Choosing Evidence for the External Assessment
A student, Daniel, must submit an external assessment task that combines a written response in Korean with a reflective statement in English. He has drafted a 250-word Korean response about a school excursion and a 150-word reflection. His teacher reviews the draft and notes: the Korean response uses accurate but repetitive sentence patterns, includes two paragraphs copied closely from a model text provided in class, and has one section where the tense shifts inconsistently. The reflection describes what he learned but does not refer to specific language choices. Daniel has one week before submission and asks whether he should add more content or revise what exists.
1. Advise Daniel on the highest-priority revisions, justifying each in terms of how the work will be judged.
Read the worked answer
The copied paragraphs are the highest priority. Close copying from a class model does not evidence Daniel's own control of Korean and may breach authenticity requirements. He should rewrite those sections in his own sentences, keeping the ideas but changing structures and vocabulary to ones he can justify.
Second, the tense inconsistency affects accuracy and coherence. He should identify the section and align the tense with the narrative timeframe, checking verb endings systematically. Third, the repetitive sentence patterns limit range; varying connectives and sentence types would strengthen the response more than adding length. Fourth, the reflection should discuss specific language choices, such as why he selected particular vocabulary or how he corrected an error, because the reflection is assessed on insight into his learning and language use. Adding more content would not address these weaknesses and risks exceeding limits.
2. Daniel proposes deleting the reflection entirely to focus on the Korean response. Evaluate this proposal.
Read the worked answer
Deleting the reflection would remove a component that is separately assessed and would likely cap his achievement regardless of the Korean response quality. The reflection is where he demonstrates understanding of his own language development, and the current weakness is insufficient specificity, which is fixable through revision rather than removal.
A better approach is to keep the reflection and strengthen it with concrete examples: a vocabulary choice, an error he noticed and corrected, or a strategy he used when he lacked a word. This connects the reflection to the Korean response and shows analytical engagement. Removing it would also create an incomplete submission, which carries consequences beyond lost marks. Daniel should divide his remaining week between rewriting the copied sections, fixing tense, and adding specific detail to the reflection.