The Creative Piece That Borrows Too Much
A student submits a 900-word creative narrative for internal assessment. It retells a scene from a set novel from a minor character's point of view, using the novel's character names, setting, and one paraphrased exchange of dialogue. The reflection statement says the piece 'responds to' the novel and 'extends its themes'. The teacher is unsure whether this is transformative response or unacknowledged borrowing, and notes the student's prose shifts into the novel's idiom in three places without signalling it. The task required an original narrative that demonstrates control of voice and structure.
1. What distinction should the teacher draw between legitimate transformative response and borrowing that undermines the task?
Read the worked answer
The distinction turns on what the piece adds and whether the borrowed material is doing the work. Legitimate transformative response reworks perspective, form, or context so that the source is a starting point and the student's own choices - structure, voice, selection - carry the meaning. Borrowing that undermines the task occurs when the student's piece depends on the source for its effects: recognisable characters, a ready-made setting, and paraphrased dialogue supply the texture, so the markers cannot see the student's control of voice or structure.
Here three signals point toward the second: the dialogue is paraphrased rather than invented, the idiom slips into the novel's register in three unsignalled places, and the reflection claims thematic 'extension' without naming a craft decision the student made. A defensible version would keep the situation (a marginal witness) but invent the character, relocate or reconceive the setting, and write all dialogue fresh - then the reflection could name specific choices about tense, focalisation, and structural reveal.
2. Draft feedback that is specific and actionable, and explain how it protects both the student's standing and the integrity of the task.
Read the worked answer
Feedback: 'Your marginal-witness premise is genuinely promising, and the controlled sentences in paragraphs 2 and 4 show you can sustain a voice. The problem is that the piece's texture comes from the source: the character names, the setting, and the paraphrased exchange do work your own writing should do. Three passages also slide into the novel's idiom without signalling - a reader can't tell your voice from an echo. Revise so the witness is your invention, the world is yours, and every line of dialogue is written fresh. Then your reflection can name actual craft decisions: why this tense, whose eyes, what the structure withholds.'
This protects standing by opening with genuine strength and locating the issue in craft rather than honesty - the student may not have understood the boundary. It protects integrity by naming the specific features that breach the task and giving a route to compliance, rather than simply penalising. Naming the reflection as the place to evidence authorship also restores the assessment's purpose: demonstrating control of voice and structure.