Assessing a written text that mixes revival language and English
A student submits a 300-word written response in the revival language about a local seasonal event. The text contains accurate use of documented vocabulary for weather, plants and hunting, correct use of two case suffixes, and appropriate use of the community's orthography. However, about 40 per cent of the text is in English, including whole clauses explaining the event's significance. The student notes that the language has no established terms for 'calendar', 'seasonal indicator' or 'ceremony', and that they did not want to invent words. The assessment criteria reward range and accuracy of language use, and also require reflection on language and identity. The teacher must decide how to grade the mixed-language text and what feedback to give.
1. Explain how the teacher should grade the text against the criteria, treating the code-switching as a deliberate strategy rather than a failure. (about 130 words)
Read the worked answer
The teacher should grade what the student can do in the revival language and separately evaluate the code-switching as a strategy. The 60 per cent in the revival language shows accurate documented vocabulary, correct case suffixes and consistent orthography, so the range and accuracy criterion should be marked on that portion, not on the whole 300 words. The English clauses should not simply be penalised; the student has made a reasoned choice not to invent terms, which is a legitimate response to lexical gaps. However, the student could have used strategies that keep more of the text in the language: circumlocution with known words, borrowing with clear marking, or restructuring sentences to avoid the missing terms. The teacher's feedback should name these strategies and ask the student to revise two or three English clauses using them, which turns the code-switching into a learning point rather than a deduction.
2. The reflection requirement asks students to discuss language and identity. Suggest what the teacher should look for in this student's reflection and what would distinguish a strong response from a weak one. (about 110 words)
Read the worked answer
A strong reflection would connect the lexical gaps to the history of the language: why terms for 'calendar' and 'ceremony' are missing, who stopped using the language and in what contexts, and what it means for the student to write about a seasonal event in a language that has lost some of its own vocabulary for that event. It would also discuss the student's own position, including whether they are a community member or an outsider, and how that affects their right to choose between borrowing, describing and coining. A weak response would list gaps and say the language is 'limited' without analysis, or claim fluency the student does not have. The teacher should reward specificity, honesty about limits, and connection to community authority.