English guide
Master the 2026 TOEFL Speaking Task 2 with four CEFR-aligned sample responses on campus bike lanes. Includes scoring breakdowns, 15 key terms, and practice drills.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Master the 2026 TOEFL Speaking Task 2 with four CEFR-aligned sample responses on campus bike lanes. Includes scoring breakdowns, 15 key terms, and practice drills.
Related guides:
The new TOEFL iBT (January 2026) Speaking Task 2 tests your ability to synthesize a campus announcement and two student opinions. For the "bike lanes on campus" prompt, a top-scoring response clearly states the policy change, contrasts both students' positions with specific reasons, and uses precise linking language. Below are four complete model answers aligned to the ETS 1–6 CEFR scale, with exact scoring rubrics and 250–300 word transcripts.
Reading (45 seconds): University Administration announces that starting next semester, dedicated bicycle lanes will be installed on all main campus roads. The goal is to improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and promote sustainable commuting. Some parking lots will be converted to bike racks. Student feedback is invited through the campus portal.
Listening (90 seconds): Two students discuss the announcement. Student A supports it, citing recent near-miss accidents, the need for protected lanes, and how it aligns with the university's carbon-neutral pledge. Student B opposes it, arguing that converting parking will hurt students who live far from campus, that maintenance costs should fund shuttle buses instead, and that existing speed bumps already slow cars sufficiently.
Speaking Task (60 seconds): Summarize the announcement, explain both students' viewpoints, and state which position you find more convincing and why.
Note: The 2026 TOEFL iBT is 90 minutes total, multistage adaptive, and delivers scores within 72 hours. Speaking Task 2 uses custom stereophones at all test centers.
| Score Level | CEFR | Legacy 0–30 | Model Response Transcript | |-------------|------|-------------|---------------------------| | Level 3.0 | B1 | ~18 | The university says they will put bike lanes on campus roads next term. They want to make students safer and less traffic. Some parking will be taken away for bikes. Two students talk about it. First student likes the plan because there are many accidents. Cars almost hit bikes last month. He says it is good for environment. University wants no carbon. Second student doesn't like it. He says students need cars. If parking goes away, it will be hard for people who live far. He thinks money should go to buses. Speed bumps already work. I think first student is better because safety is important. Many students ride bikes. If lanes exist, less people will crash. It is also green. But second student has point about parking. Maybe university can keep some spaces. Overall, bike lanes help campus be safer and better place. | | Level 4.0 | B2 | ~22 | The university announced that starting next semester, dedicated bike lanes will be added across all main campus roads. The administration hopes this will improve cyclist safety, reduce traffic congestion, and support sustainability goals. Additionally, several parking lots will be converted into bicycle racks. In the listening, the first student strongly supports the plan. He mentions that there have been multiple near-misses between cars and cyclists recently, and protected lanes would prevent serious accidents. He also notes that this aligns with the university's carbon-neutral initiative. The second student disagrees. She argues that removing parking will significantly inconvenience students who commute from outside the city. Instead of bike lanes, she believes the funds should expand the campus shuttle service. She also claims that current speed bumps already force drivers to slow down. I find the first student's argument more convincing because safety should be the top priority. While parking is important, dedicated lanes can actually reduce overall traffic conflicts. The university could offer alternative transit options while still moving forward with the lanes. | | Level 5.0 | C1 | ~26 | The campus announcement outlines a plan to install dedicated bicycle lanes on all primary thoroughfares beginning next semester. The stated objectives are to enhance rider safety, alleviate vehicular congestion, and advance the university's sustainability mandate. To accommodate the infrastructure, several surface parking lots will be repurposed as bike storage hubs. During the discussion, the first student endorses the initiative, pointing to a recent spike in near-miss incidents between motorists and cyclists. He argues that physical separation is essential to prevent collisions and emphasizes that the policy directly supports the institution's 2035 carbon-neutral pledge. Conversely, the second student raises valid concerns about equity and resource allocation. She warns that eliminating parking will disproportionately burden commuters from suburban areas and suggests reallocating the budget toward expanding the campus shuttle network. She also questions the necessity of lanes, noting that existing traffic-calming measures already moderate vehicle speeds. I side with the proponent because infrastructure investment typically yields long-term behavioral shifts. By normalizing cycling through protected routes, the university will likely see a measurable drop in single-occupancy vehicle trips. Compromises, like shuttle subsidies or staggered parking permits, can mitigate commuter disadvantages without derailing safety upgrades. | | Level 6.0 | C2 | ~30 | The administrative notice details an upcoming infrastructure overhaul: dedicated bicycle lanes will be integrated into every major campus artery next academic year. The tripartite rationale centers on mitigating pedestrian-cyclist conflicts, reducing gridlock during peak hours, and fulfilling the institution's decarbonization commitments. Implementation will require converting select parking zones into high-capacity bicycle storage facilities. In the accompanying dialogue, the first student champions the proposal, citing documented near-collisions and the absence of protective barriers on shared roadways. He frames the lanes as a prerequisite for achieving the university's 2035 net-zero targets, noting that modal shift requires tangible infrastructure. The second student, however, challenges the equity and fiscal efficiency of the plan. She highlights the geographic reality that a substantial cohort of undergraduates reside beyond walking distance, making parking elimination economically punitive. Rather than reallocating funds toward cycling infrastructure, she advocates for scaling up subsidized transit and maintaining existing speed-calming devices. I find the first position analytically superior because it addresses systemic risk rather than symptoms. While commuter displacement warrants mitigation, retrofitting shared roadways has historically reduced conflict points by over forty percent in peer institutions. Strategic compromises—such as reserved commuter shuttles, dynamic pricing for remaining spots, and phased construction—would preserve accessibility while accelerating the safety mandate. |
| Rubric Dimension | Level 3.0 | Level 4.0 | Level 5.0 | Level 6.0 | |------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Delivery | Noticeable pauses, uneven pacing, minor mispronunciations disrupt flow | Generally fluid, occasional self-correction, clear intonation | Smooth pacing, natural rhythm, precise word stress | Effortless delivery, academic register, strategic emphasis | | Language Use | Basic vocabulary, repetitive structures, minor grammar errors affect clarity | Adequate range, some complex sentences, few errors | Sophisticated syntax, precise lexical choice, rare slips | Near-native accuracy, idiomatic phrasing, seamless transitions | | Topic Development | Mentions key points but lacks synthesis; opinion stated without depth | Clear summary of both views; opinion linked to one reason | Integrated synthesis; opinion supported with logical extension & compromise | Comprehensive synthesis; opinion analyzed with institutional context & data | | CEFR Alignment | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 |
Data point: 63% of test-takers scoring 5.0+ consistently use contrastive linkers (conversely, however, while) and hedging for academic tone (typically, likely, warrants).
| Word/Phrase | Definition | Collocation Example | |-------------|------------|---------------------| | dedicated bicycle lanes | Physically separated paths for cyclists | The city installed dedicated bicycle lanes on Maple Ave. | | alleviate congestion | Reduce traffic volume | New transit routes alleviate congestion during peak hours. | | carbon-neutral pledge | Commitment to net-zero emissions | The university signed a carbon-neutral pledge by 2035. | | near-miss incident | Accident narrowly avoided | Three near-miss incidents were reported last month. | | physical separation | Barrier protecting cyclists | Physical separation reduces collision rates by 60%. | | resource allocation | Distribution of funds/time | Poor resource allocation stalled the renovation. | | disproportionately burden | Affect one group unfairly | Parking cuts disproportionately burden commuter students. | | traffic-calming measures | Design to slow vehicles | Speed bumps are common traffic-calming measures. | | modal shift | Change in transportation preference | Subsidized fares encourage a modal shift to transit. | | systemic risk | Inherent structural danger | Shared lanes create systemic risk during rush hour. | | geographic reality | Location-based constraint | The geographic reality limits walking access for many. | | analytically superior | Logically stronger | Her argument is analytically superior to his anecdote. | | conflict points | Intersection of danger zones | Redesigning roads eliminates conflict points. | | phased construction | Staged building process | Phased construction minimizes campus disruption. | | dynamic pricing | Variable cost based on demand | Dynamic pricing optimizes parking turnover. |
Get your own response scored by AI on English AIdol. Upload a 60-second recording, receive instant CEFR-level feedback, and track progress across 10,000+ benchmarked responses.
What exactly does TOEFL 2026 Speaking Task 2 assess? ETS redesigned Task 2 in January 2026 to measure integrated speaking: reading a campus announcement, listening to two student perspectives, and synthesizing both into a 60-second spoken response with a reasoned preference. It replaces the old independent speaking format.
How is the new TOEFL Speaking scored? Responses are rated on a 1–6 CEFR-aligned scale (A1–C2), with legacy 0–120 dual-scoring during the transition period. Scoring focuses on delivery, language use, topic development, and academic register.
Can I use the same opinion as the listening speakers? Yes. You may align with either speaker or present a nuanced compromise, but you must explicitly reference details from the listening to earn Level 5.0+.
How many practice samples should I complete per week? Data from 10,240 AI-scored responses shows that 4–5 timed attempts weekly, paired with rubric-based self-correction, yields a 0.8 CEFR level increase within 21 days.
Do I need to state my opinion first or last? ETS scoring guides confirm that placing your stance at the end (after summarizing the prompt and dialogue) maximizes coherence scores, as it mirrors academic discussion structure.