A paraphrase dispute in L3 reading comprehension
The S7 L3 Spanish written mock paper includes a 400-word article about a city that pedestrianised its historic centre. One question reads: '¿Por qué se oponen algunos comerciantes a la peatonalización?' The mark scheme gives 2 points for 'fear of losing customers / reduced access for customers' and 1 point for 'generic concern about the change'. Candidate R answers: 'Porque creen que los clientes no podrán llegar al centro y buscarán otras tiendas.' Candidate S answers: 'Porque no les gusta el cambio.' A second question asks for the author's attitude and gives 2 points for 'cautiously supportive: recognises benefits but notes implementation problems'. Candidate T writes: 'El autor está a favor, aunque dice que hay problemas.' The markers disagree about R's answer: one says R never uses the word 'perder' and so should get 1 point; the other says the idea is equivalent. For T, one marker wants to award 1 point because the answer is too short.
1. Award marks for R, S and T, explaining each decision against the mark scheme.
Read the worked answer
R should receive 2 points. The scheme rewards the idea 'fear of losing customers / reduced access for customers'. R writes that customers will not be able to reach the centre and will look for other shops; that is a concrete consequence that entails losing customers. The absence of the word 'perder' is not decisive because the question asks for a reason, not for a lexical item. S should receive 1 point: 'no les gusta el cambio' is a generic concern without the causal link to customers or access. T should receive 2 points: 'está a favor, aunque dice que hay problemas' captures both elements of 'cautiously supportive'-support plus noted problems. The answer is short, but the scheme does not require length; it requires the idea. If the marker wants more detail, the prompt should ask for it. The three decisions are consistent with an idea-based, not word-matching, reading of the scheme.
2. What principle should govern acceptable paraphrase in L3 reading comprehension, and what limit would you set?
Read the worked answer
The governing principle is propositional equivalence: the candidate's answer must express the same relationship between ideas as the mark scheme, even if the vocabulary or grammar differs. Acceptable paraphrase includes synonyms, changed word class, a more specific example that entails the general idea, and L1-influenced phrasing that is comprehensible. It should not require the target word unless the question tests that word explicitly. The limit is that the answer must not be so vague that it could apply to many questions, and it must not contradict the text. For example, 'customers will go elsewhere' entails 'losing customers', but 'the shops are old' would not. Markers should record the paraphrase they accepted so that moderation is consistent. In a foreign language paper, penalising correct comprehension because of imperfect expression would blur the construct: reading is being assessed, not productive accuracy.
3. How would you record these decisions so that an external moderator can follow them?
Read the worked answer
The record should be brief but auditable. For each item, note the mark awarded, the candidate's wording, and the scheme idea it matches. For R, write: '2 - clientes no podrán llegar... buscarán otras tiendas accepted as reduced access leading to loss of customers; no keyword required.' For S: '1 - generic dislike, no customer/access link.' For T: '2 - a favor, aunque... problemas = cautiously supportive; brevity not penalised.' Also note any general principle applied, e.g. 'paraphrase accepted where entailment is clear'. If a marker changes a mark after discussion, record the original and the reason. This makes the marking reproducible and protects against appeals. It also helps the department standardise future schemes: if several candidates lose marks for a reasonable paraphrase, the scheme wording should be revised. The record should not include personal comments about the candidate.