Moderating two scripts on the same 6-mark prose question
You are the assistant examiner for a 6-mark prose question: "Comment on how the writer uses a small domestic incident to reveal a larger social tension." The agreed rubric is 2 marks for relevant textual reference, 2 for analysis of technique, 1 for organisation, 1 for expression. Script A (152 words) retells the incident in chronological order, quotes one line, and closes: "This shows the theme of poverty." No technique is named anywhere. Script B (94 words) names the writer's shift from dialogue to summary and explains how that shift withholds a character's reaction, but it misstates one detail: it says the incident happens at night, when the passage places it at midday. Script B also contains two spelling errors. The head examiner's note on the front of the bundle reads: "Reward what the candidate does; length is not a criterion." Both scripts were written in the same 25-minute slot. You must enter a mark for each and be ready to defend both at the moderation meeting.
1. Allocate the six marks to Script A and Script B strand by strand, and state the final mark for each.
Read the worked answer
Script A - 3/6.
- Textual reference 1/2: one line quoted accurately, but the rest is retelling; no second reference is selected or weighed, so the second mark is not earned.
- Analysis 0/2: no technique is named, and "This shows the theme of poverty" asserts a theme instead of showing how language produces it. Naming a theme is not analysis of technique.
- Organisation 1/1: chronological order, clear opening and closing.
- Expression 1/1: sentence control and spelling are sound.
Script B - 5/6.
- Reference 1/2: the structural move is located precisely, but the time-of-day error shows the passage was not read closely.
- Analysis 2/2: names the technique (dialogue giving way to summary) and explains its effect (withheld reaction transfers judgement to the reader).
- Organisation 1/1: short but built around one claim.
- Expression 1/1: two spelling errors do not impede meaning.
The pattern to defend at moderation: B earns its marks almost entirely in the analysis band, A almost entirely in the mechanics bands. That is exactly what a strand-based rubric is designed to expose.
2. Script B's factual misquote: should it come off the reference mark, the analysis mark, or both? Write the marginal comment you would enter.
Read the worked answer
Take it from reference only, one mark. The strand being tested by the misquote is "relevant textual reference"; deducting from analysis as well punishes one slip twice and breaks strand independence, which is one of the things moderators sample for. Severity also matters: the error concerns setting, not the causal chain of the incident, so the argument the candidate builds survives it. A candidate who had moved the gift-giver to the wrong family would have lost the argument, not just a detail, and would then lose analysis marks on their own merits.
Suggested margin comment: "Your reading of the dialogue-to-summary shift is the kind of analysis this question rewards - 2/2. But the incident is at midday, not night: check the passage before you place it. Reference 1/2." Phrase it as an accuracy point, not a language correction, so the candidate can see where the mark went.
3. Script A's closing sentence is "This shows the theme of poverty." Rewrite it so that it moves from summary to analysis without introducing material Script A did not mention, and state the two tests your rewrite must pass.
Read the worked answer
A defensible rewrite: "The writer reports the quarrel without letting either character explain themselves, so the reader supplies the shame the family will not speak aloud." (24 words)
Two tests, which you should apply to any candidate's rewritten sentence rather than to the wording above:
- Does it name a technique a marker can locate in the passage? "Reports without letting either character explain themselves" identifies narrative handling; "shows the theme of" identifies nothing.
- Does the effect follow from the technique rather than from the topic? The clause after "so" must be a consequence of how the scene is told, not a restatement of what the scene is about.
A rewrite that invents detail not in Script A, or that names a technique absent from the passage, fails even if it reads well. Mark the move, not the polish.