Describe an online video or tutorial that taught you something useful.
A card about one video or online lesson that actually changed what you can do — fixing a bike chain, a spreadsheet formula, a cooking technique, a stretch for a bad back. Small, practical skills give you the most precise language.
The task card
Describe an online video or tutorial that taught you something useful.
You should say:
- what it taught you
- how you found it
- what the presenter did well
and explain how you have used what you learned.
Now say it yourself
Record your own two minutes on this card and have it transcribed and marked against the Speaking criteria. Practising is free; the band estimate is part of Pro.
Record my answerHow long you have
- 1 minute
Preparation
The examiner hands you the card, paper and a pencil. Make notes — a few words per cue point, never sentences.
- 1–2 minutes
Your long turn
Speak until the examiner stops you at two minutes. Finishing early is the most common self-inflicted problem in Part 2.
- 1–2 questions
Rounding off
The examiner may ask one or two short follow-up questions, then moves straight into the Part 3 discussion on the same theme.
Part 2 takes three to four minutes in total. The whole Speaking test runs 11 to 14 minutes across three parts, and Part 3 that follows lasts four to five minutes.
How to approach this card
Pick a skill you have genuinely used since, because the last bullet asks for evidence. 'How to unblock a sink' with a real sink behind it beats 'how to code' with nothing to show.
For 'how you found it', tell the moment of need: something broke, a deadline was close, other videos had failed you first. Comparing it with the poor tutorials you skipped is a quick way to explain what made this one good.
'What the presenter did well' asks you to analyse teaching. Be specific: they showed the mistake before the fix, they kept it short, they explained why and not just how. Precise verbs — demonstrate, pause, zoom in, break down — earn their place here.
Finish with real use: how many times you have done it since, whether you have taught it to someone else, how much time or money it saved.
Model answer
Speak your own answer first. Examiners are trained to spot memorised speeches and mark them down — use this to study structure, pacing and naturalness, never to recite.
Show the model answer
I'd like to talk about a video that taught me how to repair a hole in a plasterboard wall — not glamorous, I know, but it probably saved me a few hundred pounds. The background is that I was moving out of a rented flat last year, and when I took down a heavy shelf, two of the wall fixings came out with big chunks of wall attached. My deposit was at stake, a builder quoted more than I could afford, so one evening I just typed the problem into a video site and started watching. The first few videos were useless — either slick adverts for one particular product, or people who skipped the difficult part. Then I found this one: about eight minutes long, filmed on a phone in someone's garage by a retired plasterer, with maybe a couple of thousand views. What did he do well? Three things, really. He started by deliberately doing it wrong — he filled a hole in one go and showed us how it cracked as it dried, which made the correct method make sense. Then he broke it into stages and kept explaining why, not just how: thin layers, because thick ones shrink; sand lightly, because you can always add more. And he was honest about time — he said, 'This is a two-evening job, not a twenty-minute one,' which stopped me rushing. So how have I used it? I fixed both holes over a weekend, pausing and rewinding constantly, and when the landlord inspected the flat he didn't even notice them — I got my whole deposit back. Since then I've done the same repair at my parents' house, and I talked a friend through it on a video call, which felt a bit like passing on a family recipe, only dustier.
Why this works: The answer explains good teaching through three concrete behaviours — demonstrating the mistake first, giving reasons, being honest about time — instead of praising the presenter in general terms. The before-and-after frame (a deposit at risk, then returned in full) gives the last bullet hard evidence, and the closing comparison is light and unexpected. The three-behaviour analysis works for any card about a teacher or explainer; the sentences themselves are not for reciting.
Useful vocabulary for this topic
- a step-by-step guide
Instructions given in a clear sequence.
- to break something down
To explain something complicated in smaller parts.
- to pause and rewind
Natural for how people actually learn from video.
- to get straight to the point
Praise for a presenter who does not waste time.
- trial and error
Learning by trying something and correcting mistakes.
- to talk someone through something
To guide someone through a process by explaining each step.
- to save me a fortune
Informal exaggeration for saving a lot of money; use it once.
Part 3 discussion
After your long turn the examiner moves into a four to five minute discussion on the same theme, working from two related discussion topics with about three questions each. The first stays close to your own experience; the second widens out. Answer with reasons and examples, not one-line replies.
- 1Can people learn practical skills properly from videos, or do they need a teacher in the room?
- 2Why are some people much better at explaining things than others?
- 3Should schools use more online videos in their lessons?
- 4How can viewers tell whether an online tutorial is accurate?
- 5Do free online lessons reduce the value of paid courses and qualifications?
More on how this family of cards is discussed: Media, technology and culture. Model answers for Part 3: Part 3 questions and answers.