QCE English IA2 persuasive spoken response: 2026 guide to the Unit 3 instrument

What IA2 actually rewards

IA2 in QCE English General is a persuasive spoken response. You deliver a speech (5 to 8 minutes) arguing a position on an issue drawn from your studied texts or the broader world, for a specific audience and purpose set by your school within QCAA guidelines. The response may be live or pre-recorded, and you may use multimodal or digital components to support the development of your argument.

The temptation is to treat it as "write an essay then read it aloud." That is one form, but it is not the skill being assessed. QCAA's criteria reward something more specific: purposeful rhetorical choices calibrated for the audience, delivered with vocal control.

What QCAA's criteria actually want:

1. Knowledge and understanding of the issue and the perspective you are arguing.
2. Application of textual features for the specified purpose and audience.
3. Use of textual features (structural, linguistic, rhetorical, vocal) deliberately deployed.
4. Use of conventions of the chosen spoken form (speech, podcast, pitch, address, etc.) with control.

Notice what is absent: opinions for their own sake, displays of personal passion, technique-spotting. The bar is purposeful design for an audience, delivered with control.

The audience and purpose

Your school sets a specific audience and purpose. Possible scenarios:

• A speech at a community forum addressing local issues.
• An address to a school assembly on a question affecting students.
• A monologue for a podcast targeting a youth audience.
• A pitch to a panel of councillors or board members about a policy direction.

Every choice you make should be calibrated for the specific audience. Diction (formal vs colloquial), register (academic vs conversational), pacing (fast vs deliberate), examples (relatable to the audience or aspirational), and multimodal support all flow from who you are speaking to.

A common failure mode: treating the audience as "general listeners." General does not exist. Identify your audience specifically. What do they already believe? What do they fear? What language and tone will land with them, and what will alienate them?

The structure of a persuasive spoken response

A reliable structure for IA2:

Opening (about 30 to 60 seconds).

• A specific hook that grounds the issue. An anecdote, a specific moment, a striking statistic, a concrete image. Not a sweeping generalisation.
• Identify the issue. Briefly.
• State your central contention. Clearly. The listener should know your position by the end of the opening.

Body sections (3 or 4, about 60 to 90 seconds each).

Each section develops one argument that supports your contention. The structure within each section:

• Claim. A sub-argument that supports your contention.
• Evidence. A specific example, statistic, anecdote, expert quote, or piece of reasoning. Visual or audio support can land evidence with extra force.
• Analysis. Why the evidence supports your argument.
• Acknowledgement. Briefly engage with a counter-argument. Strong persuasive speech engages with opposition without weakening its position.

Strong rhetorical moves to deploy across the body:

• Specific examples. Concrete beats abstract.
• Calibrated emotional appeals. Pity, anger, hope, fear, used selectively.
• Appeal to shared values. Fairness, freedom, common sense, community.
• Loaded diction. Words that carry judgement in themselves.
• Tonal shifts. Strategic moves between earnest, dry, urgent.
• Anticipated objections. Engage with the opposing view briefly to show you have considered it.
• Vocal contrast. Variation in pace, volume, and pause to mark turning points.

Conclusion (about 30 to 60 seconds).

• Synthesise the argument briefly.
• Push outward to what the issue means beyond the immediate scope.
• A call to action or a closing image that lingers after the speech ends.

What separates A-band from B-band IA2 responses

QCAA's standards descriptors at the A level look for "discerning" choices: every decision in the speech looks intentional, calibrated for purpose and audience, and rhetorically sophisticated, with vocal delivery that supports rather than undermines the argument.

Three concrete signals:

1. Calibration is visible throughout

The diction, register, examples, pace, and any multimodal support all visibly serve the specified audience. A speech for a school assembly reads and sounds different from one for a council panel. Markers can tell.

2. Rhetorical moves are sustained, not scattered

The speech does not just deploy "rhetorical question, emotive language, statistics, inclusive language" as a checklist. Two or three rhetorical strategies are sustained across the speech and work together.

3. The argument complicates itself

A-band speeches engage with opposing views, acknowledge complexity, qualify their own claims where appropriate, and trust the audience to follow nuanced reasoning. B-band speeches tend to be assertive without acknowledgement.

The single move that distinguishes A-band IA2 responses: rhetorical and vocal choices that look as if they were made by someone who knows exactly who they are persuading and why a less calibrated speech would not work for that audience. The speech does not just argue a position; it argues for an audience, in their hearing.

Drafting, rehearsing, redrafting

IA2 has 4 weeks of notification and preparation under open-access conditions. The students who score highest have drafted their script 3 to 5 times and rehearsed delivery many more times than that.

A four-week protocol:

Week 1: Research and angle

Read 5 to 10 contemporary speeches or opinion podcasts on related issues. Identify the angle you will argue. Plan the speech's structure.

Week 2: First full draft

Write the script in 60 to 90 minutes. Aim for 700 to 1100 words (typical 5 to 8 minute speaking range). Do not over-edit; get the shape down. Record a first read.

Week 3: Sharpen the argument and the delivery

Cut filler. Strengthen specific examples. Verify every claim. Have your teacher mark a draft. Rehearse aloud daily, listening back to the recording.

Week 4: Polish

Final passes on diction, rhythm, and rhetorical sophistication. Mark up the script for pace, pause, and emphasis. Rehearse end-to-end at least five times. Time every rehearsal.

Students who score highest treat IA2 as a project to revisit weekly, not a single sitting, and they treat delivery as half the assessment.

Common IA2 traps

Generic audience

"The audience is people interested in this issue." Tells the marker nothing. Specify.

Personal passion in place of argument

Strong feeling does not score. Sustained argument does.

Technique-spotting

Listing devices in your speech (or your teacher being able to do so) is not the point. Markers want to see techniques operating together for purpose.

Avoiding the counter-argument

Engaging with opposition strengthens your speech. Pretending opposition does not exist weakens it.

Reading the script flatly

A polished script delivered in a monotone scores lower than a slightly looser script delivered with vocal control. Rehearse for delivery, not just for memorisation.

Over-running or under-running

5 to 8 minutes is the rule. A 4-minute response cannot demonstrate sustained argument; a 10-minute response shows poor time control. Time every rehearsal.

Multimodal as decoration

If you use slides or sound, they should advance the argument. Decorative visuals distract and signal weak craft.

Forgetting the conventions of the form

A community-forum speech has different conventions to a podcast monologue. A pitch has different conventions to an assembly address. Follow the conventions of the specific spoken form your school has set.

A note on the issue itself

You do not need a particularly controversial issue. A precisely argued position on a moderate issue scores higher than a sloppy take on a hot-button topic. Pick an issue you can reason about clearly, with evidence you can verify.

Avoid arguments that depend on contested factual claims you cannot back up. Avoid positions on deeply personal religious or cultural matters where the marker may bring strong feelings. Aim for the middle ground of issues that have substantive disagreement and verifiable evidence.