Folio task: choosing evidence that actually demonstrates the capability
A student submits a folio for the school-assessed 'Creating texts' component. The task requires three texts in Korean across at least two genres, each with a reflective statement. The student includes: (1) a 500-word persuasive essay on 원격 수업 (remote learning) arguing one side; (2) a 400-word blog post on the same topic, reusing several sentences from the essay; (3) a 300-word email to a teacher requesting an extension, written in polite formal register. The reflective statements describe what the student did but not why. The teacher must decide whether the folio meets the requirement for 'range of genres and purposes' and how to score the reflection.
1. Assess whether the folio demonstrates sufficient genre and purpose range.
Read the worked answer
Range is weaker than the count suggests. Three texts and two genres technically satisfy a numerical minimum, but the descriptors concern demonstrated range of purpose:
- Texts 1 and 2 share topic and recycled sentences, so they function as one act of composition in two formats, not two independent purposes.
- Text 3 (formal request email) is genuinely different in audience and register, and is the strongest range evidence.
A defensible judgement: the folio meets the minimum but sits at a low-to-mid band for range, because persuasive and blog writing overlap in purpose (to persuade/inform a general reader). Feedback should ask for a third distinct purpose - e.g. narrative, review, or procedural text - rather than more words on the same topic.
2. The reflective statements describe actions ('I wrote an introduction, then body paragraphs') but not reasoning. How should reflection be scored, and what distinguishes strong reflection?
Read the worked answer
Reflection should be scored against whether it explains choices and effects, not whether it narrates process. 'I wrote an introduction' is a description; strong reflection answers why that choice, for that audience, with what effect.
Indicators of strong reflection:
- Names a specific decision (e.g. 'I used -습니다 in the email because the recipient is a teacher and the request is sensitive').
- Explains the intended effect on the reader.
- Evaluates success or failure and identifies what would change.
The submitted statements meet a low band: they are accurate but procedural. The teacher should award a low score for reflection and give explicit models of reasoning-focused statements, since students often default to process narration when the requirement is unclear.
3. The email reuses formal phrases the student copied from a textbook model. Does this affect the authenticity or authorship judgement?
Read the worked answer
It affects authenticity of voice, not authorship legitimacy. Using textbook formulas (-아/어 주시면 감사하겠습니다) is normal language learning and not plagiarism. But a folio meant to show the student's own control should show adaptation, not wholesale borrowing.
The judgement call: do not penalize as misconduct, but note in feedback that formulaic borrowing limits evidence of independent register control. Ask the student to annotate which phrases were borrowed and how they modified them. This keeps the assessment fair while preserving the folio's value as evidence.