Assessment Criteria for Coursework
Below are two lists of Assessment Objectives and mark band descriptions used to mark your essays. Although they are written principally for teachers I think it’s a good idea to assess your own work against the criteria. I’ll put a key explaining some of the technical language used. Clearly the register and lexis is aimed at teachers, and the purpose is to inform.
To be placed in a particular mark band, it is not necessary for a candidate to demonstrate
achievement under every point. Internal assessment should therefore assess a candidate’s work
under the ‘best fit’ principle.
MARK BAND DESCRIPTORS (AO1) out of 30
Select and apply relevant concepts and approaches from integrated linguistic and literary study, using appropriate terminology and accurate, coherent written expression.
Upper Band 4 (26–30)
• use of framework(s) illuminates textual interpretation
• shows an overview of the text
• engages closely with the meaning of the texts and analyses patterns
• conceptualised and often sophisticated analysis
• fluent, cohesive writing
Lower band 4 (23–25)
• coherent use of framework(s)
• some analytical probing of features and patterns
• thoughtful engagement with texts
• interpretation evident through approach taken
• fluent writing
Upper band 3 (20–22)
• uses framework(s) to highlight reading
• describes significant features/patterns
• shows awareness of stylistic and linguistic features
• engages with texts through explanation of features; possibly under-developed in places
• competent writing
Lower band 3 (16–19)
• uses a suitable framework(s) purposefully
• refers to a range of relevant points
• sense of patterns emerges in places; but comments under-developed
• distinguishes between different features fairly accurately but little comment on effect of features
• clear, straightforward expression
Upper band 2 (12–15)
• applies framework(s) to show awareness of some of writer’s choices
• largely accurate comments on texts but tending towards a feature-spotting approach, or a limited use of appropriate terminology
• broad comments on effects of features
• approach may be superficial
• expression communicates ideas but lacks flexibility
Lower band 2 (9–11)
• attempts to use framework(s) but with limited effectiveness
• identifies some points but understanding is not clear
• limited analysis occurs; much paraphrase
• some awareness of the focus of a text
• superficial sense of how language works
• writing communicates some ideas but lacks precision and accuracy
Upper band 1 (5–8)
• little coherence in selection of ideas
• little application of framework(s)
• lacks textual engagement offering instead implicit views of language use
• superficial ideas
• inaccurate expression and little sense of appropriate style
Lower band 1 (1–4)
• rudimentary awareness of narrative
• little awareness of frameworks
• minimal coherence/relevance of response
• markedly brief response
• frequent technical errors and weaknesses in expression
Zero marks (0)
• response failing to fulfil any of the lower band 1 requirements
MARK BAND DESCRIPTORS (AO3) out of 30
Use integrated approaches to explore relationships between texts, analysing and evaluating the significance of contextual factors in their production and reception.
Upper band 4 (26–30)
• assimilates and contextualises references with originality
• overview that offers observations on wider contexts
• significant similarities and differences are analysed and in an original, personal, or conceptual, manner
• texts effortlessly integrated
• consistent and flexible focus on texts and theme
Lower band 4 (23–25)
• skilful and secure analysis and commentary
• clear sense of context/variation/contextual influences underpins reading
• sustained focus on texts and theme
• coherently compares and contrasts writer’s choices of form, structure, mode, language
• confident comparison
Upper band 3 (20–22)
• expresses clearly comparisons and contrasts between two texts
• clear interplay between text and context/sense of contextual variation
• comments clearly on a variety of points/areas
• analysis may be imbalanced; possible imbalance in text coverage but comparative framework clear
• clearly developed focus on texts and theme
Lower band 3 (16–19)
• points are made but not always clearly developed
• comparative analysis may be implicit
• some comments on language use in texts
• possible imbalance in coverage
• mainly consistent in focus on texts and theme
• context commented on
Upper band 2 (12–15)
• comparative framework(s) used but may be partial/simplistic
• develops a line of argument underpinned by comment on overall context
• probably list-like in construction
• imbalance in coverage of texts
• lacks evidence in places
• occasional loss of focus on texts and theme
Lower band 2 (9–11)
• makes use of comparative framework(s) but unable to apply them effectively
• general awareness of writer’s techniques and impact on meaning
• responds to obvious or broad links or comparisons
• may lack detail and evidence
• focus on texts and theme unsustained
Upper band 1 (5–8)
• insecure or superficial idea of context
• some points made but with limited understanding
• insecure focus on texts and themes
• lacks detail and probably little evidence used
Lower band 1 (1–4)
• rudimentary awareness of context
• ideas very limited or undeveloped
• contextual features identified but misread
• weak focus on texts and themes
Zero marks (0)
• response failing to fulfil any of the lower band 1 requirements
Key Words
Here is a list of key words and the meanings used in the marking criteria which was published by the exam board in the specification – [genre] to inform – [purpose] teachers – [audience]. Hope you find this helpful.
Framework(s)
|
the analytical approaches available to analyse texts. For example poetic - imagery and phonetic techniques, grammar, lexis, syntax, register and rhetoric
|
Conceptualised
|
ability to appreciate and understand abstract concepts - essay topic, topics and themes
|
Stylistic
|
literary or specifically poetic writing style
|
Feature-spotting
|
identifying a technical features in a text but without commenting on the effect of this feature on readers
|
Implicit
|
knowledge assumed rather than made explicit or stated clearly
|
Rudimentary
|
basic
|
Assimilates
|
bring different parts together to make coherent and fluent – probably refers to different parts of a paragraph or different comparative points from poets
|
Contextualises
|
Refers to the relevant biographical or cultural conditions present when the writer produced the text. May also refer to the order in which the text was written in relation to other texts written by the same writer.
|
