Two-Marker Discrepancy on a Literary Essay
In a mock EB Language 1 written paper, 24 candidates sit a 4-hour exam. Paper 1 asks for a 900-word essay on a poem. Candidate 17 writes 950 words. Marker A awards 7.5/10, noting 'assured style, strong structure, effective conclusion'. Marker B awards 5.5/10, noting that the essay quotes lines 3-4 but attributes them to the speaker rather than the poet, misreads the central metaphor as 'a simple celebration of nature', and asserts three secondary-source phrases without citation. The essay does include one counterargument in paragraph 4, but it is dropped in the conclusion. The school's analytic grid weights understanding 40%, argument 30%, expression 20%, accuracy 10%. The coordinator must reconcile the marks before moderation. Marker A has 12 years' experience; Marker B is new but has annotated the script closely. The candidate is borderline for a university offer requiring 7.0/10.
1. What evidence should the coordinator prioritise, and how should the analytic grid be applied to decide whether 5.5 or 7.5 is closer?
Read the worked answer
The coordinator should prioritise evidence tied to the weighted criteria, not marker seniority or the overall impression. On understanding (40%), the misattribution of lines 3-4 and the reading of the central metaphor as 'simple celebration' are substantive, because the poem's argument depends on the speaker-poet distinction. A mark near 5/10 is defensible here. On argument (30%), the counterargument in paragraph 4 is a strength, but dropping it in the conclusion weakens coherence; 6/10 is reasonable. On expression (20%), both markers agree the style is strong; 8.5/10 is fair. On accuracy (10%), uncited secondary-source phrasing is a real weakness; 6/10. Weighted: 0.4x5 + 0.3x6 + 0.2x8.5 + 0.1x6 = 2.0 + 1.8 + 1.7 + 0.6 = 6.1. The final mark should therefore be around 6.0-6.1, not 7.5: Marker A over-weighted polish and under-weighted the central misreading. Marker B's 5.5 is closer but slightly harsh given the genuine counterargument and strong expression. The 50-word overrun is minor and should not drive the mark unless the paper's instructions impose a penalty.
2. Draft the feedback and explain how to record the discrepancy.
Read the worked answer
Feedback should be criterion-referenced and actionable: 'Your expression and structure are strong, and paragraph 4 shows real independence. However, the essay misattributes lines 3-4 and reads the central metaphor as simple celebration, which weakens the 40% understanding criterion. The counterargument is not carried into the conclusion, and three secondary-source phrases need citation. These weaknesses place the script at 6.1 rather than the 7.5 first proposed.' The record should show both initial marks, the annotated evidence, the weighted calculation, and the coordinator's rationale. Do not average 7.5 and 5.5 mechanically: that would produce 6.5 without explaining why the central misreading matters. If the coordinator cannot resolve the discrepancy after one re-read, refer to a third marker with the same grid. The candidate should be told the final mark and the criteria, not the identities or experience levels of the markers. Because the script is near the 7.0 offer boundary, retain the annotated evidence in case of appeal.