The Fully Understandable Email That Scored 'Not Yet Proficient'

Read the sample for what the writer can do before counting errors. The writer opens and closes a formal email appropriately, makes a request, asks a question, and is fully comprehensible. That fits Intermediate Low presentational writing: simple sentences and questions, familiar vocabulary, and errors that do not obscure meaning. The grammar errors are real: 'ich möchte eine Zimmer reservieren' involves article/case and infinitive placement; 'weil ich möchte …' has verb-second instead of verb-final in a subordinate clause; and 'ich habe 16 Jahre alt' uses haben instead of sein. But none of these blocks understanding. The bigger problem is task completion: the email never states the four nights or the dates, so the hostel cannot act on it. A single 'not yet proficient' score conflates language control with missing content. Recommend a proficiency score of Intermediate Low for language and a task-completion judgment of 'partially meets' because the core request is present but the key logistical detail is missing. Record the grammar issues in the separate language-control note required by department policy.

Use a two-part score rather than four equal categories. Part A: proficiency level based on function, text type, comprehensibility, and language control, reported as a level such as Intermediate Low. Part B: task completion checked against the prompt: formal salutation and closing; room request; number of nights and dates; vegetarian meal question; appropriate register. This prevents a student who omits essential information from receiving a high holistic score simply because the sentences are clean, and it prevents a fully comprehensible message from being labeled 'not yet proficient' because of two high-frequency errors.

If the department insists on an analytic rubric, use weights that reflect communicative purpose: task completion 40 percent, comprehensibility 30 percent, vocabulary 20 percent, language control 10 percent. Add descriptors at each level so raters agree on what 'comprehensible' means. Keep grammar in the language-control row but do not average it equally with task completion. The separate language-control note can list patterns such as subordinate-clause word order and copula choice for instructional follow-up without changing the proficiency score.

Feedback should first address meaning and task: add the dates and the four nights, and make the meal question more specific. Then choose two high-leverage language points, not every error. The first is the subordinate clause after weil: 'weil ich ein Zimmer reservieren möchte.' The second is the copula in age statements: 'Ich bin 16 Jahre alt.' Also circle 'eine Zimmer' and ask the student to check the article, but do not rewrite the whole email. Keep the tone appreciative: the message is understandable and the formal frame works.

Two instructional moves follow. First, a short mini-lesson using two model emails-one strong and one with missing information-so students analyze task completion before editing grammar. Second, a focused editing checklist with four items: Did I include all required details? Is the register consistent? Did I check verb position after weil? Did I check sein/haben? Students apply the checklist to their own draft and to a partner's. Reassessment should be a short revision, not a new prompt, so the feedback loop is visible.