Marking the Written Response: Accuracy Versus Communication
A teacher is marking 20 Unit 4 written responses to the prompt Il volontariato giovanile: un impegno che vale la pena? One script, by Sofia, is 250 words. It is clearly argued, takes a position, gives two examples (a food bank and a tutoring programme), and reaches a conclusion. However, it contains consistent errors: i giovani è instead of i giovani sono (four times), molto volontari instead of molti volontari, and penso che il volontariato sia importante used correctly. There is one sentence where the meaning is unclear because a verb is missing. The teacher must decide how to weigh the errors against the strength of the argument.
1. Explain how the teacher should balance communicative effectiveness against grammatical accuracy in this script.
Read the worked answer
The criteria are not a single scale. A script can be strong on communication and weak on accuracy, and the teacher must report both rather than averaging them into one impression.
Communication: Sofia's script does what the task asks. It takes a position, supports it with concrete examples, and concludes. The argument is coherent: the reader can follow her reasoning without effort. This should score well.
Accuracy: The errors are systematic, not random. I giovani è repeated four times is a persistent subject-verb agreement problem, not a slip. Molto volontari is an adjective-agreement error. Systematic errors are more serious than occasional ones because they suggest an unstable rule rather than a lapse.
The unclear sentence is the most important single item. Where meaning breaks down, communication is affected, and that is where the two criteria intersect. The teacher should quote it in feedback and show how a missing verb caused the breakdown.
A defensible judgement: high communication mark, mid-range accuracy mark, with feedback naming the two systematic errors as priorities.
2. Sofia's correct use of the subjunctive in *penso che il volontariato sia importante* is notable. How should the teacher use this evidence?
Read the worked answer
This is evidence of emerging control of a complex structure, and it should be recognised explicitly. The subjunctive after verbs of opinion is a feature that distinguishes stronger scripts, and Sofia produced it correctly and spontaneously in the service of an argument.
But the teacher should be careful about over-generalising from one instance. A single correct use does not establish stable control; it establishes that the structure is available. The right feedback move is to name it, praise it, and then extend it: ask Sofia to use the subjunctive in two more contexts, e.g. after benché or affinché, and to check her agreement errors in the same draft.
The broader principle is that error analysis and strength analysis are complementary. A script that is only marked for errors gives a student no map of what to build on. Sofia's profile - strong argument, unstable agreement, emerging subjunctive - is a clear plan for the next unit, and the teacher should record it in that form rather than as a single grade.