Weighting a Translation Commentary Under School Assessment Rules
A Year 12 Latin student submits a school-assessed translation task worth 20% of the school-assessed component. The task has two parts: a 90-word passage translation (marked out of 30) and a 200-word commentary on a single stylistic feature, marked out of 20. The student scores 24/30 on translation and 9/20 on commentary. The teacher's marking guide says commentary must discuss at least two stylistic devices with textual evidence to reach the top band. The student's commentary discusses only one device, though accurately, and cites three examples. The student argues the final percentage is unfair because the commentary was 'mostly right'. Another student in the class scored 22/30 and 14/20 after covering two devices with weaker evidence.
1. Calculate the student's raw percentage and explain how the band descriptors, not the raw mark, should drive the judgement about whether the result is defensible.
Read the worked answer
Raw total = 24 + 9 = 33 out of 50, i.e. 66%.
The other student: 22 + 14 = 36/50, i.e. 72%.
So the apparently 'weaker' translator outperforms because the commentary criterion rewards coverage of two devices with evidence. This is not anomalous; it reflects the marking guide. The judgement call is whether the guide was applied consistently. Because the first student met the evidence requirement but not the coverage requirement, the commentary mark of 9/20 sits in a middle band, which is consistent with the descriptor. The translation mark of 24/30 (80%) is high but does not compensate, since the two parts are separately marked and then summed.
A defensible result requires: (a) both scripts marked against the same descriptors; (b) the descriptor language ('at least two devices') applied literally; (c) no reweighting after marking to favour a preferred outcome. The student's objection that the commentary was 'mostly right' is a quality-of-insight argument, not a coverage argument, and the descriptor is explicit about coverage. The teacher should explain the descriptor, not adjust the mark.
2. The teacher is tempted to raise the commentary mark to 12/20 so the student's overall percentage matches the class median. Identify the assessment-principle problem and state what evidence would be needed to justify any change.
Read the worked answer
Raising the mark to move a student toward the median is norm-referenced adjustment applied to a criterion-referenced task. It is a problem for three reasons:
- Validity: the mark would no longer report achievement against the descriptors; it would report rank. The percentage would misrepresent what the student can do.
- Equity: the second student's 14/20 becomes relatively lower without any change in performance, so the adjustment disadvantages a student who met the criterion.
- Defensibility: post hoc adjustment without documented grounds is the kind of thing that fails moderation.
A change could only be justified by evidence about the task or the marking, not about the cohort. Specifically: a second marker independently arriving at a higher commentary mark; a documented finding that the descriptor was ambiguous about whether 'devices' includes lexical choices, and that the student's single device analysis in fact covered two categories; or a recording showing the student's oral clarification was part of the submitted work. Absent such evidence, the mark stands and the feedback should name the coverage gap explicitly.