IB MYP Language Acquisition: Proficiency Phases and Assessment Criteria – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, modelling the kind of level-appropriate judgment MYP Language Acquisition’s assessment actually requires. They are not reproduced IB material – the IB holds copyright in its own subject guides and exemplars. Use these alongside official exemplars available through your school.

Related: Proficiency Levels study guide and revision notes.

Note: the three proficiency levels tested below (emergent, capable, proficient) are the levels MYP eAssessment results are reported at. Day-to-day teaching uses a separate, finer continuum of six phases – see the study guide for the distinction.

---

Section A

1. Name the three proficiency levels MYP Language Acquisition is assessed at. [3]

2. How many marks does each of the four criteria carry in the eAssessment blueprint, and are they weighted equally? [2]

3. Which criterion is assessed separately from the other three, and how? [2]

---

Section B

4. A student in Year 4 of the programme assumes they must be assessed at the “capable” level, since that is what most students in their year group are assessed at.

(a) Explain why this assumption may be incorrect. [2] (b) Describe what the student should do instead. [2]

5. A capable-level student practises writing using proficient-level idiomatic expressions they do not fully understand, aiming to “sound more advanced.”

(a) Explain why this approach risks being counterproductive. [3] (b) Describe what this student should practise instead. [3]

6. A student spends the majority of their revision time on writing practice, reasoning that writing is “the hardest skill,” and does little dedicated speaking practice.

(a) Explain why this revision strategy is likely to leave a gap in the student’s preparation. [3] (b) Describe what a more balanced revision plan would include. [3]

---

Section C

7. A bilingual student is unsure whether they are following the standard MYP Language Acquisition pathway or a bilingual Language and Literature route. Explain why this distinction matters for how they should approach revision, and what they should check first. [5]

8. Explain, using the emergent/capable/proficient framework, why “harder is always better” is not sound revision advice for this subject, using a specific example of over-reaching and a specific example of under-reaching. [6]

---

Worked answers

1. Emergent, capable, proficient. [3]

2. 24 marks each in the eAssessment blueprint (a separate scale from the 8-level, 32-mark-total classroom assessment), and yes, all four criteria are weighted equally. [2]

3. Criterion C, Speaking – it is internally assessed by the student’s own teacher and externally moderated by the IB, separate from the combined listening/reading/writing on-screen paper covering Criteria A, B and D. [2]

4. (a) Proficiency level reflects actual progress in the target language, not year group – students in the same year can genuinely be assessed at different levels depending on their individual language development, so assuming a level based on what “most” classmates are assessed at is not a reliable basis for the student’s own assessment. [2] (b) The student should confirm their own specific assessed proficiency level directly with their teacher, rather than inferring it from classmates’ apparent level, and select practice material matched to that confirmed level. [2]

5. (a) Practising with idiomatic expressions not fully understood risks introducing genuine errors that a proficient-level examiner would penalise, while also failing to demonstrate the range and precision within the capable level’s own actual expectations – attempting to “sound more advanced” through unfamiliar idiom is a different skill from genuinely secure, accurate language use at one’s own level, and marking credits accuracy and control at the assessed level, not the appearance of higher-level vocabulary used insecurely. [3] (b) This student should instead practise the capable level’s own actual expectations: a range of sentence structures, more precise vocabulary within their genuinely secure range, and awareness of register for a given audience and purpose – building fluency and accuracy at their confirmed level rather than reaching for unfamiliar proficient-level idiom that risks introducing errors. [3]

6. (a) Because all four criteria are independently weighted at an equal 24 marks each in the eAssessment blueprint, and Criterion C (Speaking) requires a genuinely separate revision routine – spontaneous, interactive practice under time pressure – strong written performance does not substitute for oral preparation. Concentrating revision time on writing leaves the equally-weighted speaking criterion under-prepared, regardless of how strong the student’s writing becomes. [3] (b) A more balanced plan would allocate dedicated, roughly proportional practice time across listening, reading and writing together (since they share one on-screen paper) and a genuinely separate, dedicated routine for spontaneous interactive speaking practice – rehearsing unscripted conversation and unexpected follow-up questions specifically, not just reviewing written material and assuming it transfers to oral fluency. [3]

7. MYP Language Acquisition is compulsory in every year of the programme, with one specific exception: bilingual students may instead pursue courses of study in multiple languages within the MYP Language and Literature subject group. This distinction matters because the proficiency-level structure (emergent, capable, proficient) and the four independently-weighted criteria described in this guide apply specifically to the Language Acquisition pathway – a student on the bilingual Language and Literature route instead follows that subject group’s own different assessment structure. The student should first check with their school or teacher which specific pathway they are actually enrolled in, since assuming the Language Acquisition structure applies without confirming this could lead to revising against the wrong assessment framework entirely. [5]

8. An example of over-reaching: a capable-level student attempting proficient-level idiomatic language they do not fully control risks introducing genuine errors that a lower level of accurate, secure capable-level language would have avoided, and does not actually demonstrate capable-level competence more convincingly – the assessment credits accuracy and control at the assessed level, not borrowed complexity from a higher one. An example of under-reaching: an emergent-level student who only ever practises very simple, formulaic phrases well below what the emergent level’s own descriptors expect (for instance, avoiding any variation in sentence structure at all) fails to demonstrate the full range of what top-band emergent evidence should show, even though nothing in their language use is technically wrong. In both cases, “harder is always better” and its inverse both miss the actual target: producing the strongest, most accurate, most complete evidence specifically for one’s own confirmed proficiency level, neither reaching beyond it nor staying safely below it. [6]

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Language Acquisition, from 2020, (c) 2020 – the same source cited by the study guide and revision notes. Verified 2026-09-06.