarcity of knowledge. There was no variety of sentences due to candidates’ limited vocabulary.

As for the weaker candidates, their poor mastery of the language hampered their efforts to formulate ideas
and justify them. Glaring errors such as direct translation, inconsistent pronoun reference, and major errors in
structures caused meaning to be blurred. They also gave very general and shallow statements without specific
or real-life examples.

The question whether traditional face-to-face classroom promotes better learning environment should provide
plenty of ideas and materials for candidates to combine their current experience with their prior knowledge to
give their opinion. However, the candidates have displayed weaknesses in dealing with the task. Majority of
them only focused and dealt with one part of the argument. Learning environment was briefly stated but not
developed or was a mere mention and more often than not, was not stated at all or it was discussed
superficially.

7
STRENGTHS
In terms of strengths, many candidates were able to write their essays with the correct conventions of
academic writing by:
 giving their own definition of what face-to-face classroom.
 providing appropriate lead-ins in which a background related to the pandemic and how it has resulted in
the switch from face-to-face classes to online classes was given. Then a question is posed to the reader
as to whether face-to-face promotes better learning environment than online learning.
 making a clear stand (the majority agreed with the statement).
 presenting a clear thesis statement with the main points. General thesis statement was seen too.
 providing appropriate transition signals followed by clear topic sentences in the paragraphs: Most
candidates gave three main points.
 explaining or justifying their viewpoints maturely, coherently, and cohesively.
 supporting their viewpoints with examples.
 summing up each body paragraph.
 presenting suggestions and recommendations in the concluding paragraph.
 writing in simple, compound, and complex structures.
 using apt and sometimes high tariffed vocabulary.
 treating the issue with a certain level of maturity (like avoiding sweeping statements with the use of
modality).

WEAKNESSES
In terms of weaknesses, the obvious weakness is that exceptional and outstanding essay are rare. Most
candidates fall into the intermediate category.
 Some candidates attempted the questions, but no clear stand was made and not focused while few
candidates presented three clear points however the details did not link to ‘how and why’ Traditional face-
to-face classroom promotes better learning environment.
 Some candidates were just giving suggestions on the issue only but not discussing on how and why.
However, some candidates were still weak in the use of language – grammatical errors and wrong word
choice are the main problems in language, shallow explanation on topic sentence, and shallow
development of the main point presented.
 Most limited and modest writers’ responses:
 Had modest planning with clear stand and clear paragraphing. Order and structure were mostly
present.
 Off-tangent essay/Not addressing task
Examples:
 During early in pandemic, teachers are shock and don’t have enough to prepare a new learning tool
that is suitable during online class. Thus, the teacher used to teach without student in the front. Some
students also having trouble during the online class so is hard for the teacher to give assignment.
Thus, teacher should think of the best way to come up with new way of teaching.
 All the teacher is like a second parent to every student. They try hard to give us better learning
environment so the student will not easily get bored while teacher is teaching. They also will make
student understand every subject. Not just the student happy but teacher and real parent also.
Students enjoy the study and will get good result in exam.

8
 Lacks Maturity
Examples:
 Students can ask teacher after class. If they shy, they can after all classmate leave the hall and it
won’t disturb their teacher’s time.
 During teacher’s day celebration, teacher ask to write essay expressing my opinion. So during MCO,
man students not go to school because school already close because of the Covid-19 so for make
everyone to stay safe so all of student just study on the google meet with teacher.
 Whereby, if students in face-to-face classroom, they will have a direct study session by teachers. So,
the student save their money to buy any else things that they need like equipment in school.
 During class, students not shy to ask teacher some questions, if we do online class students will be
shy to ask teacher because they scare they will disturb teacher.
 In the classroom, there have a few types of student. Which is, top students middle students and low
ore weak student. The subjects that they learnt need to refresh or re read.
 The school have provided a time table for each class. So it will be easier for them. They should not
thinks too much about their time table. The school have provided nicely for their students. They also
can feel who takes them at school. Then thats, they all happy after class finished.
 Because, the online class make them feel free. There are many of them eat during the class, play the
video games, scroll the social media and so on. But in the face to face classroom they can not do all
of the things so they will more focus about the learning and can ask questions directly to the teacher.
The environment of their home also the factor for them are not focus. But face to face classroom will
help them focus more.
 Gross/Multiple Word Errors
Examples:
 Firstly, teacher’s day is very important to teacher, but this term is any benefit all of us. Traditional face-
to-face classroom promotes better learning environment is good than be for. This term can using to
all teachers.
 Secondly, the traditional face-to-face classroom promotes better learning environment can use in the
classroom or everywhere. For example, the student can related and question to any classroom
promotes better environment. Students can give any opinion have in classroom.
 When face to face class promote, student might be more focus in classroom as the because student
teacher see each other and ask question straight in class during study. In online, few students not to
focus, do not the proper study and don’t take a serious for study.
 First Language Vocabulary/Direct Translation
Examples:
 If online classes, we as student got many distractions. If online, we can ask directly to teacher what
we don’t understand.
 Back then, school close and I feel my student feel difficult when online class.
 Because in the classroom, we will know our teacher.
 Inaccurate Cohesive Devices
Examples:
 For example, Online Learning, despite of the student couldn’t understand the topic, it will be hard for
every student to ask in the same time besides the major factor is internet coverage.
 Although, we can also do group discussion,
 Traditional face-to-face promotes better learning environment. However, that can provide more benefit
to the student in class.
 They have a better way to learn such as You tube. Although, they should just raise a hand and call
the lecturer.
 From primary to secondary, they are all learning virtually, this affected our mental and physical.
However, I believe that traditional face-to-face classroom provides better learning environment

9
 Grammatical errors, fragmented sentences and other anomalies or meaningless rambling.
 Syntactical errors were also frequent in the candidates’ responses. Sentence structures were
fractured, resulting in choppy and distorted sentences. Grammatical errors were rampant as
candidates lacked the ability to use parallel structures and pronouns used were often inconsistent,
shifting between the first, second and third persons. Needless to say, subject-verb-agreement was
not adhered to as the candidates disregarded the singular and the plural forms of the nouns. Overall,
due to the many errors in the fundamental aspect of the language, most of the candidates were unable
to express their ideas clearly and coherently. Some of the language errors were:
 Spelling errors
nowaday – nowadays
exspecially – especially
ourself – ourselves
youngers – youngsters
theirself – themselves
‘beside’ – ‘besides’
‘chracter’ – character’
‘thingkiing’ – thinking
goverment – government
destraction – distraction
futhermore – furthermore
there – their
 Subject-Verb Agreement
the people was
each person have
 Inaccurate Phrase
students online study
no internet cover
stress because early sleep
study at face with face
teacher teaching students quality

10
 MUET SESSION 2 (2021)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE
For Session 2 2021, 54 285 candidates sat the test.

The percentage of the candidates for each paper, 800/1 Listening, 800/2 Speaking, 800/3 Reading, 800/4
Writing, and the subject, 800 MUET, according to bands is as follows:

800/1 800/2 800/3 800/4 800

CEFR
Band
Level Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
% % % % %
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

5+ C1+ 12.79 12.79 0.35 0.35 2.38 2.38 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

5.0 C1 32.67 45.46 3.26 3.61 11.26 13.63 0.22 0.24 1.51 1.53

4.5 25.83 71.28 8.75 12.35 17.84 31.47 1.42 1.65 11.25 12.78
B2
4.0 19.10 90.39 23.38 35.73 31.99 63.46 6.22 7.87 39.67 52.44

3.5 7.57 97.96 37.42 73.15 22.19 85.64 22.37 30.24 34.56 87.00
B1
3.0 1.91 99.88 19.51 92.66 9.68 95.32 46.39 76.63 10.70 97.70

2.5 0.12 100.00 5.26 97.92 4.18 99.51 19.83 96.47 2.20 99.90

2.0 A2 0.00 100.00 1.99 99.91 0.49 100.00 3.46 99.93 0.10 100.00

1.0 0.00 100.00 0.09 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.07 100.00 0.00 100.00

CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES

PAPER 800/1 (Listening)

Answer Key

Question Question Question

Key Key Key
Number Number Number

1 C 11 B 21 A

2 B 12 C 22 A

3 A 13 C 23 A

4 C 14 A 24 A

5 B 15 A 25 C

6 A 16 D 26 C

7 B 17 B 27 C

8 B 18 C 28 B

9 B 19 C 29 C

10 B 20 B 30 A

11
PAPER 800/2 (Speaking)

General Comments

This is the second session of the new Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)-
aligned MUET, it was seen that the majority of the candidates were acclimatised with the new format. The
questions were relevant to the scope of the candidates’ daily life, and/or general knowledge around the area.
Aligned with the CEFR standards, the topics were pitched at A2-B1 for Part 1 and B1- B2 for Part 2. On the
whole, both parts 1 and 2 were pitched appropriately according to the levels of the tasks. Moreover, the test
did the job of discriminating the levels of candidate proficiency, especially with regard to the difference in
requirement of task between Part 1 and Part 2.

Specific Comments

Proficient candidates demonstrated the following abilities:

 able to develop the points well, providing an in-depth discussion that was sustained and displayed maturity
of thought.
 able to make connections between the task and their personal experiences, as well as current issues and
general knowledge.
 able to use the preparation time to write notes in point form rather than creating full sentences, and used
the presentation time to elaborate on the notes.
 able to use the language more comfortably than their less proficient counterparts.
 able to use complex structures accurately, as well as a high command of vocabulary, to not only convey
their own views but to justify, convince, and persuade.
 able to show a high level of confidence and fluency in their presentation and discussion.
 able to connect the points in a coherent and cohesive way, and in Part B, were able to connect their points
to the points raised by their peers in a way that made the discussion logical and cohesive.
 able to show good interaction skills such as responding to viewpoints raised, initiating new topics for
discussion, drawing conclusions from differing perspectives, negotiating to arrive at a consensus and
easily intelligible.

The less proficient candidates’ weaknesses are summarised as follows:

 Prone to writing out full sentences for both Parts 1 and 2, and would generally be unable to sustain
communication once they had read aloud their last written sentence.
 Mostly lacked the vocabulary and complexity in language structures.
 Unable to string together a group of words to create simple accurate sentences.
 Speech was frequently marked by unsuccessful groping for words hesitations and lack of confidence.
 Could not respond immediately to the viewpoints raised by the others and the group discussion was
marked by mere taking of turns (as opposed to turn-taking).
 The offerings of these less proficient candidates were also often not connected properly to the offerings
made by other candidates, or even to the development of the task. This was usually because these less
proficient candidates were more concerned with transmitting their points, rather than developing their
points with the other points as raised by their peers.

The most common recurring problem that many candidates faced, regardless of their linguistic ability, was the
lack of ability to connect the responses to the required task. Candidates were also reported to repeat their
ideas, especially when they lacked the proficiency to elaborate. There was also the issue of the lack of general
knowledge in some of the candidates, and this could also be seen in some of the candidates who were more
proficient. It can be surmised that the less read or informed candidates are on current issues, the less the

12
quality of their task fulfilment. Nevertheless, this problem is a strategic one, and can be remedied with better
understanding of question requirements, logical, and organised thinking.

PAPER 800/3 (Reading)

Answer Key

Question Question Question Question

Key Key Key Key
Number Number Number Number

1 A 11 A 21 A 31 D

2 B 12 A 22 B 32 D

3 C 13 C 23 F 33 A

4 B 14 B 24 C 34 A

5 B 15 C 25 E 35 C

6 A 16 A 26 G 36 A

7 C 17 A 27 C 37 D

8 B 18 A 28 D 38 B

9 A 19 B 29 D 39 D

10 A 20 B 30 C 40 C

PAPER 800/4 (Writing)

General Comments

Overall, both tasks are appropriate and pitched at the intended CEFR levels, namely, Task 1 is at A2/B1 level
and Task 2 at B2/C1 Level. Task 1 and Task 2 comply with MUET Writing test specification where it intends
to assess candidates’ ability to communicate in writing in the context of higher education, in a less formal and
a more formal writing genre respectively. For Task 1 candidates are expected to respond accordingly to a
given email based on guided notes. Task 2 is on a subject matter that the candidates are familiar with, thus,
able to relate to. The requirement of the task is clear but very challenging as it demands high critical thinking
skills from candidates. It tests their ability to make a stand, write an effective thesis statement, present relevant
viewpoints and provide justifications for the stand taken.

Specific Comments

Task 1

Task 1 is an email from a girl, Amelia to another, Patsy, asking for ideas for a presentation in class – something
students are familiar with. The task requires candidates to understand, apply, and organise required
information given into a clear and coherent response in the form of an email. It demands the ability of the
candidates to understand the notes given in the email, apply them, and write a response of at least 100 words.
It also requires the candidates’ ability to provide accurate information using all the notes given, applying the
correct format, adopting appropriate style and register to achieve clarity. The stimulus provided sufficient
information and details. The rubrics and notes given in the stimulus were clear and easy to understand. Thus,
candidates should be able to understand what is required in the task, and therefore should be able to provide

13
the necessary information in not less than 100 word-email. In line with the CEFR level it is pitched at, the task
was rather straightforward and familiar to candidates.

Task 2

The statement in Task 2, ‘We become stronger when faced with difficult times’ given at the end of a
documentary on the effects of global pandemics, appears to be well-timed as we are now going through tough
times fighting the Covid-19 virus. The question requires candidates to discuss whether we become stronger
when faced with difficult times. For this question, candidates are given the liberty to agree, disagree or partially
agree with the statement and substantiate their viewpoints with explanations and suitable examples. In
disagreeing, they are allowed to offer reasons why/how we do not become stronger or we are indeed weaker
when faced with difficult times. The question was straightforward and candidates should be able to respond
correctly using at least 250 words. The instruction for the task was concise and clear as it required candidates
to justify an opinion on whether we become stronger when we are faced with difficult times in life or vice versa.
It is a candidate-friendly topic and should have given opportunity to all candidates, irrespective of language
proficiency, to respond to the question.

EXPECTED ANSWERS

Task 1

The task required the candidates to analyse and interpret required information of the notes given related to
Amelia requesting help from her friend, Patsy, regarding their homework on how Malaysians celebrate
National Day. A response to an email is sought with a stipulated word count of at least 100 words are required
from the candidates. The response has to be accurate, concise yet compact, addressing all the four notes
provided with some development while retaining the meaning given in the notes. A correct opening remark
followed by several body paragraphs addressing the different notes and an appropriate closure are expected.
Candidates are expected to give logical connection to their responses by making use of appropriate linkers.
Candidates are also expected to use the correct register in replying to the email. Irrelevancies and
inaccuracies of information should not be present in the response to the email.

The correct subject which is ‘ideas for homework on how Malaysians celebrate National Day’, is required for
the correct point of reference. In cases where there was no subject clearly and correctly stated in the response,
the response is deemed as vague and that the candidate has failed to understand the message in the email.
All the ensuing response will then be considered as irrelevant to the task. Or, in cases where there was no
link to information found between the notes and expansion, it is taken to mean that the candidate has failed
to understand the task fully. Candidates are also expected to use the phrases or words provided in the notes
or some other words which carry the same ideas/contexts to the notes.

Task 2

The task required the candidates to write an essay in response to the following statement ‘We become stronger
when we are faced with difficult times’. A discursive or an argumentative essay is expected from the candidates
in which a stance is taken and viewpoints are presented as well as justified in relation to the context given.
The discussion must be mature, in-depth and supported with relevant examples in order to convince the
reader. Candidates need to be clear on the requirement of the task. A minimum of three points with relevant
examples in support of the opinion is expected, and the essay has to be written in not fewer than 250 words.
Candidates are expected to:
 define the key words in the given statement (preferably).
 make a clear stand on the issue (to agree, disagree or agree to a certain extent).
 write a clear thesis statement to indicate the direction taken.
 write an argumentative or discursive essay why and how we become stronger when we are faced with
difficult times, if the candidate agrees with the statement. In disagreeing, he has to prove otherwise.
 provide three points (or at least two) and develop them with reasonable depth.
 explain or justify viewpoints with appropriate examples.

14
 treat the subject with a certain level of maturity (no unsubstantiated claims or sweeping statements should
be made).
 organise ideas in paragraphs, showing evidence of planning and knowledge of the conventions of
academic writing.
 use a variety of sentence structures.
 use varied and appropriate vocabulary.
 use the appropriate cohesive devices or connectors to link sentences.
 write in no fewer than 250 words.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN CANDIDATES’ ANSWERS

Task 1

The candidates are expected to write a reply to their friend Amelia’s email in which information relating to
homework i.e. English Language project (presentation on how Malaysians celebrate National Day) and some
instructions are given. The candidates are required to read the email as well as the corresponding notes given
for each paragraph carefully and respond with the appropriate forms. They are required to organise their
writing coherently and cohesively with clear reference to ideas for presentation as mentioned in the email.
The email should be at least 100 words in length and written concisely and clearly with appropriate register
(i.e. semi-formal).

In terms of presentation, majority of candidates responded to the email using appropriate writing structure and
email style. Conventions of email writing like title, greeting as opening remarks, responded to all the notes
given in the stimulus, and lastly a close for the email can be seen in candidates’ response. Most candidates
were able to write a clear opening remark. Generally, answers were in the modest range. The candidates did
not fare well in Task 1 due to misinterpretation of the task leading to either irrelevant or inaccurate answers.
There were multiple attempts from candidates to write a short and concise reply by mainly not mentioning
things that are already written in the letter. This resulted in marks not being awarded to the candidate due to
the lack of reference in the answers. The common mistake noted was the misinterpretation of “How Malaysians
celebrate National Day”. The suggestion given was not for class presentation.

Candidates’ response was short and simple as this might be due to the number of words shown in the
instruction which might have placed a psychological effect on them to keep their answers within 100 words.
However, there were some who have understood the task and provided sufficient development to each of the
notes given.

On average, most candidates did manage to give elaboration on each task/note given. However, the answers
differ in quality. Some candidates were able to develop ideas sufficiently, but some merely responded to the
prompt in one sentence.

STRENGTHS
In terms of strengths, it has been observed that candidates who are aware of the conventions of writing emails
have been able to fulfil the requirements of the task by:
 using the appropriate format, beginning their emails with the sender’s email address followed by the
subject such as “Help is arriving!” and “Re: S.O.S. Help Needed!”.
 writing appropriate salutations such as “Hi Amelia”; “Hi there Amelia” and “Hi!” and signed off clearly as
“Patsy”.
 responding to Amelia as per the notes in a friendly, genuine and appropriate style, giving logical
explanations, elaborations and descriptions.
 writing in well-planned paragraphs.
 closing the email with appropriate closing statements like “See you soon! Bye! Patsy”; “Regards! Patsy”
and “Hope my ideas help! Patsy”.

15
 using the correct tenses to respond to the four notes given.
 using polite and respectful tone that is appropriate as a reply to a classmate/friend.
 including responses that addressed all the given notes with correct forms and functions.
 using appropriate register: Communicative intent was seen whereby the overall presentation of the emails
was communicative in nature with the use of a mixture of formal and informal language and contractions.
 making clear reference to
 the homework;
 the ideas/suggestions for presentation;
 Amelia’s request for a meeting.
 showing evidence of planning (several short paragraphs between the salutation and closing).
 writing coherent responses whereby transition markers were sparingly, not mechanically used and points
were presented in the same order as the notes.
 using cohesive sentences (with appropriate cohesive devices).

WEAKNESSES
In terms of weaknesses, it was noted that many candidates who did not address the task appropriately and
adequately had the following problems:
 Inappropriate format
 The subject line was either left empty or written with the wrong subject. Most candidates had rewritten
S.O.S Help needed! the same as that of the sender’s but for clear referencing, Help for English
Language Project! would have been a better alternative.
Note: Although the subject is optional, it is part of the format of an email and provides a clear reference
to the reader if a candidate does not mention the kind of help offered when responding to the notes.
 The salutation (e.g. Hi!) did not address the recipient, Amelia, making her ‘invisible’ to a reader.
 The message was inadequately presented by:
not addressing all the notes;
addressing the notes haphazardly.
 responding with random comments which do not match the notes especially Note 2 and Note 3.
Candidates did not know what they were supposed to tell Amelia/and what ideas/suggestions to offer
for Amelia’s presentation.
 using vague references, or no references at all in the whole email e.g. Hi!, It was great!/ No. I didn’t!/
Yes. I have/ Definitely!.
 responding inaccurately i.e. Suggesting activities to be carried during National Day instead of referring
to the presentation in Note 3.
 Responding as themselves instead of Patsy.
 Providing vague statements
Example: The next activity is a something all the students will enjoy very much as it involves a lot of
movement and everybody knows this activity. (with no further explanation!).
 Closing with less appropriate words such
 Ending the email without a signature block (here, a name)
 Using inappropriate tone
 Not addressing all the given notes.
 Not providing any development for the notes given.

16
Task 2

Candidates are expected to write an argumentative essay of at least 250 in agreement or disagreement with
the statement which reads ‘We become stronger when we are faced with difficult times in life’ in about 50
minutes. The key words (subject) must not be changed and a formal genre is expected. A stand has to be
made and it should be discussed, sustained and justified with suitable examples to show why the claim is
right. Arguments must be relevant and accurate and may show the advantages and disadvantages but the
proposed side must be more convincing than the other side.

The issue to be discussed in Task 2 was not common to all candidates and seen as very challenging for the
low proficiency candidates. It may appear rather manageable for high proficiency candidates, but that
depended on how they were able to deliberate or develop the ideas in order to merit a higher band. The task
was really demanding as the candidates had to address the key terms while at the same time highlighting the
‘why’ and ‘how’ ‘difficult times’, ‘make one stronger or weaker’. Despite being able to comprehend the question,
many of the candidates did not have the maturity to explain as well because many frequently failed to establish
a clear link between the two main key elements in the task given which was ‘whether one becomes stronger
or weaker due to having to go through difficult times in life’. As such, most candidates were unable to address
the task effectively and discuss the topic maturely. In other words, most candidates were merely telling and
describing ‘difficult times in general’ but not showing ‘how it strengthens or weakens people’. The points
discussed were most of the time immature and minimally explained. Many got carried away and as such they
failed to respond accurately and did justice to the question. It was necessary for the candidates to have a high
level of critical thinking skills to present convincing responses. The high proficiency candidates could write
about almost anything from various perspectives and therefore, permitting them to think, explore, and express
their views based on their respective backgrounds. Overall, most of the candidates were able to present their
viewpoints only modestly along with some elaborations. Points related to ‘Covid-19 pandemic, poverty, failure
in academic, losing jobs’ were among common examples discussed by the candidates. Even though the stand
was usually clearly stated, the thesis statement was almost always not present. Majority of the candidates
gave a minimum of three main points but the arguments were often insufficient, lacks depth, immature,
superficial as well as poorly linked and there was little conviction in the writing.

Generally, many candidates agreed to ‘difficult times make one stronger’ as it seemed to be the best option
to go for. Sadly, due to the misinterpretation of the demand of the question, many agreed to the topic given
yet they were only providing the examples of difficult times without any link to the idea of how it makes one
stronger. There were many candidates too that had written about ‘the benefits of difficult times’ or ‘the ways
or factors to be a stronger person’. As such, the type of answers given were of limited relevance. For those
who disagreed to the topic given, they managed to discuss accordingly by explaining the examples of difficult
times as it was rather a head-on approach. As such, they were able to incorporate both the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in
their responses. Candidates were not allowed to change the subject or the object, therefore, it was highly
unlikely for them to go off tangent pertaining to such requirement. However, it would be if the candidate failed
to touch base. Candidates’ responses mostly varied from very modest to low satisfactory. Almost all
candidates had clearly stated the stand in the introductory paragraph and reiterated the stand in the concluding
paragraph. However, most of the candidates responded insufficiently or modestly to this task primarily
because they were not able to elaborate and substantiate the ideas due to insufficient content knowledge and
weak language proficiency. Arguments to support their stand were general, tainted with grammatical errors
and meaning was often distorted. Their arguments were often shallow and not convincing. The vocabulary
and the sentence structures were also of limited variety and not very precise. As such, sentences were often
distorted, with some almost incomprehensible and therefore, making reading difficult because meaning did
not come through. This may be because of their lack of vocabulary and content knowledge on current issues.
Their arguments and elaborations were therefore often insufficient, superficial, loose, repetitive, vague, lacks
depth, and maturity.

There were also candidates who obviously failed to plan their answers as their responses lacked coherence
and were discussed haphazardly. Though most of them were able to give at least three points, candidates
had difficulty in presenting their viewpoints. Their arguments were shallow, unorganised, immature, lacked
focus, and direction as well as conviction. Examples given were general, not convincing, irrelevant, and
sometimes inaccurate. There were no justifications given and as such there were aplenty sweeping
statements.

17
Most of the candidates had difficulty in presenting their viewpoints and ideas presented lacked maturity and
planning. Majority of them only focused and dealt with one part of the argument. Often, there were simplistic
ideas, superficial discussion or repetitive statement/phrases, and general examples. Becoming stronger was
briefly stated but not developed, or was a mere mention and more often than not, was not stated at all or it
was discussed superficially. The ideas are not developed and the link is not made clear. Therefore, the
discussion lacked depth and was not interesting at all. It was very challenging for the average and weak
candidates because many of the candidates did not have the language proficiency, examples, and
justifications to effectively discuss the issue.

Most candidates’ language proficiency was of modest ability and were not able to structure their sentences
well and many of them had problems with word order causing intended meaning to be distorted. A few had 1 st
language interferences as literal translation from the mother tongue to English could be seen. There was also
a lack of concrete logical details in the discussion. Discussion of ideas were superficial, at time lacking in focus
due to scarcity of knowledge. There was no variety of sentences due to candidates’ limited vocabulary. As for
the weaker students their poor mastery of the language hampered their efforts to formulate ideas and justify
them. Glaring errors such as direct translation, inconsistent pronoun reference, and major errors in structures
caused meaning to be blurred. They also gave very general and shallow statements without specific or real-
life examples.

STRENGTHS
In terms of strengths, many candidates were able to write their essays with the correct conventions of
academic writing. Good and proficient users were able to write their essays using the conventions of academic
writing. Some candidates:
 had attempted to define the key words (e.g. global pandemic and become stronger) and give examples of
difficult times such as loss of jobs; loss of loved ones, stress at work, and internet connection problems
during online classes. Offering some background information about the Covid-19 pandemic or other
pandemics in the past was also a common strategy employed to write the lead-in.
 were able to provide a clear stand (either agreeing, disagreeing, or partially agreeing) with the statement.
 had presented a clear thesis statement by stating the main points in it or a general one.
 had used an appropriate transition signal followed by a clear topic sentence in each body paragraph: most
candidates gave three (3) main points.
 had offered explanations or justifications to their viewpoints coherently and cohesively.
 had supported their viewpoints with examples (real or make-believe).
 had summed up each body paragraph.
 presented suggestions and recommendations only in the concluding paragraph.
 used simple, compound and complex structures.
 used apt and sometimes high tariffed lexical items.
 treated the issue with a certain level of maturity (like avoiding sweeping statements with the use of
modality).

In terms of stand and content, there is a good mix of scripts which either agreed or partially agreed with the
statement. Not many are with total disagreement. Those who partially agreed were able to give at least three
arguments for and against the statement.

Among the ideas presented are as follows:

Agree  we become stronger… Disagree  we become weaker…

We learn from mistakes Burdens and commitments cause suicide
We do not give up Loss of loved ones
They can think more matured Financial situation makes all struggle
18
 During hard times, we get more experience and Unemployed workers are increasing
valuable knowledge
More people offer to help those in needy
Most people cope well when problem arise

WEAKNESSES
In terms of weaknesses, the obvious weakness is that exceptional and outstanding essay are rare. Most
candidates fall into the modest category.

As the phrase “effect of global pandemic” was mentioned in the rubric before the statement “We become
stronger when we are faced with difficult times”, many candidates seemed to be confused about what to focus
on – the effects of the pandemic or difficult times.

Many candidates (mainly the less proficient ones) had only mentioned the Covid-19 pandemic and started to
either describe situations or narrate stories about and their own experiences with the pandemic highlighting
difficulties like being home-bound by lockdowns, the need to follow SOP, the mask wearing mandate, and
travelling restrictions without linking these ‘difficult times’ to people becoming stronger. Those who were able
to link the two entities elaborated their viewpoints on ‘difficult times’ at great lengths but only responded briefly
for ‘stronger’.

Many had also written about the advantages and disadvantages of the Covid-19 pandemic and attempted to
link them to ‘stronger’. A case in point is describing how the lockdown has forced family members to stay at
home, do things together, and therefore fostering closer ties (implying stronger).
Some would respond to only the second part of the statement, giving advice and recommendations to deal
with difficult times only.

Many anomalies were detected in the scripts and the following are examples;
 Wrong or misplaced focus and misinterpretation (resulting in off-tangent essays);
 Defining the wrong word (e.g. “documentary”- of all words in the rubric!) and describing one’s
experience watching documentaries about pandemics starting from the black plague to ebola to SARS
and finally to the corona virus, Covid-19.
 Equating difficult times to procrastination, water, air and sound pollution, global warming, forest fires,
the melting of ice in the Antartica, overfishing, floods and tsunamis and describing them.
 Discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a global pandemic.
 Writing a narrative
 I study bachelor degree in MSU university. I faced many issues during online class. I am no familiar
with all the technology. I am strong learning online delivery without going to shop. I also conduct
nutrition talk through team meeting. I am strong live with covid-19 and future covid-22 together coming.
 My father died because of covid-19 and I am the eldest girl. My siblings are all girls. The Indians
always think girls are nothing…
 Explaining what the statement means.
 Discussing how to be strong (in an advisory mode)
 I advise that we should always be grateful with what god has given us. We should appreciate all the
little things in life. These are things that will encourage or motivate us to do better in life when we are
facing hard times.
 Grammatical errors, fragmented sentences and other anomalies or meaningless rambling are aplenty.
The following examples are some of the identified errors:

19
 1. Wrong word  If we need to surface the same problem again we will be stronger.
choice/spelling/  In difficult times, we can thing more matured.
wrong forms/
Subject Verb  We know how to finished/soft the problems.
Agreement issues  Malaysia passed the pandemic with achieving 90% herd immunity.
 Survyve in life
 Parents past away
 We should overcome our fierce when we faced with difficult times.
 Malaysia need to face the pandemic hardly.
 The key to successness is from the word ‘we’
 We become more independence
 One problem is lost of love ones

2. Use of bahasa My first point is pengajaran in life.

Melayu

3. Vague pronoun Some problem actually come from herself and they know herself that way they
reference know to finished her problems.

4. Subject-Verb Difficult times is …

Agreement
problems

5. Wrong word order Some workers lose their jobs and this also can cause misunderstanding…

6. Use of active Some people were worked as grab food rider

instead of passive
voice

7. Wrong spelling of  Nowdays

common words  Ourself
 Exspecially
 Thingking
 beside for besides

8. Colloquilism  Why this can happened?

 Do you know why I say like this?

 Among the ideas presented in off-tangent scripts are as follows:

 pandemic damages our health until it causes death

 we will not be able to spend time with family
 we have to follow strict rules or get punishment
 online learning brings up a bad experience of learning for students
 adaptations need to be made to counter global pandemic
 our lives/front liners and doctors are effected*
 during the pandemic, our currency effected*as less people buy items

Note: *among the most commonly occurring wrong form used

20
Other area of weaknesses:
 There were gaps in the discussion. The examiners had to read in between the lines to understand
what the candidate was trying to say.
 Candidates did not state their stand clearly.
 Candidates also had a distorted idea of how difficult times make us become stronger.
 Choice of vocabulary was mainly simple.
 Spelling errors were noted.

21
 MUET SESSION 3 (2021)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE
For Session 3 2021, 69 146 candidates sat the test.

The percentage of the candidates for each paper, 800/1 Listening, 800/2 Speaking, 800/3 Reading, 800/4
Writing, and the subject, 800 MUET, according to bands is as follows:

800/1 800/2 800/3 800/4 800

CEFR
Band
Level Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
% % % % %
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

5+ C1+ 8.18 8.18 0.37 0.37 7.58 7.58 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03

5.0 C1 24.20 32.39 3.83 4.19 31.57 39.15 0.45 0.46 2.42 2.45

4.5 23.86 56.24 10.37 14.56 27.96 67.11 2.19 2.66 16.56 19.01
B2
4.0 22.65 78.89 27.67 42.23 21.00 88.11 8.28 10.94 43.70 62.71

3.5 14.21 93.10 36.16 78.38 7.30 95.42 22.95 33.89 26.50 89.21
B1
3.0 5.95 99.05 15.82 94.20 2.68 98.09 44.82 78.71 8.31 97.53

2.5 0.89 99.94 4.19 98.39 1.62 99.71 17.97 96.68 2.27 99.80

2.0 A2 0.06 100.00 1.54 99.93 0.29 100.00 3.17 99.85 0.20 100.00

1.0 0.00 100.00 0.07 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.15 100.00 0.00 100.00

CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES

PAPER 800/1 (Listening)

Answer Key

Question Question Question

Key Key Key
Number Number Number

1 B 11 A 21 A

2 A 12 C 22 A

3 A 13 A 23 A

4 B 14 C 24 C

5 B 15 A 25 B

6 A 16 D 26 B

7 B 17 E 27 B

8 C 18 A 28 A

9 B 19 B 29 A

10 C 20 B 30 C

22
PAPER 800/2 (Speaking)

General Comments

The general consensus was that the difficulty of the papers was uniform across the board. Moreover, the test
did the job of discriminating the levels of candidate proficiency, especially with regard to the difference
in requirement of task between Part 1 and Part 2. The questions were relevant to the scope of the candidates’
daily life, and/or general knowledge around the area. Aligned with the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR) standards, the topics were pitched at A2  B1 for Part 1 and B1  B2 for
Part 2.

Specific Comments

Proficient candidates demonstrated the following abilities:

 able to develop the points well, providing an in-depth discussion that was sustained and displayed maturity
of thought.
 able to make connections between the task and their personal experiences, as well as current issues and
general knowledge.
 able to use the preparation time to write notes in point form rather than creating full sentences, and used
the presentation time to elaborate on the notes.
 able to use the language more comfortably than their less proficient counterparts.
 able to use complex structures accurately, as well as a high command of vocabulary, to not only convey
their own views but to justify, convince, and persuade.
 able to show a high level of confidence and fluency in their presentation and discussion.
 able to connect the points in a coherent and cohesive way, and in Part B, were able to connect their points
to the points raised by their peers in a way that made the discussion logical and cohesive.
 able to show good interaction skills such as responding to viewpoints raised, initiating new topics for
discussion, drawing conclusions from differing perspectives, and negotiating to arrive at a consensus and
easily intelligible.

The less proficient candidates’ weaknesses are summarised as follows:

 prone to writing out full sentences for both, Part 1 and Part 2, and would generally be unable to sustain
communication once they had read aloud their last written sentence.
 mostly lacked the vocabulary and complexity in language structures.
 unable to string together a group of words to create simple accurate sentences.
 speech was frequently marked by unsuccessful groping for words hesitations and lack of confidence.
 could not respond immediately to the viewpoints raised by the others and the group discussion was
marked by mere taking of turns (as opposed to turn-taking).
 the offerings of these less proficient candidates were also often not connected properly to the offerings
made by other candidates, or even to the development of the task. This was usually because these less
proficient candidates were more concerned with transmitting their points, rather than developing their
points with the other points as raised by their peers.

The most common recurring problem that many candidates faced, regardless of their linguistic ability, was the
lack of ability to connect the responses to the required task. Candidates were also reported to repeat their
ideas, especially when they lacked the proficiency to elaborate. There was also the issue of the lack of general
knowledge in some of the candidates, and this could also be seen in some of the candidates who were more
proficient. It can be surmised that the less read or informed candidates are on current issues, the less the
quality of their task fulfilment. Nevertheless, this problem is a strategic one, and can be remedied with better
understanding of question requirements, and logical organised thinking.

23
PAPER 800/3 (Reading)

Answer Key

Question Question Question Question

Key Key Key Key
Number Number Number Number

1 B 11 A 21 E 31 B

2 C 12 B 22 B 32 D

3 A 13 A 23 A 33 B

4 B 14 A 24 F 34 C

5 A 15 B 25 G 35 B

6 B 16 A 26 D 36 B

7 A 17 C 27 B 37 B

8 C 18 A 28 C 38 B

9 B 19 B 29 C 39 D

10 C 20 A 30 D 40 B

PAPER 800/4 (Writing)

General Comments

Both tasks are appropriate and pitched at the intended CEFR levels, namely, Task 1 is at A2/B1 level and
Task 2 at B2/C1 Level. For Task 1 candidates are expected to respond accordingly to a given letter based on
guided notes. Task 2 is on a subject matter that the candidates are familiar with, thus, able to relate to. The
requirement of Task 2 is clear but very challenging as it demands high critical thinking skills from candidates.
It tests their ability to make a stand, write an effective thesis statement, present relevant view points and
provide justifications for the stand taken. Task 1 and Task 2 comply with MUET Writing test specification where
it intends to assess candidates’ ability to communicate in writing in the context of higher education, in a less
formal and a more formal writing genre respectively.

Specific Comments

Task 1

Task 1 is a letter from a student, Jeremy to another, Arif asking about the competition which he
missed-something students are familiar with. The task requires candidates to understand, apply, and organise
required information given into a clear and coherent response in the form of a letter. It demands the ability
of the candidates to understand the notes given in the letter, apply them and write a response of at least
100 words. It also requires the candidates’ ability to provide accurate information using all the notes given,
applying the correct format and adopting appropriate style and register to achieve clarity. In line with the CEFR
level it is pitched at, the task was rather straightforward and familiar to candidates.

Task 2

The instruction for the task was concise and clear as it required candidates to justify an opinion on whether
“Online information is deceiving and unreliable” or vice versa. For this question, candidates are given the
liberty to agree, disagree, or partially agree with the statement and substantiate their viewpoints with
24
explanations and suitable examples. The question was straightforward and candidates should be able to
respond correctly using at least 250 words. The statement given had three keywords, i.e., online information,
deceiving, and unreliable. The task, therefore, is challenging as candidates had to focus on two different
aspects; deceiving and unreliable. On the whole, Task 2 is considered as demanding, thought provoking and
challenging.

EXPECTED ANSWERS

Task 1

The task required the candidates to analyse and interpret required information of the notes given related to
Jeremy sending a letter to his friend, a drama teammate. Arif, asking about a competition which he missed. A
response to the letter is sought with a stipulated word count of at least 100 words are required from the
candidates. The response has to be accurate, concise yet compact, addressing all the four notes provided
with some development while retaining the meaning given in the notes. A correct opening remark followed by
several body paragraphs addressing the different notes and an appropriate closure are expected.

Candidates are expected to give logical connection to their responses by making use of appropriate linkers.
Candidates are also expected to use the correct register in replying to the letter. Irrelevancies and inaccuracies
of information should not be present in the response to the letter.

The correct subject which is ‘Information on interesting stories at the drama competition and challenges the
team faced during the competition’, is required for the correct point of reference. In cases where there was no
subject clearly and correctly stated in the response, the response is deemed as vague and that the candidate
has failed to understand the message in the letter. All the ensuing response will then be considered as
irrelevant to the task. Or, in cases where there was no link to information found between the notes and
expansion, it is taken to mean that the candidate has failed to understand the task fully. Candidates are also
expected to use the phrases or words provided in the notes or some other words which carry the same ideas
or contexts to the notes.

Task 2

The task required the candidates to write an essay in response to the following statement ‘Online information
is deceiving and unreliable’. A discursive or an argumentative essay is expected from the candidates in which
a stance is taken and viewpoints are presented as well as justified in relation to the context given. The
discussion must be mature, in-depth, and supported with relevant examples in order to convince the reader.
Candidates need to be clear on the requirement of the task. A minimum of three points with relevant examples
in support of the opinion is expected, and the essay has to be written in not fewer than 250 words.

Candidates are expected to:

 define the key words in the given statement (preferably).
 make a clear stand on the issue (to agree, disagree or agree to a certain extent).
 write a clear thesis statement to indicate the direction taken.
 write an argumentative or discursive essay on why and how online information is deceiving and unreliable,
if the candidate agrees with the statement. In disagreeing, he has to prove otherwise.
 provide three points (or at least two) and develop them with reasonable depth.
 explain or justify viewpoints with appropriate examples.
 treat the subject with a certain level of maturity: No unsubstantiated claims or sweeping statements should
be made.
 organise ideas in paragraphs, showing evidence of planning and knowledge of the conventions of
academic writing.
 use a variety of sentence structures.
 use varied and appropriate vocabulary.

25
 use the appropriate cohesive devices or connectors to link sentences.
 write in no fewer than 250 words.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN CANDIDATES’ ANSWERS

Task 1

The candidates are expected to write a reply to their friend Jeremy’s letter in which information relating to a
competition which he missed that is the state drama competition and some instructions are given. The
candidates are required to read the letter as well as the corresponding notes given for each paragraph carefully
and respond with the appropriate forms. They are required to organise their writing coherently and cohesively
with clear reference to ‘thank Jeremy for his wish’, ‘describe two interesting stories about the competition’,
‘describe challenges met during the competition’ and ‘express certainty that the coach will let Jeremy be part
of the drama team next year’ as mentioned in the letter. The letter should be at least 100 words in length and
written concisely and clearly with appropriate register (i.e. semi-formal).

In terms of presentation, majority of candidates responded to the letter using appropriate writing structure and
letter style. Conventions of letter writing like title, greeting as opening remarks, responded to all the notes
given in the stimulus and lastly a close for the letter can be seen in candidates’ response. Most candidates
were able to write a clear opening remark. Generally, answers were in the modest range. The candidates did
not fare well in Task 1 due to misinterpretation of the task leading to either irrelevant or inaccurate answers.
There were multiple attempts from candidates to write a short and concise reply by mainly not mentioning
things that are already written in the letter. This resulted in marks not being awarded to the candidate due to
the lack of reference in the answers. The common mistake noted was the misinterpretation of Note 2 ‘describe
two interesting stories about the competition’ and Note 3 ‘describe challenges met during the competition’.
The responses given were for situations outside the event.

Candidates’ response was short and simple as this might be due to the number of words shown in the
instruction which might have placed a psychological effect on them to keep their answers within 100 words.
However, there were some who have understood the task and provided sufficient development to each of the
notes given.

On average, most candidates managed to give elaboration on each note given. However, the answers differ
in quality. Some candidates were able to develop ideas sufficiently but some merely responded to the prompt
in one sentence.

STRENGTHS
In terms of strengths, it has been observed that candidates who are aware of the conventions of letter writing
have been able to fulfill the requirements of the task. They were able to:
 understand the task.
 write a correct opening and an appropriate closure.
 use all the notes given correctly.
 answer and show planning, good organisation, and appropriate paragraphing.
 identify the keywords and items to respond to in the letter and responded to the most parts of the task
accurately.
 present all the parts and sub parts.
 use appropriate vocabulary, correct sentence structures, and a variety of linkers.
 use appropriate register.
 use good grammar.
 relate to the topic on drama competition and gave expected responses to the notes.
 give interesting stories and challenges for both Note 2 and Note 3 e.g Meeting new friends, met popular
celebrities, missing drama costume, sound system falling apart, accidents on stage and forgetting lines.
26
 address all of the items in the task.
 write coherent responses whereby transition markers were sparingly, not mechanically used, and points
were presented in the same order as the notes.
 write cohesive sentences with appropriate cohesive devices.

The followings are the strengths noted:

Format 1. Candidates are aware that they had to respond to the question in a letter format.
2. Paragraphs were used effectively.
3. Candidates were able to write a letter with an appropriate address, date, opening
remarks, closing remarks, and sign off.

Opening remarks 1. Most candidates provided the correct salutation with the correct name of the
receiver (e.g. Dear Jeremy)
2. Some candidates started the response by providing general remarks which is
typical of letter writing. (e.g. I hope that you are fine, how are you?)

Note 1 1. Some candidates were aware that there were two parts for Note 1 (Note 1A
inquiring Jeremy’s health and Note 1B congratulating Jeremy for winning the drama
competition) and responded to both the notes in an adequate manner.
2. Candidates provided simple elaborations for both the notes.

Note 2 1. Most candidates understood the requirement for Note 2, which is to describe two
interesting stories about the competition.
2. Answers ranged from simple to adequate elaborations and it was noted that many
candidates wrote on “artists as judges and interesting story lines from competitors.”

Note 3 1. Candidates had an awareness of the task for Note 3 as many attempted to provide
examples of challenges faced during the competition. (e.g. being nervous,
forgetting lines, broken props and running to the toilet)
2. It was observed that many candidates provided only one challenge as the note
given did not stipulate the number of challenges to be given in the answer.
However, the letter in the question paper did state “I would love to hear about them.’

Note 4 Many candidates responded to the note correctly. Some provided elaboration and
justification for their responses.

Closing remark Candidates were aware that they need to provide a closure to their response. The
common phrases used were “write soon, see you soon and take care.”

Sign off Generally, most candidates were aware that the name that should appear as the
sender is “Arif.” Some provided signatures which resembled the name ‘Arif.’

Other strengths 1. The use of correct linkers to describe interesting stories and challenges were seen.
For example, “first of all, additionally, firstly…”
2. Candidates developed responses wherever possible (able to provide interesting
elaborations for stories and challenges)
3. Candidates are able to use appropriate and precise vocabulary

27
WEAKNESSES
In terms of weaknesses, it was noted that many candidates who did not address the task appropriately and
adequately had the following problems:
 Most limited and low English proficiency candidates did not develop the notes. They merely responded to
the notes, often, giving information out of context or with no specific subject reference.
 Most candidates gave limited and modest answers for the task. This is because most of them only
addressed most parts with the main parts missing or just the simplest parts in a simple manner.
Paragraphing is also sometimes lacking where candidates wrote their letters in one paragraph only.
 Many LEP candidates or even those at average level of proficiency misinterpreted the ‘interesting stories’
for Note 2 with that of ‘interesting storyline of the drama performed by the different schools’.
 The convention or format of letter-writing was not adhered to. Frequently, the format, though not
mandatory, was missing, incomplete or inaccurate.
 There were also vague salutations or none at all, minimal responses and without any proper closure or
sign-off.
 Ending the letter without a signature block (here, a name).
 Using inappropriate tone.
 Not addressing all the given notes.

The followings are the weaknesses noted:

Salutation/Opening 1. Wrong Salutation/Opening remarks is given as the candidates used names other
remark than Jeremy. For example, “Hi Afiq” and “Hye Arif”.
2. A few candidates did not provide a receiver’s name.

Note 1 1. Candidates were not aware that they need to respond to two sub-notes. Thus,
the focus of the response was on the prompt given (Thank you). Many candidates
did not respond to Note 1A i.e enquiring Jeremy’s health.
2. Answers for sub Note 1B were vague due to missing reference. For example,
thank you for your wishes” and “thank you Jeremy”. Link to ‘winning the
competition’ was not seen.

Note 2 1. It was observed that many candidates were confused with the words “interesting
and challenges.” Instead of describing two interesting stories about the
competition, they described challenges faced prior to and during the competition.
2. Some candidates merely described one interesting story.
3. Some merely described the competition rather than narrating a story. For
example, candidates wrote “there are many types of drama played such as
romance and comedy”

4. Some candidates had irrelevant responses. For example,“I am sure our school
team deserved to win because our team was doing a lot of training before the
competition stage”
5. Some candidates did not pay attention to requirement of the task for Note 2,
which clearly indicated to describe two interesting stories ‘about’ the competition.
Thus, they provided stories of what they did after the competition like going for
lunch or the coach treating them dinner.

28
 Note 3 1. Many candidates described one challenge only. Clearly, they did not read the
letter in the question paper which indicated for more than one challenge to be
described.
2. Candidates lacked creativity as examples given were predictable and similar.
Famous challenges quoted were “forgetting lines, forgetting costumes, broken
props, going late, being nervous, or falling sick.”
3. It was once again noted that candidates had issues with understanding what was
written in the letter as they must respond accurately to the prompts given. Instead
of describing challenges during the competition, many talked about their
preparation before going for the competition.
4. Some candidates did not attempt Note 3.

Note 4 1. Although Note 4 was simple, responses ranged from brief to inaccurate
answers. For example, some candidates just responded in one sentence.
(Certainly, I hope you can be a part of the drama team).
2. Inaccurate answers were due to missing reference. For example, “Yes, you can
join us or yes, I hope so too.”

Closing remark/ 1. Closing remarks were simple and predictable. For example, write soon, bye and
sign off take care.
2. Some candidates made an error while signing off. Instead of writing ‘Arif’, they
gave some other names. Most probably, they wrote their own names, due to
habit.
3. Some candidates forgot to sign off and there were a few candidates who signed
off as Jeremy.

Language use 1. Poor language proficiency hampered many candidates attempt to respond to
Task 1 in a clear manner. Although they understood the task, they were not able
to elaborate and describe their ideas in an effective manner.
2. Language ranged from wrong spelling, wrong word choice, wrong form of words,
tense, singular/plural, Subject-Verb Agreement, and inconsistent use of
pronouns.
3. Structural errors were serious among weaker candidates. Meaning was often
blurred due to stringing of words with no coherence. For example, Candidates
wrote a vague statement like “At these days, we are so helpful help one and
another one” and “I should to dance, play the music and story”.
4. First language interreference was noted in the way sentences were written and
spelling of words. In fact, very weak candidates resorted to using Bahasa
Malaysia to compensate to the lack of vocabulary ability.

In terms of content, many candidates misunderstood or simply did not know the task. Many had only
responded by only answering the questions posed as if they were answering comprehension questions without
any elaboration. Examples are:
 Thank you, Jeremy. I’m so happy.

For candidates who elaborated, many had done so with the wrong or no references or inaccuracy. Examples
are:
 Thank you, Jeremy for helping me to bring back the trophy after five years. I’m so happy. (No
mentioned of the team winning the competition and failed to understand that Jeremy did not participate
in the competition.)

In terms of language control, various errors were detected in the scripts.

29
 Some candidates’ sentences were heavily distorted when they were simply inserting irrelevant information
indiscriminately.
 Candidates also struggled with grammar, particularly in terms of sentence structure and Subject-Verb
Agreement.
 Some candidates also spelt certain words wrongly such as ‘Certanly’ and ‘intresting’ despite the words
being used in the visuals.

Task 2

Candidates are expected to write an argumentative essay of at least 250 in agreement or disagreement with
the statement which reads online information is deceiving and unreliable in about 50 minutes. The key words
(subject) must not be changed and a formal genre is expected. A stand has to be made and it should be
discussed, sustained and justified with suitable examples to show why the claim is right. Arguments must be
relevant and accurate and may show the advantages and disadvantages but the proposed side must be more
convincing than the other side.

The issue to be discussed in Task 2 was not common to all candidates and seen as very challenging for the
low proficiency candidates. It may appear rather manageable for high proficiency candidates, but that
depended on how they were able to deliberate or develop the ideas in order to merit a higher band. The task
was really demanding as the candidates had to address the key terms while at the same time highlighting the
‘why’ and ‘how’ ‘online information’ is/is not ‘deceiving’ and ‘unreliable/reliable’. Despite being able to
comprehend the question, many of the candidates did not have the maturity to explain as well because many
frequently failed to establish a clear link between the two main key elements in the task given which was
‘whether online information is deceiving and unreliable’. As such, most candidates were unable to address the
task effectively and discuss the topic maturely. In other words, most candidates were merely telling and
describing ‘online information’ but not showing ‘whether it is deceiving and unreliable or vice versa’. The points
discussed were most of the time immature and minimally explained. Many got carried away and as such they
failed to respond accurately and did justice to the question. It was necessary for the candidates to have a high
level of critical thinking skills to present convincing responses. The high proficiency candidates could write
about almost anything from various perspectives and therefore, permitting them to think, explore and express
their views based on their respective backgrounds. Overall, most of the candidates were able to present their
viewpoints only modestly along with some elaborations. Points related to benefits/advantages, harm/
disadvantages were among common examples discussed by the candidates. Even though the stand was
usually clearly stated, the thesis statement was almost always not present. Majority of the candidates gave a
minimum of three main points but the arguments were often insufficient, lacks depth, immature, superficial as
well as poorly linked and there was little conviction in the writing.

Generally, many candidates partially agreed to online information is deceiving and unreliable as it seemed to
be the best option to go for. Sadly, due to the misinterpretation of the demand of the question, many agreed
to the topic given yet they were only providing the examples of benefits of online information. There were
many candidates too that had written about the benefits of online information to different group of users. As
such, the type of answers given were of limited relevance. For those who disagreed to the topic given, they
managed to discuss accordingly by explaining the examples of online information not being deceiving and is
indeed reliable as it was rather a head-on approach. As such, they were able to incorporate both the ‘why’ and
‘how’ in their responses. Candidates were not allowed to change the subject or the object, therefore, it was
highly unlikely for them to go off tangent pertaining to such requirement. However, it would be if the candidate
fails to touch base. Candidates’ responses mostly varied from very modest to low satisfactory. Almost all
candidates had clearly stated the stand in the introductory paragraph and reiterated the stand in the concluding
paragraph. However, most of the candidates responded insufficiently or modestly to this task primarily
because they were not able to elaborate and substantiate the ideas due to insufficient content knowledge and
weak language proficiency.

Arguments to support their stand were general, tainted with grammatical errors, and meaning was often
distorted. Their arguments were often shallow and not convincing. The vocabulary and the sentence structures
were also of limited variety and not very precise. As such, sentences were often distorted, with some almost
incomprehensible and therefore, making reading difficult because meaning did not come through. This may
be because of their lack of vocabulary and content knowledge on current issues. Their arguments and
elaborations were therefore often insufficient, superficial, loose, repetitive, vague, lacks depth, and maturity.
30
There were also candidates who obviously failed to plan their answers as their responses lacked coherence
and were discussed haphazardly. Though most of them were able to give at least three points, candidates
had difficulty in presenting their viewpoints. Their arguments were shallow, unorganized, immature, lacked
focus and direction as well as conviction. Examples given were general, not convincing, irrelevant, and
sometimes inaccurate. There were no justifications given and as such there were aplenty sweeping
statements.

STRENGTHS
In terms of strengths, many test takers were able to write their essays with the correct conventions of academic
writing. Good and proficient users were able to write their essays using the conventions of academic writing;
 Most candidates were able to produce a response that adhered to the format of extended writing – with
lead in, clear stand, and an attempt to write a concise thesis statement. Most of the candidates were also
able to provide a modest closure for their essays.
 Planning and organisation were evident in most essay. Points were separated by paragraphs and there
was a clear evident that candidates tried developing their points.
 Examples given were mainly simple yet relevant. Most candidates talked about fake news, scammers,
editing information or spreading rumours. They could relate to the topic as it is current and they are active
users of the internet.
 Candidates ended their essays by reiterating their stand and restating the points explored in the essay.
 The attempt to express opinions was noted although many struggled in the process of doing so due to
language inability.

In terms of stand and content, there is a good mix of scripts which either agreed or partially agreed with the
statement. Not many are with total disagreement. Those who partially agreed were able to give at least three
arguments for and against the statement. Among the ideas presented are as follows:

Agree – Online information is deceiving and unreliable…

Online information can easily be edited by anybody who has access to the Internet (most answers cited
Wikipedia as an example)

Fake information can easily be spread online without being verified (via social media platform such as
WhatsApp, Twitter, Telegram)

Online information can be outdated.

Online information can contain individuals’ opinion rather than facts that can be misleading

Online information can easily be manipulated to scam customers – i.e. online shopping, get rich scheme

Disagree – Online information is not deceiving and reliable…

Most answers that disagree with the statement, hence claiming that online information is not deceiving and
reliable, have failed to provide relevant discussion, and are often off-tangent. Most focused on the
benefits/advantages of online information such as easily accessible instantly, helps students in doing
assignments, and connects people across the globe. Example:
 Nowadays, online information can be found anywhere and anytime, and can help students in
assignment. They are reliable because they are information given by lecturers. Students follow the link
and find materials to do their assignments. It helps them to score good grades in exam. (very simple
why, but lacking on how the information searched can be reliable)

31
WEAKNESSES
In terms of weaknesses, the obvious weakness is that exceptional and outstanding essay are rare. Most
candidates fall into the modest category.
 Many off tangent essays revolved around describing the benefits and harm of online information. Many
candidates misconstrued ‘deceiving and unreliable’ as disadvantage of using the internet. If they
disagreed to the statement, candidates went on proving how online information helps the society in
numerous ways, and therefore, online information is reliable.
 Many candidates did not understand the meaning of the two key words given in the statement, “deceiving
and unreliable”. Hence, they ended up writing an essay which talked about the advantages and
disadvantages of online information and conveniently, concludes each point by repeating the statement
given for the task. Hence, discussion did not support the concluding remarks.
 Responses were generally brief and lacked depth. Points were developed modestly with little explanation
and sometimes examples were missing.
 Points were predictable and lacked maturity. Most candidates gave points such as “scammers,
influencers, spreading gossips and fake news on vaccines and flood”.
 Many candidates demonstrated poor command of the language. Some errors were not only limited to
Single Word Errors, but Multiple Word Errors thus causing poor readability level. Examiners had to
re-read sentences and paragraphs in order to understand candidates’ thoughts. For instance, “Besides
that, in my opinion about a online information is deceiving and unreliable is report to police when a
information cannot unreliable...” and “..Many benefit about a online information in deceiving and unreliable
beside that many advantages when using a wrong and do a news wrong…”.
 Copying from the rubric due to the inability to comprehend the topic. For example “I have watched a
documentary about the growing concern on the reliability of online information to the society. In my opinion,
I believe a lot of people are search online information on online. Now a days, many about societys
information you can search on online, because now online area is so big and have many information...”
Based on the example, it is evident that the candidate was just using the statement in the rubric and use
the word information repeatedly.
Many anomalies were detected in the scripts and the following are examples:
 Wrong or misplaced focus and misinterpretation (resulting in off-tangent essays):
 defining the wrong word (e.g. “documentary” of all words in the rubric!)
 discussing the advantages and disadvantages of online information
 Writing a narrative
 Explaining what the statement means
 Discussing how to use online information (in an advisory mode)
Grammatical errors, fragmented sentences and other anomalies or meaningless rambling are aplenty. The
following examples are some of the identified errors:

1. Wrong word choice  …widely shared so people know that he is reliable leader and can be
including prepositions worship
issues
 …to bring people down and destroy all their hardworking.
 Citizens will have trust issues to their leader
 With searching the information on internet
 We can use internet to get the now issues and get knowledges
 We people also not minding in sharing it without knowing its original.
 This also being the main factor in wasting our time and not growing our
knowledge.
 ..the circulation of news in social media…

32
2. Syntax/Tenses/  For example, a bully rumour is created so the mention celebrity…
Subject-Verb-
Agreement  However, it been misunderstand as bully
 We need to investigating the source …
 Online information can take from internet or social media
 …assignments will do in no time
 Online information can be trusted as it does not been filtered.
 Some group of people uses this old news and information to make some
money
 With having new norm live, commonly students having their school session
using online method.
 …we does not get dragged by ….
 Young generation always depend on online information
 …information help us in getting more up-to-date news

3. Plural vs singular  It is not from trusted source

nouns
 … spread it to their relative, friend or post in social media account
 Citizens will have trust issues to their leader
 Students can finish their assignment
 Many informations/some informations

4. Confusing pronoun  The online information regarding their donation to the poor people is
widely shared so people know that he is a good guy…
 If we always share the news without checking the source, they will cause
people to be in trouble

5. First language  Many information we can get from internet …

structures/First
language interference  Many news people can read on social media and
 don’t have to ….
 …online information cause traumatik …
 …write information with the right sumber…
 …to attract the eyeball of people…
 We people also not minding in sharing it without knowing its original.

6. Spelling errors  Enviroment

 decieved/deciving
 realibility
 queqe
 assingment
 Goverment/gorment
 Koeledges
 Plat form

33
  Decitfful
 Curent isu
 Futhermore
 Others problems, students assignments (missing apostrophe)

Among the ideas presented in off tangent scripts are as follows:

 Benefits of online information

 Advantages and disadvantages of online information
 Importance of technology/Internet/gadgets
 Effects of online information
 How to deal with the effects of Online information
 Reasons why people create fake news
 How to deal with fake news and wrong information
 How to differentiate between reliable and unreliable information
 Inconsistent discussion where candidates contradicted themselves and
gave
 Advice on how to prevent reading unreliable online information

Other area of weaknesses:

 There were gaps in the discussion. The examiners had to read in between the lines to understand what
the candidate was trying to say.
 Candidates did not state their stand clearly.
 Candidates also had a distorted idea of how online information is deceiving and unreliable.
 Choice of vocabulary was mainly simple.
 Spelling errors were noted.

34