The Coherence Problem in a Short Essay
A candidate writes a 120-word opinion paragraph on "Should students work part-time?" The draft: "I think students should work part-time. First, they can get money. Money is important. Second, they can get experience. Experience is good for jobs. Also, working is good. But some students are tired. However, I think it is good. In conclusion, students should work part-time because money and experience." The ideas are relevant and the grammar is mostly accurate, but the marker senses a problem that grammar alone doesn't capture.
1. Identify the dominant writing weakness and name it precisely (not just "it's repetitive").
Read the worked answer
The dominant weakness is underdeveloped coherence: the paragraph has a topic sentence and a conclusion, but the body points are asserted, not explained.
- Each reason is stated then immediately restated as a truism ("they can get money. Money is important."; "they can get experience. Experience is good for jobs."). The second sentence adds no new information - it echoes the first.
- The conclusion ("because money and experience") is a fragment that lists topics rather than stating a reasoned claim.
- The concession ("some students are tired. However...") is raised and dropped without being answered.
So the issue is not vocabulary or grammar but lack of elaboration and linking of ideas - the paragraph names reasons without developing or connecting them. This is a coherence/development weakness, distinct from cohesion (surface connectors, which are actually present: "First", "Second", "However").
2. Give one targeted revision instruction that would most improve this paragraph without asking the candidate to rewrite everything.
Read the worked answer
Instruction: "For each of your two reasons, add one sentence that explains how or why - a specific detail, example, or consequence. Then rewrite only your final sentence as a complete claim."
Worked example of the effect:
- Before: "they can get money. Money is important."
- After: "they can earn money to pay for books and transport, which means they rely less on their families."
The added sentence supplies the missing elaboration (how the money helps, why it matters) instead of restating. And the conclusion becomes a full sentence: "In conclusion, part-time work benefits students by providing both income and workplace experience."
Why this is the right instruction: it targets the single dominant weakness (undeveloped points), is bounded (two added sentences plus one rewrite), and preserves the candidate's relevant ideas and accurate grammar rather than demanding a full redraft.